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.

I don't believe having a uterus makes another person any more qualified to dictate what I do with my body. NOBODY, male or female, has the right to make medical decisions for me against my wishes, and NOBODY has the right to force me to endure a pregnancy if I don't want it.

I believe all persons, male and female, should have the absolute right to deal with their own pregnancies as they see fit. You have every right to choose to continue any pregnancy you experience, just as any other man or woman has. You have no right whatsoever to make that choice for another person, male or female.

I'm pro-choice but I just wanna touch on a point.I agree that everyone should be allowed to use their own body how they like... IF that use doesn't impact other people in any way.

If men have no business being involved in the 'should abortion be legal' issue, then why should we be expected to foot the lions share of the bill when women opt to have the child? I know guys who are paying 50% of their salary to ex-wives and they would ardently debate the point that women bear all the responsibility of family and child rearing.

I mean, let's say I want to have laser corrective surgery. I can opt to have it or not to have it, either way it won't kill me, but let's say if I opt to have it then my significant other has to pay half of her salary for the next 18-25 years to support the consequences of my surgery. Shouldn't she have at least a little bit of input into my decision?

Women can't go into combat.. at least not in the same respect that guys can, but there are plenty of women who sound off on the topic of wars and if their opinion is backed by logic then they have the right to be heard. Same in reverse with abortion.

Also, the days are long past when guys can claim a baby isn't theirs or run off. We have DNA testing now. We have dozens of ways to track runaways. And frankly, the types of guys who would do that kind of thing, or the types of guys who wouldn't work to support a kid, are usually not hard to spot... a woman who expects a serious relationship and a family with a guy who is an obvious sack of crap is pretty much begging to get screwed.

If men have no business being involved in the 'should abortion be legal' issue, then why should we be expected to foot the lions share of the bill when women opt to have the child? I know guys who are paying 50% of their salary to ex-wives and they would ardently debate the point that women bear all the responsibility of family and child rearing.

Who said that women bear "all the responsibility of family and child rearing"?

We said that women bear all the responsibility of pregnancy, as they are the only ones who can get pregnant.

Women can't go into combat.. at least not in the same respect that guys can, but there are plenty of women who sound off on the topic of wars and if their opinion is backed by logic then they have the right to be heard. Same in reverse with abortion.

You have the right to speak your opinion. However, you have no right to make a medical decision for a woman. The same is true with your laser surgery example. Your SO might have the right to tell you whether or not they think you should have surgery, but you have the ultimate decision all to yourself.

Also, the days are long past when guys can claim a baby isn't theirs or run off. We have DNA testing now. We have dozens of ways to track runaways. And frankly, the types of guys who would do that kind of thing, or the types of guys who wouldn't work to support a kid, are usually not hard to spot... a woman who expects a serious relationship and a family with a guy who is an obvious sack of crap is pretty much begging to get screwed.

You would be surprised how hard to spot a guy that might do that can be - and how much someone can change if they've been married a while.

Meanwhile, I can tell you with absolute certainty that most deadbeat dads simply get away. If a woman presses the issue and if he hasn't left the state and if she knows exactly where he is and where he works, she might be able to force child support. For the most part, however, it really isn't enforced.

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.


Most abortions are not done by women who were raped, but by women who chose to have sex. And don't say that a majority of women didn't know they could get pregnant... because that's stupid. The fact is that many women had sex knowing full well that a human life could be created. I think that many women have the means to support the child they are bearing and there is always adoption.


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!!!"

Whether you are for or against abortions doesn't and shouldnt matter in regards to it's legality. The main thing is, that abortions will happen whether they are legal or not. In that respect they should be legal for those who choose to get them because otherwise the women wanting one will seek out a 'back-alley' abortion. Anyway, just because you have an opinion on how othes should live their lives doesn't mean you should make decisions for those others. Live your life according to how you think it should be lived and let others live theirs according to how they think theirs shoudl be lived.

Who said that women bear "all the responsibility of family and child rearing"?

We said that women bear all the responsibility of pregnancy, as they are the only ones who can get pregnant..

No-one said that... at least I don't think so (I'm not gonna try and pretend I was arsed enough to read all 17 pages of this thread :) ), but what percentage of the whole child rearing process is the pregnancy and what percentage is the part where the man is directly involved? A decision to have or not have an abortion covers the whole child-rearing process, not just the nine months of the pregnancy. No, of course I don't think that a man has the right to physically prevent his wife, gf, or whatever from getting an abortion... that would be an absurd statement. But men should have equal say in abortion legislation and such... not all women have been pregnant either after all.

You have the right to speak your opinion. However, you have no right to make a medical decision for a woman. The same is true with your laser surgery example. Your SO might have the right to tell you whether or not they think you should have surgery, but you have the ultimate decision all to yourself.

Fair enough, but then shouldn't she be able to say, 'Fine... that's your choice, but I'm not gonna pay for it? It's my money and you don't have the right to spend my money however you see fit?'

Its a bit of a double standard, isn't it? We hear all kinds of comments, true comments, to the effect of, 'Hey, it was the man who caused this pregnancy just as much as the woman' when it comes to working and paying for the child, yet when it comes to major decision making like this, or when fighting for custody of a child we're second class citizens.

You would be surprised how hard to spot a guy that might do that can be - and how much someone can change if they've been married a while.

Meanwhile, I can tell you with absolute certainty that most deadbeat dads simply get away. If a woman presses the issue and if he hasn't left the state and if she knows exactly where he is and where he works, she might be able to force child support. For the most part, however, it really isn't enforced.

Well, we're talking from our own different personal experiences. I used to work in a welfare office and I'd see crap like men who have 9 different kids with 8 different women. Frequently. Lots of guys with kids who have made no effort at all to work in years. My own sis had a kid who is 7 years old now with a guy who had been in and out of jail. He hasn't paid a lick of child support yet. I mean I love her but I was like... well, wtf did you expect? Guys like that are gonna be able to run and hide easily because they don't have anything to pack, metaphorically speaking. I give women some credit... I figure they should be smart enough to know what they're getting into when they hook up with guys like that.

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of guys who have been married and bolted too... but by far most guys who appear stable are gonna actually be reasonably stable family men. We guys get painted with a pretty broad brush a lot of times.

Fair enough, but then shouldn't she be able to say, 'Fine... that's your choice, but I'm not gonna pay for it? It's my money and you don't have the right to spend my money however you see fit?'

I think she should.

And I think men should be able to say that when a woman decides not to have an abortion - so long as they do it within the time frame that she could abort if she chose to (or within 3 months or so if she intentionally waits until after that time to tell him).

Of course, that man would have to give up all rights to that child. He could never contact it, could never have any contact with it, could never even know if the woman had chosen to keep it. It wouldn't matter if he changed his mind years down the road, he would still have no rights whatsoever regarding any child that may have been born - as it would be much like an abortion is to a woman.

Well, we're talking from our own different personal experiences. I used to work in a welfare office and I'd see crap like men who have 9 different kids with 8 different women. Frequently. Lots of guys with kids who have made no effort at all to work in years. My own sis had a kid who is 7 years old now with a guy who had been in and out of jail. He hasn't paid a lick of child support yet. I mean I love her but I was like... well, wtf did you expect? Guys like that are gonna be able to run and hide easily because they don't have anything to pack, metaphorically speaking. I give women some credit... I figure they should be smart enough to know what they're getting into when they hook up with guys like that.

Those guys exist, but they aren't the majority of deadbeat dads. Most are working, with stable jobs, and have been married. And most women who end up in that situation don't bother to try and enforce the child support. In fact, I've seen a woman who went about 10 years without ever seeing a child support check. Then, her new husband wanted to adopt the kids and the biological father wouldn't allow it. She simply reminded him that he owed her 10 years of child support that she could certainly call in. He gave up custody immediately. Shows you how much the guy cared about his kids, eh?

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of guys who have been married and bolted too... but by far most guys who appear stable are gonna actually be reasonably stable family men. We guys get painted with a pretty broad brush a lot of times.

Of course deadbeats are a small percentage. I would hardly suggest that all men are going to end up doing that.

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!
I'm not saying that abortions should be totally banned. I'm saying that if a man and a woman have made a mutual agreement to take care of the baby, and are commited the mother should not have the right to decide to have an abortion.
:fluffle: :mp5: :sniper:

Abortion should be regulated like killing is now, in self-defense and in the defense of others. Otherwise, it's manslaughter in the best case scenario and first degree murder in the worst case scenario.

I'm pro death, i think everyone should try it once. But seriously...

Men can't have abortions but they can be aborted. Thats why they should have a say in abortion laws. Women carry most of the burden of raising the child after birth too. Does that mean they should be able to do whatever they want to that child? The real argument about abortion is whether the fetus has rights, and that argument has nothing to do with what sex you are. If abortion was banned it would be a declaration of fetal rights rather than a removal of womens rights. I happen to be in favor of legal abortion (and am a man) but its more a matter of practicality than morality for me.

I'm not saying that abortions should be totally banned. I'm saying that if a man and a woman have made a mutual agreement to take care of the baby, and are commited the mother should not have the right to decide to have an abortion.


Can a person sign away their rights to their body?

Could I, for instance, agree to be someone's slave, giving them legal custody of my body? Would the law then enforce that?

I think she should.

And I think men should be able to say that when a woman decides not to have an abortion - so long as they do it within the time frame that she could abort if she chose to (or within 3 months or so if she intentionally waits until after that time to tell him).

Of course, that man would have to give up all rights to that child. He could never contact it, could never have any contact with it, could never even know if the woman had chosen to keep it. It wouldn't matter if he changed his mind years down the road, he would still have no rights whatsoever regarding any child that may have been born - as it would be much like an abortion is to a woman.


See, I like that. If they implemented that, then I'd be perfectly fine with leaving the abortion decision to women. In fact I'd better be fine because I'd have no business complaining. Both parents would have thought about what they are getting into and planned for it beforehand. Both parents would be volunteers and not draftees. No mid-life crisis crap or resentment 10 years later.

We'll never see something like that in this country tho. We're way too conservative. :(

Men can't have abortions but they can be aborted.

Really? And here I was thinking that abortions could only happen to embryos and fetuses.

*Wonders how to abort my annoying co-worker*

If abortion was banned it would be a declaration of fetal rights rather than a removal of womens rights.

Not really. It would be giving an embryo or fetus the right to use someone else's body against their will. As Bottle would point out, this is a right that no human being has. You couldn't use my body against my will. Neither could an embryo or fetus, even if we declared it a human being with all the rights thereof.

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!

Interestingly, I feel that my position on abortion also stems largely from my experiences with men, but for almost precisely the opposite reason.

Asshole men have been a rarity in my life. Sure, I've encountered them, as we all do, but the vast majority of men in my life are awesome. My dad is one of the greatest people who has ever lived (in my humble opinion), my brother is so generous and wonderful he puts me to shame, and pretty much all my closest friends are male. My lover is male, and is--needless to say--as fun and intelligent as he is gorgeous.

I have been fortunate to live my life around men who are honorable and respectful. They assure me that they have no interest in owning my body, nor do they presume to claim they know how to care for my body better than I do. They view me as an equal, and they know that I don't need them, or other women, or the government, or a religious leader, or anybody else, to make important decisions about my personal life.

They know that if I sought an abortion it would be because I had thought it over very carefully and had decided it was the best possible option (in what would inherently be a pretty awful situation). They don't insult me by insinuating that I would need a court-appointed "waiting period" to think it over, because they know women don't just go get abortions on a whim. They wouldn't embarass themselves by making pathetic arguments about men having claim to my pregnancy because of their sperm contribution, nor would they resort to ludicrous arguments about "life beginning at conception," because they are as educated as I am and know better than that.

These men in my life have shown me what it means to be a good man, and have taught me a lot about what it means to be a good person in general. My body is mine, and no others, just as every person's body belongs to them and them alone. It is my right and my responsibility. No honorable man or woman would be interested in taking that from me.

*snip* part of men not being forced to give up money to support the child quote*

I think she should.

And I think men should be able to say that when a woman decides not to have an abortion - so long as they do it within the time frame that she could abort if she chose to (or within 3 months or so if she intentionally waits until after that time to tell him).

Of course, that man would have to give up all rights to that child. He could never contact it, could never have any contact with it, could never even know if the woman had chosen to keep it. It wouldn't matter if he changed his mind years down the road, he would still have no rights whatsoever regarding any child that may have been born - as it would be much like an abortion is to a woman.

And this, people, is EXACTLY why the courts need to get involved. Rational sounding adults don't even understand what they are talking about. The CHILD has rights to support, emotional and economical, that neither parent has the power to willfully deny the child those rights to their other parent. The courts should and does hold both parents responsible for the rearing of the children.

Children are NOT cars, they are not property, you don't just get to go out there and buy someone elses children. They cannot, under any circumstances, be treated like property, no matter how logical the agrument sounds.

I'm pro death, i think everyone should try it once. But seriously...

Men can't have abortions but they can be aborted. Thats why they should have a say in abortion laws. Women carry most of the burden of raising the child after birth too. Does that mean they should be able to do whatever they want to that child? The real argument about abortion is whether the fetus has rights, and that argument has nothing to do with what sex you are. If abortion was banned it would be a declaration of fetal rights rather than a removal of womens rights. I happen to be in favor of legal abortion (and am a man) but its more a matter of practicality than morality for me.
Wrong. If a fetus were declared legally equal to all born human persons then abortion could still be 100% legal. No human person has the right to use or harvest your body/organs/tissues/fluids against your wishes, so declaring a fetus a human person would not give it any right to a woman's body. Her body would still be hers to withhold, and if she demanded that her contact with the fetus be ended then the fetus would not have any more right to protest that then a blood-recipient would have right to enslave a donor.

And this, people, is EXACTLY why the courts need to get involved. Rational sounding adults don't even understand what they are talking about. The CHILD has rights to support, emotional and economical, that neither parent has the power to willfully deny the child those rights. The courts should and do hold both parents responsible to the rearing of the children.

Children are NOT cars, they are not property, you don't just get to go out their and buy someone elses children. They cannot, under any circumstances, be treated like property, not matter how logical the agrument sounds.

The

In theory that sounds great. Ideally everyone would want to play a traditional role and be mentally and emotionally equipped to do so. In practice it doesn't work because if someone, male or female, doesn't want a child and is unwilling or unable to play the role of a mother or father then how is a court gonna force them into being a good parent?

Why not work things out beforehand in a way that both mother and father approve of? If both the parents are doing what they want to do then won't that benefit the child more than having a dad showing up once every 8 months with a $20 present and a cheesy smile, or having a man in the house who clearly doesn't want to be there?

And is the decision yours or mine anyway? Shouldn't it be up to the parents in question?

Wrong. If a fetus were declared legally equal to all born human persons then abortion could still be 100% legal. No human person has the right to use or harvest your body/organs/tissues/fluids against your wishes, so declaring a fetus a human person would not give it any right to a woman's body. Her body would still be hers to withhold, and if she demanded that her contact with the fetus be ended then the fetus would not have any more right to protest that then a blood-recipient would have right to enslave a donor.


The fetus is already there, it already exists, due to no fault of it's own it is already planted. It's not like the fetus' are going around on the streets stopping women at random and saying you, you look like a good prospect, I'm moving it!


Imminent Domain

Being a man does not preclude you having an opinion on abortion. It is an issue that affects everyone in some way. However, given that it is likely to affect a women differently, your opinion might be given a different weight.

And is the decision yours or mine anyway? Shouldn't it be up to the parents in question?

No, it shouldn't be the adult’s decision at all, the court should be the advocate for the Child, neither parent can sign away the child’s rights to sue and demand at the very least, economic support from their parents... The right belongs to the child, not the parent (s).

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 certainly do have a right to an opinion. I used to be very strongly pro-life as well, and although I still feel that the unborn child deserves some protection - particularly in the last two trimesters when it is a viable baby - I'm a bit more laid back about it now. I guess I'm just getting a bit more mellow as I age. In any case, I neither understand nor respect the special kind of spinelessness it must take for a woman to kill her own child - especially when the pregnancy occurred due to carelessness on the part of one or both partners. But that's just me. And by the way, I am a woman who has borne and raised two children - both under less than ideal circumstances - so I definitely have a right to an opinion.

No, it shouldn't be the adult’s decision at all, the court should be the advocate for the Child, neither parent can sign away the child’s rights to sue and demand at the very least, economic support from their parents... The right belongs to the child, not the parent (s).

Well, the idea was that one parent, who wanted the child, would take care of it with the understanding that the other parent who didn't want one could go the hell away and stay away.

I mean, if the court should be stepping into cases like that then why not get rid of the middleman and have kids get raised by the state, so that we can ensure that every child receives an appropriate level of attention, care, and economic support (what's 'appropriate' would be determined by our democratically elected leadership of course!) :) .

Well, the idea was that one parent, who wanted the child, would take care of it with the understanding that the other parent who didn't want one could go the hell away and stay away.

I mean, if the court should be stepping into cases like that then why not get rid of the middleman and have kids get raised by the state, so that we can ensure that every child receives an appropriate level of attention, care, and economic support (what's 'appropriate' would be determined by our democratically elected leadership of course!) :) .


You are advocating that we treat children like property. As if they don't have their own rights as people.

There are three parties involved here, two can not sign off the rights of the third. Consider, if you and I are wronged by a third party, and the court says that the third party has paid me off and I agree that since they have paid me that they don't owe you anything, that you then can’t sue them??? :eek: Of course not.

A parent does not have the right to sign away the rights of the child, they are not property, they have their own inherent rights as people and the right for damages done to them.

You tried to change it like I am advocating that everyone be raised by the state, this is not at all the same as saying the state must protect their rights of the children as individuals.

You are advocating that we treat children like property. As if they don't have their own rights as people.

There are three parties involved here, two can not sign off the rights of the third. Consider, if you and I are wronged by a third party, and the court says that the third party has paid me off and I agree that since they have paid me that they don't owe you anything, that you then can’t sue them??? :eek: Of course not.

A parent does not have the right to sign away the rights of the child, they are not property, they have their own inherent rights as people and the right for damages done to them.

You tried to change it like I am advocating that everyone be raised by the state, this is not at all the same as saying the state must protect their rights of the children as individuals.

Well, let's look at it this way... when a man pays child support does he write the check out to the child or the mother?

I'm assuming the answer to that is, 'the mother' and the reason for that is that the mother is considered to be qualified to make decisions on the care and support of the child. She is responsible for the family unit in that case and the mans check is going towards the upkeep of said unit.

So if the law passes that someone who doesn't want a child doesn't have to be involved, then that mother is making a decision, when she has that child with a man who opts out. She is deciding that she is capable of caring for and supporting that child by herself. And she is qualified to make that decision from the argument I made in the preceding paragraph... kids do not have the same rights and privileges as adults, and for good reason.

I'm not saying that you advocated state run orphanages or something. My point was that the logic that the state should step in and overule the parents on anything when the child is not being abused... well, that logic is a slippery slope and you can extend it to include stronger ideas very easily. Abuse, yes, the state should step in. Anything else they need to keep their nose out IMO.

And really, this happens now anyway... regardless. Plenty of fathers just run the hell away and then wreak all kinds of havoc when they show up 5, 10, 25 years later with regrets and apologies. Millions, perhaps billions are spent on child support enforcement and legislation that accomplishes little. So why not drop the farce and let people act how they're going to act as long as the child has a loving caregiver and a roof over their head?

Greenlander, you're a supporter of eugenics (as established thoroughly in a prior thread) - would you support the inclusion of a genetically-encoded "reproductive switch" that could be turned on/off by a consulting physician?

Well, the idea was that one parent, who wanted the child, would take care of it with the understanding that the other parent who didn't want one could go the hell away and stay away.

Exactly. And if that parent is the type who doesn't want to help take care of the child, then it is probably the best situation for all involved.

It's nice and all to act like financial support is the only type of necessary support, but it isn't. And, in many cases, it is better for the child to not deal with the parent at all than to have financial support and that is it. Not knowing a parent at all would be better than getting an occasional check from one, but no emotional support.

If I were to get pregnant and the father did not want to provide support for that child, I would walk away and never look back. I would never have any contact with that man again - and neither would my child. It would be as if he never existed. I would ensure that my child got the financial and emotional support necessary - as well as the male and female role models he or she should have.

Well, let's look at it this way... when a man pays child support does he write the check out to the child or the mother?

*snip*

The parent that the child had to sue to get support should have to write the checks, mainly because they didn't want to support their own offspring in the first place they need to be coherced for support. However, they should have to write out to the state for oversight, with criminal penalties if a check is missed.

The state then ensures that the child gets sustenance payments even if the dead-beat parent doesn't pay. The state would write a check from their system to the care-giver of the child for food and clothing, education, day care, medicine etc., and they (the state) should then have the right to periodically check to make sure that the kid is being properly being taken care of with the money that is being sent..

Greenlander, you're a supporter of eugenics (as established thoroughly in a prior thread) - would you support the inclusion of a genetically-encoded "reproductive switch" that could be turned on/off by a consulting physician?

I don't think that is feasible in the foreseeable future, but IF it becomes possible, I bet people will do it themselves, perfect unforgettable birth control etc.,...

However, I don't think we 'need' to do that, we only need to criminalize having children and then not taking care of them... :D

What about mules, they can't reproduce either. :confused:
They have a mechanism for reproduction. It's just that their gametes cannot fuse, as mules have a odd number of chromosomes.

Someone's getting a bit cranky. Time for your nap?
I went to lunch a few minutes after I posted that. I was hungry, apparently.

Meanwhile, I can tell you with absolute certainty that most deadbeat dads simply get away. If a woman presses the issue and if he hasn't left the state and if she knows exactly where he is and where he works, she might be able to force child support. For the most part, however, it really isn't enforced.

Thank you. My points exactly. Fact is, it really ISN'T enforced, not nearly hard enough. If you ask ME...any deadbeat dad ought to undergo forced castration so at the very least he can't do it to some other woman!

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.

A woman has a uterus.

A man does not.

A man does not get to 'own' the uterus, just because he associates with the woman.

The woman get's to decide what happens inside her OWN body.

The man gets to decide what happens inside HIS own body.

If a man can carry a child, he can decide what happens to it.

Seems logical, and obvious, to me.

See, I like that. If they implemented that, then I'd be perfectly fine with leaving the abortion decision to women. In fact I'd better be fine because I'd have no business complaining. Both parents would have thought about what they are getting into and planned for it beforehand. Both parents would be volunteers and not draftees. No mid-life crisis crap or resentment 10 years later.

We'll never see something like that in this country tho. We're way too conservative. :(

No, the reason we won't see it is because we are too patriarchal a society...and too misogynistic a society.

Too many men have the idea in their heads that women were made to be screwed. And that we should have no rights...nor any desires, plans, dreams, hopes, or rights, except what men will grant, and only in no woman DARES to threaten the lofty male position of power.

It's all about power and all about control. Men are seeking control over women's bodies. Y'all men wouldn't like it if the shoe was on the other foot!

Thank you. My points exactly. Fact is, it really ISN'T enforced, not nearly hard enough. If you ask ME...any deadbeat dad ought to undergo forced castration so at the very least he can't do it to some other woman!

