NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm a man, I am also vehemently pro-life. I have debated the whole abortion issue thoroughly many times, and I actually understand (though disagree with) the "pro-choice" side of the debate. However, there is one argument I can't understand: how being a man means I can't have an opinion on abortion.

This seems to me to be a very sexist attitude, how does the presence of a Y chromosomes bar me from the debate. I do not hate life any more because I am a man, neither do I think that a uterus gives women a natural right to monopolise the issue.

If we look at the logic of the argument it goes a little like this :
No uterus = No right to an opinion
Uterus but never been pregnant = No right to an opinion
Have been pregnant but never had an abortion = No right to an opinion
Had an abortion, and pro-life = No right to an opinion, because you have had an abortion.

Being a man I can never experience pregnancy; however, pregnancy does not equate to having a special love for life. I could never hope to advise a woman on how to deal with pregnancy, but I am able to tell women that abortion is wrong because it is murder of an innocent baby. This fact is independent of whether I am male or female.

If I were to then start criticising the mentality of the woman in this situation I would understand the comments, but not as it stands.

I wonder, what are other men's opinions on the issues. I welcome any comments by women also.

You can have an opinion, and you obviously do.

But by not being a woman, and therefore, never really being able to feel the pain, and joys, of pregnancy, you're view may not be all that justified.

By not having a uterus, which I realise is not your fault, you won't exactly have to go through what the woman will go through if she were to have the baby. So technically, your view could be a little ignorant, could it not?

I'm a man, I am also vehemently pro-life. I have debated the whole abortion issue thoroughly many times, and I actually understand (though disagree with) the "pro-choice" side of the debate. However, there is one argument I can't understand: how being a man means I can't have an opinion on abortion.

This seems to me to be a very sexist attitude, how does the presence of a Y chromosomes bar me from the debate. I do not hate life any more because I am a man, neither do I think that a uterus gives women a natural right to monopolise the issue.

If we look at the logic of the argument it goes a little like this :
No uterus = No right to an opinion
Uterus but never been pregnant = No right to an opinion
Have been pregnant but never had an abortion = No right to an opinion
Had an abortion, and pro-life = No right to an opinion, because you have had an abortion.

Being a man I can never experience pregnancy; however, pregnancy does not equate to having a special love for life. I could never hope to advise a woman on how to deal with pregnancy, but I am able to tell women that abortion is wrong because it is murder of an innocent baby. This fact is independent of whether I am male or female.

If I were to then start criticising the mentality of the woman in this situation I would understand the comments, but not as it stands.

I wonder, what are other men's opinions on the issues. I welcome any comments by women also.

People will do anything to stop others from voicing criticism. Nothing special about this one. Everybody has a right to say what they think, provided they respect other people.

I'm a man, I am also vehemently pro-life. I have debated the whole abortion issue thoroughly many times, and I actually understand (though disagree with) the "pro-choice" side of the debate. However, there is one argument I can't understand: how being a man means I can't have an opinion on abortion.

This seems to me to be a very sexist attitude, how does the presence of a Y chromosomes bar me from the debate. I do not hate life any more because I am a man, neither do I think that a uterus gives women a natural right to monopolise the issue.

If we look at the logic of the argument it goes a little like this :
No uterus = No right to an opinion
Uterus but never been pregnant = No right to an opinion
Have been pregnant but never had an abortion = No right to an opinion
Had an abortion, and pro-life = No right to an opinion, because you have had an abortion.

Being a man I can never experience pregnancy; however, pregnancy does not equate to having a special love for life. I could never hope to advise a woman on how to deal with pregnancy, but I am able to tell women that abortion is wrong because it is murder of an innocent baby. This fact is independent of whether I am male or female.

If I were to then start criticising the mentality of the woman in this situation I would understand the comments, but not as it stands.

I wonder, what are other men's opinions on the issues. I welcome any comments by women also.

You shouldn't be able to tell women that having an abortion is wrong. It's her body and not yours.

I've known a few women who have had abortions and I wouldn't have dreamed of telling them to not have it done. I just asked them to make sure they know what they are doing before having it done. Other than that it's best to just shut up about it and let them do what they wish to do. It isn't about RELIGION or anything else.

You shouldn't be able to tell women that having an abortion is wrong. It's her body and not yours.

I've known a few women who have had abortions and I wouldn't have dreamed of telling them to not have it done. I just asked them to make sure they know what they are doing before having it done. Other than that it's best to just shut up about it and let them do what they wish to do. It isn't about RELIGION or anything else.

Same as what I would do. I would tell them what I think - also my religion, but ultimately the decision is theirs'.

Same as what I would do. I would tell them what I think - also my religion, but ultimately the decision is theirs'.


^_^ nice to find another rational person about this issue for a change.

"It" is not her body, an abortion is an operation on an other human person, and this baby, or foetus/embryo/zygote, is not a part of her body.

The reason I think that abortion is wrong actually has nothing to do with my religion, I would think it was abomnible even if I weren't Catholic. It is about ending the life of another human person. It's not about choice, or the rights of a woman over her body.

^_^ nice to find another rational person about this issue for a change.

Well, you can't do anything to stop her having the abortion without doing something illegal, can you? Well, abortions are still illegal in Hong Kong, but yeah.

Ultimately those women will have to face God. I won't pass judgement.

It's using her body to survive. Technically, it's a parasite, so it *is* part of her body.

Never mind the fact it isn't actually alive when they abort it.

I'm a man, I am also vehemently pro-life. I have debated the whole abortion issue thoroughly many times, and I actually understand (though disagree with) the "pro-choice" side of the debate. However, there is one argument I can't understand: how being a man means I can't have an opinion on abortion.
While I often hear it said that 'being a man means you cannot have an opinion', I don't thins quite what is meant. Anybody can have an opinion on something and talk about it and such.
I believe that what is really meant is something more like 'being a man means you should not be able to decide for a woman what to do with their uterus'.
But that still isn't quite accurate. I don't like the inverse of that, saying "being a woman means you do have the right to tell others what to do".

If I said something like the statement you were originally complaining about, it would be an accidental oversimplification of something more like this:
"No person should have the right to force another into doing something without their consent. Also, any person with a body part should have the ability to use that body part as they see fit, as long as they are not intruding on another's right to do so. Because of this, each owner of a uterus should be able to decide what it is that they do with their own uterus, and nobody else's."

Just like the Germans before the second world war thought the Jews were parasites of the German state, which in a technical sense they could have been.
And, pray tell, how is the baby not alive when it is aborted?

It's using her body to survive. Technically, it's a parasite, so it *is* part of her body.

Never mind the fact it isn't actually alive when they abort it.
What he said.

You're welcome to an opinion, all you want, but I believe that it is ultimately up to the woman as to the fate of the fetus. As I said in another thread, my girlfriend and I are pro-choice, and decided before we ever began any phyiscal intimacies that should she conceive (we don't want children, ever), despite precautions taken, she would abort. However, should she change her mind, I would support her decision, and the future of the child, should she decide to keep it.

Just like the Germans before the second world war thought the Jews were parasites of the German state, which in a technical sense they could have been.
And, pray tell, how is the baby not alive when it is aborted?

1: Oh, how original. Comparing abortion to the Holocaust! That will definitely earn you some respect around here :rolleyes:.

2: Brainwaves.

;) I don't have a penis. Does this mean I should be able to tell a man he must be castrated to cut down on the overpopulation problem?

;) I don't have a penis. Does this mean I should be able to tell a man he must be castrated to cut down on the overpopulation problem?

Not unless you're a feminazi :p.

everyone has an opinion. its hard to NOT have one eh?

having an opinion doesnt mean you have a say. *I* have a uterus but that doesnt give me any right to tell another woman what to do when she is faced with the prospect of having an abortion. thats for her to decide.

if you look at the range of opinions here on NS-general youll see that way too many men think that a woman should have to pass some kind of worthiness test in order to have an abortion. her morals must be pure, her reasons impeccable. this kind of opinion is so annoying that it leads to people saying silly things like "men have no right to have an opinion on abortion"

Not unless you're a feminazi :p.


Nope. I happen to like males (generally speaking) and think that they are a necessary part of society. ;)

1: Oh, how original. Comparing abortion to the Holocaust! That will definitely earn you some respect around here :rolleyes:.

2: Brainwaves.

1. Sometimes the old arguments are the best

2. I love how people like to arrive at a definition of alive through very inventive means. I challenge you, a plant has no brainwaves is it alive? I borroow the definition of life from science anything that exhibits these qualities is alive:

Movement
Respiration
Sensitivity
Feeding
Reproduction
Excretion
Growth

And even an embryo does all of these things, ask any scientist and they will categorically state an embryo is alive.

"It" is not her body, an abortion is an operation on an other human person, and this baby, or foetus/embryo/zygote, is not a part of her body.

The reason I think that abortion is wrong actually has nothing to do with my religion, I would think it was abomnible even if I weren't Catholic. It is about ending the life of another human person. It's not about choice, or the rights of a woman over her body.


What defines a human person? I mean is life CREATED as soon as you have sex or what? Or is it created if you just think about having sex? Tell me as I would just love to know.

;) I don't have a penis. Does this mean I should be able to tell a man he must be castrated to cut down on the overpopulation problem?


:D ummm no.. but maybe then again.. only in countries that are overpopulated :D *runs and goes into seclusion*

NVay, it's not alive in the human sense of the word, that is, self-aware, at least at the time of nearly all abortions. Yes, plants are alive, but at the level abortion occurs at, it's not yet human, imo, just a mass of cells on their way to becoming such.

Also, I believe Godwin's Law is now in effect.

What defines a human person? I mean is life CREATED as soon as you have sex or what? Or is it created if you just think about having sex? Tell me as I would just love to know.

I get the feeling I am entering a philosophical trap, but life is created the moment the sperm enters the zona pellucida of the ovum and the nuclei fuse.

1. Sometimes the old arguments are the best

2. I love how people like to arrive at a definition of alive through very inventive means. I challenge you, a plant has no brainwaves is it alive? I borroow the definition of life from science anything that exhibits these qualities is alive:

Movement
Respiration
Sensitivity
Feeding
Reproduction
Excretion
Growth

And even an embryo does all of these things, ask any scientist and they will categorically state an embryo is alive.

Please don't use Mrs Freg as definition of life, it is far too simplistic.

Everyone has a right to an opinion on abortion, like everyone has a right to an opinion on war or murder or capital punishment. It's not a question of telling women what to do with their own bodies, it's a moral and ethical issue, which means EVERYONE can (and should) be involved in deciding how to act.

1. Sometimes the old arguments are the best

2. I love how people like to arrive at a definition of alive through very inventive means. I challenge you, a plant has no brainwaves is it alive? I borroow the definition of life from science anything that exhibits these qualities is alive:

Movement
Respiration
Sensitivity
Feeding
Reproduction
Excretion
Growth

And even an embryo does all of these things, ask any scientist and they will categorically state an embryo is alive.

1: Using nothing but old arguments makes you look quite uninformed... Which you are.

2: It is true that plants are alive, but not in the human sense, as was said before. Since you're comparing human embryos to plants...

...Wouldn't that make it HIGHLY "immoral" and "wrong" to even mow your lawn? I'd really love to hear your response. Hahahaha.

I get the feeling I am entering a philosophical trap, but life is created the moment the sperm enters the zona pellucida of the ovum and the nuclei fuse.

It doesn't matter whether there is life at any stage. The important thing is that the embryo will GROW into a solid one with time. Having an abortion is robbing this potential life to enjoy the things you enjoyed.

I get the feeling I am entering a philosophical trap, but life is created the moment the sperm enters the zona pellucida of the ovum and the nuclei fuse.


I wouldn't be so crass as to do something like that. I just wanted your definition is all.

Just like the Germans before the second world war thought the Jews were parasites of the German state, which in a technical sense they could have been.
Godwin's Law. You lose the debate.

And, pray tell, how is the baby not alive when it is aborted?
Embryos do not meet two of the 5 requirements of life. As soon as I can scrounge up my notes from bio, so many years ago, I'll inform you exactly which ones.

NVay, it's not alive in the human sense of the word, that is, self-aware, at least at the time of nearly all abortions. Yes, plants are alive, but at the level abortion occurs at, it's not yet human, imo, just a mass of cells on their way to becoming such.

There are three points about abortion, the first two of which are certain and thus any person who argues them is being facile. Is the embryo:
1. Alive- yes, asI previously said, it fulfils the scientific criteria necessary for life.
2. Human - yes, its DNA and physiological growth patterns are in accordance with Homo sapiens.
3. Person- that is to be debated.

1. Alive- yes, asI previously said, it fulfils the scientific criteria necessary for life.

No, it isn't. It misses the same criteria that virii do.

1: Using nothing but old arguments makes you look quite uninformed... Which you are.

2: It is true that plants are alive, but not in the human sense, as was said before. Since you're comparing human embryos to plants...

...Wouldn't that make it HIGHLY "immoral" and "wrong" to even mow your lawn? I'd really love to hear your response. Hahahaha.

I love the last few lines about the grass. Do I have to feel bad about mowing the lawn the other night as grass grows from the top up?

It doesn't matter whether there is life at any stage. The important thing is that the embryo will GROW into a solid one with time. Having an abortion is robbing this potential life to enjoy the things you enjoyed.

You might want to drop the 'will' part of the grow thing. There is still a probability of miscarriages, stillbirths and complications which will terminate the pregnancy.

Pregnancy does not automatically mean a living individual after all.

How these threads go:
1 - semi to reasonable main post
2 - kind rebuttals, including one sarcastic one
3 - hitler reference
4a - joking and flirting
4b - Commando references
5a - more indepth joking - ie. recipies
5b - complete flamewar.


we are at 4a now.

No, it isn't. It misses the same criteria that virii do.
You mean the inability to reproduce without a host?

How these threads go:
1 - semi to reasonable main post
2 - kind rebuttals, including one sarcastic one
3 - hitler reference
4a - joking and flirting
4b - Commando references
5a - more indepth joking - ie. recipies
5b - complete flamewar.


we are at 4a now.

I'm out there, Jerry, and I'm loving every minute of it!

>.>

2: It is true that plants are alive, but not in the human sense, as was said before. Since you're comparing human embryos to plants...

...Wouldn't that make it HIGHLY "immoral" and "wrong" to even mow your lawn? I'd really love to hear your response. Hahahaha.

For something to be accorded the rights of a human, I believe that it needs to be: alive, and human. The issue of sentience is also there, and since plants do not fulfil the criterion of "human" there is a different ethos attached.

How these threads go:
1 - semi to reasonable main post
2 - kind rebuttals, including one sarcastic one
3 - hitler reference
4a - joking and flirting
4b - Commando references
5a - more indepth joking - ie. recipies
5b - complete flamewar.


we are at 4a now.


They all do seem to follow what you have outlined which is very sad in a way.

This is how I look at it: All people have the right to an opinion on any issue, period.

The value of that opinion depends on how it is constructed, and how it is recieved.

plants do not fulfil the criterion of "human"

Neither do embryos.

I agree with you that sometimes pro-choice individuals do not give any respect to pro-life arguments made by men. The truth is, however, that both sides of the debate do not give much respect to the other side. You then make a straw man out of pro-choice individuals by saying that they do not allow men, women who have not been pregnant, or even women who have not had an abortion to have an opinion on the issue. I think the real problem is that pro-choice individuals use the lack of a uterus in men as an ad-hominem argument to take away the credibility of pro-choice arguments made by men. Truthfully, though, pro-life individuals would use that tactic as well if it were available to them.

Neither do embryos.

I suggest you read one of my previous posts. Since embryos have DNA in accordance with Homo sapiens and follow the growth stages as susual, they are human. Whether they are persons or not is a matter to be debated.

You might want to drop the 'will' part of the grow thing. There is still a probability of miscarriages, stillbirths and complications which will terminate the pregnancy.

Pregnancy does not automatically mean a living individual after all.

Yeah. A life had gone through all that trouble to come, and now we're going to add to the problems this life is going to face. Great.

You mean the inability to reproduce without a host?
I mean the inability to do anything without a host.

I was wrong about embyros violating the same criteria as virii. They overlap, but do not share the exact same things.

Virii are not life because:
They don't have cells.
They cannot exist on their own.

Embryos are not life because:
They cannot exist on their own.
They have no mechanism for reproduction. (Sperm and eggs do not develop until much later.)

It's using her body to survive. Technically, it's a parasite, so it *is* part of her body.

Never mind the fact it isn't actually alive when they abort it.
Lol, parasite? C'mon. I hope your not serious, don't you know about symbiotic relationships? If a fetus was a parasite, it would be harming the mother.

Neither do embryos.


See that is the problem. Some people are going to scream and say WELL YES THEY DO! While others are going to say NO THEY DON'T!

You have two vasty different opinions that I'm afraid are never going to change. It doesn't matter what the science says to them or doesn't say to them. People just do not want to listen. They close their minds and ears and stick to their original ideas no matter what. And that is truly a crime.

I suggest you read one of my previous posts. Since embryos have DNA in accordance with Homo sapiens and follow the growth stages as susual, they are human. Whether they are persons or not is a matter to be debated.
Then your cells are human. Is scratching yourself wrong then? You kill millions of cells everytime you do that.

I mean the inability to do anything without a host.

I was wrong about embyros violating the same criteria as virii. They overlap, but do not share the exact same things.

Virii are not life because:
They don't have cells.
They cannot exist on their own.

Embryos are not life because:
They cannot exist on their own.
They have no mechanism for reproduction. (Sperm and eggs do not develop until much later.)

I would disagree with that as embryos can exist outside of the uterus, and they reproduce through mitosis, even though it is only usually for growth. And dear I say, monozygotic twins?

How these threads go:
1 - semi to reasonable main post
2 - kind rebuttals, including one sarcastic one
3 - hitler reference
4a - joking and flirting
4b - Commando references
5a - more indepth joking - ie. recipies
5b - complete flamewar.


we are at 4a now.

That is so true it's creepy.

Embryos cannot survive outside of the uterus without human intervention.

Lol, parasite? C'mon. I hope your not serious, don't you know about symbiotic relationships? If a fetus was a parasite, it would be harming the mother.
Parasites don't necessarily harm the host. Parasitism includes symbiotic and commensual relationships.

