NationStates Jolt Archive

Identical (monozygotic) twins come from one zygote (fertilized egg) that splits in two. This separation can occur up to the 12th day of conception, around the time the egg is implanting in the uterus. Identical twins share 100% of their DNA and are the same sex.

I don't know how much I trust the site I got that from...

http://www.gen.umn.edu/faculty_staff/jensen/1135/example_student_projects/Sum2000/Twins/twins.html

It's an interesting statement question though, about this being a 'religious' spiritual marker/date. I never heard of it before. It makes some sense, but it seems to be dependent upon implantation in the uterus wall, doesn't it?

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.
because the woman's right to an abortion is based on the fetus being inside her body not on her right to relinquish a baby. if she brings the baby to term, for example, she cannot adopt it out without the fathers consent (in the US). if she hands the baby over to its father, she is still responsible for child support same as he would be if she kept it.

her extra burden, that of being prenant, gives her the extra right of abortion. (and that right is limited to 1st trimester or medical necessity). when a baby is born both parents have equal rights and responsibilities.

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.


You helped make it. You got the enjoyable eveining out of it...and that's the price you pay. Tough shit. The screwing you get for the screwing you got. NO ONE has a legitimate reason to skip out of thier responsibility to a child...especially if they are also insiting a woman can't have an abortion. You have NO RIGHT to skip off scott-free, because you are a man, and leave HER holding the bag for everything...especially when women get paid less in the workforce.

NO reason is legitimate for being a deadbeat dad! NONE!! And if I ever found out someone I knew was a deadbeat dad, I'd turn their ass in. And hope they got reamed.

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.
Hey...you do know I'm on your side, right??

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.

Bitch, bitch, bitch!! For once in your life you come across something that isn't "fair" for men, and you piss and moan about it. Try being a woman, and see how unfair life can get!! Walk a mile in my pumps, dude, then you can bitch.

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.

If the guy wanted no part in the result...then he shoulda kept his horse in the barn!

Go and jerk off if you need to, that doesn't cause a pregnancy, and will get you feeling just as good. If you don't want the responsibility, then keep the horse in the barn.

Bitch, bitch, bitch!! For once in your life you come across something that isn't "fair" for men, and you piss and moan about it. Try being a woman, and see how unfair life can get!! Walk a mile in my pumps, dude, then you can bitch.

lmfao

You women have every government support agency for when you need help with something at your fingertips, try being a man and getting help for something, why do you think the male suicide rates are so much higher, the help we need can only really come from men, and the problem is social services are run mostly by women with feministic ideology that preaches unending hatred of men, and designed to only help women and children.
A woman is alowed to display her weakness, or to act it out when it suits her, we have no such luxurys.
The irony is, men have been getting told for the last thirty years or more that its fine to be weak, breakdown and get help, the tough man who needs no help and doesnt cry according to feminists is just a stereotype, and not what a real man is.
But the reality hits you when you do weaken and go get help, and find yourself only greeted with at best sympathy, and in the most case, ridicule or simply finding, that there is no help.
Trust me, you want to whine about how tough you think it is to be a woman in todays society, try having problems you cant deal with and being a man in it.

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.

So your saying if he does all that, and then 3 months after conception, she turns around and says I'm going to abort this child, that he has no say in this?

[QUOTE=Bottle]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.

I did. But you went to great pains to state before, that most abortions are not a matter of convenience.
So what are they Bottle? They cant be mostly rape, by saying that you admit rape is not the only cause of abortion, you are still dodging the issue, which is do you support that they are mostly the result of rape?
Yes or no.
If no, then you have nowhere to go, because the only possible reason left is convenience. As it has been all along.


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. :)

Yes, you work at a womens health clinic, that sounds so much better than at an Abortionists.
Can you see your Doctor as a contestant on some game show, being asked what he does for a living, blurting out 'Oh I perform Abortions'.
What he would say, as you just have, is 'I work at a womens health clinic.'
Sounds so much nicer, does'nt it?



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.

The employees at your clinic might be, but the Abortion industry sure isnt.
http://www.forerunner.com/fyi/news/fyi051302.htm

Also this on people who were abortionists, and now picket the same butchers they worked for.
http://www.meehanreports.com/quit.html


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?

All of them Bottle? All 2 million potential babies every year in the US? :rolleyes:
Being only one person, I can only do so much, despite wishing otherwise.

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"!

Id never expect any 14 year old to carry the child to term, unless she wanted to.
And just how many 14 year olds walk into your clinic every week?
In fact, give a % of how many women under 16 come in for abortions every year?
You see, I'm not the evil brutal man you like to paint me out as, while I hate any abortion, I see of course reasons to have them.
What I dont agree with, as Ive probably repeated to you now a million times, is the unrestrained slaughter, by the majority of women who have abortions. Who arent underage, not raped, or carrying ababy that is severely damaged in someway, whos best reason is, they dont want it.

"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?

I can only do so much, my opinion right now is enough for me.
Are you suggesting I go do something serious about it?
And if I could legislate tougher laws on abortion, I'd do it today.


Well, no matter, because guess what? I AM.

Yeah, your helping murder millions of potential human beings, congratulations. :rolleyes:

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.

Except the majority of women who come for abortions, arent like that. Are they.

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.

You also provide and encourage abortions.

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 how would you know that? :rolleyes:
and I see those doctors come back to work every day.

The killers you mean.


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.

By helping slaughter innocent life?
When are people like you going to see that your not really helping any problem, your just helping create a bigger one, not to mention making alot of people rich at the cost of human lives.



Until you can say the same, kindly stop tossing insults at those of us who have matured beyond your brand of childish arrogance.

Truth hurts does it?

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.

No, like I told you my mother had six, my Aunt had seven, and all of us never went without.
If she thought she had enough on her plate already, then she really should have taken better precautions, like getting her tubes tied, straight after the fouth child was born.
The onus is on her to do this, as while her boyfriend or whoever shes sleeping with, might have a vasectomy to stay with her, whats stopping her sleeping with another guy that has'nt?


Most American families today cannot succeed on a single parent's income. Mine never could have.

So cut back on all the luxurys, tell your kids, sorry, but because your here, and I'm poor, you dont get to have what all of some of your friends have. But dont worry, you wont ever starve to death.
Bulk buying, and not buying crap, can really stretch the dollars out you know.

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.
Toddles off? Your really giving away your distain now for men who are the sole provider for the family.
But it was obvious anyway.
You probably have no such distain with women assumming the role of course. :rolleyes:


But perhaps the non-rich should just give up on the idea of having a family...?

Or better yet, turn their backs on material pleasures, and turn to God instead. You dont have to be rich to be happy, and you can go without all the crap pushed at you by consumerism.
Form communes, that pool their funds together, look after all the kids, and although working, paying taxes, bills etc, basically keep a polite distance from people not in the commune.
Communism, I know sort of, but its the best solution for poor people to help each other.
The government can only do so much, you have to help yourself here.



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."

Despite your putdowns here, I am genuinely concerned about mass abortion, and the effects its having on our western society, most of which are still unseen.
Do I believe in the equality of the sexes? To be honest no.
Mainly because were far too different to ever really be called true equals.




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."

What controls this?
And its pretty sad and actually sick to know, that control is what its really all about for you it seems.
Your control is coming at a great price, and your creating a sick minded, and very unstable society for it.


Present data supporting this claim, please.

Hmm how about the low rate of marriage breakup, the much more stable family life, generally happier familys, not to mention the low rate of suicide and depression that was the case for most western familys, before womans lib started to destroy it all?
The destruction isnt complete yet, but its well on the way.
Face it Bottle, when men are in charge of familys, they tend to work alot better, and even more importantly, stick together. Not fall apart, at the first unhappyness, like half of them do now.
Feminists love to say its men who cause breakup, they cant commit, and run away. Yet its over 60% of marriage breakups, that are instigated by women first.

Not according to the women. But I suppose you know what they think and feel far better than they do themselves.

Shame is the biggest reason Bottle, not threats from men.
Of course I dont doupt that alot of women are threatened.

On the contrary. I believe most men are decent, honorable, groovy fellows.

Provided they toe your pc way of thought of course. :rolleyes:


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.

This goes abit further than just body parts.

"told her point-blank that he wants no part of it, she is taking that responsibility upon herself"

No, he made that choice when he put his pecker in without a raincoat.

Simple, you dont want kids. Dont get sexually active.

No sympathy for anyone except the children of these morons who think they all growed up and the wham : "how did i make a kid by dinking"

maybe sex ed coulda helped if ya paid attention

"told her point-blank that he wants no part of it, she is taking that responsibility upon herself"

No, he made that choice when he put his pecker in without a raincoat.

Simple, you dont want kids. Dont get sexually active.

No sympathy for anyone except the children of these morons who think they all growed up and the wham : "how did i make a kid by dinking"

maybe sex ed coulda helped if ya paid attention

"told her point-blank that he wants no part of it, she is taking that responsibility upon herself"
No, he made that choice when he put his pecker in without a raincoat.
Simple, you dont want kids. Dont get sexually active.
No sympathy for anyone except the children of these morons who think they all growed up and the wham : "how did i make a kid by dinking"
maybe sex ed coulda helped if ya paid attention

As usual, no critisism of womens faults in this, only mens.
How come you don't get any of the responsibility here?

I did.

Liar. Your continued use of the same points prove that you have not read the points.


But you went to great pains to state before, that most abortions are not a matter of convenience.
So what are they Bottle? They cant be mostly rape, by saying that you admit rape is not the only cause of abortion, you are still dodging the issue, which is do you support that they are mostly the result of rape?
Yes or no.
If no, then you have nowhere to go, because the only possible reason left is convenience. As it has been all along.


No. A majority of cases pointed out by Bottle are cases of neccessity constrained by economic and personal constraints. People cannot magic money, time and care out of thin air as you so obviously believe they can. When you cannot afford despite working three jobs to feed another child and you go for abortion, that is not convenience. That is common sense and neccessity.

But you obviously believe that the mother should work 12 jobs a day undoubtedly. But at the same time, you want to prevent them from working as you stated, making the male the sole provider.

Again, you have proven to want nothing more than to enslave women to a permanent subservient role.


Yes, you work at a womens health clinic, that sounds so much better than at an Abortionists.
Can you see your Doctor as a contestant on some game show, being asked what he does for a living, blurting out 'Oh I perform Abortions'.
What he would say, as you just have, is 'I work at a womens health clinic.'
Sounds so much nicer, does'nt it?


Obviously, you are nothing more than an ignorant lout as to the range of services that a womens health clinic provides as well as what the doctors there do. Your attempts to use a singular service to cover the entire profession and villify it are nothing more than the pathetic efforts of someone who does not want to see what is beyond that rose window.


The employees at your clinic might be, but the Abortion industry sure isnt.
http://www.forerunner.com/fyi/news/fyi051302.htm

So on the actions of one person you paint the whole industry? Well then, I suppose the actions of Eric Rudolph and other violent members of the anti-choice faction are exactly the same as those of the entire anti-choice faction. As such, I can now label you as a domestic terrorist who is undoubtedly planning to or has already procured and used explosives to cause destruction and death.

Patriarchal facism at its best. The new face of the Ku Klux Klan who wants to keep women as 2nd class citizens.


Also this on people who were abortionists, and now picket the same butchers they worked for.
http://www.meehanreports.com/quit.html

Nice try. Your link does not work.

[QUOTE=Gessler]
All of them Bottle? All 2 million potential babies every year in the US? :rolleyes:
Being only one person, I can only do so much, despite wishing otherwise.


Yes. All of them Gessler. But on a more realistic viewpoint, have you even adopted ONE single child? Have you ensured that a SINGLE family in poverty was capable of supporting their children with funds or employment?

Have you?

I would go as far as to say that you've never actually stepped beyond that rose window to render any aid of that sort.


Id never expect any 14 year old to carry the child to term, unless she wanted to.

And yet there are cases of teenage pregnancies that result in abortions. Unless you are blind, these things happen. In your perfect world, they would be forced to carry to term. Are you prepared to support ALL of them with YOUR money?


And just how many 14 year olds walk into your clinic every week?
In fact, give a % of how many women under 16 come in for abortions every year?


You see, I'm not the evil brutal man you like to paint me out as, while I hate any abortion, I see of course reasons to have them.
What I dont agree with, as Ive probably repeated to you now a million times, is the unrestrained slaughter, by the majority of women who have abortions. Who arent underage, not raped, or carrying ababy that is severely damaged in someway, whos best reason is, they dont want it.


You may or may not be a brutal man. That is a matter for those around to judge. But you are an ignorant lout who wants to see women turned into 2nd class citizens beneath male dominance as you have already stated.

But I digress from that. Your point again fails to take into account the economic burdens that would be faced by these mothers. Unrestrained slaughter you call it? Then what about unrestrained poverty? You constantly ignore this point Gessler because you don't want to see that people sometimes just cannot afford to support another child at all, or that if they do, their entire lives will be brought to ruin.

But you don't care about ruining other peoples lives do you?

You only care that your beliefs are carried out, no matter how many others must suffer for it.

Stalin also only cared that his beliefs were carried out, no matter how many people were purged or condemned to life in gulags.


I can only do so much, my opinion right now is enough for me.
Are you suggesting I go do something serious about it?


Liar. You can do more. Just as you think the mother who can barely support her family working 3 jobs can do more, so can you. What are you doing for these people then? Absolutely nothing but your hateful little vitriol.


And if I could legislate tougher laws on abortion, I'd do it today.


Then I am thankfuly that you cannot legislate any laws. The world doesn't need anymore patriarchial supremacists in positions of power. You at the helm would probably result in the reverting of the roles of women to little more than baby factories and homemakers.


Yeah, your helping murder millions of potential human beings, congratulations. :rolleyes:


Again, I see nothing but your blind ignorance and hatred Gessler. What are YOU doing to help others? Nothing. What is Bottle doing to help them? Not just abortions, but in her own words, counselling, she dispenses advice, she tries to help people make the choices that would give them the best results available to them. And all of that doesn't always result in abortions.

But you. What are you doing to help these people? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. All you are doing is piling your heap and scorn onto others without even providing them with a viable means of surviving if they conformed to your demands.

You disgust me.


Except the majority of women who come for abortions, arent like that. Are they.


Again, I ask you for proof of this. Otherwise you are spouting nothing more than rubbish. But you never provided any proof did you? Because you can't. All you can do is say "its like this. Its like that" without any proof whatsoever.

Prove it Gessler. Or lose all credibility.


You also provide and encourage abortions.


I dare you to prove that Bottle encourages abortions when it does not equal to harm on the mother. This is slander. Nothing more.


And how would you know that? :rolleyes:


Maybe its because she was there when it happened? Or perhaps that little factoid eluded someone who is only interested in condemning others because they don't conform with his perfect little world?


By helping slaughter innocent life?


Or perhaps helping people make decisions that won't result in ruin, broken families or any of the wonderful little problems that often stem from birth in a family that cannot simply support?

That's what you advocate Gessler, a death sentence to every woman who cannot afford to support a child.


When are people like you going to see that your not really helping any problem, your just helping create a bigger one, not to mention making alot of people rich at the cost of human lives.


Are you helping the problem? I don't see you helping the problem to begin with, and the root of the problem is unwanted pregancies. All I see in your arguments are that if such an occurence happens, the woman deserves it regardless of the consequences. Contraceptives, protection, these things fail sometimes. And when they do, you want to punish a woman because of a failure not even hers to begin with.


Truth hurts does it?


Apparently not those who want to be wrapped up in ignorance like you.


No, like I told you my mother had six, my Aunt had seven, and all of us never went without.
If she thought she had enough on her plate already, then she really should have taken better precautions, like getting her tubes tied, straight after the fouth child was born.
The onus is on her to do this, as while her boyfriend or whoever shes sleeping with, might have a vasectomy to stay with her, whats stopping her sleeping with another guy that has'nt?


Congratulations. You were born with a silver spoon in the mouth. Have you considered that your particular case may not apply to every single woman in the world? That their lots may be even worst? Of course not. You couldn't possibly imagine that. It would contradict your perfect little world.


So cut back on all the luxurys, tell your kids, sorry, but because your here, and I'm poor, you dont get to have what all of some of your friends have. But dont worry, you wont ever starve to death.
Bulk buying, and not buying crap, can really stretch the dollars out you know.


You can stretch out as many dollars as you want Gessler. It won't change the fact that there are those who don't have the dollars to feed their kids and provide them with a roof over their head. Ever heard of poverty?


Toddles off? Your really giving away your distain now for men who are the sole provider for the family.
But it was obvious anyway.
You probably have no such distain with women assumming the role of course. :rolleyes:


I have nothing but disdain for a person who believes that all women should be nothing more than homemakers and baby factories.

As you so declared yourself.

It is obvious that in your perfect world, all women would be subservient to men.

Your disdain for women is open for all to see.


Or better yet, turn their backs on material pleasures, and turn to God instead.

Suuuuure. God is going to feed you when you can't afford the food. God is going to make you all better when you're down with diseases. God is going to give you an education.

Rubbish. God isn't going to provide for anyone on Earth.


You dont have to be rich to be happy, and you can go without all the crap pushed at you by consumerism.

Lets see you try to go without food you can't afford and medicine you can't pay for without losing your home or worst.


Form communes, that pool their funds together, look after all the kids, and although working, paying taxes, bills etc, basically keep a polite distance from people not in the commune.

And just exactly how many communes are there like that in this world hmmm? You seem to think that it is a panacea for poverty. Well let me tell you this. It isn't. Communes can only alleviate the problem slightly. They cannot solve the problem.


Communism, I know sort of, but its the best solution for poor people to help each other.
The government can only do so much, you have to help yourself here.


And that is why those who cannot do anything to support children or the burdens of a pregancy choose abortion. And yet you want to take away that safety net from them.

Hypocrite.


Do I believe in the equality of the sexes? To be honest no.
Mainly because were far too different to ever really be called true equals.


You say you don't believe in equality of the sexes because you say they are different. I say that you only believe so because you want to think that you are above them.

You believe that women are unequal to men to the point where you want them treated as 2nd class citizens beneath men. I find that to be a particularly disgusting viewpoint of a male supremacists who wants to maintain dominion over women.


What controls this?

How about the parties concerned? You are obviously not one of them.


And its pretty sad and actually sick to know, that control is what its really all about for you it seems.
Your control is coming at a great price, and your creating a sick minded, and very unstable society for it.


No. It is sick to know that people like you want to control the lives of others to the point where it will bring ruin to those who cannot afford to live their lives according to your dictates. Society is sick minded and unstable because of people like you who want to dominate women.


Hmm how about the low rate of marriage breakup, the much more stable family life, generally happier familys, not to mention the low rate of suicide and depression that was the case for most western familys, before womans lib started to destroy it all?

And your proof of this would be? I dare you to prove that equal rights between the genders is the cause of this. Come on then. Prove it.


The destruction isnt complete yet, but its well on the way.
Face it Bottle, when men are in charge of familys, they tend to work alot better, and even more importantly, stick together. Not fall apart, at the first unhappyness, like half of them do now.

Hah! Men in charge of families as the reason for families staying together? Are you just ignorant or truly deluded? You say that the breakups is due to womens lib?

Have you ever considered that it could be something else? Like oh, perhaps greater pressures on families to perform to higher standards than ever before, placing greater stress on them? The workplace of the world is becoming more and more demanding on the individual. Long working times, high effort requirements, stress, all of these things are NOT designed to make a person very amicable, much less in a family arrangement regardless of WHO is in charge. In fact, the question of who is in charge is irrelevant to the stresses a person faces in the workplace, be it a woman or man.

And you are even forgetting the deadbeat dad scenario. In situations like that, it is even worst if the man is in charge. Would you have liked to live in a family where your father was in charge, squandered all the welfare money on booze, constantly beat your overworked mother and you and never held a steady job? That scenario is far more common than you can think.

Have you ever considered that?


Feminists love to say its men who cause breakup, they cant commit, and run away. Yet its over 60% of marriage breakups, that are instigated by women first.

Prove it Gessler. I dare you to show where you came up with these ridiculous figures of yours someplace else other than your deluded mind.


Shame is the biggest reason Bottle, not threats from men.
Of course I dont doupt that alot of women are threatened.


And despite evidence that I provided to the contrary, you so handily ignore it to make this statement. Are you deliberatly ignorant or just trying to protect your perfect little world?


Provided they toe your pc way of thought of course. :rolleyes:


I wouldn't call you honorable or even groovy. I would call you a male supremacist. It is apt, but it is far kinder than any choice of words I would use.


This goes abit further than just body parts.

Until birth or surgery, it IS part of their body.

As usual, no critisism of womens faults in this, only mens.
How come you don't get any of the responsibility here?

And how is it the woman's fault? So far as the information goes, she is raising the child as best as she can WITHOUT the support of the male although it is demanded by law. She is living with the consequences of her decision. The male is not.

Typical male supremacist thinking.

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

I understand that point, but a man should have some decision making power regarding his progeny or should not be responsible in any manner. And since i strongly beleive a 'real man' takes responsibility for his children....

[QUOTE=Non Aligned States]And how is it the woman's fault? So far as the information goes, she is raising the child as best as she can WITHOUT the support of the male although it is demanded by law. She is living with the consequences of her decision. The male is not.

No... what I was pointing out was its not just soley the males responsibility in safe sex to prevent unwanted kids from happenning, I wasnt referring to after the birth.


Typical male supremacist thinking.

I note you always call us 'male/s', even in the same sentence as using 'woman' the first part of what I'm quoting off you is a good example of this.
To me this smacks of female chauvinism, in that you don't even recognise the term - 'man' or 'men' as having any importance in life.
You have some nerve calling me a supremacist.
Pot.Kettle.Black.

Liar. Your continued use of the same points prove that you have not read the points.
No. A majority of cases pointed out by Bottle are cases of neccessity constrained by economic and personal constraints. People cannot magic money, time and care out of thi -

SNIP!


-oice of words I would use.
Until birth or surgery, it IS part of their body.

Sorry but Im not answering any of this, as these quotes you took off this post, will probably be attacked by Bottle later on as well, and its hardly fair that I have to answer the questions about the same post twice in this extended detail.
I'll answer any stuff you want from posts between us, but not one in this much detail to someone else, who will give me some replys later from the same post.
Looks like you wasted your time.

I note you always call us 'male/s', even in the same sentence as using 'woman' the first part of what I'm quoting off you is a good example of this.

Because the use of the term 'men supremacist' would be grammatically incorrect and possibly lead to incorrect interpretations. If I were to use a similar adjective for the female gender, I would use the appropriate term that would fit within the grammar.


To me this smacks of female chauvinism, in that you don't even recognise the term - 'man' or 'men' as having any importance in life.


Looking at your use of grammar and spelling, I will have to put your misinterpretation as down to the common error of differing grammar usages.

Do I recognize men as having any importance in life? Certainly. Their importance in life is equal in importance as women. Neither parties have any greater importance over each other so far as the specific term of life goes.


You have some nerve calling me a supremacist.
Pot.Kettle.Black.

I call you that because you have proven by your words and admitted to be one. Or are you saying that you were lying?

Furthermore, I would call myself a supporter of equal rights. I have not and will not dispute the right for the man in consensual sex leading to pregnancy to discuss with his mate the final fate of the zygote/fetus save for those in abusive cases and cannot be proven to be relied on.

In the terms of preventing pregnancy, so long as the actual events leading up to conception were consensual, then responsibility falls on both parties to prevent said pregancy and dealing with the aftermath.

Still think I am the polar opposite of you? I am no more a female supremacist than you are a pro-choicer.

Because the use of the term 'men supremacist' would be grammatically incorrect and possibly lead to incorrect interpretations. If I were to use a similar adjective for the female gender, I would use the appropriate term that would fit within the grammar.

That isnt the context you used it in, as shown by below. Like I said, like most feminists who roar down your throat for speaking of women using only the female generic, you have no problem with speaking of men in the same hypocritical way.

QUOTE=Non Aligned States]And how is it the woman's fault? So far as the information goes, she is raising the child as best as she can WITHOUT the support of the male although it is demanded by law. She is living with the consequences of her decision. The male is not.