Wow, you and I can have something in common after all! :D

No, the reason we won't see it is because we are too patriarchal a society...and too misogynistic a society.

Too many men have the idea in their heads that women were made to be screwed. And that we should have no rights...nor any desires, plans, dreams, hopes, or rights, except what men will grant, and only in no woman DARES to threaten the lofty male position of power.

It's all about power and all about control. Men are seeking control over women's bodies. Y'all men wouldn't like it if the shoe was on the other foot!

But then you go off and show your stereotypical prejudices again, bigoted analyses of half the citizens on the planet and conspiratorial theory of American society in general :rolleyes: When in doubt, blame an anonymous group (in this case, all men in general, and most likely, mostly blame the white European descended men).

But then you go off and show your stereotypical prejudices again, bigoted analyses of half the citizens on the planet and conspiratorial theory of American society in general :rolleyes: When in doubt, blame an anonymous group (in this case, all men in general, and most likely, mostly blame the white European descended men).

Actually, she does have a point. Society as a whole is patriarchal at the moment. One only needs to look at the distribution of economic and political power to be able to see the imbalance.

Additionally, attitudes commonly seen throughout areas of male abuse over females, particularly rape, have often been divided between it being the man's fault and it being the woman's fault for either manner of dress/insufficient firepower.

No surprise that cases like that sometimes result in the rapist walking away with minimal or no sentences at all.

Now I am not saying that all males are like that, but I would say a goodly chunk of the male portion of society does hold onto some very sexist views.

:confused

Ok, I'm a girl, I agree with abortion - provided no one has their feelings hurt, people should do whatever they like (Unborn babies don't show feelings). I don't think it should be only woman giving their oppinions, though, aside from anything else, pregnancy can make you irrational.

Anyway, I just wanted to know what was wrong with killing anyway? I mean, you're all for life, but I'm sure alot of you eat meat, and couldn't care less about the enviroment. (I'm not a vegitarian). Why is it ok to kill animals, but not a fetus which may not have much of a life anyway? Just wondering.

Actually, she does have a point. Society as a whole is patriarchal at the moment. One only needs to look at the distribution of economic and political power to be able to see the imbalance.

Additionally, attitudes commonly seen throughout areas of male abuse over females, particularly rape, have often been divided between it being the man's fault and it being the woman's fault for either manner of dress/insufficient firepower.

No surprise that cases like that sometimes result in the rapist walking away with minimal or no sentences at all.

Now I am not saying that all males are like that, but I would say a goodly chunk of the male portion of society does hold onto some very sexist views.

Well, I can tell you that, in the business world, even....I have advanced ideas for improving production and efficiency, thus saving the company money, only to have no interest shown. Yet, when a MAN would make the very same suggestion I just got thru making (and getting no entusiasm over my suggestion) the MAN would be declared "a genius" and "his" idea would be immediately implemented, AND HE got all the credit for the "brilliant idea" when, all along, it was MY idea first!

This is just one of the ways in which women are not taken seriously in the business world.

Another, very obvious way, in which women are looked down upon: Go to any auto-parts store or mechanic. If you are a woman, they will talk down to you, or attempt to pull the wool over your eyes and sell you things you do not need. They don't do that to men!
Once, I went to an auto-parts store with a male friend of mine (we happened to be in the same car at the time) he needed an oil filter for his car. I needed an air filter for mine.

We stood next to each other in line, he went first and then me...and he waited with me, while my purchase was rung up. I gave the guy a 20-dollar bill for the air filter...and this asswipe turns and gives the change to the GUY who was with me...even though I was the one who'd handed him the fucking 20-dollar bill!!

There are many areas in life in which women are held in contempt.

You may control what's in my uterus when I can demand your organs for transplant whether you like it or not.

You may control what's in my uterus when I can demand your organs for transplant whether you like it or not.
Barrage of jokes about "You can transplant my organ anytime" in 3... 2... 1...

if people use religion to justify their anti-abortion beliefs then they are turning their eyes from their own truth...god aborts almost half of all pregnecies already.

I was wondering, and I hope a bunch of people don't start screaming at me for it, cause it's just a thought, but why have sex in the first place if not for the purpose of trying to reproduce? So why go through all the trouble of aborting a baby if you don't want it? Health issues are one thing, but aborting a fetus for not wanting it just seems rather frivolous to me.

Personally, and it's just my own opinion, no one in the world has to agree with me, I think there are many other ways of showing love than sex, much more meaningful ways, and sex should be more for creating another life.

And that's not a religious thing either, because that's one of the most important things in nature.

I was wondering, and I hope a bunch of people don't start screaming at me for it, cause it's just a thought, but why have sex in the first place if not for the purpose of trying to reproduce? So why go through all the trouble of aborting a baby if you don't want it? Health issues are one thing, but aborting a fetus for not wanting it just seems rather frivolous to me.

Just a hypothetical question, but have you ever had sex?

Just a hypothetical question, but have you ever had sex?

Lol, yeah, but only to one man, and that's my husband.

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?

He can feel the joys of fatherhood but, and so has just as much say over the kid as you do.
Funny how the joys of pain and pregnancy dont mean so much when it comes to a cold blooded decision like abortion. :rolleyes:
What happens to them there?

He can feel the joys of fatherhood but, and so has just as much say over the kid as you do.

Okay, fine, he can have just as much "say" over the "kid." But he gets zero say about the woman's body, since that belongs to her and not him. Period. If he wants to experience the joys of fatherhood so much then he can incubate the fetus in his uterus.

But wait! GASP! Could it be that there may be an aspect of motherhood for which there is no fatherly parallel?! Could biology truly be so unequal?!

Funny how the joys of pain and pregnancy dont mean so much when it comes to a cold blooded decision like abortion. :rolleyes:
What happens to them there?
You really don't know the first thing about abortion, do you? Tell you what: if you care about "life" so much, how about you come volunteer at my clinic...I've got some people for you to meet.

For instance, you could meet the 19 year old music student who narrowly escaped a violent boyfriend, only to find out she had become pregnant with his child. Tell her that the time she has spent agonizing over this situation is just a selfish delusion. Remind her that it's coldblooded of her to have any dreams or hopes of her own, and it's wicked to want to bring life into this world only when you are ready to love it and care for it. Don't forget to remind her how wicked she is for keeping the "father" out of the picture, since he's got a right to the baby.

You could speak to the middle class suburban woman who found out she was pregnant only a week before her husband was in a horrible car accident. He is now in and out of comas, facing a long and incredibly difficult recovery, and she feels neither financially nor emotionally prepared to cope with pregnancy, childbirth, and a baby on top of helping and supporting her husband. Tell her that she is coldblooded, please do, and say it to her husband's face as well. Tell him what a selfish bitch of a wife he has, a bitch who would give up the pregnancy she wanted in order to help him recover in the hopes that they can build a future family together.

Or how about the mother of four who can barely make enough money to buy her kids shoes, even with her and her husband working two jobs. Tell her she's coldblooded for spending money on her kids' school supplies instead of on Pills for herself. Tell her it's coldblooded of her to realize she will lose her jobs if she tries to take time off for her pregnancy, and it's coldblooded of her to know that she's got no health insurance to pay for the expenses. Tell her how coldblooded she is for giving up her chance at a baby she wanted to keep, because she knew that feeding her current children is more important than her personal happiness.

Guess what? Six in 10 women who have abortions are mothers. Still want to claim that the joys and pains of pregnancy mean nothing to these women?

1 in 3 American women will have an abortion at some point in her life. You probably think you don't have a friend or loved one who's had an abortion...and you're almost positively dead wrong.

It's amazing how long the anti-choicers have hung on to the myth that women who seek abortions are cold, selfish, slutty bitches who only want to shed an inconvenience so they can return to their life of wild hedonism. It's good that you don't let tiny things like fact, the welfare of children, or basic human rights interfere with your little tirades.

I was wondering, and I hope a bunch of people don't start screaming at me for it, cause it's just a thought, but why have sex in the first place if not for the purpose of trying to reproduce?

Well, having sex is healthy, for one reason. And it is generally part of a healthy relationship. And, to many, it is the highest expression of love.

Personally, and it's just my own opinion, no one in the world has to agree with me, I think there are many other ways of showing love than sex, much more meaningful ways, and sex should be more for creating another life.

And that's not a religious thing either, because that's one of the most important things in nature.

I find this interesting. If it isn't a religious thing, how do you logically back it up? Remember that most sex in mammals (and quite a bit in birds) is not purely reproductive in nature. Much of it cannot result in reproduction at all. Why are humans to be so different?

Um, I don't know about the rest of you, but I've had sex purely for fun. Sometimes because there was nothing else to do, or just because we wanted to take the relationship to a different level. I have yet to do it for procreation. And yes, there are a lot of ways to show love without sex. Most of them are nowhere near as fun.

Well, I can tell you that, in the business world, even....I have advanced ideas for improving production and efficiency, thus saving the company money, only to have no interest shown. Yet, when a MAN would make the very same suggestion I just got thru making (and getting no entusiasm over my suggestion) the MAN would be declared "a genius" and "his" idea would be immediately implemented, AND HE got all the credit for the "brilliant idea" when, all along, it was MY idea first!

This is just one of the ways in which women are not taken seriously in the business world.

Another, very obvious way, in which women are looked down upon: Go to any auto-parts store or mechanic. If you are a woman, they will talk down to you, or attempt to pull the wool over your eyes and sell you things you do not need. They don't do that to men!
Once, I went to an auto-parts store with a male friend of mine (we happened to be in the same car at the time) he needed an oil filter for his car. I needed an air filter for mine.

We stood next to each other in line, he went first and then me...and he waited with me, while my purchase was rung up. I gave the guy a 20-dollar bill for the air filter...and this asswipe turns and gives the change to the GUY who was with me...even though I was the one who'd handed him the fucking 20-dollar bill!!

There are many areas in life in which women are held in contempt.

What makes you any more hard done by than anyone else, though? EVERYONE has stories like this. Everyone has certain situations where it's advantageous or disadvantageous to be their specific gender or race. Myself, I'd like to know why I have to pay hundreds of dollars more in car insurance a year for no other reason than that I'm a man. I want to know why cops don't ticket women at the same frequency as men... I've been driving for 15 years and the next time a cop lets me off with a warning will be my first. I'd like to know why I've always had to pay my way in life why my sister, because she's a girl, has always been looked after by the family. Why is it that I can be forced to join the Army during a war and you can't? Why am I always judged by the size of my wallet?

Walk the streets of any major city in the USA. Look at the homeless people. What percentage of them are men? Women absolutly do have a glass ceiling and thats fucked up. They have a glass floor, too. Women always seem to have a bit of a safety net that men don't. But then again, as you point out, there are advantages to being a man, too. IMO I think it's easier being a woman in the USA right now than being a man, although everyone has their own opinion about that and there are logical arguments backing both sides.

And with mechanics, thats not personal. Mechanics will rip off ANYONE who they feel they can. That includes men who don't appear to know what they're doing. It's not because you're a woman... it's because they're thieves. Actually let me re-phrase that so as not to piss people off... it's because a certain segment of them are thieves. Will muggers mug an old lady first or a linebacker? Thieves always go for the people who they feel are the easiest marks. Women tend to know less about mechanical stuff than men, so predatory mechanics go after them more.

But while on the topic of auto repair, you can survive without knowing auto repair a bit better than I can... break down on the highway and within a few minutes a cluster of dudes in cars will be offering to help you. I on the other hand had better know how to fix it myself, know the number to a tow truck company, or I'd better have some comfortable walking shoes.

So what's the point of being bitter? That's life... you're born a certain way and you can either be bitter towards society or you can roll with it. Either way society doesn't care so you may as well be happy.

Okay, fine, he can have just as much "say" over the "kid." But he gets zero say about the woman's body, since that belongs to her and not him. Period. If he wants to experience the joys of fatherhood so much then he can incubate the fetus in his uterus.

But wait! GASP! Could it be that there may be an aspect of motherhood for which there is no fatherly parallel?! Could biology truly be so unequal?!

You really don't know the first thing about abortion, do you? Tell you what: if you care about "life" so much, how about you come volunteer at my clinic...I've got some people for you to meet.

For instance, you could meet the 19 year old music student who narrowly escaped a violent boyfriend, only to find out she had become pregnant with his child. Tell her that the time she has spent agonizing over this situation is just a selfish delusion. Remind her that it's coldblooded of her to have any dreams or hopes of her own, and it's wicked to want to bring life into this world only when you are ready to love it and care for it. Don't forget to remind her how wicked she is for keeping the "father" out of the picture, since he's got a right to the baby.

You could speak to the middle class suburban woman who found out she was pregnant only a week before her husband was in a horrible car accident. He is now in and out of comas, facing a long and incredibly difficult recovery, and she feels neither financially nor emotionally prepared to cope with pregnancy, childbirth, and a baby on top of helping and supporting her husband. Tell her that she is coldblooded, please do, and say it to her husband's face as well. Tell him what a selfish bitch of a wife he has, a bitch who would give up the pregnancy she wanted in order to help him recover in the hopes that they can build a future family together.

Or how about the mother of four who can barely make enough money to buy her kids shoes, even with her and her husband working two jobs. Tell her she's coldblooded for spending money on her kids' school supplies instead of on Pills for herself. Tell her it's coldblooded of her to realize she will lose her jobs if she tries to take time off for her pregnancy, and it's coldblooded of her to know that she's got no health insurance to pay for the expenses. Tell her how coldblooded she is for giving up her chance at a baby she wanted to keep, because she knew that feeding her current children is more important than her personal happiness.

Guess what? Six in 10 women who have abortions are mothers. Still want to claim that the joys and pains of pregnancy mean nothing to these women?

1 in 3 American women will have an abortion at some point in her life. You probably think you don't have a friend or loved one who's had an abortion...and you're almost positively dead wrong.

It's amazing how long the anti-choicers have hung on to the myth that women who seek abortions are cold, selfish, slutty bitches who only want to shed an inconvenience so they can return to their life of wild hedonism. It's good that you don't let tiny things like fact, the welfare of children, or basic human rights interfere with your little tirades.


Oh, fuckin' BRA-VO, Bottle!! I always KNEW there was a reason I liked you!!

But while on the topic of auto repair, you can survive without knowing auto repair a bit better than I can... break down on the highway and within a few minutes a cluster of dudes in cars will be offering to help you. I on the other hand had better know how to fix it myself, know the number to a tow truck company, or I'd better have some comfortable walking shoes.

So what's the point of being bitter? That's life... you're born a certain way and you can either be bitter towards society or you can roll with it. Either way society doesn't care so you may as well be happy.

What area of the country do YOU live in?? Living in the northeast of America, as I do...I have sat and waitied for help along the road for THREE HOURS before. No one stops to help ANYONE up here! You're lucky if someone zooming by will even use their cell phone to call a cop out for you!

On the other hand, when I lived in Kentucky...you're right. I broke down once, and in five minutes, I had three dudes pulled over to help me! I also didn't have much trouble getting help when I lived in Texas...although, never in my life, anywhere else that I lived...have I ever seen the kind of response a damsel in distress gets in Kentucky! NEVER have I seen, anywhere else...the kind of response I got in Kentucky.

And I'm not particularly bitter, either. I'm just pointing out that it IS very unequal between men and women. But, the guy at the auto-parts store, handing MY change to my MALE friend...well, that took the cake!

Of course, my friend told the clerk that he should hand the change to me. He's a good guy. One of very few good guys I ever knew long-term. Ten years now, and we are still best of friends, in fact, we practically consider each other to be brother and sister.

Oh, fuckin' BRA-VO, Bottle!! I always KNEW there was a reason I liked you!!

Duh, join the club. :P

Oh, and to contribute;

This is what pro-lifers want you to believe:
http://www.oasismovers.com/images/happy_family.jpg

This is reality:
http://www.valleyskeptic.com/jesus_children_files/image004.jpg

Well, not *literally*, but they do seem to assume that any child that is not aborted will be eternally happy in a loving family.


About potential; I am a potential corpse, am I to be treated as one?

:) :) we are land of sarcasm :p :p but we syill human quality to be able to make their own decisions and live heir own way abortion or no abortion depends on a persons choice irrespective of gender :)

Duh, join the club. :P

Oh, and to contribute;

This is what pro-lifers want you to believe:
http://www.oasismovers.com/images/happy_family.jpg

This is reality:
http://www.valleyskeptic.com/jesus_children_files/image004.jpg

Well, not *literally*, but they do seem to assume that any child that is not aborted will be eternally happy in a loving family.


About potential; I am a potential corpse, am I to be treated as one?


Well, if only it WERE true, that every child not aborted would be eternally happy in a loving family...if it WERE true, I'd be against abortions, too.

But, there are those of us who know reality.

And there are those of us who know the reality that, legal or not, women will get abortions. I'd prefer that if they DO get them....that the procedure be carried out in a safe, sterile environment. At least that way, you don't end up losing both mother and child.

I never understood the happy family argument. My family wasn't perfect, I'm still glad I was born. I know people who were born into worse situations than me, and are happy to be alive.

If you abort people to keep them from being unhappy, you might as well just abort children of all depressed/bipolar people just to be on the safe side.

I never understood the happy family argument. My family wasn't perfect, I'm still glad I was born. I know people who were born into worse situations than me, and are happy to be alive.

If you abort people to keep them from being unhappy, you might as well just abort children of all depressed/bipolar people just to be on the safe side.

Good thing I don't personally use that argument then.

Duh, join the club. :P

Oh, and to contribute;

This is what pro-lifers want you to believe:
http://www.oasismovers.com/images/happy_family.jpg

This is reality:
http://www.valleyskeptic.com/jesus_children_files/image004.jpg

Well, not *literally*, but they do seem to assume that any child that is not aborted will be eternally happy in a loving family.


About potential; I am a potential corpse, am I to be treated as one?

and yet the fact remains that killing a baby because it's inconvenient is far worse than perhaps subjecting it to a hard life (but giving it a chance to live)

imo

Well, if only it WERE true, that every child not aborted would be eternally happy in a loving family...if it WERE true, I'd be against abortions, too.

But, there are those of us who know reality.

And there are those of us who know the reality that, legal or not, women will get abortions. I'd prefer that if they DO get them....that the procedure be carried out in a safe, sterile environment. At least that way, you don't end up losing both mother and child.

Numbers of women who underwent abortions when it was illegal wansn't any less then it is today. The number of women who died from abortions, was far greater.

The Japanese pray for their aborted children just the same as they would for a child who died from other causes after birth. They understand the nessesity, and accept that it is a tragic event. Why do north americans have to belive that either it's right or it's wrong?

As a woman I've talked with my spouse on many occasions about what would happen if I became pregnant. I value his oppinion because he respects me. Any man who can sit there and say that a woman should have to carry a pregnacy to term just because she had sex/ got raped/ ect... does not respect women, and their bodies. And that reason (not because men can't carry babies) is why your not entitled to an oppinion.

(I quoted in agreement =P just because the end there might cause a little confusion)

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.
It's not murder, and you claiming that somehow you know what's best for all women because of what? What life experience do you bring that sets you apart and give you the right to tell others what they should and should not do, huh? What makes you so goddamn special that you can dictate what other people should do with their lives? What makes you so important that you can tell a woman that through no fault of her own, she must be forced to undergo massive alterations in her body chemistry and then have a kid even though she does not wish one? Huh?
Who died and made you god?

Abortion should be regulated like killing is now, in self-defense and in the defense of others. Otherwise, it's manslaughter in the best case scenario and first degree murder in the worst case scenario.

Abortion IS regulated, partly, at least in the US.
It is neither manslaughter nor first degree murder, legally speaking, because in the cases where it is allowed to proceed, it is completely legal.


www.m-w.com
Main Entry: man·slaugh·ter
Pronunciation: 'man-"slo-t&r
Function: noun
: the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice

murder
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

MURDER, FIRST DEGREE -- http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m053.htm

The fetus is already there, it already exists, due to no fault of it's own it is already planted. It's not like the fetus' are going around on the streets stopping women at random and saying you, you look like a good prospect, I'm moving it!


Imminent Domain

Eminent Domain is the ability of the government to take property in order to better the community. Are you suggesting the government should be able to order women to become pregnant, and implant them without consent?

And the woman is correcting the fault in her contraception by stopping the pregnancy.

Numbers of women who underwent abortions when it was illegal wansn't any less then it is today. The number of women who died from abortions, was far greater.

Would you care to provide any semblance of a rationale for that position? There is not one iota of evidence that this statement is even close to the truth. In America today, approximately 24% of all conceptions results in spontaneous abortions, another 24% results in induced abortions and the rest are carried to term (if a pregnancy gets to the 3rd term, it is no longer considered spontaneous abortion even if it is a still birth). For you to suggest that 25% or so of all conceptions before 1973 resulted in illegally obtained induced abortions is absurd.

The Japanese pray for their aborted children just the same as they would for a child who died from other causes after birth. They understand the nessesity, and accept that it is a tragic event. Why do north americans have to belive that either it's right or it's wrong?

Lots of Americans pray and have services for the mothers of miscarriages… As to the culture acceptance of a tragic event though, the Chinese abort and commit infanticide on more female fetuses than male fetuses, should we adopt this practice too? Of course not, the cultural issue of it is irrelevant I think.

As a woman I've talked with my spouse on many occasions about what would happen if I became pregnant. I value his oppinion because he respects me. Any man who can sit there and say that a woman should have to carry a pregnacy to term just because she had sex/ got raped/ ect... does not respect women, and their bodies. And that reason (not because men can't carry babies) is why your not entitled to an oppinion.

(I quoted in agreement =P just because the end there might cause a little confusion)

If the option of legal abortion was restricted and less socially acceptable, I think the discussion between spouses in the advent of an unplanned pregnancy would rather be, “how shall we prepare and deal with this child, how can we afford to keep it? What financial measures do we need to take now to prepare?” You know, it’s called ‘nesting.’ That is more likely than a married couple asking each can how they can schedule an illegal abortionists to come over …

Eminent Domain is the ability of the government to take property in order to better the community. Are you suggesting the government should be able to order women to become pregnant, and implant them without consent?

And the woman is correcting the fault in her contraception by stopping the pregnancy.
No.

I'm suggesting that once the mother's womb is occupied (not induced by the governments action whatsoever) it is thereafter protected in the interest of the public's good because the fate of the child(ren) makes it the government's interest and public (public being more than one person). When there is more than one person’s rights are involved in the possession of a property the government often forces them to share or for one half to buy out the other half etc., but in the point and protection of the womb for the two individuals (if a fetus is ever given the right to life) it would be similar to ensuring equal access to the ‘property-resources-womb’ (out of necessity, not desire to intrude) for the duration of the pregnancy.


(p.s.,. the Immenent domain part was a partial pun :p , nobody 'got' it :( )

It's not murder, and you claiming that somehow you know what's best for all women because of what? What life experience do you bring that sets you apart and give you the right to tell others what they should and should not do, huh? What makes you so goddamn special that you can dictate what other people should do with their lives? What makes you so important that you can tell a woman that through no fault of her own, she must be forced to undergo massive alterations in her body chemistry and then have a kid even though she does not wish one? Huh?
Who died and made you god?