The fetus does harm the mother. It'd be insane to say that it doesn't.

"It" is not her body, an abortion is an operation on an other human person, and this baby, or foetus/embryo/zygote, is not a part of her body.

The reason I think that abortion is wrong actually has nothing to do with my religion, I would think it was abomnible even if I weren't Catholic. It is about ending the life of another human person. It's not about choice, or the rights of a woman over her body.

Just a quick question: Do you agree with the termination of a pregnancy if continuance to full term places the mother, child or both in significant and otherwise unavoidable danger, despite the stipulations of your religion?

And my view on abortion depends upon the circumstances. And I definitely think that men should have an opinion on abortion. Not only because I am a man, but also because it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, and although the child will develop inside the woman, it is as much part of the man as the woman; and as such I feel that the father of the child should definitely have a say in whether the pregnancy is terminated or not, and I feel that all people have the right to an opinion in all matters, regardless of race, religion, colour, sex or sexuality: it helps to create an equal and fair society.

Then your cells are human. Is scratching yourself wrong then? You kill millions of cells everytime you do that.

That statement is, at first quite daunting, maybe I need to inject some reality. If a single cell is the entirety of the organism (a zygote) then to kill it is wrong, if the organism is multicelluar and sentient (me) and I choose to remove parts of my own body (and the foetus is not a part of the mother's body, before people start objecting) it is not wrong depending on the reason for doing it.

That statement is, at first quite daunting, maybe I need to inject some reality. If a single cell is the entirety of the organism (a zygote) then to kill it is wrong,
Then living is wrong, as you kill millions upon millions of single-celled organisms just by existing.

That statement is, at first quite daunting, maybe I need to inject some reality. If a single cell is the entirety of the organism (a zygote) then to kill it is wrong, if the organism is multicelluar and sentient (me) and I choose to remove parts of my own body (and the foetus is not a part of the mother's body, before people start objecting) it is not wrong depending on the reason for doing it.

It is IN her body. If she has a tumor, which is also multicellular and of human DNA, and does reproduce itself -- would she then be barred from removing that as well?

[...]I definitely think that men should have an opinion on abortion. Not only because I am a man, but also because it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, and although the child will develop inside the woman, it is as much part of the man as the woman; and as such I feel that the father of the child should definitely have a say in whether the pregnancy is terminated or not, and I feel that all people have the right to an opinion in all matters, regardless of race, religion, colour, sex or sexuality: it helps to create an equal and fair society.

I could not possibly agree more


Just a quick question: Do you agree with the termination of a pregnancy if continuance to full term places the mother, child or both in significant and otherwise unavoidable danger, despite the stipulations of your religion?.

I abide wholeheartedly with the doctrine of the Church, and agree with it. Thus abortions are always wrong, although since all life is of equal value the mother can have an operation to save herself, whose nature is not murder thus is not abortion, and it is not immoral. (Dependent on the intentions of those involved.)

It is IN her body. If she has a tumor, which is also multicellular and of human DNA, and does reproduce itself -- would she then be barred from removing that as well?
To block him from making an absurd argument, the tumor has different DNA than the host.

That statement is, at first quite daunting, maybe I need to inject some reality. If a single cell is the entirety of the organism (a zygote) then to kill it is wrong, if the organism is multicelluar and sentient (me) and I choose to remove parts of my own body (and the foetus is not a part of the mother's body, before people start objecting) it is not wrong depending on the reason for doing it.


If you take that approach then YES a woman does have the right to have an abortion as the egg used to create the Fetus was hers and hers alone.

Parasites don't necessarily harm the host. Parasitism includes symbiotic and commensual relationships.

The fetus does harm the mother. It'd be insane to say that it doesn't.How does a fetus harm the mother?

If you take that approach then YES a woman does have the right to have an abortion as the egg used to create the Fetus was hers and hers alone.

Indubitably, but the foetus is more than an ovum. If it were simply an ovum a different situation would be created.

I'm a man, I am also vehemently pro-life. I have debated the whole abortion issue thoroughly many times, and I actually understand (though disagree with) the "pro-choice" side of the debate. However, there is one argument I can't understand: how being a man means I can't have an opinion on abortion.

...because you don't have to live with the consequences of an accidental conception?

;) Answer in a nutshell...

How does a fetus harm the mother?
By taking nutrients. By inflicting massive cellular damage via growth. By horrifically weakening the mother's immune system. A fetus is almost as bad as a tapeworm.

...because you don't have to live with the consequences of an accidental conception?

;) Answer in a nutshell...

I thank you for returning the thread to the original purpose, and apoligise because I have been instrumental in it changing.

In answer, may I remind you that pregnancy is 9 months out of a lifetime of the baby's, and it is not the only moral or legal consequence to conception.

Just a quick question: Do you agree with the termination of a pregnancy if continuance to full term places the mother, child or both in significant and otherwise unavoidable danger, despite the stipulations of your religion?

And my view on abortion depends upon the circumstances. And I definitely think that men should have an opinion on abortion. Not only because I am a man, but also because it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, and although the child will develop inside the woman, it is as much part of the man as the woman; and as such I feel that the father of the child should definitely have a say in whether the pregnancy is terminated or not, and I feel that all people have the right to an opinion in all matters, regardless of race, religion, colour, sex or sexuality: it helps to create an equal and fair society.

and what kind of danger are you talking about?

Indubitably, but the foetus is more than an ovum. If it were simply an ovum a different situation would be created.
So the mother can't remove it because it contains a sperm? Is the mother a killer because of the millions of sperm that her body kills after the semen is released into her body?

2. I love how people like to arrive at a definition of alive through very inventive means. I challenge you, a plant has no brainwaves is it alive? I borroow the definition of life from science anything that exhibits these qualities is alive:

Movement
Respiration
Sensitivity
Feeding
Reproduction
Excretion
Growth

And even an embryo does all of these things, ask any scientist and they will categorically state an embryo is alive.
Well, the problem here is that we kill many things which are alive every day. Some of which we do merely because of our own wants, i.e., wiping out bacteria in cases of minor colds, killing animals for food, and such. Heck, even plants are alive by that definition. To not end life, we would have to not eat.

That definition of life, while accurate, doesn't make is so that that definition of life means that life should not be ended.

Personally, I think that when one says "A fetus is not alive", they often mean to say "A fetus is not a human life". But that still isn't accurate, as it is human and may fit the definition of alive, and 'human life' is a vague term.
It would make more sense to say something like "A fetus is not sapient, and therefore has no more rights than any other non-sapient object." Of course, that's a big oversimplification, as a fetus does become sapient at a certain point, and then it becomes a battle over whose rights outweigh one another.

and what kind of danger are you talking about?
I guess women never die as a result of pregnancy in your world.

So the mother can't remove it because it contains a sperm? Is the mother a killer because of the millions of sperm that her body kills after the semen is released into her body?

Do I really have to constantly repeat myself, I don't mean to get angry but the answer that I would give to this has already been said, at least twice. So I will not waste my time by repeating them, I suggest you keep up with the posts.

By taking nutrients. By inflicting massive cellular damage via growth. By horrifically weakening the mother's immune system. A fetus is almost as bad as a tapeworm.Lol, ok, let me ask you something, are you a female? Are you a mother? I asked my mom about this, she agrees with what I said.

Do I really have to constantly repeat myself, I don't mean to get angry but the answer that I would give to this has already been said, at least twice. So I will not waste my time by repeating them, I suggest you keep up with the posts.
I've read every post in the thead. I haven't seen anything dealing with what I said. I apologize if I missed it. It's considered good if you link to the post in which you said it, however. It's a precaution that I've learned to use after multiple instances of people claiming to have answered a question to get out of actually answering it.

I abide wholeheartedly with the doctrine of the Church, and agree with it. Thus abortions are always wrong, although since all life is of equal value the mother can have an operation to save herself, whose nature is not murder thus is not abortion, and it is not immoral. (Dependent on the intentions of those involved.)

Most admirable.

Another question: If a pregnant woman found out that she had contracted the HIV/AIDS virus, do you think it is wrong for her to terminate her pregnancy to save her unborn child from inheriting the disease - saying, for arguement's sake, that the inheritance of the disease is definite and inevitable? Is this right or wrong in your eyes?

I understand that you follow the Church's teachings, and agree and believe in your religion's views, but surely you feel it is wrong for a woman to be denied an abortion that would save her life due to her religion and the religion of the surgeons and doctors that would perform the operation?

Lol, ok, let me ask you something, are you a female? Are you a mother? I asked my mom about this, she agrees with what I said.
I am not a female. I do, however, have access to several doctors, all of them female, and multiple texts that deal with pregnancy. All of them agree with me. I know what I'm talking about.

I a woman with a uterus....and Pro-choice. I believe it is the choice of the woman carrying the fetus to have an abortion. As i would never have one myself.
This argument over is it alive? Of course it is. The *parasite* issue, Please it is connected to the womans body by a cord connected to the plecenta which is feeding it...the uterus gives it life.

Men are allowed to their opinion yes, but they should not beable to tell us we can't have one. If one of us was brutally raped, or the doctor came to us and said its a danger to carry this fetus and it should be terminated...This would NOT be the time to say no you can't its wrong.

Opinions are fine as long as they stay opinions!
TC

I keep hearing in these threads that "you don't have the right to tell someone else what they are doing is wrong". What a bunch of garbage. You can tell a woman she's wrong for having an abortion, and that she's going to hell. I'll say you're a misguided asshole, but in the USA we have this pesky thing called the first amendment that allows for speech that other people don't like.

What you CAN'T do is stop her from having that abortion you don't agree with. I sincerly hope that this is what people mean when they make comments about 'telling other people something is wrong'. If not... just damn.

Well, the problem here is that we kill many things which are alive every day. Some of which we do merely because of our own wants, i.e., wiping out bacteria in cases of minor colds, killing animals for food, and such. Heck, even plants are alive by that definition. To not end life, we would have to not eat.

That definition of life, while accurate, doesn't make is so that that definition of life means that life should not be ended.

Personally, I think that when one says "A fetus is not alive", they often mean to say "A fetus is not a human life". But that still isn't accurate, as it is human and may fit the definition of alive, and 'human life' is a vague term.
It would make more sense to say something like "A fetus is not sapient, and therefore has no more rights than any other non-sapient object." Of course, that's a big oversimplification, as a fetus does become sapient at a certain point, and then it becomes a battle over whose rights outweigh one another.

I again direct you to read my previous posts, but I do say this.

I cannot categorically states what makes a human person, but I would not dare refuse this title to anything that was both: human, and alive. An embryo is an organism in its totality, human and alive, is it a person? I don't know. Am I? I don't know. But I won't deny the rights of a person to either me or an embryo.

and what kind of danger are you talking about?

I guess women never die as a result of pregnancy in your world.
Brava.

Danger for example an ectopic pregnancy, where the mother and child are placed at significant risk if the pregnancy continues to full term.

Most admirable.

Another question: If a pregnant woman found out that she had contracted the HIV/AIDS virus, do you think it is wrong for her to terminate her pregnancy to save her unborn child from inheriting the disease - saying, for arguement's sake, that the inheritance of the disease is definite and inevitable? Is this right or wrong in your eyes?

I understand that you follow the Church's teachings, and agree and believe in your religion's views, but surely you feel it is wrong for a woman to be denied an abortion that would save her life due to her religion and the religion of the surgeons and doctors that would perform the operation?

Your baby won't get infected if you have HIV/Aids.

Well, only if you do it the 'natural way', you know squeeze the baby out.

If you have a c-section however, the baby won't get HIV. But you also can't breastfeed it.

But you do have a point.

(100th post, somebody hug me)

But I won't deny the rights of a person to either me or an embryo.

Yet you would deny the right of self-determination to a woman who does not wish to carry a pregnancy to term. In other words, your opinion trumps her right to her own body.

murder of an innocent baby is wrong, but abortion is performed when the 'baby' is only a foetus and is not exactly a living thing yet. therefore is it murder when getting rid of something incomplete and not exactly living? murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a living human.

I keep hearing in these threads that "you don't have the right to tell someone else what they are doing is wrong". What a bunch of garbage. You can tell a woman she's wrong for having an abortion, and that she's going to hell. I'll say you're a misguided asshole, but in the USA we have this pesky thing called the first amendment that allows for speech that other people don't like.

What you CAN'T do is stop her from having that abortion you don't agree with. I sincerly hope that this is what people mean when they make comments about 'telling other people something is wrong'. If not... just damn.

I desire to prevent abortions by imprisoning those who carry them out, criminalising the procedure, and educating all peopel to the value of life. What I ahte is how the abortion issue has been hijacked by the feminist lobby, so if I am pro-lifeI am suddenly a sexist. Because apparently, having the ability to murders young babies is a right of all women.

Your baby won't get infected if you have HIV/Aids.

Well, only if you do it the 'natural way', you know squeeze the baby out.

If you have a c-section however, the baby won't get HIV. But you also can't breastfeed it.

But you do have a point.

(100th post, somebody hug me)
The fetus will contract HIV if the mother carries it. The bloodstreams of the mother and the fetus are interconnected. To claim otherwise is incorrect, and extremely dangerous.

I desire to prevent abortions by imprisoning those who carry them out, criminalising the procedure, and educating all peopel to the value of life. What I ahte is how the abortion issue has been hijacked by the feminist lobby, so if I am pro-lifeI am suddenly a sexist. Because apparently, having the ability to murders young babies is a right of all women.

Nice -- all people who disagree with you have no right to disagree, and are immediately labeled.
Nice appeal to emotion as well.
This is why you run into the attitude of "you have no right to comment'.

Most admirable.

Another question: If a pregnant woman found out that she had contracted the HIV/AIDS virus, do you think it is wrong for her to terminate her pregnancy to save her unborn child from inheriting the disease - saying, for arguement's sake, that the inheritance of the disease is definite and inevitable? Is this right or wrong in your eyes?

I understand that you follow the Church's teachings, and agree and believe in your religion's views, but surely you feel it is wrong for a woman to be denied an abortion that would save her life due to her religion and the religion of the surgeons and doctors that would perform the operation?

An abortion wouldn't save the life of anyone, at all. It would kill the baby years before it would die with AIDS (if it actually contracted AIDS which is not guaranteed) and the woman would be in no better dtate.

These are not the teachings of my religion, maybe I myself was misleading by saying that, they are the decrees of God relayed by His Church, if a woman disobeys them she disobeys the word of God. If the surgeons and doctors disobbey them, they also disobey the word of God.

The fetus will contract HIV if the mother carries it. The bloodstreams of the mother and the fetus are interconnected. To claim otherwise is incorrect, and extremely dangerous.

Nuhuh, or at least, I learnt differently in Bio.

Maybe my mind is so warped because of the holidays.

Or maybe my bio teacher's just a bit squiffy in the head. I mean she does tell her son, who's seven, that he was an accident and he was a very good swimmer.

I desire to prevent abortions by imprisoning those who carry them out, criminalising the procedure, and educating all peopel to the value of life. What I ahte is how the abortion issue has been hijacked by the feminist lobby, so if I am pro-lifeI am suddenly a sexist. Because apparently, having the ability to murders young babies is a right of all women.

That won't work though. People WILL perform them illegally, and it will be much more harmfull and dangerous. Eventually people will resort to giving abortions to themslves, and killing themselves AND the baby. You'd be even WORSE off.

Your baby won't get infected if you have HIV/Aids.

Well, only if you do it the 'natural way', you know squeeze the baby out.

If you have a c-section however, the baby won't get HIV. But you also can't breastfeed it.

But you do have a point.

(100th post, somebody hug me)


*virtual hug* Because you asked nicely. Also I'm not sure about the baby not getting HIV. I mean.. look at women that are on crack. Their babies are born addicted to it. It maybe the same for HIV but I'm not a doctor.

An abortion wouldn't save the life of anyone, at all. It would kill the baby years before it would die with AIDS (if it actually contracted AIDS which is not guaranteed) and the woman would be in no better dtate.

It is guaranteed that the fetus would contract HIV. The bloodstreams are fucking interconnected.

Your baby won't get infected if you have HIV/Aids.

Well, only if you do it the 'natural way', you know squeeze the baby out.

If you have a c-section however, the baby won't get HIV. But you also can't breastfeed it.

But you do have a point.

(100th post, somebody hug me)


Breastfeeding it ...your body has been feeding it thru the plecenta for 9 months....it has been digesting your meds for HIV...it has a great chance of having HIV. Don't you think it has come in contact with your fluids already?

BTW...Congratz on your 100th
TC

The fetus will contract HIV if the mother carries it. The bloodstreams of the mother and the fetus are interconnected. To claim otherwise is incorrect, and extremely dangerous.

Maternal and foetal blood supplys are kept seperate, there is an exchange of nutrients/waste products in the placenta, there has been no recorded instance of HIV being transmitted this way.


Nice -- all people who disagree with you have no right to disagree, and are immediately labeled.
Nice appeal to emotion as well.
This is why you run into the attitude of "you have no right to comment'.

People have a right to disagree, of course they do. they have a right to comment, but not to encourage murder.

Maternal and foetal blood supplys are kept seperate, there is an exchange of nutrients/waste products in the placenta, there has been no recorded instance of HIV being transmitted this way.

Source?

Yet you would deny the right of self-determination to a woman who does not wish to carry a pregnancy to term. In other words, your opinion trumps her right to her own body.

Just because this post deserves to be quoted.

Yet you would deny the right of self-determination to a woman who does not wish to carry a pregnancy to term. In other words, your opinion trumps her right to her own body..

Yet you would deny the right of self-determination to a foetus, who has no voice and no legal rights. In other words, your opinion trumps their right to life...

Yet you would deny the right of self-determination to a foetus, who has no voice and no legal rights. In other words, your opinion trumps their right to life...

Your assuming that the fetus is actually alive. Do you consider a nonsentient life form that is dependant soley on the organism it lives in to be a human?

Yet you would deny the right of self-determination to a foetus, who has no voice and no legal rights. In other words, your opinion trumps their right to life...
Just because this post deserves to be quoted.

