NationStates Jolt Archive

An issue that would interest me greatly is how the relations between anti- and pro-abortionists are when you separate the sexes.

In case there are any misinterpretations, the poll only asks you whether you are for abortions being legal or illegal, not whether you like them. I, for one, think they should be legal, but I don't exactly like them.

Why not go into a little more detail? Gender and religious?

Why not go into a little more detail? Gender and religious?Gender is fine for now. It interests me because it also concerns the debate as to who should be deciding on the issue.

Well, then. Female and pro-choice :)

Well, then. Female and pro-choice :)I suspected as much... :p

It seems that if a female were to hear from a pro-life person that they "could not get an abortion," that the argument is less convincing than if the pro-life tried saying "you can not kill this human."

Male, pro-choice. I'm a bit of a libertarian.

You know, with the male/female ratio here you might not end up with anything very conclusive...

I voted pro-choice, but that's not exactly how I feel about the issue of abortion.

I'm one of the few men who really don't have any opinion. You know, having a penis just doesn't equip me to make that decision.
I think it's terribly arrogant for men to mouth off on the issue since we really have no idea what we're talking about. And we never will.
If the situation were reversed, and women wanted to start controlling what we did with our genitals...

There'd be blood in the streets for sure.

You know, with the male/female ratio here you might not end up with anything very conclusive...Who knows. I'm personally interested if there's going to be a big difference between the two polls actually.

i am a female living in a male body and i have pro choice!

The Gender-specific Abortion Poll.

Although I'm pro-choice, I wouldn't abort a fetus based on it's gender.

I voted pro-choice, but that's not exactly how I feel about the issue of abortion.

I'm one of the few men who really don't have any opinion. You know, having a penis just doesn't equip me to make that decision.
I think it's terribly arrogant for men to mouth off on the issue since we really have no idea what we're talking about. And we never will.
If the situation were reversed, and women wanted to start controlling what we did with our genitals...

There'd be blood in the streets for sure.That's one of the reasons why I made the poll gender-specific. I have a similar opinion except that I'm basically pro choice out of logic. It needs to be legal but I'd prefer proper contraception and good adoption policies to abortion. The issue, however, does not directly affect my rights or duties, so I think that women's opinions are far more important.

Male, pro-choice. I'm a bit of a libertarian.
Just so you're not suprised if it comes up, only the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org) is decidedly pro-choice on the abortion issue.

There are many libertarians (notice the small-l difference) who feel that abortion is a direct infringement on the rights of an unborn child. (Although you'll find them in the minority.)

Although I'm pro-choice, I wouldn't abort a fetus based on it's gender.Oops. I didn't notice it could be interpreted that way... I hope this doesn't cause a flame war.

Oops. I didn't notice it could be interpreted that way... I hope this doesn't cause a flame war.

naaah... I was just being a smart-ass.

Oops. I didn't notice it could be interpreted that way... I hope this doesn't cause a flame war.

I somehow can't really imagine gender as a reason for a considerable number of people in western society.
However, it is one of the effects of China's one-child policy combined with the traditional assumption that male children are more desirable than female ones. I think India has similar problems, with families forcing the abortion of female feti or even killing daughters because they wouldn't be able to afford the dowry... :(

Female, and utterly pro-choice. If anything, unlike most pro-choice individuals, I would actually describe myself as pro-abortion.

I somehow can't really imagine gender as a reason for a considerable number of people in western society.
However, it is one of the effects of China's one-child policy combined with the traditional assumption that male children are more desirable than female ones. I think India has similar problems, with families forcing the abortion of female feti or even killing daughters because they wouldn't be able to afford the dowry... :(Luckily, the poll options don't provide any room for misinterpretation. But yeah, it is sad that guys are more favored than girls, and not just because of the increase in competition :mad: :(

Female, and utterly pro-choice. If anything, unlike most pro-choice individuals, I would actually describe myself as pro-abortion.Yeah, I was almost going to post the options as pro and anti abortion, but I don't think I'd consider myself pro-abortion in that case, since I'm not for children getting aborted, just for the legal possibility.

Yeah, I was almost going to post the options as pro and anti abortion, but I don't think I'd consider myself pro-abortion in that case, since I'm not for children getting aborted, just for the legal possibility.

You could have gone for "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" ;)
Personally, I think that describes the positions a whole lot better, as pro-lifers tend to be only pro-life-of-possible-baby, not pro-life-of-mother. It makes "pro-life" sound too absolute and not really reflecting their standards...

I'm male and pro-life. For me it's my preference based on my values, what I would do were I a woman.

However I actually believe that abortions should be legal under most, but not all, circumstances in the US for Constitutional reasons. It's the woman's body, her right.

I really prefer to think of abortions as a last resort, there shouldn't be any reason to have one (except in case of rape) with the availability of contraception, etc. But in the end, it should be the woman's right to do what she wishes.

I'm male and pro-life. For me it's my preference based on my values, what I would do were I a woman.

However I actually believe that abortions should be legal under most, but not all, circumstances in the US for Constitutional reasons. It's the woman's body, her right.

I really prefer to think of abortions as a last resort, there shouldn't be any reason to have one (except in case of rape) with the availability of contraception, etc. But in the end, it should be the woman's right to do what she wishes.


That actually makes you pro-choice.
None of us would ever dream of advocating abortion over any of the other possibilities, nobody here would ever view abortion as a form of contraception or as something positive in the least.
But we all recognise the necessity of abortions in our society as it is at the moment, and we view it as a choice that has to remain open to all women.

Yeah, I was almost going to post the options as pro and anti abortion, but I don't think I'd consider myself pro-abortion in that case, since I'm not for children getting aborted, just for the legal possibility.Yes, I think most people who are pro-choice would agree with you (sorry to generalise, but that's just what I've picked up on this forum in the past). So your choice of wording was completely fair; I'm just an exception to the rule :)

Edit: Just to clarify, I am not of the belief that abortion should be used as a form of contraception or anything like it. Accidents can happen, no matter how careful one is, and were it to happen to me, I wouldn't think twice about getting an abortion. But I agree that there is no reason whatsoever to just go and get abortions willy-nilly; people ought to be as responsible as they possibly can.

Pro-choice.

The baby's choice not to be murdered. Even though they can't, I'm sure they'd wanna live.

You could have gone for "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" ;)
Personally, I think that describes the positions a whole lot better, as pro-lifers tend to be only pro-life-of-possible-baby, not pro-life-of-mother. It makes "pro-life" sound too absolute and not really reflecting their standards...I don't like the term pro-life because a lot of pro-lifers I've met are also pro-death penalty, which kinda rules out pro-life in my eyes. But it's always more fun to call yourself "pro" than "anti". Semantics, you know. ;)

Pro-choice.

The baby's choice not to be murdered. Even though they can't, I'm sure they'd wanna live.

Well, how do you know? I know I don't...

I'm male and pro-life. For me it's my preference based on my values, what I would do were I a woman.

However I actually believe that abortions should be legal under most, but not all, circumstances in the US for Constitutional reasons. It's the woman's body, her right.

I really prefer to think of abortions as a last resort, there shouldn't be any reason to have one (except in case of rape) with the availability of contraception, etc. But in the end, it should be the woman's right to do what she wishes.Yeah, Cabra is right. I completely agree with what you say except that I would consider that a pro-choice statement. Like I said in my first post, the poll doesn't ask you whether you're for abortions or not but whether you're for them being legal.

I'm pro choice, but, I think that people should be more responsible and not get pregnant/get someone pregnant in the first place. Of course most people out there are not responsible, or even smart for that matter, so unfortunatly well all have to deal with alot of stupid peoples stupid kids. Too bad genetistists can't determine the future I.Q. of a child. Oh, mabye they can :D

Yeah, Cabra is right. I completely agree with what you say except that I would consider that a pro-choice statement. Like I said in my first post, the poll doesn't ask you whether you're for abortions or not but whether you're for them being legal.

A very reluctant pro-choicer. I think it is wrong, but I recognize that the Constitution requires the right be granted the woman. Quite similar to the separation of church and state when it comes to religion. This is not an easy matter for Christians to resolve.

A very reluctant pro-choicer. I think it is wrong, but I recognize that the Constitution requires the right be granted the woman. Quite similar to the separation of church and state when it comes to religion. This is not an easy matter for Christians to resolve.You'll find that a lot of pro-choice people are reluctant and only consider legal abortions the lesser of two evils.

*bump

*bumpI was gonna do that later on when the American time zones start waking up... :p

Well, I'm female and pro-choice.

Well, I'm female and pro-choice.Would you care to share why you have this position? :)

Sorry to briefly hijack this forum, but could someone please be so kind as to tell me the following:

Who can set up a new thread?
If I can, how?
And how do you create a poll at the top of the thread?

Thanks.

Sorry to briefly hijack this forum, but could someone please be so kind as to tell me the following:

Who can set up a new thread?
If I can, how?
And how do you create a poll at the top of the thread?

Thanks.There's a "New Post" button on the general forum. It's roughly where the reply button is. Then you use the thread tools option to make a poll. You find it on any thread, but the poll option only becomes available if you started it.

You'll find that a lot of pro-choice people are reluctant and only consider legal abortions the lesser of two evils.

Quite. Unlike what 'some' people believe, pro-choice people don't engage in merry countings of the number of abortions, with a nice fetus-barbecue afterwards.

You could have gone for "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" ;)
Personally, I think that describes the positions a whole lot better, as pro-lifers tend to be only pro-life-of-possible-baby, not pro-life-of-mother. It makes "pro-life" sound too absolute and not really reflecting their standards...

Yeah me too. I avoid using "pro-life" as much as possible, prefering anti-abortion. (Notice the "s!) It's just so sensational and emotive, I suppose pro-choice might be seen that way from the other side though. But to me, "pro-life" should mean in favour of preserving all life, no matter what crimes that life comitted, or what country or race that life comes from. It's a bit different in the UK, but from what I've seen and heard from the American anti-abortion lobbyists is that "killing babies" (as they see it) is wrong, but killing adults in the name of god, America, war, justice and many other things, is ok.

And I voted female pro-choice, as I'm sure others reading the 'Poem on Abortion' thread would have gathered!!!!

Im male and pro-life.

I belive that, ver unfotunately, perhaps it is sometimes better for a child to never be born than have parents who are either too selfish or too ill-equipped/young/disabled/poor to look after them and bring them up properly.

The only thing I could say is that adoption could be the answer.

Would you care to share why you have this position? :)

Sorry, I was in a bit of a rush. Egg boiling on the hob, didn't want to start a fire.

I think it's a good idea to allow legal abortions, mainly because, if they were made illegal, they would still be done in secret, often using methods that are highly dangerous to the mother. For example, one case tells of a young girl in South America having hydrochloric acid released into her womb to destroy the foetus, which then damaged the lining of the uterus and caused serious internal injuries - she was extremely lucky to survive. What's more, there are cases where contraception has been used but didn't work for whatever reason, some women (and, more often, young/adolescent girls) are unable to give birth because their hips aren't wide enough or they have a different medical problem: for example, my mother had three caesarians with me and my siblings due to complications; however, she would not be able to have another one as her body cannot cope and she had to have surgery to prevent her from conceiving again. Sometimes, however, surgery can fail to work. Then there is the obvious case of rape. There are so many circumstances where abortion would be better for the mother than giving birth, that I beleive it should remain legal.
This all said without taking into account the other truth: This planet is overpopulated. Every person born has needs: food, water, housing, clothing etc. These have costs to both the economy and the environmet.

There's a "New Post" button on the general forum. It's roughly where the reply button is. Then you use the thread tools option to make a poll. You find it on any thread, but the poll option only becomes available if you started it.

Thank you very much.

Yeah me too. I avoid using "pro-life" as much as possible, prefering anti-abortion. (Notice the "s!) It's just so sensational and emotive, I suppose pro-choice might be seen that way from the other side though. But to me, "pro-life" should mean in favour of preserving all life, no matter what crimes that life comitted, or what country or race that life comes from. It's a bit different in the UK, but from what I've seen and heard from the American anti-abortion lobbyists is that "killing babies" (as they see it) is wrong, but killing adults in the name of god, America, war, justice and many other things, is ok.

And I voted female pro-choice, as I'm sure others reading the 'Poem on Abortion' thread would have gathered!!!!
The terms have the pro- affix because it always sounds better than being against something. I've actually met real pro-lifers. A good friend of mine always screwed me over in debates because he'd fling the death penalty as immoral at me and told me it was immoral to kill anybody...
As for the voting, the poll is public so you can actually check who voted for what. I'm sorry if anyone feels that that would reveal too much if they voted, but I want to be able to check if some known males just vote for the females.

Pro-choice.

The baby's choice not to be murdered. Even though they can't, I'm sure they'd wanna live.

If it doesn't have a functioning brain (as in the case of elective abortions), how can it have a 'choice'? Or be a 'baby', for that matter? How can abortion be murder when murder is *defined* as 'unlawful killing of a human being' and abortion is not illegal?

Ahh, good old abortion debates. So many people using so many bad debate tactics...

...

Anyway, pro-choice and female. Though I'm all for more contraception methods being researched and better sex education (as opposed to like, starving children of information so they grow up thinking oral sex 'doesn't count' or that coke cola can be used as a contraceptive :rolleyes: )

i'm female and pro-life.

I firmly believe it's the woman's right. Granted, I'd prefer to have a say in the matter if I knocked her up, but ultimately is should always be her choice.

I feel justified in having an opinion, because I have known, and still know, many young women who would have had their lives ruined if not for having the choice. And that's not even considering how the kids would've turned out.

Besides, as already mentioned, many young women would seek alternative ways of terminating their pregnancies.

It's also my firm belief that people who're against abortion have no clue how things are out in the real world. Life just isn't always great. Not everyone have a safety net or even a family. Hell lots of people aren't even remotely capable of taking care of a dog. It's highly disturbing to me how some people can be so removed from reality to think they have some moral right to decide whose lives should be ruined.
I wonder if they even consider the connection between pregnancies and suicide rates.
Honestly, the moral majority wannabe's piss me off. They have no clue what they're on about, yet they think they have a responsibility to voice their ignorance.

/me snorts in disgust

i'm female and pro-life.

Having just explained my views, I'm curious: will you explain why you chose this view?

That woman you just prevented from having an abortion could have gone to college and found a cure for cancer.

That woman you just prevented from having an abortion could have gone to college and found a cure for cancer.Theoretically the pro-lifers can argue "So could the baby you aborted". Not a particularly convincing one...

.
I think it's terribly arrogant for men to mouth off on the issue since we really have no idea what we're talking about.

What if a man was the father of the woman who became pregnant? Doesn't he have a say?

I'm not religious, I'm generally pro-choice, but it's an interesting dilemma.

Having just explained my views, I'm curious: will you explain why you chose this view?

all right. partly it's because of my religion and also because i don't believe an unborn child should be killed. people could adopt and if some are afraid of complications during childbirth than they should also know that there are also complications associated with abortion. i wouldn't judge those who had an abortion as i have never been in there position but i myself would never have an abortion

What if a man was the father of the woman who became pregnant? Doesn't he have a say?

I'm not religious, I'm generally pro-choice, but it's an interesting dilemma.The question needs to be dealt with on two levels in my eyes. The issue whether abortion should be legal or not should be decided by those directly affected, namely women. Men shouldn't really have a say in it.

As for the situation you mention, the father should have a say in the matter, but since he isn't going to be the one carrying the child around for nine months or bearing the pains of birth, his influence on the final decision should be minimal. In the end, the choice should lie with the mother, since although he could take care of the child after the birth, he does not need to undergo the pains that lead to it.

Female and pro-choice and pro-life. =)

all right. partly it's because of my religion and also because i don't believe an unborn child should be killed. people could adopt and if some are afraid of complications during childbirth than they should also know that there are also complications associated with abortion. i wouldn't judge those who had an abortion as i have never been in there position but i myself would never have an abortionI understand you believe it is wrong to have an abortion. But I'm confused as to whether you think it should generally be prohibited or not, since you say you won't judge those that have them. Pro choice doesn't translate into pro abortion, you don't have to be for abortions just for the option of having one.

So far, it seems as though there's little difference between the distribution of the opinions concerning genders... But I don't think we have enough votes to make a sound statement there.

Female pro choice.

It's my body, if I don't want a baby growing inside it then I think I should be the one to decide that. Obviously I'm sensible and take precautions - I'm not embarrassed to buy condoms and ensure my boyfriend wears one. In this way I'm already taking precautions to make sure I don't get pregnant. But if I should get pregnant by accident, if I've taken reasonable steps to prevent it then I don't see why I shouldn't terminate it - it's not my fault if a condom splits.

I disagree more with abortions used as a form of birth control, but I don't think it's fair to bring a child into the world unintentionally. My life motto is to try and live without regret. If I had a kid now (at 17) it would ruin all my plans for uni etc. My parents would never forgive me or my boyfriend, nor would his parents. My boyfriend would run a million miles if I had a baby (or come at me with a coathanger). I don't think this is inconsiderate. If I were in his hypothetical position I'd do the same and I understand completely. Even if I had a baby and put it up for abortion, it's not the sort of thing you can do then just get on with the rest of your life.

Even if I did accidentally get pregnant and my boyfriend wanted me to keep it, I wouldn't. I just don't think men are qualified to make the choice, and never will be.

This leads me to an interesting question: Male pro-lifers, what would you say if you got a girl pregnant and she agreed to keep the child if she handed it over to you straight after birth and had nothing to do with it after that?

What if a man was the father of the woman who became pregnant? Doesn't he have a say?

I'm not religious, I'm generally pro-choice, but it's an interesting dilemma.
Almost never. You could probably think up some scenario where he should (I can at least), but in most cases I fail to see what he has to do with anything.

Responsible parents should give advice and help. But something like this, only the woman can decide (in general).

all right. partly it's because of my religion and also because i don't believe an unborn child should be killed. people could adopt and if some are afraid of complications during childbirth than they should also know that there are also complications associated with abortion. i wouldn't judge those who had an abortion as i have never been in there position but i myself would never have an abortion

What constitutes a child?
What makes you think your religion isn't another person's idea of blasphemy and evil?
What makes you think religion is relevant in relation to this?

I'm glad you've never had to deal with this. I hope you never will. I also hope you never meet people who at the age of 30 still think it would've been better had they been aborted. And I hope you never meet their parents either.

And I hope you'll reconsider your stand, because you realize not everyone is in your position.

I understand you believe it is wrong to have an abortion. But I'm confused as to whether you think it should generally be prohibited or not, since you say you won't judge those that have them. Pro choice doesn't translate into pro abortion, you don't have to be for abortions just for the option of having one.

that's the thing, i don't really know. i sort of think it should be illegal as the baby has a right to life aswell. but i think i am also somewhat pro-choice. i'm a bit confused also, actually. i guess i'd allow abortion if the mother's life was at risk.

What constitutes a child?
What makes you think your religion isn't another person's idea of blasphemy and evil?
What makes you think religion is relevant in relation to this?

well, a fertilised egg might constitute as a human life form
my religion is against the killing of anything human
it is, if i'm asked what my thoughts on abortion are as religion is a part of my life, however small a part it may play

Female pro choice.Even if I did accidentally get pregnant and my boyfriend wanted me to keep it, I wouldn't. I just don't think men are qualified to make the choice, and never will be.

This leads me to an interesting question: Male pro-lifers, what would you say if you got a girl pregnant and she agreed to keep the child if she handed it over to you straight after birth and had nothing to do with it after that?

Interesting premises.
What would you do if your boyfriend said hed take the kid of your hands right after birth and forever?



I'm male and pro choice, it's not my decision to make, but if i ever get a woman pregnant i'd hope she takes my wishes into consideration before she decides. I also hope me and my wife/girlfriend NEVER have to make this decision.

Male, religous, and pro-choice

My opinion on the matter is much deeper than that. I belive everyone involved in this debate is wrong on at least one level.

The religious people who believe their views should be national law are wrong because of that seperation of church and state thing. Plus, it will only give religon a bad name.

The men who believe they can outlaw abortion are wrong until medicine evolves far enough to give them a uterous.

Anyone who believes abortion is something that can be outlawed are wrong. In a society, we give up rights for the safety of the comunity. Abortion doesn't threaten the safety of the comunity and can't be outlawed.

Finally, anyone who believes abortion is okay (excluding rape and danger to the mother and all that jaz) is wrong. It is a disguting thing to kill off that potential for life just because you "weren't ready." If you're ready to have sex, you sure as hell better be ready for a baby because the first is meant to create the second.

If he said that I still wouldn't have it, because I have plans to go to university in september and I wouldn't be able to. Even if I didn't keep the baby, having a baby is a big thing and I'm not ready for that yet.

If he said that I still wouldn't have it, because I have plans to go to university in september and I wouldn't be able to. Even if I didn't keep the baby, having a baby is a big thing and I'm not ready for that yet.

Thansk for your answer, i hope it wasnt too personal.

Male, religous, and pro-choice

My opinion on the matter is much deeper than that. I belive everyone involved in this debate is wrong on at least one level.

The religious people who believe their views should be national law are wrong because of that seperation of church and state thing. Plus, it will only give religon a bad name.

The men who believe they can outlaw abortion are wrong until medicine evolves far enough to give them a uterous.