A classic example of why I avoid debating on the actual issue of abortion: The refusal of pro-abortion debaters to even try and understand the anti-abortion side's perspective. People who are anti-abortion do not, for the most part, believe as they do because they hate women, or because they don't believe women should enjoy sex, or because they think they have a God-given right to run other people's lives, or any such nonsense. Believe it or not, some of them even are women. These are, for the most part, well-meaning people who want to save what they believe are human lives. Show a little consideration.

Would you care to provide any semblance of a rationale for that position? There is not one iota of evidence that this statement is even close to the truth. In America today, approximately 24% of all conceptions results in spontaneous abortions, another 24% results in induced abortions and the rest are carried to term (if a pregnancy gets to the 3rd term, it is no longer considered spontaneous abortion even if it is a still birth). For you to suggest that 25% or so of all conceptions before 1973 resulted in illegally obtained induced abortions is absurd.

Yes well I suppose keeping track of how many illegal abortions where performed would make sense wouldn't it.

Lots of Americans pray and have services for the mothers of miscarriages… As to the culture acceptance of a tragic event though, the Chinese abort and commit infanticide on more female fetuses than male fetuses, should we adopt this practice too? Of course not, the cultural issue of it is irrelevant I think.

Possitive cultural differances should be adopted. This is how we learn from one another.

If the option of legal abortion was restricted and less socially acceptable, I think the discussion between spouses in the advent of an unplanned pregnancy would rather be, “how shall we prepare and deal with this child, how can we afford to keep it? What financial measures do we need to take now to prepare?” You know, it’s called ‘nesting.’ That is more likely than a married couple asking each can how they can schedule an illegal abortionists to come over …

I'm sure should I ever become pregnant we will have more in depth converstions about the matter then we have in the past. I didn't say, "If I get pregnant we decided to rush out and get an abortion." I said I value the oppion of my spouse because he respects me.

And I'm sure happy I live somewhere that I won't have to rely on an illegal abortionist. :rolleyes:

I am pro-choice, but what I really don't understand is this:

A overwhelming majority of pro-life people support George W. Bush, who is also pro-choice. George Bush starts wars overseas that kill more people than abortion does. But you don't see pro-lifers marching along saying "BAN WAR!" "BAN WAR!" do you?

A classic example of why I avoid debating on the actual issue of abortion: The refusal of pro-abortion debaters to even try and understand the anti-abortion side's perspective. People who are anti-abortion do not, for the most part, believe as they do because they hate women, or because they don't believe women should enjoy sex, or because they think they have a God-given right to run other people's lives, or any such nonsense. Believe it or not, some of them even are women. These are, for the most part, well-meaning people who want to save what they believe are human lives. Show a little consideration.
Oh please, don't give me this bullshit.

Did you read the post I quoted?

Did you read the part where he said that people should be forcibly educated to believe has he does?

And did you read anything at all in my post about him hating women?

I didn't fucking think so. He was acting like he should get to run people's lives, hence the whole bit about how he would lock up anyone who tried to have an abortion or preform an abortion and he would force his opinion on the masses through pro-life "education" classes.

If the option of legal abortion was restricted and less socially acceptable, I think the discussion between spouses in the advent of an unplanned pregnancy would rather be, “how shall we prepare and deal with this child, how can we afford to keep it? What financial measures do we need to take now to prepare?” You know, it’s called ‘nesting.’ That is more likely than a married couple asking each can how they can schedule an illegal abortionists to come over …

:rolleyes: Oh I'm sure women where never raped, had sex out of marrige or any other things that could land them with a child they don't want. That's right. All little angels who never did a thing that could get them in trouble.

I am pro-choice, but what I really don't understand is this:

A overwhelming majority of pro-life people support George W. Bush, who is also pro-choice. George Bush starts wars overseas that kill more people than abortion does. But you don't see pro-lifers marching along saying "BAN WAR!" "BAN WAR!" do you?

Pro-lifers are too busy worrying about potential people to worry about the people we already have.

:rolleyes: Oh I'm sure women where never raped, had sex out of marrige or any other things that could land them with a child they don't want. That's right. All little angels who never did a thing that could get them in trouble.


The example given was of a married couple (spouses), I responded in kind.
I never doubted for a moment that conception occurs out of wedlock.

Pro-lifers are too busy worrying about potential people to worry about the people we already have.

You see, now that's just uncalled for. Bigoted statements don't prove a thing.

The example given was of a married couple (spouses), I responded in kind.
I never doubted for a moment that conception occurs out of wedlock.

But you argued that there's no way a couple would choose to abort a child. And compleatly ignored reasons for abortion before it was legal could be the same as they are today. I responded in kind.

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

but you could be the father to the child and therefore technically half of what is in the uterus is the fathers genes, and so it is not entirely fair that the women can have the final say on the abortion entirely. until a way for the baby can be kept in an artificial uterus in a hospital or similar, there fore not requireing the womens uterus and therefore she would not need to keep the baby, it should be a both parent choice, just like a custody battle.

I can see one side of the Pro-Life argument, that no abortion would force women (and men) to have more responisble sex lives. Sex is designed for reproduction, not pleasure, and when you use something for a purpose not intended, accidents happen.

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.

What a bunch of crap! And I mean the latter part of what you wrote. You just DID pass judgement right there. And what is the stuff about having to face God? That goes for the ones like you who believe he/she/it actually exists, not others. I'm really glad I live in a country where religion is separated from the state and where only 10% of the population have faith in one of the big religions.

But you argued that there's no way a couple would choose to abort a child. And compleatly ignored reasons for abortion before it was legal could be the same as they are today. I responded in kind.

The reasons for an abortion would be the same, the readiness of a couple to get an abortion (if they were illegal) would be astronomically diminished.

but you could be the father to the child and therefore technically half of what is in the uterus is the fathers genes, and so it is not entirely fair that the women can have the final say on the abortion entirely. until a way for the baby can be kept in an artificial uterus in a hospital or similar, there fore not requireing the womens uterus and therefore she would not need to keep the baby, it should be a both parent choice, just like a custody battle.

Custody battles have one too many unfortunate victims. Give it to the mom.

Your right, that does sounds sexist. Seems they almost want nobody's opinion on this. *Coming from a teenage girl :p* They should AT LEAST give a few men a chance to talk about their opinions.

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

True, but still, don't you think at least one man should give his opinion? I mean, what if his girlfriend didn't tell him she was pregnant and had an aportion behind his back, like on that soap, Days of Our Lives? Rex dumbed Mimi because she had an abortion and then lied about the whole thing! Stop the lying and voting Yes for abortions people! *Laughs* I sounded like a hippie. Sorry bout that :rolleyes: The woman/women wouldn't need an abortion if they didn't have sex till after they were married though, wouldn't they? :eek: :eek:

Oh please, don't give me this bullshit.

Did you read the post I quoted?

Yes.

Did you read the part where he said that people should be forcibly educated to believe has he does?

I read the part where he used the word "education," yes, a word that can mean a number of things in the context. I won't presume to tell you what he meant by it because I honestly don't know, but maybe you should have asked him before assuming the worst.

And did you read anything at all in my post about him hating women?

No, but I included it because your post is symptomatic of a larger problem I've noticed in these debates: The attributing of questionable motives to anyone who believes that abortion is a violation of an unborn child's rights. Understand that my post wasn't directed solely at you. It was also meant to show other people what they're doing wrong.

I didn't fucking think so. He was acting like he should get to run people's lives, hence the whole bit about how he would lock up anyone who tried to have an abortion or preform an abortion...

A logical consequence of the belief that abortion is murder.

...and he would force his opinion on the masses through pro-life "education" classes.

Addressed above.

How old are you wolfrest? You don't have to answer if you don't want to? I just want to see what other teens have to say about this.

What a bunch of crap! And I mean the latter part of what you wrote. You just DID pass judgement right there. And what is the stuff about having to face God? That goes for the ones like you who believe he/she/it actually exists, not others. ...


Of course the fetus 'actually' exists; otherwise they wouldn't need an abortion now would they?

I think you mean to say, you don't recognize them nor give them the rights of being human, yet.

Custody battles have one too many unfortunate victims. Give it to the mom.


Don't give it to the Mom or the Dad, give it to the Child.

Pretty sure the child can't decide anything, seeing as it doesnt even have brainwaves.

Don't give it to the Mom or the Dad, give it to the Child.

DAMN STRAIGHT! i was in a custody battle and i got to choose which parent i wanted to stay with, i know it is not fair to make a three year old choose a parent but for that the courts can decide which parent is more adaquit to take care of them.

Of course the fetus 'actually' exists; otherwise they wouldn't need an abortion now would they?

Um...I don't think he/she was talking about the fetus...I think they were trying to point out that not everyone believes in God, although that doesn't have much to do with the subject of abortions...sorry about all these ellipses (...)...I always seem to end up using them when I type. :headbang:

and yet the fact remains that killing a baby because it's inconvenient is far worse than perhaps subjecting it to a hard life (but giving it a chance to live)

You are right. Killing a baby because it's inconvenient is a pretty horrible thing to do, which is why it is illegal (at least in the US).

The refusal of pro-abortion debaters to even try and understand the anti-abortion side's perspective.

What an ironic statement, considering that your very wording demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of a pro-choice point of view. Where are all of these "pro-abortion debaters"? I have seen, maybe two in my entire life. Pro-choice debaters, on the other hand, often understand the anti-abortion side. In fact, many pro-choice debaters are anti-abortion. Go figure.

People who are anti-abortion do not, for the most part, believe as they do because they hate women, or because they don't believe women should enjoy sex, or because they think they have a God-given right to run other people's lives, or any such nonsense. Believe it or not, some of them even are women. These are, for the most part, well-meaning people who want to save what they believe are human lives. Show a little consideration.

This is true. Many of us who are anti-abortion do not believe as we do for any of those reasons. In fact, we are pro-choice specifically because we don't think we have a right to run other people's lives.

However, the people who try to force their own anti-abortion position on other people, through law or otherwise, either think they have a God-given right to run other people's lives, or think they get that right from somewhere else. After all, if you are trying to run someone's life, you must think you got that right from somewhere. If you believe an embryo to be a human life, that is your opinion. There is no way to back it up objectively that doesn't start including all sorts of things we would definitely not include as human lives. Thus, you are entitled to your opinion and should certainly argue it - outside the law.

I read the part where he used the word "education," yes, a word that can mean a number of things in the context. I won't presume to tell you what he meant by it because I honestly don't know, but maybe you should have asked him before assuming the worst.
Did you read the rest of his posts where he assumed a self important, "I should be dictator of the world and everyone who disagrees is wrong no question" type of attitude?

But you argued that there's no way a couple would choose to abort a child. And compleatly ignored reasons for abortion before it was legal could be the same as they are today. I responded in kind.

He also most likely ignored the fact that many women who get abortions are married. Many have already had children.

but you could be the father to the child and therefore technically half of what is in the uterus is the fathers genes, and so it is not entirely fair that the women can have the final say on the abortion entirely.

It isn't fair. You are right. It also isn't fair that women are the ones who have to go through the dangers and physical changes associated with pregnancy, while men do not. Biology has dealt the cards - and they aren't equal. Women can get pregnant. Men cannot. Therefore, only a woman can make the final choice on whether or not to remain pregnant.

until a way for the baby can be kept in an artificial uterus in a hospital or similar, there fore not requireing the womens uterus and therefore she would not need to keep the baby, it should be a both parent choice, just like a custody battle.

I'm sorry, I don't think we should make women slaves to men just because they had sex. That's what you are advocating by giving a man control over a woman's body - slavery.

I can see one side of the Pro-Life argument, that no abortion would force women (and men) to have more responisble sex lives. Sex is designed for reproduction, not pleasure, and when you use something for a purpose not intended, accidents happen.

I'm sure you are aware that this statement is completely out of line with nature, as well as out of line with most of the world's religions, right?

True, but still, don't you think at least one man should give his opinion?

A man can give his opinion all he wants, he just can't make the final decision.

A logical consequence of the belief that abortion is murder.

Important word in bold. Do you really think it is logical to force beliefs on others? How is this one any more logical than a devout Muslim trying to force her belief that all women should cover their hair on others? It isn't. If you believe it is murder, you believe it is murder. Other people believe differently. Without something objective behind it, there is no logical reason to force a belief upon another person.

What an ironic statement, considering that your very wording demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of a pro-choice point of view. Where are all of these "pro-abortion debaters"? I have seen, maybe two in my entire life. Pro-choice debaters, on the other hand, often understand the anti-abortion side. In fact, many pro-choice debaters are anti-abortion. Go figure.

You misunderstand. I use the terms "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" because I object to each side's use of the shibboleths "pro-life" and "pro-choice" when the actual issue at hand is abortion. Someone who is "pro-capital punishment" does not necessarily believe that capital punishment should be applied to all crimes from theft up, nor would they necessarily insist upon execution if one of their family members was killed. Someone who is "pro-gun" does not necessarily believe that every household should have an assault rifle, nor would they necessarily own a gun themself. Likewise, I don't mean to suggest that all those I refer to as "pro-abortion" believe that abortion is anything more than a regrettable but occasionally necessary or justifiable measure in some cases. This is just my attempt to clear away some of the rhetorical clutter that often surrounds the debate.

You see, now that's just uncalled for. Bigoted statements don't prove a thing.

I've never seen a pro-lifer worry about the future of the mother, or the family the child will be born in to. I've never seen pro-lifers (as a group) work for world peace or try to stop the death penalty. If you have proof of these events happening PLEASE show me. I'd LOVE to be proved wrong.

Heck, I've even seen pro-lifers assasinate (attempt to assasinate) doctors, and terrorize the women who need to have an abortion, then be praised by other pro-lifers for their behavior.

I made the bigoted statement based on my experiances, and what I've been shown and told by both sides. I would like to know otherwise. It would be nice to know that pro-lifers whern't that disgustingly single minded.

Did you read the rest of his posts where he assumed a self important, "I should be dictator of the world and everyone who disagrees is wrong no question" type of attitude?

Well, I've only skimmed parts of the thread, so I doubt I've read all his posts. Is it actually the case that he's assumed "a self important, 'I should be dictator of the world and everyone who disagrees is wrong no question' type of attitude?"

Important word in bold. Do you really think it is logical to force beliefs on others? How is this one any more logical than a devout Muslim trying to force her belief that all women should cover their hair on others? It isn't. If you believe it is murder, you believe it is murder. Other people believe differently. Without something objective behind it, there is no logical reason to force a belief upon another person.

If his belief that abortion is murder is an objectively true one, then yes, it makes sense to force it on other people. If not, then no. That's kind of what the whole debate is about.

I am pro-choice, but what I really don't understand is this:

A overwhelming majority of pro-life people support George W. Bush, who is also pro-choice. George Bush starts wars overseas that kill more people than abortion does. But you don't see pro-lifers marching along saying "BAN WAR!" "BAN WAR!" do you?
That's because those "pro-life" people aren't "pro-life" at all. They are anti-choice. Their motives are selfish and petty, not noble as they would have you believe. They don't care about "life" at all, they just want to enforce their personal beliefs on sex, family, and "morality" on everybody they possibly can.

They don't like the idea of having to actually provide care or services for post-birth children, but they like the idea of "protecting" tiny little "people" that do not require inconvenient things like public schools, health insurance, or day care...fetuses are great because they don't have all the messy NEEDS that real children do; all a fetus needs is a woman's body, and we all know that woman's bodies aren't good for anything else anyhow.

They don't like the idea that poor people might have the right to access family planning medical care that improves their quality of life, because then the poor people get more uppity. Make no mistake, upper class white women are going to get safe, medical abortions no matter what the laws say, because their husbands and daddies can just send them to Europe for a "vacation" like in the good ol pre-Roe days. Only the poor and the minorities will be forbidden access to abortion and reproductive services, because why should the poor get to ever have sex? They might start having FUN!

There are people who are anti-abortion for good reasons. There are even some anti-choice people who mean well, even if their goals are disgusting and dishonorable. But a great many self-styled "pro-life" individuals are nothing more or less than big fat stinking hypocrites on control trips.

You misunderstand. I use the terms "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" because I object to each side's use of the shibboleths "pro-life" and "pro-choice" when the actual issue at hand is abortion. Someone who is "pro-capital punishment" does not necessarily believe that capital punishment should be applied to all crimes from theft up, nor would they necessarily insist upon execution if one of their family members was killed. Someone who is "pro-gun" does not necessarily believe that every household should have an assault rifle, nor would they necessarily own a gun themself. Likewise, I don't mean to suggest that all those I refer to as "pro-abortion" believe that abortion is anything more than a regrettable but occasionally necessary or justifiable measure in some cases. This is just my attempt to clear away some of the rhetorical clutter that often surrounds the debate.
Anti-choice is a better term for pro-life.

Well, I've only skimmed parts of the thread, so I doubt I've read all his posts. Is it actually the case that he's assumed "a self important, 'I should be dictator of the world and everyone who disagrees is wrong no question' type of attitude?"
He said a number of times that his opinion on the subject was right and that everyone else should conform to this opinion, even forcibly, and that his opinion on the subject was dictated by god.

That's because those "pro-life" people aren't "pro-life" at all....

=P I like the ones who think parents should be incharge of the children's sex-ed and that all forms of birth controll should be illigal.

Makes so much sense *sarcasm*

Anti-choice is a better term for pro-life.

Hardly. Iberlia rightly pointed out that being "pro-life" has wider implications than one's stance on abortion. Being "pro-choice" or "anti-choice" is the same way. A person can be anti-choice on the issue of abortion and pro-choice on the issue of drug use, for example. As I said before, the issue is abortion, and whether or not or under what circumstances it should be allowed.

I've never seen a pro-lifer worry about the future of the mother, or the family the child will be born in to. I've never seen pro-lifers (as a group) work for world peace or try to stop the death penalty. If you have proof of these events happening PLEASE show me. I'd LOVE to be proved wrong.

*snip*

I would like to know otherwise. It would be nice to know that pro-lifers whern't that disgustingly single minded.

Pregnancy Options/Help
http://www.jfsrichmond.org/adoption_mothers.html

http://www.adoptquest.com/

http://www.vesselsministries.net/default.htm


Single Mothers/Children
http://www.aashf.org/pages/programs/singleMothers.htm (African American Single Mothers)

http://www.thebirthsite.com/helping.html

http://www.boleschildrenshome.org/home.php

You misunderstand. I use the terms "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" because I object to each side's use of the shibboleths "pro-life" and "pro-choice" when the actual issue at hand is abortion. Someone who is "pro-capital punishment" does not necessarily believe that capital punishment should be applied to all crimes from theft up, nor would they necessarily insist upon execution if one of their family members was killed. Someone who is "pro-gun" does not necessarily believe that every household should have an assault rifle, nor would they necessarily own a gun themself. Likewise, I don't mean to suggest that all those I refer to as "pro-abortion" believe that abortion is anything more than a regrettable but occasionally necessary or justifiable measure in some cases. This is just my attempt to clear away some of the rhetorical clutter that often surrounds the debate.

Pro-choice is not a poor term, because that is exactly what it is.

I am opposed to abortion in cases where the mother's life is not in danger. Period. However, that is a personal opinion - and is my personal choice. I understand that others view things differently, and that their choices may be different. I may disagree with their choice, but I support their right to make that choice and I feel empathy for their situation.

As you can see, abortion isn't the issue at all. The of a human being to make his/her own medical choices is.

If his belief that abortion is murder is an objectively true one, then yes, it makes sense to force it on other people. If not, then no. That's kind of what the whole debate is about.

And, as I pointed out, no one has ever provided an "objectively true" justification for the viewpoint. There are plenty of religious justifications. There are emotional justifications. There are even justifications half-based in science (but that make it so that a single somatic cell can qualify as a human life). However, there have been no "objectively true" justifications put forth.

As such, it does not make sense to force it on other people.

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

just as wrong as it is when i cut my nails

Im a man and i think i should be able to have an opinion but not deciede what women should do because it is their body.

Im a man and i think i should be able to have an opinion but not deciede what women should do because it is their body.

Exactly!

(Good to know you don't seem to live up to your namesake)

I am pro-choice, but what I really don't understand is this:

A overwhelming majority of pro-life people support George W. Bush, who is also pro-choice. George Bush starts wars overseas that kill more people than abortion does. But you don't see pro-lifers marching along saying "BAN WAR!" "BAN WAR!" do you?


where do you get the idea GWB is pro-choice? He isn't. That's why he nominated John Roberts to the supreme Court! Judge Roberts has written before that he believes Roe was wrongfully decided and should be overturned. that sounds REAL pro-choice to me!!

Pro-lifers are too busy worrying about potential people to worry about the people we already have.

Close. But not quite. You're almost there.

Lemme get you the rest of the way there.

POTENTIAL LIFE does not cost them anything in terms of taxes, government programs, etc.

Life that we already have DOES,,,in terms of welfare, government-sponsored daycare so that single moms CAN work...Head Start, No Child Left Behind...school lunch programs....all of which have had funding drastically cut by Bush...or were never funded properly in the first place, such as NCLB.

See, here's what you need to understand. conservative Republicans LOVE life in the womb, because that life does not cost THEM anything.

Once it is out of the womb, however, they give that same life a giant middle finger, because now it has the potential to actually COST THEM SOMETHING!!

Get it now?

Axiom: Judge people by their ACTIONS...not their words. Listen not to their words. Listen instead to their ACTIONS. What do their ACTIONS tell you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberlia
Pro-lifers are too busy worrying about potential people to worry about the people we already have.



You see, now that's just uncalled for. Bigoted statements don't prove a thing.

Hey...all's I can say is....If the shoe fits...

I'm really glad I live in a country where religion is separated from the state and where only 10% of the population have faith in one of the big religions.

Is your country accepting applications for immigration?!?!? PLEASE say yes!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Precursors
What a bunch of crap! And I mean the latter part of what you wrote. You just DID pass judgement right there. And what is the stuff about having to face God? That goes for the ones like you who believe he/she/it actually exists, not others. ...


Of course the fetus 'actually' exists; otherwise they wouldn't need an abortion now would they?

I think you mean to say, you don't recognize them nor give them the rights of being human, yet.

No. Read it again. Maybe if I explain the context...
When Precursors is saying he/she/it...they are referring to GOD'S existence...not the fetus. Try replacing "he/she/it" with "God" in what Precursors was saying and I think then it will become clear to you what Precursors was saying.

For the record, I am male and pro-choice.

That being said, I want my girlfriend to tell me if she becomes pregnant and is thinking about an abortion. I want to say to her how I feel about the situation and discuss the options availlable with her. I understand that it is ultimately her decision but I want it to be a mutually agreed decision if at all possible.

On the subject of the abortion debate, I don't think that male have a to shut up because they are not the ones to carry the child. We are talking about a debate here dealing with hypotethical situations. The phrase "don't tell me what to do with my body" is not conductive to a good debate because it brings it to a personnal level. You're better with something more general like "men shouldn't tell women what to do with their body."