Maternal and foetal blood supplys are kept seperate, there is an exchange of nutrients/waste products in the placenta, there has been no recorded instance of HIV being transmitted this way.


So all those babies born with HIV were shooting up in the womb or engaging in unprotected foetal sex?

Yet you would deny the right of self-determination to a foetus, who has no voice and no legal rights. In other words, your opinion trumps their right to life...

It's called an interest in conflict.
Can you force anybody to give you one of his/her kidneys, as you might die otherwise? No. The person's denial to give a part of her body to you in order to keep you alive is not considered murder.
So, what right does that feotus have to grow inside the body of a woman who doesn't consent to that?

Just because this post deserves to be quoted.

:rolleyes: I'm famous....

So all those babies born with HIV were shooting up in the womb or engaging in unprotected foetal sex?

Nono...

I can't believe I just said that, you're obviously being sarcastic.

Babies born with HIV, were squeezed out of the womb, and weren't given any precautions to make sure the mother's and the baby's blood didn't mix.

I think this is when you cut the umbilical chord, though I can't be too sure.

Your assuming that the fetus is actually alive. Do you consider a nonsentient life form that is dependant soley on the organism it lives in to be a human?

Banging my head against a wall again:
2. I love how people like to arrive at a definition of alive through very inventive means. I challenge you, a plant has no brainwaves is it alive? I borroow the definition of life from science anything that exhibits these qualities is alive:

Movement
Respiration
Sensitivity
Feeding
Reproduction
Excretion
Growth

And even an embryo does all of these things, ask any scientist and they will categorically state an embryo is alive.

I'm a man, I am also vehemently pro-life. I have debated the whole abortion issue thoroughly many times, and I actually understand (though disagree with) the "pro-choice" side of the debate. However, there is one argument I can't understand: how being a man means I can't have an opinion on abortion.

This seems to me to be a very sexist attitude, how does the presence of a Y chromosomes bar me from the debate. I do not hate life any more because I am a man, neither do I think that a uterus gives women a natural right to monopolise the issue.

If we look at the logic of the argument it goes a little like this :
No uterus = No right to an opinion
Uterus but never been pregnant = No right to an opinion
Have been pregnant but never had an abortion = No right to an opinion
Had an abortion, and pro-life = No right to an opinion, because you have had an abortion.

Being a man I can never experience pregnancy; however, pregnancy does not equate to having a special love for life. I could never hope to advise a woman on how to deal with pregnancy, but I am able to tell women that abortion is wrong because it is murder of an innocent baby. This fact is independent of whether I am male or female.

If I were to then start criticising the mentality of the woman in this situation I would understand the comments, but not as it stands.

I wonder, what are other men's opinions on the issues. I welcome any comments by women also.


Well, being a sterile woman (unable to bear children) I still have the perspective of a woman on this issue, and I say to all men everywhere...maybe your opinion would be different if it was YOUR BODY that was affected by the pregnancy. Maybe your opinion would be different if YOU were the one that got left holding the bag while the deadbeat dad skipped off, scott-free, to go knock up some other woman, and skate out of all the financial and other responsibilities of raising a child, simply by claiming "it's not mine!!"

A woman cannot claim it isn't her baby. A man can. Yes, there's paternity tests available, but first you need a man who is willing to cooperate with even having such a test done.

I don't like the idea of abortion...but I like even less the idea that a man can knock up a woman, and walk away scott-free, and be a fucking deadbeat, and leave the woman holding the bag...and then you have an unwanted child, one who is not given the opportunity to have two parents and a stable financial footing, and so is denied many things that I would say were life-essential.

You wanna be pro-life? Great!! PROVE you are pro-life by going after the motherfuckin' deadbeat asshole MEN who leave women holding the bag for children they cannot afford to raise!

Much as I don't like abortion, I like even less the idea of children being born that cannot be cared for properly...and I abhor the idea of woman having to go to quack doctors with dirty hands for an illegal abortion, to get herself out of an impossible situation...and then it ends up costing the life of BOTH the woman...and the child.

Far as I am concerned...if you want to be a man, and have an opinion on abortion...then BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION...and go after the deadbeats that leave women holding the bag all by themselves! DON'T be a part of the problem by just going around, knocking up women, and then claiming you had nothing to do with it, to escape YOUR responsibility.

When it affects YOUR life in a negative way, your opinion about pregnancy/abortion might be different. And that's my rant, for what it is worth...and, being as I can never get pregnant (I don't have the internal organs to make it possible) it may well be that my opinion isn't worth a whole hell of a lot. But I still think that if men are not willing to equally shoulder the RESPONSIBILITY that comes with procreation, then they should shut their fat mouths.

Banging my head against a wall again:
As I've noted multiple times, he is wrong. And unlike him, I actually knew the goddamn requirements of life, instead of pulling bullshit out of my ass like he did. Of all the things he mentioned, only one of them, reproduction, was a fucking requirement.

Your assuming that the fetus is actually alive. Do you consider a nonsentient life form that is dependant soley on the organism it lives in to be a human?

Devil's Advocate: Are you suggesting a fetus is ntohing but a PARASITE...that is, an organism that gives nothing back to it's host, and takes everything it needs to survive, from it's host?

that is...the biological definition of a parasitic organism. So are you suggesting a fetus is a parasite?

Again, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here...my opinion on this matter is posted slightly above this post....but I found this particular quote to be of interest.

Babies born with HIV, were squeezed out of the womb, and weren't given any precautions to make sure the mother's and the baby's blood didn't mix.

I think this is when you cut the umbilical chord, though I can't be too sure.
I have heard that HIV can be transmitted during the pregnancy.
In a quick search for info, I found this;
http://www.thebody.com/asp/may99/pregnancy.html
http://www.thebody.com/treat/pregnancy.html
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1223.asp

As abortion is an legal issue, being decided by the courts in the USA, I think that the law of when a life is a life should take precendence. If you go by brainwaves or a heartbeat then below is the first 3 months of developement of a fetus. By the 25th day the fetus has lungs, blood circulation and brain function. Also there has been a study (http://www.gargaro.com/fetalpain.html) that show that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks.


"After the first day, biological development into human form progresses very rapidly. Two weeks after conception, the embryo has a developing brain and rudimentary heart.3 Three weeks after conception, the baby has a working heart, the beginning of vertebrea, a closed circulatory system separate from the mother's, developing eyes and ears and the beginning of lungs.3 Around the 25th day, lungs are fully developed, and the heart begins to beat. The heart circulates blood throughout the fetus' body; blood completely different and often incompatible with that of the mother.2 The baby's developed systems are already separate from those of the mother; one month after conception it is no longer a part of her."

I think the whole abortion thing should be put on hold and a definition of when a life is considered a life put into Law. Each Country will have their own definition of course but after that is said anyone caught killing a life should be prosecuted as a murderer. Easy enough and it would save a lot of useless arguing on when someone is taking a life or not.

Banging my head against a wall again:

:headbang: works better. :rolleyes:

2. I love how people like to arrive at a definition of alive through very inventive means. I challenge you, a plant has no brainwaves is it alive? I borroow the definition of life from science anything that exhibits these qualities is alive:

Movement:Plants move but are plants considered to be human because of this?
Respiration:I believe until the fetus develops lungs it cant do this on its own. It obtains its oxgen from the mother through the placenta and umbilical cord.
Sensitivity:Once again plants are sensitive yet we dont consider them to be human. So why is it that when a bundle of cells can do this we consider it to be human?
Feeding:Fetus is once again dependant on the mother in order to do this.
Reproduction:A fetus can not reproduce in the normal sense of having a child. All it does is make more cells. Does this mean my skin is human?
Excretion:Cells shit all the time. Not human are they?
Growth:Once again refer to the above bolded part.

All this post manages to do is say that a fetus is alive. Congratulations you've managed to state what we already know. The question is wheter or not a fetus is a human. None of the above mentioned points definitavley point towards an answer that it is.

that is, an organism that gives nothing back to it's host, and takes everything it needs to survive, from it's host?

that is...the biological definition of a parasitic organism. So are you suggesting a fetus is a parasite?

That's the common definition, not the biological one. In a biological sense, parasitism inckudes symbiotic, mutualistic, and commensual relationships.

Even by your definition, the fetus is a parasite until a few months before birth, when gametes are first manufactured.

Looking through all the posts, on argument seems to be that, "Because skin cells/plants/whatever are alive, wouldn’t killing them be wrong?"

Do skin cells develop into an adult human? Does a tree? As far as I am aware, they don't. While an embryo does not meet the requirements for life, namely the inability to survive alone and to reproduce, I ask you this.

Since comparisons seem to be to everyone's liking, I'll make some - except these will make sense. Could I thrust a knife into the back of a 5-year-old's neck and crush his skull, then use the defense in court that "he is prepubescent, and can’t reproduce - therefore he is not alive!"? Same thing, isn’t it? An embryo can’t reproduce just as a young child can’t. Somehow life seems to begin as soon as the fetus flies through the birth canal, despite near total physiological likeness.

If something cannot survive by itself, then it can’t be alive, right? Who here thinks a newborn could survive by itself if you were to just leave it somewhere? Would he/she climb out of the crib, crab a cup, and pour a glass of milk? No. He/she would die, because it is not yet capable of self preservation.

The point is that a fetus is not at that stage a fully functioning human being (neither is a newborn to 10-year-old, as proven above), but it will eventually grow into one.

I agree it can sound somewhat sexist for a woman to tell her partner that he doesn’t have a choice if she wanted an abortion, and I used to somewhat understand it. They have to worry about the future of themselves and their child. Often, the father leaves them and that is enough to ruin any person’s hopes of a life or career. I used to consider this reasonable until I met women, one in particular who happens to be the best professor I’ve ever known, who fought to keep her child against their then-husband’s wishes. In the case of the professor, he left her and she said good riddance. She continues to single-handedly raise her young daughter while having a promising career and good social life.

Looking through all the posts, on argument seems to be that, "Because skin cells/plants/whatever are alive, wouldn’t killing them be wrong?"

Do skin cells develop into an adult human? Does a tree? As far as I am aware, they don't. While an embryo does not meet the requirements for life, namely the inability to survive alone and to reproduce, I ask you this.

Since comparisons seem to be to everyone's liking, I'll make some - except these will make sense. Could I thrust a knife into the back of a 5-year-old's neck and crush his skull, then use the defense in court that "he is prepubescent, and can’t reproduce - therefore he is not alive!"? Same thing, isn’t it? An embryo can’t reproduce just as a young child can’t. Somehow life seems to begin as soon as the fetus flies through the birth canal, despite near total physiological likeness.

If something cannot survive by itself, then it can’t be alive, right? Who here thinks a newborn could survive by itself if you were to just leave it somewhere? Would he/she climb out of the crib, crab a cup, and pour a glass of milk? No. He/she would die, because it is not yet capable of self preservation.

The point is that a fetus is not at that stage a fully functioning human being (neither is a newborn to 10-year-old, as proven above), but it will eventually grow into one.

Wow. A post full of strawmen and utter bullshit. Males have viable sperm even before they are born. You're lying. I don't take kindly to that.

Take the time to learn a bit about biology before spouting off strawmen. It would only take about 10 minutes to learn what you need to know to discuss this.

Well, being a sterile woman (unable to bear children) I still have the perspective of a woman on this issue, and I say to all men everywhere...maybe your opinion would be different if it was YOUR BODY that was affected by the pregnancy. Maybe your opinion would be different if YOU were the one that got left holding the bag while the deadbeat dad skipped off, scott-free, to go knock up some other woman, and skate out of all the financial and other responsibilities of raising a child, simply by claiming "it's not mine!!"

A woman cannot claim it isn't her baby. A man can. Yes, there's paternity tests available, but first you need a man who is willing to cooperate with even having such a test done.

I don't like the idea of abortion...but I like even less the idea that a man can knock up a woman, and walk away scott-free, and be a fucking deadbeat, and leave the woman holding the bag...and then you have an unwanted child, one who is not given the opportunity to have two parents and a stable financial footing, and so is denied many things that I would say were life-essential.

You wanna be pro-life? Great!! PROVE you are pro-life by going after the motherfuckin' deadbeat asshole MEN who leave women holding the bag for children they cannot afford to raise!

Much as I don't like abortion, I like even less the idea of children being born that cannot be cared for properly...and I abhor the idea of woman having to go to quack doctors with dirty hands for an illegal abortion, to get herself out of an impossible situation...and then it ends up costing the life of BOTH the woman...and the child.

Far as I am concerned...if you want to be a man, and have an opinion on abortion...then BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION...and go after the deadbeats that leave women holding the bag all by themselves! DON'T be a part of the problem by just going around, knocking up women, and then claiming you had nothing to do with it, to escape YOUR responsibility.

When it affects YOUR life in a negative way, your opinion about pregnancy/abortion might be different. And that's my rant, for what it is worth...and, being as I can never get pregnant (I don't have the internal organs to make it possible) it may well be that my opinion isn't worth a whole hell of a lot. But I still think that if men are not willing to equally shoulder the RESPONSIBILITY that comes with procreation, then they should shut their fat mouths.


BRAVO!

Devil's Advocate: Are you suggesting a fetus is ntohing but a PARASITE...that is, an organism that gives nothing back to it's host, and takes everything it needs to survive, from it's host?
I am not. Someone else did. I am refering to wheter or not a fetus can be considered a human being or if it is just a mass of cells.

that is...the biological definition of a parasitic organism. So are you suggesting a fetus is a parasite?

Again, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here...my opinion on this matter is posted slightly above this post....but I found this particular quote to be of interest.

It was a good try but I never really suggested anything to that effect. You should have gone after the people who actually said they think it is a parasite.

One thing that perterbs me, is if a woman gets pregnant, she is the one who determines whether to keep it or not, regardless if the father can support a child, or wants to. This can effectively lock him into the relationship. Before you say he can leave, he really can't. There is such a negative view of such fathers, that it is impossible to just say "Ok, babies yours, peace!".

In my humble opinion, abortion is just a way for whorish women to toss a baby away so they can go back to getting their cooch poked in a consequence free environment. Also, has anyone noticed that the "Pro Choice" people, when confronted about the issue, can only site, "Well what if she was raped by a black man? Would you want her to keep the baby? Can you imagine carrying a black baby?" It seems to me that because these bastards are safe from the decision, they're pro choice, but I can say with the utmost certainty that they were pro life in the womb. I say, take all the pro choice people to a hospital that teaches a sex ed class where they have the stages of pregnancy in vivid detail, and let them see the fingers and toes of the baby's as their developing. Let them see that because some five dollar gutter snipe couldn't use protection doesn't give them the right to get away with murder 1.

[QUOTE=Little India]Just a quick question: Do you agree with the termination of a pregnancy if continuance to full term places the mother, child or both in significant and otherwise unavoidable danger, despite the stipulations of your religion?
QUOTE]

I'm a man who has lost 9 children (1 abortion for medical reasons, 5 miscarriages, 1 stillbirth, 1 abortion without my knowledge and 2 in a car accident).

My wife was pregnant and was told that she would die if she didn't abort. Even with it being that clear cut, it still wasn't an easy choice.

In these discussions it always seems that the emotional aspect is completely glossed over.

A former girlfriend of mine got pregnant and decided to have an abortion without tell me until afterwards. We didn't talk for years. We are friends once again and she has told me that she still wonders if she did the right thing.

I like to say that I'm pro choice; I just hope the choice is life. The choice to abort is not something that you ever forget about.

Well, being a sterile woman (unable to bear children) I still have the perspective of a woman on this issue, and I say to all men everywhere...maybe your opinion would be different if it was YOUR BODY that was affected by the pregnancy. Maybe your opinion would be different if YOU were the one that got left holding the bag while the deadbeat dad skipped off, scott-free, to go knock up some other woman, and skate out of all the financial and other responsibilities of raising a child, simply by claiming "it's not mine!!"

A woman cannot claim it isn't her baby. A man can. Yes, there's paternity tests available, but first you need a man who is willing to cooperate with even having such a test done.

I don't like the idea of abortion...but I like even less the idea that a man can knock up a woman, and walk away scott-free, and be a fucking deadbeat, and leave the woman holding the bag...and then you have an unwanted child, one who is not given the opportunity to have two parents and a stable financial footing, and so is denied many things that I would say were life-essential.

You wanna be pro-life? Great!! PROVE you are pro-life by going after the motherfuckin' deadbeat asshole MEN who leave women holding the bag for children they cannot afford to raise!

Much as I don't like abortion, I like even less the idea of children being born that cannot be cared for properly...and I abhor the idea of woman having to go to quack doctors with dirty hands for an illegal abortion, to get herself out of an impossible situation...and then it ends up costing the life of BOTH the woman...and the child.

Far as I am concerned...if you want to be a man, and have an opinion on abortion...then BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION...and go after the deadbeats that leave women holding the bag all by themselves! DON'T be a part of the problem by just going around, knocking up women, and then claiming you had nothing to do with it, to escape YOUR responsibility.

When it affects YOUR life in a negative way, your opinion about pregnancy/abortion might be different. And that's my rant, for what it is worth...and, being as I can never get pregnant (I don't have the internal organs to make it possible) it may well be that my opinion isn't worth a whole hell of a lot. But I still think that if men are not willing to equally shoulder the RESPONSIBILITY that comes with procreation, then they should shut their fat mouths.


There are couples that can not have children of their own that would love to adopt a child. Also there are ways to go after those that do not own up to their responsibilities. I have helped my wife go after her ex for child support; you just have to be on the Courts ass to get the job done. To date my wife’s ex owes her $400 dollars; we have taken his vehicles, house and anything else of worth to pay what he owed her in back child support. As a single mother you can also receive help from the Government for attorney fees. There are law firms that will take the case pro-bono even or take a percentage of what is owed as payment, even though this is usually around 35-40%, there are always ways to make sure the man owns up to his responsibilities. You can not forget there are dead beat mothers too, those that leave their child with the father and never pay a dime in child support. It does go both ways after all.

I don't like the idea of abortion...but I like even less the idea that a man can knock up a woman, and walk away scott-free, and be a fucking deadbeat, and leave the woman holding the bag...and then you have an unwanted child, one who is not given the opportunity to have two parents and a stable financial footing, and so is denied many things that I would say were life-essential.