Do I recognize men as having any importance in life? Certainly. Their importance in life is equal in importance as women. Neither parties have any greater importance over each other so far as the specific term of life goes.

Agreed.

I call you that because you have proven by your words and admitted to be one. Or are you saying that you were lying?

No, I'm a male supremist I guess, in how you guys want to see me.

[QUOTE]Furthermore, I would call myself a supporter of equal rights. I have not and will not dispute the right for the man in consensual sex leading to pregnancy to discuss with his mate the final fate of the zygote/fetus save for those in abusive cases and cannot be proven to be relied on.
In the terms of preventing pregnancy, so long as the actual events leading up to conception were consensual, then responsibility falls on both parties to prevent said pregancy and dealing with the aftermath.

Good to hear.

Still think I am the polar opposite of you? I am no more a female supremacist than you are a pro-choicer.

Well not after your last few comments I guess.

ABORTION - WE SHOULDN'T KILL ANYTHING ESPECIALLY SOMETHING INSIDE YOU ..

Sorry for the caps..

Thats the main fact involving abortion no matter how many squirmy little fish-pieces say otherwise

Not all of us a worthless deadbeats. Some have legitimate reasons to skip out.

How heartless. And that's precisely the attitude many worthless deadbeats have, and the reasons they give.

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.


This is just emotional talk with no basis in reality. Parents DO have the right to sign away their rights to their child -- it's called putting the child up for adoption.

:rolleyes:

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.


So, you'd leave the woman holding the bag.
Let's use the same argument people gave for women earlier:

If a man does not want to be a father, he has no business inserting his penis into a woman's vagina.

There, that's perfectly equal, isn't it?

you are all wrong.

.

you are all wrong.

.
I know you are, but what am I? :rolleyes:

If she thought she had enough on her plate already, then she really should have taken better precautions, like getting her tubes tied, straight after the fouth child was born.
The onus is on her to do this, as while her boyfriend or whoever shes sleeping with, might have a vasectomy to stay with her, whats stopping her sleeping with another guy that has'nt?

You are either incredibly naive, or full of shit. How exactly do you think a woman who, along with her husband, both have to work two jobs just to put food on the tablecould afford such an operation? Are they supposed to starve their children for months to pay medical bills instead?

No, he made that choice when he put his pecker in without a raincoat.

That's cute. And if he didn't?

You are aware that most unwanted pregnancies occur when birth control methods are in use?

How heartless. And that's precisely the attitude many worthless deadbeats have, and the reasons they give.

I would be the last person in the world to defend a true deadbeat, but he does have a point.

Every time this issue comes up, we argue that a woman should be able to have an abortion if havinga baby to take care of would cause her to lose her job or end her studies. We argue that her life should not be ruined because of one mistake she made if she decides that she cannot take care of a baby. Then, people like you look at the exact same argument from a man - a man who cannot provide financial support for a child he cannot decide to abort, and say that he is "heartless" for pointing it out.

On the other hand, we argue with those who claim that a woman who would abort her pregnancy is "heartless" and irresponsible. We argue that abortion can be a responsible choice and that "she should have kept her legs closed" is not a viable argument. Then, people like you use the exact same arguments against a guy - calling him "heartless", irresponsible, and (like Tyma anyways) arguing that he should have simply not had sex.

These are the exact same arguments as the anti-choice side, simply turned around and used on a man. Obviously, no one is going to respect a rich guy who just doesn't want to support a child, anymore than someone is going to respect a woman who gets an abortion just because she doesn't want to get fat - but if the problems are the same, male or female, the problems are the same.

All of them Bottle? All 2 million potential babies every year in the US? :rolleyes:
Being only one person, I can only do so much, despite wishing otherwise.

the use of this "2 million" is getting on my nerves.

A total of 857,475 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2000 from 49 reporting areas, representing a 0.5% decrease from the 861,789 legal induced abortions reported by 48 reporting areas for 1999 and a 1.3% decrease for the same 48 reporting areas that reported in 1999. The abortion ratio, defined as the number of abortions per 1,000 live births, was 246 in 2000 (for the same 48 reporting areas as 1999), compared with 256 reported for 1999. This represents a 3.8% decline in the abortion ratio. The abortion rate (for the same 48 reporting areas as 1999) was 16 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years for 2000. This was also a 3.8% decrease from the rate reported for procedures performed during 1997--1999 for the same 48 reporting areas.

The highest percentages of reported abortions were for women aged <25 years (52%), women who were white (57%), and unmarried women (81%). Fifty-eight percent of all abortions for which gestational age was reported were performed at <8 weeks of gestation, and 88% were performed before 13 weeks. From 1992 (when detailed data regarding early abortions were first collected) through 2000, steady increases have occurred in the percentage of abortions performed at <6 weeks of gestation. Few abortions were performed after 15 weeks of gestation; 4.3% were obtained at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% were obtained at >21 weeks. A total of 31 reporting areas submitted data stating that they performed medical (nonsurgical) procedures, making up 1.0% of all reported procedures from the 42 areas with adequate reporting on type of procedure.

In 1998 and 1999 (the most recent years for which data are available), 14 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion. Ten of these deaths occurred in 1998 and four occurred in 1999; no deaths were associated with known illegal abortion.


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm

I know you are, but what am I? :rolleyes:

that's the spirit.

i saw that this thread was dying, and figured that any longer response would just be wasted.

edit: looks like i was wrong

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.
That would mean no abortion at all. The woman has the right to abort, because the child is inside of her, the man however has nothing to say about it. If you care about the rights of the child so much, then you should oppose abortion all together.
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.
Hey, I am all for active parents, two of them preferably, who together raise their kids in harmony. This is however not the reality in which we live. Sometimes women claim to use the pill while they don't, get pregnant and sue the father, who was reassured he wouldn't get a child, for child support. And then there are of course the men who are opposed to abortion, would love to have a child and then the mother goes and gets an abortion.

Either you decide in favour of the kids and forbid abortion all together, or you make it equal to both parents.

You are aware that most unwanted pregnancies occur when birth control methods are in use?




You know, they do have the statistics that show what you just said to be true... However, I'm not sure why we are supposed to believe it.

How did they get those statistics? Ask the woman about to get an abortion,


Ma'am, we're taking a survey...Just before you go in to your abortion appointment with Dr. Pincersnips, could you answer a simple question for us? Thank you...

Question, please check the box that applies to you:

___ Are you a responsible adult who properly utilized birth control methodology and it failed you due to no fault of your own?
___ Are you one of those pathetic dweebs who go around ‘boffing every knob in sight’ like a dog in heat without protection and utilize abortions as a birth control method?

Then not surprisingly, after assembling such surveys, we read reports of how most abortions are performed on women who suffered birth control failures. :rolleyes:

:D

That would mean no abortion at all. The woman has the right to abort, because the child is inside of her, the man however has nothing to say about it. If you care about the rights of the child so much, then you should oppose abortion all together.
Hey, I am all for active parents, two of them preferably, who together raise their kids in harmony. This is however not the reality in which we live. Sometimes women claim to use the pill while they don't, get pregnant and sue the father, who was reassured he wouldn't get a child, for child support. And then there are of course the men who are opposed to abortion, would love to have a child and then the mother goes and gets an abortion.

Either you decide in favour of the kids and forbid abortion all together, or you make it equal to both parents.



I do oppose abortion altogether.

You know, they do have the statistics that show what you just said to be true... However, I'm not sure why we are supposed to believe it.

How did they get those statistics? Ask the woman about to get an abortion,

You are aware that all unplanned pregnancies do not result in abortion?

Edit: Meanwhile, wording the questions as you worded them would make the study null and void. But I'm sure you knew that.

What defines a human person? I mean is life CREATED as soon as you have sex or what? Or is it created if you just think about having sex?
I'd say that both the sperm cell and the egg cell are clearly alive on their own. I mean look at that little guy swim- that's life. The egg? Oh, she's alive too. Every time you masturbate or ejaculate without contributing to the conception of a pregnancy- are you aborting the lives in your semen?

I do oppose abortion altogether.
But we live in a world where there is abortion. Don't you then feel that both parents should be able to make the same, in your eyes immoral choice of abortion?

But we live in a world where there is abortion. Don't you then feel that both parents should be able to make the same, in your eyes immoral choice of abortion?

That's entirely illogical to me. If one of you kills something, then I have to give everyone in class a chance to do it too? I don’t think so.

But, to be fair and forthcoming, I don't propose that a woman should be forced to marry the father of her child either. But both parents should be responsible for the good and loving upbringing of their offspring. And if one of them doesn't willingly support their offspring, then the courts should go after that parent and force them to at least make monetary contributions to the upbringing of their child. (minimum standard enforced on society)

And in addition to the bare minimum requirements above, my personal opinion for proper adult behavior, is that people should NOT be having sex with someone that they don't think is going to be a good parent to their children (but apparently that's asking too much in this secular society of ours :rolleyes: ).

You are aware that all unplanned pregnancies do not result in abortion?

Edit: Meanwhile, wording the questions as you worded them would make the study null and void. But I'm sure you knew that.


Yes I knew that, that was my point through over-emphasis of what it must feel like to be about to get an abortion and they ask a question like that, anonymous or not, you feel bad enough already without having to risk the nurse seeing your answer to that question... It's impossible to ask and get a proper statistic to what people 'really' do in their own bedrooms (or kitchens, or bathrooms or backyards or garages or street alleys :) )

Gessler. Your earlier pointing of the incorrect use of context has been noted. For that, I apologize. I will endeavour to see to it that the appropriate label of men/man is used in the future. Now onto this point.


No, I'm a male supremist I guess, in how you guys want to see me.


Incorrect. Here is a definition of a supremacist.

http://www.answers.com/supremacist&r=67

From the Wordnet link.

The noun supremacist has one meaning:

Meaning #1: a person who advocates the supremacy of some particular group over all others

By advocating the dominance of men over women in society, you fall into the category of a male supremacist.

Furthermore, I have yet to note any response from you on my post numbered as #451 on page 31.

Because the use of the term 'men supremacist' would be grammatically incorrect and possibly lead to incorrect interpretations. If I were to use a similar adjective for the female gender, I would use the appropriate term that would fit within the grammar.



Looking at your use of grammar and spelling, I will have to put your misinterpretation as down to the common error of differing grammar usages.

Do I recognize men as having any importance in life? Certainly. Their importance in life is equal in importance as women. Neither parties have any greater importance over each other so far as the specific term of life goes.



I call you that because you have proven by your words and admitted to be one. Or are you saying that you were lying?

Furthermore, I would call myself a supporter of equal rights. I have not and will not dispute the right for the man in consensual sex leading to pregnancy to discuss with his mate the final fate of the zygote/fetus save for those in abusive cases and cannot be proven to be relied on.

In the terms of preventing pregnancy, so long as the actual events leading up to conception were consensual, then responsibility falls on both parties to prevent said pregancy and dealing with the aftermath.

Still think I am the polar opposite of you? I am no more a female supremacist than you are a pro-choicer.


And what about the "father" who, until abortion is no longer legal...claims he wants the baby, will stand by and support the mother...and THEN, when he finally gets a look at the BILLS, he bolts, leaving her holding the bag? This is more common than you would care to admit, Gessler.

Either you decide in favour of the kids and forbid abortion all together, or you make it equal to both parents.

there is no way to make it equal to both parents.

consider this quick example, woman wants an abortion, man opposes it.

woman gets abortion, its 100% her decision and 0% his

woman is denied abortion its 100% his decision and 0% hers.

roll that around in your head for a while and tell me how that decision could be made 50% his and 50% hers.

I love how every forum I've ever seen has this topic on it somewhere with people with polarised views that will never be swayed argueing with each other to no effect other than to cause annoyance.

My two cents.

The women who most benefit from abortion are poor women, and sadly due to demographics in America this usually means Poor Black Women. The people who legislate in congress are typically Rich White Men. I find it odd that a Rich White Guy feels he has the right to force a Poor Black Woman to have a child. Particulary in America where the mother will recieve little help in raising the child and thus creating another life to be lived in poverty in the worlds richest country.

Men can have an opinion, but I think the woman should ultimatey have the chioce as it is the woman whose life is most affected by an unwanted pregnancy. How many men are left pregnant by some woman who runs off leaving no forwarding address? How many men have to quit jobs/college/school because of a baby?

If you do not agree with a womans right to have abortion then should the circumstances arise then simply do not have one. Pro-Choice allows people who don't believe in abortion to live their lives according to their own morality. It also allows women who do believe in abortion to live their life according to thir beliefs. Anti-Choice forces a large number of women to follow the beliefs of others in a very important part of their life.

there is no way to make it equal to both parents.

consider this quick example, woman wants an abortion, man opposes it.

woman gets abortion, its 100% her decision and 0% his

woman is denied abortion its 100% his decision and 0% hers.

roll that around in your head for a while and tell me how that decision could be made 50% his and 50% hers.
Well, while you can't compromise in this situation, in a good relationship, opinions on children (and thereby, abortion) should be completely in line...and if they disagreed on a matter like abortion, the relationship wouldn't likely last too long, because of how fundamently different the two people are on a matter such as this...

You can be very fundamently opposed in other matters and still have a healthy relationship, because most differences do not have anything to do with things that require both people to actively agree on...but when it comes to children and abortion, both people have to actively agree on this issues for the relationship to work...

You are aware that all unplanned pregnancies do not result in abortion?



I should hope not! I was an "oops" baby...and, for that matter, so was my brother. The only two my mom ever had, and both of us were "oops" babies.

First, my mom TRIED to have my brother, using rhythm to determine when ovulation was occurring to maximize chances of getting pregnant. didn't work. so my folks gave up and decided to buy a house. No sooner than they were beyond the point of no return on the house...OOPS...there's my brother.

They decided to wait about five years before having another kid. My mom started using rhythm to AVOID getting pregnant (did I mention my folks, at the time, were both Catholic??) Well, I ended up coming into the world 18 months after my brother...meaning a scant 9 months after giving birth to my brother...OOPS, there my mom was, pregnant with me.

So we were both oops babies. I'm the one who made my mom give up. She started using birth control after that, and to hell with what the Pope said about it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your wife just got Gang-Raped by a biker gang. It took 2 weeks. By the way, now she's pregnant. Still Pro-Life?

Your wife just got Gang-Raped by a biker gang. It took 2 weeks. By the way, now she's pregnant. Still Pro-Life?


Kill the bikers, raise the baby.

Well, while you can't compromise in this situation, in a good relationship, opinions on children (and thereby, abortion) should be completely in line...and if they disagreed on a matter like abortion, the relationship wouldn't likely last too long, because of how fundamently different the two people are on a matter such as this...

You can be very fundamently opposed in other matters and still have a healthy relationship, because most differences do not have anything to do with things that require both people to actively agree on...but when it comes to children and abortion, both people have to actively agree on this issues for the relationship to work...
yeah

and in most actual relationships i expect that they talk it out until they both agree on the right thing to do. (and if they cant agree, i cant imagine that they will end up staying together). if there is no real relationship the woman does as she pleases regardless of the opinion of the man.

but in the end, its 100% the womans decision eh? its nice if they agree; its nice if the man can persuade her to change her mind; but in if they still disagree, its her opinion that counts and she does what she feels is best.

Here's a question that a lot of people don't ever seem to ask -- if one were to render abortions illegal, what would the punishment be for the women who get abortions illegally and are found out?

And if/when things go back to the pre-Roe days, will things to back to the way they were, where the women who could afford it could get a doctor to write out fake referrals to be allowed one under the heading of "medical necessity", while the women who -couldn't- afford it would either go to some back-alley clinic, or try to do it at home, and then die as a result? Let's not fool ourselves -- women have been using abortifacents since ancient times (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1993/04.04.08.html) . To have abortion as a legal alternative is to not necessarily state that "Abortions are GREAT!" it's more stating that "it's better than the alternative that -did- happen and -will- happen again."

Those who are against abortion say that they are doing so because of the ending of that potential life. Yet who thinks of the life of the woman? Do you know who the biggest backers of "Roe" were? Doctors. Doctors like this one (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0503,lerner,60124,6.html) :

At 77, Dr. Harry S. Jonas can still pinpoint the exact moment when he understood the importance of making abortion legal. The year was 1952 and he was an eager, young obstetrics-gynecology intern in Independence, Missouri. The specialty promised exciting pregnancies and bouncing babies, but his very first patient entered the hospital extremely sick. A mother of 12 children, she had tried—unsuccessfully—to induce an abortion. "She came into the hospital with her intestines hanging out her vagina," recalls Jonas. "Then she died."

From further in that article:
Abortions were common well before New York decriminalized them in 1970 and Roe made them legal in the rest of the country in 1973. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, which does research on reproductive issues, reports that in 1930 almost 2,700 women died from illegal abortions—and that's just the number who had abortion recorded as their official cause of death. Almost one in 10 low-income women in New York City reported having attempted to end a pregnancy with an illegal abortion, according to one study done in the 1960s. In 1962 alone, almost 1,600 women were treated for incomplete illegal abortions in at Harlem Hospital. And there's plenty of current evidence showing the danger of outlawing the procedure. According to the World Health Organization, an estimated 80,000 women around the world still die each year of complications from illegal abortion.

And then, from another article (http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050207&s=lerner) , what the country may look like if Roe is overturned:

With the third-highest teen pregnancy rate in the country, Mississippi's low number of abortions is not an illustration of the "safe, legal and rare" ideal that many talk about, in which a decline in unwanted pregnancies creates a corresponding drop in abortions. Rather, it is the direct consequence of concerted opposition to abortion from the grassroots to all levels of government.

Such concern for the rights of fetuses does not appear to translate into a commitment to promoting the well-being of the children they may become. The uncomfortable irony for an opposition movement purportedly concerned with saving "innocent babies" is that restrictions on abortion are associated with worse outcomes for actual babies. Indeed, children fare terribly in Mississippi. The state with arguably the least access to abortion also has the second-highest rate of child poverty in the country, according to the Children's Defense Fund. Mississippi's infant mortality rate--a good indication of the health of both women and children--is the highest in the country. For every 1,000 live births, 10.5 infants under age 1 die in Mississippi. In parts of the impoverished Delta region, that number ranges up to 18. (The national infant mortality rate, by comparison, is 6.8.) Interestingly, a postelection comparison found that "red" states had higher infant mortality rates than "blue" ones. In general, states that restrict abortion spend far less money per child than prochoice states on services such as foster care, education, welfare and the adoption of children who have physical and mental disabilities, according to a 2000 book by political scientist Jean Reith Schroedel.

Schroedel also found that women in antiabortion states are worse off than their counterparts in prochoice states. They suffer from lower levels of education, higher levels of poverty, and a larger gender gap in earnings. They are also less likely to enjoy mandated insurance coverage for minimum hospital stays after childbirth. Together, the conditions make for an abysmal reality for women in Mississippi, which came in fifty-first in a 2004 ranking of the status of women in the fifty states and Washington, DC, published by the Institute for Women's Policy Research.

The poverty of women in Mississippi both increases their need for abortions and their difficulty in obtaining them. In the poorest state in the country, where more than one in five women lack health insurance and live below the poverty line, girls and women are often unable to get birth control. Only about two in five women and teens in Mississippi who need publicly financed contraception receive it, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which does research on reproductive issues. Though the inability to prevent unwanted pregnancies makes women only more likely to want abortions, many of the forces behind the anti-abortion movement here also oppose contraception. Pro-Life Mississippi, for instance, regularly protests the only Planned Parenthood office in Mississippi, which is in Hattiesburg, even though it provides only birth control, not abortion.

Does the idea of 80,000 women around the world STILL dying from illegal abortions -not- cause people to pause for a moment? Do we want that number to rise? It will. The number of teen pregnancies, that'll rise, too. Especially in a country where "Abstinence-only" sex-ed is quickly becoming the norm, though it's been proven time and again by independent studies not to work. Abortions WILL STILL HAPPEN. I find it strange about this "culture of life", that it'd willingly ignore the damage done to those already living by rendering abortion illegal.

The fact is, the majority of the burden in bearing and raising children falls on the woman. When women get pregnant, we carry it, we birth it, and the majority of women all over the world and, yes, even in this country, bear more than 1/2 of the chores and duties involved in raising it. And it's not just that, but women are the ones who also wind up with sometimes irreversible hormonal and physical changes after pregnancy -- post-partum depression, gestational diabetes which can turn immediately into Type II diabetes, etc. In a post-Roe world, would we be sending these women to jail, who perhaps got pregnant by their husband for the 4th or 5th time, managed to get an abortion somehow, either self-attempted or illegally, fearing that they couldn't afford another one, or fearing for her health or sanity?

I'd say more, but I'm sure I've already given the anti-choice side enough fodder to flame me with -- though I'm not posting this as flamebait, I'm posting this because this is truly what I think about, and what I believe. What you get out of it is up to you, of course. Think of the women who've died from self-attempted or illegal abortions. Most likely, many people don't know anyone in their immediate family or even accquaintances who's died from that. Let this article (http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/120904women-who-died.html) acquaint you with a few. Google-search "Geraldine Santoro." To render abortion illegal is to say that what happened to them doesn't matter, that we haven't learned the lesson that abortions will still happen and more women will die, that every single one of us women who've had them - and there are more than just a few - that why we did it didn't matter, that our lives are nothing in comparison to the life of a potential-person who couldn't yet survive out of the womb.

I had an abortion. I'm not ashamed. I have a story; I have told it elsewhere, and I will not hide it. (http://mizzkyttie.typepad.com/mind/2005/03/a_shrine_a_viol.html) Not now, not ever.

Kill the bikers, raise the baby.

Ahh yes - the upmost belief in the sanctity of life until it comes to the death penalty.

I partially agree tho - bikers should be put up against the wall asap, but the woman should still have the right to choose to have the baby.

You know, they do have the statistics that show what you just said to be true... However, I'm not sure why we are supposed to believe it.

How did they get those statistics? Ask the woman about to get an abortion

There are such things as, oh, I don't know, medical records? There's nothing illegal about polling an OB/GYN and asking "What percentage of your patients who have received a prescription for birth control (any type -- IUD, patch, pill, implants, shots, and yes, tubal ligation) have become pregnant?"

You are either incredibly naive, or full of shit. How exactly do you think a woman who, along with her husband, both have to work two jobs just to put food on the tablecould afford such an operation? Are they supposed to starve their children for months to pay medical bills instead?



That's cute. And if he didn't?

You are aware that most unwanted pregnancies occur when birth control methods are in use?



I would be the last person in the world to defend a true deadbeat, but he does have a point.

Every time this issue comes up, we argue that a woman should be able to have an abortion if havinga baby to take care of would cause her to lose her job or end her studies. We argue that her life should not be ruined because of one mistake she made if she decides that she cannot take care of a baby. Then, people like you look at the exact same argument from a man - a man who cannot provide financial support for a child he cannot decide to abort, and say that he is "heartless" for pointing it out.

On the other hand, we argue with those who claim that a woman who would abort her pregnancy is "heartless" and irresponsible. We argue that abortion can be a responsible choice and that "she should have kept her legs closed" is not a viable argument. Then, people like you use the exact same arguments against a guy - calling him "heartless", irresponsible, and (like Tyma anyways) arguing that he should have simply not had sex.

These are the exact same arguments as the anti-choice side, simply turned around and used on a man. Obviously, no one is going to respect a rich guy who just doesn't want to support a child, anymore than someone is going to respect a woman who gets an abortion just because she doesn't want to get fat - but if the problems are the same, male or female, the problems are the same.

Actually, I WAS trying to make the point that apparently, it is morally ok for the father to use excuses to get out of his responsibility in the pregnancy, but if a woman decides to exert her right to end her pregnancy, she is called callous, heartless, and told that correcting an error that will make her life more difficult than she wishes is for convenience's sake and she should not have spread her legs in the first place.

Here we have someone advocating skipping out on child support because it is inconvenient, will make his life more difficult than he wishes, and will 'ruin his life'. I wonder then why the same question of "why did you then get between her legs, it's heartless not to want to support the child you made" is considered to be a less valid viewpoint.