Do people involved in a death-penalty debate say stuff like "you can't kill me. I have the right to live!" No. We deal in abstract and bring arguments to the forefront.

As such, I think men has as much contribution to bring to the debate as women. If men talked more, maybe some women would understand that fatherhood is a feeling that lifts a man's spirit and it can be crushed if the woman decides that the baby should not come to term. It is a gut-wrenching decision for both parents. Imagine the feeling of helplessness a man can feel about seeing his ofspring being denied life because the woman doesn't think she should have the baby. I'm not saying it's should override the decision of the woman, far from it, but I do hope that my feelings will be taken into consideration if I ever have to live through this.

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.

Hey. It's only going to BE a parasite for what, 9 months? After that, it's a person. Just like you, just like me. (OK. Hopefully not just like me) Maybe later that PERSON will have to make the same choice about a 'parasite' growing in their body. Another question. If it's not alive, then the term 'abort' isn't exactly appropriate, is it. It should just be called 'removal' or 'stunting', shouldn't it?
(I am female)

Ok, I thought I had heard it all.Apparently I was wrong. How is the baby not alive when they abort it? How does that work? Especially in a partial- birth abortion. I think that if you people really understood how the baby is killed in an abortion you might think twice. I mean, think about it: in a partial birth abortion the baby is partially delivered until only the head remains inside the mother. Then the doctor will do one of two things. Either he will pierce the back of the skull and suck the brains out or he will crush the skull with a pair of forceps. All this happens right before the baby is fully delivered. So is the baby alive when he kills it. You bet it is. In fact if he let the baby come out all the way and then killed it he could be prosecuted for murder!! Come on people you have to admit that it doesn't make sense.

Close. But not quite. You're almost there.

Lemme get you the rest of the way there.

POTENTIAL LIFE does not cost them anything in terms of taxes, government programs, etc.

Life that we already have DOES,,,in terms of welfare, government-sponsored daycare so that single moms CAN work...Head Start, No Child Left Behind...school lunch programs....all of which have had funding drastically cut by Bush...or were never funded properly in the first place, such as NCLB.

See, here's what you need to understand. conservative Republicans LOVE life in the womb, because that life does not cost THEM anything.

Once it is out of the womb, however, they give that same life a giant middle finger, because now it has the potential to actually COST THEM SOMETHING!!

Get it now?

Axiom: Judge people by their ACTIONS...not their words. Listen not to their words. Listen instead to their ACTIONS. What do their ACTIONS tell you?

XD I'll agree with that

Pregnancy Options/Help
http://www.jfsrichmond.org/adoption_mothers.html

http://www.adoptquest.com/

http://www.vesselsministries.net/default.htm


Single Mothers/Children
http://www.aashf.org/pages/programs/singleMothers.htm (African American Single Mothers)

http://www.thebirthsite.com/helping.html

http://www.boleschildrenshome.org/home.php

Congratulations on providing me with several links that have little or nothing to do with what I asked for.

Lol, yeah, but only to one man, and that's my husband.
Then why haven't you considered pleasure as being one of the reasons for having sex?

and yet the fact remains that killing a baby because it's inconvenient is far worse than perhaps subjecting it to a hard life (but giving it a chance to live)

Bullshit. Death is preferable to constant malnutrition (enough nourishment to live, but constant agony), pontine tumors (incurable, and cause massive pain before finally killing the infant), and a host of other horrific disorders and unfortunate happenings.

Congratulations on providing me with several links that have little or nothing to do with what I asked for.

You asked for proof that pro-life people support mothers and children, I gave you a quick sample...

What exactly are you looking for? You wanted a list of help from pro-life groups. We can find more religious homeless shelters, single mother homes for women to go back to school and get a degree etc., or aide and support groups etc., etc., etc., that are entirely supported by churches and pro-life groups. Do a google search for a shelter or help or aide for single mothers and children in any American city and you will find someone from pro-life group that will help ...

Close. But not quite. You're almost there.

Lemme get you the rest of the way there.

POTENTIAL LIFE does not cost them anything in terms of taxes, government programs, etc.

Life that we already have DOES,,,in terms of welfare, government-sponsored daycare so that single moms CAN work...Head Start, No Child Left Behind...school lunch programs....all of which have had funding drastically cut by Bush...or were never funded properly in the first place, such as NCLB.

See, here's what you need to understand. conservative Republicans LOVE life in the womb, because that life does not cost THEM anything.

Once it is out of the womb, however, they give that same life a giant middle finger, because now it has the potential to actually COST THEM SOMETHING!!

Get it now?

Axiom: Judge people by their ACTIONS...not their words. Listen not to their words. Listen instead to their ACTIONS. What do their ACTIONS tell you?

Hmm.. lemme see if I can't open you another window to look out of:

The man, be it a consensual partner or rapist, could and should be held accountable when the woman becomes pregnant. If the government needs to intervene in order to assure this, then by all means let them. Even if they do not nuture them alongside the mother (and in the case of rapists, I'm not sure the mothers would want them to), they should still be supporting them financially. No pocket-change checks either. There should be enough there to actually support mother and child, figured up based on the mother's income and the economic environment around the two. Should the father repeatedly not comply, jailtime and confiscation of their property (with proceeds going to the family) should be due justice.

How do we determine the father then, if the senario involves a rapist or more than one consensual partner? Mandatory DNA matching, based on the woman's testimony and DNA gathered from any trace sperm (should there be any left).

Now, would you believe this would be the stance of a conservative Republican? Well, you're looking at one. :)

This all being said, and should all be done, I do believe and hope that consensual fathers willing to support will have more say in accordance to abortions than mere opinion, as they do now. They shouldn't have the final say, or the majority of the rights to the decision, but they should have some sort of sway should it have to go to the courts. However, if a rapist turns around and decides to be a "good" daddy, then I'm sure we can all agree that his arse is screwed. (In more than one way, I hope.)

There's my twopence, for any who care...

"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.


Oh I see. Well then, if you want the foetus, remove it and nurture it outside her body, and it's no longer an issue. Oh wait...you can't?

Anyway, sure you can have an opinion. But you can't force me (legally) to do something I don't want to with my body.

Ok, I thought I had heard it all.Apparently I was wrong. How is the baby not alive when they abort it? How does that work? Especially in a partial- birth abortion. I think that if you people really understood how the baby is killed in an abortion you might think twice. I mean, think about it: in a partial birth abortion the baby is partially delivered until only the head remains inside the mother. Then the doctor will do one of two things. Either he will pierce the back of the skull and suck the brains out or he will crush the skull with a pair of forceps. All this happens right before the baby is fully delivered. So is the baby alive when he kills it. You bet it is. In fact if he let the baby come out all the way and then killed it he could be prosecuted for murder!! Come on people you have to admit that it doesn't make sense.
What a load of crap. Man...do people really believe this ridiculous sh*t? :rolleyes:

...
Life that we already have DOES,,,in terms of welfare, government-sponsored daycare so that single moms CAN work...Head Start, No Child Left Behind...school lunch programs....all of which have had funding drastically cut by Bush...or were never funded properly in the first place, such as NCLB.
...



What a crock, you've forgotten your party line. Bush started the "No Child Left Behind" law in 2002, your not supposed to like it because, Gosh darn it, Democrats didn't invent it :rolleyes: So lets say, it's under funded and pretend like having educational minimum standards are a bad thing!

You're just full of hate and spiteful things to say aren't you? They don't even have to be true.

What a load of crap. Man...do people really believe this ridiculous sh*t? :rolleyes:


What exactly did you think partial birth abortion was all about?

Bullshit. Death is preferable to constant malnutrition (enough nourishment to live, but constant agony), pontine tumors (incurable, and cause massive pain before finally killing the infant), and a host of other horrific disorders and unfortunate happenings.

Ah, Cthulhu, glad to see you are still active on these forums. You know, I'm still waiting on your retort to my response. In case you've forgotten or missed it, you can find it way back on page 12.

After all that you gave me about being a liar and bullshit artist, I am most interested in reading what you have to say.

What exactly did you think partial birth abortion was all about?
About? About a pack of lies. Partial birth abortions in the West? As legal procedures? Nice scare tactic. :rolleyes:

I've never seen a pro-lifer worry about the future of the mother, or the family the child will be born in to. I've never seen pro-lifers (as a group) work for world peace or try to stop the death penalty. If you have proof of these events happening PLEASE show me. I'd LOVE to be proved wrong.

Heck, I've even seen pro-lifers assasinate (attempt to assasinate) doctors, and terrorize the women who need to have an abortion, then be praised by other pro-lifers for their behavior.

I made the bigoted statement based on my experiances, and what I've been shown and told by both sides. I would like to know otherwise. It would be nice to know that pro-lifers whern't that disgustingly single minded. I totally agree with you. I find it very annoying… considering I consider myself "pro-life", I find the "pro-lifers'" holier-than-thou attitude appalling. Letting the side down.
Oh btw, the Church wants world peace and an end to the death penalty. A real shame Bush (the "pro-lifer" who executed people) doesn't go with the church when it comes to life… and Iraq. Okay, I'll stop going off topic now.

Just to stoke the fire… if a foetus is a "parasite" that can't be sentient/independent life, because it's attached to and dependent on the mother… surely it's a parasite right up until the cord is cut, separating itself from dependence on its mother?

What a crock, you've forgotten your party line. Bush started the "No Child Left Behind" law in 2002, your not supposed to like it because, Gosh darn it, Democrats didn't invent it :rolleyes: So lets say, it's under funded and pretend like having educational minimum standards are a bad thing!

You're just full of hate and spiteful things to say aren't you? They don't even have to be true.


Bullshit. Bush got dragged, kicking and screaming...into supporting Kennedy's bill. KENNEDY invented it. Bush underfunded it. And the rest, as they say, is history.

ON EDIT: You just don't want to believe anything good of Democrats...or anything evil of Republicans, do you?
I'll at least own up to my bias! But, when and if I ever see a Republican do something good, decent, and not evil...I'll be the first to give them credit. And I'm still waiting....glad I didn't say I'd hold my breath until Republicans did something decent...

ON EDIT AGAIN: Oh, shit...I'm gonna have to give credit, Bill Frist actually came out in support of stem-cell research!
Now, I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact most Americans want it, and Frist thinks of himself as a Presidential candidate in '08? Nahhh, I'm being too cynical...or am I??
remember this is the same Frist who "diagnosed" Terri Schiavo without ever seeing her, and levelled all manner of unfounded horrible charges against Michael Schiavo....
Hmmm...well, at least Frist DID come out in favor of stem-cell research, and I'll give him credit for it. His motives of coming out in favor of stem-cell research aside (and I think his motivations are more self-serving than not) the fact is, he still did the right thing this time, and so credit I will give him, as badly as it hurts.

Bullshit. Bush got dragged, kicking and screaming...into supporting Kennedy's bill. KENNEDY invented it. Bush underfunded it. And the rest, as they say, is history.

ON EDIT: You just don't want to believe anything good of Democrats...or anything evil of Republicans, do you?
I'll at least own up to my bias! But, when and if I ever see a Republican do something good, decent, and not evil...I'll be the first to give them credit. And I'm still waiting....glad I didn't say I'd hold my breath until Republicans did something decent...


Actually, if you just wanted to discuss history you could have even said Lyndon Johnson started it, but I guess you didn't see how that's related to you point of pretending Bush somehow doesn't support it.

Your point was that Bush was against it, even though he ran his campaign in support of it... not exactly what I call kicking and screaming :rolleyes:

http://www.educationnext.org/20034/62.html


When President George W. Bush took office in 2000, he placed education as the foremost priority on his domestic policy agenda. The president developed a new federal role in public education by building on the successes of IASA and his own experiences with the Texas education system during his tenure as governor.

Both parties on Capitol Hill welcomed NCLB and at first it appeared as though the bill would be sent to the White House for the president's approval without any major obstacles. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce reported the bill out of committee in May 2001, after only a couple of months deliberation. A week later the lower chamber passed House Resolution 1 (H.R. 1) by a vote of 384-45. The bill was sent to the Senate for approval, but the upper chamber struck the House language and passed a similar version, Senate Bill 1 (S. 1), with only four opposing votes. The differences in the two versions of the bill were not expected to derail its chances for passage. In July 2001, both chambers agreed to convene a conference committee to resolve their differences and pass the landmark education package under a banner of bipartisanship.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/NCLBHistory.htm

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.
I refer to much more recent studies. I'll see if I can find them.


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.
I stand corrected then. However, your point was still a strawman, because 5-year-olds have gametes, and thus have the capability to reproduce, even if physical structure prevents it. Thus, they count as life.


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.
Menstruation is when the egg is flushed from the body. The first ovulation occurs before the first menstruation.


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 the fetus reacts to music. So does my dog. Is my dog sapient?

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.

Well, the mother's immune system does try to fight the thing off for most of pregnancy...

Well, the mother's immune system does try to fight the thing off for most of pregnancy...
And parasitism covers symbiosis anyways. Most people don't seem to understand that scientific terms don't always mean the same thing as their common counterparts.

So the fetus reacts to music. So does my dog. Is my dog sapient? 'Tis not right to kill a dog for no good reason…

Well, the mother's immune system does try to fight the thing off for most of pregnancy...


Oh for crying out loud.

Of course the mother’s immune system tries to fight the pregnancy off, it's not HER body, it they doesn’t recognize the fetus because it's a separate entity (in fact, one of the many proofs that it's not her body not her choice). The secondary point here is that the fetus DOES help the mother in several ways, to pretend it's all take, take, take (like the bad synonym of parasite example would be if it was true), is in error. The fetus is a partner, a beneficial contributor to the relationship.


http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6610&print=true

'Tis not right to kill a dog for no good reason…
I've seen spiders react to music. In fact, many plants react to music.

Thank you for your response.

I refer to much more recent studies. I'll see if I can find them.
Ok.

I stand corrected then. However, your point was still a strawman, because 5-year-olds have gametes, and thus have the capability to reproduce, even if physical structure prevents it. Thus, they count as life.
It is true that they have sex cells, but I believe the capability to reproduce includes both biological and mechanical aspects. And at that age, they are by one way or another unable to reproduce (except in the severe cases such as that of the Peruvian girl).

Menstruation is when the egg is flushed from the body. The first ovulation occurs before the first menstruation.
I think I meant to refer to the Menstruation Cycle as whole, but regardless, ok.

So the fetus reacts to music. So does my dog. Is my dog sapient?
As I said, this is not something that can be easily proved. As yes, even plants have been documented to react to music and constant speech. But if you consider a newborn infant to be alive, which really is incapable of anything but the most basic of responses to stimuli, then how does that compare to just a few minutes before when it was in the womb and reactions are similar as felt or seen through a sonogram?

So, basically, it is established that after a baby is born, it is to be considered "alive". But supposedly before this happens, it is not. So I guess it all comes down to what happens during birth that separates the difference.

How is the baby not alive when they abort it? How does that work?

The vast majority of abortions occur before there is a working nervous system. As such, the embryo has no capacity with which to sense and respond to stimuli as an entity - one of the requirements of life.

Especially in a partial- birth abortion. I think that if you people really understood how the baby is killed in an abortion you might think twice. I mean, think about it: in a partial birth abortion the baby is partially delivered until only the head remains inside the mother. Then the doctor will do one of two things. Either he will pierce the back of the skull and suck the brains out or he will crush the skull with a pair of forceps. All this happens right before the baby is fully delivered. So is the baby alive when he kills it. You bet it is. In fact if he let the baby come out all the way and then killed it he could be prosecuted for murder!! Come on people you have to admit that it doesn't make sense.

Like many people, you are horribly misinformed about this procedure. First of all, they don't generally happen "right before the baby is delivered," at least not naturally. Labor is induced specifically to get the fetus to a point that the doctor can reach it. This is not performed on full-term fetuses.

Secondly, because of the timing and the difficulty of this procedure, it can only legally be used in cases where the woman's life or health is in danger. This is absolutely true of 3rd trimester cases (most dilation and extraction procedures occur during this time). In many of these cases, the fetus itself has no chance of survival.

An example is severe hydrocephalus, in which the fetal head can be as large as 50 cm. Note that a woman's vagina can only dilate to about 10. There is no way the woman can naturally deliver the fetus. Meanwhile, with that type of pressure, the fetus, even if carried to term, will not survive more than a few minutes.

You are correct that it wouldn't make sense if this described a significant portion of abortions, or described *any* elective abortions, but it does not.

No.

I'm suggesting that once the mother's womb is occupied (not induced by the governments action whatsoever) it is thereafter protected in the interest of the public's good because the fate of the child(ren) makes it the government's interest and public (public being more than one person). When there is more than one person’s rights are involved in the possession of a property the government often forces them to share or for one half to buy out the other half etc., but in the point and protection of the womb for the two individuals (if a fetus is ever given the right to life) it would be similar to ensuring equal access to the ‘property-resources-womb’ (out of necessity, not desire to intrude) for the duration of the pregnancy.


(p.s.,. the Immenent domain part was a partial pun :p , nobody 'got' it :( )

Imminence = upcoming immediately. Yes, I got it.

But to continue your analogy -- if I left my apartment window unlocked, and some stranger I did not invite there decided to move in, I could not have him removed.

Replace that with, If one took one's contraception, or even if one forgot it -- and it failed for some reason, then one is stuck with the 'squatter'. Sorry. Nope. An unwanted guest has no right to your territory -- and one's body is most certainly one's territory.

The reasons for an abortion would be the same, the readiness of a couple to get an abortion (if they were illegal) would be astronomically diminished.

Absolutely not. The poor would have illegal abortions or self-induced abortions (coat hangers? throwing oneself down stairs? ingesting herbs which in large doses are abortifacients? How about the fairly recent case of a teen having her boyfriend beat her into miscarriage with her consent?) which may threaten their lives or their capacity to have children when they are ready, and the wealthy simply would fly to a country where they could have their abortion done.

Of course the fetus 'actually' exists; otherwise they wouldn't need an abortion now would they?

I think you mean to say, you don't recognize them nor give them the rights of being human, yet.

I believe The Precursors was referring to the existence of God, not the fetus.

What a crock, you've forgotten your party line. Bush started the "No Child Left Behind" law in 2002, your not supposed to like it because, Gosh darn it, Democrats didn't invent it :rolleyes: So lets say, it's under funded and pretend like having educational minimum standards are a bad thing!

You're just full of hate and spiteful things to say aren't you? They don't even have to be true.

Um, "No Child Left Behind" was begun pre-Bush, although he did sign it into law in 2002. It actually is based on earlier programs, some started started by his father and a few notably by William Clinton, and was approved by both parties.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/NCLBHistory.htm

Imminence = upcoming immediately. Yes, I got it.

But to continue your analogy -- if I left my apartment window unlocked, and some stranger I did not invite there decided to move in, I could not have him removed.

Replace that with, If one took one's contraception, or even if one forgot it -- and it failed for some reason, then one is stuck with the 'squatter'. Sorry. Nope. An unwanted guest has no right to your territory -- and one's body is most certainly one's territory.


Actually, that's not the end of it either. Because in this case, the 'squatter' in question is the property owners own offspring and is not a stranger at all.

They are due their inheritance whether the parent wants to pay for the child support or not, the court can and will demand it of them and they won’t be able to boot out the intruder without cost/payment being paid to the ‘squatter’ as their fair share and what is due to them (court needs to advocate in favor of the child – this entire argument is provided that the fetus is ever granted a right to life that is).

The reasons for an abortion would be the same, the readiness of a couple to get an abortion (if they were illegal) would be astronomically diminished.

Absolutely not. The poor would have illegal abortions or self-induced abortions (coat hangers? throwing oneself down stairs? ingesting herbs which in large doses are abortifacients? How about the fairly recent case of a teen having her boyfriend beat her into miscarriage with her consent?) which may threaten their lives or their capacity to have children when they are ready, and the wealthy simply would fly to a country where they could have their abortion done.

I'm not going to pretend that nobody would get abortions anyway. But I do believe strongly that with very young couples (still in school etc.,) and other older couples that experience unplanned pregnancies and maybe were already feeling like they had 'passed' their child rearing days (their kids are in college etc.,), that if abortion was not legal they wouldn't choose it or even seriously consider it.

As far as poor and desperate families go, they are in need of help now, abortion rights is not their primary problem in my opinion, poverty is, perhaps addiction and homelessness, but they utilize abortion now because they are desperate and society should address these concerns immediately, regardless of which way the wind blows in the abortion debate.

Overall I still propose that many couples that opt for abortion now only do so because they can, as a convenience, not a necessity, and that’s sad and in my opinion, wrong.

Um, "No Child Left Behind" was begun pre-Bush, although he did sign it into law in 2002. It actually is based on earlier programs, some started started by his father and a few notably by William Clinton, and was approved by both parties.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/NCLBHistory.htm

Well, I'll say this then (although isn't that the same link I used later on? :)), whether Bush created it, or was/is just in favor of it, I know that I am in favor of it. :D

[QUOTE=Bottle]Okay, fine, he can have just as much "say" over the "kid." But he gets zero say about the woman's body, since that belongs to her and not him. Period. If he wants to experience the joys of fatherhood so much then he can incubate the fetus in his uterus.

If only. It would probably be a much more loving and protective enviroment.
And her body does belong to him, as his belongs to hers.
The 'fetus' as you refer to it so clinically, is also a developing human being, that you want to see murdered mostly for the sake of convenience.





But wait! GASP! Could it be that there may be an aspect of motherhood for which there is no fatherly parallel?! Could biology truly be so unequal?!

This aspect doesnt seem to hold much water, for the most part in an abortion clinic.


You really don't know the first thing about abortion, do you? Tell you what: if you care about "life" so much, how about you come volunteer at my clinic...I've got some people for you to meet.

No thanks, that would be like a tour of Birkenau by my enthusiastic tourguide Bottle.


For instance, you could meet the 19 year old music student who narrowly escaped a violent boyfriend, only to find out she had become pregnant with his child. Tell her that the time she has spent agonizing over this situation is just a selfish delusion. Remind her that it's coldblooded of her to have any dreams or hopes of her own, and it's wicked to want to bring life into this world only when you are ready to love it and care for it. Don't forget to remind her how wicked she is for keeping the "father" out of the picture, since he's got a right to the baby.

No excuse, she should have had the kid, but kept the father away with a court order, hopefully one day he would one day wake up to his violence and change.


You could speak to the middle class suburban woman who found out she was pregnant only a week before her husband was in a horrible car accident. He is now in and out of comas, facing a long and incredibly difficult recovery, and she feels neither financially nor emotionally prepared to cope with pregnancy, childbirth, and a baby on top of helping and supporting her husband. Tell her that she is coldblooded, please do, and say it to her husband's face as well. Tell him what a selfish bitch of a wife he has, a bitch who would give up the pregnancy she wanted in order to help him recover in the hopes that they can build a future family together.

Wheres theres life there is hope, imagine if he came around and found out she had an abortion, how much worse is their life now, for want of a kid to greet him.
The hospital system could have looked after him adequetly enough, while she coped with the kid, you can make a bad situation alot better if you try you know?
Not just give in like you seem to encourage.
Are women that weak and pathetic in your view Bottle?