According to your justification I should have been aborted seeing as I fit your criteria for not having things that are life essential.

Your whole post seems entirely frivolous, of course it is bad for a baby to be born without a father. But it would be worse for this baby to be killed because it is an inconvenience to the life of a mother. You are saying that abortion is justified to spite the father? And are you completely ignoring adoption?

Yes if the man walks away it is terrible, and the child's life may not be the samne. But I have to prioritse my time, a living child has a chance to change, a chance to be great, but a dead child has no chance. Thus I concentrate my time on preventing abortions rather than chasing deadbeat Dads, not to say I am justifying them.

In my humble opinion, abortion is just a way for whorish women to toss a baby away so they can go back to getting their cooch poked in a consequence free environment. Also, has anyone noticed that the "Pro Choice" people, when confronted about the issue, can only site, "Well what if she was raped by a black man? Would you want her to keep the baby? Can you imagine carrying a black baby?" It seems to me that because these bastards are safe from the decision, they're pro choice, but I can say with the utmost certainty that they were pro life in the womb. I say, take all the pro choice people to a hospital that teaches a sex ed class where they have the stages of pregnancy in vivid detail, and let them see the fingers and toes of the baby's as their developing. Let them see that because some five dollar gutter snipe couldn't use protection doesn't give them the right to get away with murder 1.

Flamebait.

Flamebait.

To the max baby. Welcome to stage 4b i believe.

To the max baby. Welcome to stage 4b i believe.

Yeah and what a shame. Soon the thread will be 100% destroyed without a hope of getting back on target.

In my humble opinion, abortion is just a way for whorish women to toss a baby away so they can go back to getting their cooch poked in a consequence free environment. Also, has anyone noticed that the "Pro Choice" people, when confronted about the issue, can only site, "Well what if she was raped by a black man? Would you want her to keep the baby? Can you imagine carrying a black baby?" It seems to me that because these bastards are safe from the decision, they're pro choice, but I can say with the utmost certainty that they were pro life in the womb. I say, take all the pro choice people to a hospital that teaches a sex ed class where they have the stages of pregnancy in vivid detail, and let them see the fingers and toes of the baby's as their developing. Let them see that because some five dollar gutter snipe couldn't use protection doesn't give them the right to get away with murder 1.
Okay me, calm down. Calm down.

Cut out the strawmen, kid. Cut out the assumptions. Cut out the condescending arrogance. Cut out the attacks. Your post is practically flamebait. Just a helpful tip. Please read the thread. What you bring up has been dealt with multiple times.

Yeah and what a shame. Soon the thread will be 100% destroyed without a hope of getting back on target.

Well you bring the beer, I bring the food and I say we can at least get a good barbecue going from the remains of the thread.

:) Everyone have a nice day no matter what your view is on this issue. Do not take the bait with the flames and well just smile :) or not it's your choice. :p

In my humble opinion, abortion is just a way for whorish women to toss a baby away so they can go back to getting their cooch poked in a consequence free environment. Also, has anyone noticed that the "Pro Choice" people, when confronted about the issue, can only site, "Well what if she was raped by a black man? Would you want her to keep the baby? Can you imagine carrying a black baby?"
Why are you bringing in the condition that it is a black man? Are you trying to imply that pro-choice people are racist?
It seems to me that because these bastards are safe from the decision, they're pro choice, but I can say with the utmost certainty that they were pro life in the womb.
From most info I have seen, that is false. At the stage most fetuses are aborted, they do not have consciousness and therefore do not have an opinion.
I say, take all the pro choice people to a hospital that teaches a sex ed class where they have the stages of pregnancy in vivid detail, and let them see the fingers and toes of the baby's as their developing. Let them see that because some five dollar gutter snipe couldn't use protection doesn't give them the right to get away with murder 1.
I've already seen much of that. It's rather interesting stuff too.
But what the fetus looks like doesn't matter much. The only thing that matters is whether it can think or not.

Don't like it? Your religion doesn't support it?
Then don't do it. We don't have to make this difficult.
(I am 100% pro-stfu on abortion.) :headbang:

Well you bring the beer, I bring the food and I say we can at least get a good barbecue going from the remains of the thread.


It's a deal :) and with that I'm out of here to go for a nice long walk in the woods just because I can. :D

Just like the Germans before the second world war thought the Jews were parasites of the German state, which in a technical sense they could have been.
And, pray tell, how is the baby not alive when it is aborted?

the whole argument hangs on that, imo:

if it's human life, then killing it with malice aforethought (EG, a miscarriage obviously doesn't count) is murder.

if it isn't human life, then it's just a thing, and no harm is done in killing it. Sadly, this seems to be the stance of many people.

Another thing I notice is how most attention is given to the woman's rights... and almost none to the rights of the fetus.

I ask, which is worse:

a)A woman having to grin and bear it and have the baby, without the choice to abort

or

b)The baby never having a chance to come to term and live.

?

According to your justification I should have been aborted seeing as I fit your criteria for not having things that are life essential.

Your whole post seems entirely frivolous, of course it is bad for a baby to be born without a father. But it would be worse for this baby to be killed because it is an inconvenience to the life of a mother. You are saying that abortion is justified to spite the father? And are you completely ignoring adoption?

Yes if the man walks away it is terrible, and the child's life may not be the samne. But I have to prioritse my time, a living child has a chance to change, a chance to be great, but a dead child has no chance. Thus I concentrate my time on preventing abortions rather than chasing deadbeat Dads, not to say I am justifying them.

Well, until you hold MEN to equal account and responsibility, you have no right to an opinon, as far as I am concerned. And, as to adoption...first of all, if there were enough potential adoptive parents that would be one thing....but there aren't. Why else do some children spend their entire childhoods in institutions, orphanages, or shuttled from one foster home to the next, never knowing love or stability?

Oh, there's plenty of potential adoptive parents out there for little WHITE babies...and yes, I AM making a value judgement on our society for that!! It's absolutely disgusting that a couple could so badly want a child, but then turn one down, or not adopt, because they can't get a WHITE one. Yes, I AM making a value judgement here.

Well, being a sterile woman (unable to bear children) I still have the perspective of a woman on this issue, and I say to all men everywhere...maybe your opinion would be different if it was YOUR BODY that was affected by the pregnancy. Maybe your opinion would be different if YOU were the one that got left holding the bag while the deadbeat dad skipped off, scott-free, to go knock up some other woman, and skate out of all the financial and other responsibilities of raising a child, simply by claiming "it's not mine!!"

A woman cannot claim it isn't her baby. A man can. Yes, there's paternity tests available, but first you need a man who is willing to cooperate with even having such a test done.

I don't like the idea of abortion...but I like even less the idea that a man can knock up a woman, and walk away scott-free, and be a fucking deadbeat, and leave the woman holding the bag...and then you have an unwanted child, one who is not given the opportunity to have two parents and a stable financial footing, and so is denied many things that I would say were life-essential.

You wanna be pro-life? Great!! PROVE you are pro-life by going after the motherfuckin' deadbeat asshole MEN who leave women holding the bag for children they cannot afford to raise!

Much as I don't like abortion, I like even less the idea of children being born that cannot be cared for properly...and I abhor the idea of woman having to go to quack doctors with dirty hands for an illegal abortion, to get herself out of an impossible situation...and then it ends up costing the life of BOTH the woman...and the child.

Far as I am concerned...if you want to be a man, and have an opinion on abortion...then BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION...and go after the deadbeats that leave women holding the bag all by themselves! DON'T be a part of the problem by just going around, knocking up women, and then claiming you had nothing to do with it, to escape YOUR responsibility.

When it affects YOUR life in a negative way, your opinion about pregnancy/abortion might be different. And that's my rant, for what it is worth...and, being as I can never get pregnant (I don't have the internal organs to make it possible) it may well be that my opinion isn't worth a whole hell of a lot. But I still think that if men are not willing to equally shoulder the RESPONSIBILITY that comes with procreation, then they should shut their fat mouths.

Those scumbags give all of us men a bad name. I do belive that they should be hunted down and held resposible.

The other option is for women to avoid that scumbag section of soceity, but I understand that is easier said than done.

I have heard that HIV can be transmitted during the pregnancy.
In a quick search for info, I found this;
http://www.thebody.com/asp/may99/pregnancy.html
http://www.thebody.com/treat/pregnancy.html
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1223.asp

Ah okay, I read those. And Bio is all coming back to me now.

So basically the chances of transmitting HIV to your baby during pregnancy is small unless you don't take the drugs.

The main risk is during birth and after. Breastfeeding and what not.

I remember our teacher, when asked if you could get HIV through kissing (idiot question, I know) and she said something along the lines of:

'to transmit HIV through kissing is impossible... Unless you digest 8 litres of that persons bodily fluids. I know I've drunk a lot more than 8 litres of someone's bodily fluids. Can you guess what?'

So we all sat there thinking icky thoughts, until my bestfriend raised her hand and went 'Breast milk?'

And we all sighed with relief.

Okay. So now this HIV/Aids issue has little relevance to the topic.

Comedic philosophy on the subject...

BILL HICKS: "You're not a person 'til you're in my phone book."

GEORGE CARLIN: "Many, if not most, fertilized eggs never make it to term. Some get flushed out of a woman's uterus during those lovely few days she has every month. That being the case, these pro-lifers are essentailly saying that any sexually active woman who's had more than one period is a serial killer!"

***********

Now, as for my opinion...yes, I get to have one, despite being male. Why? Because opinions are free. They're like assholes -- everyone has them and the vast majority of them stink. However, when someone's opinion starts to become action, and that action involves an effect or demand on anyone but the crafter of the opinion or those he's legally responsible for -- we've got a problem.

The problem is the nature of the action. Should society stop, for example, people who are of the opinion that rape is okay? Of course. Those who have that opinion are an infinitesimal minority. In the case of abortion, however, the issue at hand is far more volatile, far less cut-and-dried, and subject to multiple interpretations.

That being the case, I suggest this potential solution:

If you do not support abortion, then A) don't have one, and B) feel free to attempt to persuade, BY ANY MEANS THAT DO NOT INVOLVE PHYSICAL INTERFERENCE, those who disagree to come around to your view. Pro-life folks have to realize that, much like anti-war people who cannot prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents in Iraq or their soldier relatives from the US, there are some things that are tragic in this world that humanity cannot yet prevent because there are enough who are willing to endure what you consider to be a tragedy.

Pro-lifers also must stop being hypocritical and cleave to their faith. The decision being made by a woman choosing abortion is -- imagine this -- between THAT PERSON and GOD. You must trust that God will inform the conscience of any woman considering termination of pregnancy. If the woman goes through with it, they'll have enough to live with without your proselytic shock troops trying to heap shame on them.

Pro-choicers must acknowledge that they don't really know about the nature of life, and that their reliance solely on empirical data is hollow at best. If calling a fetus a "parasite" enables you to terminate it without a second thought, then that's you. You cannot possibly know how you'll feel afterward, be it the next day or 20 years later.

The solution is sexual responsibility. Culture (at least here in the US) has turned sex into some kind of bawdy rite of passage and largely downplayed or ignored the potential consequences. Cultures have also placed the greatest onus on the woman for sexual responsibility. That latter fact has made it easier for women to say, in effect: NO UTERUS, NO OPINION.

And who can blame them? WOMEN gotta take the pill (injection, patch, implant, diaphragm, sponge, what have you -- if men were seen as truly half-responisble for pregnancy or other sexual negatives, there'd be a male contraceptive that'd be as easy to take as a glass of water), WOMEN deal with the majority of the negative sexual stigma (note the number of derogatory words and phrases for promiscuity in women compared to those for men...which aren't usually deroagatory anyway), and it's WOMEN who ultimately decide the fate of the zygote/embryo/fetus.

That's my two cents.

Your baby won't get infected if you have HIV/Aids.

Well, only if you do it the 'natural way', you know squeeze the baby out.

If you have a c-section however, the baby won't get HIV. But you also can't breastfeed it.

But you do have a point.

(100th post, somebody hug me)

I know the baby wouldn't get infected with the virus, but I was using HIV/AIDS as an example of a terminal, currently incurable, contagious disease. I had to think of such a disease before the idea for the question went out of my head!

*He hugs for 100th post: is very jealous at 100 posts.*

Those scumbags give all of us men a bad name. I do belive that they should be hunted down and held resposible.

The other option is for women to avoid that scumbag section of soceity, but I understand that is easier said than done.

the next great american innovation:

Scumbag Detector, by Tyco.

hehe

I know the baby wouldn't get infected with the virus, but I was using HIV/AIDS as an example of a terminal, currently incurable, contagious disease. I had to think of such a disease before the idea for the question went out of my head!

*He hugs for 100th post: is very jealous at 100 posts.*

Magic Johnson has lived with HIV/AIDS for about 14 years...

Maternal and foetal blood supplys are kept seperate, there is an exchange of nutrients/waste products in the placenta, there has been no recorded instance of HIV being transmitted this way.



People have a right to disagree, of course they do. they have a right to comment, but not to encourage murder.

It's not murder, since abortion is not illegal.

One thing I feel I have to point out again:

Pro-choicers are just that, pro-choice. None of us are pro-abortion or anti-life in any way. Everybody would appreciate it if the world was a different place, if there were no social and human problems to be considered, if every child would be wanted and could be born into a perfect environment.
That isn't the case. And since it will be up to the mother to go through the pregnncy and raise the child in most cases, it has to be the mothers right to decide for or against the child, for or against abortion.

Well, until you hold MEN to equal account and responsibility, you have no right to an opinon, as far as I am concerned. And, as to adoption...first of all, if there were enough potential adoptive parents that would be one thing....but there aren't. Why else do some children spend their entire childhoods in institutions, orphanages, or shuttled from one foster home to the next, never knowing love or stability?

Oh, there's plenty of potential adoptive parents out there for little WHITE babies...and yes, I AM making a value judgement on our society for that!! It's absolutely disgusting that a couple could so badly want a child, but then turn one down, or not adopt, because they can't get a WHITE one. Yes, I AM making a value judgement here.

Actually, I do hold men to equal account and responsibility. But the law doesn't, but let's think about it. The law (I mean UK law I have no idea on the specifics of US abortion law) allows the woman to murder the baby because it would cause her to be in financial diffculties, and thus she is divorced of any responsibility. Yet the man cannot do this, and thus are forced into it. Here I am playing Devil's Advocate, but the point stands.

Are you saying that it would have been better the the children in orphanages to have been born? If you are why don't we just kill all children who aren't born in 100% happy environments, because who would want them to grow up without "life essentials".

No matter how hard the lives of these children are they have a chance, a small chance, yes. But still a chance.

the next great american innovation:

Scumbag Detector, by Tyco.

hehe
thats a billion dollar idea right there. I can't think of a woman out there that wouldn't pay to have one.

It's always nice to find stupid people crowded in places like this one.

Fact is, the 'child' is not a child, because it's not aware of it's own existence. I view them as vegetables, and they grow inside another human being's body.
And don't start bitching about how 'they react when you poke them with a stick!' That's not the same as being aware that you're alive. That's called a reaction, no more, no less.

It's not your decision whether you should let it grow or let it die - first rule of life is that you, the person in question, is in charge of things. If you listen to others, then you're stupid.
This applies to people that follow religions, their parents, gangs, schools, and more.

It's not murder, since abortion is not illegal.

Abortion is murder, no matter what the law says it cannot change the fact that killing any human intentionally is murder. You can get into semantics for how long you want, but it is murder. Not only murder but brutal murder, a cruel and unusual punishment, barbaric infanticide, and a moral carelessness never before seen on such a scale.

In my humble opinion, abortion is just a way for whorish women to toss a baby away so they can go back to getting their cooch poked in a consequence free environment. Also, has anyone noticed that the "Pro Choice" people, when confronted about the issue, can only site, "Well what if she was raped by a black man? Would you want her to keep the baby? Can you imagine carrying a black baby?" It seems to me that because these bastards are safe from the decision, they're pro choice, but I can say with the utmost certainty that they were pro life in the womb. I say, take all the pro choice people to a hospital that teaches a sex ed class where they have the stages of pregnancy in vivid detail, and let them see the fingers and toes of the baby's as their developing. Let them see that because some five dollar gutter snipe couldn't use protection doesn't give them the right to get away with murder 1.

So, anyone who wants an abortion is, by your definition, a whore.
So, anyone who disagrees with you is not educated.

Yes, yours is an opinion well worth considering. :rolleyes:

Wow. A post full of strawmen and utter bullshit. Males have viable sperm even before they are born. You're lying. I don't take kindly to that.

Take the time to learn a bit about biology before spouting off strawmen. It would only take about 10 minutes to learn what you need to know to discuss this.

I'm lying? Perhaps you should take the time to learn some biology. Can a 5 year old male and 5 year old female have sex to ejaculation? No. Can they conceive? NO. Can they have a baby? NO. A female cannot become pregnant until menstruation occurs. Though a male and female have sperm and egg cells (though thoroughly underdeveloped), you’ve just stated that these appear before birth. While they’re in a fetus stage. Therefore, you have just contradicted your entire argument, regardless of anything I’ve said!

So, not only are you an ass for flinging insults at someone because you have been cornered in an argument, but an ignoramus as well for not knowing the most basic of reproductive biology and trying to contest that most basic of information with a pre-med student. Now, if you’d like to debate the topic, and want to contest what I say, then explain yourself. Don’t discard a post by saying it is “bullshit” because you simply don’t know how to respond.

And neither being an ass or an ignoramus do I take kindly to.

EDIT: Also, just wanted to add in another response to a common argument about a fetus not being self aware. Self awareness does not begin to emerge until a person is 18-25 months old, and is usually fully developed between 24 and 28 months. Meaning, a 2-year-old child would also be considered a "vegetable", as someone earlier so eloquently put it.

I know the baby wouldn't get infected with the virus, but I was using HIV/AIDS as an example of a terminal, currently incurable, contagious disease. I had to think of such a disease before the idea for the question went out of my head!

*He hugs for 100th post: is very jealous at 100 posts.*

Yeah I know. I wasn't trying to be evil, I completely understood your point.