Anyone who believes abortion is something that can be outlawed are wrong. In a society, we give up rights for the safety of the comunity. Abortion doesn't threaten the safety of the comunity and can't be outlawed.

Finally, anyone who believes abortion is okay (excluding rape and danger to the mother and all that jaz) is wrong. It is a disguting thing to kill off that potential for life just because you "weren't ready." If you're ready to have sex, you sure as hell better be ready for a baby because the first is meant to create the second.Only the last one really applies to me. Does considering abortion the lesser of two evils satisfy you? That's how I feel about it.

Thansk for your answer, i hope it wasnt too personal.

Not at all, if I have a view I should be able to justify it :)

I'm male and pro choice, it's not my decision to make, but if i ever get a woman pregnant i'd hope she takes my wishes into consideration before she decides. I also hope me and my wife/girlfriend NEVER have to make this decision.

I think that a woman should take the wishes of the father into consideration (although it will always be the woman's choice - as she is the pregnant one).

However, I also think that this is something that should be discussed before a sexual relationship. Both should know the position of the other, and what they think they would do in the case of a pregnancy.

What constitutes a child?
What makes you think your religion isn't another person's idea of blasphemy and evil?
What makes you think religion is relevant in relation to this?

I'm glad you've never had to deal with this. I hope you never will. I also hope you never meet people who at the age of 30 still think it would've been better had they been aborted. And I hope you never meet their parents either.

And I hope you'll reconsider your stand, because you realize not everyone is in your position.
I am becoming very anti-"pro-choicer," thanks to their stupid comments. My responce to these gems?

Well, I suppose satanists would find it evil, but since when has anyone cared about their veiws?

Religion's place in her oppinion? You have got to be hidding me! Of course religion has a place in her oppinion!

And, to the last comment: oh yes, because everyone agrees with you. What is that, are you trying to be a mobster. "Not everyone agrees with you and you wouldn't want to sleep with the fetus."

The ratio of male pro-choice to male pro-life is 11:2. 66 choice, 12 life

The ratio of female pro-choice to female pro-life is 10:1. 20 choice, 2 life


Anybody surprised?

I'm male, anti-life ;)

The ratio of male pro-choice to male pro-life is 11:2. 66 choice, 12 life

The ratio of female pro-choice to female pro-life is 10:1. 20 choice, 2 life


Anybody surprised?

I'm male, anti-life ;)
Not yet, but it's too few to make any sort of statement. I mean, even l'Oreal tests with at least 28... ;)

Pro choice assumes that abortion is not wrong, or not as wrong as other choices, because no one is hurt since the fetus is not a person.

But this begs the question, why do they get to assume that it isn't human? It is alive and has human DNA, and they pass judgment that it is not a person? To do so, you must disregard the fact that the nature of the life is human, it is not bird, reptile nor any other creature besides Human. It has human DNA and genetics, it is alive, it does not share the mother’s DNA nor genetics, nor blood, it is not her cells, nor the father’s cells.

How then can its nature not be human? And when I say human, I mean its own human identity, since it is alive and has human DNA, chromosomes and genetics, it can’t be anything but human and it it’s own entity.

The fetus is alive and death injures it. ~ and is injured by killing it, by scraping it, ripping it, and/or sucking its brains out as late term abortions are sometimes done.

The assertion that no one aware or ‘conscious’ is harmed must also assume that the mother has no feelings about the life that has been removed from her womb and that it does not leave the mother injured. But how then do we claim that the women who have had abortions claim after the fact, psychologically harm and remorse for having removed the child from their womb prematurely? Do we pretend they do not exist, or that their opinion does not matter because it is inconvenient for our position of no conscious harm?.

To suggest that it is okay to allow abortions because the human fetus is not fully developed and therefore not a ‘someone’ yet, that it isn’t worthy of protection and the right to life yet, not a human yet, not until he/she is developed to meet our age standard anyway. But this argument falls short because it requires us to ask and define what constitutes sufficient development and a ‘finish’ line. Once with a line drawn, is one hour before (moment of your picking – 8 weeks, 20 weeks, 40 weeks or birth, whatever) or one hour after make all that much distinction? Is there really any difference?

If so, then when did the nature of the entity change? When did the non-human nature develop into a human nature? At what point does it become human and by what criteria do you make this judgment? If you cannot decide when, then you are risking killing a person.

To those that say my body my choice… If it is part of the mother then does the woman has four arms, four legs, and 2 heads? Is that what a human is? The mother shares her diet, her condition and her well-being with the other entity, by we all know that it is not a part of the woman’s body, as we can plainly see that they do not share blood. They share space, the growing occurs inside the mother. Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life.

To anyone that says their partner is not yet ready to support a baby or other matter similar, one should ask oneself, why then are you sleeping with a man that will not be supportive, and will not be a good father to his offspring and your baby in the first place? If he’s not good enough to be your spouse, don’t sleep with him.

But this begs the question, why do they get to assume that it isn't human? It is alive and has human DNA, and they pass judgment that it is not a person?
My finger is alive and it has human dna is it a person?

AH. I clicked the wrong option.

Female and pro-choice, not pro life. Darnit.

PS. the reason believe say a fetus isn't alive, is because it may have a brain, it's own dna, organs and what not. But it cannot live without the mother. So without the mother, it's just a dead fetus, just like how your stomach can't digest if you cut it out and leave it on the kitchen counter.

The fetus is the property of the mother. She can do what she likes.

My finger is alive and it has human dna is it a person?

It has YOUR DNA, it doesn't have it's own DNA.

It s all very nice about 'is it a person?' ;Isnt it a person?', 'Is it sinful?. 'Isnt it sinful?'

The point about abortion for me is, IS IT NECCESSARY? And in some cases it is. Abortion should be legal and regulated. Certain practices should be used, certain practices shouldnt be used. Certain people should be allowed to have abortions, certain people shouldnt (i.e, if the reason is purely selfish, like, 'Im not ready')

Aaargh! Sorry, this is VINTOVIA, Im logged into my friend's computer.

Pro choice assumes that abortion is not wrong, or not as wrong as other choices, because no one is hurt since the fetus is not a person.

Incorrect. Pro-abortion assumes this.

Try again.

It has YOUR DNA, it doesn't have it's own DNA.

The various cells in your body can have rather different DNA.

The various cells in your body can have rather different DNA.

So, by your analyses, a DNA test on a Rapist must come from his sperm? Obviously not. Would rather play with words to confuse people to be on your side via meaningless triviality, or be right?

Does the fetus share any DNA of it's mother, like an organ, any body organ, or blood or plasma? It does not. What you say is true, but only true in that is is also true for the fetus as much as anyone else.

I think this sermon fits in with the topic being discussed :)

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/abortion.html

So, by your analyses, a DNA test on a Rapist must come from his sperm? Obviously not. Would rather play with words to confuse people to be on your side via meaningless triviality, or be right?

Does the fetus share any DNA of it's mother, like an organ, any body organ, or blood or plasma? It does not. What you say is true, but only true in that is is also true for the fetus as much as anyone else.

Male, Pro-Choice

The fetus shares the umbilical cord as well as the placenta with the mother, which are the roads by which the fetus gains its (not his or hers, it is not yet a human being) sustenance. Cut the umbilical cord, and the fetus no longer lives. Cut the placenta, and neither of them live. It's wrong to call a fetus completely parasitic, but since it cannot live without the mother's nutrients, it is the mother's choice whether or not she wishes to supply them.

Male, Pro-Choice

The fetus shares the umbilical cord as well as the placenta with the mother, which are the roads by which the fetus gains its (not his or hers, it is not yet a human being) sustenance. Cut the umbilical cord, and the fetus no longer lives. Cut the placenta, and neither of them live. It's wrong to call a fetus completely parasitic, but since it cannot live without the mother's nutrients, it is the mother's choice whether or not she wishes to supply them.


And by this way of thinking, even after birth, If she chooses not to breast feed, she can buy formula or give the child to others who will care for it. But she is not given the choice to not feed it at all nor let anyone else feed it... It is dependant on her from conception to many years after birth, in the womb or out, makes no distinction. We mature very slowly.

As soon as she can choose another option of feeding the entity (since you said it's not human yet) then she can choose to stop doing it herself. When do you propose that it magically becomes human?

And by this way of thinking, even after birth, If she chooses not to breast feed, she can buy formula or give the child to others who will care for it. But she is not given the choice to not feed it at all nor let anyone else feed it... It is dependant on her from conception to many years after birth, in the womb or out, makes no distinction. We mature very slowly.

As soon as she can choose another option of feeding the entity (since you said it's not human yet) then she can choose to stop doing it herself. When do you propose that it magically becomes human?

The fetus magically becomes human at the moment where it can sustain itself should the mother be dead. In other words, the father or others could feed the baby after birth, but only the mother is capable of feeding it before birth. That is, unless the fetus is taken out of the mother and grown in a test tube. If life is really that important, why not artificially raise aborted fetuses?

Since when did human DNA and life on a cellular level constitute a human being?

Honestly mate, there's more murder involved in eating a burger than terminating something braindead. And I should hope people would be good enough to terminate me as well if I ever end up braindead.

Anyway, I too am becomming more and more fed up with anti-abortionists. It really irks me how some of you think your religious veiws should dictate other people's lives.
Every sperm isn't sacret to everyone. And daft junkies should have the chioce to abort rather than ruin both their own lives and that of their offspring. Besides, try taking away that right and see what happens. Rich people will travel to countries that aren't full of morally superior arseholes. Poor people will have abortions performed illegally, often severly injuring or killing the woman.

Perhaps I come off as a know it all. Alas, to me it seems more like a case of out-of-mind-out-of-sight. People aren't all lucky, moral, wise or anything else you may be. Not everyone are fit to have offspring. It doesn't matter what your religion tells you. If you're doing others harm by sticking to your religion, then you are full of shite. And in this case you are.

Now you can debate who should be allowed abortions. My opinion is that it's the woman's choice, regardless of circumstance. I know I wouldn't want to have a mother who didn't want me. Feel free to disagree. But don't expect my respect if you want to outlaw abortions. I find that an utterly sick and evil opinion.
At least try working for a few months in a major hospital before you start judging.

Remember we're talking 'life' on the level of flatworms here. Sure, it can evolve into a human being, but so could my sperm. Does that make me a mass-murderer when I flush a condom?!

And honestly, about that religion nonsense... Who listens to christians anyway? If noone listens to Satanists or whatever, why should anyone listen to Christians?

So, by your analyses, a DNA test on a Rapist must come from his sperm? Obviously not.

That depends. If he was a chimera or had ever had a bone marrow transplant, a blood test might not reveal the same DNA as his sperm. His blood and sperm could have vastly different DNA. If he was neither, the differences should be small enough that the blood and sperm could be matched.

Would rather play with words to confuse people to be on your side via meaningless triviality, or be right?

I'm not trying to confuse anyone. I am simply pointing out the fact that all of the DNA in your body is not necessarily the same.

Does the fetus share any DNA of it's mother, like an organ, any body organ, or blood or plasma?

Actually, it does share her blood, in that it's blood partially mixes with hers. The plasma absolutely crosses over the placenta. At the early stages, an embryo does not even have blood and draws all nutrients from the mother's. And it shares her organs by living off of them.

The fetus magically becomes human at the moment where it can sustain itself should the mother be dead. In other words, the father or others could feed the baby after birth, but only the mother is capable of feeding it before birth. That is, unless the fetus is taken out of the mother and grown in a test tube. If life is really that important, why not artificially raise aborted fetuses?

So, again, you have a moving 'finish' line. As technology advances in premature birth survival rate improves to earlier and earlier levels, the fetus becomes 'human' sooner and sooner?

I have no doubt that rich people will 'rescue wanted' fetus/children in artificial wombs the day after the technology for it is invented, some mother somewhere will go into premature labor and a baby will be saved that otherwise would have died...

I myself do not define 'humanity' by the want or lack of want of the parent for the offspring.

I'm not trying to confuse anyone. I am simply pointing out the fact that all of the DNA in your body is not necessarily the same.

How then is that relevant to the issue? If my DNA differes from cell to cell but it still equally and always my DNA, and the fetus DNA is different and seperate and entirely it's own from it's mother... Why point it out like it somehow makes a fetus somehow less unique than anyone and everyone else?

Actually, it does share her blood, in that it's blood partially mixes with hers. The plasma absolutely crosses over the placenta. At the early stages, an embryo does not even have blood and draws all nutrients from the mother's. And it shares her organs by living off of them.

The placenta is the fetal organ that attaches to the inside of the womb. In humans, the placenta establishes close connection to the maternal blood supply. But there are cells that separate the mother’s blood from fetus blood, and these cells are of fetus origin.

- The cells that separate maternal blood from fetal blood are all of fetal origin.
- The fetus is therefore in control of what passes through this membrane.
- Any hormones secreted by the mother must be filtered through fetal tissue before they can reach fetal blood.
- The fetus can secrete hormones directly into the mother's blood stream.

To say that they mix, hmmm, by design or accident? Will I say never, no. Is it supposed to and if so, could it be fatal to both, yes. Perhaps though you are trying to prove a point? What is it?

If you think the fetus is a part of the mother, say so and argue your case.

How then is that relevant to the issue? If my DNA differes from cell to cell but it still equally and always my DNA, and the fetus DNA is different and seperate and entirely it's own from it's mother... Why point it out like it somehow makes a fetus somehow less unique than anyone and everyone else?

I was pointing out that there are cases in which you can have vastly different DNA, even within one person. As I said in my last post, a chimera or a bone marrow transplant would set up completely different DNA - all within the cells of a single person. If you were either, you would have two completely separate sets of DNA. Separate DNA alone does not make a new individual.

The placenta is the fetal organ that attaches to the inside of the womb. In humans, the placenta establishes close connection to the maternal blood supply. But there are cells that separate the mother’s blood from fetus blood, and these cells are of fetus origin.

They separate the blood cells. You claimed that the plasma was also separate, which it is not. Plasma, and most of its components, can diffuse freely over the placental membranes.

Also, before the embryo develops it's own bloodstream, it is wholly dependent upon that of the mother. Only the blood cells don't get through.

If you think the fetus is a part of the mother, say so and argue your case.

I think the fetus lives in the mother, once it can be said to be alive - ie. once it develops enough of a nervous system to be able to sense and respond to stimuli (somewhere near the end of the first trimester).

From a personal perspective, I attach importance to the embryo from the start, but that is my own religious viewpoint, and one that I won't force on others. The above statement is an objective viewpoint, as the ability to sense and respond to stimuli is really the last aspect of life that the fetus develops.

Well... I guess I am more pro life than pro choice. I believe in abortion for medical reasons .. but not on demand. As far as Gender NOS :D

100% pro-choice. No strings. No bullshit.

...Oh yeah. *is male*

Male, and pro choice. My girlfriend is the same way. In fact, before we were ever intimate, we discussed what we'd do should she ever conceive (accidentally, as neither of us wants children), and both of us agreed on abortion, though I'd defer to the woman's choice, as it is ultimately her body.

I myself do not define 'humanity' by the want or lack of want of the parent for the offspring.
Disregard Technology. Biologically, a fetus cannot survive without the connection to the mother's body until it is born. That is what we celebrate when we call it "Birthday". After that it is an independent being and can be regarded as alive and human.

Male, pro-choice, although I believe that one's opinion on the matter is one worth anything if they are capable of becoming pregnant.

The right to life comes out of a person's 'human' potential. I cannot kill you, not because you will feel pain; but because of the things you may achieve. Ask a person dying of AIDS, and they will tell you of the things they wanted to do and now willnot.

Is a fetus any different? It has potential, it has a future. Potential may be unrealised, but surely any fetus should be given the chance to grow up and exercise that potential. Surely the fetus has the right to life; even if it is not yet a 'human being' as it has the potential.

As for pro-choice, people make their choice when they jump in bed together. Choices have consquences, some are only nine months. Others like AIDS are life long. To anyone who gets pregant, just be glad that you aren't HIV positive. Rapes are obviously exceptions to this.

If it doesn't have a functioning brain (as in the case of elective abortions), how can it have a 'choice'? Or be a 'baby', for that matter? How can abortion be murder when murder is *defined* as 'unlawful killing of a human being' and abortion is not illegal?

Ahh, good old abortion debates. So many people using so many bad debate tactics...

...

Anyway, pro-choice and female. Though I'm all for more contraception methods being researched and better sex education (as opposed to like, starving children of information so they grow up thinking oral sex 'doesn't count' or that coke cola can be used as a contraceptive :rolleyes: )

Yay! :D Shaed! We thought she was gone! :(

Male and Pro-Choice here. Seeing the current poll numbers, there does not seem to be a correlation between gender and feelings on abortion.

With males it's about 3.8/1 Pro-Choice, with females it's 4.5/1 Pro-Choice.

An issue that would interest me greatly is how the relations between anti- and pro-abortionists are when you separate the sexes.

Pro-choice |= pro-abortion.

Pro-choice |= pro-abortion.I was being lazy. Sue me. I'm pro-choice and not pro-abortion too.

It has YOUR DNA, it doesn't have it's own DNA.

Flawed assumption... the human body can contain 'unique' DNA. In fact, since our mitochondrial DNA is different to our 'real' DNA... we always have at least 2 different DNA samples in us....

Female. Pro-choice.

No matter what I believe or why, I don't have the right to force my beliefs on someone else. Period.

As for the comments that people shouldn't have sex until they are ready to have children, I guess I should be having a virgin marriage. My husband and I are waiting about four years before we start trying for children. We have another year of university, then we want to get set in our careers and have the financial stability to bring a child into our lives. Four years from now, we will be much readier to have children than we would be now. Those children will have a much better and happier life because not only can we provide a good quality of life, but we'll be better parents.

Personally, I don't know if I could forgive myself if I aborted our potential first child. I know it would haunt me. But I would never vote to take away other people's rights based on my feelings.

My husband and I are not ready for children at this point in our lives. We use two forms of birth control. I hope I never require an abortion, but I'm glad the option is available if we should ever decide I need it.

39:8 Females and 106:26
It's actually 4.875:1 for the females, since OHidunno says she clicked the wrong option. It's 4.077 for the males.

Although 47 is not quite a good enough margin, it seems as though females are more willing to be pro-choice than males.

Petty though it may seem, I would prefer to see the terms "pro-" and "anti-abortion" used in discussions of this kind.

Pro-choice and pro-life, though undeniably well-established, are propaganda terms, each used with the intent of pushing a particular argument. Although it is not a particular issue in as simple a question as that posed by the OP, I still think such terms tend to erode objectivity.

How then is that relevant to the issue? If my DNA differes from cell to cell but it still equally and always my DNA, and the fetus DNA is different and seperate and entirely it's own from it's mother... Why point it out like it somehow makes a fetus somehow less unique than anyone and everyone else?



At risk of over-paraphrasing:

You raised the issue... you said that the difference between a finger and a foetus is that the foetus has different DNA to the 'mother', while the finger does not.

Dempublicents has simply pointed out that it isn't that straightforward... it is entirely possible for a foetus to have 'more similar' DNA, than the mother's own finger.

It s all very nice about 'is it a person?' ;Isnt it a person?', 'Is it sinful?. 'Isnt it sinful?'

The point about abortion for me is, IS IT NECCESSARY? And in some cases it is. Abortion should be legal and regulated. Certain practices should be used, certain practices shouldnt be used. Certain people should be allowed to have abortions, certain people shouldnt (i.e, if the reason is purely selfish, like, 'Im not ready')

Perfectly put. Thank you.

I'd also like to point out to those who don't realise this, that human does not necessarily = person and vice versa. Philosophers pretty much agree that the terms are not mutually exclusive. What they disagree on is exactly where the distinction does lie.

There is much agreement over what constitutes a human, and I'm pretty sure that it is the point at which there is funtioning heart and lungs. At that point a foetus is human, BUT, there is little agreement about whether or not it is a person. Some think a person is a being who is capable of reasoning, others say it is presence of brain activity. Neither of these qualities can be established on a 20 week foetus. The only way to establish reasoning is through communication and establishing brain function requires a cat scan, neither can be performed on the foetus. Other philosophers argue that a person is a being with the potentional for reasoning, so that includes unborn humans and vegetative adult humans.

So, the abortion issue cannot rest on the definition of person since we just don't and can't agree on that definition based on current science and technology.

The right to life comes out of a person's 'human' potential. I cannot kill you, not because you will feel pain; but because of the things you may achieve. Ask a person dying of AIDS, and they will tell you of the things they wanted to do and now willnot.

Is a fetus any different? It has potential, it has a future. Potential may be unrealised, but surely any fetus should be given the chance to grow up and exercise that potential. Surely the fetus has the right to life; even if it is not yet a 'human being' as it has the potential.

As for pro-choice, people make their choice when they jump in bed together. Choices have consquences, some are only nine months. Others like AIDS are life long. To anyone who gets pregant, just be glad that you aren't HIV positive. Rapes are obviously exceptions to this.

1) Yes - a foetus IS different. In your AIDS analogy, you clearly said "Ask a person dying of AIDS, and they will tell you of the things they wanted to do and now willnot"...

A foetus doesn't have anything it 'wants to do'... in fact, at the point of legal abortion, they can't even string together a coherent neural signal, much less a thought or desire.

2) Choice to have sex is NOT EQUAL to choice to be pregnant... and no amount of spitting it out, over and over, will make it so...