It all hinges on whose ox is being gored, apparently.

There are such things as, oh, I don't know, medical records? There's nothing illegal about polling an OB/GYN and asking "What percentage of your patients who have received a prescription for birth control (any type -- IUD, patch, pill, implants, shots, and yes, tubal ligation) have become pregnant?"


HOW does this stuff get into the medical records? I'll tell you, through surveys. I didn't say the records don't exist, of course they do.

What I'm saying is that the records CAN NOT be accurate, it's essentially impossible to assume that they are correct. I'm suggesting that people LIE on their survey questionnaires because they are too embarrassed to tell the truth, even sometimes to their doctors, and especially when they are at an abortion clinic being asked to fill out a form by an employee whom they think they will never see again anyway and the customer client thinks that it's none of their (the clinics) damned business anyway, etc., etc., etc." So how can we trust any results like that where the answer can neither be verified and the questioned patient has zero incentive to tell the truth and can avoid lots of embarrassment to NOT tell the truth.

HOW does this stuff get into the medical records? I'll tell you, through surveys. I didn't say the records don't exist, of course they do.

What I'm saying is that the records CAN NOT be accurate, it's essentially impossible to assume that they are correct. I'm suggesting that people LIE on their survey questionnaires because they are too embarrassed to tell the truth, even sometimes to their doctors, and especially when they are at an abortion clinic being asked to fill out a form by an employee whom they think they will never see again anyway and the customer client thinks that it's none of their (the clinics) damned business anyway, etc., etc., etc." So how can we trust any results like that where the answer can neither be verified and the questioned patient has zero incentive to tell the truth and can avoid lots of embarrassment to NOT tell the truth.


O_O
Ok... you and I are talking two completely different things.

Medical records, as in Born yadda yadda dat, measured at so many pounds and inches, got these shots on this date--

A doctor can look at your records and see how much you weighed when you had an office visit, and also what prescriptions/procedures/allergies you have.

How the heck can you say these are "not accurate" if a doctor reviews records and sends these statistics to the agency asking for them: "Of the 100 patients I prescribed Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo to, 3 became pregnant. Of the 200 patients I fitted with an IUD, 4 became pregnant. Of the 100 patients I gave a contreceptive shot to, one became pregnant..." You're not surveying the patient -- you're getting medical statistics from legal documents.

O_O
Ok... you and I are talking two completely different things.



Yes, I agree, we seem to have been talking about two different things. I was only referring to the percentages of claimed birth control device failures. The technical outcome of the procedures you mentioned is reliable I'm sure.

*wonders that perhaps nobody wishes to answer her questions*

That's entirely illogical to me. If one of you kills something, then I have to give everyone in class a chance to do it too? I don’t think so.
Well, this is precisely the problem. One of "us" (not me though, I'm gay :) ) is killing a child that has two parents. One of these parents is able to do this and skip all responsibility for her actions, while the other is just doomed from day one. A woman may think: "#@!!, I hate kids" and get an abortion, a man may think "#@!!, I hate kids" and pay child support for the next 20 years. Abortion is, for some people, merely a way to opt out of the parent role. Women are allowed to do this by abortion, men are not allowed to do this at all. Please explain to me why that is a good thing?
But, to be fair and forthcoming, I don't propose that a woman should be forced to marry the father of her child either. But both parents should be responsible for the good and loving upbringing of their offspring. And if one of them doesn't willingly support their offspring, then the courts should go after that parent and force them to at least make monetary contributions to the upbringing of their child. (minimum standard enforced on society)
Then I suggest you make child support taxes for every woman who aborts her child too. By abortion, she is skipping out of her responsibilities. She is a criminal, for opting out of her responsibilities. She should, like men, be forced to pay child support, according to your opinion.
And in addition to the bare minimum requirements above, my personal opinion for proper adult behavior, is that people should NOT be having sex with someone that they don't think is going to be a good parent to their children (but apparently that's asking too much in this secular society of ours :rolleyes: ).
Well, people do tend to have sex for the sheer joy of it. I think it's pretty stupid to not use some form of contraception if you don't want to have any kids, but only sleeping with people you think are good parents is a little bit too much to ask of people. Whether this has something to do with the secularity of our society, I don't know. Don't you think people in religious societies sleep around too?

I think it's pretty stupid to not use some form of contraception if you don't want to have any kids...

No form of contraception, save perhaps abstinence*, is 100% reliable.
Condoms break or slip.
The pill, when used perfectly, is about 99% effective.
Women have gotten pregnant while fitted with an IUD.
Diaphragms slip.
The patches don't work for all women.
The shots don't work for all women.

So, please -- not everyone who got pregnant unintentionally was "stupid" and not using contraception!

*And there is at least one incident, 2000 ago, I am told, where abstinence apparently was not foolproof. ;)

No form of contraception, save perhaps abstinence*, is 100% reliable.
Condoms break or slip.
The pill, when used perfectly, is about 99% effective.
Women have gotten pregnant while fitted with an IUD.
Diaphragms slip.
The patches don't work for all women.
The shots don't work for all women.

So, please -- not everyone who got pregnant unintentionally was "stupid" and not using contraception!

*And there is at least one incident, 2000 ago, I am told, where abstinence apparently was not foolproof. ;)
Joe: You're pregnant? But we haven't even had sex!
Mary: Um... um... God did it?

Dude you are right on. Keep it up.

Mary: Jesus! I can't believe that worked...

No form of contraception, save perhaps abstinence*, is 100% reliable.
Condoms break or slip.
The pill, when used perfectly, is about 99% effective.
Women have gotten pregnant while fitted with an IUD.
Diaphragms slip.
The patches don't work for all women.
The shots don't work for all women.

So, please -- not everyone who got pregnant unintentionally was "stupid" and not using contraception!
I didn't say that. We all know contraception at least reduces the chance of conception to a bare minimum and therefore I think it's wise to use them if you don't want any kids. If you still get pregnant, then I don't think you're stupid. Stupid is when you don't want a kid and have unprotected sex twice a day with someone of the opposite sex.

*And there is at least one incident, 2000 ago, I am told, where abstinence apparently was not foolproof. ;)
:D

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!
I would have preferred to be born a woman as I'd think I could have enjoyed my life a lot more as one and because I'm quite ashamed of the way men have acted (towards women and just in general) throughout history, but I don't want to become a woman because I realize that's impossible. Is that close enough?

All I really want out of life is a wife and some children to live the rest of mine for, but for me, it seems too much to ask for. I can't even find one to go out with me, let alone marry me. There was one girl recently that I thought I hit it off with, but it turns out she was just acting out some fantasy at my expense. If I was a woman, I doubt I'd have much trouble finding a date, but as a man, I have a hard enough time making friends let alone girlfriends.

As for the whole abortion thing, I'd only suggest a child of mine being aborted if it endangered the mother (I'd much rather keep the mother and try for another child if possible than keep the child and try for another wife as I'd be much more emotionally attatched to her than the child growing inside of her) or if the child had a severe disorder (regardless of the child's quality of life, the medical costs alone would definitely be a factor). Beyond that, I wouldn't suggest an abortion, even in the case of rape I'd suggest to keep it and assuming it was my girlfriend/wife, raise the child as my own. But though I wouldn't suggest having an abortion, nor would I condemn a woman who had one for any reason. They go through enough shit by themselves physically, mentally, and emotionally that they shouldn't have to deal with moralistic assholes calling them a whore and murderer and worse. You do not know them, you do not know what has made them come to the decision to abort, and you don't really know what God considers right or wrong (no matter how much you believe you do), so just what exactly gives you the right to judge or make that decision for them?

I would have preferred to be born a woman as I'd think I could have enjoyed my life a lot more as one and because I'm quite ashamed of the way men have acted (towards women and just in general) throughout history, but I don't want to become a woman because I realize that's impossible. Is that close enough?

All I really want out of life is a wife and some children to live the rest of mine for, but for me, it seems too much to ask for. I can't even find one to go out with me, let alone marry me. There was one girl recently that I thought I hit it off with, but it turns out she was just acting out some fantasy at my expense. If I was a woman, I doubt I'd have much trouble finding a date, but as a man, I have a hard enough time making friends let alone girlfriends.

As for the whole abortion thing, I'd only suggest a child of mine being aborted if it endangered the mother (I'd much rather keep the mother and try for another child if possible than keep the child and try for another wife as I'd be much more emotionally attatched to her than the child growing inside of her) or if the child had a severe disorder (regardless of the child's quality of life, the medical costs alone would definitely be a factor). Beyond that, I wouldn't suggest an abortion, even in the case of rape I'd suggest to keep it and assuming it was my girlfriend/wife, raise the child as my own. But though I wouldn't suggest having an abortion, nor would I condemn a woman who had one for any reason. They go through enough shit by themselves physically, mentally, and emotionally that they shouldn't have to deal with moralistic assholes calling them a whore and murderer and worse. You do not know them, you do not know what has made them come to the decision to abort, and you don't really know what God considers right or wrong (no matter how much you believe you do), so just what exactly gives you the right to judge or make that decision for them?


Ummm....you do realize I am pro-choice, right? I assume the last paragraph was aimed at someone other than me? Because I would never assume to judge, or make the decision for someone else. I'm pro-choice.

As to the rest of it....well, I can tell you, from personal experience...it is NOT any easier to date or find partners as a girl, than it is for a guy. Do you think guys just slaver over any girl? If we are not absolutely perfect, we will sit in the bar like a bump on a log all night, and no guy will ever buy US a drink, or try to pick us up! Guys are very much into "lookism" and, if you are overweight...tall...sturdily built...or anything other than "picture perfect" believe me, it is just as hard for a girl to find a romantic partner.

And head games happen on both sides, don't try and tell me other wise. Yes, I know...girls DO play head games. Bet your ass. But so do guys!! Guys sit there and pretend to be everything they are not, just trying to get a girl.

Put another way...Women use sex to get love. Men use love to get sex. It's true!

Why don't you...as a guy...just try and be yourself. Just try being friends, and being nice with a girl? Maybe go out as a group of friends, so there's less pressure? Get to REALLY KNOW the girl, before you ask her on a date solo.

Seriously! Ask questions. Find out what movies or books or music she likes. Find out what her favorite color or favorite flower is. Little things, you know? Just be yourself, be a nice guy...and don't rush things. In the end, it will pay off, dude.

I've just told you what girls REALLY want. I mean, in a steady, life-partner, what we REALLY want. An attentive, nice, caring, well-groomed gentleman, who takes an interest in the same things we do...and takes the time to get to really know us, and find out what we really like! It takes time, and maybe it is frustrating to you, as a guy...but, in the end, that will pay you the reward you seek...a good, nice girl who will be your life-partner.

No head games. Just be who you are, and don't push too hard, too fast. Don't try and dominate or control the relationship...and don't let her do that to you, either. If what you really want is a life-partner, then that is how you would go about finding one.

As for me...I do not believe there is a guy out there that would be happy with me for a wife. I'd be extremely difficult to live with and I know this about me. I won't go into a lot of details here, but, suffice to say, I expect to be single for life...partly because of my looks (I am no bathing beauty) partly because of my personality (I tend towards being more forceful than most men are accustomed to...and I stand up for myself, I'm too assertive, and will not allow myself to be domineered) and for a variety of other reasons, including my aversion to sex. I am pretty much asexual, largely as a result of being abused as a child. It would take a VERY patient man to work thru all the baggage that comes with me. and I don't really think one exists.

how does the presence of a Y chromosomes bar me from the debate.

uh...it's not because u have a y chromosome...it's because u can never get pregnant.

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 haven't (and probably won't) read through this entire thread, but I have the following comments:

1. Your assertions are almost all strawmen. Not being female, pregnant, etc, does not bar you from having an opinion. You know that. You just like burning strawmen.

2. It is a legitimate point that it is damn easy for you as a man to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. You don't have a uterus, so you don't directly lose any rights by banning abortion. You can have an opinion. Women are free to dismiss it.

3. Women have a natural right to abortion -- period. Because the have natural rights to self-ownership, to medical decision-making, to privacy, to bodily integrity, etc. Your opinion doesn't change this.

4. If you do more than merely advise women that you think abortion is murder, then you are seeking to violate women's rights and subjugate them. Guess what -- that is bad.

5. I won't go into the merits of your opinion. No need at this juncture. I suggest you learn to define "murder" and "person" and explain why some entities like zygotes and embryoes are entitled to rights but others like chimpanzees, dolphins, pigs, and female humans are not.

FWIW, I am also male.

I am pro-choice.
First, let me explain to you the correct definition of PRO-CHOICE.
Pro-choice means that you think abortion should be allowed. Saying you're pro-life except when there's rape is NOT pro-life. If you think someone could get an abortion for ANY REASON, you're pro-CHOICE.

Ok. On with the opinion...

There are so many reasons why abortion should be legal.

1) Rape. Forcing someone to give birth after they had no choice whatsoever in the conception is CRUEL, especially if it is a child who cannot take care of the baby and therefore had to dump it on the parents or have a messed up rest of their life. They are already scarred from the raping...why add on a baby that reminds them of their rapist? Same with older women, too. They may already have children or a husband. This will only further remind them of their victimization. Some women/girls may not even be able to have the child, which ties in with...

2) Death. If it is a child, there is a much greater chance of death for the mother AND the baby. Some women could also have a high risk of death in childbirth. They should not have to have a child and die for it when they can try for another. In some cases both the mother and the child can die and the birth is still tried for. Why perhaps sacrifice two lives when you could sacrifice only one?

3) Disease. If the baby is going to be born with a terrible illness in which they will always live with pain, what is the point in making it live? It will most likely have a short, very unpleasant life. This can also make the mother suffer, watching her child die, when she could have it killed before it is born. This also goes with...

4)Vegetablism or severe retardation where the baby would be able to do almost nothing but have a heartbeat by itself. In the case of vegetablism, it probably won't even be able to think, and if it could, it would be in a continuous coma. I am NOT saying that mentally retarded persons should not be able to live. I am only talking about a retardation so severe the person could basically not live on their own.

5)Contraception failure. Self-explanatory. If the condom breaks, the pill doesn't do the job, etc...it is no fault of the couple. Pure accident.

Extra notes...

People say there are other solutions. One is adoption. Think of this: there is a couple, or mother, who simply CANNOT take care of a child when impregnated. Maybe she was raped and went through with the birth, etc. She plans on giving the baby up for adoption. But after basically suffering for 9 months, she looks down at the newborn baby and is simply too attached to give it away, when she obviously CANNOT take care of it. It will probably live a life of poverty. And as for those who do go up for adoption, many are not adopted and have to bounce from foster home to foster home and once they are old enough to take care of themselves, are alone and live an unfulfilling life. Many kids up for adoption become depressed, etc. Some even end up killing themselves, you would think. So what help is adoption, really?

If abortion is not available, women will just perform abortions on themselves. How unsafe is that? They could potentionally damage themselves and make it a more painful process for the baby inside of them.

And to the guys: it's not that you are uncapable of having an opinion on this issue. Some women just believe that the men have an easier time saying they are pro-life because they really don't have a chance of ever being victimized and impregnated, etc.

And one question...

Some people are both pro-life and anti-welfare. I do not understand this (not sayng anyone who is pro-life is anti-welfare). If someone is FORCED to give birth, and then cannot take care of it, they are saying they do no deserve welfare? Help me on this one...one cannot hold multiple jobs when they have a baby to take care of. Daycare is EXTREMELY expensive, I knowing this because I am an aunt and my sister often tells me about this.

In conclusion...having abortion, just in case, makes more sense than NOT HAVING IT AT ALL.

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

My God. I cannot BELIEVE how you could even FATHOM a comparison such as this! Killing a baby (if young enough) without even a HEARTBEAT by killing it quickly is in no way, shape, or form comparable to the horrors of the Holocaust. Being made to starve, live in filth, contract diseases and slowly, painfully wither away is NOTHING like an abortion. These are living people, ALREADY BORN, already experiencing LIFE, being tortured. That is perhaps the stupidest comparison I have EVER SEEN!

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


Hahahahahaha! You know, 72 hours after conception, it is considered and EMERGENCY form of contraception to have the sperm sucked out?

I know I'm weighing into this debate late, but the reason is really a matter of begging the question. They assume the position they're arguing: that it's the woman's right to do with her body as she pleases and that the foetus is part of the woman's body and not its own life. Therefore they think you should shut up and respect her right. Of course they completely ignore the fact that what pro-lifers are arguing is about the validity of the premise: they don't agree that it's a woman's right to choose what to do to the foetus as it's a human being and as such accorded the right to life that every human being ought to be (minus some people who rescind the right to life by being criminals, which explains why they're not mutually exclusive positions--a foetus obviously hasn't committed any crimes like that).

Mind you, I'm not arguing for or against freedom of abortion for pregnant women, I'm just acknowledging it's a invalid argument.

Hahahahahaha! You know, 72 hours after conception, it is considered and EMERGENCY form of contraception to have the sperm sucked out?

I think you mean after sex, or even after fertilization.

Conception, I believe, is the point at which the embryo implants, which can happen well after.

Of course they completely ignore the fact that what pro-lifers are arguing is about the validity of the premise: they don't agree that it's a woman's right to choose what to do to the foetus as it's a human being and as such accorded the right to life that every human being ought to be (minus some people who rescind the right to life by being criminals, which explains why they're not mutually exclusive positions--a foetus obviously hasn't committed any crimes like that).

Actually, if you've seen Bottle's argument, this isn't correct at all.

Meanwhile, most people who are pro-choice understand this argument. Some even agree with it - in that we believe that the embryo/fetus is something to be valued and should be treated as such. However, we are able to recognize that this is not an objective fact. It is an opinion. Until it can somehow be proven as objective fact, forcing that opinion upon another person is no different than forcing someone to follow your religion.

How does having a uterus determine the right to have an opinion on abortion?

I am man. I also have an opinion on abortion.


But to be on the safe side, I keep an old uterus in a specimen jar. That way, all my bases are covered.

Pro choice people are always arguing for "objective" proof of humanity. Fact and proof that a fetus is a human...

8 weeks http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3847319.stm

11 weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks (click through the arrow keys, about 10 pictures...

~A diary kept by one midwife revealed there was an “unwritten rule” in her hospital unit of not resuscitating aborted babies that survived terminations. She claimed to have witnessed one 23-week-old baby with Down’s syndrome breathe and move for more than three hours after an abortion.

~“The public has been softened and sensitised to the issue over the last few months,” added Quintavalle. “These pictures come at a good time and will have a very powerful effect on moving the anti-abortion debate forward.

~“If a baby survives an abortion they don’t resuscitate it,” he said. “If these were babies who had been born prematurely at the same time of pregnancy the staff would be immediately struggling, quite rightly, to save that baby’s life and getting it into an incubator. Something is not right here.”
http://www.sundayherald.com/43119

Objective proof of what? Objective proof that it's not a cow and it shouldn't be harvested?

Objective proof my butt, there's plenty of proof already and there has been for years. There's plenty of self-deception and denial to "look the other way" and continue on doing it anyway. Go ahead, pretend they aren't human, I've heard that helps soldiers kill people too.

[indent] ~A diary kept by one midwife revealed there was an “unwritten rule” in her hospital unit of not resuscitating aborted babies that survived terminations. She claimed to have witnessed one 23-week-old baby with Down’s syndrome breathe and move for more than three hours after an abortion.

23-week old abortions in the US are illegal unless the mother's life is in danger. Most abortions are done before the end of the first trimester. You'd have to wonder, IF this happened, why there was such a long wait.

4 mos... http://www.ashcofriendsforlife.com/4_mos._fetus.jpg (17 weeks or less)

5 mos... http://www.ashcofriendsforlife.com/5_mos._fetus.jpg (up to 21 weeks) 14 weeks for first trimester, electiver choice, no health questions.

Human or not? I submit that it's an absurd proposition to argue it's not human...

Human or not? I submit that it's an absurd proposition to argue it's not human...

I'll meet you half-way. It's human-ish.

23-week old abortions in the US are illegal unless the mother's life is in danger. Most abortions are done before the end of the third trimester. You'd have to wonder, IF this happened, why there was such a long wait.

You might want to modify that a bit. After all, all abortions happen before the end of the third trimester. =)

Ummm....you do realize I am pro-choice, right? I assume the last paragraph was aimed at someone other than me? Because I would never assume to judge, or make the decision for someone else. I'm pro-choice.
Yes, the last paragraph was mostly there simply so my post wasn't completely off topic.
As to the rest of it....well, I can tell you, from personal experience...it is NOT any easier to date or find partners as a girl, than it is for a guy. Do you think guys just slaver over any girl? If we are not absolutely perfect, we will sit in the bar like a bump on a log all night, and no guy will ever buy US a drink, or try to pick us up! Guys are very much into "lookism" and, if you are overweight...tall...sturdily built...or anything other than "picture perfect" believe me, it is just as hard for a girl to find a romantic partner.
I wasn't talking about women in general, but me specifically. I believe I would be more attractive to men as a woman than I am to women as a man. I could very well be wrong, and considering how alike me and my cousin are and what she's had to live through because of it, I'd probably be taken advantage of a lot more than I am as a man, but that isn't the sole reason I would have preferred to be a woman if given the choice anyways.
And head games happen on both sides, don't try and tell me other wise. Yes, I know...girls DO play head games. Bet your ass. But so do guys!! Guys sit there and pretend to be everything they are not, just trying to get a girl.
I never indicated otherwise, simply said that the only girl whos ever made me feel loved beyond family members took my heart, threw it away and said "I could never really love you." Personally, outside of roleplaying I am who I am and see no point in pretending to be who I'm not, as I am not looking simply for sex, but for someone to spend the rest of my life with, and just because she wants to spend the rest of her life with the man I'm pretending to be, I can't really expect her to still want to after I start being myself around her instead.
Put another way...Women use sex to get love. Men use love to get sex. It's true!
Yeah, part of the reason why I relate better to women then men, as interested as I am in having sex, without love, it's little more than masturbation, and I can do that easily enough by myself.
Why don't you...as a guy...just try and be yourself. Just try being friends, and being nice with a girl? Maybe go out as a group of friends, so there's less pressure? Get to REALLY KNOW the girl, before you ask her on a date solo.
Yeah, I've made lots of casual female friends that way, none of them have ever cared to become a girlfriend. Most of them also had boyfriends, many of which treated them like utter shit most of the times, yet the girls still managed to find them more attractive/desirable than I am.
Seriously! Ask questions. Find out what movies or books or music she likes. Find out what her favorite color or favorite flower is. Little things, you know? Just be yourself, be a nice guy...and don't rush things. In the end, it will pay off, dude.
Yeah, I've always imagined it happening like that. I wouldn't have to force a relationship, that it'd just naturally develop over time, and really, that's kind of what happened with the girl who ended up breaking my heart. We met on an internet forum, but she was 15 at the time and I 19, so we never really interacted, but got to know each other indirectly by reading each other's posts, and three years later when I posted my pic, she out of the blue started flirting with me, and a few months later, we were seriously discussing marriage, children, the whole works, or at least, I believed we were seriously discussing such, but in the end, it turned out she didn't take it quite as seriously as she lead me to believe. Or rather, she was serious until she met me in person, at which point she decided we could only ever be friends (and it seems that because I took what she said before we met seriously and tried to pursue the relationship hoping she just got scared like she said she might, she doesn't even want to be friends anymore). More often than not though, that seems a good way to get a girl to consider you a good friend but an unsuitable lover, at least, in my experience.
I've just told you what girls REALLY want. I mean, in a steady, life-partner, what we REALLY want. An attentive, nice, caring, well-groomed gentleman, who takes an interest in the same things we do...and takes the time to get to really know us, and find out what we really like! It takes time, and maybe it is frustrating to you, as a guy...but, in the end, that will pay you the reward you seek...a good, nice girl who will be your life-partner.
It may be what they really want, but it'd seem most girls don't realize that and instead go for exciting guys who are fun to be with and turn them on regardless of how much the guy really cares about them or how they treat them.
No head games. Just be who you are, and don't push too hard, too fast. Don't try and dominate or control the relationship...and don't let her do that to you, either. If what you really want is a life-partner, then that is how you would go about finding one.
I am just about incapable of manipulation, especially when it comes to love. I firmly believe that the foundation of any relationship is honesty and trust. If you cannot trust and confide in the one you love, if you do not feel you can tell them anything for fear of how they'd react, what do you really have to build a lasting relationship upon? As for domination/control, I'm actually quite interested in the whole S&D relationship on both sides, but I'm much more suited to be the submissive. As much as the role of a dominator may appeal to me within my mind, I realize that in reality, I care more about the needs/wants/happiness/comfort of others than I do my own and would end up relying quite heavily on the input of my slave as to how I should treat her. I only take charge in anything when I have to and otherwise prefer simply to advise. But, despite being a submissive, there are still things I would not tolerate and end a relationship over when it comes to her trying to control my life, but it'd ultimately come down to whether or not she really loved me or was simply using and abusing me because of my submissive nature.
As for me...I do not believe there is a guy out there that would be happy with me for a wife. I'd be extremely difficult to live with and I know this about me. I won't go into a lot of details here, but, suffice to say, I expect to be single for life...partly because of my looks (I am no bathing beauty) partly because of my personality (I tend towards being more forceful than most men are accustomed to...and I stand up for myself, I'm too assertive, and will not allow myself to be domineered) and for a variety of other reasons, including my aversion to sex. I am pretty much asexual, largely as a result of being abused as a child. It would take a VERY patient man to work thru all the baggage that comes with me. and I don't really think one exists.
I'm one of the most patient people you could meet (I'm a 23 year old virgin who's only so much as kissed a girl on the cheek back in the 7th grade because I've been waiting to find the right girl before I made my move ever since, I thought I found her in the one mentioned earlier, but as perfect as she is for me, she won't even consider turning what we shared together online into a reality), and would actually prefer a girl who had some baggage to work through and am quite interested in studying to become a psychologist/councellor because I find nothing more satisfying in life than helping people to work through their problems and improve the quality of their life (and yet, I have little desire to improve the quality of my own life, which is why I so badly want a family, because I'd actually care about improving the quality of their life and would by default be improving my own at the same time). And though I do need to find something physically beautiful about the girl I'd spend the rest of my life with, what I find beautiful tends to be rather broad, and I still care more about the type of person she is than anything. I'd rather have a friend I wouldn't consider as a lover than a lover I wouldn't consider as a friend, which is why I always imagined that we'd start out as friends first and falling in love would just come naturally. But I also prefer younger (or at least smaller) women and would desire a very healthy, open, and exploratory sex life, which is where the physically beautiful part comes into play, I want to be able to thuroughly enjoy pleasing my wife sexually, and it'd be more of a chore if I didn't find her physically attractive...