I just wanted to make sure people wouldn't automatically assume that if the mother has HIV, then the baby will as well. Therefore it's a waste of a life.

I'd like to reinstate what Cabra West said.
By being pro-choice, I'm not saying YAY FOR ABORTION. I'm saying you have the right to chose.
I personally would not get an abortion. The only reason for me to get an abortion is incest. But that's MY OPINION on what I WOULD DO.

I'm not trying to force my opinions on other people, I'm just saying you have a right to CHOOSE.

Abortion is murder, no matter what the law says it cannot change the fact that killing any human intentionally is murder. You can get into semantics for how long you want, but it is murder. Not only murder but brutal murder, a cruel and unusual punishment, barbaric infanticide, and a moral carelessness never before seen on such a scale.

And the law disagrees with you. You can hold whatever opinion you want but under the law abortion is not murder.

I'm lying? Perhaps you should take the time to learn some biology. Can a 5 year old male and 5 year old female have sex to ejaculation? No. Can they conceive? NO. Can they have a baby? NO. A female cannot become pregnant until menstruation occurs. Though a male and female have sperm and egg cells (though thoroughly underdeveloped), you’ve just stated that these appear before birth. While they’re in a fetus stage. Therefore, you have just contradicted your entire argument, regardless of anything I’ve said!

So, not only are you an ass for flinging insults at someone because you have been cornered in an argument, but an ignoramus as well for not knowing the most basic of reproductive biology and trying to contest that most basic of information with a pre-med student. Now, if you’d like to debate the topic, and want to contest what I say, then explain yourself. Don’t discard a post by saying it is “bullshit” because you simply don’t know how to respond.

And neither being an ass or an ignoramus do I take kindly to.

Very simply, I love you.

I get the feeling I am entering a philosophical trap, but life is created the moment the sperm enters the zona pellucida of the ovum and the nuclei fuse.

That doesn't make any sense. The entering into the zona pellucida and fusing of nuclei are two distinct events that do not happen simultaneously. "At the moment the sperm enters the zona pellucida of the ovum and the nuclei fuse" is poppycock, as "that moment" doesn't exist.

Abortion is murder, no matter what the law says it cannot change the fact that killing any human intentionally is murder. You can get into semantics for how long you want, but it is murder. Not only murder but brutal murder, a cruel and unusual punishment, barbaric infanticide, and a moral carelessness never before seen on such a scale.

Again, appeal to emotion.
Murder = illegal killing.
Abortion |=illegal killing.
Therefore, abortion |=murder.

You can argue that it is morally reprehensible, but it is not murder.

And the law disagrees with you. You can hold whatever opinion you want but under the law abortion is not murder.

Under the law in the UK a man can become a woman, is it true? No. Under the law in Belgium two men can get married, is it true? No. The law does not change facts. Abortion is murder, it is against the only laws I care about: those of God.

Very simply, I love you.

Looks like we went back to stage 4A. :rolleyes:

Under the law in the UK a man can become a woman, is it true?

Yes, that's true.

Under the law in Belgium two men can get married, is it true?

Yes, that's true.

The law does not change facts.

Actually, it does. All the things you mentioned are facts.

Abortion is murder

No, since murder is illegal killing. Legal killing is not murder.

it is against the only laws I care about: those of God.

And for those who do not care about your deity, those laws mean nothing, hence their complete irrelevance.

I'm lying? Perhaps you should take the time to learn some biology.
This is priceless, as we shall soon see.

Can a 5 year old male and 5 year old female have sex to ejaculation? No.
Yes. They can. Studies have shown that infant males are capable of achieving orgasm.

Can they conceive? NO.
Yes, as a relative recent case of a pregnant six-year-old demonstrates. It's rare, but it's possible.

Can they have a baby? NO.
Yes. Note my above example.

A female cannot become pregnant until menstruation occurs.
Wrong. Think about it. It's pretty damn obvious. If you can't figure it out, I'm sure one of the women on this thread will take the time to patiently explain it to you.


Also, I accussed you of using a strawman, which you did. The capability of reproduction is what matters in biology. In diploid organisms, the capability to produce gametes is what matters. In humans, that capability does not exist until about 5 months after conception.

Under the law in the UK a man can become a woman, is it true? No. Under the law in Belgium two men can get married, is it true? No. The law does not change facts. Abortion is murder, it is against the only laws I care about: those of God.

Not everyone believes in God, and even those who do do not necessarily believe in YOUR God.

Since you are stating that things that are legal in other countries are not happening since they do not agree with your set of morals, there's not much point discussing this.

I'm lying? Perhaps you should take the time to learn some biology. Can a 5 year old male and 5 year old female have sex to ejaculation? No. Can they conceive? NO. Can they have a baby? NO.*giggle* I just can't help myself, I have to muddy the waters here. :D

Youngest mother on record. (http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp)

(Edit: Just a warning, there is a picture on this page that may be unsuitable for some viewers. Viewer's discretion is advised.)

Under the law in the UK a man can become a woman, is it true? No. Under the law in Belgium two men can get married, is it true? No. The law does not change facts. Abortion is murder, it is against the only laws I care about: those of God.

Well in a secular society the laws of god dont matter. What does matter is universal human rights. Which is why gays should be allowed to get married. Which is why Women have the right to chose what they do with their bodies. You can say abortion is murder all you want because god says so but you run into the problem that not everyone believes in your god. And because of this any secular government like the US will side with universal human rights rather then your view point.

Yes, as a relative recent case of a pregnant six-year-old demonstrates. It's rare, but it's possible.

And a not-so-recent case of a pregnant five year old. http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp

Just like the Germans before the second world war thought the Jews were parasites of the German state, which in a technical sense they could have been.

No, an abortion is more like kicking the hobo who moved into your basement without permission out. But, I suppose it's her fault for not 'locking the door'.

An unwanted fetus is much more like a tapeworm then it is like 'Jews were on the German state', but thanks for playing the Nazi card, it helps show how weak your arguement is.

EDIT: Also, just wanted to add in another response to a common argument about a fetus not being self aware. Self awareness does not begin to emerge until a person is 18-25 months old, and is usually fully developed between 24 and 28 months. Meaning, a 2-year-old child would also be considered a "vegetable", as someone earlier so eloquently put it.
Don't confuse sentience with sapience. They're two different things.

Not everyone believes in God, and even those who do do not necessarily believe in YOUR God.

Since you are stating that things that are legal in other countries are not happening since they do not agree with your set of morals, there's not much point discussing this.

1. Not everyone believes 1+1=2
2. I am not saying that is not what the laws state, simply that they do not change what is actually occurring, they do not change the truth.

And a not-so-recent case of a pregnant five year old. http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp
That might have been what I was thinking about.

1. Not everyone believes 1+1=2

Damn. I haven't such arrogance since Ffc2 demanded a forum to be made just so he could preach on it. Then again, Ffc2 is generally thought to be a puppet, sort of like Jesussaves, but still. Damn.

1. Not everyone believes 1+1=2


Apples to oranges, we can prove 1 + 1 = 2, we can't prove the existance of god, yours or anyone else's.

1. Not everyone believes 1+1=2
2. I am not saying that is not what the laws state, simply that they do not change what is actually occurring, they do not change the truth.

We are speaking of facts.
You are speaking of opinions, and calling them truths.

1. Not everyone believes 1+1=2

Belief in that is unnecessary, as it is a mathematical fact.

2. I am not saying that is not what the laws state, simply that they do not change what is actually occurring, they do not change the truth.

Again, all the things you mentioned were true, and were occurring. You are the one trying to deny the reality of the events.

No, an abortion is more like kicking the hobo who moved into your basement without permission out. But, I suppose it's her fault for not 'locking the door'.

An unwanted fetus is much more like a tapeworm then it is like 'Jews were on the German state', but thanks for playing the Nazi card, it helps show how weak your arguement is.

If by "kicking the hobo...out" you been brutally killing him and then incinerating his remains, yes.

And the "Nazi card" is used because the holocaust of over 40 million children to the relativistic God of modernity, is much worse than anything they had done.

BTW it's bad form to use more than one of your own nations to support your own argument.

Word to the wise.

Damn. I haven't such arrogance since Ffc2 demanded a forum to be made just so he could preach on it. Then again, Ffc2 is generally thought to be a puppet, sort of like Jesussaves, but still. Damn.

Arrogance? I am called arrogant. A person who refuses to acknowledge the possibility of a ultimate reality, and who exalts areligious purposelessness to divinity isn't arrogant?

Please.

BTW it's bad form to use more than one of your own nations to support your own argument.

Word to the wise.

LOL someone would actually do that?

Arrogance? I am called arrogant. A person who refuses to acknowledge the possibility of a ultimate reality, and who exalts areligious purposelessness to divinity isn't arrogant?

Please.
I'm not responding to this, because it's bordering on flamebait.

Not that that stopped me from posting in this thread.

I guess it's because we have enough atheism is teh EVLI!!!11!! threads anyways. Yes, zero is enough.


Edit: Why'd you assume that I'm an atheist? I mean, I am, but I haven't mentioned it for months.

LOL someone would actually do that?

You'd be surprised. I was once ambushed by someone and his puppets. Fortunately it's quite transparent.

Embryos are not life because:
They cannot exist on their own.
They have no mechanism for reproduction. (Sperm and eggs do not develop until much later.) Hmm, so people on life support machines are not alive because they can't survive on their own?

Oh and, pro-lifers, please don't play the Nazi card. Play the Stalinist/Maoist/Pol Potist card instead (class enemies not having a right to live and stuff like that), they don't count under Godwin's Law.

Hmm, so people on life support machines are not alive because they can't survive on their own?

They could at one point, so they are considered alive. They are close to being medically dead, however.

They could at one point, so they are considered alive. They are close to being medically dead, however. So whether you are something or not depends on whether it's happened before?
And however close someone is to medically dead, they're still alive.
Really, sophistry is flimsy justification at best.

So whether you are something or not depends on whether it's happened before?
And however close someone is to medically dead, they're still alive.
Really, sophistry is flimsy justification at best.
Please don't confuse dead with not alive. Rocks aren't alive, but neither are they dead. Once something is alive, it doesn't become not alive until after it has died. The whole thing is rather complicated, and I don't have enough knowledge to explain it thoroughly at the moment.

Hopefully Dem will show up. She can explain it far better than I.

blahblahblah

Firstly, I am fully aware of the studies of Alfred Kinsey in the 1950s, around which is much controversy. He demonstrated that it is possible for a male infant as young as five months to achieve orgasm. NOT ejaculation. These were dry orgasms. Therefore, no, they are not capable of reproduction.

In the case of the young pregnancy you can find examples of medical anomalies in every category of physiology. Perhaps you should do some research. That girl suffered from a hormonal imbalance called, precocious puberty, which results in premature development of sexual characteristics. That girl began menstruating at three years of age. Thus showing that even in that case, menstruation is what resulted in pregnancy.

Accepted medical fact is that during the period of ovulation in the menstrual cycle, the possibility of fertilization is high. The menstrual cycle reaches this phase through the release of various hormones, notably estrogen, LSH, and LH, which are not produced in sufficient quantities until sexual maturity, which would be puberty (unless in such abnormal causes as that of the Peruvian girl). But, since it so obvious that a female can conceive without this process, a process with the SINGLE PURPOSE OF CONCEPTION, then please, enlighten me.

Confusing sentience and sapience? I don’t believe I did. Sentience, or consciousness and the quality of being self-alert, is what I spoke of. Sapience, or the ability to respond to stimuli in a purposeful, conscious manner, is observed in infants. But it is in a fetus as well. The difference is that you can’t make faces over a fetus to see its response – but you can feel the stomach and play music, which can result in the fetus moving, turning, or kicking. That is, of course, debatable as it is inconclusive – but you can’t get any more conclusive than that before birth.

So, in conclusion, no, prepubescent children cannot conceive.

Hi everyone- my first post but I read on here occasionally.

What really bothers me in society today is that people believe they have the right to restrict other people's rights based on their own personal beliefs.

Everyone has the right to an opinion. No one has the right to force their opinion on you. I have no respect for people who think they have the right by any means to force religious based opinions on other people. Not everyone in this world is Christian; not even close. I'm not speaking only of atheism either; what about Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, etc? How would you react if a Jew told you that you were going to hell for eating pork? You'd say, sorry, that's not my beliefs. And if the Jews were campaigning for the eating of pork to be outlawed, you'd probably be annoyed since you don't follow their religion, so why should you have to follow a law that would be based on Jewish beliefs?

Yes, before the pro lifers ignore the whole point that eating pork is nothing like "murdering children", just consider that idea of having someone else's beliefs forced on you. If you can.

Society seems to be falling ever further into the pit of "If I think it's wrong, no one should be allowed to do it." From gay marriage to abortion to stem cell research, many members of society seem to be pushing religious based morals on a society that isn't even predominantly Christian. I am thankful to live in a country where this is kept to a minimum.

So I'll say it simply; EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO AN OPINION, but regardless of what you believe or why you believe it, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE PEOPLE TO FOLLOW YOUR OPINION.

If you religious people really do believe it's a sin against God, then the sinners will pay on Judgment Day, right? Why are you even involved? Isn't there a section in the Bible "judge not, lest ye be judged"? I've seen an awful lot of judging by pro-lifers in this thread.

I'm not pro-abortion. I don't know if I could personally ever have one. But I would never, ever stop someone else who planned to get one. That is their right.

I'm a man, I am also vehemently pro-life. I have debated the whole abortion issue thoroughly many times, and I actually understand (though disagree with) the "pro-choice" side of the debate. However, there is one argument I can't understand: how being a man means I can't have an opinion on abortion.

This seems to me to be a very sexist attitude, how does the presence of a Y chromosomes bar me from the debate. I do not hate life any more because I am a man, neither do I think that a uterus gives women a natural right to monopolise the issue.
I'm a man and very pro-choice. I agree that it is sexist to say that being a man means I can't have an opinion on abortion. It's like saying that you can't have an opinion on the Iraq war if you're not in Iraq.

Hmm, I have managed to read most of this thread and I decided to place my opinions forward.

Is abortion murder? Honestly, I would say yes, why? As you are denying the right of something to mature and grow into a human.

Who’s choice should abortion be? Now this question is a tricky one. Honestly I am tempted to say that abortion should be left completely up to the woman carrying the child. But if I think slightly more upon the issue it is quite a bit harder to say.

For instance if two people have a one night stand which results in a pregnancy and the female decides she wants to keep the child, and that the male has to pay child support how is this fair?

On the other hand if you have two people in relationship with the female becoming pregnant and deciding she doesn’t want to have the child as it would disrupt her chosen life style, while the male would dearly love to have said child then it becomes harder to say who’s right. After all it takes two to tango, and if they were both responsible for the conception and both have to look after the child then should it not follow that both should have a choice with the abortion?

As for some beliefs on abortion being shaped by god, and the bible etc. That’s fine, but why should I as an atheist have to abide by the rules that were created by something I do not believe in? I find this rather unfair, for as it stands now, you can choose not to have an abortion and therefore hold your faith and beliefs while I may still have an abortion and keep my beliefs near. But if things were to change so that the law would follow more closely to religion then am I not being forced to follow something for which I do not believe? Is this not unfair and a breach upon my rights?

Also I think we need to take a look at the emotions of the people involved, if you were/could become pregnant. Could you take a chance to destroy something that may become human? Could you live with any tad of guilt that may come with doing this? On the other side of the coin, could you live with this child for the rest of your life? Provide adequate care for it and not resent it for ‘taking’ away years of your life?

Well I am quite sure that I have repeated others and myself thoroughly with my opinion. But please note that I am not claiming anything I have said as fact, it is just my personal opinion, and is, as such open to debate. Just thought I would pop in and give my two cents.

Oh and Boosieland I agree everyone has the right to there own opinion.

I'm a man, I am also vehemently pro-life. I have debated the whole abortion issue thoroughly many times, and I actually understand (though disagree with) the "pro-choice" side of the debate. However, there is one argument I can't understand: how being a man means I can't have an opinion on abortion.

This seems to me to be a very sexist attitude, how does the presence of a Y chromosomes bar me from the debate. I do not hate life any more because I am a man, neither do I think that a uterus gives women a natural right to monopolise the issue.

If we look at the logic of the argument it goes a little like this :
No uterus = No right to an opinion
Uterus but never been pregnant = No right to an opinion
Have been pregnant but never had an abortion = No right to an opinion
Had an abortion, and pro-life = No right to an opinion, because you have had an abortion.

Being a man I can never experience pregnancy; however, pregnancy does not equate to having a special love for life. I could never hope to advise a woman on how to deal with pregnancy, but I am able to tell women that abortion is wrong because it is murder of an innocent baby. This fact is independent of whether I am male or female.

If I were to then start criticising the mentality of the woman in this situation I would understand the comments, but not as it stands.

I wonder, what are other men's opinions on the issues. I welcome any comments by women also.
An American man has just as much right to an opinion as any American woman on abortion, despite their lack of qualification and knowledge on the subject. However, I do not feel they SHOULD have the right to participate in lawmaking considering this issue. What a woman does with her own body should ultimately be her decision.

How does having a uterus determine the right to have an opinion on abortion?
It doesn't; however, we have rights to privacy and security of person that guarantee that we have a say in what goes on in our own bodies.

I'm a man, I am also vehemently pro-life. I have debated the whole abortion issue thoroughly many times, and I actually understand (though disagree with) the "pro-choice" side of the debate. However, there is one argument I can't understand: how being a man means I can't have an opinion on abortion.

This seems to me to be a very sexist attitude, how does the presence of a Y chromosomes bar me from the debate. I do not hate life any more because I am a man, neither do I think that a uterus gives women a natural right to monopolise the issue.
Whoever claims that is being silly. Everyone has an opinion, and in the Western world, we have a right to express it, within the limitations of the law.

If we look at the logic of the argument it goes a little like this :
No uterus = No right to an opinion
Uterus but never been pregnant = No right to an opinion
Have been pregnant but never had an abortion = No right to an opinion
Had an abortion, and pro-life = No right to an opinion, because you have had an abortion.
Everyone has a right to an opinion on the matter, whatever their experience or background. It can be an informed opinion, an uninformed opinion, an opinion based on logic or an opinion based on emotion, but they can have it.