UNLESS, you also believe that choice to eat a hamburger is EQUAL to chosing to choke to death, if that unfortunate event should take place.

3) WHY is rape different? A girl doesn't want a child versus a girl doesn't want a child... perhaps it is only YOUR perception that is different... in that you will morally ALLOW one type, but not the other...?

1) Yes - a foetus IS different. In your AIDS analogy, you clearly said "Ask a person dying of AIDS, and they will tell you of the things they wanted to do and now willnot"...

A foetus doesn't have anything it 'wants to do'... in fact, at the point of legal abortion, they can't even string together a coherent neural signal, much less a thought or desire.
You miss the point of the analogy. The point is that the absence of pain doesn't legitamise the abortion. Future potential should always be overriding factor.

2) Choice to have sex is NOT EQUAL to choice to be pregnant... and no amount of spitting it out, over and over, will make it so...

UNLESS, you also believe that choice to eat a hamburger is EQUAL to chosing to choke to death, if that unfortunate event should take place....?
You are quite correct that choosing to have sex is not choosing to pregnant; but that doesn't mean the choice won't have consquences. When you eat a hamburger, you may well choke; just as when you have sex you may get pregnant of contract a fatal disease. No one chooses consquences, but this doesn't mean they don't exist.

3) WHY is rape different? A girl doesn't want a child versus a girl doesn't want a child... perhaps it is only YOUR perception that is different... in that you will morally ALLOW one type, but not the other...?
I'm not saying what is moral in the case of rape and what isn't; simply that a far more complex extension of the arguements would need to be emphasised here.

Flawed assumption... the human body can contain 'unique' DNA. In fact, since our mitochondrial DNA is different to our 'real' DNA... we always have at least 2 different DNA samples in us....


Not flawed at all, you choose to try and pretend that the same condition is somehow different for non-born humans, But the fetus meets both those credentials, the same as anyone else.

As to Dem's position that a person with a bone marrow transplant can have multiple DNA test results somehow changes how we define and identify individuals is not relevant to the issue. Although it appears that a single person has two DNA results the truth is that what we see then is the DNA of two different people showing up the in the results of different samples from the same individual being tested (the same as with other body organ transplant recipient) they have their DNA and the donor’s DNA showing up (two different people, and the same applies to fetus results). The DNA is still from two different people, even though they are being carried in one host.

None of these scenarios alter the fact that the fetus is equal to any other person as being genetically their own identity.

Dempublicents has simply pointed out that it isn't that straightforward... it is entirely possible for a foetus to have 'more similar' DNA, than the mother's own finger.


You wanna bet? You're going to bet that a DNA test result is going to be confused by a test using a sample from the mothers own finger vs. a sample from her fetus? And they might not be able to tell the difference? I don't think so. If you want to compare bad testing methods, that might work, if you want to find actual data, that's not going to happen.

You wanna bet? You're going to bet that a DNA test result is going to be confused by a test using the a sample from the mothers own finger vs. a sample from her fetus?
If the mother's a chimera, then yes, yes it will.

If the mother's a chimera, then yes, yes it will.

Even then, the results won't match the fetus results and will be distinctly from their mothers. A test of different samples from the adult chimera might look like two different people, but neither result will match or look like the third person who is equally seperate.

Even then, the results won't match the fetus results and will be distinctly from their mothers. A test of different samples from the adult chimera might look like two different people, but neither result will match or look like the third person who is equally seperate.
One of them will look like the fetus. The one who has the goddamn reproductive organs.

One of them will look like the fetus. The one who has the goddamn reproductive organs.

A mother's DNA is different from her child's DNA, even if she has two or more DNA samples in her body (from either being a chimera or had a bone marrow transfer, or any other reason you guys want to dream up).

The zygote (the fertilized egg itself) has all the DNA it needs to form itself, it doesn’t need any further genetic data from the mother or anyone else. It has it’s complete genetic code at the point of dividing into a blastocyst before trying to embed itself in the uterus wall. At no time does it share the DNA of it’s mother.

Anyone that wants basic sex-ed can read this,

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

So we don't have to listen to a bunch of, it doesn't have a functioning brain at week 20, or no heart or lungs etc., it's a basic summary anyway.

A mother's DNA is different from her child's DNA, even if she has two or more DNA samples in her body (from either being a chimera or had a bone marrow transfer, or any other reason you guys want to dream up).

The zygote (the fertilized egg itself) has all the DNA it needs to form itself, it doesn’t need any further genetic data from the mother or anyone else. It has it’s complete genetic code at the point of dividing into a blastocyst before trying to embed itself in the uterus wall. At no time does it share the DNA of it’s mother.

Anyone that wants basic sex-ed can read this,

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

So we don't have to listen to a bunch of, it doesn't have a functioning brain at week 20, or no heart or lungs etc., it's a basic summary anyway.
So you want to protect the potential for human life ...
Individual sperm have the potential to create human life ... do you propose we protect them?

So you want to protect the potential for human life ...
Individual sperm have the potential to create human life ... do you propose we protect them?


Sperm do not have finished human genetic DNA identity, and neither do ovulated eggs... Why do you insist on arguing the absurd?

Try reading this, it will help you understand human genetics so you might avoid future misunderstandings:
http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Education/Modules/BluePrintToYou/Blueprint3to4.pdf

Sperm do not have finished human genetic DNA identity, and neither do ovulated eggs... Why do you insist on arguing the absurd?

Try reading this, it will help you understand human genetics so you might avoid future misunderstandings:
http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Education/Modules/BluePrintToYou/Blueprint3to4.pdf
So it is just the act of having complete dna (and I said potential I said nothing about total dna set)

That is the deciding point that makes it a human for you?

So it is just the act of having complete dna (and I said potential I said nothing about total dna set)

That is the deciding point that makes it a human for you?

Are you trying to make an argument or position for me? Did you read either of the two links I posted or are you basing this tract of questioning around something not actually said here, but perhaps from a different abortion debate you’ve been involved with?

Regardless, here's an example for you:

A ten year old boy has the 'potential' to be an eleven year old boy. Provided nothing is done to stop that from happening. I.e., assuming that he doesn't die of a disease, that he isn't killed in a tragic accident or that he doesn’t starve or isn't murdered by someone else etc., and so on and so forth.

That boy (or girl or anyone else), that is genetically human has a right to life and liberty, and only the vilest of societies would assume that since he is not yet an adult, he does not share those essentially human rights to life and liberty.

The sperm (your example) does not have this potential, or a fertilized egg in a lab dish (new example) will never be a one year old child at all, not unless you do something with it, it needs to be altered from it’s current condition, it's current state is not sufficient to 'begin' to grow (not just split cells). Not at all like the ten year old boy example from above.

A fetus in it's mother's womb is threatened by the same conditions as the ten year old boy is (death by interference), but otherwise, it WILL be one a year old baby unless you do something to stop it. The fetus in it’s mothers womb IS human life, the word potential does not belong here and has nothing to do with describing the situation anymore. This scenario is the exact opposite of your sperm/potential life example, the fetus is exactly the same as the ten year old, it IS life, and Human life at that, and will age unless it is killed.

For unrelated people, I see abortion as OK before brain activity begins, and not OK afterwards. For people related to me--family, girlfriend/wife--I would put the deviding line at around the development of body subsystems.

Hypocritical? Sure. Make sence evolutionarily? 'Course it does.

Given this, I'd rate myself as moderately pro-life, but not nearly as gung-ho as some.



Humanity= Potential to become human is a quite silly arguement, given recent (as in, in the past few decades) advances in cloning. If every unfertilised egg in a woman has the capability to become a duplicate of that woman, sans spirm, is menstruation murder? What about if cloning technology advances to the point where any cell can be cloned into a human?

And don't go all "NO PLAYING GOD BY CLONING!" on me. If we have the responsibility to ensure that the potential humans out there get their fair shot, that responsibility grows in proportion to our capability, whether we like that capability or not.

Interesting, this poll seems to show that so far there isn't much of a difference across gender lines, just that there are a lot of pro-choicers on NS. The proposrtions of pro-life to pro-choice are about the same on both sides.

BTW, I'm male and pro-choice

Female, and utterly pro-choice. If anything, unlike most pro-choice individuals, I would actually describe myself as pro-abortion.

Same here. Though I'm pro-choice in that I'm for women choosing, I sure will not support those who have kids that they can't take care of. As far as I'm concerned, abortion isn't used often enough.

The right to life comes out of a person's 'human' potential. I cannot kill you, not because you will feel pain; but because of the things you may achieve. Ask a person dying of AIDS, and they will tell you of the things they wanted to do and now willnot.

Is a fetus any different? It has potential, it has a future. Potential may be unrealised, but surely any fetus should be given the chance to grow up and exercise that potential. Surely the fetus has the right to life; even if it is not yet a 'human being' as it has the potential.

As for pro-choice, people make their choice when they jump in bed together. Choices have consquences, some are only nine months. Others like AIDS are life long. To anyone who gets pregant, just be glad that you aren't HIV positive. Rapes are obviously exceptions to this.

So, you are saying that people shouldn't be cured of AIDS (or any STD) since they made the decision yto take that risk when they had sex? Interesting position...

Male, pro-choice.

...
I'm one of the few men who really don't have any opinion. You know, having a penis just doesn't equip me to make that decision.
I think it's terribly arrogant for men to mouth off on the issue since we really have no idea what we're talking about. And we never will.
...
Also I'm a gynaecologist. :)

So, you are saying that people shouldn't be cured of AIDS (or any STD) since they made the decision yto take that risk when they had sex? Interesting position...
Thats nothing like what I said. What I am saying is the arguement that women would be completely stripped of a choice is a false premise. The first and most important choice occurs when two people jump in bed together.

There is no downside to curing a disease (unless you believe diseases have potential), abortions however destroy potential.

Thats nothing like what I said. What I am saying is the arguement that women would be completely stripped of a choice is a false premise. The first and most important choice occurs when two people jump in bed together.

There is no downside to curing a disease (unless you believe diseases have potential), abortions however destroy potential.

Killing germs to prolong a life and/or to restore the quality of life is not that much different from killing a foetus to preserve the potential of the woman.

I'm male and pro-life.

I really prefer to think of abortions as a last resort, there shouldn't be any reason to have one (except in case of rape) with the availability of contraception, etc. But in the end, it should be the woman's right to do what she wishes.
That means you're pro-choice.

Pro-choice.

The baby's choice not to be murdered. Even though they can't, I'm sure they'd wanna live.
:rolleyes:
The baby pre-birth is not even sentient to be able to make any choice. Abortion is the termination of life before it even starts.

I don't like the term pro-life because a lot of pro-lifers I've met are also pro-death penalty, which kinda rules out pro-life in my eyes. But it's always more fun to call yourself "pro" than "anti". Semantics, you know. ;)
To be fair, the Catholic Church is also anti-death penalty and anti-war, so at least I can't really call them hypocrites even if I disagree with them.

The terms have the pro- affix because it always sounds better than being against something. I've actually met real pro-lifers. A good friend of mine always screwed me over in debates because he'd fling the death penalty as immoral at me and told me it was immoral to kill anybody...

Surely you know better arguments in favour of abortion than comparing it to the death penalty?

To be fair, the Catholic Church is also anti-death penalty and anti-war, so at least I can't really call them hypocrites even if I disagree with them.I know. I'm mainly referring to how it is in America. I have the greatest respect for a position that wants to preserve life. I just find pro-lifers hypocritical if they don't oppose the death penalty.

Surely you know better arguments in favour of abortion than comparing it to the death penalty?I do, but I notice you didn't quote them ;)
Abortion always did and always will happen, whether it is illegal or not. Better to make it safe, in my eyes.
Abortion prevents children from growing up in dysfunctional families or being found dead in trash cans. Needless to say, there's probably more suffering involved in either of the two than in an abortion.
I'm not for abortion, I'm for the right to abortion. The way legislation is in Germany, you have to take obligatory Pregnancy-Conflict-Counseling before you can have an abortion. I personally think that the Catholic Church has blood on their hands for pulling out of the counselling programs, because they probably would have been more interested in getting the mother to keep the child than some other counselling groups.
But this thread was mainly about discovering what the distribution of pro-life and pro-choice was across the different genders.

Female, pro choice.

If the situation were reversed, and women wanted to start controlling what we did with our genitals...

There'd be blood in the streets for sure.

I feel the same way. The best way to shock women is to tell them that almost every man (and this means their boyfriend) masturbate frequently. even if they're in a sexual relationship.

but i digress. I feel that abortion shopuld be a woman's choice (i am male, pro-choice) unless they just 'change their mind' after deliberately getting pregnant. I don't see why anyone should have to devote their life to the care of a severely handicapped child for any reason apart from their wantingto.

eh, that's my small amount of cash.

Killing germs to prolong a life and/or to restore the quality of life is not that much different from killing a foetus to preserve the potential of the woman.

The woman still has the capability to exercise potential during pregnancy and after pregnancy. Any lost potential is lost for a very short time and regained again quickly. This temporary loss of potential is also seen among the sleeping. Perhaps to describe it as a loss of potential is unfair; an temporary inability to exercise that potential. I note, a foetus cannot exercise its potential either by this logic but still bares the potential.

This leaves me with three points at which your logic can be attacked.
First in the case of the disease; there is no downside to killing the disease; killing a foetus still costs potential.
Second; let us say society does lose the mother’s potential; we could go and make an argument weighing up lost and destroyed potential. This is an innately calculating way of looking at things; but I shall not ignore it. The foetus has its entire life ahead of it; while the mother will lose at most six months of unexercised potential. If one considers lives to be of comparable value, weighable in a scale; then it is only correct for the foetus to live.
Third; and personally my preferred way point. Human potential is the source of the right to life. We live in the vain effort to try and maximise that potential. A right is inalienable and inviolable. The right to life cannot be thrown aside for some greater calculation. We are not parts in a machine to be thrown aside if we are considered inefficient. We are individuals with worth and value; with the capability to make choice; and to suffer both the benefits and consequences of those actions. Our right to life; due to our potential is fundamentally inviolable. Personally I prefer “The Right to Not Have Our Lives Ended by the Intentional Actions of Others” but that’s too long, so back to the old terminology of “Right to Life”.

Thats nothing like what I said. What I am saying is the arguement that women would be completely stripped of a choice is a false premise. The first and most important choice occurs when two people jump in bed together.

I would say the first choice is when the people first meet and decide to give each other a second look, and the most important choice is when they consciously decide if they want a baby together. The choice to have sex is, at best, midway on both counts; it's not the first, and certainly not the most important choice in the process of having a baby.

Claiming the choice to have sex = the choice to have a baby is like claiming that the choice to get your driver's license = the choice to in a car accident. Yes, car accidents often occur, and we all know this, and we know that when we drive we run the risk of being in an accident. We know that wearing a seatbelt doesn't guarantee you will be perfectly safe when you drive. So does this mean that when we have an accident we should be denied medical care because we knew the risks and made the choice to drive?

If life begins when a couple boinks, then the female body hates life; fully 40% of fertilized eggs will never mature to become babies, and that's just accounting for the NATURAL abortions performed by the female body.


There is no downside to curing a disease (unless you believe diseases have potential), abortions however destroy potential.
Sure, abortions destroy potential. Childbirth destroys potential, since a baby is for life...if you think that having a child doesn't shut doors on a lot of potential then I think you've got a lot of growing up to do before you ever consider becoming a parent.

The woman still has the capability to exercise potential during pregnancy and after pregnancy.
Yeah, and plantation slaves still were capable of exercising potential. Sure, we took away a bunch of their fundamental rights and decided other people had the right to own their bodies, but they still could choose what curtains to decorate their hovels with. And a woman who we force to be pregnant can still pick out what color yarn she wants to use to knit booties for the baby we are forcing her to have...it's not like we've really took anything SIGNIFICANT away from her.


Any lost potential is lost for a very short time and regained again quickly. This temporary loss of potential is also seen among the sleeping. Perhaps to describe it as a loss of potential is unfair; an temporary inability to exercise that potential.

If you think having a baby is "temporary" then you need a sharp wake-up call. Pregnancy PERMANENTLY CHANGES THE FEMALE BODY. Forever. Not to mention that little detail, what's it called, oh yeah...THE BABY. I've heard babies called many things, but "temporary" has never been one of them. If you think a person's "potential" isn't permanently impacted by giving birth then...well, I guess that pretty much says it all about you.


I note, a foetus cannot exercise its potential either by this logic but still bares the potential.

How do you figure? A sleeping person still has the structures necessary for exercising potential, those structures are simply not active at the precise moment they are sleeping...it's like how your car still has the potential to go 70 MPH even when it is parked in your driveway. A fetus, on the other hand, would be like some iron ore that has yet to be mined; it may, some day, be mined, smelted, processed, and turned into the body of a car that may one day go 70 MPH, but then again it may not. It may never become anything more than some ore in the ground, no more than some cells that are rejected by the female body and flushed from her system before she is even aware that the "potential" existed.


Second; let us say society does lose the mother’s potential; we could go and make an argument weighing up lost and destroyed potential. This is an innately calculating way of looking at things; but I shall not ignore it. The foetus has its entire life ahead of it; while the mother will lose at most six months of unexercised potential.If one considers lives to be of comparable value, weighable in a scale; then it is only correct for the foetus to live.

Since when do we weigh rights thus? If a child lies dying for need of an organ transplant, do we kidnap a potential donor so we can take his organs because the child has more potential? Plenty of real children with real potential are dying because there are no willing donors for them, so should we screen all adults to find good matches and simply take what we need whether the donors are willing or not?

Of course not. Your individual right to own your own body has nothing to do with how much potential some other being (born or not) may or may not have.


Third; and personally my preferred way point. Human potential is the source of the right to life. We live in the vain effort to try and maximise that potential. A right is inalienable and inviolable. The right to life cannot be thrown aside for some greater calculation. We are not parts in a machine to be thrown aside if we are considered inefficient. We are individuals with worth and value; with the capability to make choice; and to suffer both the benefits and consequences of those actions. Our right to life; due to our potential is fundamentally inviolable. Personally I prefer “The Right to Not Have Our Lives Ended by the Intentional Actions of Others” but that’s too long, so back to the old terminology of “Right to Life”.
I believe that our lives are worthless if they are not our own. My life is mine, not anybody elses, and I would rather it end than that it be co-opted to service some other being's purposes against my will. As you said, we are not parts in a machine, we are individuals with worth and value, and nobody is entitled to take our lives, our bodies, or our selves. I support abortion because I support my right to my life, and the right of all individuals to their own lives.

Even if a fetus is a human person, it does not have any special rights beyond the rights all human persons possess...it does not have the right to another human's body, even to save its own life. I do not have the right to force another human to donate their body to sustain my life, and a fetus does not have the right to force such a situation on me.

That means you're pro-choice.


:rolleyes:
The baby pre-birth is not even sentient to be able to make any choice. Abortion is the termination of life before it even starts.

So being able to feel pain,to take breaths,to move,to have your brain registered on an EKG isn't sentient?!

So being able to feel pain,to take breaths,to move,to have your brain registered on an EKG isn't sentient?!
SENTIENT:

adj 1: endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousness; "the living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage"- T.E.Lawrence [syn: animate] [ant: insentient]

2: consciously perceiving; "sentient of the intolerable load"; "a boy so sentient of his surroundings"

No, having the ability to feel pain, breathe, move, or produce electrochemical signals in neural tissue is not sentience by many definitions.

However, sentience can also be defined as "the ability to experience sense perception," in which case everything from a tapeworm to a fetus is sentient. One could even make a case for bacteria being sentient, in that case.

So being able to feel pain,to take breaths,to move,to have your brain registered on an EKG isn't sentient?!

Breathing and moving are NOT sentint acts.

Brain-waves approximating something that could be construed as not brain-dead occur at around 26 weeks. Before that point there is no evidence of sentience at all. Pass that point, it is a matter of debate. It could even be that babies do not become self aware until long after birth, though I personally find that unlikely.

Breathing and moving are NOT sentint acts.

Brain-waves approximating something that could be construed as not brain-dead occur at around 26 weeks. Before that point there is no evidence of sentience at all. Pass that point, it is a matter of debate. It could even be that babies do not become self aware until long after birth, though I personally find that unlikely.

actually we're able to see the brain waves at 18 weeks.

It could even be that babies do not become self aware until long after birth, though I personally find that unlikely.
Actually, using all the methods we currently have of testing "consciousness," human children before about age 3 are less "conscious" than adult chimpanzees. Kind of makes you think...:)

"about age 3 are less "conscious" than adult chimpanzees."

Many men have that level of consciousness full stop ;)

actually we're able to see the brain waves at 18 weeks.
We are able to get readings on EEGs at 18 weeks. These readings are NOT "brain waves" in any real sense, however, but are rather the precursors to brain waves that occur as the brain is in a certain stage of development. These primitive wave forms are registered on the same machinery as actual "brain waves," since they are also electrochemical signals being passed through the brain, but they actually are very very distinct from true "brain waves."

I don't want to get too technical here, so I'm trying not to go into far too much detail on this..."brain waves" and development are part of my curriculum, you see :).

go into detail, it will enhance the debate.

I still don't see why the assumption is that the pro-life side has to cede the word potential. Potential life and the human fetus life in it's mother's womb are two different things...