But, for being completely off topic, I think this post is quite enough for this thread, so if you're interested in talking more, do feel free to email me (zeconte@charter.net), or IM me (zeconte@hotmail.com on MSN, Zeconte on ICQ and Zeconte23 on AIM). I could use someone to talk to about such things even if talking is all it ever amounts to.

Slightly off-topic...

sad to find no idiot made fun of me? I was having fun laughing =(

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]You are either incredibly naive, or full of shit. How exactly do you think a woman who, along with her husband, both have to work two jobs just to put food on the tablecould afford such an operation? Are they supposed to starve their children for months to pay medical bills instead?

Were talking about something relatively cheap and quick. I'm not sure of the cost of a vasectomy, or even the cost of getting your tubes tied. But I'm sure its not something you would have to morgage your house over, so get real. :rolleyes:


You are aware that most unwanted pregnancies occur when birth control methods are in use?

Statistics?


Every time this issue comes up, we argue that a woman should be able to have an abortion if having a baby to take care of would cause her to lose her job or end her studies. We argue that her life should not be ruined because of one mistake she made if she decides that she cannot take care of a baby.
Too bad, your life might get ruined for a while, or it could even improve.
Your putting this over a potential human beings life, really getting ruined.

the use of this "2 million" is getting on my nerves.


Truth hurts huh?

=Non Aligned States]
Meaning #1: a person who advocates the supremacy of some particular group over all others[/b]
I advocate it for the good of society, not as a means to dominate or hurt women.

By advocating the dominance of men over women in society, you fall into the category of a male supremacist.

I guess so, but I dont mean it in the nasty way you think I do.

I advocate it for the good of society, not as a means to dominate or hurt women.

The good of society? And how is outlawing abortions, forcing women into ruin over unwanted pregancies and increasing the number of deaths from backdoor abortions going to help society??? You need to get your head checked if you think this is going to help society.

Or better yet, show us in definite terms the evidence that supports your statements.


I guess so, but I dont mean it in the nasty way you think.

No, you mean it exactly in the nasty way that it sounds. Your opinions and attitudes show you exactly to be that.


Were talking about something relatively cheap and quick. I'm not sure of the cost of a vasectomy, or even the cost of getting your tubes tied. But I'm sure its not something you would have to morgage your house over, so get real.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/pub-contraception-vasectomy.xml

Nationwide, the cost of a vasectomy ranges from $350-$1,000 for an interview, counseling, examination, operation, and follow-up sperm count. (Sterilization for women costs up to six times as much.)

Reversal costs from $4,000 to $13,000 and involves intricate surgery.

Want to say that its cheap again? For families on the edge of the poverty line or those in the lower group income range, you can bet they'll have to come close to mortgaging their houses or just starve for it.

Non Aligned States: - 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.
Well what are they then?? Rape? Are the majority of the abortions mutants or something? Its convenience, because there is no other possible reason for that many abortions, every - year!

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.

LMAO read this 'strawman' then.
Read all of it, read how after roe v wade, how many lies were told about public opinion regarding the rightness of open slather abortion, read about the blatent lies told to major newspapers by researchers who pulled figures out of thin air to support increased abortion, read how they sold abortion to make profit.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42462


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.

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
12% of abortions in America are after the first trimester, thats over 200,000 abortions a year.
200,000 'illegal' abortions...



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?

Like Ive pointed out numerous times already, if your doing it that tough, and you have two or three kids to support, then maybe its time to get the tubes tied.


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

I think its just commonsense if anything.




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.

Ah the woman/males thing again, imagine how outraged you would feel if I used men/female only?
I know you said you would address this, and I commend you for doing so, I for one hardly use male/female much as it sounds too sterile and lacking in respect.
But to your point here, I just think it works better when women look after the kids at home, and not work, and of course with todays technology, its also possible to work from home in some areas.
I know, mysogynist etc but I don't support this to supress women in some evil fashion, I just think it works better for children, and children are whats most important.


So if we were to follow your claims, you not only want women not to have abortions under any circumstances,

Please read this, because I'm so, so, so ,so tired of typing it, I support abortions for cases such as rape, underage, womans life in possible danger, baby severly damaged in womb.I don't support the open slather, no responsibility taken, number of abortions world wide.


but wish to punish those that become pregnant by forcing them to lose their jobs.

This is a very tricky issue, basically being pregnant doesnt necessarily stop them from working even right up nearly to the birth, after that I think she will have to stop working, to look after the baby for a while anyway, the government could step in and foot the maternity leave for about six months.
Then large workplaces could have daycare centres in them, paid for by the employer, where her baby could be looked after, while she worked and occasionaly checked up on the baby through the day.
Its a tricky situation, but one that could be worked out.





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

No, male dominance as you view it, is more about competing with males of other cultures for dominance, or even simply just to be left alone by them. As much as you see men fearing women taking over, and thus subjecting them, its more from men fearing each other, and women being an unfortunate casualty of the competiveness, which ironically, they play abig part of by being a big target or prize.
To be honest the only way I could see women taking over, would be if their were no men around.
Even if women took over a number of countrys, and the men became subserviant to them, it would be just amatter of time before a more violent, aggressive male dominated society in another country, just said what the hell, theres not much stopping us from taking this country now...


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.

But never less of course. :rolleyes: Where is your glass floor?
Just highlighting how much you used offensive derogatory sounding generics for men as apposed to women in the same sentence, you were probably even unaware of it.

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.
Like my earlier point, its more about keeping our society safer, and protected.
You take away the male warrior class in society, that protects its women and children, and also upholds the law, you leave it at the mercy first of its criminal underclass, who have no morals to attack the upperclass, or working class. Or even worse, you leave it vunerable for attack, from a male dominated more aggressive society, foriegn, or in the same nation, that will just simply one day, either take you over slowly with growing intimidation, or worse, just rip it to shreds.




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?

OK you got me, it was just wishful thinking I guess.
I still believe that the basic nature of a person is good not evil.



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.

On this, I think if its happening in the house from her own husband, and she thinks whats he's doing is breaking a law, then she should just leave him.


When divided up according to the percentages, fear of reprisal is the 2nd most used reason.

Of course, but most of this is just bluff, your better off going to the police, and even suffering apossible reprisal one day from the coward, than not repeorting it, and living in continual fear of one.


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?

No,nononono. I was referring to a much more loving relationship than that. No man has claim over his womans body by being violent to her, as no violent woman, in this sense anyway, has claim over her mans body.

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.

See my above point, I hate men that rape, and women too( it happens) anyone that rapes anyone/anything.

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.
You seem to see my respect for women as being dependant only on your social engineered views, nothing else.
Whatever anyway. I give up trying to convince you on this, otherwise. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Non Aligned States]The good of society? And how is outlawing abortions, forcing women into ruin over unwanted pregancies and increasing the number of deaths from backdoor abortions going to help society??? You need to get your head checked if you think this is going to help society.


For the last time NAS, I only support an end to open slather abortions, unnecessary ones, which I believe are the sign of a sick, unresponsible society, not abortion completely.

Or better yet, show us in definite terms the evidence that supports your statements.
I point to todays society as evidence enough, to how far we have fallen as a society.



No, you mean it exactly in the nasty way that it sounds. Your opinions and attitudes show you exactly to be that.

Whatever. :rolleyes: your ignoring the damage being done by so much abortion.


http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/pub-contraception-vasectomy.xml

Nationwide, the cost of a vasectomy ranges from $350-$1,000 for an interview, counseling, examination, operation, and follow-up sperm count. (Sterilization for women costs up to six times as much.)

Yes that is a lot, and more than I thought. You don't have medicare do you, the government in Australia funds this for us I believe, you guys should really get something similar instead of spending so much on war.
Still its not the staggering amount you painted out before as, and better than going through an abortion.


Reversal costs from $4,000 to $13,000 and involves intricate surgery.

Here it would only be done if the mother or father wanted another kid, so its an option that isnt necessary unless so.
And worth it if you want another kid.

Want to say that its cheap again? For families on the edge of the poverty line or those in the lower group income range, you can bet they'll have to come close to mortgaging their houses or just starve for it.

Or how about giving up on drugs and alcohol, not only would they get the money through saving the money instead, they would probably be improving their familys lives as well.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/pub-contraception-vasectomy.xml

Nationwide, the cost of a vasectomy ranges from $350-$1,000 for an interview, counseling, examination, operation, and follow-up sperm count. (Sterilization for women costs up to six times as much.)

Reversal costs from $4,000 to $13,000 and involves intricate surgery.

Want to say that its cheap again? For families on the edge of the poverty line or those in the lower group income range, you can bet they'll have to come close to mortgaging their houses or just starve for it.


Those on the edge of poverty can get help from the Government to get those operations done. When my wife and I were poor, while I attended school, we had Medicare for her and the kids. We were considered low income, just above the poverty line by $15.

It is the only time I have asked for help from the Government. For the time I spent serving her in the USAF it is the least she could of done for me when I needed the help. I will bet you $100 that majority of the people you are talking about are already on the same program my wife and I was and then some. Nice try though

Also there is also adoption; Millions of people the world over can not have children that would like one or two. Amazing that people that want abortions on demand do not think of those that can not have children but seem to think of only their selfish needs of having sex when they want with no consequences. Woman have a choice, they can not have sex. Men have a choice to not have sex. Or if you have to have sex outside of marriage then use a condom, and the pill for added protection pull the hell out just incase you are worried that 10 year old condom you had in your wallet will break.

I'm Pro-Choice.

Two points.

1. Rape. It seems quite popular amoung th Anti-Choice lot to say that a woman could have an abortion if she was raped (I admit not all of you feel this). Although I fully support her right to have one but I think that having a clause that allows a woman to have an abortion only if her life is in danger or she has been raped would be a really really bad idea. Say a girl is pregnant with an unwanted baby and wants an abortion. It is quite hard to face a life threatening codition, but not too difficult so claim she has been raped. Reported rapes would skyrocket over night. You can't wait until after a trial as it will most likely be way too far through the prergnancy. Maybe they would say she would have to press charges? Can you imagine how that would go with hundreds of men falsely accused. It would also perhaps more importantly damage the cases of women who have actually been raped as people would be more suspicious with the flood of rape cases collapsing as they were not rape. (Aside - my view on rapists is that with compellig enough evidence they should be taken out back of the courthouse and shot)

2. As mentioned earlier if you want to ban Abortion then you batter have a DAMN good welfare system to aid the hundreds of thosands of children born into poverty. You can whine "But she should have thought of that before she irresponsibely had a child she can't afford". Maybe so, but exactly how is it the childs fault that its entire life willl be severely disadvantaged because of its mothers (and Fathers - don't forget that for every single mum there is a guy lurking somewhere avoiding his responsibility) actions about 9months before it was born. The welfare should not be for the benefit of the mother but for the benefit of the child.

Truth hurts huh?
the truth is that the abortion rate has fallen to under 1million/year. still more than id like to see but at least they are getting earlier and earlier in pregnancy due to better testing. 58% are done at less than 8 weeks and 88% are done at under 13 weeks. (in 2000 according to the cdc)

Were talking about something relatively cheap and quick. I'm not sure of the cost of a vasectomy, or even the cost of getting your tubes tied. But I'm sure its not something you would have to morgage your house over, so get real. :rolleyes:

We aren't talking about people who own a house - that is a luxury not all people have.

Again, if you can't even buy medication, and have to work multiple jobs just to feed your kids, where does the magical money (which isn't cheap) for one of these surgeries come from? In the case of a tubal ligation, how do you get the time off for recovery (this is not the type of surgery with which you can work the next day) when missing a single day will get you fired?

You are completely unaware of the situation of the impoverished. Perhaps you should think about it a bit before you tell someone who is struggling just to put food in their mouths that a surgery is "cheap and quick". Hell, neither of these surgeries is "cheap", even to your average middle class citizen.

Statistics?

I quoted them earlier in the thread - and I'm not on the computer I saved them on. The CDC reported that, even back in 2000 (and contraceptive use, if it followed the trends, has gone up since then), well over 50% of women who had an abortion were using birth control when they got pregnant.

Here's a page that lists those who have abortions, as well as those who do not.

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib22.html

Too bad, your life might get ruined for a while, or it could even improve.
Your putting this over a potential human beings life, really getting ruined.

I'm not doing any such thing. I have never, nor would I ever, have an elective abortion. I simply support the choice of another human being to put their own life before potential, as assigning value to potential is subjective, rather than objective.

Actually, if you've seen Bottle's argument, this isn't correct at all.

Meanwhile, most people who are pro-choice understand this argument. Some even agree with it - in that we believe that the embryo/fetus is something to be valued and should be treated as such. However, we are able to recognize that this is not an objective fact. It is an opinion. Until it can somehow be proven as objective fact, forcing that opinion upon another person is no different than forcing someone to follow your religion.
I was referring to the initial post. I don't know who Bottle is, or what their argument is. I was referring to those who say 'you're not a woman so shut up' and act as if that's ended the debate.

I understand that position, but it's a no stronger argument. A pro-lifer couldn't care less about a pregnant woman's 'right to choose', they don't think it's a right and they don't think it's a morally justified choice. Sure it's an opinion, but then, so is the opinion that it's the woman's right to choose. It's no more an objective fact that a woman's right to choose is more valuable than a foetus.

Ultimately my point is that it does come down to some matter of belief about what is more valuable: the right of a woman to choose or the right of a foetus to live. If you say that because it's just an opinion the pro-lifers should respect the right to choice, you're again missing the point.

Now, I'm actually pro-choice, but I'm not in some sort of fantasy that I can somehow respect another person's point of view and at the same time tell them not to persue it. I think they're wrong and that's all there is to it. If I ever felt the need to convert them, I'd attempt to point out that a foetus isn't worth as much as they thought it was, but I doubt I'd convince them anyway. I certainly wouldn't use some strained argument that attempts to prove my point from my premise without justifying the premise somehow.

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.

You should stop getting angry and going on a flaming rampage in every thread. You'll get banned someday.

~ from a pro-choice, selfish pig.

A Uterus determines the right because it's the woman who will be carrying the child for the next 9 months. I don't think it shouldn't be discussed before a decision is made but I do not think it would be right for Abortion to not be an option. There are circumstances. I would not want to have the baby of a rapist or something like that. :headbang:

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
12% of abortions in America are after the first trimester, thats over 200,000 abortions a year.
200,000 'illegal' abortions...

Technically, your figure is way too high, since 2 million is a bullshit figure.

However, you seem to have missed something here. Elective abortions are illegal after the first trimester in all but 2 states. Elective abortions are absolutely illegal after the second trimester in the entirety of the United States.

However, sometimes proceudres that are not elective have to be performed.

But to your point here, I just think it works better when women look after the kids at home, and not work, and of course with todays technology, its also possible to work from home in some areas.
I know, mysogynist etc but I don't support this to supress women in some evil fashion, I just think it works better for children, and children are whats most important.

I still don't see how you rationally support such a statement.

If my mom had tried to stay home and "look after the kids", she would have been watching us starve while my father didn't work for quite a while. Isn't it better that she ran the household instead?

Meanwhile, one can only work for home in certain jobs - generally jobs that involve technical degrees - which means that one must have finished college...


Or how about giving up on drugs and alcohol, not only would they get the money through saving the money instead, they would probably be improving their familys lives as well.

Oh that's cute, you know, because all people living in poverty are alcoholics and drug addicts. No one is impoverished through no fault of their own. Ever. :rolleyes:

Now, I'm actually pro-choice, but I'm not in some sort of fantasy that I can somehow respect another person's point of view and at the same time tell them not to persue it. I think they're wrong and that's all there is to it. If I ever felt the need to convert them, I'd attempt to point out that a foetus isn't worth as much as they thought it was, but I doubt I'd convince them anyway. I certainly wouldn't use some strained argument that attempts to prove my point from my premise without justifying the premise somehow.

There are ways to pursue a point of view that do not involve forcing it upon others. A person who places value on the potential of an embryo/fetus can try and convince every woman they know of their view. They can try and convince every woman in the world of their view. And maybe they will make some headway.

However, when it gets into the area of force, that is where it becomes wrong - objectively. It is no different, in any way, than an orthodox Muslim saying, "Women should wear a headscarf. I am going to make it a law that all women have to wear it, whether they believe my religion or not. I am not going to try and convince them, I am just going to force them."

Whatever anyway. I give up trying to convince you on this, otherwise. :rolleyes:
You really should, considering all of your posts in this thread have been filled with little more than grossly inaccurate conjecture, uncalled for insults, and utter bullshit that you just keep repeating over and over again despite all the evidence that's been presented to the contrary. There's really no point in trying to address your specific points, because they've all been debunked two or three times over already yet you still cling to them.

Truth hurts huh?

No, they're saying it's getting on their nerves because it's NOT TRUE, eh? Eh? Haha, sorry...Canadian moment.

But to your point here, I just think it works better when women look after the kids at home, and not work, and of course with todays technology, its also possible to work from home in some areas.
I know, mysogynist etc but I don't support this to supress women in some evil fashion, I just think it works better for children, and children are whats most important.

Especially unborn children, hmm?

The only way I would agree with you on this is because our country can be so fucking sexist, men still get higher pay for having a penis. Remember: penis=ultimate power.

However, when it gets into the area of force, that is where it becomes wrong - objectively. It is no different, in any way, than an orthodox Muslim saying, "Women should wear a headscarf. I am going to make it a law that all women have to wear it, whether they believe my religion or not. I am not going to try and convince them, I am just going to force them."


You mean, like, how in America women are so free to do whatever they want with their bodies, they are just as free as men to go topless while mowing their lawns or hanging out at the beach... ?

We force people to do stuff all the time, different laws for men and different laws for women, its a recognition of the biological fact that we are different.

Admittedly, as plural societies, we can make different rules for different cultures, but the position presented here, that it's wrong to tell women that they can't kill pre-born children simply because it is in their body, is to pretend in silliness and deception.

The pretty argument to say over and over again that it's wrong to force someone to do something that they don't want to do, even with their own body, because it mandates behavior is silly. We do it all the time, but now when the affect is to stop them from killing someone else, it's now somehow worse than the decency laws that say that neither she nor her husband can take their pants off while on the public bus, is absurd. Nobody would be hurt on the bus but someone dies in the abortion and we stop the bus behavior and allow the abortions. One is infinitely more important than the other, but our society enforces them backwards, we are delusional.

We, as a culture, are sick and deprived, abortion proves it.

We, as a culture, are sick and deprived, the need abortion proves it.

Fixed it up a little. In a perfect world abortion wouldn't be needed. I don't like abortion but I recognise that as a selfish-pig male I will never have to be the one dealing with the consequences should the right to choice be taken away (I hope I would be willing to deal with those consequences but I plan on never finding out). As long as abortions are needed they will happen, better that it is done safely and securely than it is done in a back-street.

Abortions will be necessary until major social change takes place. Maybe if a 'christian' president or prime minister stepped up to the challenge for once, maybe if we actually move intoa system where society isn't ruled by Darwin anymore. Like it'll ever happen.

Fixed it up a little. In a perfect world abortion wouldn't be needed. I don't like abortion but I recognise that as a selfish-pig male I will never have to be the one dealing with the consequences should the right to choice be taken away (I hope I would be willing to deal with those consequences but I plan on never finding out). As long as abortions are needed they will happen, better that it is done safely and securely than it is done in a back-street.

Abortions will be necessary until major social change takes place. Maybe if a 'christian' president or prime minister stepped up to the challenge for once, maybe if we actually move intoa system where society isn't ruled by Darwin anymore. Like it'll ever happen.

Damn those Darwin worshippers! Going around forcing everyone to have abortions!

Edit: Damn those typos!

Damn thoe Darwin worshippers! Going around forcing everyone to have abortions!

I assume that was sarcasm and you actually got my point.

I assume that was sarcasm and you actually got my point.
'Twas indeed, pip-pip tallyho old chum.

Abortions will be necessary until major social change takes place. Maybe if a 'christian' president or prime minister stepped up to the challenge for once, maybe if we actually move intoa system where society isn't ruled by Darwin anymore. Like it'll ever happen.

What people don't understand is that America is a free country- any religions are legal. This is why you shouldn't expect it to be run in a Christian way. They HAVE to use the scientific way 1) Because they have no proof that any one religion is true, and 2) So there won't be riots in unfair religion favoring. It just makes the most sense in this country.

So that's why it'll never happen.

What people don't understand is that America is a free country- any religions are legal. This is why you shouldn't expect it to be run in a Christian way. They HAVE to use the scientific way 1) Because they have no proof that any one religion is true, and 2) So there won't be riots in unfair religion favoring. It just makes the most sense in this country.

So that's why it'll never happen.


Okay fine, scientifically prove that a fetus isn't a fellow human being fully worthy of my respect and recognition as such...

No, they're saying it's getting on their nerves because it's NOT TRUE, eh? Eh? Haha, sorry...Canadian moment.

Except it is, the figure your saying is bullshit is close to the mark, as Bottle has admitted herself.
Maybe you could do some research yourself.

[QUOTE=Omnibenevolent Discord]You really should, considering all of your posts in this thread have been filled with little more than grossly inaccurate conjecture,

Like what.


uncalled for insults,

Like what.

and utter bullshit that you just keep repeating over and over again despite all the evidence that's been presented to the contrary.

Like what.

There's really no point in trying to address your specific points, because they've all been debunked two or three times over already yet you still cling to them.