Or how about the mother of four who can barely make enough money to buy her kids shoes, even with her and her husband working two jobs. Tell her she's coldblooded for spending money on her kids' school supplies instead of on Pills for herself. Tell her it's coldblooded of her to realize she will lose her jobs if she tries to take time off for her pregnancy, and it's coldblooded of her to know that she's got no health insurance to pay for the expenses. Tell her how coldblooded she is for giving up her chance at a baby she wanted to keep, because she knew that feeding her current children is more important than her personal happiness.

My parents had six kids, me and my five siblings, both worked and we never experienced any hardship, especially no lack of any food, ever heard of buying in bulk? Unless you consider not having the latest toys, gadgets, a new pair of shoes every month, latest videogames etc, hardship?
Again no excuse, she could have asked her husband to have a vasectomy, a simple enough painless operation before hand after the fouth child was born.


Guess what? Six in 10 women who have abortions are mothers. Still want to claim that the joys and pains of pregnancy mean nothing to these women?

Sorry but unless they were raped, or kid has serious problems they dont think they can deal with, its still no excuse to go get an abortion.
Vasectomy operation again Bottle, if she thinks she has enough kids.

Why dont you describe the process of an abortion past the first or even second trimester to everyone here, leave nothing out.


1 in 3 American women will have an abortion at some point in her life. You probably think you don't have a friend or loved one who's had an abortion...and you're almost positively dead wrong.

I should hope not, that would be for me pretty low and scumy company.
A woman who chose lifestyle over a life that depended on her love.
Again rape etc not included.

It's amazing how long the anti-choicers have hung on to the myth that women who seek abortions are cold, selfish, slutty bitches who only want to shed an inconvenience so they can return to their life of wild hedonism. It's good that you don't let tiny things like fact,

No we just reconise the truth of this disgusting slaughter for what it really is, which is a majority of abortions seem to be by mostly caucasian women who choose the convienience of their lifestyle over any responsibility of theirs or their partners, my county averages over 100,000 abortions a year... are you seriously suggesting that these were all like, or a majority of the sob storys you have of the above?
Every year... my country...100,000 + abortions.


the welfare of children, or basic human rights interfere with your little tirades.

lmao

Pot. kettle etc

This is coming from a person who is an advocate of the mass slaughter of innocent human life in the name of womens rights. :rolleyes:

piffle.

You're no fun, Gessler.

You're the antithesis of amusement.

Anathema of jocularity.

'A drag. A well-known drag.' - George, A Hard Day's Night.

piffle.
You're no fun, Gessler.
You're the antithesis of amusement.
Anathema of jocularity.
'A drag. A well-known drag.' - George, A Hard Day's Night.

Awww cant handle seeing the brutal truth mate?
You just go back to la la land now little boy, where nothings ever challenged as bad.

Scott Peterson killed his wife and UNBORN BABY. He got convicted for both of their murders. And yet, when you get an abortion, it is not murder.

You know, I'm going to take the pro-life logic, go and get the butcher knife out of the kitchen, and kill my mom. They can bring me to trial, I'll just say "it was unwanted and wasn't really alive" because she has been aging for 2 decades. She's past her prime, just like babies' are before their prime. Both are basically useless to society at that point, so why don't we just kill them?

If you're going to slaughter babies, slaughter people over 35, too, to be fair.

Actually, I would think that Gessler lives in some kind of rose tinted world where everything can me made alright if these people worked at it.

News for you kid. It isn't.

Actually, I would think that Gessler lives in some kind of rose tinted world where everything can me made alright if these people worked at it.
News for you kid. It isn't.

News for you kid, your apathy is the biggest part of the problem.

Scott Peterson killed his wife and UNBORN BABY. He got convicted for both of their murders. And yet, when you get an abortion, it is not murder.

You know, I'm going to take the pro-life logic, go and get the butcher knife out of the kitchen, and kill my mom. They can bring me to trial, I'll just say "it was unwanted and wasn't really alive" because she has been aging for 2 decades. She's past her prime, just like babies' are before their prime. Both are basically useless to society at that point, so why don't we just kill them?

If you're going to slaughter babies, slaughter people over 35, too, to be fair.
Now that's just asinine. We should just slaughter all the pro-lifers instead. How about that, Rocky?

Scott Peterson killed his wife and UNBORN BABY. He got convicted for both of their murders. And yet, when you get an abortion, it is not murder.

We do all understand that those laws about killing pregnant women were pushed onto the books partially to create such an argument, right? It's no coincidence.

Awww cant handle seeing the brutal truth mate?
You just go back to la la land now little boy, where nothings ever challenged as bad.
No, just can't handle seeing a boring twit spin his wheels continuously. Mate.

No, just can't handle seeing a boring twit spin his wheels continuously. Mate.

So put me on ignore then sillyboy.

News for you kid, your apathy is the biggest part of the problem.

And the problem would be? That I don't particularly see 1st trimester (prior to the formation of a nervous system) legal abortion as murder as anti-choicers call them? Or perhaps that I realize that for all the hot air that the anti-choicers give out, they rarely partake in actually seeing to the problems of the children ALREADY born?

I mean honestly, how many of you anti-choicers are out there preventing clear cases of slaughter and murder of already living children in places like Rwanda and Darfur? How many of you anti-choicers are going adopting as many children as you are capable of supporting from your local orphanages? I will take a guess and assume that you do nothing of the sort.

There are plenty of problems in this world to date. And yet, anti-choicers want to focus on potential problems rather than existing ones.

Why? Because it must be easier to sit in your chair and blab about it or shout your hateful vitriol at people you don't even know for their choices in life rather than actually going out there and trying to make a difference.

I refuse to make a difference in this case because I refuse to interfere in another person's life and their choices. It is up to them whether they decide to legally abort a pregancy or not.

You advocate the condemnation of any and all women to forced childbirth once they are found to be pregnant regardless of circumstances. Do you deny that there are imporvished people living in the world, that they cannot afford to support any children? Do you deny that there are those who are facing difficult circumstances and simply cannot provide the time nor care required to raise a child? Do you deny that the orphanages in many places are usually filled with unwanted children?

And yet you give nothing to solve the problems that would be related to this, instead, advocating the compounding of these problems by taking away a choice that could very well make the difference.

As for restraining orders, don't make me laugh. Recent court rulings in the US show that the police are no longer required to actually enforce them. What is to stop violent men from re-entering and terrorising the lives of their abused spouses short of murder one?

Your arguments attempt to appeal to mindless emotion and rabble rousing rather than any real intelligent debate. You appear to desire nothing more than male supremacy over the decision of any woman on whether to carry a child.

I would prefer intelligent apathy that is the result of my own decisions and views rather than mindless action that result from blind rhetoric and emotional, hypocritical views.

Think of it this way. Without the female body, the fetus would die anyways. So, she has total control over it. She sustains it, and she has total dominance over it.

Well, the mother's immune system does try to fight the thing off for most of pregnancy...

...morning sickness, anyone? ;)

Ah sick

If only. It would probably be a much more loving and protective enviroment.

Wait, are you suggesting that the traditional gender role of woman as nurturer may be incorrect, and that males are actually better suited to rear young? How unexpected.

And her body does belong to him, as his belongs to hers.

Sickening. Having sex with somebody does not in any way grant them ownership of your body, any more than playing a CD for somebody gives them ownership of your stereo. Sex is a way that you share something you enjoy (your body) with somebody, but that doesn't mean you are giving it to them for keeps.


The 'fetus' as you refer to it so clinically, is also a developing human being, that you want to see murdered mostly for the sake of convenience.

Is it "clinical" of me to refer to a baby as a baby, rather than as "a developing human being"? Fetus is the correct term for a human life at that stage of development, and it would be as incorrect to call a fetus a baby as it would be to call a baby a senior citizen.

And, to rehash a very tired point, I don't want fetuses "murdered" because I want abortion to be 100% legal; murder is an UNLAWFUL killing.


This aspect doesnt seem to hold much water, for the most part in an abortion clinic.

I don't understand what you are saying. Could you clarify, please?


No thanks, that would be like a tour of Birkenau by my enthusiastic tourguide Bottle.

Surprise surprise, a "pro-life" individual who doesn't want to help women and children get medical care. Guess "life" isn't so important once it's outside the womb, huh?


No excuse, she should have had the kid, but kept the father away with a court order, hopefully one day he would one day wake up to his violence and change.

I thought he had a right to her body because they had sex. I thought you said he owned the child, too. Are you now saying that men only own their children when they pass certain standards? Could you explain the conditions under which a female may rightfully deny ownership of her body and her offspring?

Furthermore, please don't forget that your claim was that she was "coldhearted" and that pregnancy and childbirth meant nothing to her. That is the point you need to support.


Wheres theres life there is hope, imagine if he came around and found out she had an abortion, how much worse is their life now, for want of a kid to greet him.

He has "come around." He knows what she decided, and supports her.


The hospital system could have looked after him adequetly enough, while she coped with the kid, you can make a bad situation alot better if you try you know?

You really are clueless about medical issues in general, aren't you? Try to understand: this is a man facing permanent disabilities, enduring the most painful experience of his entire life, and strangers at a hospital CANNOT provide the care and support that his wife can give him. That's what a real marriage is about.

Also, the hospital staff can't pay for his medical care. And neither could his wife, if she had to take maternity leave. Guess he should just have to settle for bargain-basement treatment, endangering his life and his recovery, and his wife is "coldhearted" for wanting to provide better.

Again, remember that this discussion isn't about whether there are other options, or even whether the other options are better than what the individuals choose to do. This is about your claim that abortion is a "coldhearted" choice, and that pregnancy and childbirth mean nothing to women who choose to abort a pregnancy. That is the point you must defend, unless you are prepared to admit you were mistaken or lying when you made that claim.

Not just give in like you seem to encourage.
Are women that weak and pathetic in your view Bottle?

I see nothing weak or pathetic about putting one's personal comfort and happiness second to the welfare of one's family. I fail to see how making the best possible decision in a giving situation is "giving in." I view women who make painful decisions with dignity as very strong indeed. Even more so because they face such disgusting prejudices from people who claim they are "avoiding responsibility" or "being coldhearted."

You are the one who believes abortion is a bad choice, so women who choose to abort are bad or weak in YOUR view, not mine. I view these women's choices as the best thing they could have done, and the fact that they trusted their judgment and faced the realities of their situations only increases my respect for them.


My parents had six kids, me and my five siblings, both worked and we never experienced any hardship, especially no lack of any food, ever heard of buying in bulk? Unless you consider not having the latest toys, gadgets, a new pair of shoes every month, latest videogames etc, hardship?

Congrats, you weren't living in poverty. These people are.


Again no excuse, she could have asked her husband to have a vasectomy, a simple enough painless operation before hand after the fouth child was born.

One which an uninsured family living in poverty cannot possibly afford. Not to mention that many men are not comfortable with the idea of having a vasectomy...do you propose that women have the right to insist their male partners get a vasectomy against their wishes?


Sorry but unless they were raped, or kid has serious problems they dont think they can deal with, its still no excuse to go get an abortion.

Why would rape or birth defects excuse abortion, in your mind? Are you really suggesting that the acceptableness of "murder" is based on how much the woman enjoyed the sex? Or that it's okay to "murder" children who have serious problems that their parents can't cope with?

Can the parents of a handicapped child kill him if they find his condition too difficult to deal with? If not, aren't you then making a very clear distinction between fetuses and children, since you allow the "murder" of handicapped fetuses but not handicapped children? Could it be that you grant different rights to born human life versus unborn human life, even though you sneer at pro-choice individuals for doing the same?


Vasectomy operation again Bottle, if she thinks she has enough kids.

Women cannot get vasectomies. If you propose that women have the right to order men to get their genitals sliced up, then I'm afraid we must part ideological ways yet again. It's his body and his right to not get a vasectomy, and it is not her right to force such a procedure on him.


Why dont you describe the process of an abortion past the first or even second trimester to everyone here, leave nothing out.

Why don't I? Because I'm not in the business of transcribing easily available information for the benefit of people too lazy to research the subjects upon which they presume to opine. Read a book.

If you are asking me to describe abortion procedures in the hopes of tricking readers into buying the "gross = evil" theory, I would suggest you not waste your time. NS General members are a sharp bunch, and they have seen and discarded that ploy so many times it's getting downright silly.

I'm guessing people will be especially unimpressed given that you want a description of "late term" abortion procedures, since such procedures are very rare--something like 8-11% of abortion procedures happen after the first trimester--and cannot be legally performed as elective procedures (in the US at least). They are performed only when there is very serious danger in continuing the pregnancy, or when the fetus has already died or exhibited catastrophic malformation.

If you really are going to try to attack abortion based on its ickiness then you're up you-know-what-creek without a paddle, because the ickiest abortions are the ones performed to save the life of the mother...you're going to have a hard time convincing people that letting a mother and child die in childbirth is better than saving the mother's life, but maybe if you get some really really really icky pictures they will start to agree with you.


I should hope not, that would be for me pretty low and scumy company.
A woman who chose lifestyle over a life that depended on her love.
Again rape etc not included.

Again, why would you excuse a woman who'd been raped? Do fetuses conceived in rape not "depend on the woman's love" for their lives? Are a child's innocence and right to life determined by its mother's choices regarding The Sex?

And wouldn't a woman who aborted a handicapped fetus because of her own feelings of parental inadequacy be even scummier, like how a bully is even more pathetic if he picks on a handicapped classmate? Do handicapped children not depend on their mothers' love? Are handicapped children not as innocent as "normal" children?


No we just reconise the truth of this disgusting slaughter for what it really is, which is a majority of abortions seem to be by mostly caucasian women who choose the convienience of their lifestyle over any responsibility of theirs or their partners, my county averages over 100,000 abortions a year... are you seriously suggesting that these were all like, or a majority of the sob storys you have of the above?
Every year... my country...100,000 + abortions.

I don't know where you live, so I can't possibly debate your nation's abortion demographics. I also don't care.

lmao

Pot. kettle etc

I do not think that idiom means what you think it means. Here, let me show you...

This is coming from a person who is an advocate of the mass slaughter of innocent human life in the name of womens rights. :rolleyes:
Okay, now HERE is where the pot/kettle idiom would fit. See, you advocate the "mass slaughter" of "innocent human lives" conceived in rape, and "innocent human lives" that happen to have health problems their parents find inconvenient. Thus you look like something of an ass when you whimper about how I'm picking on the innocent little fetuses, because you are the one decrying abortion as "murder" in one breath while supporting the "murder" of innocent and handicapped "babies" with the next.

Before you rush to get snippy at me for being consistent in my view (that all human life is equally unentitled to own another human's body) you might want to do a quick double check to make sure you aren't stumbling over your own morals on the way.

About? About a pack of lies. Partial birth abortions in the West? As legal procedures? Nice scare tactic. :rolleyes:
Indeed. "Partial birth abortions" have been illegal as elective procedures for quite some time in America. The only times these procedures are used are 1) when the mother's life is in serious danger if the pregnancy continues, 2) when the fetus is hopelessly deformed, and 3) when the fetus is already dead.

My parents had six kids, me and my five siblings, both worked and we never experienced any hardship, especially no lack of any food, ever heard of buying in bulk? Unless you consider not having the latest toys, gadgets, a new pair of shoes every month, latest videogames etc, hardship?
Again no excuse, she could have asked her husband to have a vasectomy, a simple enough painless operation before hand after the fouth child was born.

Yes, because a family so deep in poverty that the parents give up medication to buy food for their children can really afford a vasectomy.

Or do you know somewhere they give them away for free now?

Why dont you describe the process of an abortion past the first or even second trimester to everyone here, leave nothing out.

Abortions past the first or second trimester are performed very rarely - and cannot be obtained electively. How do they factor into the discussion? Or do you not think a woman who very much wanted to have a baby but has found that her life is in danger from her pregnancy should be able to save herself so that she can possibly have a child in the future?

Nearly 90% of all abortions (at least in the US) occur before the end of the first trimester. The other 10% are performed for reasons concerning the health of the mother.

No we just reconise the truth of this disgusting slaughter for what it really is, which is a majority of abortions seem to be by mostly caucasian women who choose the convienience of their lifestyle over any responsibility of theirs or their partners, my county averages over 100,000 abortions a year... are you seriously suggesting that these were all like, or a majority of the sob storys you have of the above?

Actually, many are like the stories above. Probably the majority. The idea that women are out getting multiple abortions for "convenience" is a myth.

Scott Peterson killed his wife and UNBORN BABY. He got convicted for both of their murders. And yet, when you get an abortion, it is not murder.

The fetus in this case was developed enough to be viable. Lacy Peterson was in her 3rd trimester. I hate to break it to you, but you can't get an elective abortion at that stage either. Unless the mother's life or health are in extreme danger, no one can end the pregnancy legally.

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

You shouldn't be able to tell a woman not to suck the blood of others.... It's her body, not yours.

*Note: This isn't saying that abortion is sucking blood, it's a parody or whatever you call it*

You shouldn't be able to tell a woman not to suck the blood of others.... It's her body, not yours.

*Note: This isn't saying that abortion is sucking blood, it's a parody or whatever you call it*
You've got your parody backwards. The fetus is the one doing the blood sucking. The woman is the one trying to STOP something/someone from using her body against her wishes.

Pro-Choicers: Standing up for your right to not have your blood sucked.

The fetus in this case was developed enough to be viable. Lacy Peterson was in her 3rd trimester. I hate to break it to you, but you can't get an elective abortion at that stage either. Unless the mother's life or health are in extreme danger, no one can end the pregnancy legally.
Not to mention that allowing the government to charge somebody for "double homicide" of a pregnant woman was just a back-door ploy by the anti-choice crowd.

It's funny to me how anti-choicers will point to the Scott/Lacy case and say, "See! Fetus-killing is considered murder! Pro-choice people are hypocrites!" The pro-choice lobby strongly OPPOSED laws like the one Scott was convicted under, but for some reason we still are "hypocrites" because the anti-choice crowd succeeded in their ploy.

Not to mention that allowing the government to charge somebody for "double homicide" of a pregnant woman was just a back-door ploy by the anti-choice crowd.

It's funny to me how anti-choicers will point to the Scott/Lacy case and say, "See! Fetus-killing is considered murder! Pro-choice people are hypocrites!" The pro-choice lobby strongly OPPOSED laws like the one Scott was convicted under, but for some reason we still are "hypocrites" because the anti-choice crowd succeeded in their ploy.

Of course, the current 'thin-end-of-the-wedge' argument that is being forced through, is this 'anaesthetising' foetuses thing that a couple of states have allowed.

Two years down the line, the Anti-Abortion crowd will be throwing that one back at the Pro-Choice crowd, just like they are with 'Partial-Birth-Abortion'.

You've got your parody backwards. The fetus is the one doing the blood sucking. The woman is the one trying to STOP something/someone from using her body against her wishes.

Pro-Choicers: Standing up for your right to not have your blood sucked.

Yeah, something that she helped to create, something that is her own CHILD. Really, how heartless can you get?

Yeah, something that she helped to create, something that is her own CHILD. Really, how heartless can you get?
*eye roll* We're back at the "heartless" rant, are we? Can't you people get some new damn material?

I do not think that idiom means what you think it means. Here, let me show you...


Ooooh, advantage Bottle, for invocation of Montoya's Principle...

Ooooh, advantage Bottle, for invocation of Montoya's Principle...
I must admit, I am somewhat tempted to use my left hand when engaging this Gessler fellow...it seems only sporting.

Yeah, something that she helped to create, something that is her own CHILD. Really, how heartless can you get?

'Heartless' isn't a logical term, my friend... your argument falls on an 'appeal to sentiment' fallacy.

You also have to bear in mind that:

a) Not ALL women WANT to 'help create' the conceptus that grows within them.

b) Even among those that acquiesce to the implantation, there are degrees of coercion.

c) Even among those that welcome the implantation PROCEDURE, there is no necessary corollary with welcoming the PRODUCT of implantation.

d) Conceptus doesn't automatically equate to neonate.

e) Familial ties vary according to familial circumstances.

f) One person's moral judgement (i.e. what is 'heartless') has no automatic match in ANY other person's judgements.

I must admit, I am somewhat tempted to use my left hand when engaging this Gessler fellow...it seems only sporting.

Well, if that is the only way you can be satisfied...

I mean, you use your right hand, it's over too quickly... :)

Yeah, something that she helped to create, something that is her own CHILD. Really, how heartless can you get?

As several people pointed out: apealing to emotions isnt the way to go in a debate. I view people who try to force women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term as "heartless", for example.

'Heartless' isn't a logical term, my friend... your argument falls on an 'appeal to sentiment' fallacy.

You also have to bear in mind that:

a) Not ALL women WANT to 'help create' the conceptus that grows within them.

b) Even among those that acquiesce to the implantation, there are degrees of coercion.

c) Even among those that welcome the implantation PROCEDURE, there is no necessary corollary with welcoming the PRODUCT of implantation.

d) Conceptus doesn't automatically equate to neonate.

e) Familial ties vary according to familial circumstances.

f) One person's moral judgement (i.e. what is 'heartless') has no automatic match in ANY other person's judgements.

First of all, I wasn't arguing. I was bitching.

Secondly, re: your points:

a. Yes, rape is bad. I didn't say otherwise. My statement was against the percieved callousness of the comment, not the circumstances.

b. See a. But don't try to deny personal responsibility. It's still there.

c. Why not? The procedure (great wording here btw) is a necessary antecedent to the product, and the disconnect between welcoming of the two elements represents no less than an infirm grasp of the concept of cause and effect. The procedure is designed for the product, and the entire argument stems from those who want to have cake and eat it too - or, more exactly, want to make the cake and then throw it away.

d. The conceptus is identical to the neonate in all aspects that are worth a damn. Namely, potential and DNA. Issues such as dependency, brain activity, or physical characteristics are all false dichotomies because they cannot be applied across the human lifetime in a way that is consistently palatable to society. Either it's all okay, or it's all bad. I'm thinking B here.

e. To my understanding, this point isn't very pointy. Clarification requested.

f. This is the way of the world. If it were otherwise, I wouldn't be writing. Of course, in terms of actual persuasion, I might as well not bother, at least in this forum. It's still nice to practice.

Well, if that is the only way you can be satisfied...

I mean, you use your right hand, it's over too quickly... :)
You know, I never until this moment realized how potentially pornographic Montoya's dialogue is.

You know, I never until this moment realized how potentially pornographic Montoya's dialogue is.

Really? But, that's half the fun. :D

Really? But, that's half the fun. :D
Yeah, and now I am really feeling like a bonehead for missing it. Usually mine is the first mind to leap gleefully into the gutter!

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?

By that reasoning, those who have never experienced such emotion would be more apt to conclude with logic and sound reasoning, not emotional rationalizing. I don't care for your use of "ignorant". It's like insulting me because of the fact I wasn't born with a uterus........but I digress.

First of all, I wasn't arguing. I was bitching.

Secondly, re: your points:

a. Yes, rape is bad. I didn't say otherwise. My statement was against the percieved callousness of the comment, not the circumstances.