As I said earlier:
A ten year old boy has the 'potential' to be an eleven year old boy. Provided nothing is done to stop that from happening. I.e., assuming that he doesn't die of a disease, that he isn't killed in a tragic accident or that he doesn’t starve or isn't murdered by someone else etc., and so on and so forth.

That boy (or girl or anyone else), is genetically human and as such has a right to life and liberty, and only the vilest of societies would assume that since he is not yet an adult or has aged enough, that this means he is not worthy to share those essentially human rights to life and liberty.

The sperm and or non-human entity (other life-forms mentioned, bacteria etc.,) does not have this potential, nor a fertilized egg in a lab dish, these things will never be a one year old child at all, not unless we do something with it, it needs to be altered from it’s current condition, it's current state is not sufficient to 'begin' to grow as a human entity (not just split cells). Not at all like the ten year old boy example from above.

A fetus in it's mother's womb is threatened by the same conditions as the ten year old boy is (death by interference), but otherwise, it WILL be one a year old baby unless you do something to stop it. The fetus in it’s mothers womb IS human life, the word potential does not belong here and has nothing to do with describing the situation anymore, it is not potential, it is. The fetus in it's mothers womb scenario is the exactly the opposite of the sperm/potential life example.

The fetus is already human, it is already aging and it is exactly the same as the ten year old example from above. It IS life, it is Human life at that, and it is already aging and will continue to do so unless it is killed.

__________________

Claiming the choice to have sex = the choice to have a baby is like claiming that the choice to get your driver's license = the choice to in a car accident. Yes, car accidents often occur, and we all know this, and we know that when we drive we run the risk of being in an accident. We know that wearing a seatbelt doesn't guarantee you will be perfectly safe when you drive. So does this mean that when we have an accident we should be denied medical care because we knew the risks and made the choice to drive?
I've already explained what I said once. Yes the choices are seperate; but that doesn't mean the choices don't have consequences. If you get in a car, you are risking having a car crash. You are risking death. We can get into a finiky arguement over whether the public should pay for your medical cover; but I think you would agree this is beside the point. For more discussion please refer to whichever post it was someone brought this up before.

Sure, abortions destroy potential. Childbirth destroys potential, since a baby is for life...if you think that having a child doesn't shut doors on a lot of potential then I think you've got a lot of growing up to do before you ever consider becoming a parent.
Does nobody think of adoption these days?

Yeah, and plantation slaves still were capable of exercising potential. Sure, we took away a bunch of their fundamental rights and decided other people had the right to own their bodies, but they still could choose what curtains to decorate their hovels with. And a woman who we force to be pregnant can still pick out what color yarn she wants to use to knit booties for the baby we are forcing her to have...it's not like we've really took anything SIGNIFICANT away from her.
May I repeat, adoption is perfectly humane.

If you think having a baby is "temporary" then you need a sharp wake-up call. Pregnancy PERMANENTLY CHANGES THE FEMALE BODY. Forever. Not to mention that little detail, what's it called, oh yeah...THE BABY. I've heard babies called many things, but "temporary" has never been one of them. If you think a person's "potential" isn't permanently impacted by giving birth then...well, I guess that pretty much says it all about you.
The body changes, but these start at impregnation; so the concept of abortion becomes irrevelent to the discussion. Plus how do these attributes affect a person's potential. Are all the world's mums cripples struggling around day to day.

How do you figure? A sleeping person still has the structures necessary for exercising potential, those structures are simply not active at the precise moment they are sleeping...it's like how your car still has the potential to go 70 MPH even when it is parked in your driveway. A fetus, on the other hand, would be like some iron ore that has yet to be mined; it may, some day, be mined, smelted, processed, and turned into the body of a car that may one day go 70 MPH, but then again it may not. It may never become anything more than some ore in the ground, no more than some cells that are rejected by the female body and flushed from her system before she is even aware that the "potential" existed.
Since when did we give cars rights? You seem to be claiming that human structures are the basis of rights, not the human potential to at a future date have these structures. The problem with this is infants to do not have the appropiate mental structures, which are regarded as inline with human capacity. Post birth abortions? You are making a dangerous argument. There are many people who would try to argue the morality of infanticide and eugenics.

Since when do we weigh rights thus? If a child lies dying for need of an organ transplant, do we kidnap a potential donor so we can take his organs because the child has more potential? Plenty of real children with real potential are dying because there are no willing donors for them, so should we screen all adults to find good matches and simply take what we need whether the donors are willing or not?

Of course not. Your individual right to own your own body has nothing to do with how much potential some other being (born or not) may or may not have.

I agree that we cannot weigh up things in this manner, I was just stemming a counter argument of a similar fashion.

I believe that our lives are worthless if they are not our own. My life is mine, not anybody elses, and I would rather it end than that it be co-opted to service some other being's purposes against my will. As you said, we are not parts in a machine, we are individuals with worth and value, and nobody is entitled to take our lives, our bodies, or our selves. I support abortion because I support my right to my life, and the right of all individuals to their own lives.

Even if a fetus is a human person, it does not have any special rights beyond the rights all human persons possess...it does not have the right to another human's body, even to save its own life. I do not have the right to force another human to donate their body to sustain my life, and a fetus does not have the right to force such a situation on me.

Should the unborn carried in a woman be considered part of the woman’s machine, where she can violate its Right to Life, derived from its future potential, as she pleases. If a foetus is inside a woman due to her voluntary actions surely she has obliged herself to respect the foetus right to life. You can’t just weigh

The woman still has the capability to exercise potential during pregnancy and after pregnancy. Any lost potential is lost for a very short time and regained again quickly. This temporary loss of potential is also seen among the sleeping. Perhaps to describe it as a loss of potential is unfair; an temporary inability to exercise that potential. I note, a foetus cannot exercise its potential either by this logic but still bares the potential.

This leaves me with three points at which your logic can be attacked.
First in the case of the disease; there is no downside to killing the disease; killing a foetus still costs potential.
Second; let us say society does lose the mother’s potential; we could go and make an argument weighing up lost and destroyed potential. This is an innately calculating way of looking at things; but I shall not ignore it. The foetus has its entire life ahead of it; while the mother will lose at most six months of unexercised potential. If one considers lives to be of comparable value, weighable in a scale; then it is only correct for the foetus to live.
Third; and personally my preferred way point. Human potential is the source of the right to life. We live in the vain effort to try and maximise that potential. A right is inalienable and inviolable. The right to life cannot be thrown aside for some greater calculation. We are not parts in a machine to be thrown aside if we are considered inefficient. We are individuals with worth and value; with the capability to make choice; and to suffer both the benefits and consequences of those actions. Our right to life; due to our potential is fundamentally inviolable. Personally I prefer “The Right to Not Have Our Lives Ended by the Intentional Actions of Others” but that’s too long, so back to the old terminology of “Right to Life”.

First of all, a baby is for life, not just gestation. "the mother will lose at most six months of unexercised potential" So when you have children you're going to give up at most, six months to giving birth and then what? Leave the baby in a ditch? Excellent, these are the kind of careless arguments that make the debate go in circles.

When a woman has a child and keeps it she puts her own career and social life on hold. Sometimes men do something amazing and give up work so the mother can go back, my brother did this. But often they don't. Women who do work full time are looked down on for being bad mothers in this country. If both parents work then child care has to be provided from somewhere. If the couple have inadequate family support and not enough money to pay for this child support then one of them must leave their job, one of them is giving up their individual rights in favour of the childs and further reducing their income, making raising the child incredibly difficult.

Secondly, you claim there is "no downside to killing the disease". Really? So if us clever humans do what we intend to do and cure all diseases worldwide (except that I think the US government and other rich nations would rather keep the cures for themselves and let the people in the developing world continue to die), but lets say we manage that, you honestly don't see a downside? The way I see it is that disease is a natural part of life, it helps control population growth. I've said this before on another thread, but if you're going to irradicate all natural forms of population control then you have to accept some artificial ones, simple as that! See, in the UK cancer is, along with heart disease, the biggest killer, if no more people die of cancer and other disease, what will happen to the population? How will we feed all those people? Oh yes, steal more resources from the developing world, so that's ok.

It's really very simple, there are already too many people on this planet and you actively want to force more onto it, what's more, at the expense of members of the workforce and if put into care, the expense of the tax-payer.

It's great that you have such fundamental respect for life and everything, but we live in the real world, not your fantasy one where everyone has great sex education and are using some mystical contraceptive that always works and where everyone who gets pregnant can afford and wants to have the baby.

The truth is abortion is necessary, you might not like that fact and no one is forcing you to have one, nor should they. And you have no right to force other people to have children that they don't want.

Male, and pro choice. My girlfriend is the same way. In fact, before we were ever intimate, we discussed what we'd do should she ever conceive (accidentally, as neither of us wants children), and both of us agreed on abortion, though I'd defer to the woman's choice, as it is ultimately her body.

Although I would not make the same choice that you guys have, I am so glad to hear that you guys were responsible and discussed it beforehand. I think a lot of the conflict surrounding this issue comes from couples that don't bother to discuss their course of action *before* becoming intimate.

Petty though it may seem, I would prefer to see the terms "pro-" and "anti-abortion" used in discussions of this kind.

Pro-choice and pro-life, though undeniably well-established, are propaganda terms, each used with the intent of pushing a particular argument. Although it is not a particular issue in as simple a question as that posed by the OP, I still think such terms tend to erode objectivity.

Pro- and anti-abortion wouldn't work, as many of us are pro-choice and anti-abortion. Very, very few people are "pro-abortion".

As to Dem's position that a person with a bone marrow transplant can have multiple DNA test results somehow changes how we define and identify individuals is not relevant to the issue. Although it appears that a single person has two DNA results the truth is that what we see then is the DNA of two different people showing up the in the results of different samples from the same individual being tested (the same as with other body organ transplant recipient) they have their DNA and the donor’s DNA showing up (two different people, and the same applies to fetus results). The DNA is still from two different people, even though they are being carried in one host.

I see that you simply ignored the other example - chimeras. A chimera has at least two different sets of DNA from birth. Are they two people? Or simply one?

None of these scenarios alter the fact that the fetus is equal to any other person as being genetically their own identity.

A fetus has a genetic identity (or two, or three, or whatever). However, what has been pointed out is that, from a scientific viewpoint, a genetic identity does not make a human person.

It's really very simple, there are already too many people on this planet and you actively want to force more onto it, what's more, at the expense of members of the workforce and if put into care, the expense of the tax-payer.


Anybody that argues this should immediately walk over to the clinic and get a vasectomy or have their tubes tide (unless of course they don't actually mean it, and they are just blowing hot air in an attempt want to try and make yet another temporary argument, one that will last until they feel like having children later, over populated planet or not).


The truth is abortion is necessary, you might not like that fact and no one is forcing you to have one, nor should they. And you have no right to force other people to have children that they don't want.

Not forcing them to raise children, forcing them to not kill them.

A fetus has a genetic identity (or two, or three, or whatever). However, what has been pointed out is that, from a scientific viewpoint, a genetic identity does not make a human person.


What the heck are you talking about? Pray tell, how about you tell us what the genetic definition of a person is then? It sounds more like you are defining the shortcomings of modern science and testing methodology, not describing the actual condition of the patient...

You wanna bet? You're going to bet that a DNA test result is going to be confused by a test using a sample from the mothers own finger vs. a sample from her fetus? And they might not be able to tell the difference? I don't think so. If you want to compare bad testing methods, that might work, if you want to find actual data, that's not going to happen.

It would be more accurate to say that it is unlikely. To say that it is impossible is absurd.

Meanwhile, this whole discussion reminds me of a case I read about in which a woman had a child, but when DNA tests were done, they found that this child could not possibly be hers. Confused, they did a little more testing, and found that her entire reproductive system actually had completely different DNA from the rest of her body.

Not forcing them to raise children, forcing them to not kill them.

Frocing them to go through the pain an danger of giving birth to them.

Do you think that the fact that donating an organ can prolong the life of another human being justifies to make organ donations compulsory? Should we all have one kidney removed so that others won't have to die?

If not, then why should we be forced to go through the physical dangers of pregnancy and birth so that the foetus won't die?

First of all, a baby is for life, not just gestation. "the mother will lose at most six months of unexercised potential" So when you have children you're going to give up at most, six months to giving birth and then what? Leave the baby in a ditch? Excellent, these are the kind of careless arguments that make the debate go in circles.
Adoption.

When a woman has a child and keeps it she puts her own career and social life on hold. Sometimes men do something amazing and give up work so the mother can go back, my brother did this. But often they don't. Women who do work full time are looked down on for being bad mothers in this country. If both parents work then child care has to be provided from somewhere. If the couple have inadequate family support and not enough money to pay for this child support then one of them must leave their job, one of them is giving up their individual rights in favour of the childs and further reducing their income, making raising the child incredibly difficult.
So children should be killed because their expensive?

Secondly, you claim there is "no downside to killing the disease". Really? So if us clever humans do what we intend to do and cure all diseases worldwide (except that I think the US government and other rich nations would rather keep the cures for themselves and let the people in the developing world continue to die), but lets say we manage that, you honestly don't see a downside? The way I see it is that disease is a natural part of life, it helps control population growth. I've said this before on another thread, but if you're going to irradicate all natural forms of population control then you have to accept some artificial ones, simple as that! See, in the UK cancer is, along with heart disease, the biggest killer, if no more people die of cancer and other disease, what will happen to the population? How will we feed all those people? Oh yes, steal more resources from the developing world, so that's ok.
Lets say curing disease is bad; how does this defeat my arguement. I was simply neutralising a counter arguement that I should be opposed to curing sexually transmitted diseases.

It's really very simple, there are already too many people on this planet and you actively want to force more onto it, what's more, at the expense of members of the workforce and if put into care, the expense of the tax-payer.

It's great that you have such fundamental respect for life and everything, but we live in the real world, not your fantasy one where everyone has great sex education and are using some mystical contraceptive that always works and where everyone who gets pregnant can afford and wants to have the baby.

The truth is abortion is necessary, you might not like that fact and no one is forcing you to have one, nor should they. And you have no right to force other people to have children that they don't want.
And there should be some arbitary process by which some foetus's are killed in the greater good. We can't make that decision about who should live and die for this greater good.

Frocing them to go through the pain an danger of giving birth to them.

Do you think that the fact that donating an organ can prolong the life of another human being justifies to make organ donations compulsory? Should we all have one kidney removed so that others won't have to die?

If not, then why should we be forced to go through the physical dangers of pregnancy and birth so that the foetus won't die?


Like having a baby is similar to amputating body parts :rolleyes:

If you want to use that argument though, we then get to consider what the actuality is, and that is that women who have gone through the hormonal changes that come from bearing children actually have a lower level chance of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer (and other things that likely lead to a longer, heathier life), that going through with the pregnancy is actually more healthy than having an abortion... so your whole point is moot and in error.

Like having a baby is similar to amputating body parts :rolleyes:

If you want to use that argument though, we then get to consider what the actuality is, and that is that women who have gone through the hormonal changes that come from bearing children actually have a lower level chance of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer (and other things that likely lead to a longer, heathier life), that going through with the pregnancy is actually more healthy than having an abortion... so your whole point is moot and in error.

The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as that associated with abortion
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Not really, no.
And ask any mother what a birth feels like before comparing the pain suffered to an amputation. So, I take it you wouldn't go out of your way to donate a kidney in order to safe a life?

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Not really, no.
And ask any mother what a birth feels like before comparing the pain suffered to an amputation. So, I take it you wouldn't go out of your way to donate a kidney in order to safe a life?


If someone is so afraid of the pain of child-birth that they are sure they will never want to go through it, then have their tubes tied and be done with it, what's the problem here?

As for the danger of going through with child birth argument, fine then, let's go at it...

~Women under age 18 who had an induced abortion have an increased breast cancer risk of 150%.
~Women of age 30 and above who aborted a FIRST pregnancy increase their breast cancer risk by 110%.
~Overall, women who have an induced abortion have an increased breast cancer risk of 50%.

Dr. Janet Daling, at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington.

~ Black women of age 50 and above who had at least 1 induced abortion have an increased breast cancer risk of 370%

And there should be some arbitary process by which some foetus's are killed in the greater good. We can't make that decision about who should live and die for this greater good.

You fail to realize that it isn't about who lives or dies. Obviously, no one can make the decision, "This person should die so that I have a better life."

The decision that is being made is someone deciding what their body can and cannot be used for. The fact that the embryo will no longer exist after this is a moot point. If there were a way to keep it around, the woman would still have the right to refuse it the use of her body. Some of us may see that as a poor choice to make, just as some of us may see it as horribly cruel if a woman were to refuse to let someone who matched and needed it have her extra kidney. However, she has that right.

You fail to realize that it isn't about who lives or dies. Obviously, no one can make the decision, "This person should die so that I have a better life."

The decision that is being made is someone deciding what their body can and cannot be used for. The fact that the embryo will no longer exist after this is a moot point.

There is no decision to be made, it's ALREADY done. The fact that the embryo/fetus is killed, destroyed, stopped from aging further, is not a moot point whatsoever. No more moot than it is for 'allowing' everyone else to continue to age and grow.

The mother's body has already responded to the pregnancy, you cannot turn back the clock from the hormonal changes that have already occurred at the moment the womb recognized the fact that the fertilized and already dividing egg implants itself.

The mother’s body is preparing itself to go to term, and changed have already begun in the mammary glands for example that require full term pregnancy or they ‘go-bad’ and increase the risk if they don’t go to term…

Abortion harms women: Physically: approximately 10% of first trimester legal abortions display complications, other complications include bleeding, infections, uterine perforation, complications in future pregnancies, and sometimes death. Emotionally: 90% suffer post abortion stress syndrome (PASS) -- guilt, anger, depression, nightmares, alcohol abuse (5 times more likely), drug abuse, and suicide ideation.

There is no decision to be made, it's ALREADY done. The fact that the embryo/fetus is killed, destroyed, stopped from aging further, is not a moot point whatsoever. No more moot than it is for 'allowing' everyone else to continue to age and grow.

The mother's body has already responded to the pregnancy, you cannot turn back the clock from the hormonal changes that have already occurred at the moment the womb recognized the fact that the fertilized and already dividing egg implants itself.

The mother’s body is preparing itself to go to term, and changed have already begun in the mammary glands for example that require full term pregnancy or they ‘go-bad’ and increase the risk if they don’t go to term…

Abortion harms women: Physically: approximately 10% of first trimester legal abortions display complications, other complications include bleeding, infections, uterine perforation, complications in future pregnancies, and sometimes death. Emotionally: 90% suffer post abortion stress syndrome (PASS) -- guilt, anger, depression, nightmares, alcohol abuse (5 times more likely), drug abuse, and suicide ideation.

Abortions harm women, pregnancies harm women, childbirth harms women. All of those are dangerous and affecting the health of women.

The question I have, though, is how do you know the foetus wants to live?
All the arguments I hear is that potential is destroyed, that people are plying god by killing a foetus. Nobody ever points out that we are playing god in creating a foetus and forcing it into life. Nobody seems to assume that potential is created that never wanted to be created in the first place. You don't KNOW what the foetus wants. Chances are, neither does the foetus.
So it is ok playing god and creating one baby after another in a hostile, overcrowded, dangerous world, bringing them into families that never wanted them and virtually hate them, into a government system that publicly regrets every penny it spends on them, making them suffer and feel guilty for existing, but it's not ok to realise a mistake and correct it before it begins to suffer?

"If men could become preganant, abortion would be a sacrament."
- Can't remember who said it, a women's rights lawyer I think

"If men could become preganant, abortion would be a sacrament."
- Can't remember who said it, a women's rights lawyer I thinkIt's too true... :D

Abortions harm women, pregnancies harm women, childbirth harms women. All of those are dangerous and affecting the health of women.

The question I have, though, is how do you know the foetus wants to live?
All the arguments I hear is that potential is destroyed, that people are plying god by killing a foetus. Nobody ever points out that we are playing god in creating a foetus and forcing it into life. Nobody seems to assume that potential is created that never wanted to be created in the first place. You don't KNOW what the foetus wants. Chances are, neither does the foetus.
So it is ok playing god and creating one baby after another in a hostile, overcrowded, dangerous world, bringing them into families that never wanted them and virtually hate them, into a government system that publicly regrets every penny it spends on them, making them suffer and feel guilty for existing, but it's not ok to realise a mistake and correct it before it begins to suffer?

First off, I dismiss the word ‘potential’ as an accurate description, it is not. The fetus in it’s mother’s womb already exists, it’s not potential anymore, it is what is and is already growing and aging through the phases of being human, not potential to be human..

Next, we can show that during a pregnancy the mother is directly linked to what the fetus does, the fetus tries to save itself by helping the mother control what is happening to her body. It tries to help the mother’s body regulate various hormones and produces body conditions that are beneficial to both of them… in fact, some have written that the fetus is so protective of itself that it seems to ‘battle’ for it’s very life.

In mammals, the developing fetus and its mother share a very intimate relationship. The mother's body supplies the fetus with oxygen, nutrients, and antibodies, removes the fetus's carbon dioxide and other metabolic waste materials, and helps regulate fetal growth and physiology by circulating hormones. The fetus in reciprocation produces hormones that help bring about changes in the mother's body to help maintain the pregnancy. Fetal cells (a one way road to the mother, not in reverse) in the mother have been show to actually help the mothers heal faster from small cuts etc., showing that the fetus is anything but a parasite, it is an active and beneficial participant in the endeavor of carrying to term. Mothers with autoimmune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis or multiple sclerosis often improves while they are pregnant, simply because the fetus is 'helping'.