And yes, like what?
Try throwing in a bit of detail at least, to back up your claims.

the truth is that the abortion rate has fallen to under 1million/year. still more than id like to see but at least they are getting earlier and earlier in pregnancy due to better testing. 58% are done at less than 8 weeks and 88% are done at under 13 weeks. (in 2000 according to the cdc)

Thats great, the message is finally getting through then, past NOW's best efforts to keep the slaughter rolling along.

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml


Not bad to read.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]We aren't talking about people who own a house - that is a luxury not all people have.

So you see abortion as a class thing? The majority of abortions by people who can't afford to have children, or an operation?


Again, if you can't even buy medication, and have to work multiple jobs just to feed your kids, where does the magical money (which isn't cheap) for one of these surgeries come from? In the case of a tubal ligation, how do you get the time off for recovery (this is not the type of surgery with which you can work the next day) when missing a single day will get you fired?

Its not as impossible as your making out, like I said, give up other stuff you don't really need and save the money.


You are completely unaware of the situation of the impoverished.

lol Im very aware.
If you only knew some of the places I've lived in, places you would probably cross the street ablock before hand, to avoid walking past.



Perhaps you should think about it a bit before you tell someone who is struggling just to put food in their mouths that a surgery is "cheap and quick". Hell, neither of these surgeries is "cheap", even to your average middle class citizen.

I wish you would stop painting your country out as Somalia, you have welfare, places where you can get free food and hot meals, no one is doing it as tough there, as you make out.


I quoted them earlier in the thread - and I'm not on the computer I saved them on. The CDC reported that, even back in 2000 (and contraceptive use, if it followed the trends, has gone up since then), well over 50% of women who had an abortion were using birth control when they got pregnant.

Doesnt say much for birth control then does it, the best birth control is called no sex, ever heard of that one? All these people your presenting as out on their feet, that cant even feed themselves, don't care much about consequences do they?


http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib22.html

From reading that, the povertyline mums were a small percent compared to other women.




I'm not doing any such thing. I have never, nor would I ever, have an elective abortion. I simply support the choice of another human being to put their own life before potential, as assigning value to potential is subjective, rather than objective.

Subjective to what? Your own pleasure?
Thas just being self centred and irresponsible.

QUOTE]Technically, your figure is way too high, since 2 million is a bullshit figure.

It could be, Bottle said it was close to the mark, while another poster said it has declined from that to the million mark, still way too high.


However, you seem to have missed something here. Elective abortions are illegal after the first trimester in all but 2 states. Elective abortions are absolutely illegal after the second trimester in the entirety of the United States.

Good.
Why are these two states allowed to practice something, the other 48 arent?

I found this interesting reading, especially the planned campaign on Catholic Hospitals.
Abortion seems to be falling in western countrys, probably and thanks to efforts and pressure put apon people not to abort, but these freaks want more abortion services opened, why would you want to try and open up new services in a falling market, unless you simply wanted more abortion?

http://www.abortionaccess.org/AAP/campaigns/hospital/designing_a_campaign_to_increase.htm



However, sometimes proceudres that are not elective have to be performed.

Im aware of that, and they are tragic.



I still don't see how you rationally support such a statement.

Well you tell me then, what worked better, familys before womans lib, or familys after.
Remember how much divorce, abortion, depression, crime, disrespect, drugtaking is in society now, compared to those horrible 1950's and before you hate so much.


If my mom had tried to stay home and "look after the kids", she would have been watching us starve while my father didn't work for quite a while. Isn't it better that she ran the household instead?

In this case of course.

Meanwhile, one can only work for home in certain jobs - generally jobs that involve technical degrees - which means that one must have finished college...

Like marketing?


Oh that's cute, you know, because all people living in poverty are alcoholics and drug addicts.

Could be why their in dire straits, don't you think?

No one is impoverished through no fault of their own. Ever. :rolleyes:

lol thats why most people are, whos fault is it? Their parents? Sure, maybe to begin with, but what about when their older and not reliant on their parents or who evers looking after them, whos fault is it then? Their government? Why is it never theirs? Your part of the culture of continous blame, that never accepts any personal responsibility for their own situation, or here someone elses responsibility to dig themselves out of a hole, instead of remaining in it.
Views like yours encourage and support failure, by not encouraging taking any responsibility.

[QUOTE]

Like what.




Like what.



Like what.



And yes, like what?
Try throwing in a bit of detail at least, to back up your claims.
I'm sure any rationally thinking person can see what I'm talking about, but as impressive as your ability to ignore anything that contradicts your point of view is why bother pointing them out to you again? If you haven't gotten it the first few times, why should I believe you'd get it this time around?

I find it a great irony that a great argument of women is, "You don't understand, you're a guy." Yet, the vast majority of the women spouting off this rhetoric have never been pregnant, let alone gotten an abortion.

I also find it ironic that feminists push for equality of sexes, but when it comes to abortion, women's opinions are obviously superior to men's.

I also find it ironic that feminists push for equality of sexes, but when it comes to abortion, women's opinions are obviously superior to men's.

That is amusing.

[QUOTE=Gessler]
I'm sure any rationally thinking person can see what I'm talking about, but as impressive as your ability to ignore anything that contradicts your point of view is why bother pointing them out to you again? If you haven't gotten it the first few times, why should I believe you'd get it this time around?

Got what, that I should support abortion just because its a womans right, while ignoring the social consequences of this, or more importantly, the collapse of morality that led to our society supporting this, and that men should have no say in it?
No chance.

Regardless of what anyone says. Murder is murder no matter how you look at it.


Womens choice? Bullshit, when does the unborn child have a choice in wether it lives or dies :mp5: :sniper: ?


And men should have a part in deciding if an abortion can be performed (abortion is still wrong, but men should have a say in it untill it is banned). Do men not take part in the creation if a child? Should they not have the right to want there child to live if there partner does not? 50/50 in a relationship untill it comes time for a woman to want to have an abortion?

Once the ban comes; all abortion clinics closed, all abortion doctors and all those involed aborted (executed), all those having an abortion aborted (executed). Executed, yes. They should be held responsable for all the murders they have commited.

There are no tolerance drug laws, but abortion (murder) is still allowed by law. Comeon people don't you see something wrong with that picture?

Flame me all you want and throw all your stats and figures all you want, it still does not make abortion (murder) right.

And once again: Regardless of what anyone says. Murder is murder no matter how you look at it.

Got what
That you have no clue what you're talking about and should stop pretending you do because it's only making you look stupid.

That you have no clue what you're talking about and should stop pretending you do because it's only making you look stupid.

Typical pc thuggery. :rolleyes:

That is amusing.
Isn't it, though?

Which is why I'm not liberal. Liberals want everyone to be equal to rich, beautiful people. But, to quote The Incredibles, "Once everyone is super, no one will be." (best line of the movie)

Typical pc thuggery. :rolleyes:
In his defense, "Got what" and "Like what" aren't exactly Harvard responses.

So you see abortion as a class thing? The majority of abortions by people who can't afford to have children, or an operation?

I know it is hard to follow a conversation you are a part of, but please do try.

We were talking about a particular case in which a woman and her husband were both working two jobs just to put a roof over their children's heads and food on the table - a woman who forgoes medication to be able to do this. You stated that the woman should have had a tubal ligation, as if that were even a possibility for someone in that situation.

Its not as impossible as your making out, like I said, give up other stuff you don't really need and save the money.

You assume that no one in poverty has already given up the "stuff you really don't need." You assume that someone who even places their own medication in the "stuff you don't need" category is automatically buying BMWs? Seriously.

lol Im very aware.
If you only knew some of the places I've lived in, places you would probably cross the street ablock before hand, to avoid walking past.

And yet, you said you have never struggled to put food on the table. You have never had to worry that missing a day at work would cause yourself and your kids to starve. Thus, you have never been truly impoverished.

I wish you would stop painting your country out as Somalia, you have welfare, places where you can get free food and hot meals, no one is doing it as tough there, as you make out.

Again, you demonstrate complete ignorance. Yes, there are soup kitchens, but they don't and can't feed everyone. Yes, there is welfare, but many aren't on it and those that are get only the very bare necessities - things like birth control or expensive surgeries not included. Even those who manage to pull themselves off of welfare and make their own living often live at the lowest end one could call getting by - especially if they are supporting more than just themselves.

Subjective to what? Your own pleasure?
Thas just being self centred and irresponsible.

No, dear. A subjective opinion is not subjective to any particular thing. It is subjective in that different people will look at it differently, believe different things, and no one can possibly prove their point of view. Often, they can't dispove other points of view either. In the end, it all comes down to opinion.

Good.
Why are these two states allowed to practice something, the other 48 arent?


All the states are allowed to, based on the interpretation of Roe v. Wade. However, Roe v. Wade allows for much more control by the states after the first trimester. Thus, states can and do place restrictions at that point. Obviously, there are a couple of states whose voters didn't want such restrictions.

Well you tell me then, what worked better, familys before womans lib, or familys after.

Families before the "nuclear family" worked much better than any after - and women's lib didn't have anything at all to do with the inception of the "nuclear family". Children had several role models of both genders - a family that helped look after each other's kids instead of worrying only about a tiny subset of family.

In this case of course.

So you admit it is case-specific! Then why the sweeping broad statements as fact?

You have now admitted that it is sometimes better for a woman to run a family. I'm sure you would admit that it is sometimes better for two people together to run a family. It is all case-specific!

Could be why their in dire straits, don't you think?

It could be, but isn't always.

Views like yours encourage and support failure, by not encouraging taking any responsibility.

Not in the least. I absolutely think that someone in a hole should be working to dig themselves out. However, I have a little human trait known as empathy. I know that people sometimes get into a hole through no fault of their own. Circumstances of birth can place someone so close to the edge that anything can push them in - or they can be born in the hole in the first place. Sometimes they are able to get themselves out. Sometimes they work to try and get out for their entire lives but can't. Sometimes, they could get out with a little help - but many people don't want to help. Many people, like you apparently, assume that everyone should do everything on their own - andthat no one should ever help them. I wonder if you would still have this idea if you ended up in a situation you couldn't get yourself out of.

In his defense, "Got what" and "Like what" aren't exactly Harvard responses.
Thats because I never went to Harvard.
Universitys are only friendly now to people with pc views anyway, anyone else has to be quiet, or risk pc thuggery. Great centres of now toltarian learning, that are being spread to infect the rest of society.

Thats because I never went to Harvard.
Universitys are only friendly now to people with pc views anyway, anyone else has to be quiet, or risk pc thuggery. Great centres of now toltarian learning, that are being spread to infect the rest of society.

Absolutely! That's why the only professor to ever even bring up her own political views at my university was conservative, and not the least PC!

Thats because I never went to Harvard.
Universitys are only friendly now to people with pc views anyway, anyone else has to be quiet, or risk pc thuggery. Great centres of now toltarian learning, that are being spread to infect the rest of society.
But that's why you go anyways. Hell, I've had the entire class against me in highschool, I had more people say more often that they hated me on a forum that any three people combined had people say they liked them. (Does that sentense make sense to you? It makes sense in my head, but I can never be sure if I get it out right). In any case, I'm not afraid of anything anyone can do to me in college. And if the professor hates me, oh well, I'll just keep detailed records of my work to make it really obvious that he's a baised asshole.

Well what are they then?? Rape? Are the majority of the abortions mutants or something? Its convenience, because there is no other possible reason for that many abortions, every - year!

http://www.rainn.org/statistics.html

In 2002-2003, there were an average of 223,280 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault.

And again you ignore the economics point. I will address your attempt at answering that below.


LMAO read this 'strawman' then.
Read all of it, read how after roe v wade, how many lies were told about public opinion regarding the rightness of open slather abortion, read about the blatent lies told to major newspapers by researchers who pulled figures out of thin air to support increased abortion, read how they sold abortion to make profit.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42462


I don't see any actual polls results that show whether an actual poll taken by them would have been defeated or not. Furthermore, if he admits to lying on something like this, what makes you think he is not using the same tactics and lies on the pro-life debate? The results of this testimony are suspect and cannot be trusted on the strength of words alone.

Additionally, I noted that his change of heart was focused entirely on an emotive rather than logical approach. He ignores the mother entirely, treating her as a non-entity. The same trick used by most pro-lifers.

Furthermore, if you want to let this person do your arguing for you, then I point you to this.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/economics.html

[b]In very marked contrast to most other medical procedures, the cost of abortion has risen less than inflation. In fact, contrary to the distorted picture of the "abortion industry" as a tremendously profitable business designed to take advantage of women, in reality abortion providers have maintained lower than average fees for their services compared with physicians in other specialties. Correcting for inflation, legal abortions in 1991 cost only about half what they cost in the early 1970s.

Think it's sole purpose was to make money?


http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
12% of abortions in America are after the first trimester, thats over 200,000 abortions a year.
200,000 'illegal' abortions...

Again I refer you to this.

http://www.rainn.org/statistics.html


Like Ive pointed out numerous times already, if your doing it that tough, and you have two or three kids to support, then maybe its time to get the tubes tied.

And if your doing it that tough, how on earth can you afford to pay for that kind of operation? Not everyone owns their own house. Some people make do with a rented room and can barely make ends meet.


I think its just commonsense if anything.


I would disagree. It is an opinion that I find despicable. And I do not doubt that there would be quite a few here who share the same views.


Ah the woman/males thing again, imagine how outraged you would feel if I used men/female only?
I know you said you would address this, and I commend you for doing so, I for one hardly use male/female much as it sounds too sterile and lacking in respect.

Your pointing out of this was on a post before you noted the use of the terminology and as such is irrelevant. Future posts will be made with this in mind, but I will not be going back to change all my previous posts prior to this.


But to your point here, I just think it works better when women look after the kids at home, and not work, and of course with todays technology, its also possible to work from home in some areas.
I know, mysogynist etc but I don't support this to supress women in some evil fashion, I just think it works better for children, and children are whats most important.


Have you considered the fact that there are cases where a single income family cannot survive? Particularly in areas where the average pay is too low to support a family of any size? Yes, I am talking about the poorer sections of society. Additionally, you are forgetting the fact that anyone with work experience is far more likely to be re-employed than someone is not, men or women. In today's world where layoffs are getting more frequent in order to slash costs, re-employability is a requirement if you want to have an income.

And look at this.

http://www.parentmap.com/july_05/0705_4.htm

You can't go back in time to the 1950s. Inflation and increasing costs of living make it impossible for single income families to get by in many cases.

Additonally, you are completely ignoring the abusive/worthless husband scenario which is present throughout the entire strata of society although some would say that it is more concentrated on the poorer sections. How do you propose that the woman leave the abusive husband and support her children if she cannot work hmm? Or perhaps you believe that a woman should stay with her husband no matter how abusive he becomes?

I suspect if the answer is yes, you would be right at home in rural Pakistan.


Please read this, because I'm so, so, so ,so tired of typing it, [B]I support abortions for cases such as rape, underage, womans life in possible danger, baby severly damaged in womb.I don't support the open slather, no responsibility taken, number of abortions world wide.

Then read this, because I myself am very tired of repeating it. You completely ignore the other factors that make an abortion neccessary in a woman's life that won't immediately affect her but will drag the rest of her life downwards.

Furthermore, you contradict yourself then by making it a selective abortion and yet claim that it is murder. You appear to want to control not only a woman's body, but her sexual life as well.


This is a very tricky issue, basically being pregnant doesnt necessarily stop them from working even right up nearly to the birth, after that I think she will have to stop working, to look after the baby for a while anyway, the government could step in and foot the maternity leave for about six months.
Then large workplaces could have daycare centres in them, paid for by the employer, where her baby could be looked after, while she worked and occasionaly checked up on the baby through the day.
Its a tricky situation, but one that could be worked out.


No. It cannot. One of the reason why the glass ceiling exists is due to the fact that companies KNOW that if a woman becomes pregnant, a certain period of time will have to be taken off for both the birth itself and maternity leave. That translates to hours lost on productivity as they either get a temp or have a blank space and suffer even greater loss. Companies hate that. And what they hate often translates into how they hire and fire people.

And the government does not pay a company for the loss of income to a company due to maternity leave. Who do you think is going to pay for that anyway? If the government does it, the taxpayers ultimately will. Are you fine with this? Then why don't you lobby for a fix on that first? You're lighting forest fires while that plan for a firefighting service is still in the shelves.


No, male dominance as you view it, is more about competing with males of other cultures for dominance, or even simply just to be left alone by them. As much as you see men fearing women taking over, and thus subjecting them, its more from men fearing each other, and women being an unfortunate casualty of the competiveness, which ironically, they play abig part of by being a big target or prize.

Here we go again. Male dominance with women as the prize? What is this? Are you saying that humanity should model itself like the lions with one male in charge of a pride that has many females? That's not only ridiculous, but extremely repressive of women.


To be honest the only way I could see women taking over, would be if their were no men around.

Dominate or be taken over I see. You obviously don't believe in equal treatment at all. I wouldn't trust you to even give women the same level of importance in life as you would to men.


Even if women took over a number of countrys, and the men became subserviant to them, it would be just amatter of time before a more violent, aggressive male dominated society in another country, just said what the hell, theres not much stopping us from taking this country now...


The 'weaker sex' syndrome I see. Eutrusca would be better suited to show you how this is than I, but I will explain. In phsyical strength, men on average have the greater advantage. But with the invention of the firearm, strength has become more of a secondary concern.

Besides, your dreaded matriarchal society is nothing more than a baseless fear rooted in trying to maintain patriarchal dominance. I am not Herpower. I want nothing more than equality between the sexes, something which you don't want and try to paint it as worst.

Besides, your obvious attempt to paint something worst than what I stated it to be is nothing more than an attempt at smoke screening the issue and building straw men.


But never less of course. :rolleyes: Where is your glass floor?
Just highlighting how much you used offensive derogatory sounding generics for men as apposed to women in the same sentence, you were probably even unaware of it.

And where is your use of common sense? I did not go back in time to make that post after agreeing to use the correct terminology.


Like my earlier point, its more about keeping our society safer, and protected.
You take away the male warrior class in society, that protects its women and children, and also upholds the law, you leave it at the mercy first of its criminal underclass, who have no morals to attack the upperclass, or working class. Or even worse, you leave it vunerable for attack, from a male dominated more aggressive society, foriegn, or in the same nation, that will just simply one day, either take you over slowly with growing intimidation, or worse, just rip it to shreds.


Keeping society safer you say. And again with the male dominance thing. You realize that in terms of keeping order, the police force in most countries has both men and women serving in them? The same can be said for the armed forces. And in both cases, unless capability is there, acceptance into the force, male or female, is not granted. And if you want to argue now, I point you to the 2nd World War, where during the German invasion of Soviet Russia, women went into the frontlines as combatants and they did well.

From Antony Beevor's Book "Stalingrad"

The only resistance the panzer crews faced came from anti-aircraft guns operated by young women barely out of high school. ‘We had to fight shot for shot’, the division reported, ‘against thirty-seven flak positions manned by tenacious fighting women until they were all destroyed.’

This is only one of many examples proving that if so pressed, women can fight. If you want to dispute it by saying that they were killed eventually, I only need to point out that anti-aircraft guns are not normally designed for use against panzers with the exception of the 88, which was a German weapon anyway.


OK you got me, it was just wishful thinking I guess.
I still believe that the basic nature of a person is good not evil.


Good and evil are subjective. They differ from person to person.


On this, I think if its happening in the house from her own husband, and she thinks whats he's doing is breaking a law, then she should just leave him.


Easier said than done. And even in cases where the women does leave the husband, there are cases where the husband is not only reluctant to let go, but violently opposed to doing so. Additionally, why do you think that it should neccessarily be from the husband? Are you saying that rape only happens within the family?


Of course, but most of this is just bluff, your better off going to the police, and even suffering apossible reprisal one day from the coward, than not repeorting it, and living in continual fear of one.


It is easy to see that you've never been personally violated. Be it men or women, a violation like this intrudes on a person at a very deep level, scarring them mentally. Do you think it is so easy to divulge such a damaging event to another person? They would have to relive it in their memories for that to happen, and many trauma victims usually force the memory of the event away from their consciousness as a means of protecting themselves.


No,nononono. I was referring to a much more loving relationship than that. No man has claim over his womans body by being violent to her, as no violent woman, in this sense anyway, has claim over her mans body.

You realize that such loving relationships as you so call it would have a greater degree of debate and understanding between the partners? Hence when the issue of abortion comes up they would discuss it? And if they both agreed to it? Then what?

But such relationships are increasingly rare nowadays. And even when do occur, they are heavily stressed by the demands of todays society in terms of workload and social pressures. Don't you dare try to blame this one on equality between the sexes. It's not.


You seem to see my respect for women as being dependant only on your social engineered views, nothing else.
Whatever anyway. I give up trying to convince you on this, otherwise. :rolleyes:

Just as I know I cannot convince you otherwise. Conservative people are after all, afraid of change.

You want women to go back to their roles in the 1800s, where society then made things easier to actually adopt such a role. I have news for you. It is the year 2005 now. Society has changed, and so have many of the rules you so yearn for. A woman adopting such a role now would be nothing more than a trophy wife.


I point to todays society as evidence enough, to how far we have fallen as a society.

And I dare you to prove that it is equality between the sexes rather than rampant consumerism that has led to it. Can you? Or can you not?


Whatever. your ignoring the damage being done by so much abortion.


In the cases I have highlighted, what damage pray tell, has been done?


Yes that is a lot, and more than I thought. You don't have medicare do you, the government in Australia funds this for us I believe, you guys should really get something similar instead of spending so much on war.


Well then, I'll be sure to forward your opinions to the relevant parties. I am sure they will treat it like the rest of our opinions. Ignore it.


Still its not the staggering amount you painted out before as, and better than going through an abortion.


True, it is not a staggering amount, assuming that you can earn enough to cover the costs without losing your roof over your head if you happen to belong to the lower income group. Take a loan for this? Loan sharks exist for just such situations, and what happens is that the women who take such things end up trapped in spiralling debt.


Or how about giving up on drugs and alcohol, not only would they get the money through saving the money instead, they would probably be improving their familys lives as well.

Do you have something against poor people? Not everyone who is poor spends money on drugs and alcohol. This is nothing more than an ignorant statement in a poor attempt to paint it as the failings of the people involved.


Those on the edge of poverty can get help from the Government to get those operations done. When my wife and I were poor, while I attended school, we had Medicare for her and the kids. We were considered low income, just above the poverty line by $15.

You had Government support. Fair enough.


Also there is also adoption; Millions of people the world over can not have children that would like one or two.

And there are millions of children without parents all over the world. Where are the millions of adoptive families for them?


Amazing that people that want abortions on demand do not think of those that can not have children but seem to think of only their selfish needs of having sex when they want with no consequences.

Irrelevant. There are many children in orphanages that are not adopted. Why? A variety of reasons. But most importantly, I suspect it falls into selection. The children are chosen based on skin color, on ethnicity, on their age. Those that do not fall into the selected criteria, are ignored. There are some exceptions, but not in most of these cases.

http://www.rainn.org/statistics.html

[b]In 2002-2003, there were an average of 223,280 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault.[b/]
I can't be arsed to read the whole thing. But I know the answer to this one, so I'll go ahead.

Of those, only about 200 will become pregnant. Very few rapists are stupid enough to leave DNA evidence laying around for cops to find. They'll pull out before they leave anything behind.
Of those that do, it's more likely that the girl won't be in the right time of the month.
Of those: rape is a very traumatic experience. It screws up the horomones involved, so it's a lot harder for a girl to become pregnant.
Of those: Take away people lying about being raped by their boyfriends. I'm not saying it's often, I'm saying it happens. They get pregnant, they sue, they claim she said "no", thus making it rape. Again, I'm not saying this happens often. I'm just saying it happens.

So, very few women get pregnant from rape. THEN take away those who don't wish to get an abortion. Then take away those who don't have the resources to get an abortion.
THEN you are left with the actual number of people getting an abortion because of rape.

I can't be arsed to read the whole thing. But I know the answer to this one, so I'll go ahead.

*snip*


You forgot to include date rapes which I'm sure you will find are an increasing trend among the urbanized societies. And how did you arrive at the 200 figure anyway? Any facts and figures you care to throw out?