Still, the implication that JUST because she was there at the creation, she must be 'heartless' if she decides she doesn't want to witness the finale... well, I'd say the logic is flawed, at best. And, to be honest, do you not find THAT mindset (i.e. the victim of rape SHOULD be made to keep a reminder of the trauma), just a little 'heartless'?


b. See a. But don't try to deny personal responsibility. It's still there.


Not trying to deny responsibility... but not all arguments are equal, when it comes to consent. Does spiking a girl's drink make her a WILLING participant to the birth of a child, nine months removed? Does intimidation? Does the Deep-South trick of teaching girls they MUST obey boys place the SAME burden of responsibility on the female? Does the lack of ANY education about sexuality not devolve the responsibility onto the parents and the society?



c. Why not? The procedure (great wording here btw) is a necessary antecedent to the product, and the disconnect between welcoming of the two elements represents no less than an infirm grasp of the concept of cause and effect. The procedure is designed for the product, and the entire argument stems from those who want to have cake and eat it too - or, more exactly, want to make the cake and then throw it away.


I use procedure, because I view 'appeals to sentiment' to be flawed practice... but, thankyou.

The procedure may function as a means of providing the product - but it is FAR from the ONLY purpose the procedure serves.

And, if you are carrying out a procedure for ONE result, and accidentally cause an unwanted product???

Well - put it this way, very few doctors decide it was the patients FAULT, and that the patient DESERVED it, when they accidentally cut a vein while performing surgery.


d. The conceptus is identical to the neonate in all aspects that are worth a damn. Namely, potential and DNA. Issues such as dependency, brain activity, or physical characteristics are all false dichotomies because they cannot be applied across the human lifetime in a way that is consistently palatable to society. Either it's all okay, or it's all bad. I'm thinking B here.


The potential of the conceptus and the DNA are not the same... quite the inverse, in fact. The Conceptus is ALL potential (and remember, fully a third of ALL concepta hit porcelain without implantation), while the Neonate is ALL potential-realised.

Regarding DNA, I don't consider that valid, either. If a patient enters an establishment for surgery, the surgeon does not (and doesn't have the RIGHT to) refuse the surgery because of chimerical DNA.

You claim false dichotomies on three points, but you don't explain WHY they should be false?


e. To my understanding, this point isn't very pointy. Clarification requested.


Buffy quote? (Cool Points awarded if it was). The point is, not all families function as the 2.4 nuclear model. Some parents kill their offspring, or torture them, or rape them... Thus, appeal to the 'her own CHILD' argument is flawed... since mere familial connection is no guaruntee.


f. This is the way of the world. If it were otherwise, I wouldn't be writing. Of course, in terms of actual persuasion, I might as well not bother, at least in this forum. It's still nice to practice.

Well, to me at least, the point of debate is NOT conversion... and, if that is what you seek, perhaps placard-waving outside clinics would be more your cup of tea?

But, since you agree that your morality may be different to others, why would you envision a situation where your vision is compelled?

Yeah, and now I am really feeling like a bonehead for missing it. Usually mine is the first mind to leap gleefully into the gutter!

Don't worry, I won't tell anyone. :D

Although I am now stuck with 'Beavis and Bottle' visions... 'hu hu... hu hu... he said 'satisfaction'... hu hu..." :)

By that reasoning, those who have never experienced such emotion would be more apt to conclude with logic and sound reasoning, not emotional rationalizing. I don't care for your use of "ignorant". It's like insulting me because of the fact I wasn't born with a uterus........but I digress.

Nope. she is using the word "ignorant" correctly. You are reading into that word incorrectly. "Ignorant" in it's literal meaning, is NOT a synonym for "stuipd" as many people seem to think. "Ignorant" literally means "uninformed."

And she is saying you may have something of an uninformed opinion, because you, as a man, do not experience what she and other women do.

don't be so quick to be insulted, I don't believe any was intended here...you are misinterpreting the meaning of the word "ignorant."

Dare I say it??? :D :D
Yeah...I do...:P :P You are ignorant of the meaning of "ignorant." :P :P

Nope. she is using the word "ignorant" correctly. You are reading into that word incorrectly. "Ignorant" in it's literal meaning, is NOT a synonym for "stuipd" as many people seem to think. "Ignorant" literally means "uninformed."

Right, but when many people on this forum seem to use "you're ignorant" as part and parcel of their argumentation, without any reference as to what specifically one is ignorant, it's being USED as an insult, it becomes a synonym for stupid. This happens all the time.

As for the topic question, everyone has a right to an opinion, and if you don't think they do, that's too bad, because they'll have an opinion anyway. End of story!

First of all, I wasn't arguing. I was bitching.

Secondly, re: your points:

a. Yes, rape is bad. I didn't say otherwise. My statement was against the percieved callousness of the comment, not the circumstances.

Wait, you called all women who have abortions "heartless" because you were bothered by callousness?


b. See a. But don't try to deny personal responsibility. It's still there.

Abortion is often the most responsible choice a woman can make. Just because you don't LIKE a choice doesn't mean it's automatically irresponsible. No woman can avoid taking responsibility for her pregnancy (unless she plugs her ears and sings "LA LA LA I'M NOT PREGNANT" until the baby falls out of her) because she simply can't escape doing so. Even if you think she has made a bad choice, she still was taking responsibility by dealing with the pregnancy in the best way she knew how.


c. Why not? The procedure (great wording here btw) is a necessary antecedent to the product, and the disconnect between welcoming of the two elements represents no less than an infirm grasp of the concept of cause and effect. The procedure is designed for the product, and the entire argument stems from those who want to have cake and eat it too - or, more exactly, want to make the cake and then throw it away.

Reproduction is only one of the functions for which human sexual contact is designed. Our sexual organs and brains have evolved not only to refine our reproduction but also to enhance the other roles of sex in our social and physiological existence. Also, remember that human reproductive success is NOT just a matter of making a baby; sex serves several "reproductive" functions besides the actual conception of a child. Sex can enhance pair bonds, improve health of parents, and improve the likelihood that they will be able to rear previously- or later-conceived offspring to maturity. Claiming sex is just about making a baby only flaunts your ignorance of the beautiful biology behind sex itself.

Furthermore, claiming that anybody who consents to sex is consenting to have a baby is like claiming that anybody who drives a car consents to be in an accident. Do you really walk up to accident victims and say, "Take some responsibility! You wouldn't be in this mess if you'd taken the train to work instead!" If you break your leg skiing, do you think the doctor ought to tell you he won't set the bone because you choose to put yourself in that situation?


d. The conceptus is identical to the neonate in all aspects that are worth a damn. Namely, potential and DNA.

Actually, the potential possessed by a conceptus is radically different from the potential of a newborn. I could get into a whole mess about stem cells and viability, but I won't bore everybody with that...suffice it to say that there's a reason why the female body aborts almost 40% of conceptuses before they are large enough to be seen with the naked eye.


Issues such as dependency, brain activity, or physical characteristics are all false dichotomies because they cannot be applied across the human lifetime in a way that is consistently palatable to society. Either it's all okay, or it's all bad. I'm thinking B here.

Explain why "potential" (meaning characteristics the given being does not have and may or may not ever acquire) is relavent, while actuality (meaning the traits that the being actually possesses) is "false dichotomy."

Put it this way: I have flour, milk, butter, sugar, eggs, etc. in my kitchen. Tonight I think I'm going to bug my partner into making these ingredients into cookies with me. I could just as easily use these same ingredients to make a cake, or brownies, or any host of other yummies. This is because while the ingredients have an extremely high likelihood of becoming cookies, they are NOT CURRENTLY COOKIES. They have all the qualities they need to form the 'scaffolding' for cookieness, but they do not yet possess the quality of cookieness. If they aren't prepared and cooked correctly, they will never become cookies.

Similarly, a conceptus is not a baby. It has many of the prerequisite qualities for babyness, but it must also receive some additional "ingredients" and "cooking" from the female body before it reaches the actuality of babyness. To claim a conceptus is equal to a fetus in all ways that matter is like claiming that I could skip cooking and just eat the raw ingredients and it would be the same as if I made the cookies.

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.

statisitcally speaking, those items you listed are a vast almost imporbable result given modern day technology and medicines. It is at the very least a far cry from the 100% death abortion will insue.

statisitcally speaking, those items you listed are a vast almost imporbable result given modern day technology and medicines. It is at the very least a far cry from the 100% death abortion will insue.
Actually, the likelihood of a pregnancy failing on its own, even in the developed world, is quite statistically significant. And even if it wasn't, even if it was a teenie tiny chance, it still would prove you wrong. Saying a fetus counts as a full person because it WILL become one is untrue, because there is always the possibility that the particular fetus was never going to mature.

statisitcally speaking, those items you listed are a vast almost imporbable result given modern day technology and medicines. It is at the very least a far cry from the 100% death abortion will insue.

I'm not saying that the statistics for miscarriage and abortion are the same, but I think you are sadly mislead if you think that miscarrying and stillbirth are things of the past.

Perhaps you'd care to define what 'almost improbable' means? And, do you have any evidence to back your claim?

I'm not saying that the statistics for miscarriage and abortion are the same, but I think you are sadly mislead if you think that miscarrying and stillbirth are things of the past.

Perhaps you'd care to define what 'almost improbable' means? And, do you have any evidence to back your claim?

According to this, 15% of all known pregnancies end in miscarriage and up to 50% of all pregnancies in general (thus counting those that implant but are never known to the mother) end in this way.

http://www.marchofdimes.com/pnhec/188_1086.asp

This does not count those eggs that are fertilized, but never implant, nor does it count stillbirths and fetuses that die in utero, but are not miscarried.

Stillbirth apparently accounts for 1 in 200 pregnancies (and this is *known* pregnancies) - a fairly high number in medical terms.

http://www.marchofdimes.com/pnhec/188_1121.asp



So the numbers aren't as low as some would claim, not by a longshot.

*eye roll* We're back at the "heartless" rant, are we? Can't you people get some new damn material?

Well its the truth, your position is heartless.

Well its the truth, your position is heartless.

While I certainly disagree with Bottle on some points, calling her position "heartless" is rather out of line. In fact, I would say that much of Bottle position seems to stem from her empathy for the women in the types of situations that force them into difficult decision - and all of the cases she has seen in her work.

Who knows? Maybe if you had seen all of the things Bottle has seen, you might be closer to her view than you think.

While I certainly disagree with Bottle on some points, calling her position "heartless" is rather out of line. In fact, I would say that much of Bottle position seems to stem from her empathy for the women in the types of situations that force them into difficult decision - and all of the cases she has seen in her work.
Who knows? Maybe if you had seen all of the things Bottle has seen, you might be closer to her view than you think.

What Bottle likes seeing, isnt what I like.
Her empathy for women comes more from her feminist ideology of having women removed from the role of primary childcarer than any real concern for women, I wonder how many times she has advised women not to have abortions?
It seems to be a 'bring them in and chop them out' place as quickly as possible, without serious question.
I don't know the statistics on Abortions in America, mainly because I already know its probably well over two million a year, if rates in my own country of over 100,000 compared to the population are anything to go by.
Is Bottle saying then the 'myth of convienience' is only that, and that their are over a million women raped and impregnated in the USA?
Every year?

What Bottle likes seeing, isnt what I like.

I'm rather certain that Bottle doesn't like seeing women in the situations that she has seen - as no one would. I can't think of anyone who would like to see a woman who already has to work two jobs, neither of which she can possibly miss without getting fired, just to keep food on the table for the kids she already has, have to make a decision to either keep feeding the kids she has, or lose her job and have another child with no possible way to pay for prenatal care.

I can't think of anyone who would want to see a young girl come in who has been raped by her own father, and due to an STD he has given her and then refused to have her treated for, will never be able to have children. (Bottle, I believe this was one of your stories).

Her empathy for women comes more from her feminist ideology of having women removed from the role of primary childcarer than any real concern for women, I wonder how many times she has advised women not to have abortions?

I don't know exactly what Bottle's role in the clinic is. However, I know that it is the policy of most clinics to sit down with a woman and discuss all possible options with them. The ultimate choice, of course, is left up to the woman.

I don't know the statistics on Abortions in America, mainly because I already know its probably well over two million a year, if rates in my own country of over 100,000 compared to the population are anything to go by.
Is Bottle saying then the 'myth of convienience' is only that, and that their are over a million women raped and impregnated in the USA, each year?

This really depends on what you call "convenience".

Would you say a woman who cannot possibly continue to feed herself and her children she already has if she continues her pregnancy - a woman who cannot afford birth control because she needs the money to put food on the table, who is working two jobs while her husband also works two jobs - is having an abortion for "convenience"?

Would you say this of a woman who was engaged to be married, and using condoms with her fiancee, and found out she was pregnant. Then, we she told her fiancee, thinking that they could simply start a family a little sooner than planned, he informed her that he wanted to break off their engagement as he had already begun sleeping with another woman. This woman could not possibly raise a child by herself, and thought that carrying to term for the purposes of putting a child up for adoption was irresponsible. Was her abortion for "convenience?

When a 16-year old girl is asked into a fraternity party, given large amounts of alcohol, and then gang-banged by several of the brothers - when her father tells her that she will have an abortion - was her abortion for "convenience"?

The myth that many women get abortions because they don't want to get fat, or because they would simply be "inconvenienced" by a baby is just that - a myth. I certainly disagree with the decisions that some women make, but I can at least empathize with their situations, and recognize that "convenience" has little, if anything, to do with it.

Is Bottle saying then the 'myth of convienience' is only that, and that their are over a million women raped and impregnated in the USA?
Every year?
On average, a rape occurs every six minutes. There are 525,960 minutes in a year. Thus, on average, around 87,660 rapes occur per year. That's a rather large percentage.

What Bottle likes seeing, isnt what I like.

Yeah, I really get off on seeing women in horrible, heart-rending, tragic situations, especially when it also means they get to endure public stigma and ridicule on top of their own personal problems. I'm a peach like that.


Her empathy for women comes more from her feminist ideology of having women removed from the role of primary childcarer than any real concern for women, I wonder how many times she has advised women not to have abortions?

Neither I nor any worker at my clinic has ever advised a woman to have an abortion, unless it was medically necessary. We don't advise women to have or not have abortions. We simply present the facts about their options and let them make informed choices. We aren't interested in making women get abortions, we are interested in making it possible for women to exercise the maximum amount of choice. We believe in giving them all the information they need to make the best possible decision for themselves. You see, unlike people such as yourself, we don't believe we are more qualified to decide what a woman should do with her body than she is herself.


It seems to be a 'bring them in and chop them out' place as quickly as possible, without serious question.

Really? What have I said that would lead you to that conclusion? From what I can see, I presented several of the cases that we have been faced with, stressing how difficult it was for the individuals in question. If you somehow extrapolate that our clinic is some kind of reproductive chop shop...well, I guess that wouldn't be surprising, since you don't seem interested in any of the other facts regarding abortion either.


I don't know the statistics on Abortions in America, mainly because I already know its probably well over two million a year, if rates in my own country of over 100,000 compared to the population are anything to go by.

I believe it's just under 2 million, actually, but you were pretty damn close.


Is Bottle saying then the 'myth of convienience' is only that, and that their are over a million women raped and impregnated in the USA?
Every year?
Huh? Why would I bother saying that? I believe any person, male or female, should have the right to deny use of their body as host for a pregnancy at any time and for any reason. I don't think elective abortions are merely a matter of convenience, so I guess you could say I do believe the myth of convenience is just a myth, but I also don't see any reason to make some insane claim about all abortions being performed on rape victims.

I can't think of anyone who would want to see a young girl come in who has been raped by her own father, and due to an STD he has given her and then refused to have her treated for, will never be able to have children. (Bottle, I believe this was one of your stories).

Yeah, that was a lovely case. We also had a girl who came in because she was carrying her second baby by her stepfather, and she was worried that there might be complications because her stepdad recently passed genital herpes to her mom and the daughter was worried she might have it as well. She did. She was 14.

However, in this case I deliberately decided to show him cases that did NOT involve rape or sexual abuse, because I wanted to demonstrate how women who willingly engage in sex can have very good reasons for needing/wanting an abortion.

For Gessler to claim that I like seeing things like that is sickening. It underscores how willfully ignorant he is of the realities of the situation.

On average, a rape occurs every six minutes. There are 525,960 minutes in a year. Thus, on average, around 87,660 rapes occur per year. That's a rather large percentage.


Yeah, and those are only the ones that get reported. How many rapes go UNREPORTED every year in our country?

Lots of rapes go unreported, for a variety of reasons, among them...

1 - Women often feel ashamed that they were raped, and thus will not tell anyone...or fear retiribution if they do tell, so they remain silent out of fear...this especially occurs when the rapist is someone known to the female.

2 - Date rape often goes unreported because the woman does not want to "make trouble" for the guy...or for fear that she will not be believed.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Yeah, that was a lovely case. We also had a girl who came in because she was carrying her second baby by her stepfather, and she was worried that there might be complications because her stepdad recently passed genital herpes to her mom and the daughter was worried she might have it as well. She did. She was 14.

However, in this case I deliberately decided to show him cases that did NOT involve rape or sexual abuse, because I wanted to demonstrate how women who willingly engage in sex can have very good reasons for needing/wanting an abortion.

For Gessler to claim that I like seeing things like that is sickening. It underscores how willfully ignorant he is of the realities of the situation.

Of course he is willfully ignorant. If he actually had to FACE the reality of the situations you bring up, it might cause him to have to rethink his stance...something he obviously doesn't want to do.

So he dismisses your anecdotes, because they present some uncomfortable truths...and instead clings to the "truths" that he has already learned, that allow him to continue to hold his current opinion.

Most conservatives ARE that way. Just the way they are hard-wired. They are hard-wired to ignore any evidence that would cause them to have to re-evaluate their already-decided position.

Yeah, that was a lovely case. We also had a girl who came in because she was carrying her second baby by her stepfather, and she was worried that there might be complications because her stepdad recently passed genital herpes to her mom and the daughter was worried she might have it as well. She did. She was 14.



You did make an anonymous report to the child protection agency in your area, right? Or you called the police, or at least informed the mother of the girl and her councilor at her school... yes? Good.


But if so, why did it not get reported after the first time and stopped?

If an adult finds out about a situation like that and doesn’t report it to the authorities they must thereafter be considered and treated for what they are, an enabler, a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

Anyone that allows pricks like the girl's step-father to continue his criminal activities and get away with it for longer and longer periods of time, or anyone that does not report that sort of crime and allows it to continue unreported, should be charged with gross-misconduct (at best) and (at worst) charged with aiding and abetting the criminal, an accomplice to the cover up of the crime.

[QUOTE=Lyric]Yeah, and those are only the ones that get reported. How many rapes go UNREPORTED every year in our country?

Lots of rapes go unreported, for a variety of reasons, among them...

Im not denying there are a lot of rapes, maybe not the one in every three women gets raped hysteria, but even one is too many. But the amount of rapes compared to the rate of abortions in your country, is pretty small.

1 - Women often feel ashamed that they were raped, and thus will not tell anyone...or fear retiribution if they do tell, so they remain silent out of fear...this especially occurs when the rapist is someone known to the female.

Of course.

2 - Date rape often goes unreported because the woman does not want to "make trouble" for the guy...or for fear that she will not be believed.

Date rape is a very grey area to be even considered rape.
If she complies against her wishes then its not rape, if she doesnt comply, and fights and struggles back, then it is rape.


And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Rubbish, although you like to see an evil potential rapist in every man merely because he has a cock and balls, the opposite is more likely true, that most men, indeed up to 95% so I've read, absolutely deplore rape and hate the men who do it.

[QUOTE=Bottle]Yeah, I really get off on seeing women in horrible, heart-rending, tragic situations, especially when it also means they get to endure public stigma and ridicule on top of their own personal problems. I'm a peach like that.

Im speaking of the majority of abortions you perform which are ones of convienience. And you know they are.

Neither I nor any worker at my clinic has ever advised a woman to have an abortion, unless it was medically necessary. We don't advise women to have or not have abortions. We simply present the facts about their options and let them make informed choices. We aren't interested in making women get abortions, we are interested in making it possible for women to exercise the maximum amount of choice. We believe in giving them all the information they need to make the best possible decision for themselves. You see, unlike people such as yourself, we don't believe we are more qualified to decide what a woman should do with her body than she is herself.

Ive heard of cases where women were even talked into having the abortion, after changing their minds.

Really? What have I said that would lead you to that conclusion? From what I can see, I presented several of the cases that we have been faced with, stressing how difficult it was for the individuals in question. If you somehow extrapolate that our clinic is some kind of reproductive chop shop...well, I guess that wouldn't be surprising, since you don't seem interested in any of the other facts regarding abortion either.

When nearly two million potential human beings in your country and over 100,000 in mine, and god knows how many in Europe, are wiped out like this, then I cant see them as anything else.
Thats nearly twenty million potential people in your own country in ten years.


Huh? Why would I bother saying that? I believe any person, male or female, should have the right to deny use of their body as host for a pregnancy at any time and for any reason. I don't think elective abortions are merely a matter of convenience, so I guess you could say I do believe the myth of convenience is just a myth, but I also don't see any reason to make some insane claim about all abortions being performed on rape victims.
Well if there not rape, or danger... then it must be convienience.
This is a sickening lack of value on human life and its responsibilitys.
You can paint it ant pretty colour you like, such as womens right to do what she wants etc, but the mud sticks.

Im speaking of the majority of abortions you perform which are ones of convienience. And you know they are.

Rubbish. You don't even work there. How can you tell whether the majority are like you describe or as she says. She is on the ground and is far more likely to tell the truth than someone like you.


Ive heard of cases where women were even talked into having the abortion, after changing their minds.


Care to prove your claims or did you just pull that out of the nether?


Well if there not rape, or danger... then it must be convienience.
This is a sickening lack of value on human life and its responsibilitys.
You can paint it ant pretty colour you like, such as womens right to do what she wants etc, but the mud sticks.

Of course you conveniently forget people who live in poverty, people who CAN'T afford the kind of operations you so casually suggest (If the peasants are starving, let them eat cake eh?). You also forget the people who simply do not have the ability to care for children due to economical or time constraints. Have you ever had to raise a child as a primary childcarer as the patriarchal society demands? Have you? I bet you haven't. You have no idea of the time or cost requirements that raising a child takes.

And this is not even counting the problems that women face when they have to work multiple jobs that are very insensitive to the needs of new mothers and often replace them with those that aren't similarly burdened.

You have a sickening lack of understanding as to the concerns and problems faced by this, wanting to only view them through the rose tainted view of the world that assumes all these people possibly can't be facing problems of their own that raising a child would do.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that you are nothing more than a patriarchal supremacist.


Rubbish, although you like to see an evil potential rapist in every man merely because he has a cock and balls, the opposite is more likely true, that most men, indeed up to 95% so I've read, absolutely deplore rape and hate the men who do it.

It is you who are speaking of rubbish if you think that unreported rapes don't happen on a large scale. The current way society works often puts the stigma on the female alone for the crime rather than the one truly responsible. The male. Women don't report these things because of that stigma. And why does that stigma persist? Because of people like you.

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.