After seeing all that the fetus does to survive, to argue that it might not want to live is to transpose one’s own inner doubts of the value of life onto an unrelated ‘other,’ in this case, the fetus in question. You are transposing your desires and assuming the possibility that the fetus too could be disenchanted with existence. But all evidence points to the contrary.

"If men could become preganant, abortion would be a sacrament."
- Can't remember who said it, a women's rights lawyer I think


Blah blah blah, and if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses when hopping... :rolleyes:

Abortions harm women, pregnancies harm women, childbirth harms women. All of those are dangerous and affecting the health of women.

The question I have, though, is how do you know the foetus wants to live?
All the arguments I hear is that potential is destroyed, that people are plying god by killing a foetus. Nobody ever points out that we are playing god in creating a foetus and forcing it into life. Nobody seems to assume that potential is created that never wanted to be created in the first place. You don't KNOW what the foetus wants. Chances are, neither does the foetus.
So it is ok playing god and creating one baby after another in a hostile, overcrowded, dangerous world, bringing them into families that never wanted them and virtually hate them, into a government system that publicly regrets every penny it spends on them, making them suffer and feel guilty for existing, but it's not ok to realise a mistake and correct it before it begins to suffer?

Ok... lets take an informal poll than... who would have rather their mother aborted them... and who is glad their mother didn't.

Seriously you are not arguing that point. Heck if someone wants to end their life for the most part they are quite capable of doing so. The ones who show true intent will not give up after a try or two...they do eventually succeed. That is different than someone else making the choice for you.

I vote that I am glad my mother didn't abort me.... had my ups and downs (many people who know me refer to parts of past as Hell)... but still glad to be breathing. How about you?

So children should be killed because their expensive?

That isn't what I said. You should go back and read this whole thread and everything I've said on this topic on other threads before now. I refuse to state all of my arguments every single time I post, it would get horribly repetitive very quickly.

What I have been saying is that people who have children that they cannot afford to raise are irresponsible, as are those who seek to force this situation.

And there should be some arbitary process by which some foetus's are killed in the greater good. We can't make that decision about who should live and die for this greater good.

No, I completely agree, but the fact that some people get abortions in our societies doesn't worsen the overpopulation of the planet.

That isn't what I said. You should go back and read this whole thread and everything I've said on this topic on other threads before now. I refuse to state all of my arguments every single time I post, it would get horribly repetitive very quickly.

What I have been saying is that people who have children that they cannot afford to raise are irresponsible, as are those who seek to force this situation.
So poor people shouldn't have children (actually I think I've made this claim too; but its beside the point). To this all I have to say is people can have adoptions, or simply not jump into bed together.

No, I completely agree, but the fact that some people get abortions in our societies doesn't worsen the overpopulation of the planet.
Doesn't make abortion justifiable. There are hundreds of ways of controlling the population, and many of them are unjustifiable. For example desexing children at birth, killing the elderly, etc. We don't try to justify such measures, even if they would control the population.

You fail to realize that it isn't about who lives or dies. Obviously, no one can make the decision, "This person should die so that I have a better life."

The decision that is being made is someone deciding what their body can and cannot be used for. The fact that the embryo will no longer exist after this is a moot point. If there were a way to keep it around, the woman would still have the right to refuse it the use of her body. Some of us may see that as a poor choice to make, just as some of us may see it as horribly cruel if a woman were to refuse to let someone who matched and needed it have her extra kidney. However, she has that right.

But they are the same decision. If you give the woman the right to have an abortion, you are giving the woman right to make the live or not to live decision.

The comparison to a kidney is an interesting one, it raises several questions:
i) Perhaps we should take her kidney. This is incredibly brutal, but so it leaving the person to die.
ii) Is there a difference between failure to save a life and directly acting to end one?
iii) You note that the woman has the right to refuse the child the use of her body. Is it not reasonable to say that a woman has an obligation to lend the baby her body for nine months, since she was partially responsible for the child's creation?

Looking specifically at the last one, I feel that is reasonable to say the woman has an obligation; that she has made one choice, which has lead to consquences, which she has no right to override.

iii) You note that the woman has the right to refuse the child the use of her body. Is it not reasonable to say that a woman has an obligation to lend the baby her body for nine months, since she was partially responsible for the child's creation?

Looking specifically at the last one, I feel that is reasonable to say the woman has an obligation; that she has made one choice, which has lead to consquences, which she has no right to override.

I would agree with that statement, i think that the woman should be responciable for her actions and not kill the child because she doesn't want it, or the responcibility that comes with it, which sadly is the main reason people get abortions nowadys. :(

I would agree with that statement, i think that the woman should be responciable for her actions and not kill the child because she doesn't want it, or the responcibility that comes with it, which sadly is the main reason people get abortions nowadys. :(
So you want others to abide by your idea of responsibility

So you want others to abide by your idea of responsibility

If you steal from a store and get caught you have to take responsibility for your actions ,even if it meants going to jail right?

Same here, people should take responsibility for their actions.

If you steal from a store and get caught you have to take responsibility for your actions ,even if it meants going to jail right?

Same here, people should take responsibility for their actions.

That's all well and good, but in case you have forgotten, we are talking about raising (or not) children. i.e. innocent lives as you guys are so keen to point out. What you are effectively saying with this is that people should take responsibility for their actions, regardless of the cost to the innocent child or society as a whole.

If we were talking about a bag of flour that the couple (or single woman) were to be responsible for, then fine, make people take responsibility, but that isn't the case. Children have needs and wants that need to be provided for and you can't prioritise taking responsibility over the wellbeing of that other life!

The problem with anti-abortionists is that they only see a tiny part of the picture. True, some pro-choicers are guilty of the same thing and some anti-abortionists do see the bigger picture, but many don't. It is those that see the abortion issue ending with labour that need to be encouraged to see a little further.

Time for another tally:
M 166:49 (3.388:1)
F 50:12* (4.167:1) *OHidunno posted that she voted wrong

It seems that women tend to be more in favor of allowing abortions than men, though, as before, 62 is still not really a good enough margin to determine this.

I don't think I've read a thread on abortion that's been half as civilised as this. I'm impressed.

Male, pro-choice. I don't particularly like abortion, but I nonetheless take a fairly hardline pro-choice position. And yes, abortion can harm women a great deal, but I don't think that should have any bearing on whether or not it should be available.

I don't think I've read a thread on abortion that's been half as civilised as this. I'm impressed.There wasn't any real flaming until page 8. I thought I must have done something wrong... :p

There wasn't any real flaming until page 8. I thought I must have done something wrong... :p
Pretty damn mild compared to stuff I've seen before.

I've probably put a hex on the thread now by bringing this up...

The issue of abortion goes on many levels. Depending on which country your from. In America what has been banned in 2003 was partial birth abortion, which means full term baby, everything is out except for the head and scissors are jammed up into the brain killing the child. Then the brains are sucked out through a tube so the head collaspes.. about 3,000 a year were done until the ban. Most people do not realize that this is actually done and are in denial... yet why is the ACLU filed a suit calling this ban on this procedure unconstitutional? Why did John Kerry and Hillary vote against this ban? They use the excuse that the health of the women is not accounted for. Which tecnically that is correct, the life of the mother is protected, however not the health of the mother. Of course a C section at this late stage is always safer. Health includes hang nails, boyfriend dumpping you, or anything else you want to include. Anything that causes stress is a health risk. Fact is... every pregnacy is a health risk... so to use the term protect the health of the mother is to not have any restrictions on abortion.

So, there are many levels of abortion... Sweden I believe is first trimester only... that would be 12 weeks. So, when polling for abortion, it would be more accurate and more useful to poll for the restrictions or no restrictions.

Partial Birth is murder, never a documented case for its neccessity, 2nd trimester, medical emergency only... life of the mother at risk.... sever birth defects where childs life is not expected to live. 1st term... discoraged as a means of birth control, medical neccessity. If used as birth control, tubes are tied in a manner that can be reveresed when the person is financially able.

Normal health risks, stress and others do not count as medical neccessity... that counts as birth control. So if the person wishes birth control tubes being tied are effective and fair.

Disregard Technology. Biologically, a fetus cannot survive without the connection to the mother's body until it is born. That is what we celebrate when we call it "Birthday". After that it is an independent being and can be regarded as alive and human.


My daughter was born at 31 weeks, she needed zero life support... did just fine.. Further... if you want to disregaurd technology to save lives... are you in favor of disregarding technology when taking life? Punching in the stomach was a none technical way. I just want to see if your really going to be fair on the issue.

I know. I'm mainly referring to how it is in America. I have the greatest respect for a position that wants to preserve life. I just find pro-lifers hypocritical if they don't oppose the death penalty. Why, the person committing the murder is the one that made the choice.. it quite consistant... the child should be able to have a choice as well.
What is hypocritical is to be pro-choice, anti-death penalty. Kill the innocent and defend the Guilty.... oh... thats not hypocrit... misuse of the word... perverted or warped would be more appropriate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonstein
Disregard Technology. Biologically, a fetus cannot survive without the connection to the mother's body until it is born. That is what we celebrate when we call it "Birthday". After that it is an independent being and can be regarded as alive and human.

My daughter was born at 31 weeks, she needed zero life support... did just fine.. Further... if you want to disregaurd technology to save lives... are you in favor of disregarding technology when taking life? Punching in the stomach was a none technical way. I just want to see if your really going to be fair on the issue.

A premature baby is still born. Leonstein didn't say (in the quote you selected) that only full-term babies are born. Because obviously that would be a rediculous assertion!

Why, the person committing the murder is the one that made the choice.. it quite consistant... the child should be able to have a choice as well.
What is hypocritical is to be pro-choice, anti-death penalty. Kill the innocent and defend the Guilty.... oh... thats not hypocrit... misuse of the word... perverted or warped would be more appropriate.It's not hypocritical, its just harder to base on a moral issue, especially when you relativate it to such a level. I'm pretty sure no pro-choice people want abortions legalized because they want the innocent to die.
I can say for myself that I'm not for abortions and I can sleep well with that. I'm sorry if you can't accept my position, but you honestly don't sound like someone that can be convinced that legalizing abortions is necessary to prevent harm to the potential lives those children might lead.
My moral reasons for abortion are that it would happen anyway, whether with a coathanger or on a gynacologists chair. I personally prefer the gynacologist. It also prevents babies from ending dead in a trash can, which is probably worse than an abortion. It also prevents children from ending up in orphanages and with irresponsible mothers.
On a personal basis, I wouldn't advise someone I know to perform an abortion, but I'm not going to deny the right to a potential mother, especially since I'm male and I'm never going to have to suffer the risks of child birth or abortion.

My moral reasons for abortion are that it would happen anyway, whether with a coathanger or on a gynacologists chair. I personally prefer the gynacologist. It also prevents babies from ending dead in a trash can, which is probably worse than an abortion. It also prevents children from ending up in orphanages and with irresponsible mothers.

actually it wouldn't happen more, instead of the number of abortions falling like most people were expecting after Roe v. Wade was passed, the number has actually risen. So if we do outlaw abortions, the number would go down once more and less people would have abortions.

It's not hypocritical, its just harder to base on a moral issue, especially when you relativate it to such a level. I'm pretty sure no pro-choice people want abortions legalized because they want the innocent to die. This is the problem... Want is not the issue... Facts are... an innocent child dies in abortion. Thats a fact.
When a person committes murder, they make the choice, the innocent person did not make a choice to be murdered.

There is no moral delimma... its simple.. each person should control their destiny... if you committe murder, you killed your victim and you killed yourself.

I can say for myself that I'm not for abortions and I can sleep well with that. I'm sorry if you can't accept my position, but you honestly don't sound like someone that can be convinced that legalizing abortions is necessary to prevent harm to the potential lives those children might lead.
My moral reasons for abortion are that it would happen anyway, whether with a coathanger or on a gynacologists chair. Murder will happen anyway... so should we legalize murder? At least when you use an argument... test it, else the argument is weak. Sound reasoning works for most things. However, I did put down a criteria... first trimester should be discouraged... meaning not promoted. 2nd trimester, medical necessity, sever birth defects... 3rd trimester.. life or death.



I personally prefer the gynacologist. It also prevents babies from ending dead in a trash can, which is probably worse than an abortion. It also prevents children from ending up in orphanages and with irresponsible mothers. not at all, babies still end up in trash cans. Children still end up in orphanages...

Fact is.. promoting bad behavior yields bad behavior. The majority of people try to live within the laws, reguardless of how perverted the laws are. That is human nature.
Even after 30,000,000 abortions in the United States from since 1970... orphanages are as full as ever. So, it has not helped any situation... the promotion of BAD behavior has simply increased the need.

You have not addressed partial birth abortion... which is what the ACLU is fighting to have... do you think thats a choice? Do you even know what it is?

It's not hypocritical, its just harder to base on a moral issue, especially when you relativate it to such a level. I'm pretty sure no pro-choice people want abortions legalized because they want the innocent to die.
I can say for myself that I'm not for abortions and I can sleep well with that. I'm sorry if you can't accept my position, but you honestly don't sound like someone that can be convinced that legalizing abortions is necessary to prevent harm to the potential lives those children might lead.
My moral reasons for abortion are that it would happen anyway, whether with a coathanger or on a gynacologists chair. I personally prefer the gynacologist. It also prevents babies from ending dead in a trash can, which is probably worse than an abortion. It also prevents children from ending up in orphanages and with irresponsible mothers.
On a personal basis, I wouldn't advise someone I know to perform an abortion, but I'm not going to deny the right to a potential mother, especially since I'm male and I'm never going to have to suffer the risks of child birth or abortion.


Since In my past I have worked in the Obstetrical/Gynecology field and dealt with many varieties of parents and social situations I can say that aborting children for "bad" things that might happen to them is premature to say in the least. I have been involved in adoptions and also have had to break the news to parents that their child would not be going home with them. I have known many adopted children who have done exceptionally well in their lives. I have also known some orphans who were never adopted and also are doing well. Obviously this isn't true for all but just because something may happen that is bad doesn't mean you should take that life. For example you can be brought up in a loving home with good parents and still have horrific things happen to you. Are you advocating "preemptive" abortions for that too?

I would rather have a streamlining of social services and adoption laws. I would shorten the time frame in which parents can improve themselves so the child can be adopted at a younger age. This process now can go on for years while the child is shuttled between different foster homes.

I think tubal ligation could be a voluntary form of birth control since it is reversible in most cases. A woman wouldn't have to worry ( there are rare cases where it doesn't work) about becoming pregnant before they want. If someone is continually having abortions. Sterilization should be peformed. Most elective abortions by one person I actually dealt with was 6 but I have known of greater numbers than that. If someone is constantly having babies and not able to take care of them. They should be mandated to have their tubes tied till a time that it is deemed, if ever, that they are able to be a good parent. If not sterilization. Parenthood should be viewed as a privledge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonstein
Disregard Technology. Biologically, a fetus cannot survive without the connection to the mother's body until it is born. That is what we celebrate when we call it "Birthday". After that it is an independent being and can be regarded as alive and human.



A premature baby is still born. Leonstein didn't say (in the quote you selected) that only full-term babies are born. Because obviously that would be a rediculous assertion!

Then his statement is assinine, the baby can't survive under any condition unless its removed from the body. Can't be pregnant for 12 years. If the cord is detached then the only way the mother and baby can survive is to remove the baby... either thru birth or c section. If not then both die.

So under your presentation of the question... it is absolutly a rediculous question to begin with. I was at least trying to give the question some merrit.

The fact is, the baby is alive long before natural birth of 40 weeks.

But they are the same decision. If you give the woman the right to have an abortion, you are giving the woman right to make the live or not to live decision.

Not directly, no. As I said, if the technology allowed it, a woman could deny the use of her body, but the embryo could still be allowed to develop. That is not, however, a technological possibility at this point.

The comparison to a kidney is an interesting one, it raises several questions:
i) Perhaps we should take her kidney. This is incredibly brutal, but so it leaving the person to die.

Big fan of slavery, are we? When you take away a person's sovereign right to their own body - you have made them a slave, plain and simple. We outlawed slavery generations ago, and I think it was a good move.

ii) Is there a difference between failure to save a life and directly acting to end one?

Yes.

iii) You note that the woman has the right to refuse the child the use of her body. Is it not reasonable to say that a woman has an obligation to lend the baby her body for nine months, since she was partially responsible for the child's creation?

It is reasonable in much the same way as I could say, "You told me you would be my slave if I did you a favor, so now you have to pay up."

There are some obligations we can enforce, but forcing someone to give up their right to their own body is not one of them, especially when we are doing so for an entity that has not yet developed the capacity to feel or care.

Meanwhile, you really should use proper terminology. It is completely improper to refer to the embryo as a baby.

Which tecnically that is correct, the life of the mother is protected, however not the health of the mother.

Actually, if you'd read the law, you would know that neither were actually protected. There is a short line where they say, "Obviously it's ok if the mother's health is in danger." Then they spend the entire rest of the document making up lies about how the woman's health can never possibly be in danger to warrant the procedure.

Partial Birth is murder, never a documented case for its neccessity,

This is a straight-up lie. Severe cases of hydrocephalus, for instance, warrant the use of this procedure. In very severe cases, the fetal head can be as big as 50 cm, while full dilation of the vagina is only 10. This fetus will never survive past a minute or two, and the woman cannot give natural childbirth.

Another case in which it is used is when the fetus is already dead (yes, they do still call it an abortion, even if the fetus has already died).

So if the person wishes birth control tubes being tied are effective and fair.

First of all, it is impossible to use abortion as "birth control". Birth control methods block a pregnancy from ever occurring.

Second of all, the idea of it being used flippantly is a myth.

Third, having your tubes tied is not like having a vasectomy (which is not even 100% reversible). It is not something they can just go in and reverse. Barring the rare case of a spontaneous occurence, getting a woman's tubes tied makes her infertile for life.

It is reasonable in much the same way as I could say, "You told me you would be my slave if I did you a favor, so now you have to pay up."

There are some obligations we can enforce, but forcing someone to give up their right to their own body is not one of them, especially when we are doing so for an entity that has not yet developed the capacity to feel or care.

Meanwhile, you really should use proper terminology. It is completely improper to refer to the embryo as a baby.

That is a very poor analogy. A woman's body is set up to give birth genetically. Are you saying that this makes women genetically predisposed to "slavery". Also if you use your analogy ... you would be saying that women who choose to be pregnant are choosing voluntary slavery. Pregnancy is not equal to slavery.

As far as the analogy goes..... you need to go back to the drawing board.

actually it wouldn't happen more, instead of the number of abortions falling like most people were expecting after Roe v. Wade was passed, the number has actually risen. So if we do outlaw abortions, the number would go down once more and less people would have abortions.

They did rise for a while.

However, as we have increased education in this area and increased the use of birth control, the numbers have begun to fall.

Of course, some people want to reverse that tide by getting rid of sex education...

When you take away a person's sovereign right to their own body - you have made them a slave Is this not what partial birth abortion is doing?



Meanwhile, you really should use proper terminology. It is completely improper to refer to the embryo as a baby. When does it become a baby?

This is the problem... Want is not the issue... Facts are... an innocent child dies in abortion. Thats a fact.

Wrong. It is an opinion.

Even the most liberal of definitions of the word "child" do not include embryos, and nearly 60% of all abortions involve embryos.

However, I did put down a criteria... first trimester should be discouraged... meaning not promoted. 2nd trimester, medical necessity, sever birth defects... 3rd trimester.. life or death.

Look! She just laid out the decision in Roe v. Wade!

Fact is.. promoting bad behavior yields bad behavior. The majority of people try to live within the laws, reguardless of how perverted the laws are. That is human nature.

Please demonstrate where abortion has been promoted? Where has unsafe sex been promoted?

You have not addressed partial birth abortion... which is what the ACLU is fighting to have... do you think thats a choice? Do you even know what it is?

A dilation and extraction procedure can only be used in late 2nd trimester (so for medical reasons) or third trimester (for danger to the mother's life). In almost all cases of the use of this procedure, we are talking about women who wanted to continue the pregnancy to term but have been advised not to by medical professionals. If my pregnancy were putting me in danger, I would certainly want all options my doctor might suggest open to me.

That is a very poor analogy. A woman's body is set up to give birth genetically. Are you saying that this makes women genetically predisposed to "slavery". Also if you use your analogy ... you would be saying that women who choose to be pregnant are choosing voluntary slavery. Pregnancy is not equal to slavery.

As far as the analogy goes..... you need to go back to the drawing board.

Your analysis is idiotic.

If I decide to do something for you, that does not make me a slave - it means I am doing something for you voluntarily. A woman who chooses to be pregnant is not a slave - she is voluntarily allowing her body to be used.

On the other hand, if you force me to do something with my body against my will, you have made a slave of me.

Surely you can understand the difference between voluntary and forced?

Is this not what partial birth abortion is doing?

No. You should read up on D&X - and not in uneducated anti-choice sites. Actually read the medical journals. Look up the cases in which it is used.

When does it become a baby?

Most people would say at birth. Some at viability. Even the most liberal of definitions would place it at 8 weeks - when the embryo becomes a fetus.