Being a man I can never experience pregnancy; however, pregnancy does not equate to having a special love for life. I could never hope to advise a woman on how to deal with pregnancy, but I am able to tell women that abortion is wrong because it is murder of an innocent baby. This fact is independent of whether I am male or female.
Correct; you can state your opinion.

If I were to then start criticising the mentality of the woman in this situation I would understand the comments, but not as it stands.

I wonder, what are other men's opinions on the issues. I welcome any comments by women also.
I am a woman, and those women who have stated you have no right to an opinion are wrong. Blatently, unequivocally wrong. They are extrapolating a personal, home-made right into some kind of "natural right" based on their opinions. It should be interpreted as, "I am not going to listen to you," rather than, "You do not have a right to speak."

I'm a man, I am also vehemently pro-life. I have debated the whole abortion issue thoroughly many times, and I actually understand (though disagree with) the "pro-choice" side of the debate. However, there is one argument I can't understand: how being a man means I can't have an opinion on abortion.

This seems to me to be a very sexist attitude, how does the presence of a Y chromosomes bar me from the debate. I do not hate life any more because I am a man, neither do I think that a uterus gives women a natural right to monopolise the issue.

If we look at the logic of the argument it goes a little like this :
No uterus = No right to an opinion
Uterus but never been pregnant = No right to an opinion
Have been pregnant but never had an abortion = No right to an opinion
Had an abortion, and pro-life = No right to an opinion, because you have had an abortion.

Being a man I can never experience pregnancy; however, pregnancy does not equate to having a special love for life. I could never hope to advise a woman on how to deal with pregnancy, but I am able to tell women that abortion is wrong because it is murder of an innocent baby. This fact is independent of whether I am male or female.

If I were to then start criticising the mentality of the woman in this situation I would understand the comments, but not as it stands.

I wonder, what are other men's opinions on the issues. I welcome any comments by women also.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You're entitled to yours.

I am a female. I can get pregnant, in fact I have, twice. And I have two beautiful children. The point is, my body , my choice. A man has no right to decide what a woman can/should do with her body. Personally, I'm pro-choice. However I've never had an abortion nor do I believe I could. However I do have friends who have had one, but that was their choice to make, not mine. It really is as simple as that.

You cannot deny access to basic rights to organisms based on their DNA. To do so is racist. If we discovered another sentient race which had a society, not unlike ours, by this definition we could kill and eat them because they are not human. Thus, the argument against abortion based on DNA must fall. If you are against the destruction of potential human life, then the only moral thing to do would be for every woman to spend her time giving birth by the time she had her first period, because every period destroys an egg, which is a potential human life. Also, defining potential life as the time when an egg joins with a sperm is likewise flawed, because sperm and eggs have the ability to become an embryo. If B has potential to become A, and C has potential to become B, then C still has potential to become A.

Not having a uterus doesn't mean that you cannot have an opinion. It does however mean that you will not be affected by your opinion directly. Therefore, your opinion has less weight.
Women are the ones with the risks therefore women are the ones who should have the last say. Men are partially responsible for pregnancies, so their opinion needs to be heard, but the woman is the one taking the risks.
I'm male, btw.

My husband and I ended up with different opinions on this, but it doesn't mean I don't take his into account.
Even though we are now taking precautions, should I get pregnant again, he wants me to seriously consider aborting (I was very sick with both pregnancies). I have told him I am against this and we left it at that, agreeing to disagree unless the situation actually occurs.

Just like the Germans before the second world war thought the Jews were parasites of the German state, which in a technical sense they could have been.

Godwin's Law: "As a thread grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You're entitled to yours.

I am a female. I can get pregnant, in fact I have, twice. And I have two beautiful children. The point is, my body , my choice. A man has no right to decide what a woman can/should do with her body. Personally, I'm pro-choice. However I've never had an abortion nor do I believe I could. However I do have friends who have had one, but that was their choice to make, not mine. It really is as simple as that.
Is it true that Canada has almost no laws regulating abortion? Can you get one on the government-funded health system?

I'm a man, I am also vehemently pro-life. I have debated the whole abortion issue thoroughly many times, and I actually understand (though disagree with) the "pro-choice" side of the debate. However, there is one argument I can't understand: how being a man means I can't have an opinion on abortion.

This seems to me to be a very sexist attitude, how does the presence of a Y chromosomes bar me from the debate. I do not hate life any more because I am a man, neither do I think that a uterus gives women a natural right to monopolise the issue.

If we look at the logic of the argument it goes a little like this :
No uterus = No right to an opinion
Uterus but never been pregnant = No right to an opinion
Have been pregnant but never had an abortion = No right to an opinion
Had an abortion, and pro-life = No right to an opinion, because you have had an abortion.

Being a man I can never experience pregnancy; however, pregnancy does not equate to having a special love for life. I could never hope to advise a woman on how to deal with pregnancy, but I am able to tell women that abortion is wrong because it is murder of an innocent baby. This fact is independent of whether I am male or female.

If I were to then start criticising the mentality of the woman in this situation I would understand the comments, but not as it stands.

I wonder, what are other men's opinions on the issues. I welcome any comments by women also.

I'm a guy with a question or 2 for you. How does having an opinion give you the right to decide how others should live their lives? What makes your opinion any mroe valid than anyone elses?

Is it true that Canada has almost no laws regulating abortion? Can you get one on the government-funded health system?
Canada has no laws regarding abortion. Abortions are regulated under the same laws that govern other medical prodcedures.

They are covered under some provincial health care systems, yes.

Those scumbags give all of us men a bad name. I do belive that they should be hunted down and held resposible.

The other option is for women to avoid that scumbag section of soceity, but I understand that is easier said than done.

Well, unfortunately, until we can legally brand the scumbags with a nice scarlet letter on their forehead, smooth-talking men will continue to pretend to be everything they aren't, and some women will fall for the scumbags.

Comedic philosophy on the subject...

BILL HICKS: "You're not a person 'til you're in my phone book."

GEORGE CARLIN: "Many, if not most, fertilized eggs never make it to term. Some get flushed out of a woman's uterus during those lovely few days she has every month. That being the case, these pro-lifers are essentailly saying that any sexually active woman who's had more than one period is a serial killer!"

***********

Now, as for my opinion...yes, I get to have one, despite being male. Why? Because opinions are free. They're like assholes -- everyone has them and the vast majority of them stink. However, when someone's opinion starts to become action, and that action involves an effect or demand on anyone but the crafter of the opinion or those he's legally responsible for -- we've got a problem.

The problem is the nature of the action. Should society stop, for example, people who are of the opinion that rape is okay? Of course. Those who have that opinion are an infinitesimal minority. In the case of abortion, however, the issue at hand is far more volatile, far less cut-and-dried, and subject to multiple interpretations.

That being the case, I suggest this potential solution:

If you do not support abortion, then A) don't have one, and B) feel free to attempt to persuade, BY ANY MEANS THAT DO NOT INVOLVE PHYSICAL INTERFERENCE, those who disagree to come around to your view. Pro-life folks have to realize that, much like anti-war people who cannot prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents in Iraq or their soldier relatives from the US, there are some things that are tragic in this world that humanity cannot yet prevent because there are enough who are willing to endure what you consider to be a tragedy.

Pro-lifers also must stop being hypocritical and cleave to their faith. The decision being made by a woman choosing abortion is -- imagine this -- between THAT PERSON and GOD. You must trust that God will inform the conscience of any woman considering termination of pregnancy. If the woman goes through with it, they'll have enough to live with without your proselytic shock troops trying to heap shame on them.

Pro-choicers must acknowledge that they don't really know about the nature of life, and that their reliance solely on empirical data is hollow at best. If calling a fetus a "parasite" enables you to terminate it without a second thought, then that's you. You cannot possibly know how you'll feel afterward, be it the next day or 20 years later.

The solution is sexual responsibility. Culture (at least here in the US) has turned sex into some kind of bawdy rite of passage and largely downplayed or ignored the potential consequences. Cultures have also placed the greatest onus on the woman for sexual responsibility. That latter fact has made it easier for women to say, in effect: NO UTERUS, NO OPINION.

And who can blame them? WOMEN gotta take the pill (injection, patch, implant, diaphragm, sponge, what have you -- if men were seen as truly half-responisble for pregnancy or other sexual negatives, there'd be a male contraceptive that'd be as easy to take as a glass of water), WOMEN deal with the majority of the negative sexual stigma (note the number of derogatory words and phrases for promiscuity in women compared to those for men...which aren't usually deroagatory anyway), and it's WOMEN who ultimately decide the fate of the zygote/embryo/fetus.

That's my two cents.


and I applaud you for being a man with the correct opinon!
There is too much of the responsibility on WOMEN for contraception and unwanted pregnancy...and not enough of the burden is shouldered by men.

Since they refuse, in many cases, to pick up their share of that burden, why the hell SHOULD they get an equal opinion, when they do not face equal consequences, financial, physical, life-altering, and much social stigma?

When MEN pick up their share of the burden, then they can have an equal voice. Until then, they need to keep their fat mouths closed. You being the exception, of course, Intangelon, since you have the CORRECT opinion.

You can have an opinion, and you obviously do.

But by not being a woman, and therefore, never really being able to feel the pain, and joys, of pregnancy, you're view may not be all that justified.

By not having a uterus, which I realise is not your fault, you won't exactly have to go through what the woman will go through if she were to have the baby. So technically, your view could be a little ignorant, could it not?
That pretty much covers it, doesn't it?
I have nothing more to add.

One thing I feel I have to point out again:

Pro-choicers are just that, pro-choice. None of us are pro-abortion or anti-life in any way. Everybody would appreciate it if the world was a different place, if there were no social and human problems to be considered, if every child would be wanted and could be born into a perfect environment.
That isn't the case. And since it will be up to the mother to go through the pregnncy and raise the child in most cases, it has to be the mothers right to decide for or against the child, for or against abortion.


Exactly! Bingo!! We have a winner!!

Incidentally, as I have already said I do not have the ability to get pregnant, even I have very little right having an opinion on this subject myself. After all, I will bear none of the consequences, either. And since I have no possibility in having to shoulder that kind of responsibility, then who am I to force someone else to shoulder it?

Actually, I do hold men to equal account and responsibility. But the law doesn't, but let's think about it. The law (I mean UK law I have no idea on the specifics of US abortion law) allows the woman to murder the baby because it would cause her to be in financial diffculties, and thus she is divorced of any responsibility. Yet the man cannot do this, and thus are forced into it. Here I am playing Devil's Advocate, but the point stands.

Are you saying that it would have been better the the children in orphanages to have been born? If you are why don't we just kill all children who aren't born in 100% happy environments, because who would want them to grow up without "life essentials".

No matter how hard the lives of these children are they have a chance, a small chance, yes. But still a chance.

Then are you willing to put your money where your MOUTH is, and help them to have A BETTER CHANCE?? If not, shut up.

I'm a man, I am also vehemently pro-life. I have debated the whole abortion issue thoroughly many times, and I actually understand (though disagree with) the "pro-choice" side of the debate. However, there is one argument I can't understand: how being a man means I can't have an opinion on abortion.

This seems to me to be a very sexist attitude, how does the presence of a Y chromosomes bar me from the debate. I do not hate life any more because I am a man, neither do I think that a uterus gives women a natural right to monopolise the issue.

If we look at the logic of the argument it goes a little like this :
No uterus = No right to an opinion
Uterus but never been pregnant = No right to an opinion
Have been pregnant but never had an abortion = No right to an opinion
Had an abortion, and pro-life = No right to an opinion, because you have had an abortion.

Being a man I can never experience pregnancy; however, pregnancy does not equate to having a special love for life. I could never hope to advise a woman on how to deal with pregnancy, but I am able to tell women that abortion is wrong because it is murder of an innocent baby. This fact is independent of whether I am male or female.

If I were to then start criticising the mentality of the woman in this situation I would understand the comments, but not as it stands.

I wonder, what are other men's opinions on the issues. I welcome any comments by women also.



It doesn't, this is an issue for everyone.

Then are you willing to put your money where your MOUTH is, and help them to have A BETTER CHANCE?? If not, shut up.



Good grief, why haven't you been banned yet?

And for those who do not care about your deity, those laws mean nothing, hence their complete irrelevance.

Except, of course, for his unstated, yet very obvious desire to force HIS DIETY'S laws onto everyone ELSE. And I might add here that he still cannot even prove his diety exists, let alone KNOW what his diety would or would not approve of. sorry, but the Bible was written BY MEN. They CLAIMED to be God-inspired, and if you are of the Christian faith, then you accept their word for it that they were God-inspired to write as they did. But, if you are not of that faith, then you do not accept they were God-inspired.

And, at any rate, what is The Bible, really? You could divide the Bible into three sections...The Torah, which is old, outdated, archaic, and, at any rate, Christians were not to be held accountable to the laws of Moses or the Torah, because the New Testament was the new covenant. Then you have the New Testament, which is from Acts-Revelation...this is largely a book of prophecy, much of it incomprehensibly written, some obviously man-made laws, and little bits of wisdom here and there for good measure. The other part is The Gospels. And what are the Gospels, really, other than, if you get right down to it...testimonials. And a testimonial is only as credible or as valuable, as the person giving the testimonial. since we cannot know for sure the trustworthiness or reliability, personally, of any of the Gospel authors...again, as a Christian, you take them at their word. But that is problematic for a non-Christian.

And for laws to be based upon a book and a religion that means nothing to at least 20 percent of this country is not a good idea.

ON EDIT: I speak this now as a self-proclaimed Unitarian Christian. You cannot FORCe someone to righteousness. You cannot FORCE someone into living a "moral" life of which you approve. Or that you think God would approve of. God does not want automatons. This is WHY we have free will. You can GUIDE one towards a path that perhaps you think God might approve of...but to FORCE someone there is wrong. It is wrong for you to do it...and if the person does not truly believe, and is only doing what they are COMPELLED to do, then are they REALLY "moral?" Moral means making the right choice when you have the free will to make the wrong choice. Thus, you cannot force morality.

Good grief, why haven't you been banned yet?

good grief, why haven't you put ME on your ignore list already?? How many times do I need to tell you I want NO DIALOGUE of any kind with you?

Since comparisons seem to be to everyone's liking, I'll make some - except these will make sense. Could I thrust a knife into the back of a 5-year-old's neck and crush his skull, then use the defense in court that "he is prepubescent, and can’t reproduce - therefore he is not alive!"? Same thing, isn’t it? An embryo can’t reproduce just as a young child can’t. Somehow life seems to begin as soon as the fetus flies through the birth canal, despite near total physiological likeness.
The youngest father on record is Sean Stewart, of Sharnbrook, England, became the father of a healthy 6 lb. baby boy on January 20, 1998, at age 12. The youngest mother on record is Lina Medina, who delivered a 6½-pound boy by cesarean section in Lima, Peru in 1939, at an age of 5 years and 7 months.
Source http://www.sexualrecords.com/WSRprev.html#youngest_father

It's the man's baby too!

I mean the inability to do anything without a host.

I was wrong about embyros violating the same criteria as virii. They overlap, but do not share the exact same things.

Virii are not life because:
They don't have cells.
They cannot exist on their own.

Embryos are not life because:
They cannot exist on their own.
They have no mechanism for reproduction. (Sperm and eggs do not develop until much later.)


What about mules they can't reproduce either. :confused:

I mean the inability to do anything without a host.

I was wrong about embyros violating the same criteria as virii. They overlap, but do not share the exact same things.

Virii are not life because:
They don't have cells.
They cannot exist on their own.

Embryos are not life because:
They cannot exist on their own.
They have no mechanism for reproduction. (Sperm and eggs do not develop until much later.)


What about mules, they can't reproduce either. :confused:

What about mules, they can't reproduce either. :confused:

Mules are hybrids. Hybrids can't reproduce.

Mules are hybrids. Hybrids can't reproduce.

But do you deny that they are alive. :sniper:

You shouldn't be able to tell women that having an abortion is wrong. It's her body and not yours.

I've known a few women who have had abortions and I wouldn't have dreamed of telling them to not have it done. I just asked them to make sure they know what they are doing before having it done. Other than that it's best to just shut up about it and let them do what they wish to do. It isn't about RELIGION or anything else.

Why are you ignoring NVay's question?

Hi everyone- my first post but I read on here occasionally.

What really bothers me in society today is that people believe they have the right to restrict other people's rights based on their own personal beliefs.

Everyone has the right to an opinion. No one has the right to force their opinion on you. I have no respect for people who think they have the right by any means to force religious based opinions on other people. Not everyone in this world is Christian; not even close. I'm not speaking only of atheism either; what about Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, etc? How would you react if a Jew told you that you were going to hell for eating pork? You'd say, sorry, that's not my beliefs. And if the Jews were campaigning for the eating of pork to be outlawed, you'd probably be annoyed since you don't follow their religion, so why should you have to follow a law that would be based on Jewish beliefs?

Yes, before the pro lifers ignore the whole point that eating pork is nothing like "murdering children", just consider that idea of having someone else's beliefs forced on you. If you can.

Society seems to be falling ever further into the pit of "If I think it's wrong, no one should be allowed to do it." From gay marriage to abortion to stem cell research, many members of society seem to be pushing religious based morals on a society that isn't even predominantly Christian. I am thankful to live in a country where this is kept to a minimum.

So I'll say it simply; EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO AN OPINION, but regardless of what you believe or why you believe it, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE PEOPLE TO FOLLOW YOUR OPINION.

If you religious people really do believe it's a sin against God, then the sinners will pay on Judgment Day, right? Why are you even involved? Isn't there a section in the Bible "judge not, lest ye be judged"? I've seen an awful lot of judging by pro-lifers in this thread.

I'm not pro-abortion. I don't know if I could personally ever have one. But I would never, ever stop someone else who planned to get one. That is their right.


Remind me to buy you a cold one. :)

"It" is not her body, an abortion is an operation on an other human person, and this baby, or foetus/embryo/zygote, is not a part of her body.