Hey, couldn't that be an effective summary for the whole of the General forum? :p :D

Except for 5b, as not all threads turn into complete flamewar.

[QUOTE=Non Aligned States]Rubbish. You don't even work there. How can you tell whether the majority are like you describe or as she says. She is on the ground and is far more likely to tell the truth than someone like you.

So your saying then that two million abortions each year are the result of rape? Every year two million women raped, then having abortions because of it.
Logic suggests that this isnt the case whether Im in the abortion clinic or not.


Care to prove your claims or did you just pull that out of the nether?
http://www.fnsa.org/apaw/ch17.html
http://www.sdnewsnotes.com/ed/articles/2005/0501mv.htm

What Bottle won't admit is the Abortion clinic she works at, is part of a profit making industry just like any other.
Dollars are the real issue here, not womans rights or genuine care about women.




Of course you conveniently forget people who live in poverty, people who CAN'T afford the kind of operations you so casually suggest (If the peasants are starving, let them eat cake eh?). You also forget the people who simply do not have the ability to care for children due to economical or time constraints. Have you ever had to raise a child as a primary childcarer as the patriarchal society demands? Have you? I bet you haven't. You have no idea of the time or cost requirements that raising a child takes.

So just abort them instead? Because your too lazy to even try?
If economic and time constraints are in the way of having children then people should be looking at why this is so.
Because nothing is more important than children.
Alot of western mothers today cant cope with their kids, because discipline has gone out the window, instead of kids just being kids and working stuff out for themselves, they now pester mum about everything, who could cope with that?



And this is not even counting the problems that women face when they have to work multiple jobs that are very insensitive to the needs of new mothers and often replace them with those that aren't similarly burdened.

It may be time to face here, that maybe your just not meant to have careers and children at the same time, the feminist supermum myth of the modern female is only causing mass marriage breakup and nervous breakdown.


silly You have a sickening lack of understanding as to the concerns and problems faced by this, wanting to only view them through the rose tainted view of the world that assumes all these people possibly can't be facing problems of their own that raising a child would do.

I can see the base of the problem, its called feminism, and its destroying familys and western society, with all its nuciance values.
Not to mention the shocking sterile way in how it views familys, particularly the minimal role it assigns to men in them.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that you are nothing more than a patriarchal supremacist.

Granted. Not because I want to supress women, it just seems to work alot better for familys, to have men running the family, not women.


It is you who are speaking of rubbish if you think that unreported rapes don't happen on a large scale. The current way society works often puts the stigma on the female alone for the crime rather than the one truly responsible. The male.

So put up some statistics? Otherwise its just conjecture.

Women don't report these things because of that stigma. And why does that stigma persist? Because of people like you.

The stigma comes mostly from their own shame, not from men telling them to be quiet, I myself hold men who rape in the same light I'd view a bug Id just scaped off the bottom of my shoe, so your accusations are unjust and false.
More disgusting feminist propaganda that likes to paint every 'male' as a potential rapist, or as not caring about ones who are.

everyone who knows something about the subject, no matter what gender or experience with pregnacy.

Live your life according to how you think it should be lived and let others live theirs according to how they think theirs shoudl be lived.

This post receives the Kat Seal of Approval
http://www.seantconrad.com/years/2005/days/mar/seal.jpg

So your saying then that two million abortions each year are the result of rape? Every year two million women raped, then having abortions because of it.
Logic suggests that this isnt the case whether Im in the abortion clinic or not.

Nice attempt at changing the subject.

You accused Bottle of performing abortions on the majority of people are those of convenience. Something which you have no idea on the truth of the matter. That is what is rubbish. Logic suggests that you attempted to change the subject because you COULD NOT support your claim.


http://www.fnsa.org/apaw/ch17.html
http://www.sdnewsnotes.com/ed/articles/2005/0501mv.htm

What Bottle won't admit is the Abortion clinic she works at, is part of a profit making industry just like any other.
Dollars are the real issue here, not womans rights or genuine care about women.


And how do you suppose the clinic is supposed to stay open then hmm? On air and goodwill? Perhaps on non-existent government support? So what if they require money to stay open? You are attempting to make them evil now because they charge for a service?

A pointless straw man.

Oh, and your second link speaks of abortions already past the first trimester. If the clinic doing this had done it as an elective choice, that is illegal. Your attempt at appealing to the emotion fails.

Another fine straw man.


So just abort them instead? Because your too lazy to even try?
If economic and time constraints are in the way of having children then people should be looking at why this is so.
Because nothing is more important than children.
Alot of western mothers today cant cope with their kids, because discipline has gone out the window, instead of kids just being kids and working stuff out for themselves, they now pester mum about everything, who could cope with that?


Ohhh, another fine viewpoint of someone behind the rose window. Lazy to try? You call the mother working three jobs a day to support her already existing family too lazy to get a 4th job to support another kid? So you blame laziness for the reasons of poverty? I suppose all those people who were out of work due to depression have only their laziness to blame for their conditions?

You call Bottle heartless. I find you both despicable and heartless for this.



It may be time to face here, that maybe your just not meant to have careers and children at the same time, the feminist supermum myth of the modern female is only causing mass marriage breakup and nervous breakdown.


Oh, sure, blame the women. Have you ever considered that it males are just as responsible for marriage breakups and nervous breakdowns? It takes two to tango. Additionally, you espouse that women have no right to abortion, and yet, you claim that they are just not meant to have careers and children at the same time.

So if we were to follow your claims, you not only want women not to have abortions under any circumstances, but wish to punish those that become pregnant by forcing them to lose their jobs.


I can see the base of the problem, its called feminism, and its destroying familys and western society, with all its nuciance values.
Not to mention the shocking sterile way in how it views familys, particularly the minimal role it assigns to men in them.


I see patriarchism fearing the end of male dominance. And you are part of that.


Granted. Not because I want to supress women, it just seems to work alot better for familys, to have men running the family, not women.


And your proof of that would be? I only see glass ceilings and suppression of women at workplaces to prevent their advancement, even if their contributions are equal or more than their male counterparts.

Either way, it does not change the fact that you are nothing more than part of a patriarchal society who wants dominance over women. It also means that you indirectly support the suppression of women, your claims notwithstanding.


So put up some statistics? Otherwise its just conjecture.

http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rsarp00.pdf

As you can see. It is NOT conjecture. Rather, over 66% of rapes go unreported. So there you go. Rapes not reported are the majority case.

Now then, where is the proof for YOUR statement of 95% males being disgusted with rape?


The stigma comes mostly from their own shame, not from men telling them to be quiet, I myself hold men who rape in the same light I'd view a bug Id just scaped off the bottom of my shoe, so your accusations are unjust and false.
More disgusting feminist propaganda that likes to paint every 'male' as a potential rapist, or as not caring about ones who are.

From the links above.

One of the most startling aspects of sex crimes is how many go unreported. The most common reasons given by women for not reporting these crimes are the belief that it is a private or personal matter and the fear of reprisal from the assailant.

When divided up according to the percentages, fear of reprisal is the 2nd most used reason.

Furthermore were you not one of those that advocated that the violent boyfriend listed in the case that Bottle mentioned has a claim over his abused girlfriend's body just because she was pregnant? That is part of the stigma that people like you are helping to perpetuate that prevents rape being reported, that the male somehow 'has' a claim over her body.

And now that you have admitted by your own words to be a patriarchial supremacists, I know just exactly how much respect you accord to women. None at all.

*snip*

That was birlliant *applauds*

I've had this argument with many a liberal, my usuall response is that while I've never killed someone you don't knock my for having an opinion on that, so why this?

Read down through a few messages first, and from here will add my two pennies.

Rape, incest, child or mother in danger aye. Do it.

Otherwise, she knew what she was doing when she spread her legs and so did the guy. We take the easy way out too much anymore in life, we need to hold people accountable to their actions.

If you wanna play you pay, grow up and deal with it. If you dont want to gamble just now. JUST SAY NO.

If ya dont and they do anyhow it is rape.

So covered above, beyond that, it is murder of your own child. You willingly created. If you can live with killing it. so be it. I wont nay say you :) If you have one your concious will do so....

And other then rapest and pedos, Fathers need a voice. Especially since if they choose life we have no choice where they live but we are stuck with paying for the x's new house in child support.

Rape, incest, child or mother in danger aye. Do it.

lets look at that for a seccond - the life of the mother in danger part is just common sense, if some one is going to die it might as well be the kid because the mother will have a better chance of survival, but rape and incest? whats different about a kid born of rape or incest? what makes that kid killable?

lets look at that for a seccond - the life of the mother in danger part is just common sense, if some one is going to die it might as well be the kid because the mother will have a better chance of survival, but rape and incest? whats different about a kid born of rape or incest? what makes that kid killable?

First I would like to say, that's a really sick thing to say.

I don't know about how you feel about this, but I personally would not like to have my father's child.

For one, the man who fathered me, will now father my child.
For another, the baby will probably ruin my chance of ever being able to continue an education or get a good job, because there are incredibly high chances that the child will have mental issues and what not.

Why I would not want to have the baby of the guy who raped me.

Well that would've been a traumatic experiance.. I wouldn't really want my child to BE HALF EVIL.

After being raped, I would probably be emotionally unstable, and you want me to have my rapists baby?! Everytime I will look at that baby, I will see the man that raped me, the man that ruinned my life.

I don't think that's really in the best interest of anybody.

How about this, the perception of an adopted person. Let's say you went back in time, and convinced my birth mother somehow to abort me instead of give me up for adoption, would this be considered murder? Or just a simple abortion? Considering I would have been someone in the future? Now as far as the whole god thing is involved, who's to say an abortion isn't part of the bigger picture? That that life was not meant to exist in this world for whatever reason.

I personally am pro-life(thanks bio-mom, whomever you are), but I can see things from other people's perspectives. I say abortion should be between the mother and father(assuming the sex involved was consented upon by both parties). Yes, that's right, both the mother and father should have equal say considering as it took them both to reach this outcome. Women, accidents do happen.

If you don't want to get pregnant it's easy, abstain. Yes I know this method isn't very fun at all, but you won't have to worry about what to do with the baby at all. There is no history book that details immaculate conception other than the christian bible, so at best this is an extremely rare occurance, upon which time you simply have the whole choice considering you are the only parent.

The issue of rape? Well, that rests completely on the woman. If the father even so much as tried to have anything to do with it he should be beaten with rebar.

Your body, your decisoin? Oh really? Well guess what, say the USA reinstates the draft. This body is mine, until which time the goverment gets to legally own my body and force it into a form of militaristic slavery and force me to do things with it that I don't want to.

All in all, you will ultimately do what you want, all I ask is that you consider others in your descisions and don't be totally selfish. People on this planet need to learn that every other person is s slightly different version of themselves, regardless of race/age/religion/haircolor/clothing/nationality.

No. I'm most definately not a hippie, and no I don't hug trees. Respect yourself and others, then worry about your surroundings.

What Bottle won't admit is the Abortion clinic she works at, is part of a profit making industry just like any other.

What you don't seem to know is that there is no such thing as an "abortion clinic." Women's health clinics provide all sorts of services. In truth, they would probably make more money providing prenatal care than they would off an abortion - more visits and more procedures done that way.

Granted. Not because I want to supress women, it just seems to work alot better for familys, to have men running the family, not women.

This is an incredibly stupid statement. Some families work better with the man running them, some with the woman running them, some with both sharing an equal chunk of the responsibility, some with no males or no females at all. To state that every single person of a given gender is the same and thus will thrive in the same type of family is completely idiotic.

Or, to bring in a specific case, do you really think it would have been better if my alcoholic father who couldn't hold down a job with all the drugs and alcohol he was consuming - who made sexual overtures towards me as a young child and thought it more important to buy himself things than to worry about the household budget would have been better running my family than my mother, a responsible woman who has not gone more than 2 weeks without a job since she was a teenager, who is good at handling a budget and ensuring that the household has what it needs, who understood how to take care of children?

I personally am pro-life(thanks bio-mom, whomever you are), but I can see things from other people's perspectives. I say abortion should be between the mother and father(assuming the sex involved was consented upon by both parties). Yes, that's right, both the mother and father should have equal say considering as it took them both to reach this outcome. Women, accidents do happen.

It is logically impossible for them to have "equal say". If they disagree, one viewpoint has to overrule the other. Since the mother is the only one physically affected, she is the one with the overrule power.

Nice attempt at changing the subject.

You accused Bottle of performing abortions on the majority of people are those of convenience. Something which you have no idea on the truth of the matter. That is what is rubbish. Logic suggests that you attempted to change the subject because you COULD NOT support your claim.



And how do you suppose the clinic is supposed to stay open then hmm? On air and goodwill? Perhaps on non-existent government support? So what if they require money to stay open? You are attempting to make them evil now because they charge for a service?

A pointless straw man.


As long as we are talking about businesses that charge for a service, let us not forget that many anti-abortionists OWN AND RUN adoption services, and can easily charge $20-$30K for the adoption of a nice, white baby.

And other then rapest and pedos, Fathers need a voice. Especially since if they choose life we have no choice where they live but we are stuck with paying for the x's new house in child support.

Tough shit. That's the screwing you get for the screwing you got. Pleasure doing business with ya!

Cough it up, fathers! Too many of you are worthless deadbeats that skip out and leave the woman holding the bag.

lets look at that for a seccond - the life of the mother in danger part is just common sense, if some one is going to die it might as well be the kid because the mother will have a better chance of survival, but rape and incest? whats different about a kid born of rape or incest? what makes that kid killable?
Should a woman be forced to carry a child to term when the child is the product of a rape?!? Should she be forced to carry a constant reminder of that traumatic event?

and, as for incest...much of the time incest is also rape...with the added complication that incest can cause serious birth defects.

What you don't seem to know is that there is no such thing as an "abortion clinic." Women's health clinics provide all sorts of services. In truth, they would probably make more money providing prenatal care than they would off an abortion - more visits and more procedures done that way.



This is an incredibly stupid statement. Some families work better with the man running them, some with the woman running them, some with both sharing an equal chunk of the responsibility, some with no males or no females at all. To state that every single person of a given gender is the same and thus will thrive in the same type of family is completely idiotic.

Or, to bring in a specific case, do you really think it would have been better if my alcoholic father who couldn't hold down a job with all the drugs and alcohol he was consuming - who made sexual overtures towards me as a young child and thought it more important to buy himself things than to worry about the household budget would have been better running my family than my mother, a responsible woman who has not gone more than 2 weeks without a job since she was a teenager, who is good at handling a budget and ensuring that the household has what it needs, who understood how to take care of children?


Ditto!! My mom was always the breadwinner in our family. the only thing my father could ever hold onto was a 12-dollar bottle of whiskey! He sure as shit couldn't hold a fucking JOB. sorry, but I'm damn glad my mom ended up running the family. We might not have survived if dad had run the family. If dad had run the family, he'd have run it, all right...run it right into the ground! I can't TELL you how many times, and how hard I tried...as a kid...to get my mom and dad to divorce! I tried my level best to get them to divorce, because I wanted my dad out of my life, forever.

Well, at age 27, I got my wish. He's dead now. He wasn't quite 52 years old when he died. I never thought I'd cry at my dad's funeral. I did. I wish, somehow, it could've been different...we could have seen eye-to-eye when he was still alive, rather than have nothing more than a final peace at his deathbed, ten minutes before he died.

BUT, if he hadn't died, we'd probably still be at each other's throats...my mom and I would not likely be as close as we now are...adn there's no way in hell I'd have moved back home if dad were still around.

The day I moved out, I told my dad I'd never darken his doorstep again. And I meant it. And I kept to it. I never set foot in his house again, until the day before he died. And that was because I got into town real late, and mom told me to just crash there for the night. And since dad was in the hospital, anyway, I was allright with that.

Ditto!! My mom was always the breadwinner in our family. the only thing my father could ever hold onto was a 12-dollar bottle of whiskey! He sure as shit couldn't hold a fucking JOB. sorry, but I'm damn glad my mom ended up running the family. We might not have survived if dad had run the family. If dad had run the family, he'd have run it, all right...run it right into the ground! I can't TELL you how many times, and how hard I tried...as a kid...to get my mom and dad to divorce! I tried my level best to get them to divorce, because I wanted my dad out of my life, forever.

Well, at age 27, I got my wish. He's dead now. He wasn't quite 52 years old when he died. I never thought I'd cry at my dad's funeral. I did. I wish, somehow, it could've been different...we could have seen eye-to-eye when he was still alive, rather than have nothing more than a final peace at his deathbed, ten minutes before he died.

BUT, if he hadn't died, we'd probably still be at each other's throats...my mom and I would not likely be as close as we now are...adn there's no way in hell I'd have moved back home if dad were still around.

The day I moved out, I told my dad I'd never darken his doorstep again. And I meant it. And I kept to it. I never set foot in his house again, until the day before he died. And that was because I got into town real late, and mom told me to just crash there for the night. And since dad was in the hospital, anyway, I was allright with that.

I'm glad you finally made peace with him at the end - it probably would've been tougher on you if you hadn't.

Luckily, my parents divorced when I was 14. I was expecting it, and was very relieved at the time. My mother has remarried, and is happier than I ever remember her when I was very young.

Even better, my father is now sober. His willpower isn't great, so he has to avoid having alcohol or drugs around him at all, and neither my brother nor I would ever dream of drinking alcohol in front of him. He is, however, sober. And although there are still personality quirks there that I think would make him less able to be the head of a family than my mother, I've made peace with him - for the most part.

Of course, this is horribly off-topic. LOL

Tough shit. That's the screwing you get for the screwing you got. Pleasure doing business with ya!

Cough it up, fathers! Too many of you are worthless deadbeats that skip out and leave the woman holding the bag.
That is rubbish.

While I'm with y'all on the abortion issue, I think these statements are wrong. An accident happens, the woman wants to keep the baby so I HAVE to cough up the dough? Even if I disagree with her choice, even if it ruins me? Even if it forces me to stop studying to pay for the alimony?

Tough shit. If an accident happens and I cannot possibly afford the baby, you damn well better believe my woman will know it and I will make it clear that I will not support it.

Yeah, it's her choice. But she has to be aware of all the information beforehand. And that include what the father thinks about it and what he intend to do.

Not all of us a worthless deadbeats. Some have legitimate reasons to skip out.

That is rubbish.

While I'm with y'all on the abortion issue, I think these statements are wrong. An accident happens, the woman wants to keep the baby so I HAVE to cough up the dough? Even if I disagree with her choice, even if it ruins me? Even if it forces me to stop studying to pay for the alimony?

Tough shit. If an accident happens and I cannot possibly afford the baby, you damn well better believe my woman will know it and I will make it clear that I will not support it.

Yeah, it's her choice. But she has to be aware of all the information beforehand. And that include what the father thinks about it and what he intend to do.

Not all of us a worthless deadbeats. Some have legitimate reasons to skip out.

And I think, if you tell her that during the time that she could still legally have an abortion, you are right - you should not have to give up your own future without making the decision yourself. I hope that you would be willing to give up all rights to any children she had - even in the event that you wished to know that child in the future. Much like a woman's choice to abort is absolutely permanent, a man's choice to "abort" his rights and responsibilities must be the same.

As I have said before, if I were to have an unintentional pregnancy, I know that I would carry to term. I would make whatever sacrifices I needed to in order to take care of the child I would have. When I found out about my pregnancy, I would give the father a simple choice: Stay in my life and the child's life and help with both emotional and financial support, or tell me now that you do not intend to do these things and walk away. If he chose the first option, I would hold him to that option. If he chose the second, I would cease contact with him and find a way to support the myself and future child on my own. His name would not even be on the birth certificate. There are those who say that such a decision would take rights away from the future child, but I do not agree. When I become a mother, I will do everything I can to provide the best life for my child, and I don't think having a father who has been forced into the picture, rather than has willingly chosen to be there, is in the best interest of any child.

That is rubbish.

While I'm with y'all on the abortion issue, I think these statements are wrong. An accident happens, the woman wants to keep the baby so I HAVE to cough up the dough?

Yes.

Even if I disagree with her choice, even if it ruins me?

Yes.

Even if it forces me to stop studying to pay for the alimony?

Yes.


Tough shit. If an accident happens and I cannot possibly afford the baby, you damn well better believe my woman will know it and I will make it clear that I will not support it.

Yeah, it's her choice. But she has to be aware of all the information beforehand. And that include what the father thinks about it and what he intend to do.

Not all of us a worthless deadbeats. Some have legitimate reasons to skip out.

There is no such thing a legitimate reason to skip out on your children. Skip out of having sex with her and go jerk off... Criminals run out on their children and they should be treated like criminals. The courts should hunt them down and put them in jail if they won't even pay child support.

There is no such thing a legitimate reason to skip out on your children. Skip out of having sex with her and go jerk off... Criminals run out on their children and they should be treated like criminals. The courts should hunt them down and put them in jail if they won't even pay child support.
Er, this kind of sucks, though. A man and a woman both decide to have sex. However, if the mother doesn't want the accidental child she can abort it against the fathers will, but if the father doesn't want it against the mothers will, there is nothing he can do about it. And then he is even obliged to pay child support. Seems rather unfair to me. Maybe it's a good plan to only allow abortions with the fathers permission. This would of course require genetic research and a way for a woman who has been raped and wanted an abortion to be able to get an abortion too, but still. If you have a system that gives responsibility for children to both parents, then that system should also give the decision for abortion to both parents.

Er, this kind of sucks, though. A man and a woman both decide to have sex. However, if the mother doesn't want the accidental child she can abort it against the fathers will, but if the father doesn't want it against the mothers will, there is nothing he can do about it. And then he is even obliged to pay child support. Seems rather unfair to me. Maybe it's a good plan to only allow abortions with the fathers permission. This would of course require genetic research and a way for a woman who has been raped and wanted an abortion to be able to get an abortion too, but still. If you have a system that gives responsibility for children to both parents, then that system should also give the decision for abortion to both parents.
I agree that it would be unfair to give women the right to choose without extending a similar privaledge to men. However, rather than taking away the right to choose from everybody, why not extend it to everybody? Men should be allowed to have a "paper abortion" during the same window of time that women are permitted to have a medical abortion.

While I certainly don't have a high opinion of men who would run out on their kids, I also believe that the kind of man who would WANT to run out on his kids is not the kind of man who would be of much use as a father.

Should a woman be forced to carry a child to term when the child is the product of a rape?!? Should she be forced to carry a constant reminder of that traumatic event?

Remember that the "pro-life" crowd insists this issue is NOT about women's rights. They insist it is about the rights of the fetus. If that is the case, then it shouldn't matter how the fetus came into being, it only matters that it exists, and rape and incest would be no exceptions to the rule. If any person claims to be "pro-life" because of the "fetus' rights" and then makes exceptions for rape, you know they are full of shit because they obviously don't care about the "right to life" as much as their care about punishing women who CHOOSE to have sex.

That is rubbish.

While I'm with y'all on the abortion issue, I think these statements are wrong. An accident happens, the woman wants to keep the baby so I HAVE to cough up the dough? Even if I disagree with her choice, even if it ruins me? Even if it forces me to stop studying to pay for the alimony?