I never get tired of pointing this out...

If you think Roe v. Wade is the end-all argument in favor of abortion, you're an idiot and you need to actually read the court decision. This happens to be in it (Article X):

B. The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 478-479, 547 (24th ed. 1965). The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.


Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

You forgot to include date rapes which I'm sure you will find are an increasing trend among the urbanized societies. And how did you arrive at the 200 figure anyway? Any facts and figures you care to throw out?
Yes, actually, there are figures. But I can't be arsed to find them.

I figured that since I'm taking you on faith about the rape figure, you can give me the benefit of the doubt on how I reached the conclusion. ;)

Actually, I think 200 is a little low. Point is, it's not much.

BTW, about date rapes...

If you say "No" and mean it, then what I said applies. Chances of being the right time and trauma messing with horomones...all that still applies.

If you're too drunk to say no, that's not technically rape, and anyways, you're a stupid ass for getting that drunk with a guy who'll take advantage of you.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]I know it is hard to follow a conversation you are a part of, but please do try.

Thats so cliche now, your just copying that insult off other people, your truly an intellectual giant. :rolleyes:

We were talking about a particular case in which a woman and her husband were both working two jobs just to put a roof over their children's heads and food on the table - a woman who forgoes medication to be able to do this. You stated that the woman should have had a tubal ligation, as if that were even a possibility for someone in that situation.

Ah so now its just a case, funny, you were presenting this as a wide spread problem before.


You assume that no one in poverty has already given up the "stuff you really don't need."

Most people in poverty in the west are there because their wasting their money and time on drugs and alcohol.
Not because society wont give them ago.

And yet, you said you have never struggled to put food on the table. You have never had to worry that missing a day at work would cause yourself and your kids to starve. Thus, you have never been truly impoverished.

So how many kids are starving to death in America?
Ive starved, if you could call two or three days going without abite starving, but not of course to the extreme your making out, that is almost half to death, that simply doesnt happen in western countrys. If there was one, it would be an isolated case, not a wide spread problem.


Again, you demonstrate complete ignorance. Yes, there are soup kitchens, but they don't and can't feed everyone.

Have you ever even been to a soup kitchen?
They do apretty good job actually, you mighten get a threecourse meal, but they give you enough to keep going.
Ive been there, so don't tell me about it.
So unless you have been in similar uncomfortable situations, you have ahide telling me Im displaying the ignorance on this.

Yes, there is welfare, but many aren't on it and those that are get only the very bare necessities - things like birth control or expensive surgeries not included. Even those who manage to pull themselves off of welfare and make their own living often live at the lowest end one could call getting by - especially if they are supporting more than just themselves.

I admit enviroment has alot to do with it, the best thing someone can do is get clean away from the whole scene and start again, even if it means your isolated from society for years, until you can learn to adapt, and most importantly loose the aggression.

A subjective opinion is not subjective to any particular thing. It is subjective in that different people will look at it differently, believe different things, and no one can possibly prove their point of view. Often, they can't dispove other points of view either. In the end, it all comes down to opinion.

Thats rubbish but, following that line of thought, you would decare that anything thats right or wrong, is only subjective to how many people think that it is.
So if you landed on an Island who's population thought eating people alive was mostly fine, you would agree.



All the states are allowed to, based on the interpretation of Roe v. Wade. However, Roe v. Wade allows for much more control by the states after the first trimester. Thus, states can and do place restrictions at that point. Obviously, there are a couple of states whose voters didn't want such restrictions.

Yes, probably left wing majority of population there.



Families before the "nuclear family" worked much better than any after - and women's lib didn't have anything at all to do with the inception of the "nuclear family". Children had several role models of both genders - a family that helped look after each other's kids instead of worrying only about a tiny subset of family.

This old chestnut, regardless of how many role models the kids had, the father was still mostly in charge of his family, a wider family was there for support for each other, nothing else, it wasnt one big family in the sense your thinking of, thats something the Spartans practiced. And I hate to break it to you, but boys usually idolised men, and girls usually idolised women, and when I say usually, I mean nearly always, which is when you think about it, is much more natural, than your stupid present day socialist gender reconstructs that are leaving kids confused.




So you admit it is case-specific! Then why the sweeping broad statements as fact?

Like your poverty ones? :rolleyes:

You have now admitted that it is sometimes better for a woman to run a family.

In cases like this, of course.

I'm sure you would admit that it is sometimes better for two people together to run a family. It is all case-specific!

Well I think your ideal of two people running afamily, is probably one of the woman running the family, and the man agreeing to all the decisions.
You cant have two people making the decisions all the time, as it usually wastes too much time, as they sort out their differences on every matter, no issue, no matter how small. Your better off just letting one person run the family, and men seem better at doing this, than women.


Not in the least. I absolutely think that someone in a hole should be working to dig themselves out. However, I have a little human trait known as empathy.

So do I, but it only can be stretched so far.

I know that people sometimes get into a hole through no fault of their own. Circumstances of birth can place someone so close to the edge that anything can push them in - or they can be born in the hole in the first place.

So just get the hell away.

Sometimes they are able to get themselves out. Sometimes they work to try and get out for their entire lives but can't.

Then they are at fault, its not hard to save up a busfare, and just go! Make the decision, leave crime and just get out. Reject your whole family if you have to, if it means you can then one day create a new family that values work and learning. Its a nice big world out there, and the sooner you go and see it, and learn about it, the less chance you will have of being trapped in a world that only looks inside at itself.

Sometimes, they could get out with a little help - but many people don't want to help.

Why should they? They didnt create their problems. Thats something they did to themselves.
People have their own lives to live, why should they waste their time helping deadbeat parasites?

Many people, like you apparently, assume that everyone should do everything on their own - andthat no one should ever help them.

Wrong, I do help, but I know you can only do so much. There comes a point usually when you realise the person doesnt really want to change.
You can encourage and offer advice, but anything further is just offering your own enslavement.

I wonder if you would still have this idea if you ended up in a situation you couldn't get yourself out of.

I got out of it.
By rejecting criminal ideals.

Absolutely! That's why the only professor to ever even bring up her own political views at my university was conservative, and not the least PC!

Your point here?

If you're too drunk to say no, that's not technically rape, and anyways, you're a stupid ass for getting that drunk with a guy who'll take advantage of you.

Including times when you end up taking spiked drinks? Are you saying that the woman is at fault for not noticing that her drink has been spiked with a usually tasteless and colourless additive?

But that's why you go anyways. Hell, I've had the entire class against me in highschool, I had more people say more often that they hated me on a forum that any three people combined had people say they liked them. (Does that sentense make sense to you? It makes sense in my head, but I can never be sure if I get it out right). In any case, I'm not afraid of anything anyone can do to me in college. And if the professor hates me, oh well, I'll just keep detailed records of my work to make it really obvious that he's a baised asshole.

Yeah well hate is about all they can do at present, which unless you have awell balanced mind and a thick skin, can make life unpleasant.
Don't be surprised if this isn't leading up to men particularly white men giving up on higher learning in College/Uni's altogether some time in future, which is incidently what feminists see as a golden unspoken goal.

Including times when you end up taking spiked drinks? Are you saying that the woman is at fault for not noticing that her drink has been spiked with a usually tasteless and colourless additive?

That pisses me off so much.
Guys who spike drinks, or anyone, should be just shot for the scum they are.

Including times when you end up taking spiked drinks? Are you saying that the woman is at fault for not noticing that her drink has been spiked with a usually tasteless and colourless additive?

Part of that is common sense. If you go to a party/club/bar/etc. with people you don't know, it is prudent to pay attention to your drink and to the people around you.

As it stands, yes, I realize that things happen sometimes. Those would be the few that make it past all the "Of those:" to become the few who get pregnant.

...If you're too drunk to say no, that's not technically rape...


Whoa!!! Technically, that is rape!!! You'd better consult a lawyer before your next date.

Whoa!!! Technically, that is rape!!! You'd better consult a lawyer before your next date.

Agreed totally, you shouldnt even touch someone when their drunk for that reason, unless they actually nod their head that they want to.
Them not saying no, and a person taking that as an agreement, is pretty fucked.

Hold on, here, why aren't any of you looking at the big picture? ... the original question? The question was if a man has the right to an opinion about abortion and the degree to which any opinion a man has ought to have on influence of law and culture?

First, I believe that every rational person sees that a man does have the right to form an opinion on any topic he wishes. Even a man in the most oppressed civilization ever to exist can have any opinion he wishes. You are a fool to believe the words of someone who tells you otherwise.

Second, the degree to which an opinion ought to matter can be looked at with several standards. These include, but are not limited to, legal, personal, interpersonal, social, economical, situational, and many others. From a legal standpoint, the whole "3/5ths" fiasco makes it pretty clear that males do, in fact, count (in the USA) as one whole vote (as well as all other peoples over the age of majority). That is an easy one. But I doubt that is to what the questioner was referring.

I'm pretty sure he was looking for the hard ones, which I see as interpersonal and personal. Personally, ought a man's opinion matter? This is difficult, because it's asking if his opinion matters on an action he cannot take. Thus, he will never truly know anything except be proxy. (Unless he already has a child, but that begins making this more specific than the scope of my conversation - it would be a good topic to discuss otherwise if there are some fathers out there who have strong feelings about abortion after already having any number of children.) The problem with that becomes an issue of trust; who ought a man trust and not trust when making his opinion? Is it worth the effort? What does having this opinion mean to me? What does it mean to others around me? Who do I share my opinion with? What are my motives in both forming an opinion and sharing it?

The astute readers already notice with my last to questions the notes of interpersonally. The ways in which an opinion matters interpersonally also go the other way: who is sharing their opinion with me and what were their motives in both forming and sharing it? When a woman asks this of a man's opinion on abortion, how do you think she is answering that question. If, instead of being asked, a man volunteers his opinion on abortion, how do you think those answers would change? What if he is forceful about it? What about if a woman is talking about her need for support during a tough time and he tells her his opinion then (pro or con)? Basically, at what time, unless a man is asked directly, ought he to voice his opinion on abortion? That is a very difficult question indeed.

A difficult question that does, in fact, answers the original question! Lets look at the facts as established so far:

1. Every person in America who has more than 18 years is a valid voter (barring extreme circumstances)

2. Although men cannot experience pregnancy personally, they have the right to any opinion they wish on any or all aspects of it they wish.

3. Men can make their opinion from whatever sources they wish.

4. The man must place a value on the source of the information for reliability, motive, and any personal reasons that trust is warranted.

5. A man ought to understand that when he gives his opinion, a value will be placed on it using those same standards.

Thus, what we see, is that men have the right to vote on an opinion they have. However, men's opinions are socially given only as much significance as the men and women around them grant their opinion. Now, I will add one more idea, which is that people ought to only trust someone as much as that person listens. This is due to many factors, most of which are social, but, frankly, people who listen just seem to know more and have a wider base of ideas to choose from when forming an opinion.

Perhaps, then, what people are trying to say when they say that men don't deserve an opinion on abortion is that they just aren't listening! Imagine how frustrating it must be to live in a world where you feel so far authority figures understand your sexual organs. Especially when they are making rules about them after consulting several other males! I know that is an exaggeration of the truth, but it is true that many women feel this way sometimes - especially as far as abortion is concerned.

Listen.

--LPOD

P.S. Listening does not include rebutting an opinion. Listening does include reflecting on what was said and returning with thoughtful questions.

Agreed totally, you shouldnt even touch someone when their drunk for that reason, unless they actually nod their head that they want to.
Them not saying no, and a person taking that as an agreement, is pretty fucked.

I coulda sworn if you say yes, it's not rape.

Excluding illegal mind-altering drugs, of course.

You don't have a right to machinate society in such a way that oppresses women. But not allowing women to choose their re-productive destiny you're perpetuating patriarchy within society. Unfortunately as a priveleged white, male, able-bodied heterosexual you have probably no idea what oppression is or its effects. Perhaps you should read Pedagogy of the Oppressed and get some fucking politics... And this is from someone who is anti-abortion but pro-choice...

Listen.

--LPOD

P.S. Listening does not include rebutting an opinion. Listening does include reflecting on what was said and returning with thoughtful questions.


Listen to this.

now im against abortion but im all for killing babies what they dont remember circumcision so they wouldnt remember thishttp://www.maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=regressive

[QUOTE=RhynoD]I coulda sworn if you say yes, it's not rape.

Of course, unless shes being forced to say yes.

Excluding illegal mind-altering drugs, of course.

Fuck them, scum.
Anyone caught drugging anyone for sex should be dragged into an ally by the police and blown away.

Yeah well hate is about all they can do at present, which unless you have awell balanced mind and a thick skin, can make life unpleasant.
Don't be surprised if this isn't leading up to men particularly white men giving up on higher learning in College/Uni's altogether some time in future, which is incidently what feminists see as a golden unspoken goal.
Eh, life is always unpleasant. To quote myself, "Life sucks on its own. Don't help it."

I figure, they're going to hate me either way, I might as well be open about it.

[QUOTE]
Of course, unless shes being forced to say yes.
There's always a choice. Maybe not very good choices, maybe not a good choice at all, but there's always a choice.


Fuck them, scum.
Anyone caught drugging anyone for sex should be dragged into an ally by the police and blown away.
I dunno about shot, but I agree that they're not good people.

[QUOTE]






Doesnt say much for birth control then does it, the best birth control is called no sex, ever heard of that one? All these people your presenting as out on their feet, that cant even feed themselves, don't care much about consequences do they?




Get this through your head.
No one's going to stop hacing sex just so they maybe won't get an abortion.
Sometimes the people aren't even willing to have sex--this is called RAPE.

[QUOTE=Curmia][QUOTE=Gessler]
Get this through your head.
No one's going to stop hacing sex just so they maybe won't get an abortion.

So you see then why morality is so important then?


Sometimes the people aren't even willing to have sex--this is called RAPE.

Agreed, not good.

Eh, life is always unpleasant. To quote myself, "Life sucks on its own. Don't help it."
I figure, they're going to hate me either way, I might as well be open about it.
No life is as unpleasant as you want to let it be.

[QUOTE=RhynoD][QUOTE=Gessler]
There's always a choice. Maybe not very good choices, maybe not a good choice at all, but there's always a choice.

Theres none if their drugged, these women sometimes wake up in bed with the actual guy who drugged and raped them.
In my country, its usually middle eastern males guilty of this, no great surprise there. :rolleyes:


I dunno about shot, but I agree that they're not good people.

Thats for sure.

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Curmia]

Agreed, not good.

I don't get you people. What is your point?! You say abortion should be illegal, except in certain circumstances. HELLO! That means you think it should be legal for some people, making you PRO-CHOICE!

I love how everyone ignores this. I'm going to post it again, to see if I can get any kind of reaction.

This comes directly from the court opinion of the Supreme Court case of Roe v Wade. Article X

B. The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 478-479, 547 (24th ed. 1965). The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.


Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

[QUOTE][QUOTE=RhynoD]

Theres none if their drugged, these women sometimes wake up in bed with the actual guy who drugged and raped them.
In my country, its usually middle eastern males guilty of this, no great surprise there. :rolleyes:
That's not the same as getting drunk. We're talking about two different things.

Having the opportunity to say no, and being secretly drugged.

Well, here's the dealio.

If abortion is outlawed, no one who wants one will give a damn. They'll either perform one on themselves, go get it done somewhere else, or be completely reckless with the fetus and smoke, drink, and eat whatever they want, ride rides not reccommended for pregnant women, just to protest.

Which is worse, I ask you:
an abortion...killing the baby quickly...
or letting it come out a crack baby, abandoned, and in pain?

If it is a self-abortion, the woman could hurt herself, also.

Who's to say they won't just give birth and dump it in a dumpster?

It just makes more sense to have it available.

And as for the bullshit remark about killing all abortion doctors...they are just making sure the woman doesn't damage herself!

Well, here's the dealio.

If abortion is outlawed, no one who wants one will give a damn. They'll either perform one on themselves, go get it done somewhere else, or be completely reckless with the fetus and smoke, drink, and eat whatever they want, ride rides not reccommended for pregnant women, just to protest.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

How do you think?

The statistics about "coathanger" abortions were (admitted) lies.

www.abortionfacts.com

If your argument is that this site is nothing but biased pro-life propaganda get a new argument. Numbers don't lie. In any case, saying I lied about a guy lying is just too rediculous.

If you're argument is that this site is nothing but biased pro-life propaganda get a new argument. Numbers don't lie. In any case, saying I lied about a guy lying is just too rediculous.

I have no such argument.

"You lied about the liar lying about the lie that he lied about which you lied about him lying about the liar lying about the lie!" :rolleyes:

"You lied about the liar lying about the lie that he lied about which you lied about him lying about the liar lying about the lie!" :rolleyes:

Hooray for pointless posts!

Thats so cliche now, your just copying that insult off other people, your truly an intellectual giant. :rolleyes:

Copying what insult?

First off, there was no insult. Secondly, it was directly from the particular conversation I have been having with you - other people had nothign to do with it.

[qoute]Ah so now its just a case, funny, you were presenting this as a wide spread problem before.[/quote]

Poverty is a widespread problem. However, you have been the only one making comments about all women who get abortions being impoverished.

Most people in poverty in the west are there because their wasting their money and time on drugs and alcohol.
Not because society wont give them ago.

You are going to have to provide some sort of proof of this statement.

So how many kids are starving to death in America?

Quite a few actually. Not as many as those countries where the vast majority of people are impoverished, but it does occur in the US.

Ive starved, if you could call two or three days going without abite starving, but not of course to the extreme your making out, that is almost half to death, that simply doesnt happen in western countrys. If there was one, it would be an isolated case, not a wide spread problem.

You are so very naive. Life is not all perfect and hunky-dory in the Western world just because you want it to be.

Have you ever even been to a soup kitchen?
They do apretty good job actually, you mighten get a threecourse meal, but they give you enough to keep going.

They do an excellent job - for the people who manage to get there, if and only if they have enough for all the people who show up.

I admit enviroment has alot to do with it, the best thing someone can do is get clean away from the whole scene and start again, even if it means your isolated from society for years, until you can learn to adapt, and most importantly loose the aggression.

(a) Who said anything about aggression?

(b) Getting clean away from the scene and starting again requires a little something called money - something that the impoverished, yeah, you guessed it, don't have.

Thats rubbish but, following that line of thought, you would decare that anything thats right or wrong, is only subjective to how many people think that it is.

Incorrect. There are things that can be objectively reasoned as right or wrong. There are others that cannot.

So if you landed on an Island who's population thought eating people alive was mostly fine, you would agree.

At what point did I say that majority opinion made something the "right" opinion?

This old chestnut, regardless of how many role models the kids had, the father was still mostly in charge of his family,

Actually, a grandfather might be in charge. An uncle might be in charge. But generally the adults discussed things, rather than one making all of the decisions.

Well I think your ideal of two people running afamily, is probably one of the woman running the family, and the man agreeing to all the decisions.

Yes, because that would be two people running a family....

Oh wait, that would still be one person running it, now wouldn't it?

There's this psychological thing called "projecting". You are doing it.

You cant have two people making the decisions all the time, as it usually wastes too much time, as they sort out their differences on every matter, no issue, no matter how small.

You really are rather illogical, aren't you?

Having two people in control does not mean that they each discuss everything. The two may be in control of different aspects. They may not need to consult with each other except on the large issues.

So just get the hell away.

And the money to do that comes from.......?

Then they are at fault, its not hard to save up a busfare, and just go!

It is for the impoverished, who are barely making ends meet to begin with. "Save up" isn't really an option then.

Make the decision, leave crime and just get out.

Who said anything about crime? All poor people are criminals now?

Why should they? They didnt create their problems. Thats something they did to themselves.
People have their own lives to live, why should they waste their time helping deadbeat parasites?

Who said anything about deadbeat parasites? All poor people are deadbeat parasites now? Even the ones working two or three jobs to try and have some chance at improving their situation?

I got out of it.
By rejecting criminal ideals.

You have made it very clear that you have never, ever truly been impoverished.

And your constant suggestion that all poor people are criminals is cute.

Still waiting...

B. The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 478-479, 547 (24th ed. 1965). The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.


Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Hooray for pointless posts!
Pointless indeed. :rolleyes:

I coulda sworn if you say yes, it's not rape.

Excluding illegal mind-altering drugs, of course.

Actually, excluding any instance in which either person is incapaciated and therefore unable to give consent. This includes just about any type of drug that can alter a person's ability to think clearly - including alcohol.

The statistics about "coathanger" abortions were (admitted) lies.

I know more than one medical health professional who saw the septic abortion attempts coming into the emergency room. Most of them weren't performed with coathangers, true, but they certainly did happen. That is enough evidence for me that they happen.

That, and the fact that women have found ways to try and end unwanted pregnancies throughout human history.

Still waiting...

You have to make a point to get a reply. All you have done thus far is quote a small part of a decision. I'm not even sure which part of it you want to draw attention to.

Should abortion be legal? Yes, I think so. It's going to happen anyways because there will always be women having sex and becoming pregnant. If the woman will have an abortion, it's better for it to be performed by a qualified doctor and not at home with a coat hanger. Is abortion a good thing? I don't think so. You are killing human life whether it has self-awareness or not. There's a double standard regarding when a "baby"/baby has worth. If you want the baby, you name it the moment you become pregnant and if you don't it's just a clump of cells. Men can have an opinion on abortion but they should express themselves with care seeing as their perspective has to be different to that of a woman's. Men don't seem to think of special cases such as pregnancy resulting from rape or 12 yearolds getting pregnant. I don't think men can ever hope to understand how frightening it can be because abortion is something that will always be someone else's problem. Most isseus are not black and white which is why it's so "fun"to have debates about them

I just find it fascinating that an argument on men having opinions turns into such a blanket debate but heres how i see it:
Women say men dont go through birth so are not qualified to give an opinion.
We are not giving an opinion on your body, we are giving an opinion on the body you carry inside of you. Obviously I am pro-life, because I do not see a fetus as a part of the womans body, but a part of its own. If you read the Bill of Rights, as i am sure you are well aware of your rights, we do have the right to live. That being said, in 1973 in the infamous Roe V Wade case, little was known on fetul development in relation to the brain. I wont try to dazzle you with numbers on first brain function and whatnot because that would be superfluous to my point which is this:
If Liberals revere the life of a deer or a bear so much, why not a tiny little person, because thats what a fetus is, or if you don't believe me the person the fetus will become?

If anyone can give me an intelligible answer to this question other than, "cause its my body" or, "Its not a person yet" i would be astounded and impressed as when I talk to liberals, those are the only two answers I ever get.

And I agree, the debates are a rip roarin good time, but the subject matter is serious and in special cases such as a twelve year old getting pregnant, I suppose i could see the other side but the real question is "why is that twelve year old pregnant and what can we do to stop that in the future?"

As for Coat-hanger abortions, i have a few things to say:
1.) it is cruel to let the pregnancy get to that point before aborting, so while its still legal, GET YOUR ABORTION EARLY IN THE PREGNANCY, or use contraceptives. In the event of a failed contraceptive, the woman knew the risk she was taking when she had sex. People need to be held accountable for their actions.
2.) I believe a coat-hangar abortion is murder and if the woman injures herself, I would argue that it would be know different than the guy who murdered my sister accidentally shooting himself. I know its a harsh analogy but especially in these days there should be no need for a coat-hanger abortion. There are just so many other options, and the pro-choice institutions that will help you, in my opinion, commit the murder at little or no cost.

Here are my thoughts on this, and then I'm going to bed:

Half the chromosomes are the fathers, correct? Therefore, the child is just as much his as it is the woman’s. Woman apparently has to put up with the pain right? Does that make the decision hers? I think not. The husband still has a say.

You see? I'm what some leftists would call "cruel". I like to call it "thinking realistically". This pain that the woman is going through? She can suck it up if the husband wants the child.

Honestly though, the child is its own person. So no one really has a say but the fetus. Therefore, the child must be brought into this world.

Goodnight all :)

Sure, a man has no right to tell a woman she can't kill her baby.