The reason I think that abortion is wrong actually has nothing to do with my religion, I would think it was abomnible even if I weren't Catholic. It is about ending the life of another human person. It's not about choice, or the rights of a woman over her body.

Sorry, no. It's her body. If it was other, if it was, say, a potentially life-threatening parasitical organism, you wouldn't coddle it. You'd lance it like a pimple. Well, if she doesn't want it, it is a potentially life-threatening parasitical organism, and if she doesn't want to serve as a host for a potentially life-threatening parasitical organism she bloody well doesn't have to. And sorry, but I happen to agree that it's the absolute limit on good taste to discuss it if you don't own and operate a uterus yourself.

If you think your horror for, not to mention your totally misplaced sense of entitlement regarding women's rights to exert control over their bodies stems wholly from your Catholic upbringing, however much you may claim to the contrary.

You're not entitled. Not even close.

And why is it that so many people complain about men having opinions, just because they "can't experience what a woman can"? You don't have to be a woman to appreciate the fact that birth is painful, and neither male nor female should trivialize the pain. But the point remains: we all know it's painful, so let's move the hell on and forget all these sexist things that are spouted continually about men not having a right to an opinion on abortion.

The taking of human life is the taking of human life -- period. Whether you believe it's right, wrong, or none of the above, you should be able to express your opinion without having to be smeared by pro-death people.

But do you deny that they are alive. :sniper:

But they do have cells and they can survive on they're own, so yes, they are alive.

The taking of human life is the taking of human life -- period. Whether you believe it's right, wrong, or none of the above, you should be able to express your opinion without having to be smeared by pro-death people.

Well, it's not true that while everyone may have an opinion, that it naturally follows that you're necessarily entitled to express that opinion. You see how that works? You're not entitled to it. There's nothing that entitles you to expressing your opinion. And if you think that being in favour of reproductive choice is "pro-death", well then - doubly so.

It's the man's baby too!


Yeah? Then let's see him BE A MAN...and shoulder his share of the responsibility for the baby...financial and otherwise life-altering. WHEN...and IF the man wants to pick up that burden...THEN your argument holds water. Until then, your argument is compltely invalid!

How many men go around knocking up women and then go claiming the baby isn't theirs to avoid the responsibility for the baby...and then want to force the women into having the baby, and holding the bag for it, too?? I mean holding the bag financially, and in a life-altering way, whereas the man is then scott-free to go off and knock up some other woman, and go off like a scumbag, claiming the kid isn't his!

Sorry, no. It's her body. If it was other, if it was, say, a potentially life-threatening parasitical organism, you wouldn't coddle it. You'd lance it like a pimple. Well, if she doesn't want it, it is a potentially life-threatening parasitical organism, and if she doesn't want to serve as a host for a potentially life-threatening parasitical organism she bloody well doesn't have to. And sorry, but I happen to agree that it's the absolute limit on good taste to discuss it if you don't own and operate a uterus yourself.

If you think your horror for, not to mention your totally misplaced sense of entitlement regarding women's rights to exert control over their bodies stems wholly from your Catholic upbringing, however much you may claim to the contrary.

You're not entitled. Not even close.

Exactly!

I'd ask NVay and all other pro-lifer MEN if they'd be as gung-ho pro-life if it was THEIR body that got pregnant...and if THEY were the ones who had no way to squirm out of their legal and financial responsibilities to that child. If that child would cause major alterations to THEIR life, while the woman went off scott-free (as the men currently can, and often do) THEN would he be so gung-ho pro life?

I tend to doubt it.

Ok, let me flip this one around (and try to get it back on topic before I join the s'more cook off): NVay, what makes you think that, as a man, you have a right to enforce your opinion on a woman, when you are not able to cary a child to term?

We all agree you can have an opinion, we're all good on that, XY or XX, it's all good. But why do you think it should matter?

And why is it that so many people complain about men having opinions, just because they "can't experience what a woman can"? You don't have to be a woman to appreciate the fact that birth is painful, and neither male nor female should trivialize the pain. But the point remains: we all know it's painful, so let's move the hell on and forget all these sexist things that are spouted continually about men not having a right to an opinion on abortion.

The taking of human life is the taking of human life -- period. Whether you believe it's right, wrong, or none of the above, you should be able to express your opinion without having to be smeared by pro-death people.


See, but that is just the problem right there...you are framing the debate in your own terms by assuming that those of us who favor CHOICE are, in your words, "pro-death."

No, we are NOT pro-death. This is precisely WHY we favor safe, legal, and rare abortions, because we are NOT pro-death. Because, before abortions were legal, you'd be HORRIFIED at some of the things women would do to attempt to abort a pregnancy...including going to quack doctors with filthy hands, I even heard of one case where a woman died from a punctured uterus, because the way in which she tried to abort her pregnancy was to tie a broken bottle to the handle of a whiskbroom and give a good hard shove!

women who are desperate...they will find a way to end their pregnancies, rather than shoulder a burden that they are not able to support. They have been known to end their own lives (taking the baby with them) because they saw no way out! YOU'D rather that these women go back to those days...and so if ANYONE in this debate is "pro-death" it is your side, not ours.

We do not advocate death or abortions, but we also would not stop someone else from exercising control over her own body, and prevent her from getting a safe and legal abortion...at least that way you don't end up ending TWO LIVES...but, then, again, you probably don't give a shit about the woman, anyway, do you? You don't think she ought to have any right to be anything other than barefoot and pregnant, do you?

Jesus Christ, men who are so "pro-life" REALLY irritate the snot out of me, because I know, FOR A FACT...that if it were THEIR bodies...and if THEY were the ones with no way to squirm out of their financial and other responsibilities to that baby...and that baby was going to alter and inconvenience THEIR lives to a possibly insupportable level...I know for a fact that they would not be so gung-ho "pro-life" if THEY had to go through it!

No, men just have to have one enjoyable evening. WOMEN have to go through nine months of pregnancy. MEN can always claim the baby isn't theirs and pull a disappearing act, and thus squirm out of their responsibilities to the baby. Not so the woman. SHE can't.

Sorry, no. It's her body. If it was other, if it was, say, a potentially life-threatening parasitical organism, you wouldn't coddle it. You'd lance it like a pimple. Well, if she doesn't want it, it is a potentially life-threatening parasitical organism, and if she doesn't want to serve as a host for a potentially life-threatening parasitical organism she bloody well doesn't have to. And sorry, but I happen to agree that it's the absolute limit on good taste to discuss it if you don't own and operate a uterus yourself.

If you think your horror for, not to mention your totally misplaced sense of entitlement regarding women's rights to exert control over their bodies stems wholly from your Catholic upbringing, however much you may claim to the contrary.

You're not entitled. Not even close.


That sounds a lot like saying, since only slave owners will really feel the economical pain and loss of livelihood and are the ones that will foot the entire bill for allowing all of their slaves to go free, only slave owners are allowed to vote about whether or not slavery is outlawed....

:rolleyes:

Most societal standards recognizes the right (and even obligation) of the third party to interfere when a situation arises where the first party is about the destroy the second party unless the third party objects… Your stated position that only women’s voices count is essentially absurd. Perhaps we have the right to reverse women’s suffrage because being of one gender over another makes us more capable citizens?

Well, it's not true that while everyone may have an opinion, that it naturally follows that you're necessarily entitled to express that opinion. You see how that works? You're not entitled to it. There's nothing that entitles you to expressing your opinion. And if you think that being in favour of reproductive choice is "pro-death", well then - doubly so.

Well, I was indicating that even when the opinion is reasonably put, it is usually returned with an unreasonable retort that does not answer it on its plane. But I still have the right to express my opinion (politely or otherwise), regardless of who would look down on me. Were I in Nazi Germany I would still express my opinion and have that right (although I would most assuredly be punished for it).

As to its being a matter of "reproductive choice," that term might be a little too friendly (i.e. too broad) frame for this nasty little debate. It indicates, at least at first glance, that one has the right to choose whether or not he/she wishes to reproduce and may or may not imply a choice to exterminate the product of one's reproductive choice.

That sounds a lot like saying, since only slave owners will really feel the economical pain and loss of livelihood and are the ones that will foot the entire bill for allowing all of their slaves to go free, only slave owners are allowed to vote about whether or not slavery is outlawed....

:rolleyes:

Most societal standards recognizes the right (and even obligation) of the third party to interfere when a situation arises where the first party is about the destroy the second party unless the third party objects… Your stated position that only women’s voices count is essentially absurd. Perhaps we have the right to reverse women’s suffrage because being of one gender over another makes us more capable citizens?

You WISH having that appendage made you any more intelligent! You WISH having that appendage made you a "more capable" citizen.

Jesus, no wonder I'm single and likely to stay that way for life...I cannot tolerate the arrogance and sense of entitlement that all men seem to have...and the idea of relations with another woman makes me want to vomit.

Most societal standards recognizes the right (and even obligation) of the third party to interfere when a situation arises where the first party is about the destroy the second party unless the third party objects… Your stated position that only women’s voices count is essentially absurd.

Agreed entirely. I don't know why people present arguments with such bias.

Agreed entirely. I don't know why people present arguments with such bias.


And you don't??

Pot, Kettle.....Kettle, Pot!!

Calling someone who is pro-choice "pro-death" isn't presenting an argument with bias??

And Lyric, being in favor of having an abortion is being in favor of taking human life. Most emphatically put, "pro-death."

Lyric, did you actually read the thing I posted about "reproductive choice"? You can palm it off as that, although it encompasses it -- we should be a little more specific about what's happening here. If you are in favor of a woman taking the life of her own offspring, then you are in favor of the concept of advancing death upon that unborn human. Hence the term, "pro-death."

its her body she has the right to decide when she wants a kid.. cant just force a girl to carry an unwanted kid

"It" is not her body, an abortion is an operation on an other human person, and this baby, or foetus/embryo/zygote, is not a part of her body.

The reason I think that abortion is wrong actually has nothing to do with my religion, I would think it was abomnible even if I weren't Catholic. It is about ending the life of another human person. It's not about choice, or the rights of a woman over her body.
Ahh, but it's about the the question. Is or is not a foetus is another human person. "It" is a seperate organism, yes, but an internal parasite, like a cancer, or an infection. <I'm not arguing that all fetuses are parasites, but the fact is, an unwanted pregnancy has alot in common with a venereal infection> Is a foetus sentient life, if only in potentia, and if so from when? Is it from viability? Then male masturbation and the female period can both be murder. Is it from conception? Than what about all those fertilized eggs that are simply passed by the uterus, because the mother ate some bad chili, or didn't realize she might be pregnant and got plastered? Is it at birth, in which case said foetus has no rights, and abortion isn't murder? Or is it somewhere in between, in some nebulous grey area? If you claim to have an ironclad, inviolate, immoveable answer as to the delineation point, then you are speaking of belief, also known as faith, which is typically considered the defining aspect of religion. And while your Catholic upbringings, (side question: What the hell does Catholic mean? is it refering to the great priest Cathol, or what?) may not be uniquely responsible for you opion on the subject of murder, they doubtles played a great role in your certainty as to the timing of the beginning of life. Oh, and in answering your origional question, being a man <as I am> does not prevent you from having the right to an opinion, but as a man, with the corresponding lack of access to direct experience of carrying a passenger makes your ability to judge the growing sapience of said passenger less expert, and your opinion more academic. Sorry.

Lyric, did you actually read the thing I posted about "reproductive choice"? You can palm it off as that, although it encompasses it -- we should be a little more specific about what's happening here. If you are in favor of a woman taking the life of her own offspring, then you are in favor of the concept of advancing death upon that unborn human. Hence the term, "pro-death."

And equally, by advocating the removal of rights of people everytime you disagree with something (Fundamentalists are guilty of this a lot), we could extend this logic to argue that pro-lifers are actually pro-facists who advocate the the state over the rights of the individual. Or if it is religiously based, pro-theocratics.

See? Things can be applied in reverse if you're not careful with your argument.

It's using her body to survive. Technically, it's a parasite, so it *is* part of her body.

Never mind the fact it isn't actually alive when they abort it.

Why, then, have there been cases where the, supposedly, non-living baby has tried to escape?

And Lyric, being in favor of having an abortion is being in favor of taking human life. Most emphatically put, "pro-death."

If pro-choice is pro-death, than every pro-lifer I have ever met in person (Who, to a man, woman and child, supported the death penalty) is pro-death, and anti -choice, while the abortion enthusiasts are pro-choice and pro-life. If you want to play the label game, fine, but I think that particular argument is childish. Grow up or piss off.

Edit: Just realized that all meat eaters might count as pro-death to, and I've never met a vegan person who opposed abortion. Oh, and anyone who's ever supported any war. I'm pretty sure everyone is now pro death, but if theres anyone left, congratulations, you are pro-life. (and anti-plant, anti-war, anti-choice, and anti-justice)

Amen to that.

I think everyone here needs to chill, espacillly Lyric. I know you think alot of men are selfish pigs, but trust me, some of us are still responsible human beings who won't chicken out of something. As for my opnion, I rerfer you all to the Bongman, Jay.

"A womans body is her own freakin' business."

Why, then, have there been cases where the, supposedly, non-living baby has tried to escape?
The behavior of a parasite who's host has turned on it. Your point is valid, but you need to learn to quote appropriately.
That being said, I really don't care. If there were enough data, I have no doubt you could find evidence of a second term pregnancy that could do math, but it wouldn't make it an applicable standard for education, would it. That some pregnancies display independant behavior does no more to prove that they deserve to be considered sentient than the ability of roaches to avoid aerosol insectisdes grants them a right to live in my house, much less a human body. I agree that it is fairly likely that fairly early on, a foetus could be considered a seperate living organism, but that doesn't make it sentient, and without sentience, it's rights are subordinate to those of the sentient person carrying it, and upon which it survives parasiticly.

I don't think parasiteis an aproperiate name for a baby, but you have a good point.

Ok There's lots of back and forth on this issue, and yes, everyone has a right to their opinion - male or female. So, take a deep breath, and read the question below.. perhaps you will realize that your answer is not what you expected.

I personally think that most people who call themselves "pro-life" really are "pro-choice" but simply don't know it. Ex. My grandmother - she always said she was pro life because she would never have an abortion.

When I asked her the following question, she answered "No". How do you answer?

q) Do you feel that it is YOUR PERSONAL UNDENIABLE RIGHT or that of YOUR GOVERNMENT to tell someone - ANYONE - that THEY MUST carry and bear (even if they don't raise) A child - NO MATTER WHAT?? This means that even if said child is the product of rape, insest, or at the risk to their health (possibly risking the mother's life), financial status, and/or the doctors are absolutely certain that the child would be born with serious deformaties?

If your answer to the above question is NO, it is not your undeniable right or that of your government, then despite you perhaps feeling that you personally would NEVER have an abortion, YOU ARE PRO-CHOICE. Deny it if you must.

Being pro-choice does NOT mean that you will have an abortion yourself, that you are pro-death, or that you feel that someone should or shouldn't have one. What being pro choice means is that you believe it is the right of each person to make the decision that is best for themselves based on the information at hand.

To me, this is not a debate about religion or is that bunch of cells alive or not. Ultimately, it is about control. Who controls the right for an INDIVIDUAL or INDIVIDUALS (as this IMHO should involve both prospective parents) to make a choice about being pregnant, bearing a child, everything else that this encompasses - including own beliefs.

Take out the "child" scenario, and put in appendectomy or any other medical proceedure - or heck, half the dumb things humans do - skydiving, being on fear factor and eating nasty food, driving too fast on a road. Do you or your government have a right to make a decision about your personal medical treatments or about if you will have the ability to drive faster than the speed limit? (The government could make a regulation saying No car in the country could go faster than 55 and put governors on cars... but they don't - they leave the choice to the INDIVIDUAL as to whether they will abide by the law or not or take advantage of it.)

Perhaps we all should just leave the ability to make a choice - even if it is one about having an abortion or not ALONE - and permit a choice to be made. Choice is a human trait, right or wrong. (And yes, if you want to get religious - even GOD gave Adam & Eve a choice to eat from the tree of life.)

Just some thoughts from the edge.

As I've noted multiple times, he is wrong. And unlike him, I actually knew the goddamn requirements of life, instead of pulling bullshit out of my ass like he did. Of all the things he mentioned, only one of them, reproduction, was a fucking requirement.

Someone's getting a bit cranky. Time for your nap?

10 points CthulhuFhtagn

I am the youngest of five children, with a five year gap between myself and my next-oldest sibling. My mother stated very firmly that she was always pro-choice, but that each time she conceived, she chose to bear her child.

Interestingly, my parents used multiple forms of birth control at that time, yet still managed to conceive. After deciding to carry me to term, my father made an appointment for a vasectomy. My mother admitted later in life that had she been another year or two older (she had me at age 38), she might well have exercised her right to choose. Not that it disturbs me at all, seeing as how if it'd happened a year or two later, it wouldn't have been me at all anyway. It'd have been someone else entirely.

This is why, apart from sending a card on Mother's day, I always used to make a point of calling her every year on my birthday to tell her 'thanks' for her choice.

But they do have cells and they can survive on they're own, so yes, they are alive.
If they could survive on their own, removing them from the mother wouldn't be murder would it?

What gets me is how wishy-washy the law is about life.

So, it's fine for a woman to kill her child, but if someone kills a pregnant woman, it counts as two murders?

Bullshit. You can't have it both ways.

And that's exactly what happens most of the time.

Well, I was indicating that even when the opinion is reasonably put, it is usually returned with an unreasonable retort that does not answer it on its plane. But I still have the right to express my opinion (politely or otherwise), regardless of who would look down on me. Were I in Nazi Germany I would still express my opinion and have that right (although I would most assuredly be punished for it).
I agree. I consider the opinion that you espouse an anathema to the principles of free-will and self-determination, but those very principles have always led me to support people who have the strength of character to voice controversial opinions, whatever their qualifications. Besides, if people didn't challenge convention, nothin would ever change.