Actually, if you'd read the law, you would know that neither were actually protected. There is a short line where they say, "Obviously it's ok if the mother's health is in danger." Then they spend the entire rest of the document making up lies about how the woman's health can never possibly be in danger to warrant the procedure.

Best to deal with facts and not make them up. Second... reguardless of how long they take to prove that it is NEVER possible help a women.. the fact is... if its absolutly nessecary to do it... then its allowed. Which by the way... you are free to admit your a liar.. or produce ONE SINGLE CASE where partial birth abortion was nessecary to protect the mother. You realize that a C section is FAR SAFER for the mother... and does not kill the child. Yes, I believe you know that... but again... your free to prove it wrong... all it takes is one case to show Parital Birth abortion is safer than a C section. Else its intent has nothing to do with protecting the mother and everything to do with killing the child.

1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

`(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment



This is a straight-up lie. Severe cases of hydrocephalus, for instance, warrant the use of this procedure. In very severe cases, the fetal head can be as big as 50 cm, while full dilation of the vagina is only 10. This fetus will never survive past a minute or two, and the woman cannot give natural childbirth. Once again, C section is safer.... so whats your point.



Another case in which it is used is when the fetus is already dead (yes, they do still call it an abortion, even if the fetus has already died). there is no law banning that... nice try. however a C section is still safer.


First of all, it is impossible to use abortion as "birth control". Birth control methods block a pregnancy from ever occurring. Wow... now this is a switch... you just destroyed any argument for justification of abortion. You just said that once conception takes place, the fetus is to be considered Birthed. Thus its a full fleged baby and not a fetus. Beings how the argument is that its not a baby until its birthed.





Third, having your tubes tied is not like having a vasectomy (which is not even 100% reversible). It is not something they can just go in and reverse. Barring the rare case of a spontaneous occurence, getting a woman's tubes tied makes her infertile for life. Total BS, many procedures are reversable. Second... aborting a child is not like going to Wal Mart either... and it can 100% never be undone.

Again... you present weak and false arguments... and I sadly will still support first trimester abortions. Seems to me... you like the idea of full term abortion.

Actually my analysis is not idiotic.. but you have a right to your opinion. Just in my opinion your analogy is very weak.


This is a straight-up lie. Severe cases of hydrocephalus, for instance, warrant the use of this procedure. In very severe cases, the fetal head can be as big as 50 cm, while full dilation of the vagina is only 10. This fetus will never survive past a minute or two, and the woman cannot give natural childbirth.

Another case in which it is used is when the fetus is already dead (yes, they do still call it an abortion, even if the fetus has already died).



First of all, it is impossible to use abortion as "birth control". Birth control methods block a pregnancy from ever occurring.

Second of all, the idea of it being used flippantly is a myth.

Third, having your tubes tied is not like having a vasectomy (which is not even 100% reversible). It is not something they can just go in and reverse. Barring the rare case of a spontaneous occurence, getting a woman's tubes tied makes her infertile for life.

First off.... if an infant has died inutero. It is referred to a spontaneous abortion not an elective. The procedure to evacaute the Intrauterine fetal demise can vary. Such as D&C, induced labor, and sometimes the body naturally goes into to labor....occassionally the labor is augmented with pitocin or possibly prostaglandins to expedite the process. So on this womans chart it would state a spontaneous abortion, not elective, and if any procedures were needed to evacuate the IUFD. I have never seen a "partial-birth" abortion performed for a IUFD. Not to say it wouldn't happen... but that it would be exceptionally rare. As far as using abortion as "birth control". You are splitting hairs. Many practioners will off handedly use this term. Technically abortion can stop a "birth" from happening so I think arguing it further would be pointless. Also hydrocephaleous inutero is exceptionally rare. Though premature infants are prone to intraventricular bleeds... they usually don't manifest till some hours after birth.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]Your analysis is idiotic.

If I decide to do something for you, that does not make me a slave - it means I am doing something for you voluntarily. A woman who chooses to be pregnant is not a slave - she is voluntarily allowing her body to be used.

On the other hand, if you force me to do something with my body against my will, you have made a slave of me.

Surely you can understand the difference between voluntary and forced?



Also you need to reread what I stated. I said "predisposed '. It makes a vast difference on how it is analyzed.

Even the most liberal of definitions of the word "child" do not include embryos, and nearly 60% of all abortions involve embryos. Wow... not thats cute.. nearly 60% eh? So the other 40% don't count?

Please demonstrate where abortion has been promoted? Where has unsafe sex been promoted? Oh I dunno... that must be hard.. let me check some unrealiable sources... you know like extreme anti abortion groups sites like Planned Parenthood.

Warning
Hundreds of so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" scare women about abortion. They lie about the medical and emotional effects of abortion. Most often, they give pregnancy tests without professional medical supervision. And they discourage sexually active women from using the most common and effective methods of birth control.

How will I feel after an abortion?

Most women feel relief. Some women feel anger, regret, guilt, or sadness for a little while. Sudden hormonal changes may intensify these feelings.

Some people who oppose women's right to make their own decisions claim that abortion often causes long-lasting emotional problems, or "post-abortion syndrome." There is no scientific proof for these claims.

Now most women feel reliefed... Some feel anger... but that is cancelled out by some people who oppose women's right make claims to feel anger, regret, guilt

Huh... and thats not promoting it?
http://plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/pub-abortion-q-and-a.xml






A dilation and extraction procedure can only be used in late 2nd trimester (so for medical reasons) or third trimester (for danger to the mother's life). In almost all cases of the use of this procedure, we are talking about women who wanted to continue the pregnancy to term but have been advised not to by medical professionals. If my pregnancy were putting me in danger, I would certainly want all options my doctor might suggest open to me. BS argument... as I posted, the ban does not prohibit these cases... however Always a C section is safer... so obviously health risk is not the argument.

Why do you omit the obvious truth? Why did you lie here? The bill does not ban the case you tried to pass off... No shame? Lust? obsession?

However, I did put down a criteria... first trimester should be discouraged... meaning not promoted. 2nd trimester, medical necessity, sever birth defects... 3rd trimester.. life or death.


The only problem with that is that doctors can be wrong. If the doctors were right i should be dead now. I was born at 23 weeks weighted a pound and a half and had 1% of 1% chance of living or 99.99% chance of dying.

Best to deal with facts and not make them up. Second... reguardless of how long they take to prove that it is NEVER possible help a women.. the fact is... if its absolutly nessecary to do it... then its allowed.

Of course, Congress point blank said that it is *never* necessary. Thus, no justification could ever be used.


Which by the way... you are free to admit your a liar.. or produce ONE SINGLE CASE where partial birth abortion was nessecary to protect the mother.

I already have, my dear. The fact that you think a C-section is automatically safer is incredibly funny, considering that it requires a much more extensive surgery, and is more likely to cause complications in future pregnancies.

Once again, C section is safer.... so whats your point.

You have no evidence of this, considering that it is not necessarily true. This is why we have medical professionals - to provide the options and the pros and cons of each.

there is no law banning that... nice try.

Actually, there is. The ban on D&X does not have an exception for "if the fetus is already dead."

Wow... now this is a switch... you just destroyed any argument for justification of abortion. You just said that once conception takes place, the fetus is to be considered Birthed. Thus its a full fleged baby and not a fetus. Beings how the argument is that its not a baby until its birthed.

Actually, I didn't say any such thing. I never said that "birth control" was an entirely appropriate moniker. In fact, it is a bit of a misnomer. However, the fact remains that medical references to birth control refer to methods to prevent a pregnancy, not to end one.

Total BS, many procedures are reversable.

And your evidence is where? Tubal ligation is not meant to be a reversible procedure.

Second... aborting a child is not like going to Wal Mart either... and it can 100% never be undone.

You're right. That's why the choice is up to the person in the situation - the one most qualified to make it.

Again... you present weak and false arguments...

I have yet to present a single false argument. You, on the other hand, have completely misrepresented the use of a medical procedure.

and I sadly will still support first trimester abortions. Seems to me... you like the idea of full term abortion.

Actually, I don't like the idea of any abortion. However, from a legal standpoint, I support Roe v. Wade - elective abortions allowed during the first trimester, abortions for medical reasons allowed during the second, and abortions for extreme dangers to the mother's health during the third - with any and all effort possible to save the fetus as well (if this does not further endanger the woman).

D&X is only and has only been used in extreme cases, thus I'm not against it being available just because it sounds icky.


Also you need to reread what I stated. I said "predisposed '. It makes a vast difference on how it is analyzed.

No, it doesn't, considering that a woman has always been able to end an unwanted pregnancy. The decision simply involved more risk in the past.

Wow... not thats cute.. nearly 60% eh? So the other 40% don't count?

It has nothing to do with not counting. You said that it was a "fact" that abortion was the murder of a child. 60% of all abortion occur before anyone using anything resembling technical terms would call the entity a child. 90% occur before the end of the first trimester. Those that occur after are nearly always for some sort of medical reason - thus, certainly not murder.

Oh I dunno... that must be hard.. let me check some unrealiable sources... you know like extreme anti abortion groups sites like Planned Parenthood.

Funny, that quote, first of all, clearly advises against unsafe sex - by arguing against keeping birth control from women. Second of all, it does not promote abortion in the least. What it does is say that women should not be scared into thinking that it is not an option. It doesn't say, "Hey, you should all have abortions!" It simply says, "You should be aware of the facts about abortion."

You are aware that Planned Pregnancy is one of the few places that will give birth control to anyone that comes in and has an exam? You are aware that they provide counseling on *all* options available to women, both for birth control and what to do in the event of a pregnancy?


BS argument... as I posted, the ban does not prohibit these cases... however Always a C section is safer... so obviously health risk is not the argument.

And, as I posted, this is absolutely untrue. First off, the ban specifically says that these cases don't exit. Thus, it can't protect them without falling into a logical contradiction.

Second of all, a highly invasive surgery with a much higher risk of infection, problems with anesthesia, etc. is hardly always going to be safer.

Third, safe or not, it is up to a woman to choose what medical procedures she will undergo. If I had cancer, I could choose between my options. I might choose radiation, or chemo, or surgery, or some combination of those things. Some are safer than others. Some would be more recommended than others. Some cause more side effects than others. But it would ultimately be my choice which to have.

Why do you omit the obvious truth? Why did you lie here?

I haven't lied a single time. If you have some proof that anything I have said is in error, by all means demonstrate it.

Meanwhile, women who were in those exact situations and had a D&X procedure testified in tears before Congress. They were treated like murderers, despite the fact that they had simply chosen a medical procedure necessary to save their lives - despite having very much wanted a baby. And Congress still spent pages, in defiance of all medical information, explaining that there was no possible situation that might warrant a D&X.

The only problem with that is that doctors can be wrong. If the doctors were right i should be dead now. I was born at 23 weeks weighted a pound and a half and had 1% of 1% chance of living or 99.99% chance of dying.

I agree, they can be wrong...my plan is not addressing the moral issues.. only where the law's stance should be. You were the exception and God bless your parents for making the right choice. Again, the law should step in where its clear, the grey areas must be dealt with on a local level and at no time should abortion be promoted as OK any more the War should be promoted as OK.. they are sad parts in human life that some have to deal with.

Actually, I don't like the idea of any abortion. However, from a legal standpoint, I support Roe v. Wade - elective abortions allowed during the first trimester, abortions for medical reasons allowed during the second, and abortions for extreme dangers to the mother's health during the third - with any and all effort possible to save the fetus as well (if this does not further endanger the woman). Your statement agree's with mine... why are you arguing against yourself? Word games?

It has nothing to do with not counting. You said that it was a "fact" that abortion was the murder of a child. I believe I said partial birth aborition is murder... rather dishonest of you don't you think? Fuzzy logic hoping to slip things in? In fact at one point I gave the actual numbers of about 3,000 per year.


Those that occur after are nearly always for some sort of medical reason - thus, certainly not murder. yes... word games... a hang nail is medical reason.. btw.. If the boy friend says he is dumping the women if she does not have an abortion while she is giving birth... that causes stress. Its a proven fact that stress is a medical condition. Ok an asprin or a Jack Daniel may fix the problem.... but instead you want partial birth abortion to be the available. So... you went from EXTREME health risk down her boy friend is leaving. Sorry.. extreme health risk is... someone is going to die or be permanantly handi-capped. In which case.. a C section is the safest and quickest way to do this.

Again... show ONE CASE where its been nessecary to do an PBA. So far you have been blowing smoke.



You are aware that Planned Pregnancy is one of the few places that will give birth control to anyone that comes in and has an exam? You are aware that they provide counseling on *all* options available to women, both for birth control and what to do in the event of a pregnancy?Not really, they also gave out the lowest quality of condom on the market. Further your not very smart on marketing. Gieko give you their competitors price too.. So what, their marketing stratagy works.


And, as I posted, this is absolutely untrue. First off, the ban specifically says that these cases don't exit. Thus, it can't protect them without falling into a logical contradiction. Show were the ban says these cases CAN'T EXIST? You do understand the difference don't you?

Third, safe or not, it is up to a woman to choose what medical procedures she will undergo. If I had cancer, I could choose between my options. I might choose radiation, or chemo, or surgery, or some combination of those things. You forgot one... would you choose to remove the lungs from your living children so that they could be transplanted to replace your cancerious lungs?

You see... you have just argued against yourself.. lying always bites you in the ass.

Actually, I don't like the idea of any abortion. If I had cancer, I could choose between my options. I might choose radiation, or chemo, or surgery, or some combination of those things. Explain how the two are related? You argue against yourself.

Actually, there is. The ban on D&X does not have an exception for "if the fetus is already dead."

that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

When you figure out how you can kill a dead baby... then perhaps you can rule the world. Until then you just have a bias reading impediment.

No wonder Liberals need to be removed from Law. My 4 year old has better understanding than you... at least when she doesn't I just say.. Because Daddy Say's so and that shuts her up. But that is rare that it becomes nessecary.

Your statement agree's with mine... why are you arguing against yourself? Word games?

I'm not arguing against myself. I have not argued against Roe v. Wade, which set out these principles.

I have argued against your complete mischaracterization of a medical procedure.

I believe I said partial birth aborition is murder... rather dishonest of you don't you think? Fuzzy logic hoping to slip things in? In fact at one point I gave the actual numbers of about 3,000 per year.

Actually, it was getting two different posts mixed up. That particular portion of the discussion came from your statement that it was a "fact" that "an innocent baby dies in an abortion." I pointed out that it is an opinion, not a fact - and then you bitched at me.

I'm so glad that you assume lying any time someone makes a mistake, however.

yes... word games... a hang nail is medical reason.. btw.. If the boy friend says he is dumping the women if she does not have an abortion while she is giving birth... that causes stress. Its a proven fact that stress is a medical condition. Ok an asprin or a Jack Daniel may fix the problem.... but instead you want partial birth abortion to be the available.

First off, you want to give Jack Daniel to a pregnant woman who is not going to abort?

Secondly, a hang nail is not a medical reason. There is no reason whatsoever that a hangnail would lead to a doctor advising that a woman have an abortion. Nor would a doctor automatically advise this if a woman's boyfriend left her. Now, if the breakup had led to severe depression and the woman was suicidal over the pregnancy, that would be a medical reason. Of course, it would be the suicidal tendencies that were the medical reason, not the boyfriend leaving her.

I'm afraid you have little idea how the medical profession works, but no one gets a doctor to advise an abortion on a "hangnail".

So... you went from EXTREME health risk down her boy friend is leaving. Sorry.. extreme health risk is... someone is going to die or be permanantly handi-capped.

No my dear, you went from extreme health risk to "her boyfriend is leaving." I, on the other hand, am actually talking about medical reasons.

In which case.. a C section is the safest and quickest way to do this.

You still have yet to provide even a single shred of evidence that a highly invasive procedure with a higher risk of infection and sepsis, that causes more long-term changes to the body and has a higher chance of complicating future pregnancies (at the least making it less safe for the woman to ever attempt natural childbirth) is the safer route.

You cannot even attempt to back up the claim that it is quickest, considering that recovery time for a C-section will be much longer than that for a D&X.

Again... show ONE CASE where its been nessecary to do an PBA.

I have demonstrated them. Your only reply has been the bullshit claim that it is better to do a highly invasive surgery instead.

Not really, they also gave out the lowest quality of condom on the market. Further your not very smart on marketing. Gieko give you their competitors price too.. So what, their marketing stratagy works.

That doesn't even make sense. They aren't "giving their competitor's price", as abortion is not all that PP provides.

Show were the ban says these cases CAN'T EXIST? You do understand the difference don't you?

Other than one or two sentences, the entire law is dedicated to doing so. Maybe you should read it sometime.

You forgot one... would you choose to remove the lungs from your living children so that they could be transplanted to replace your cancerious lungs?

That is not a medical procedure, at least not in anything resembling accepted medical practice. Nice strawman though.

You see... you have just argued against yourself.. lying always bites you in the ass.

I have yet to argue against myself or lie. I'm glad that your entire argument is an attempt to insult me and accuse me of things I have not done, but it really isn't effective.

Explain how the two are related? You argue against yourself.

How does making an analogy "argue against myself". You aren't even making any semblence of logical sense at this point.

Both cancer and a dangerous pregnancy are medical conditions that require medical attention. Both have more than one way of alleviating the problem. In both cases, a doctor will lay out the available treatments and make recommendations as to which she thinks is the best route. In both cases, the patient ultimately decides which route to take.

When you figure out how you can kill a dead baby... then perhaps you can rule the world. Until then you just have a bias reading impediment.

Way to take a quote out of context. Care to provide the context?

No wonder Liberals need to be removed from Law.

What does this have to do with anything?

I'll assume it was an attempt at an insult towards me. Of course, I'm not a liberal, so I don't really know how it is relevant.

My 4 year old has better understanding than you...

Ah, look. More unfounded insults. So good to know that your arguments boil down to personal attacks.

Theoretically the pro-lifers can argue "So could the baby you aborted". Not a particularly convincing one...


when the baby grew up one is still not elligeble to got to college are they not ?

I am prop life Anti-abortion by the way

Actually, it was getting two different posts mixed up. That particular portion of the discussion came from your statement that it was a "fact" that "an innocent baby dies in an abortion." I pointed out that it is an opinion, not a fact - and then you bitched at me. You really crack me up... now it went from Murder to kills ... Only a fool would believe it does not kill... the murder is open for debat... more word games ..


Secondly, a hang nail is not a medical reason. There is no reason whatsoever that a hangnail would lead to a doctor advising that a woman have an abortion. Nor would a doctor automatically advise this if a woman's boyfriend left her. most good doctors would not.. even most bad doctors would not... however the women can :) Thus she could on her own claim the pregnacy is causing here to be suicidal... while she is giving birth... while the baby is breached and abort the baby. Again.. your argument are like a Barn with no wall... in fact you have no roof either.

Its because your logic is full of holes and people who wish to abuse it would be free to do so... the provision is there for medical reasons... yet you try to say its not.

I'm afraid you have little idea how the medical profession works, but no one gets a doctor to advise an abortion on a "hangnail". again, the door is open for the women to advise the doctor that this is what she wants. You just have either a small narrow view... or you don't want to admit that the door is open both ways.


No my dear, you went from extreme health risk to "her boyfriend is leaving." I, on the other hand, am actually talking about medical reasons. dear? I think not. further, again same narrow view... thinking that only the doctor makes decisions? Tell me...do doctors go knocking on doors asking people if they want an abortion? or do people go tot he doctor and tell them they want an abortion? So far... you seem to have doctor envy as the all ruling all knowing authority.



You still have yet to provide even a single shred of evidence that a highly invasive procedure with a higher risk of infection and sepsis, that causes more long-term changes to the body and has a higher chance of complicating future pregnancies (at the least making it less safe for the woman to ever attempt natural childbirth) is the safer route. Once again, your trying to compare C section to natural child birth. last I looked Natural child birth is not partial birth abortion. Maybe its natural for you... again... your not as smart with words as you think you are. Your constant attempt to mix logics are getting boring.



You cannot even attempt to back up the claim that it is quickest, considering that recovery time for a C-section will be much longer than that for a D&X. A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: An increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, `there are very few, if any, indications for * * * other than for delivery of a second twin'; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.

(B) There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum. that is the findings within the law.. I have no problem in accepting this as logical and reasonable. So not only did I attempt, I backed it up. What you can't and have not done is name the CASE that backs you up... you throw out hypithetical situations... what if... what if... and . but...


I have demonstrated them. Your only reply has been the bullshit claim that it is better to do a highly invasive surgery instead.
No.. name the case... show the study. Not opinion, show where it was necessary to kill the child to save the mother. Give even a link... something?






That doesn't even make sense. They aren't "giving their competitor's price", as abortion is not all that PP provides. Na... just $20 billion over 30 years. But hey who is counting right?




Other than one or two sentences, the entire law is dedicated to doing so. Maybe you should read it sometime. I have and I understand it, the clause is in there... you deny it because its not in there multiple times.

Ok... change the law.. No partial birth abortions unless, you can show that it was medically necessary and the safest procedure to save the mothers life.

So... now thats 5 words against partial birth abortions and 18 words supporting partial birth abortions.. The meaning of the law is exactly the same.. but it blows the bottom out of your worthless argument. I mean your argument is about how many words are against it vs for it.


How does making an analogy "argue against myself". You aren't even making any semblence of logical sense at this point. Because in one case you say you are against abortion for yourself... then in the other case you say that if you were in that position you would want to choose that option as a matter of preference.