...Half the chromosomes are the fathers, correct? Therefore, the child is just as much his as it is the woman’s...

Then he can have his half back, after the abortion. Solomon speaks.

Then he can have his half back, after the abortion. Solomon speaks.
That is one of the single most barbaric things i have ever heard. We can't go on playing god with the life of a child. My half was alive when it left me, id like it back in the same condition.

By the way, if anyone can answer my previous post, thatd be great ( its just 4 places up)

And for the record, im not a fascist, that state was a joke and for some reason my serious one got deleted. i guess i didnt log on for too long

Sure, a man has no right to tell a woman she can't kill her baby.
:)

Here are my thoughts on this, and then I'm going to bed:
This pain that the woman is going through? She can suck it up if the husband wants the child.

Women have been doing it for thousands of years right?

Actually, excluding any instance in which either person is incapaciated and therefore unable to give consent. This includes just about any type of drug that can alter a person's ability to think clearly - including alcohol.
Point remains, they are the few who get pregnant. The vast majority of rape cases don't.


I know more than one medical health professional who saw the septic abortion attempts coming into the emergency room. Most of them weren't performed with coathangers, true, but they certainly did happen. That is enough evidence for me that they happen.
Yes, because two nurses working in the ER is representative of the entire united states.

That, and the fact that women have found ways to try and end unwanted pregnancies throughout human history.
People have always found ways to kill each other. Doesn't mean we should hand everyone a nuke so it's easier.



You have to make a point to get a reply. All you have done thus far is quote a small part of a decision. I'm not even sure which part of it you want to draw attention to.
How 'bout the part about how it says it's not entirely up to the woman, life begins at conception, and the only reason why the ruled the way they did is because they didn't think that science and religion at that point had a satisfactory answer to the issue. Oh, and the part about how the government does have a right to step in at some point, and how it's different from issues like contraceptives and condoms. Mostly, though, the part about how it comes from the biggest pro-choice argument to date. "Roe v Wade says you can't stop me!" No, Roe v Wade says the government of Texas couldn't, at that time, stop you.

And for the record, im not a fascist, that state was a joke and for some reason my serious one got deleted. i guess i didnt log on for too long

yeah right.... did you notice that you posted this in reply# 666 ? :D

Sure, a man has no right to tell a woman she can't kill her baby.


obviously you are an idiot, the baby isnt just her's last time i checked you need a man. and as for the pain of the woman, pain killers make them feel virtually nothing, and as for the "oh no the condom broke" arguement, its called the morning after, and if you dont want a kid, dont have sex, wow how easy

unlucky coincidence i suppose, or it it? I suppose youll just have to take me at my word

Still waiting...

And so's the rest of the world as to a factual and scientific definition of when life begins according to this statement. It says that the jury can't say when, and neither can the professionals. Texas urges otherwise, but can't prove squat. So far as Roe VS Wade goes, 1st trimester still puts the case entirely within the woman's right.

obviously you are an idiot, the baby isnt just her's last time i checked you need a man. and as for the pain of the woman, pain killers make them feel virtually nothing, and as for the "oh no the condom broke" arguement, its called the morning after, and if you dont want a kid, dont have sex, wow how easy
I believe he may have being sarcastic.

yeah right.... did you notice that you posted this in reply# 666 ? :D

you know whats sad...you care

I know him, he wasn't

This is nice, you guys arent a bunch of offensive jerks like the ones in the Iraq war forum.

I believe he may have being sarcastic. No i wasn't im DEAD serious

I just find it fascinating that an argument on men having opinions turns into such a blanket debate but heres how i see it:
Women say men dont go through birth so are not qualified to give an opinion.
We are not giving an opinion on your body, we are giving an opinion on the body you carry inside of you. Obviously I am pro-life, because I do not see a fetus as a part of the womans body, but a part of its own. If you read the Bill of Rights, as i am sure you are well aware of your rights, we do have the right to live. That being said, in 1973 in the infamous Roe V Wade case, little was known on fetul development in relation to the brain. I wont try to dazzle you with numbers on first brain function and whatnot because that would be superfluous to my point which is this:
If Liberals revere the life of a deer or a bear so much, why not a tiny little person, because thats what a fetus is, or if you don't believe me the person the fetus will become?

If anyone can give me an intelligible answer to this question other than, "cause its my body" or, "Its not a person yet" i would be astounded and impressed as when I talk to liberals, those are the only two answers I ever get.

And I agree, the debates are a rip roarin good time, but the subject matter is serious and in special cases such as a twelve year old getting pregnant, I suppose i could see the other side but the real question is "why is that twelve year old pregnant and what can we do to stop that in the future?"

As for Coat-hanger abortions, i have a few things to say:
1.) it is cruel to let the pregnancy get to that point before aborting, so while its still legal, GET YOUR ABORTION EARLY IN THE PREGNANCY, or use contraceptives. In the event of a failed contraceptive, the woman knew the risk she was taking when she had sex. People need to be held accountable for their actions.
2.) I believe a coat-hangar abortion is murder and if the woman injures herself, I would argue that it would be know different than the guy who murdered my sister accidentally shooting himself. I no its a harsh analogy but especially in these days there should be no need for a coat-hanger abortion. There are just so many other options, and the pro-choice institutions that will help you, in my opinion, commit the murder at little or no cost.

Rape does not justify abortion (murder).

Rape does not justify abortion (murder).
I wholeheartedly agree. Perhaps you can answer my question in the above post. In essence it is "Why are liberals so hypocritical?"

[QUOTE=Gessler][QUOTE]

I don't get you people. What is your point?! You say abortion should be illegal, except in certain circumstances. HELLO! That means you think it should be legal for some people, making you PRO-CHOICE!

Wronnnngggg!

[QUOTE=Gessler][QUOTE]
That's not the same as getting drunk. We're talking about two different things.
Having the opportunity to say no, and being secretly drugged.

A woman can still say no when shes drunk, and that should be listened to.

=Curmia]Who's to say they won't just give birth and dump it in a dumpster?

That happens sometimes anyway.


It just makes more sense to have it available.

Agreed but not for everything.

Yea, it is against the law to toss a newborn in a dumpster, but is legal to have an abortion.

I wholeheartedly agree. Perhaps you can answer my question in the above post. In essence it is "Why are liberals so hypocritical?"

*sigh* one could also say "why are Neo-cons so cruel/uncaring/control freaks/ etc, etc"

Look. There are legitimate reasons why people go for abortions, and in quite a few cases, it is justified. You advocate that rape does not justify abortion. Well then, let me ask you a few questions.

You have been personally violated and mentally scared. The person responsible for this has left a permanent mark of that trauma in you, that is, a zygote that will eventually become a fetus barring complications. For 9 months, she will carry a physical reminder of that incident. And assuming that the birth was successful, she will have a permanent reminder of that incident.

Do you think it is not cruel? You want to argue that it is murder and cruel to abort in this case. Would it not be crueler to subject said child to whatever hatred that the mother would transfer to the child as a constant reminder to her trauma? Don't fool yourself into thinking it won't happen.

Ever heard of post natal depression? That happens too in cases like these, and possibly with worst end results.


"why is that twelve year old pregnant

Any number of reasons. Insufficient sex education. Failure to use contraceptives/preventive measure. Failure of contraceptives/preventive measures. Rape. Incest.


and what can we do to stop that in the future?"


Human extinction. Rape is often used as a means to dominate others and feel good about it, a power trip if you will. In some ways, you can see it as a drug addiction, one far more despicable than any chemical. How do you stop people wanting to dominate others? Not possible. It can be minimized, but not eliminated entirely.

Of course this is only the case in rape/assisted rape/date rape.

As for consensual sex leading to pregnancy for minors, proper sex education is required as well as the ease of access to contraceptives and preventive measures if it does happen. Abstinence is not foolproof and will not work all the time.

As for the bears and deers, I don't see any problem. Aside from preventing uncontrollable damage to an ecosystem, I see no problems there.

And DELGRAD, you're even worst. You wanted those who aborted to be executed? If that is the case, most rape cases resulting in unwanted pregancies would become assisted homicide on the case of the rapist. But the rapist won't be charged for murder. He'll be charged with rape. And the mother who wanted to erase the incident from her life will be executed.

The rapist pushed her, but you want to put the spiked pit in front of her.

I have 45 pages left to read, so this has probably already been said:

I think you're misunderstanding the 'man != opinon' thing.

Most pro-choice people I've talked to believe it's the mother-to-be's choice. It isn't the fact that you don't have a uterus. It's the fact that you're not carrying the fetus (if it's even at that stage yet).

How does having a uterus determine the right to have an opinion on abortion?



Because you cant have an abortion if you dont have an uterus to begin with.

Typical pc thuggery. :rolleyes:
The truth hurts, doesn't it? Oh, wait, I almost forgot you're too blissfully ignorant to recognize the truth, so you'll probably be just fine. :rolleyes:

And that whole 2 - 3 days without food = starving was the funniest thing I've read on this thread so far btw, considering you can actually last a few weeks without food before you finally starve to death; it's going without water that only takes a week or so to kill you. My cousin goes a few days without eating on a regular basis so she can afford to feed her two children instead. I've even gone 2 - 3 days without eating simply because I didn't feel like eating. Poor impoverished you, it must have been so hard. :rolleyes:

I also love how you claim you help people but realize you can only do so much, then contradicted yourself in the next paragraph (or were those two switched around? No matter) by claiming that people shouldn't get any help from anyone because they're the ones who got themselves into their situation and should be the ones to get themselves out.

People need to be held accountable for their actions.

Yes. And if they ban Abortion the government should first pass an effective law that forces MEN to take their responsibilities seriously. It should be a crime for a guy to get a woman pregnant and then run off.

And another law to provide DAMN good welfare to support the children had by mothers who cannot afford them and are forced to have them. Although the mother perhaps should have though of that before she got pregnant the child is the one that suffers most and the child did not have a say in it at all.

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.

Yet another one of those posts where we are supposed to "hold people accountable to their actions" by forcing them to deliver.

I don't understand how a person can suggest that the start of someone else's life, should be as a punishment for the parent(s).

It's certainly not likely to give the neonate a pleasant environment to be born into...

Even after you account for all of the unpleasant special cases such as rape, the facts remain that contraception isn't infallible and many women don't want kids. No point forcing them to have a baby or undergo a back street abortion by illegalising it.

So potential humans are lost. Meh. There are plenty more where they came from.

Let me get this straight...

Whatever the woman chooses, I'm screwed?


And yet, this logic isn't allowed to apply for females...

Males, just like females, SHOULD get to know their partners BEFORE they present the POSSIBILITY of conception.

If the girl ends up pregnant, SHE is the one who is going to have to deal with that... whatever the boy decides... she is the one that will have the embryo developing within her body. The guy can just walk away... the girl finds that her mistake has a way of following her.

So - how is it unfair to have this same situation applied to the male?

And yes, perhaps a girl DELIBERATELY gets pregnant by a boy, with every intention of keeping the child... why wasn't the boy ALSO taking precautions? Why didn't he know the girl better before he commited himself to this relationship?

People need to take some responsibility for their OWN actions... and I don't mean 'punishment by forced birth'... I mean that sometimes you have to do things you don't like, because of the things you already did.

If a guy wants to have sex with a girl he doesn't know, he SHOULD be protecting himself, just as she should - neither side should be turning around after the fact and saying "it's your fault, I thought YOU were protected".

On the other hand, once the man has done his all-important three minutes of squishy sounds, the whole process falls into the hands of the female... because EVERYTHING that happens from that point is her body. She gets to make the decisions.

So - if she decides to have the child resulting from sex... they BOTH knew it was a risk, and she is going to have to look after it regardless of what the boy decides. He should, at least, have the responsibility to HELP support it.

And - if she decides to abort, she is just returning her body to the state she started... uninfected with parasitic life. And the boy doesn't get to bitch and moan, because HIS body would have remained unaffected, whatever she chose.

And yet, this logic isn't allowed to apply for females...

Males, just like females, SHOULD get to know their partners BEFORE they present the POSSIBILITY of conception.

If the girl ends up pregnant, SHE is the one who is going to have to deal with that... whatever the boy decides... she is the one that will have the embryo developing within her body. The guy can just walk away... the girl finds that her mistake has a way of following her.

So - how is it unfair to have this same situation applied to the male?

And yes, perhaps a girl DELIBERATELY gets pregnant by a boy, with every intention of keeping the child... why wasn't the boy ALSO taking precautions? Why didn't he know the girl better before he commited himself to this relationship?

People need to take some responsibility for their OWN actions... and I don't mean 'punishment by forced birth'... I mean that sometimes you have to do things you don't like, because of the things you already did.

If a guy wants to have sex with a girl he doesn't know, he SHOULD be protecting himself, just as she should - neither side should be turning around after the fact and saying "it's your fault, I thought YOU were protected".

On the other hand, once the man has done his all-important three minutes of squishy sounds, the whole process falls into the hands of the female... because EVERYTHING that happens from that point is her body. She gets to make the decisions.

So - if she decides to have the child resulting from sex... they BOTH knew it was a risk, and she is going to have to look after it regardless of what the boy decides. He should, at least, have the responsibility to HELP support it.

And - if she decides to abort, she is just returning her body to the state she started... uninfected with parasitic life. And the boy doesn't get to bitch and moan, because HIS body would have remained unaffected, whatever she chose.
You make a lot of fair points.
I also stated that I consider that the decision ultimately fall to the woman.

All I'm asking is for a discussion between the two partners before making their decision. And I want some kind of clause in the existing law so that I am powerless while some bimbo takes away my money because I made a mistake in trusting someone I shouldn't.

I am sorry that so many people believe that rape is so common of a reason for abortion. You should all seek out sources of information on the reasons people really do have abortions. I would recommend contacting a local abortion clinic, where I am sure a volunteer would be happy to answer any questions anyone may have.

Secondly, regarding the "ownership" of the fetus: possession is nine tenths of the law. The issue isn't whether the man has a right to, partial ownership of, say in, or whatever to the fetus. The issue is if he has possession of it. I am saying this only in terms of legality, NOT socially or interpersonally. These are separate issues which I again encourage you to find people you trust to help you with process this, much more complex, information.

Finally, regarding brain function and the definition of life. While it is true that neurons start firing incredibly early in the development of the human central nervous system, more appropriate questions may be:

1. When is a human brain developed enough to have a significant level of awareness?
2. When is the brain function to the point that it is aware of its own existence?
3. When is brain function enough that it is aware that the organism is separate from the environment?
4. When is brain function high enough to separate it from that of an animal?

From what I know and have learned, the answer to these questions is something near:

1. Mid-second trimester, at the earliest
2. Sometime between the answer to number 1 and 6 months (after birth).
3. 1 to 2 years of age (after birth)
4. Between 4 and 8 years of age (after birth)

Now, I certainly think that no one wants to walk around killing 8 year-olds! Heck, a cow has the brain functions of a three-year-old. Does this mean we can treat three-year-olds like cattle? Heavens no! But it does imply (even if one disagrees with the exact numbers of anything I have presented) that a different standard may be more valid than trying to pin it on brain function.

It has been suggested to me recently that perhaps women know all of the information we are debating about here and we shouldn't treat them like we are better/more intelligent then they are. That they know what is best. And that, for the most part, they tend to not want to have an abortion. However, I seem to have over simplified everything. Please forgive that!

--LPOD

P.S. People are responsible for their actions while they are sober. This includes intentionally becoming drunk or otherwise not sober. If, for example, someone knew that someone was going to have sex with them after they passed out and they chose to become drunk and passout anyway, consent is implied because a resonable adult would have expected that to happen. If, however, a resonable adult would not be able to give consent because of thier state of mind, then consent cannot be given. Even if after the fact they are okay with it, it is still, legally, rape. Also, a woman does NOT have to say no for something to be rape. She can even say YES and it still be rape if she feels that she is doing so to avoid physical harm (say, the man has a knife to her neck or a very crazed, unstable look in his eye). Basically, women can call rape on you even if they seduce you (although that wouldn't be very nice). All it requires is her saying it is and it is. This is why you should wait until you trust someone before you have sex with them. Sex is very intimate.

P.P.S. For women: Calling rape on a guy WHEN IT IS NOT is as analogous to the man as to what you see rape being to you. (but, when in doubt, don't shower and IMMEDIATLY go have a rape-kit done)

You make a lot of fair points.
I also stated that I consider that the decision ultimately fall to the woman.

All I'm asking is for a discussion between the two partners before making their decision. And I want some kind of clause in the existing law so that I am powerless while some bimbo takes away my money because I made a mistake in trusting someone I shouldn't.

I agree that there SHOULD be discussion between partners BEFORE they start exchanging bodily fluids. But, if you fail to take precautions PURELY because your 'bimbo' said she was safe, why SHOULDN'T you be involved in the repurcussions? That would imply that you hadn't really discussed the issue fully, or that you hadn't reached a point where you SHOULD have trusted.

Many of the Pro-Life debators feel it perfectly fair to point at a girl and say, "you should have known better before spreading your legs", and yet it is anathema to suggest that the same rules SHOULD apply in BOTH genders.

(Not that I am trying to say this is YOUR platform).

But, ultimately, it always comes down to the fact that, even if you WERE duped... the girl is the one that is going to have to raise the child (or abort), and that is going to have to go through the rigours of pregnancy (or the effects of abortion)... while guys have the built-in advantage that their 'job' is done, and they can be GONE, long before there is even any indicator that conception occured.

Women SHOULD be careful, and they have the problems if it goes wrong. Men should ALSO be careful - and can't keep leaving ALL the responsibility on the girl.

Yes, because two nurses working in the ER is representative of the entire united states.

Who said anything about nurses? I do know nurses, but I wasn't referring to them. Most of the nurses I know weren't nurses before Roe v. Wade.

How 'bout the part about how it says it's not entirely up to the woman, life begins at conception, and the only reason why the ruled the way they did is because they didn't think that science and religion at that point had a satisfactory answer to the issue.

First off, it doesn't say "life begins at conception." It says that Texas made the argument that life begins at conception.

Meanwhile, the answer we currently have to the issue is pretty much the exact same as it was when Roe v. Wade was decided. It's not as if we can do in-depth experiments on gestating embryos/fetuses.

Oh, and the part about how the government does have a right to step in at some point, and how it's different from issues like contraceptives and condoms.

Yes, and later in the decision they lay out exactly when the government has the right to step in - and how much stepping in they can do at that point.

Mostly, though, the part about how it comes from the biggest pro-choice argument to date. "Roe v Wade says you can't stop me!" No, Roe v Wade says the government of Texas couldn't, at that time, stop you.

There's this funny thing about the law. It's called precedent. If Texas couldn't make a law outlawing abortion, than neither can any state, because it was found that any such law, in any state, would be uncsonstitutional.

A woman can still say no when shes drunk, and that should be listened to.

I think the part you and Rhyno are missing is that no one can say "yes" when they are drunk and have it be legally binding. If someone is incapacitated, they cannot give legal consent. Thus, even if the drunk person seems into it, the act can be considered rape.

Of course, if they are both drunk, they raped each other, and both are equally at fault.

Many of the Pro-Life debators feel it perfectly fair to point at a girl and say, "you should have known better before spreading your legs", and yet it is anathema to suggest that the same rules SHOULD apply in BOTH genders.

Actually, I think the problem is that, when people say, "The woman shouldn't have an abortion just because she can't support a baby or having one might ruin her life. She should have thought of that before spreading her legs."

A pro-choice person points out that having sex is not consent to being pregnant.

A man says, "I can't support a baby. Trying to might ruin my life," and the same people arguing against the phrase being used against the woman say, "Too bad. When you had sex you consented to support a child. If you didin't want your life ruined, you should've thought about that before taking your dick out."

A bit of a double standard, no?

Everyone should be careful, certainly. However, if a man tells a woman from the very start of her pregnancy that he cannot be a part of raising the child, and she makes the decision to continue her pregnancy, she has accepted the sole responsibility.

It wasn't forced on her - she had the opportunity to keep a child from being born if she couldn't take care of it. When it is born, she has the chance to put it up for adoption. However, she made the decision to continue her pregnancy and keep the child - thus choosing to have that responsibility.

I just find it fascinating that an argument on men having opinions turns into such a blanket debate but heres how i see it:
Women say men dont go through birth so are not qualified to give an opinion.
We are not giving an opinion on your body, we are giving an opinion on the body you carry inside of you. Obviously I am pro-life, because I do not see a fetus as a part of the womans body, but a part of its own. If you read the Bill of Rights, as i am sure you are well aware of your rights, we do have the right to live. That being said, in 1973 in the infamous Roe V Wade case, little was known on fetul development in relation to the brain. I wont try to dazzle you with numbers on first brain function and whatnot because that would be superfluous to my point which is this:
If Liberals revere the life of a deer or a bear so much, why not a tiny little person, because thats what a fetus is, or if you don't believe me the person the fetus will become?


That is the point the women are trying to make. The reason you can see it as not part of their body is because it can never happen to you. You will never understand pregnancy unless you can be pregnant. Pure and simple.

That is the point the women are trying to make. The reason you can see it as not part of their body is because it can never happen to you. You will never understand pregnancy unless you can be pregnant. Pure and simple.

I agree.

And no one can understand war unless they're a soldier.

Or medical health issues unless they're a nurse or doctor.

Or computers unless they're a programmer.

Or a language unless they're a linguist.

Or music unless they're a musician.

Or philosophy unless they're Plato.

Or the concept of agriculture unless they're a farmer in neolithic middle east at the time of the agricultural revolution.

Or ancient Rome unless they're an ancient Roman....

...

Yeah maybe not, maybe you don't need direct personal firsthand experience of something in order to comprehend it.

Women have been doing it for thousands of years right?

You guys are so SEXIST! If you had to give birth, wouldn't it piss you off if someone's like 'Oh, suck it up,' when they can never experience it themselves? Like if you have a disease, say. "Oh, suck it up.' How about this. SHUT THE FUCK UP!

You guys would never SURVIVE birth if you could be pregnant and have female genitals with a male everything else...

You guys are so SEXIST! If you had to give birth, wouldn't it piss you off if someone's like 'Oh, suck it up,' when they can never experience it themselves? Like if you have a disease, say. "Oh, suck it up.' How about this. SHUT THE FUCK UP!

You guys would never SURVIVE birth if you could be pregnant and have female genitals with a male everything else...
A wee bit on the angry side, are we?

I can guarantee you that if we guys could be pregnant, we would survive it. It's just a known fact of life that an animal who have the capacity of rearing an offspring has the capacity to survive it's birth.

So come down your high horses and try to bring something more than emotionnal rant to the discussion.

And no one can understand war unless they're a soldier.

Or medical health issues unless they're a nurse or doctor.

Or computers unless they're a programmer.

Or a language unless they're a linguist.

Or music unless they're a musician.

Or philosophy unless they're Plato.

Any human being can experience any of the above things. All of us experience medical health issues. All of us could experience war, could learn to program, could learn a language, could learn about music. Most of us have experienced many of them, but all of us are physically capable of experiencing them.

A man is incapable of being pregnant.

Or the concept of agriculture unless they're a farmer in neolithic middle east at the time of the agricultural revolution.

A concept can be understood by most people. It is not an experience, but a concept.

Or ancient Rome unless they're an ancient Roman....

Actually, this is the closest analogy you used. We can make lots of guesses about what life was like for an ancient Roman. We can put evidence together and get a description of how they might have lived, what might have been important to them. But we can never know these things for sure.

Any human being can experience any of the above things. All of us experience medical health issues. All of us could experience war, could learn to program, could learn a language, could learn about music. Most of us have experienced many of them, but all of us are physically capable of experiencing them.

Unless they're not capable of hearing, so they can't experience music. Or don't have access to a computer, so can't experience programming. Or war because, you know, they don't just take anyone as a soldier.

A man is incapable of being pregnant.

This does not in any way mean a man is ignorant about pregnancy. Further, it does not mean that a woman who has never been pregnant would have any more intimate knowledge of pregnancy than a man.

Direct personal experience is not necessary for comprehension, and it definitely isn't to have an opinion. Especially in a supposedly democratic society.