As to its being a matter of "reproductive choice," that term might be a little too friendly (i.e. too broad) frame for this nasty little debate. It indicates, at least at first glance, that one has the right to choose whether or not he/she wishes to reproduce and may or may not imply a choice to exterminate the product of one's reproductive choice.
That is exactly the nature of the debate. Some might take issue with your use of the term 'exterminate' but I consider it more appropriate than most. It is, at the end of the day, a question of whether the right to refuse to reproduce is important. Besides, if you wanted to bring in the question of the taking of human life, than the Death Penalty rears it's ugly head.

What gets me is how wishy-washy the law is about life.

So, it's fine for a woman to kill her child, but if someone kills a pregnant woman, it counts as two murders?

Bullshit. You can't have it both ways.

And that's exactly what happens most of the time.

Actually, if your referring to the Peterson murders, the baby was born alive, only to die seconds later.

But, does it matter, it puts the bastard who did it away longer (or possibly kill him or her).

In response to your question, I don't think it really matters if you are male or female. If you have an opinion, you matter. Personally, on the other side of the spectrum, if I met a man who was pro-choice and who actually cared about women's rights, I'd be thrilled.

The following is somewhat off-topic, but I wanted to let it out:
I object to the term "Pro-Life" because that would lead people to think that people like myself who are NOT against abortion are "Anti-Life".

And, as always: Women's bodies belong to them and them alone. You are all entitled to your opinions, but what a woman does with her life is HER choice, not her partner's, Church's, or Government's.

What gets me is how wishy-washy the law is about life.

So, it's fine for a woman to kill her child, but if someone kills a pregnant woman, it counts as two murders?

Bullshit. You can't have it both ways.

And that's exactly what happens most of the time.

yes you can.. if a woman CHOOSES to get an abortion its her choice to do so.. its an option she does it willingly unlike a murder.. they arent the same

All of you pro choice people forget one thing. That a man was involved in creating a living being and they have the right to decide wether that living being should be murdered :mad: .
And I believe any woman that has had an abortion or anyone involved in the abortion should be executed on the spot. That's my choice.


yes you can.. if a woman CHOOSES to get an abortion its her choice to do so.. its an option she does it willingly unlike a murder.. they arent the same Willingly taking the life of another person is murder. Get over yourself.
I do not like your way of thinking and want you arborted from Earth. would it be OK for me to abort you from mother earth? I think not. So abortion is wrong.

All of you pro choice people forget one thing. That a man was involved in creating a living being and they have the right to decide wether that living being should be murdered :mad: .
And I believe any woman that has had an abortion or anyone involved in the abortion should be executed on the spot. That's my choice.


Willingly taking the life of another person is murder. Get over yourself.
I do not like your way of thinking and want you arborted from Earth. would it be OK for me to abort you from mother earth? I think not. So abortion is wrong.
well lets see.. ive had a hard life sometimes i wish my mom did get an abortion.. too bad your mom didnt."Willingly taking the life of another person is murder."... No

its not a person.. its a fetus.. stab it with a hanger it wont feel it

I'm a man, I am also vehemently pro-life. I have debated the whole abortion issue thoroughly many times, and I actually understand (though disagree with) the "pro-choice" side of the debate. However, there is one argument I can't understand: how being a man means I can't have an opinion on abortion.

This seems to me to be a very sexist attitude, how does the presence of a Y chromosomes bar me from the debate. I do not hate life any more because I am a man, neither do I think that a uterus gives women a natural right to monopolise the issue.

If we look at the logic of the argument it goes a little like this :
No uterus = No right to an opinion
Uterus but never been pregnant = No right to an opinion
Have been pregnant but never had an abortion = No right to an opinion
Had an abortion, and pro-life = No right to an opinion, because you have had an abortion.

Being a man I can never experience pregnancy; however, pregnancy does not equate to having a special love for life. I could never hope to advise a woman on how to deal with pregnancy, but I am able to tell women that abortion is wrong because it is murder of an innocent baby. This fact is independent of whether I am male or female.

If I were to then start criticising the mentality of the woman in this situation I would understand the comments, but not as it stands.

I wonder, what are other men's opinions on the issues. I welcome any comments by women also.

You can have an opinion, but your in no real position to be dictating what a sex should be doing with an issue that they deal with unless YOU are the father. The hell do you if your not the father? You do not support the family nor would you have any dictation of their life issues. If you are the father you have a right to have a say what should be done with YOUR child because the woman has involved you on a personal level.

Its like saying women can't have contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. The problem with pro-life members is the male aspect that freaking go nuts with no rational.

Keep in mind, I'm not pro-life nor am I pro-choice. I just hate loonies that aren't helping the debate. I have no real position on the issue. My main problem is those kids that are orphans kids that NO one seems to give a **** about on either eisle at the moment.

All of you pro choice people forget one thing. That a man was involved in creating a living being and they have the right to decide wether that living being should be murdered :mad: .
And I believe any woman that has had an abortion or anyone involved in the abortion should be executed on the spot. That's my choice.


Willingly taking the life of another person is murder. Get over yourself.
I do not like your way of thinking and want you arborted from Earth. would it be OK for me to abort you from mother earth? I think not. So abortion is wrong.
And, as has been said many, many, many times before, the personhood of the foetus is what is currently in debate. We all agree that if you willingly kill another human being, you are commiting murder. Given your willingness to distribute murders in judgement, I suspect that your opinions on this matter are mostly religious. Considering that your faith obviously has a very comfortable attitude towards the killing of sinners, perhaps you should be strapping a bomb to yourself and heading to the nearest abortion clinic posthaste?

In response to your question, I don't think it really matters if you are male or female. If you have an opinion, you matter. Personally, on the other side of the spectrum, if I met a man who was pro-choice and who actually cared about women's rights, I'd be thrilled.

The following is somewhat off-topic, but I wanted to let it out:
I object to the term "Pro-Life" because that would lead people to think that people like myself who are NOT against abortion are "Anti-Life".

And, as always: Women's bodies belong to them and them alone. You are all entitled to your opinions, but what a woman does with her life is HER choice, not her partner's, Church's, or Government's.
I would argue that the womans partner has a say, insofar as he takes responsibility in the relevant ways, but it's alway subordinate, because he can't take responsibility for the carrying or delivery.
As for the anti-life thing, they know. They want it that way.

I'm a man, I am also vehemently pro-life. I have debated the whole abortion issue thoroughly many times, and I actually understand (though disagree with) the "pro-choice" side of the debate. However, there is one argument I can't understand: how being a man means I can't have an opinion on abortion.

This seems to me to be a very sexist attitude, how does the presence of a Y chromosomes bar me from the debate. I do not hate life any more because I am a man, neither do I think that a uterus gives women a natural right to monopolise the issue.

If we look at the logic of the argument it goes a little like this :
No uterus = No right to an opinion
Uterus but never been pregnant = No right to an opinion
Have been pregnant but never had an abortion = No right to an opinion
Had an abortion, and pro-life = No right to an opinion, because you have had an abortion.

Being a man I can never experience pregnancy; however, pregnancy does not equate to having a special love for life. I could never hope to advise a woman on how to deal with pregnancy, but I am able to tell women that abortion is wrong because it is murder of an innocent baby. This fact is independent of whether I am male or female.

If I were to then start criticising the mentality of the woman in this situation I would understand the comments, but not as it stands.

I wonder, what are other men's opinions on the issues. I welcome any comments by women also.

You cannot tell someone what to do with their body. Whether abortion is murder is your opinion, which I fully respect. Yes men don't have much say. Men do not have controll for want of a better word over a womans uterus.

And Lyric, being in favor of having an abortion is being in favor of taking human life. Most emphatically put, "pro-death."

In YOUR opinion. Not in the eyes of the law...a fetus in NOT a human being. And I'm in favor of safe, rare, and legal abortions. Or do you want to be the cause of TWO DEATHS instead of just one by making abortions illegal, and forcing women back to the days of back-alley abortions from quacks with dirty hands (that is what they did before it was legal - ever see "Dirty Dancing??") or resorting to other extreme measures intended to end a pregnancy that often result in the severe injury or death to the mother. As I said, I read about one case where a woman died as a result of a perforated uterus, because the way she attempted to self-abort was to tie a broken bottle to the handle of a whiskbroom, and give a good shove!

Once again, you display your utter contempt for, and lack of respect for women. I'm just betting you are a man that is able to squirm out of any and all responsibility for the baby you will help create. A man can claim "it's not mine!!" A man can pull a disappearing act. A woman can't.

When you are ready to put your money where your mouth is, then you may have an equal opinion. As long as it costs you nothing, however, you do not get an equal voice...your opinion does not carry equal weight.

When YOU are ready to have your body invaded and are forced to give room and board IN YOUR BODY for nine months, against your will, to another creature...and when you are willing to make sure your shoulder the full financial responsibility for what you create....and when you are willing to give women who have been left holding the bag some REAL CHOICES AND REAL OPTIONS so that they don't have to wreck their lives when the man disappears and gets off scott-free, then talk to me. Until then, I have nothing further to say to you.

You are not going to change my view, and I don't believe I am going to change yours.

You, obviously, are just as happy to allow men to go skipping off, scott-free, leaving the woman to hold the bag...and then giving the woman no options on how to deal with being left holding the bag.

When you hold men to equal account...and it costs men every bit as much as an unwanted pregnancy costs a woman, then you may have an opinion with the same weight. Until then, as I say...I have absolutely nothing further to say to you.

You accuse others of "presenting an argument with bias" yet refuse to acknowledge your own habit of doing the same thing, by referring to pro-choice people as being "pro-death." You are the pot calling the kettle black.

If you refuse to acknowledge your own bias, then you better not respond to this at all, because if you do respond...and refuse to acknowledge your bias, you will be added to my ignore list. You are pissing me off far too much, and I'll not get banned because of you. I'd rather stick my fingers in my ears and say "I can't heeeeeeearrrrr youuuuuuuu!!!"

Lyric, did you actually read the thing I posted about "reproductive choice"? You can palm it off as that, although it encompasses it -- we should be a little more specific about what's happening here. If you are in favor of a woman taking the life of her own offspring, then you are in favor of the concept of advancing death upon that unborn human. Hence the term, "pro-death."


Did you actually READ WHAT I POSTED??!?!?!

Women who want abortions, who see no other way out of a difficult situation...WHETHER IT IS LEGAL OR NOT, THEY WILL GET ABORTIONS!!

What you will force them into, however, is back-alley abortions performed by quack doctors with dirty hands, which could lead to her death. Or you will force her into extreme measures in the attempt to self-abort, which could lead to her death.

Therefore, one could argue that YOU are in favor of forcing women into unsafe situations where they either resort to desperate measures that could result in the loss of their lives...or to seek unqualified medical help from a quack with dirty hands, that could also lead to her death. since you are advocating foring women into that situation, it could just as easily be argued that YOU are "pro-death." So why don't you take your biased labels and stick them somewhere else?

Amen to that.

I think everyone here needs to chill, espacillly Lyric. I know you think alot of men are selfish pigs, but trust me, some of us are still responsible human beings who won't chicken out of something. As for my opnion, I rerfer you all to the Bongman, Jay.

"A womans body is her own freakin' business."

You're cool in my book. Incidentally, I have my reasons for believing all men are selfish pigs. That is the only kind I have ever met! My father was. My brother was. Every man I've ever had any relationship turned out to be a selfish pig, too. EVERY LAST ONE of them, in the end, turned out to be a selfish pig.

I don't believe I have ever met a decent man who wasn't gay...or a decent man who didn't actually want to become a woman! I've never met a NORMAL man who was anything other than a selfish pig. Maybe I oughta meet you sometime, since you seem pretty okay.

And the Bongman, Jay...has it exactly right. A woman's body is her own damn business!

You're cool in my book. Incidentally, I have my reasons for believing all men are selfish pigs. That is the only kind I have ever met! My father was. My brother was. Every man I've ever had any relationship turned out to be a selfish pig, too. EVERY LAST ONE of them, in the end, turned out to be a selfish pig.

I don't believe I have ever met a decent man who wasn't gay...or a decent man who didn't actually want to become a woman! I've never met a NORMAL man who was anything other than a selfish pig. Maybe I oughta meet you sometime, since you seem pretty okay.

And the Bongman, Jay...has it exactly right. A woman's body is her own damn business!

Damn she's discovered our ruse SCATTER!!!!

I don't think parasiteis an aproperiate name for a baby, but you have a good point.

I would tend to agree, however, biologically speaking, that is precisely what a fetus is. A parasite. A parasite is a living organism that cannot exist without a host organism...that takes everything it needs to survive from it's living host...and gives nothing beneficial back to it's living host.

That, in a strictly biological sense, is the very definition of a parasite. I made the very same argument you just did...pages ago...as a Devil's Advocate sort of remark, when someone first referred to a fetus as a parasite.

BUT, on the other hand...technically, scientifically, biologically speaking....a fetus DOES fit the description of a parasite. and that means, at one time you were a parasite...I was a parasite...everyone on the face of this earth was, at one time, a parasite.

Ok There's lots of back and forth on this issue, and yes, everyone has a right to their opinion - male or female. So, take a deep breath, and read the question below.. perhaps you will realize that your answer is not what you expected.

I personally think that most people who call themselves "pro-life" really are "pro-choice" but simply don't know it. Ex. My grandmother - she always said she was pro life because she would never have an abortion.

When I asked her the following question, she answered "No". How do you answer?

q) Do you feel that it is YOUR PERSONAL UNDENIABLE RIGHT or that of YOUR GOVERNMENT to tell someone - ANYONE - that THEY MUST carry and bear (even if they don't raise) A child - NO MATTER WHAT?? This means that even if said child is the product of rape, insest, or at the risk to their health (possibly risking the mother's life), financial status, and/or the doctors are absolutely certain that the child would be born with serious deformaties?

If your answer to the above question is NO, it is not your undeniable right or that of your government, then despite you perhaps feeling that you personally would NEVER have an abortion, YOU ARE PRO-CHOICE. Deny it if you must.

Being pro-choice does NOT mean that you will have an abortion yourself, that you are pro-death, or that you feel that someone should or shouldn't have one. What being pro choice means is that you believe it is the right of each person to make the decision that is best for themselves based on the information at hand.

To me, this is not a debate about religion or is that bunch of cells alive or not. Ultimately, it is about control. Who controls the right for an INDIVIDUAL or INDIVIDUALS (as this IMHO should involve both prospective parents) to make a choice about being pregnant, bearing a child, everything else that this encompasses - including own beliefs.

Take out the "child" scenario, and put in appendectomy or any other medical proceedure - or heck, half the dumb things humans do - skydiving, being on fear factor and eating nasty food, driving too fast on a road. Do you or your government have a right to make a decision about your personal medical treatments or about if you will have the ability to drive faster than the speed limit? (The government could make a regulation saying No car in the country could go faster than 55 and put governors on cars... but they don't - they leave the choice to the INDIVIDUAL as to whether they will abide by the law or not or take advantage of it.)

Perhaps we all should just leave the ability to make a choice - even if it is one about having an abortion or not ALONE - and permit a choice to be made. Choice is a human trait, right or wrong. (And yes, if you want to get religious - even GOD gave Adam & Eve a choice to eat from the tree of life.)

Just some thoughts from the edge.


The Logical Argument: Good points. You cannot FORCE someone into being what you consider "moral." Morality, by definition IS A CHOICE!! Morality can be defined as "doing the right thing" when a choice exists to "do the wrong thing." If no choice exists, there is no morality.


The Religious Argument: If God even exists (and I believe He does) I'm sure he does not want automatons, incapable of making choices for themselves. He wants you to come to Him VOLUNTARILY...OF YOUR OWN CHOICE...and does not want people FORCED to come to Him, because they are then being brought against their will, and are therefore not coming to Him with all their heart.

And one small point...the decision should involve both prospective parents ONLY IF BOTH prospective parents are in fact taking an equal share of the responsibilities, risks, and consequences for the unwanted pregnancy. If they are not taking an equal share of the consequences, responsibilities, and risks...then why the hell should they get an equal say? Obviously...the one who is shouldering the majority (or all) of the risks, consequences, and responsibilities ought to have a greater say. And that, my friends, is the WOMAN.

You people still think you're entitled to bray like donkeys whenever it suits you?

*yawns/stretches*

Whatever. I need coffee.

Jumping in the middle here, I know, but here's my take on it.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion on any issue - men, women, children, highly intelligent apes, aliens - if you can form an opinion, you can have an opinion.

However, certain opinions will matter more than others.

Take, for instance, the matter of what I do with my hair. I have a friend who adamantly thinks I should grow it out long. I have other friends who think it should be short. These are all opinions. However, in the end, only my opinion matters, because I have the right to decide what to do with it.

The same goes for any portion of my body. I can decide to give blood. I can decide to be typed for bone marrow and choose to donate if I am ever found to be a match with a patient that needs it. I can choose who I will and will not have sex with - and when I will and will not do that. And I can choose whether or not to be pregnant - and carry a child to term. Those are my choices. As with anything, I can listen to the opinions of others and weigh them against my own. However, in the end, it is only my opinion that matters.

My opinion on abortion is that it should only be used in the rarest and most extreme of cases. There are times when it is medically necessary (either for physical or mental health) and should probably be used in those cases. Beyond that, I am personally oposed. That is my opinion. However, unless I am the pregnant one, my opinion counts less than that of the woman going through it. I can tell her my opinion. I can try and convince her that I am correct, but it is her decision in the end.

A man's opinion will never and can never be as important in this discussion as a woman's, because a man can never become pregnant. Biology has dealt the cards here, and the woman got all the responsibility - and thus all the rights - associated with being pregnant. A man can certainly have an opinion on what she should do. He can share that opinion and can try and convince her that he is correct, but his opinion will never matter as much as hers does.

A man's opinion will never and can never be as important in this discussion as a woman's, because a man can never become pregnant. Biology has dealt the cards here, and the woman got all the responsibility - and thus all the rights - associated with being pregnant. A man can certainly have an opinion on what she should do. He can share that opinion and can try and convince her that he is correct, but his opinion will never matter as much as hers does.
Nicely put. I went so far as to say that a man lacks entitlement to promulgate his opinion, but what you've written handles it well enough.

I suggest you read one of my previous posts. Since embryos have DNA in accordance with Homo sapiens and follow the growth stages as susual, they are human. Whether they are persons or not is a matter to be debated.

so no playing with yourself???