Tough shit. If an accident happens and I cannot possibly afford the baby, you damn well better believe my woman will know it and I will make it clear that I will not support it.

Yeah, it's her choice. But she has to be aware of all the information beforehand. And that include what the father thinks about it and what he intend to do.

Not all of us a worthless deadbeats. Some have legitimate reasons to skip out.

yeah thats what my neice's boyfriend thought when he decided not to support their child.

now he doesnt have a driver's license, a hunting license, and he never gets any of his income tax refunds. the bank account he has with his new girlfriend, most of the money is hers, is being garnisheed. if he ever gets a real job he will have to pay $200/ month from his check plus a sum to try to catch him up on the 6 years he hasnt been paying

its not all up to YOU. the government will enforce your responsibility if you dont choose to do it on your own.

I agree that it would be unfair to give women the right to choose without extending a similar privaledge to men. However, rather than taking away the right to choose from everybody, why not extend it to everybody? Men should be allowed to have a "paper abortion" during the same window of time that women are permitted to have a medical abortion.

While I certainly don't have a high opinion of men who would run out on their kids, I also believe that the kind of man who would WANT to run out on his kids is not the kind of man who would be of much use as a father.


No. The child has a right to get at the very minimum, at least the financial support from their parents (both of them) unless the parents find another way for the child to be taken care of (via adoption or similar).

Neither parent has the right to sign away the rights of the child... Deadbeat parents are deadbeat parents, they are criminals and should be treated as such.

No. The child has a right to get at the very minimum, at least the financial support from their parents (both of them) unless the parents find another way for the child to be taken care of (via adoption or similar).

Neither parent has the right to sign away the rights of the child...
Wrong, the woman has the right to abort the child, after which it has pretty few to no rights left. The man however does not have the right to abort his child and is even forced to dutifully pay for its needs while all the while he wanted to get an abortion.
What about the fathers who would love to have a child, impregnate a woman who doesn't want it (by accident or the mothers irresponsibility) and sees her aborting his baby? Face it, if a woman doesn't want it, a man has no rights. If a man doesn't want it, he has no rights either. That is just plain unfair and something needs to change.

So your saying then that two million abortions each year are the result of rape? Every year two million women raped, then having abortions because of it. Logic suggests that this isnt the case whether Im in the abortion clinic or not.

I never said that rape was the cause of all pregnancies that end in abortion. I actually was very clear and explicit in stating the opposite. Read more carefully.


What Bottle won't admit is the Abortion clinic she works at, is part of a profit making industry just like any other.
Dollars are the real issue here, not womans rights or genuine care about women.

I don't work at "an abortion clinic." I work at a clinic that provides, among other things, reproductive health services that include two particular abortion procedures. We refer women to other medical providers for many procedures as well.

I find it hillarious that you refer to my clinic as "an abortion clinic," since a set of twins was delivered by our staff last week. :)

As for dollars being the real issue, our clinic is a non-profit. Yes, we have to make enough money to pay employees (otherwise they starve, you see), and yes we have to buy supplies so that we can provide adequate care, but no we do not make any form of profit off of giving abortions. We all make the same amount of money regardless of what choice a woman makes.


So just abort them instead? Because your too lazy to even try?

Sounds like YOU are too lazy to try. After all, if these poor little babies mean so very much to you, why don't you take on two extra jobs and send the money to these parents, so they can afford the new baby? Or why don't you adopt a child that a woman chose to carry to term? If you expect a 14 year old to carry her baby to term, then surely you are old enough to step up to the plate in the name of "life"!


If economic and time constraints are in the way of having children then people should be looking at why this is so.

"People" should be looking at it? Why not you? You seem very concerned about this issue...if it's so important, why aren't you using your time to find out this information and correct the problem? Why aren't you working to fix the root causes of abortions?

Well, no matter, because guess what? I AM.

I look into the causes of these horrible situations every day. I learn about the source of poverty every day. I struggle to find solutions to these problems every day. I help women find ways to KEEP their babies, ways to ensure they have healthy pregnancies, ways to care for their babies and their children to make sure the kids grow up healthy and safe. I watch doctors who spend their lives healing women and children get called "murderers" and "baby-killers" by self-righteous bigots who have never lifted a finger to help those in need, and I see those doctors come back to work every day. I work for free, and so do many people at the clinic, because I want to create a world where all pregnancies are wanted, safe, and healthy. I get off my ass and work to fix the problems I see.

Until you can say the same, kindly stop tossing insults at those of us who have matured beyond your brand of childish arrogance.


Because nothing is more important than children.

Right. So the woman with the four children who got pregnant who I told you about...she made the right choice, then? She aborted a non-child (a fetus is not a child any more than a child is an adult) to protect her children. I guess you support her decision.


Alot of western mothers today cant cope with their kids, because discipline has gone out the window, instead of kids just being kids and working stuff out for themselves, they now pester mum about everything, who could cope with that?

Random and off topic.


It may be time to face here, that maybe your just not meant to have careers and children at the same time, the feminist supermum myth of the modern female is only causing mass marriage breakup and nervous breakdown.

Most American families today cannot succeed on a single parent's income. Mine never could have. Most families simply do not have the luxury of the Leave It To Beaver family format, with Mummy staying home to bake whilst Daddy toddles off to the office. But perhaps the non-rich should just give up on the idea of having a family...?


I can see the base of the problem, its called feminism, and its destroying familys and western society, with all its nuciance values.
Not to mention the shocking sterile way in how it views familys, particularly the minimal role it assigns to men in them.

And now we come to the real heart of your position. For all your blathering about the innocent little babies, what it's really about is the bitterness of a man who can't grasp that the word "feminism" means "belief in the equality of the sexes."

Or maybe you do grasp that, and you simply resent being asked to give up male privaledge. Whatever your reasons, you've now made it clear that your primary interest is control over other people's private lives (specifically, women's lives) rather than protection of "children." You could have saved us all a lot of time and energy if you just vented your spleen earlier on.


Granted. Not because I want to supress women, it just seems to work alot better for familys, to have men running the family, not women.

Present data supporting this claim, please.


So put up some statistics? Otherwise its just conjecture.
What a funny statement, to follow the one you made just before...;)



The stigma comes mostly from their own shame, not from men telling them to be quiet,

Not according to the women. But I suppose you know what they think and feel far better than they do themselves.


More disgusting feminist propaganda that likes to paint every 'male' as a potential rapist, or as not caring about ones who are.
On the contrary. I believe most men are decent, honorable, groovy fellows. I also believe it doesn't matter how nice a man is, he still never has the right to tell another man or woman what they must do with their body parts. No man, no matter how nice, has the right to force you to give blood, or donate a chunk of your liver, or be tested as a bone marrow donor.

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.

As a man i would say...you can have your opinion. I have mine. All well and good.

Opinions, however, are like assholes. Everyone has one, and they are usually full of shit.

Men can have opinions on abortion. Women should make the laws.

There is no such thing a legitimate reason to skip out on your children. Skip out of having sex with her and go jerk off... Criminals run out on their children and they should be treated like criminals. The courts should hunt them down and put them in jail if they won't even pay child support.
Let me get this straight...

Whatever the woman chooses, I'm screwed?

Even in the hypothetical situation (which is very real in some cases, like my cousin's) that the woman assure the guy she's on the pill, knowing fully well that she is trying to have a child in the hope of forcing the guy to stay with her.

Call me crazy, but I find the system screwed. I'm all for renouncing all rights to the child, like Dempublicents1 says. I am not for being screwed over some choice that was never mine to begin with.

Call me a deadbeat dad if you want, but know that I have currently perfectly legitimate reasons to be a deadbeat.

yeah thats what my neice's boyfriend thought when he decided not to support their child.

now he doesnt have a driver's license, a hunting license, and he never gets any of his income tax refunds. the bank account he has with his new girlfriend, most of the money is hers, is being garnisheed. if he ever gets a real job he will have to pay $200/ month from his check plus a sum to try to catch him up on the 6 years he hasnt been paying

its not all up to YOU. the government will enforce your responsibility if you dont choose to do it on your own.
Well, did the boyfriend made it clear he wanted nothing to do with the child?

If so, I say that's government-sponsored robbery. I understand the reasons behind the laws that are in place, but that doesn't mean they are fair for everyone.

Wrong, the woman has the right to abort the child, after which it has pretty few to no rights left. The man however does not have the right to abort his child and is even forced to dutifully pay for its needs while all the while he wanted to get an abortion.
What about the fathers who would love to have a child, impregnate a woman who doesn't want it (by accident or the mothers irresponsibility) and sees her aborting his baby? Face it, if a woman doesn't want it, a man has no rights. If a man doesn't want it, he has no rights either. That is just plain unfair and something needs to change.

Equal treatment and choices between fathers and mothers? What kind of nonsense is that?

Being fair to the parents (women or men) is entirely irrelevant. The child's rights over-rule the right of the mother or the father. If you want fair and equal treatment regardless of physical gender reality, sue Mother Nature. In the mean time, pay your child support or go to jail.

Better yet, they should realize the error of their ways and raise their kid by being a supportive and helpful father, interact and become a better person by helping your offspring excel in life rather than just 'get-along.'

But if a father won't help raise his child then he should at least be obligated to their financial upbringing... and if the father refuses to do that, then he should go to jail - the same as if he refused to pay any of the other debts one acquires as one goes through life.

Well, did the boyfriend made it clear he wanted nothing to do with the child?

If so, I say that's government-sponsored robbery. I understand the reasons behind the laws that are in place, but that doesn't mean they are fair for everyone.

of course he made it clear. too bad for him that he cant just walk away from his responsibilities. and too bad for him that he is missing being dad to a really wonderful little boy

doesnt canada enforce child support?

of course he made it clear. too bad for him that he cant just walk away from his responsibilities. and too bad for him that he is missing being dad to a really wonderful little boy

doesnt canada enforce child support?
Probably...

I haven't taken a look at the law. I never needed to so far.
It's probably similar to that of the US.

Still, I find it unfair that the guy has to pay for something he wanted no part in. Yes it sucks for the woman who doesn't have the financial aid of the father but it ruins the guy for life and he has no say whatsoever in the decision.

And not all unwanted babies are results of defective condoms... Some guy are being lied to by their partners.

Probably...

I haven't taken a look at the law. I never needed to so far.
It's probably similar to that of the US.

Still, I find it unfair that the guy has to pay for something he wanted no part in. Yes it sucks for the woman who doesn't have the financial aid of the father but it ruins the guy for life and he has no say whatsoever in the decision.

And not all unwanted babies are results of defective condoms... Some guy are being lied to by their partners.

It sucks for the Boy to not have a worthwhile Dad.

It sucks for the Boy to not have a worthwhile Dad.
Let's face it: being thrust into fatherhood by the backdoor rarely make a worthwhile dad to begin with.

It sucks for the Dad to be forced into a relationship he wanted no part in.

Probably...

I haven't taken a look at the law. I never needed to so far.
It's probably similar to that of the US.

Still, I find it unfair that the guy has to pay for something he wanted no part in. Yes it sucks for the woman who doesn't have the financial aid of the father but it ruins the guy for life and he has no say whatsoever in the decision.

And not all unwanted babies are results of defective condoms... Some guy are being lied to by their partners.

yes but very few pregnancies start out that way. id have to say that if that happened to YOU, you are lucky to not be being forced to pay child support

so its OK with you that your child is being raised by such a woman?

On the contrary. I believe most men are decent, honorable, groovy fellows. I also believe it doesn't matter how nice a man is, he still never has the right to tell another man or woman what they must do with their body parts. No man, no matter how nice, has the right to force you to give blood, or donate a chunk of your liver, or be tested as a bone marrow donor.
I must say that a fetus is not a woman's bodypart. It's a human being.

I am undecided about the whole abortion thing. I understand you when you talk about the reasons for an abortion, but it's a human's life we're talking about. In some cases, the parents (notice I'm not talking about the woman alone) really don't have enough money to raise the child/another child. But there are also cases when the woman simply 'doesn't feel' like having a baby, although she has the means of raising him/her. This seems to me morally repugnant.

I'm in my final year in college and I hope to be financially independent pretty soon. If, by accident, I'll have a child (I'm a man, by the way), I intend to keep it, if the mother will agree.

I really don't agree with those who have extreme oppinions, be they pro-choice or anti-abortion. You can't talk only about the right of the baby or, on the other extreme, to consider that an unborn fetus is not quite human and therefore it has no rights, so you can do whatever you want to them. The problem is more complicated than that. Usually, at least three people are involved: the child, the mother and the father. Sometimes, the parents already have children and they are involved, too. That's why it's so complicated. Maybe some parents think: "If I have an abortion, I'll have enough money to send Billy to university. If I don't, I won't have enough money to support him and he'll have to get a job after finishing highschool." What can you do in such a situation? To be really fair, abortions should be judged on an individual basis, from case to case. I'm not saying allowed/dissallowed intentionally, because I don't think it would be possible/practical to have a special bureau/organization deciding which child should be aborted and which one should not. Plus, one case in two would have the potential of creating a mass-media schandal.

I have to conclude by saying that abortion will be as controversial 100 years from now as it is now. The only solution I see to the problem is quite fantastic (SF, actually :) ). We need a 100% effective, easy to use and cheap contraceptive method (you make a vaccine and can't have children for the following year, for example; a vaccine that would work for both men and women). But I'm realistic. Although I like science-fiction, I don't see that solution becoming reality very soon.

P.S. Equal treatment and choices between fathers and mothers? What kind of nonsense is that?
If equality between men and women is nonsense to you, then I have nothing to discuss with you.

yes but very few pregnancies start out that way. id have to say that if that happened to YOU, you are lucky to not be being forced to pay child support

so its OK with you that your child is being raised by such a woman?
It didn't happen to me. It happened to my cousin. Luckily for him, the girl's parents had the decency to understand the situation and made sure the girl will never go to court for "missing alimony".

It is not OK with me that a woman like that is raising my kid. But then it was not my decision to have that child. I have made that clear to her. She still wants to have the kid. That is, ultimately, her decision. I did not enter a contract whereby I have to give sustenance to a kid for the first 18 years of his life by sleeping with her. If I did, I would have cause for breaking the contract as she lied to her status beforehand.

its not all up to YOU. the government will enforce your responsibility if you dont choose to do it on your own.

Only if the woman pushes the issue. I can guarrantee that that state doesn't generally go after anyone for child support unless the mother reports that he is not paying it. Many women and their children are better off with the father completely out of the picture.

No. The child has a right to get at the very minimum, at least the financial support from their parents (both of them) unless the parents find another way for the child to be taken care of (via adoption or similar).

The child has the right to be supported. It doesn't matter where that money comes from. If a father does not want to be part of a child's life, it is best to keep him out of that child's life altogether. A woman who decides to have a child, regardless of her knowledge that a man will not provide finanical support, is personally responsible for that child's welfare, as she is the one who decided to bring that child into the world.

*snip*

P.S.
If equality between men and women is nonsense to you, then I have nothing to discuss with you.

If you have issues with the fact that women can carry a baby and the man can't, and therefore, they are by necessity required to be treated differently in regards to pregnancy and child birth, then sue Mother Nature or Evolution, it's not my fault for pointing out the obvious discrepancies involved.

If you have issues with the fact that women can carry a baby and the man can't, and therefore, they are by necessity required to be treated differently in regards to pregnancy and child birth, then sue Mother Nature or Evolution, it's not my fault for pointing out the obvious discrepancies involved.
The women carry the baby, indeed, but the baby is not only theirs. Does the father has no right before the child is born?

If you have issues with the fact that women can carry a baby and the man can't, and therefore, they are by necessity required to be treated differently in regards to pregnancy and child birth, then sue Mother Nature or Evolution, it's not my fault for pointing out the obvious discrepancies involved.
And the discrepancies end when the child is born. Afterwards, both should be treated equally. When you advocate prison terms for people who wanted no part of the situation and are forced into it, then we have issues with your stance.

The child has the right to be supported. It doesn't matter where that money comes from. If a father does not want to be part of a child's life, it is best to keep him out of that child's life altogether. A woman who decides to have a child, regardless of her knowledge that a man will not provide finanical support, is personally responsible for that child's welfare, as she is the one who decided to bring that child into the world.

There are countless levels of being supported and sustenance…

Such as:
Just barely meeting basic necessities, or, getting a new bike every year and going to summer horse riding camp...
Community College on a Pell Grant or Ivy League Law School…
… and everything in-between both extremes.


A child is still the offspring of the Father and the father has no right to withhold his share from the child even if the child is not is desperate straights…The Father is and should be obligated to contribute, more than just the child’s bare necessities are in question here.

And the discrepancies end when the child is born. Afterwards, both should be treated equally. When you advocate prison terms for people who wanted no part of the situation and are forced into it, then we have issues with your stance.

Fathering children and then leaving them unsupported and abandoned is worse than taking a bunch of loans for your car and house and maxing out a bunch of credit card bills and then refusing to pay them back.

Your stuff will be repossessed and you will lose all your credit, your house will be take away and your assets will be sold to pay off your bills.

The same times ten should be true when you do it to a child.

The women carry the baby, indeed, but the baby is not only theirs. Does the father has no right before the child is born?


Before it is born? The Father should have the right to do what?

He has the right to be supportive and get a job if need be and learn how to be a good father and what needs a child has and how to support and raise the kid, that's what he has a right to do.

Only if the woman pushes the issue. I can guarrantee that that state doesn't generally go after anyone for child support unless the mother reports that he is not paying it. Many women and their children are better off with the father completely out of the picture.



The child has the right to be supported. It doesn't matter where that money comes from. If a father does not want to be part of a child's life, it is best to keep him out of that child's life altogether. A woman who decides to have a child, regardless of her knowledge that a man will not provide finanical support, is personally responsible for that child's welfare, as she is the one who decided to bring that child into the world.
the state will come after the father if the mother is collecting welfare to support the child. in some jurisdictions its a big priority.

i certainly wouldnt ever support a woman who tricked a man into getting her pregnant but the child still deserves support no matter how it was born.

Before it is born? The Father should have the right to do what?

He has the right to be supportive and get a job if need be and learn how to be a good father and what needs a child has and how to support and raise the kid, that's what he has a right to do.
Those are not rights. They are obligations.

And if the woman has the right to renounce her rights to the child (through an abortion), why shouldn't the man have a simmilar right?

Edit: If I have a child, I won't do that, but it's a matter of principle.

Fathering children and then leaving them unsupported and abandoned is worse than taking a bunch of loans for your car and house and maxing out a bunch of credit card bills and then refusing to pay them back.

Your stuff will be repossessed and you will lose all your credit, your house will be take away and your assets will be sold to pay off your bills.

The same times ten should be true when you do it to a child.
I disagree with your assessment and here's why. Bear in mind that we are talking about father who let it be known beforehand that they don't want the baby and have good reasons for their choice (such as having to drop from school)

You KNOWINGLY took those loan knowing fully well what would happen if you didn't pay. You can always negociate with your creditor if you are not able to pay up.

You did not necessarily KNOWINGLY fathered the child. Even if the risk was there, you did not have the ultimate choice in the matter since it's the woman who decide about having an abortion. You are being FORCED to pay even if you did not agree to the terms. And it's usually a judge who decides how much you pay.

I Find it to be a lesser offence. Certainly not one worthy of jail.

And if you still find that a person unwilling to destroy his life and carreer because a condom broke to be despicable then it's no use arguing because we will never agree.

A child is still the offspring of the Father and the father has no right to withhold his share from the child even if the child is not is desperate straights…The Father is and should be obligated to contribute, more than just the child’s bare necessities are in question here.

If people were better than they ever were....

No father should wish to have a child in the world that he helped create and not want to take care of it. However, all human beings are not the people we would wish them to be. No man should have sex if he isn't willing to take on the responsibilities of a child (or at least this is what I believe), but all human beings are not the people we would wish them to be.

If a child is getting even the most basic of sustenance, they are far better off with a man who does not wish to be there out of the picture entirely. Now, if that man was in the picture - and decided to skip out after the child was born, the psychological damage has already been done, and I see no problem with holding the man to an obligation he willingly took on - and then tried to skip out on. The same would be true of a woman who did the same. Of course, even in those cases, it might still be best if the offending parent simply slipped completely out of the picture.

the state will come after the father if the mother is collecting welfare to support the child. in some jurisdictions its a big priority.

i certainly wouldnt ever support a woman who tricked a man into getting her pregnant but the child still deserves support no matter how it was born.

I certainly agree with the fact that the child deserves support. However, I think that those who decide to bring a child into the world are those who have the responsibility of providing that support - regardless of what it costs them.

If a man and a woman, together, decide to bring a child into the world, then both are equally responsible for that child. However, biology has determined that only women can get pregnant. Thus, in truth, the ultimate decision of whether or not to bring a child into the world is hers. By making that decision, even if the father has told her point-blank that he wants no part of it, she is taking that responsibility upon herself.

I certainly agree with the fact that the child deserves support. However, I think that those who decide to bring a child into the world are those who have the responsibility of providing that support - regardless of what it costs them.

If a man and a woman, together, decide to bring a child into the world, then both are equally responsible for that child. However, biology has determined that only women can get pregnant. Thus, in truth, the ultimate decision of whether or not to bring a child into the world is hers. By making that decision, even if the father has told her point-blank that he wants no part of it, she is taking that responsibility upon herself.
I completely agree.

Just a random and (I think) interesting contribution about the Catholic stance on abortion. Abortion is considered so abhorrent by many because they believe that life is a gift from god and the foetus has been given a soul. However, as up until a certain point in the pregnancy (it could be 6 weeks, but I’m not sure) one foetus can split and become two foetuses, i.e. twins, the church acknowledges that up until this time has passed, the foetus does not have a soul. This is because elsewhere in Catholic teaching it is stated that a soul cannot be split or shared amongst people. It is still considered equally bad to abort a child before or after this aquring of the soul occours. However, this is rarely an issue because most women have hardly realised they are pregnant by the time this has happened.

Just a random and (I think) interesting contribution about the Catholic stance on abortion. Abortion is considered so abhorrent by many because they believe that life is a gift from god and the foetus has been given a soul. However, as up until a certain point in the pregnancy (it could be 6 weeks, but I’m not sure) one foetus can split and become two foetuses, i.e. twins, the church acknowledges that up until this time has passed, the foetus does not have a soul. This is because elsewhere in Catholic teaching it is stated that a soul cannot be split or shared amongst people. It is still considered equally bad to abort a child before or after this aquring of the soul occours. However, this is rarely an issue because most women have hardly realised they are pregnant by the time this has happened.

I can't seem to find any information on how late an embryo (it would be an embryo btw, a fetus has developed too much to split) can split into twins. Most information I have seen would place it at no more than about 12 days - and thus you would be right that it occurs before a woman knows she is pregnant.

If you are, however, correct that it can occur up to 6 weeks into the pregnancy, then many abortions would occur before then. 60% of abortions in the US occur before 8 weeks, and I highly doubt that all of them happen between the 6 and 8 week mark.

Edit: In truth, though, splitting at the 6 week mark doesn't make sense. Cells have already begun to differentiate and form organs by that point.