Both cancer and a dangerous pregnancy are medical conditions that require medical attention. Both have more than one way of alleviating the problem. In both cases, a doctor will lay out the available treatments and make recommendations as to which she thinks is the best route. In both cases, the patient ultimately decides which route to take. all pregnancies are dangerious... so your saying that when the doctors talk about having the baby... they also lay out the partial birth abortion? I don't recall our doctor telling that to us. No.. again... your choice of words are weak... they leave to many holes for bad people to abuse. Your a master at saying stuff that can be abused.. weak laws are based on weak logic.




Way to take a quote out of context. Care to provide the context? Once again I have to explain yourself to you.

Here is your quote: Originally Posted by Dempublicents1
Actually, there is. The ban on D&X does not have an exception for "if the fetus is already dead."

Here is the first paragraph in the law
The Congress finds and declares the following:
(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant,

Now please note that the law would not apply to a dead baby,

when a person knows it will KILL the infant? See the law??? See what it applies too???? SEE the word KILL… if the baby is ALREADY D E A D then You can K E E L L L IT… C A U S E I T S A LLLL REEAAADDYYY D E A D. THUSsss the L A W DOES NoTTT A P P L Y…..



Did I spell it out SLOOOOOWWWWWW enough for YOOOUUUU?


Heading home to my wife and family... have a nice day. :)

Not directly, no. As I said, if the technology allowed it, a woman could deny the use of her body, but the embryo could still be allowed to develop. That is not, however, a technological possibility at this point.
Lets stay within the limits of the now, shall we?

Yes.
Then surely there is a difference between terminating a fetus and not giving a kidney. Terminating a fetus involves a very direct decision to end a life.

There are some obligations we can enforce, but forcing someone to give up their right to their own body is not one of them, especially when we are doing so for an entity that has not yet developed the capacity to feel or care.
Why can’t we enforce this obligation? That statement is hugely normative.

Where does this mythical idea that people have so much a right to their own body, that they should have the power to override the consequence their own actions; at the expense of all other considerations. I have never heard of any such right; not even the UN recognizes this right, and the UN has a whole swag of universally declared rights, most of which amount to nonsense. If a person has an obligation, and failure to see through that obligation will violate the right to life, how can we allow such a choice to be made.

Infants do not have the capacity to care, but we do not terminate them. What about the mentally handicapped and so many other groups that may not ‘feel or care.’ And I believe that the fetus does gain the capability to feel earlier than it thinks. Part of the explanation for the phenomena of mother-child bonding is that the child learns its mother's voice after six months at the latest. Is a hearing, listening thing something we wish to terminate?

Pretty damn mild compared to stuff I've seen before.

I've probably put a hex on the thread now by bringing this up...
I bloody knew it... I accept full responsibility.

Where does this mythical idea that people have so much a right to their own body, that they should have the power to override the consequence their own actions; at the expense of all other considerations. Great points... If I have so much right over my body... I have the right to clench my hands around a bat... I have the right to swing the bat... but do I have the right to move my body in this motion in a crowed subway?
The physical action is exactly the same for the individual. However its clear that one's control over their body is restricted by the enviornment.

It amazes me how one's rights over their own body always excludes the secondary body they have inside.

Great points... If I have so much right over my body... I have the right to clench my hands around a bat... I have the right to swing the bat... but do I have the right to move my body in this motion in a crowed subway?
The physical action is exactly the same for the individual. However its clear that one's control over their body is restricted by the enviornment.

It amazes me how one's rights over their own body always excludes the secondary body they have inside.
Yup. Secondary. Less important.

Male and Pro-life. I can understand someone getting an abortion after rape and stuff like that, but what really disturbs me is the latest abortionist trend. Waiting for the baby to come out and if it's the wrong gender, drowning it in a bucket of cold water. It seems cruel and heartless to me, but I've often heard pro-choice'ers defend even these decisions.


I also may be a bit biased on this, as I grew up with a single mother and I wouldn't have existed if she'd decided to murder me in her stomach. :)

1) I have never seen any support on any scale from post birth murder
Then why are so many people doing it?

2) it is not murder if it is legal … you like to use the word murder because of the emotional content but at this time it is completely legal so it is not murder no matter how incorrectly you use the word
Fine... If she'd decided to "make me lack life" in my stomach.

Male and Pro-life. I can understand someone getting an abortion after rape and stuff like that, but what really disturbs me is the latest abortionist trend. Waiting for the baby to come out and if it's the wrong gender, drowning it in a bucket of cold water. It seems cruel and heartless to me, but I've often heard pro-choice'ers defend even these decisions.


I also may be a bit biased on this, as I grew up with a single mother and I wouldn't have existed if she'd decided to murder me in her stomach. :)
1) I have never seen any support on any scale from post birth murder

2) it is not murder if it is legal … you like to use the word murder because of the emotional content but at this time it is completely legal so it is not murder no matter how incorrectly you use the word

Yup. Secondary. Less important.

Really? Lets test your theory.

In accordance to moral patterns of humans... they tend to feel those they know as more important than those they don't know. This is a fact in general.

So if a person does not know you... you are secondary to them... So is it
A. now legal to kill you?
B. You have the same rights as everyone else requardless of your status with them.

Now, for the child... you say A... but how about for you?

Male and Pro-life. I can understand someone getting an abortion after rape and stuff like that, but what really disturbs me is the latest abortionist trend. Waiting for the baby to come out and if it's the wrong gender, drowning it in a bucket of cold water. It seems cruel and heartless to me, but I've often heard pro-choice'ers defend even these decisions.


I also may be a bit biased on this, as I grew up with a single mother and I wouldn't have existed if she'd decided to murder me in her stomach. :)

This is not legal in the united States... nor in most European countries.

Where is this practiced? Muslim countries perhaps or Hindu?

2) it is not murder if it is legal … you like to use the word murder because of the emotional content but at this time it is completely legal so it is not murder no matter how incorrectly you use the word
This of course is debatable.. Murder is a moral question, which makes law. However, if the law is immoral... it is still murder.

Lets test your theory.

WWII.. Hitler : did he have 7 million Jews murdered? Because it was legal in German law to kill them.

Today: Did Saddam Murder over 300,000 of his own people? Or did he just kill them? Because by Iraqi law(his law) it was legal.

So, how you answer these questions, state the position of your moral value. Thus depending on the position of ones moral value, would of course make the difference between murder or not.

I agree, from a legal standpoint its not murder... which is why the debat is here. The majority view partial birth abortion as murder, or in absolute medical needs.. mercy killing. Which is why partial birth abortion overwhelmingly Passed.

Then why are so many people doing it?

Fine... If she'd decided to "make me lack life" in my stomach.
1) where? It is not legal in the united states or Europe that I know of … and show us this “pro choice support” for such activities that you claim
2) at least you are being more accurate now rather then just using emotive incorrect language (terminating or even theoretically killing would have been more correct)

You really crack me up... now it went from Murder to kills ... Only a fool would believe it does not kill... the murder is open for debat... more word games ..

You really are a master of avoiding the point, aren't you? You said that it was a "fact" that abortion kills an "innocent baby". I pointed out that the vast majority of abortions do not involve anything that could technically be referred to as a baby. You freaked out.

most good doctors would not.. even most bad doctors would not... however the women can :) Thus she could on her own claim the pregnacy is causing here to be suicidal... while she is giving birth... while the baby is breached and abort the baby.

You don't seem to understand how the law works. If the law says that something must be done for medical necessity, a woman saying she wants it will not make it legal. A qualified medical professional (aka. a doctor) has to state that the mother is in danger and that a medical abortion is indicated.

The woman can scream and rant and rave all she wants that she needs an abortion, just like someone could scream and rant and rave that he needs morphine. However, at least once she is into the third trimester, unless a doctor makes the decision that she needs an abortion, she cannot get one legally, just as a man who wants morphine cannot legally get it unless a doctor decides that his condition warrants a prescription for it.

Meanwhile, an abortion will never be performed while the mother is in natural labor.

again, the door is open for the women to advise the doctor that this is what she wants. You just have either a small narrow view... or you don't want to admit that the door is open both ways.

The woman can advise all she wants, just like the man in the example above can advise that he wants morphine. However, it is the doctor who determines medical need on a regulated procedure/drug - and thus it is the doctor who decides whether or not to provide it.

thinking that only the doctor makes decisions? Tell me...do doctors go knocking on doors asking people if they want an abortion? or do people go tot he doctor and tell them they want an abortion? So far... you seem to have doctor envy as the all ruling all knowing authority.

I have a narrow view? Let me explain something basic here. Someone can go to the doctor in the middle of the third trimester and say, "I want an abortion." Then, the doctor can say, "There is no medical reason for you to have an abortion. I will not provide it, as it is against the law. Sorry."

Once again, your trying to compare C section to natural child birth.

Once again, you seem to have extreme problems reading English, as I did no such thing.

What I pointed out is that having a C-section makes it less likely that a woman will be able to have natural childbirth in the future. In other words, if a woman who has had a C-section gets pregnant again in the future, she is unlikely to be able to deliver naturally, for fear of having the incision in her uterus reopen.

that is the findings within the law.. I have no problem in accepting this as logical and reasonable. So not only did I attempt, I backed it up.

I hate to break it to you, but the same risks and more are present with a C-section. A woman who has a C-section has a large incision in her uterus that may or may not heal properly. Regardless of whether it heals properly, it will scar, and scar tissue is weaker than the original tissue. For that reason, some women who have had C-sections cannot carry a later pregnancy to term. Those who can often cannot deliver naturally, for fear of having the uterus wall open and cause internal bleeding. For that reason, a woman who has a C-section to remove her dead or dying fetus may not be able to ever have a baby. If she does have a baby, she will most likely have to undergo a dangerous and invasive procedure (C-section) again.

Nowhere within your quote did it say, "C-sections are safer." In addition, you are quoting law, not medicine. If you wish to back up a medical argument, you will have to find a medical source. If you were sick, would you call a doctor, or your local senator?

No.. name the case... show the study. Not opinion, show where it was necessary to kill the child to save the mother. Give even a link... something?

I have already brought up the case of severe hydrocephalus, which has happened more than once. Look it up.

Meanwhile, in that case, we are talking about a fetus that is going to die no matter what is done, whether it be D&X, C-section, or a deadly attempt at natural childbirth. The mother can survive any of these but natural childbirth, while the fetus will die regardless. Thus, it is up to the mother to decide which of two sets of risks she will take on.

Na... just $20 billion over 30 years. But hey who is counting right?

And how much do they make in selling birth control? In pap smears? In prenatal care? In counseling?

I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of people who go to Planned Parenthood do not go there for an abortion. They go there for numerous reasons. I myself, when I did not have health insurance, found that PP was the only place I could afford to go for a pap and for birth control.

I have and I understand it, the clause is in there... you deny it because its not in there multiple times.

I deny it because it sets up a logical contradiction. The law says, "If there were a medical reason for D&X to be used, it would be ok. But there isn't a medical reason at all. There is no medical reason for it to be used. There is no reason that it should ever be used. There is no medical reason at all. But there isn't a medical reason at all. There is no medical reason for it to be used. There is no reason that it should ever be used. There is no medical reason at all. But there isn't a medical reason at all. There is no medical reason for it to be used. There is no reason that it should ever be used. There is no medical reason at all. But there isn't a medical reason at all. There is no medical reason for it to be used. There is no reason that it should ever be used. There is no medical reason at all. But there isn't a medical reason at all. There is no medical reason for it to be used. There is no reason that it should ever be used. There is no medical reason at all. But there isn't a medical reason at all. There is no medical reason for it to be used. There is no reason that it should ever be used. There is no medical reason at all. But there isn't a medical reason at all. There is no medical reason for it to be used. There is no reason that it should ever be used. There is no medical reason at all. [/quote]

Ok... change the law.. No partial birth abortions unless, you can show that it was medically necessary and the safest procedure to save the mothers life.

The bolded part might be unconstitutional, as it removes the woman's right to make decisions between different medical procedures. Of course, D&X pretty much isn't going to be used unless the doctor has advised it as the best route to take, as people don't go into a hospital and say, "I want a D&X right now!" so I guess it would work.

Unlike the actual law, it doesn't spend pages and pages saying, "There is no possible way this could medically necessary."

If the law was worded as you have put it, chances are that there would be no argument at all.

Because in one case you say you are against abortion for yourself... then in the other case you say that if you were in that position you would want to choose that option as a matter of preference.

Do you make things up on purpose, or is your reading comprehenstion really that low? I have never said anything even remotely close to this.

What I *did* say was that I would never have an elective abortion. However, if my life were in danger, I would want all possible medical options open to me. I never said that I would choose D&X if it were one of those options. However, if my life truly were in danger, especially if the fetus could not survive anyways, and my doctor and I discussed and decided that D&X was my best option, I would go with it.

Here is the first paragraph in the law

The first paragraph is not the entire law, but at least you provided actual context this time, instead of providing half a paragraph.

Why do the terms I use matter when you know exactly what I mean anyway? Do you get a reward for a certain post count?

You really are a master of avoiding the point, aren't you? You said that it was a "fact" that abortion kills an "innocent baby". I pointed out that the vast majority of abortions do not involve anything that could technically be referred to as a baby. You freaked out. lets test your theory, If you attack a women who is 12 weeks pregnant... punch her in the stomach and cause the baby to abort... are you charged with assult and battery? Is the crime the same as assult and battery to a male? You can't choose if its life or not... it either is or it isn't.


You don't seem to understand how the law works. If the law says that something must be done for medical necessity, a woman saying she wants it will not make it legal. A qualified medical professional (aka. a doctor) has to state that the mother is in danger and that a medical abortion is indicated. I fully understand... your in denial..
The partial BIRTH ban of today... is what makes the law you are describing above... if it were not for the Partial Birth BAN of today... none of what you said means anything. Fact is... before the law... partial birth abortion was legal for any reason. Fact is today... the ACLU wants to change the clause of medical necessity to Health risk... those are the facts... denial is to lie. Health risk includes hang nails. Thats a fact. Is a hang nail a health risk? Is saying your depressed a health risk? Is threatening to jump out a window a Health risk? The answer is of course yes... and if the Laws say "health risk"... then there is no law saying you can not perform a partial birth abortion for any reason so long as you can show health risk. BTW giving birth is a health risk.

So again... your arguing from the point the current law has made... and trying to say the situation was like this before the law was made. Further abortions were performed during natural labor before the law, 3,000 to 5,000 depending on what studies you believe... because the many of individual states needed not put down the gestation period.

so it appears to me... that you are in denial... even though the current ban only addresses these issues.

Further... the contexts of the first paragraph I quoted on the second go around did not change... you just ran out of arguement to support your false claim.. The a law only applies in cases where the doctor or mother knowingly Kill the baby. If your going to Kill the baby... you need to read the law further... if the baby is not going to be killed because its dead... then skip it and go do what you must do.

But Bias... seems to blind you.

Further.. the insult in the previous post...

My 4 year old daughter was told that we do not flush her fish down the toliet if it will kill them. So when one died... she said we needed to flush it down the toliet... another one was sick, so I said we should flush that one down too... she said no... he is not dead... and we should put him in a jar and maybe he will get better.

So yes... she is smarter than you... even she gets the law.





If the law was worded as you have put it, chances are that there would be no argument at all. You don't honestly believe that do you? Beings how I did not in any way change the law... just eliminated all the justifications for the ban and made it a point of fact, this is the way its going to be... unless these conditions exist. I just eliminated all the lies that the oppenants grasp to try and over turn it. It forces them to speak the truth... they want the right to kill the baby.

There is a necessity to have this promoted as a right... and it has nothing to do with protecting rights... Its a Trojan Horse argument.

What I *did* say was that I would never have an elective abortion. However, if my life were in danger, I would want all possible medical options open to me. I never said that I would choose D&X if it were one of those options. However, if my life truly were in danger, especially if the fetus could not survive anyways, and my doctor and I discussed and decided that D&X was my best option, I would go with it. However no rational doctor would ever say its the best option, unless the intent was to kill the baby. The C section requires the doctor allow the baby a chance to live. The partial Birth abortion is performed to kill the baby.

You really are a master of avoiding the point, aren't you? You said that it was a "fact" that abortion kills an "innocent baby". I pointed out that the vast majority of abortions do not involve anything that could technically be referred to as a baby. You freaked out. One other point I left out. In Ill. before the ban.. I think in 2003.. a women gave birth to her baby in her apartment... the boy friend heard the baby crying.. She strangled the baby... the argument is over.. was the Umbilical cord attached or not... if attached it was legal.. if not attached its murder. So to think the law does not have a problem in where to draw the line... sorry but you are lost.

l I fully understand... your in denial..
The partial BIRTH ban of today... is what makes the law you are describing above... if it were not for the Partial Birth BAN of today... none of what you said means anything. Fact is... before the law... partial birth abortion was legal for any reason.

Incorrect. Third trimester abortions have been illegal unless the mother's life or health were in extreme danger since Roe v. Wade. Second term abortions have required a doctor's determination that an abortion was medically advisable in all but two states since Roe v. Wade D&X is a procedure that can only possibly be used in the third trimester or late second trimester and elective abortions are only allowed in the 1st trimester.

You know those regulations you keep spouting out about the trimesters? They are already in place, and have been for quite some time.

Health risk includes hang nails. Thats a fact. Is a hang nail a health risk? Is saying your depressed a health risk? Is threatening to jump out a window a Health risk? The answer is of course yes... and if the Laws say "health risk"... then there is no law saying you can not perform a partial birth abortion for any reason so long as you can show health risk.

A health risk associated with the pregnancy. Note that a hangnail is not a health risk associated with any pregnancy. Having an abortion will not cure a hangnail.

Severe and suicidal depression is a significant health risk that may or may not be helped by an abortion. However, just saying, "I'm depressed" doesn't get you diagnosed with depression. There's a bit more to it than that.

However no rational doctor would ever say its the best option, unless the intent was to kill the baby. The C section requires the doctor allow the baby a chance to live. The partial Birth abortion is performed to kill the baby.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Study a little medicine and come back. I'm sure you'll find that the vast majority of doctors don't want to kill anything unless it is medically necessary.

One other point I left out. In Ill. before the ban.. I think in 2003.. a women gave birth to her baby in her apartment... the boy friend heard the baby crying.. She strangled the baby... the argument is over.. was the Umbilical cord attached or not... if attached it was legal.. if not attached its murder. So to think the law does not have a problem in where to draw the line... sorry but you are lost.

This is complete and utter bullshit. Every state in the union has made third trimester abortions illegal unless they are medically necessary. Every state in the union considers it illegal to kill an infant that has been delivered, whether the umbilical cord was attached or not. These laws have been in place for decades.

Why do the terms I use matter when you know exactly what I mean anyway? Do you get a reward for a certain post count?

Actually, using incorrect terms could make things very unclear. We know what you are talking about because we have seen countless people misuse the terms. That doesn't make it any more confusing - especially to someone who has just entered the conversation.

If I went to a conference and a scientist stood up and started talking about stomach ulcers, but said, "The patient's tummy hurt," I would get the general idea. I would know that the man had some sort of pain in the abdominal region (although this simple statement would not tell me what organ was involved. If there was anyone in the room for whom English was a second language, or who had simply never heard the word "tummy" used, they would be rather confused. Thus, it would be more correct and less likely to cause confusion if the doctor said, "The patient presented complaining of abdominal pains. Further inspection demonstrated that he had ulcers in the lining of the stomach...."

Currently...

Men favor abortion at 47 to 15, or about 3.13 to 1
Women favor abortion at 29 to 8, or 3.625 to 1

But then again, I could just be a whiny bitch and claim this site has a liberal slant.

One other point I left out. In Ill. before the ban.. I think in 2003.. a women gave birth to her baby in her apartment... the boy friend heard the baby crying.. She strangled the baby... the argument is over.. was the Umbilical cord attached or not... if attached it was legal.. if not attached its murder. So to think the law does not have a problem in where to draw the line... sorry but you are lost.
Absolutely not that is illegal in every state in the union

Currently...

Men favor abortion at 47 to 15, or about 3.13 to 1
Women favor abortion at 29 to 8, or 3.625 to 1

But then again, I could just be a whiny bitch and claim this site has a liberal slant.

Once again:

Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion! Pro-choice does not equate to favoring abortion!

Why do the terms I use matter when you know exactly what I mean anyway? Do you get a reward for a certain post count?
Because using incorrect terms leads to an inaccuracy of communication. I may understand what you mean because I have heard it used wrong over and over but a non native could be confused by the term as it is NOT A CORRECT TERM

That and there is the bad debating tactic of intentionally misrepresenting your opponent through emotive language. Its not fair to you nor your opponent
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html

Currently...

Men favor abortion at 47 to 15, or about 3.13 to 1
Women favor abortion at 29 to 8, or 3.625 to 1

But then again, I could just be a whiny bitch and claim this site has a liberal slant.
No they favor reporductive choice not abortion

Incorrect. Third trimester abortions have been illegal unless the mother's life or health were in extreme danger since Roe v. Wade. Second term abortions have required a doctor's determination that an abortion was medically advisable in all but two states since Roe v. Wade D&X is a procedure that can only possibly be used in the third trimester or late second trimester and elective abortions are only allowed in the 1st trimester. aH.. AGAIN, I see your problem... try the dictionary... look up liberal.. there you will find "loose translation"... then go to a court room... look at all the liberal judges and lawyers. so... the problem is this



From: RvW
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165. Then add a liberal judge... what is appropriate medical judgement?
What is OR HEALTH of the mother? Again... we are back at the metiphorical hang nail... which is the until the partial birth ban WAS the actual STATE of abortion. WHICH is why the ACLU is currently trying to over turn that which you appear to agree with... but want it over turned. Because they took the LIBERAL TRANSLATION loop hole out of RvW. ALSO... don't make the Liberal mistake and make OR mean AND... they really are two complete functions.

A health risk associated with the pregnancy. Note that a hangnail is not a health risk associated with any pregnancy. Having an abortion will not cure a hangnail. Stess causes some people to pick their nails... picking ones nails can cause hang nails, pregnacy can cause stress.. thus I could make the case that it can cause hang nails.. and soome Liberal judge would buy it.


You have no idea what you are talking about. Study a little medicine and come back. I'm sure you'll find that the vast majority of doctors don't want to kill anything unless it is medically necessary. Yes, and guess what the partial birth abortion does not effect the vast majority of the doctors... Thus you have no BEEF... again... you alway argue against yourself.. because your not concerened with the vast majority of doctors.. your argument is for the very few doctors that perform this proceedure. :)

But nice try.

No they favor reporductive choice not abortion


Wow...

You know the Nazi's didn't favor murdering 7 million Jews.
The favored Germany's right to be the master race.


Not saying your a Nazi... but, the logic is the same.

Then add a liberal judge... what is appropriate medical judgement?

Appropriate medical judgement is not defined by the law, my dear. It is defined by medicine.

What is OR HEALTH of the mother? Again... we are back at the metiphorical hang nail... which is the until the partial birth ban WAS the actual STATE of abortion. WHICH is why the ACLU is currently trying to over turn that which you appear to agree with... but want it over turned. Because they took the LIBERAL TRANSLATION loop hole out of RvW. ALSO... don't make the Liberal mistake and make OR mean AND... they really are two complete functions.

You aren't going to find a single judge that will allow a third-trimester abortion on a hangnail argument - at least not one that will keep his job for longer than a week after the decision.

Yes, and guess what the partial birth abortion does not effect the vast majority of the doctors... Thus you have no BEEF... again... you alway argue against yourself.. because your not concerened with the vast majority of doctors.. your argument is for the very few doctors that perform this proceedure. :)

I hate to break it to you, but actually performing a procedure vs. recongizing its necessity are two different things. My advisor is an anesthesiologist. She does not perform, for instance, gastric bypasses, as it is outside her field. However, she can recognize that gastric bypasses are medical procedures and can determine when one may be necessary.

The vast majority of doctors are opposed to the current law regarding D&X, for the same reasons that the ACLU is opposed -the fact that it does not provide an adequate provision for the life OR health of the mother.

You seem to think that anyone fighing this law is trying to say, "Hey all you pregnant women, have a D&X, it's fun!" This is not the case. They are simply trying to ensure that a woman who needs it has it available to her.

Meanwhile, your argument that the "state of abortion" has ever included getting late-term abortions for the equivalent of a hangnail is absolutely ludicrous. It demonstrates a near-complete break from reality.

Wow...

You know the Nazi's didn't favor murdering 7 million Jews.
The favored Germany's right to be the master race.


Not saying your a Nazi... but, the logic is the same.

You have said that 1st-trimester abortions should be legal. This makes you pro-choice. And now you have just compared yourself to a Nazi. Cute.

Absolutely not that is illegal in every state in the union

But the common law requires proof of life after complete separation from the mother. Dr. Kirschner's testimony shows only that he applied a definition of live birth different from the common law definition of live birth.

The court in Morgan also reversed a conviction for murdering a baby found with a crushed skull because the evidence did not prove live birth. And the cut throat of the newborn in Berryman v. State, 51 Tex. Crim. 192, 101 S.W. 225 (1907), did not suffice to prove live birth.

Seems to be a problem in this issue... however, this applies to murder beyond a reasonable doubt only. But please note that the common law is that proof of life must be BEFORE complete seperation... which can be interpreted to embilical attachment.

However, beings how murder is not the charge in cases of Partial Birth abortion... and in order to do the procedure... is in a place that can easily prove the child is dead... before the procedure is done. Then in no case is the procedure nessecary in the case of a living child. In which case, if the child is already dead... the ban does not have any impact on the case at all.

Appropriate medical judgement is not defined by the law, my dear. It is defined by medicine. Is this a Gay thing or are you a women? In either case... I am not your dear.

Now to address your problem... Doctors are not above the law, they are just people, it does not make them smarter than anyone else. They just choose a different line of work. Which is also why they make mistakes like everyone else. So, the fact is... I can always find a doctor who will have their opinion on health risks.


You aren't going to find a single judge that will allow a third-trimester abortion on a hangnail argument - at least not one that will keep his job for longer than a week after the decision. Great, then why is a judge in Ok, ruling to overturn the partial birth ban? Because they want the words "health of the mother" added as a condition. No qualifiers as to what health is. Hang nail :) btw... its used as a metiphore... meaning any Bullshit reason you want to come up with, so long as it ends with health risk.


I hate to break it to you, but actually performing a procedure vs. recongizing its necessity are two different things. My advisor is an anesthesiologist. She does not perform, for instance, gastric bypasses, as it is outside her field. However, she can recognize that gastric bypasses are medical procedures and can determine when one may be necessary. Which of course why the law allows for that case :).. Again... you haven't presented any case that the law will affect.


The vast majority of doctors are opposed to the current law regarding D&X, for the same reasons that the ACLU is opposed -the fact that it does not provide an adequate provision for the life OR health of the mother. You really are stuck on that aren't you... OR HANG NAIL. Then you deny your argument..

You refuse to define health of the mother by law... you want to leave that open to the wacko doctor to define... who wants to make a few bucks. The ban has defined what health of the mother is.. and you don't like that. You want hang nail put back in... but call it health of the mother so you can deny that is the intent.

Meanwhile, your argument that the "state of abortion" has ever included getting late-term abortions for the equivalent of a hangnail is absolutely ludicrous. It demonstrates a near-complete break from reality.
Using the words health of the mother as a acceptable condition for it is ludicrous.. So the fact is... I am dealing with reality, the reality is there are idiots like you, who would abuse this loophole. There is no need for the loophole beings how the life of the mother is protected.

So, why do you want this? Why can't you just say it? Coward? You want the right to KILL the child. Beings how the law does not deal with already DEAD Babies.

You have said that 1st-trimester abortions should be legal. This makes you pro-choice. And now you have just compared yourself to a Nazi. Cute.

Ok dumb ass, once again I have to show you how ignorant you are.

I am against partial birth abortion... beings how you know that I said 1st trimester should be legal... as you pointed out... then are you so dense to not understand, that I have the ability to distingesh between the two procedures? I am against partial birth abortion...
So that just maybe there is an outside chance that I am only referring to the cases of Partial Birth on LIVING babies. That of course means babies that have a heart beat. That have a chance to live so long as you don’t jamb a scissors in the skull?


here is a chance to make your case.

When a child has a heart beat, when is it nessecary to jamb scissors into the brain of the child to save the mothers life?

Beings how this is all the ban is dealing with... BTW My wife had a C section... both my sisters... and 3 of my sister inlaws... no problem. So when is jambing scissors into the brain of the child who has a heart beat better than a C section?

I will answer it for you.

ONLY IF YOU WANT TO KILL THE CHILD.

So in the end, you want the option to kill the child so long as its embilical cord is attached.

Now to address your problem... Doctors are not above the law, they are just people, it does not make them smarter than anyone else. They just choose a different line of work. Which is also why they make mistakes like everyone else. So, the fact is... I can always find a doctor who will have their opinion on health risks.

Yes, you can find a single doctor who might disagree with the entire medical profession. However, a doctor who regularly does things outside of medical protocol will lose her license. And, should a case go before court, and a woman has a single doctor arguing her case, while every other doctor called to testify says something else, the judge is not going to decide in her favor.

Great, then why is a judge in Ok, ruling to overturn the partial birth ban? Because they want the words "health of the mother" added as a condition. No qualifiers as to what health is. Hang nail :) btw... its used as a metiphore... meaning any Bullshit reason you want to come up with, so long as it ends with health risk.

There is this thing in the law called precedent. What does and does not qualify as a health risk has already been set by precedent. Enumerating it exactly in the law would be very dangerous, as lawmakers (and even medical professionals) do not know every possible case that can occur.

You refuse to define health of the mother by law... you want to leave that open to the wacko doctor to define...

Incorrect. As I said, "health of the mother" by law has been defined by precident.

"Health of the mother" by medicine is defined by the medical community, not by individual "wacko" doctors. Try again.

Ok dumb ass, once again I have to show you how ignorant you are.

Your unfounded insults are cute, and demonstrate that you can't or won't actually engage in anything resembling rational debate. However, they are entirely unecessary, and while I have never before reported anyone on these forums, I will do so if they continue.

I am against partial birth abortion... beings how you know that I said 1st trimester should be legal... as you pointed out... then are you so dense to not understand, that I have the ability to distingesh between the two procedures? I am against partial birth abortion...
So that just maybe there is an outside chance that I am only referring to the cases of Partial Birth on LIVING babies. That of course means babies that have a heart beat. That have a chance to live so long as you don’t jamb a scissors in the skull?

The post to which you were referring had nothing whatsoever to do with dilation and extraction. It had to do with the term pro-choice. One person used "pro-choice" to be equal to "pro-abortion". Upward Thrust pointed out that someone who is pro-choice is not pro-abortion, they are pro-reproductive choice. You compared that reasoning to Nazis, thus comparing all pro-choice individuals, regardless of their opinion of dilation and extraction to Nazis.

As you have yourself pointed out that you are pro-choice, you compared yourself to a Nazi. It isn't that hard to understand.

And as to the rest of your completely untrue rant, you forget that dilation and extraction procedures are not used if the fetus has a chance of surviving. When we discuss this procedure, we are talking about women who wanted to keep their child, women who made the decision to carry to term but cannot.

There is this thing in the law called precedent. What does and does not qualify as a health risk has already been set by precedent. Enumerating it exactly in the law would be very dangerous, as lawmakers (and even medical professionals) do not know every possible case that can occur. precedent is far over rated... thats the assumption that if one man sticks his head in the toliet.. the next man should in turn do the same thing.
Precedent when not compared to the law itself eventually warps into something far different than the law intended. To base law on precedent is to rise above the law... and above the Constitution... to add error upon error. Precedent should only be used as a reference, and the law or Constitution is what its compared to. Grade school game... wisper into the persons ear one time 5 word sentence. then they in turn pass it down... do it 6 times and see if its what you started with. That is precedence.

Thus your argument as health of the mother ad defined by precident is foolish... thats why a women drowns her 5 children one at a time... and its not called murder. Hmm.. seems to me... I don't want these "doctors" defining what health of the mother is... they don't even know what murder is.

But its clear that they are clueless... and then when Andrea Yates tries to committe suicide, they are so stupid they think she is getting worse and had a relaspe... DOH.. any sane person would kill themselves after doing what she did. So the only way to know she is cured, is when she kills herself. Best just execute her and be done with it. So much for precedence being reasonable


"Health of the mother" by medicine is defined by the medical community, not by individual "wacko" doctors. Try again. fantasy land, you have no historical data over time that would support this. All Data supports perversion of laws over time. Hence the need for the ban... hence the need to explain to people that marriage laws were based on Sodomy laws in place keeping it clear that marriage was between a man and women. Remove Sodomy laws... and now the laws must be redefined based on the, explaining that marriage recognized by the State is between one man of adult age and one women of adult age... whom Both concent to be married. Idiots make it difficult to just say married, so much for precedence being rational.


The post to which you were referring had nothing whatsoever to do with dilation and extraction. It had to do with the term pro-choice. One person used "pro-choice" to be equal to "pro-abortion". Upward Thrust pointed out that someone who is pro-choice is not pro-abortion, they are pro-reproductive choice. You compared that reasoning to Nazis, thus comparing all pro-choice individuals, regardless of their opinion of dilation and extraction to Nazis.

As you have yourself pointed out that you are pro-choice, you compared yourself to a Nazi. It isn't that hard to understand.

And as to the rest of your completely untrue rant, you forget that dilation and extraction procedures are not used if the fetus has a chance of surviving. When we discuss this procedure, we are talking about women who wanted to keep their child, women who made the decision to carry to term but cannot.

However, you do not see a difference between the two procedures, I do. Thus when you discuss pro-choice... and I discuss pro-choice... they have different meanings... the same hold true for Upward thrust, until he so chooses to seperate himself from the two views. Thus I can not be labled "pro-choice" because we have two very different views. Unless you wish to concede to my view... we do not have the same view.. thus we can't both be called by the same label.

And as to the rest of your completely untrue rant, you forget that dilation and extraction procedures are not used if the fetus has a chance of surviving. When we discuss this procedure, we are talking about women who wanted to keep their child, women who made the decision to carry to term but cannot.

Not true at all, this data has never been compiled. Nice words... but your free to post your source... your posting opinion as fact... back it up with a link.

And as to the rest of your completely untrue rant, you forget that dilation and extraction procedures are not used if the fetus has a chance of surviving. When we discuss this procedure, we are talking about women who wanted to keep their child, women who made the decision to carry to term but cannot.

It seems some people don't agree with you... further... the States and hosipitals were not required to collect the data that you just made claim to... which means its opinion. Of course... once again... you are free to post a link with the data.

But Dr. Haskell said in a tape recorded interview with the AMA’s American Medical News: “...and I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective (not medically necessary) in that 20-24 week range ... In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.” An article in the L.A. Times (8/28/96) listed some of the medical reasons for this type of abortion. They included cleft palates, cystic hygroma, (both easily corrected problems) and cystic fibrosis. The medical conditions present in the mother that warranted this type of abortion were, “depression, chicken pox, diabetes, vomiting ...” In other words, even those partial birth abortions that are done for the “health of the mother” or because of a “defective fetus” are often performed for minor, easily correctable conditions. Dr. C. Everett Coop, former U.S. Surgeon General, stated, “... in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can’t be a necessity for the baby.”

And as to the rest of your completely untrue rant, you forget that dilation and extraction procedures are not used if the fetus has a chance of surviving. When we discuss this procedure, we are talking about women who wanted to keep their child, women who made the decision to carry to term but cannot.

Seems even more people disagree with you...

Oh btw... So does the Law :)

"During congressional hearings on the procedure, Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina asked Dr. Courtland Robbins of Johns Hopkins University a question that really got to the heart of the matter. 'What's the difference,' the congressman asked, 'between a child that may be legally killed with its head still in the birth canal, and one who's just been born who has its head chopped off?' According to the Washington Times, 'the doctor tried to evade the question.' But 'when Mr. Inglis pressed him for an answer, he said it has to do with the attitude of the mother toward the fetus.'

precedent is far over rated... thats the assumption that if one man sticks his head in the toliet.. the next man should in turn do the same thing.
Precedent when not compared to the law itself eventually warps into something far different than the law intended. To base law on precedent is to rise above the law... and above the Constitution... to add error upon error.

You are opposed to the vast majority of the law then? After, all the vast majority of the law is based on common law and, yes, precedence.

Thus your argument as health of the mother ad defined by precident is foolish... thats why a women drowns her 5 children one at a time... and its not called murder. Hmm.. seems to me... I don't want these "doctors" defining what health of the mother is... they don't even know what murder is.

You really like making things up, don't you? The woman who drowned her children was accused of murder. It may have been dropped to some sort of manslaughter due to her mental state, but that is no different that what happens in quite a few cases every year with only adults involved.

fantasy land, you have no historical data over time that would support this.

No, I have the medical community which supports this. A single doctor doesn't decide what standard practice is - the community as a whole does. If a doctor goes outside that standard practice and something adverse happens, that doctor can be sued for malpractice and will lose, based on the fact that he went outside of medical protocol.

Have you ever been to a medical conference? It's really quite interesting to watch a *community* come up with the rules and regulations. It's kind of like the way our government works...

All Data supports perversion of laws over time.

This doesn't really make sense. And your rant afterwards proves that it is purely opinion, and a rather irrational opinion at that...

Hence the need for the ban...

You seem to be under the completely delusional impression that this law somehow bans all late-term abortions. It does not. Whether you use dilation and extraction or some other method, late-term abortions are still legal for the same reasons they have been for decades - extreme risks to the mother's health or life. All this ban would do, if it were to pass constitutional muster, is ban a specific type of procedure which may or may not be the best course of action for the particular woman involved.

However, you do not see a difference between the two procedures, I do.

On the contrary, I am very aware of the difference between a 1st-trimester abortion and a dilation and extraction. However, unlike you, I am also aware of the law already in place, which makes it very clear that elective abortions are only allowed prior to the third trimester in every state, and only allowed prior to the second trimester in all but two or three states.

Thus I can not be labled "pro-choice" because we have two very different views.

Actually, we have the same view. We have both laid it out more than once.

1st trimester abortions rare, but legal. 2nd trimester abortions performed only for the health or life of the mother. 3rd trimester abortions performed only if the mother's health or life are in extreme danger.

This is exactly the same view you posited.

Of course, even if it weren't, it wouldn't change the fact that you are pro-choice, by definition. While there are a tiny minority of people who think that abortion should be completely legal and unregulated throughout the entirety of the pregnancy, the vast majority of us think it should be regulated, especially at the later time points.

The only difference between our viewpoints is that I am aware of medical technology and the actual law, while you continue to rely on extreme anti-choice propoganda for your view of a particular medical procedure.

Meanwhile, just for your education, the only published study relating D&X to other abortion procedures that I can find on pubmed.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6W9P-4CDYKYJ-8-1&_cdi=6688&_user=655046&_orig=search&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2004&_qd=1&_sk=998099994&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkzk&md5=a6dfec93b8d6f79e5bccfcd3f350b8df&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

You are unlikely to be able to get to the study, so I'll quote a bit for you. First off, none of the procedures in this study (120 of them D&X) were performed for a "hangnail" or any equivalent. 12% were performed because the fetus was already dead. Another 28% were performed because of abnormal karyotype (gross chromosomal abnormalities). 17% were performed due to complications with the pregnancy. 39% due to structural abnormalities, which would include severe hydrocephalus.

66% of these women already had children from prior pregnancies.

There was no evidence at all that D&X was was any more dangerous to the mother than D&E (the procedure most commonly used in second trimester abortions). And I will quote the study:

Some have stated that intact dilation and extraction poses serious risks to the health of a woman beyond the risks associated with dilation and evacuation. Such putative risks include higher rates of cervical incompetence,
uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolism, and trauma to the uterus.6,7 We are not aware of any published data supporting these statements. In our patients, the overall rate of complications was comparable between those undergoing dilation and evacuation and intact D&X. No patient undergoing intact D&X experienced uterine rupture, amniotic fluid embolism, or required blood transfusion.

And I can tell you from personal experience that both the authors of a given paper and the editors of the journal do a thorough literature search before publication. In other words, the stuff you quoted earlier was made up - there isn't a peer-reviewed study out there to support it.

It seems some people don't agree with you... further... the States and hosipitals were not required to collect the data that you just made claim to... which means its opinion. Of course... once again... you are free to post a link with the data.

Actually, hospitals are required to collect all sorts of data on abortions - including the reason for abortion.

Meanwhile, the doctor you quoted just admitted to performing late-term elective abortions. In other words, he admitted to breaking the law. Do you really trust him?

Seems even more people disagree with you...

Oh btw... So does the Law

Frankly, I don't go to the law for medical information, I go to medical information. Would you go to a lawyer if you had pneumonia? Or would you go see a doctor?

The state of our lawmaker's knowledge on medicine and science, especially under the current administration, is a joke. There are senators out there claiming all sorts of outrageous things, like that embryonic stem cells are obtained from aborted fetuses. Do you really want to get your information from the woefully ignorant?

Ok dumb ass, once again I have to show you how ignorant you are.

I am against partial birth abortion... beings how you know that I said 1st trimester should be legal... as you pointed out... then are you so dense to not understand, that I have the ability to distingesh between the two procedures? I am against partial birth abortion...
So that just maybe there is an outside chance that I am only referring to the cases of Partial Birth on LIVING babies. That of course means babies that have a heart beat. That have a chance to live so long as you don’t jamb a scissors in the skull?


here is a chance to make your case.

When a child has a heart beat, when is it nessecary to jamb scissors into the brain of the child to save the mothers life?

Beings how this is all the ban is dealing with... BTW My wife had a C section... both my sisters... and 3 of my sister inlaws... no problem. So when is jambing scissors into the brain of the child who has a heart beat better than a C section?

I will answer it for you.

ONLY IF YOU WANT TO KILL THE CHILD.

So in the end, you want the option to kill the child so long as its embilical cord is attached.

First - you might want to watch the kind of behaviour that convinces you to call Dempublicents 'dumb ass'. You can't prove your assertion, it seems unlikely (considering ALL the experiences debating with her that I, and many others, can attest to).... and, of course, it is flaming.

And thus, forbidden under forum rules.

Second - you really need to check up on Partial Birth abortion... you seem to be arguing that it is (and was) an elective procedure.