A concept can be understood by most people.

Yep.

But we can never know these things for sure.

Well if you want to get philosophical about it, nothing is known for sure....

Unless they're not capable of hearing, so they can't experience music.

Hearing is not the only way to experience music.

Or don't have access to a computer, so can't experience programming.

If someone does not have access to a computer, they can never understand what it is like to use a computer.

Or war because, you know, they don't just take anyone as a soldier.

Being a soldier is not the only way to experience war.

This does not in any way mean a man is ignorant about pregnancy.

It means a man does not, and never can, know what it is like to be pregnant. Nor can he know what it is like to know that you could be pregnant. He can make all sorts of assumptions, but he can never experience that.

Further, it does not mean that a woman who has never been pregnant would have any more intimate knowledge of pregnancy than a man.

A woman has instinctual knowledge of pregnancy that a man does not have, based on the fact that she herself can become pregnant. Meanwhile, she knows, unless she is infertile, what it means to know that you could be pregnant. She knows what it means to either look forward to or dread that possibility. She knows that she can be put in a position that a man never can. She knows what uterine contractions, even when weak, feel like.

Direct personal experience is not necessary for comprehension,

For some things, it is.

How could one possibly comprehend what it is like to be in love, for instance, if one has never experienced it? They cannot.

and it definitely isn't to have an opinion.

I have never suggested that anyone can't have an opinion about anything. A man is certainly entitled to his opinion on this subject. However, since he can never be in the given situation, his opinion means less than that of someone who may be affected.

I can, for instance, have an opinion on what a cancer patient should do. However, I have never been in the position of a cancer patient. I don't know what the treatments feel like. Thus, a cancer patient's opinion of their own treatment would be much more important than mine.

I can have an opinion on what women who get pregnant accidently should do. However, I have never been in that situation. So, when a woman is in that situation, her opinion means more than mine.

I can have an opinion about what it would mean to a man to have his testicles removed due to testicular cancer. I can have opinions as to how he should act and how that must feel. However, I have never been in that position. In fact, I cannot possibly be in that position. Thus, my opinion matters less than any man, and certainly less than any man who has gone through it.

You might want to modify that a bit. After all, all abortions happen before the end of the third trimester. =)

How silly -- I meant first.

How silly -- I meant first.

Yeah, I figured as much. =)

Slightly off-topic...

sad to find no idiot made fun of me? I was having fun laughing =(

You're not honestly trolling for flames with a moderator participating in this discussion, are you????

Hearing is not the only way to experience music.


Oh okay, so it's possible to feel the vibrations sound makes, and it's possible to make light shows that coincide with a musical performance just like in Mr Holland's Opus. Except music is a tad more than vibrations, and what if you're also blind? Maybe you could read a Braille description?

If that's experiencing music, my talking with those who have experienced pregnancy is experiencing pregnancy.


It means a man does not, and never can, know what it is like to be pregnant. Nor can he know what it is like to know that you could be pregnant. He can make all sorts of assumptions, but he can never experience that.

Would it be fair to say the same about women who are physically incapable of pregnancy?

No one is saying that a man can experience pregnancy. But you're suggesting the only way to know something is through direct personal experience of the thing. That is just not correct.

A woman has instinctual knowledge of pregnancy that a man does not have, based on the fact that she herself can become pregnant. Meanwhile, she knows, unless she is infertile, what it means to know that you could be pregnant.

What the hell is "instinctual knowledge?" Instinct is not knowledge.

She knows what it means to either look forward to or dread that possibility. She knows that she can be put in a position that a man never can. She knows what uterine contractions, even when weak, feel like.

Yes. A woman can directly experience pregnancy. No one's refuting that.



For some things, it is.

How could one possibly comprehend what it is like to be in love, for instance, if one has never experienced it? They cannot.

And why not?


I have never suggested that anyone can't have an opinion about anything. A man is certainly entitled to his opinion on this subject. However, since he can never be in the given situation, his opinion means less than that of someone who may be affected.

Nonsense. At any given moment 18 year olds cannot possibly become elected President. 35+ year olds can. Should the votes of 40 year olds count more than those of 18 year olds? Why not?

My opinion means everything. That it doesn't mean as much to others because they wish to discriminate based on gender on this issue is irrelevant! All you are saying is just that. Some people discriminate based on gender and so discount male opinions.

And ANYONE may "be affected" by pregnancy.


I can, for instance, have an opinion on what a cancer patient should do. However, I have never been in the position of a cancer patient. I don't know what the treatments feel like. Thus, a cancer patient's opinion of their own treatment would be much more important than mine.

Oh? But we could *all* potentially, physically become cancer patients. (In fact, statistically speaking, we probably will at some point.) Shouldn't that mean our opinions count since, we 'know' how we 'could' be affected by it?

I can have an opinion on what women who get pregnant accidently should do. However, I have never been in that situation. So, when a woman is in that situation, her opinion means more than mine.

That's only because someone's opinion regarding their own life is held by that person to be more important than those of others.

A convicted criminal might have the opinion that he should be released from prison. Is his opinion on that matter worth more than mine simply because he's a convicted criminal and I'm not? No. I could be affected by him coming out of prison and committing further crimes, or my family could, or my community could.

I can have an opinion about what it would mean to a man to have his testicles removed due to testicular cancer. I can have opinions as to how he should act and how that must feel. However, I have never been in that position. In fact, I cannot possibly be in that position. Thus, my opinion matters less than any man, and certainly less than any man who has gone through it.

If you want to assign a market value on your opinion, feel free to do so. But not everyone assigns the same values as you do. I understand this, and don't try to make it like the price of an object (or opinion) is the same thing as it's intrinsic worth.

Good.
Why are these two states allowed to practice something, the other 48 arent?

It's called the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. The states can create their own laws as long as they don't contradict what's in the constitution.

Well you tell me then, what worked better, familys before womans lib, or familys after.
Remember how much divorce, abortion, depression, crime, disrespect, drugtaking is in society now, compared to those horrible 1950's and before you hate so much.

Divorce: impossible to get, so people suffered through impossible marriages. I know; my grandparents dealt with it by my grandfather living in the basement. PERFECT relationship there.

Abortion: Always happened; through use of herbs or mechanical means. The reason it became legal was because of all the deaths/injuries to women from self-induced or backalley abortion but that JUST does not fit into your reality.

Depression: Oh yes, many people who suffered from depression were not diagnosed as having a mental illness -- they were told to suck it up, snap out of it, etc.

Disrespect: Always occured. Surely you do not think swearing, graffiti, et al were suddenly created in the last 60 years? The middle finger has been used as a curse since ancient Roman times, and guess what: they had graffitti and vandalism too.

Crime: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA -- right -- there were NEVER gangs before the horrid 1960s, no organized crime (Al Capone who?), no murder, no assassination........ riiiiiiiight.[/quote]


lol thats why most people are, whos fault is it? Their parents? Sure, maybe to begin with, but what about when their older and not reliant on their parents or who evers looking after them, whos fault is it then? Their government? Why is it never theirs? Your part of the culture of continous blame, that never accepts any personal responsibility for their own situation, or here someone elses responsibility to dig themselves out of a hole, instead of remaining in it.
Views like yours encourage and support failure, by not encouraging taking any responsibility.

Oh, yes. I suppose that having one's spouse die and leaving one with all the responsibility to raise children and pay for the house has never happened to anyone.

I suppose no one has ever lost a job due to the economy.

I suppose no one has had their retirement fund raided (Enron, anyone?) by the people administering it.

I suppose that leukemia, or cancer, or AIDS always strikes the blameworthy.

I'm so sure there are never car accidents which cripple people.

Your views are repellant, to say the least.

Oh okay, so it's possible to feel the vibrations sound makes, and it's possible to make light shows that coincide with a musical performance just like in Mr Holland's Opus. Except music is a tad more than vibrations,

Actually, music isn't anything more than vibrations - as music is sound and sound is simply vibrations.

Would it be fair to say the same about women who are physically incapable of pregnancy?

Yes, actually, it would. They can never become pregnant and thus can never truly understand what that situation is like.

No one is saying that a man can experience pregnancy. But you're suggesting the only way to know something is through direct personal experience of the thing. That is just not correct.

Yes, it is. The only way to truly know something is to experience it. Before that, all you have are speculation and your own personal interpretation of what other people have said. You don't know what it is actually like, unless you have gone through it.

What the hell is "instinctual knowledge?" Instinct is not knowledge.

It can be. A migratory bird, for instance, knows where to go when the weather changes because of its instincts.

Yes. A woman can directly experience pregnancy. No one's refuting that.

And thus can understand it in ways that no man ever can.

And why not?

Because the description from another, filtered through your own lack of experience, does not equate to having the experience itself.

Nonsense. At any given moment 18 year olds cannot possibly become elected President. 35+ year olds can. Should the votes of 40 year olds count more than those of 18 year olds? Why not?

Improper analogy. An 18 year old is affected just as much by the selection of a president as any other citizen. They are not voting on how it feels to be a president. They are not voting on whether or not there is a president at all. They are voting on who will be president.

My opinion means everything.

It means everything when it is your experiences that are involved. It means nothing at all to a cancer patient who has to decide what treatment to use, unless they choose to ask your opinion.

And ANYONE may "be affected" by pregnancy.

Not directly. And not physically.

Oh? But we could *all* potentially, physically become cancer patients. (In fact, statistically speaking, we probably will at some point.) Shouldn't that mean our opinions count since, we 'know' how we 'could' be affected by it?

It means our opinions count more than anyone who cannot possibly ever be a cancer patient, and less than those who are currently experiencing it.

That's only because someone's opinion regarding their own life is held by that person to be more important than those of others.

And should be held by others to be more important than their own. How the hell does it make sense for you to say, "My opinion matters more than yours about my life. But my opinion also matters more than yours about your life, although I am not directly affected."?

A convicted criminal might have the opinion that he should be released from prison. Is his opinion on that matter worth more than mine simply because he's a convicted criminal and I'm not? No. I could be affected by him coming out of prison and committing further crimes, or my family could, or my community could.

And that last sentence explains exactly why your opinion has some bearing. You could be directly and physically affected by what happens to a criminal.

If you want to assign a market value on your opinion, feel free to do so.

And if you want to force your opinions of the medical choices someone else makes down their throats, feel free to do so. Just know that any time you try to force them to live by those opinions, they can use force right back.

Abortion: Always happened; through use of herbs or mechanical means. The reason it became legal was because of all the deaths/injuries to women from self-induced or backalley abortion but that JUST does not fit into your reality.

Actually, if we want to be perfectly truthful, abortion was perfectly legal throughout the majority of US history. At that point, English common law was used. Common law held that an abortion - through whatever procedure the woman may try - was perfectly legal up until the time of the quickening (basically, when she could feel it kicking). It was only after medically safe abortions became available that there were any laws passed making abortion illegal. Then, the injuries from unsafe attempts at a procedure that could possibly be safely performed began building up.

If you're too drunk to say no, that's not technically rape, and anyways, you're a stupid ass for getting that drunk with a guy who'll take advantage of you.

If you cannot give consent, it is rape.
Way to blame the victim.

I wholeheartedly agree. Perhaps you can answer my question in the above post. In essence it is "Why are liberals so hypocritical?"

Why do you assume everyone here who is pro choice is liberal? Because I'm not.

Actually, music isn't anything more than vibrations - as music is sound and sound is simply vibrations.

Are you a musician? ;)

I might as well say that the Bible is nothing more than reflected light off ink and paper.

As it happens music is more than sound.

Yes, actually, it would. They can never become pregnant and thus can never truly understand what that situation is like.

What if they don't know they can never be pregnant? Now suddenly does their ignorance of themselves translate to knowledge, since they'll operate on the basis that they could get pregnant?


Yes, it is. The only way to truly know something is to experience it. Before that, all you have are speculation and your own personal interpretation of what other people have said. You don't know what it is actually like, unless you have gone through it.

By the same token, a woman who is not now or has been pregnant doesn't know anything more about pregnancy than a man.

And suffice to say I disagree with your "experience=only true knowledge" concept, but I sense you'll never change your opinion to mine since you've never lived my life and thus can never understand my views.

It can be. A migratory bird, for instance, knows where to go when the weather changes because of its instincts.

When a loud noise happens and startles me, I don't "know" to jump up and get my heart rate going. Instinct is by definition not knowledge, even the instinct that makes it seem like birds have 'knowledge' about weather patterns.

And thus can understand it in ways that no man ever can.

If I agreed with your underlying assumptions, yes. I have no reason to though.

Because the description from another, filtered through your own lack of experience, does not equate to having the experience itself.

Nor does 'knowing that one day one could be pregnant,' or knowing what the sensation of uterine contractions.

But there is this thing called "knowledge" where people can learn without having to live everyone else's lives.

Improper analogy. An 18 year old is affected just as much by the selection of a president as any other citizen. They are not voting on how it feels to be a president.

Nor does my opinion on abortion have anything to do with what it "feels like" to be pregnant. Proper analogy.

It means everything when it is your experiences that are involved. It means nothing at all to a cancer patient who has to decide what treatment to use, unless they choose to ask your opinion.

Yes, this is just more echoing of the subjective nature of opinion. Really got nothing to do with my point.

Not directly. And not physically.

You can think of no instances in which an entire family or community is directly affected by one person or situation?

It means our opinions count more than anyone who cannot possibly ever be a cancer patient, and less than those who are currently experiencing it.

If you choose to see things like that. I don't. An opinion is an opinon. Everyone has one, and when the opinion is a vote, they are all equal.

And should be held by others to be more important than their own. How the hell does it make sense for you to say, "My opinion matters more than yours about my life. But my opinion also matters more than yours about your life, although I am not directly affected."?

I don't say that.

And that last sentence explains exactly why your opinion has some bearing. You could be directly and physically affected by what happens to a criminal.

And I could be directly and physically affected by a pregnancy. Will I be squeezing something out of my vagina? No, but that's irrelevant, I can still be both physically and directly affected.

And if you want to force your opinions of the medical choices someone else makes down their throats, feel free to do so. Just know that any time you try to force them to live by those opinions, they can use force right back.

Duly noted. *shrug* I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone... at least no more than anyone else who exercises their political power.

Are you a musician? ;)

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am.

I might as well say that the Bible is nothing more than reflected light off ink and paper.

Actually, it would make more sense to say that a Bible is made up of ink and paper, and possibly leather. This is absolutley true.

As it happens music is more than sound.

Really? How so?

What if they don't know they can never be pregnant?

Then they know what it is like to live in a world where they could be pregnant.

By the same token, a woman who is not now or has been pregnant doesn't know anything more about pregnancy than a man.

Actually, she does, as I already pointed out. She knows what it is like to fear or hope for pregnancy. She knows what it is like to live in a world where the possibility is there. She most likely knows what weak uterine contractions feel like. She doesn't necessarily know what strong ones would feel like, but she has a better idea of it than a man ever could.

And suffice to say I disagree with your "experience=only true knowledge" concept, but I sense you'll never change your opinion to mine since you've never lived my life and thus can never understand my views.

LOL! You just made my point for me!

If I agreed with your underlying assumptions, yes. I have no reason to though.

You just proved you agree with my underlying assumptions, by stating that I can never understand your views, not having had your experiences.

Nor does 'knowing that one day one could be pregnant,' or knowing what the sensation of uterine contractions.

Knowing that one could be pregnant is a separate experience from being pregnant. Both are experiences that men can never have.

But there is this thing called "knowledge" where people can learn without having to live everyone else's lives.

One cannot learn what an experience feels like without feeling it. They can hear about it. They can guess about it. But they cannot know what it feels like without being there.

Nor does my opinion on abortion have anything to do with what it "feels like" to be pregnant. Proper analogy.

Of course it doesn't - you can't know what that experience is. You can guess all you want about the experience of being pregnant, but you can never be pregnant, nor can you ever know what it is like to have the knowledge that you could.

You can think of no instances in which an entire family or community is directly affected by one person or situation?

Of course I can. For instance, a family's house being blown down by a tornado affects the entire family directly. A person burning down the community grocery store affects the entire community directly.

If you choose to see things like that. I don't. An opinion is an opinon. Everyone has one, and when the opinion is a vote, they are all equal.

Ah, but everything is not up to a vote. My decision on whether or not I will get treated for an illness is not up to a vote - it is my decision. Your decision on whether you will shop at Kroger or Food Lion is not up to a vote - it is your decision.

And, should I be pregnant, my decision on whether to continue that pregnancy is not up to a vote - it is my decision.

I don't say that.

If you try to make medical decisions for other people, yes, you do.

And I could be directly and physically affected by a pregnancy. Will I be squeezing something out of my vagina? No, but that's irrelevant, I can still be both physically and directly affected.

No, you can't. You can be indirectly affected because you know the woman involved, but the pregnancy itself does not directly affect you in any way, least of all physically.

Duly noted. *shrug* I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone... at least no more than anyone else who exercises their political power.

Making laws to match your own subjective opinions is forcing those opinions upon others - especially when you can't even be in the situation being legislated.

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 think most women would just become angered because by being a man (not by your choice, but by God or Chance Happening in genes...whatever you believe) you would have no right because you wouldn't have to go through the pain. Also, women might think that they would be stuck with the child, with no man to help her so men shouldn't have a say.

I do believe men should have a say. I don't believe in abortion, though, except in extreme cases such as rape or if the mother's life is in danger, etc. However, I don't believe that just because you're a man means that you can't have a say. Being a woman, I would welcome insight to help me make the right decision.

You're not honestly trolling for flames with a moderator participating in this discussion, are you????
Why not? Mods burn as well as anyone else. ;)

And no one can understand war unless they're a soldier.
How about people who've been victimized by war? People who've lost family members in war? People affected by the war's outcome whether they or anyone they knew were personally involved?
Or medical health issues unless they're a nurse or doctor.
Yes, because the people who have the medical health issues don't matter
Or computers unless they're a programmer.
Yep, can never use a computer unless you're a programmer, it's illegal!
Or a language unless they're a linguist.
So remember, everyone grunt from now on!
Or music unless they're a musician.
Because everyone else in the world is deaf.
Or philosophy unless they're Plato.
All those other philosophers throughout history were just full of shit.
Or the concept of agriculture unless they're a farmer in neolithic middle east at the time of the agricultural revolution.
Yeah, modern farmers don't have the first clue as to what they're doing
Or ancient Rome unless they're an ancient Roman....
Wow, an almost valid comparison, finally! Only, you can only understand as much about ancient Rome as there's evidence of, you can never understand it as much as an ancient Roman did, because so much was lost over time. Just like if you've never been pregnant, you can only imagine what it'd be like to have something growing inside you, you can never understand it to the extent that someone who's actually experienced it.

You can experience firsthand everything you mentioned except ancient Rome, and in both it and pregnancy's case, you can never understand it to the extent of someone who has. In otherwords, you lose. Please play again!

Why do you assume everyone here who is pro choice is liberal? Because I'm not.
It's like saying you're a Christian who doesn't believe in Jesus. You can say you're a Christian all you want, that doesn't make it true.

It's like saying you're a Christian who doesn't believe in Jesus. You can say you're a Christian all you want, that doesn't make it true.

And yet another completely invalid analogy.

The word Christian is defined by a belief in Christ.

The word liberal is not defined by being pro-choice. The word conservative is not defined by being anti-choice. The word moderate is not defined by either.

How about people who've been victimized by war? People who've lost family members in war? People affected by the war's outcome whether they or anyone they knew were personally involved?

Yes, because the people who have the medical health issues don't matter

Yep, can never use a computer unless you're a programmer, it's illegal!

So remember, everyone grunt from now on!

Because everyone else in the world is deaf.

All those other philosophers throughout history were just full of shit.

Yeah, modern farmers don't have the first clue as to what they're doing

Wow, an almost valid comparison, finally! Only, you can only understand as much about ancient Rome as there's evidence of, you can never understand it as much as an ancient Roman did, because so much was lost over time. Just like if you've never been pregnant, you can only imagine what it'd be like to have something growing inside you, you can never understand it to the extent that someone who's actually experienced it.

You can experience firsthand everything you mentioned except ancient Rome, and in both it and pregnancy's case, you can never understand it to the extent of someone who has. In otherwords, you lose. Please play again!
I think...that...that was his point.......that just because you're not a woman, doesn't mean pregnancy/abortion doesn't affect you.

And yet another completely invalid analogy.

The word Christian is defined by a belief in Christ.

The word liberal is not defined by being pro-choice. The word conservative is not defined by being anti-choice. The word moderate is not defined by either.
For the last damn time! It's an ANALOGY!

I think...that...that was his point.......that just because you're not a woman, doesn't mean pregnancy/abortion doesn't affect you.

No one has suggested that pregnancy/abortion does not affect men - just that it does not directly affect them and that they cannot experience it.

All of the things listed there can be experienced by people other than the ones the listed. People who are not soldiers experience war. However, someone reading about war in a book has not experienced war, although it is physically possible for them to do so. Thus, they have academic knowledge of how other people have described war, but have no actual knowledge of the experience of being in war.

Men can read in books about pregnancy, they can talk to women, they can know people who are pregnant - but they can never know the experience of being pregnant. They can never know the experience of worrying that you might be pregnant. They can never know the experience of looking forward to or dreading the idea of nine months of irreversible physical and hormonal changes caused by an embryo/fetus growing inside of them. They can never experience the situation which leads to a decision to have, or not have an abortion.

For the last damn time! It's an ANALOGY!

An analogy still has to have some basis for comparison. Yours did not. It is not possible for a Christian to not believe in Christ, as that is what defines a Christian.

It is completely possible for a conservative to be pro-choice, as opinion on abortion is not what defines the word conservative.

Thus, the analogy does not work - as the comparison is not there. Your analogy is like me saying:

"Someone who says they like chocolate but not vanilla is like someone saying that books are animals."

It's like saying you're a Christian who doesn't believe in Jesus. You can say you're a Christian all you want, that doesn't make it true.
Actually, most people who claim to be Christian aren't really Christian as shown by their failure to give up their worldly possessions in pursuit of helping their fellow man... Christianity is actually suppose to be a very liberal religion. Judeism, on the other hand, seems to be quite conservative.

No one has suggested that pregnancy/abortion does not affect men - just that it does not directly affect them and that they cannot experience it.

My mom got pregnant with me. That's pretty directly affecting me, ain't it? ;)

My mom got pregnant with me. That's pretty directly affecting me, ain't it? ;)

Incorrect. Your mother got pregnant with an embryo that had a roughly 50% chance of even being born, and an even lesser chance of becoming the person you are today.

You did not pop out of your mother two seconds ago, thus she was never truly pregnant with you.

Meanwhile, at the time that your mother was pregnant with the cells that eventually developed into you, "you" were incapable of making an opinion on the matter.

I think...that...that was his point.......that just because you're not a woman, doesn't mean pregnancy/abortion doesn't affect you.
No, his point seemed to be that just because you can't get pregnant doesn't mean you can't understand pregnancy to the same extent someone who can get pregnant can. This is obviously false. And how you came to that conclusion about my post is beyond me because it had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not pregnancy/abortion can affects you. If there's one thing that annoys me around here is the utter lack of comprehension so many people display by making comments like this...

Incorrect. Your mother got pregnant with an embryo that had a roughly 50% chance of even being born, and an even lesser chance of becoming the person you are today.

You did not pop out of your mother two seconds ago, thus she was never truly pregnant with you.

Meanwhile, at the time that your mother was pregnant with the cells that eventually developed into you, "you" were incapable of making an opinion on the matter.
No, I'm pretty sure that it was me. Cuz if it wasn't, then I wouldn't be me, and I am me, so it must have been me.

No, I'm pretty sure that it was me. Cuz if it wasn't, then I wouldn't be me, and I am me, so it must have been me.
So you're saying you're still the exact same person you were before you were born? That growing up and actually experiencing life hasn't changed you one little bit from the time you were in the womb?

the reason for the bias aganst the male's opinion on abortion I think is that they don't have to deal with it. a guy can simply not understand what it is like to have a child or to carry one. on individual basis, the father should only bea ble to stop the abortion if he is willing to raise the child on his own. I also feel that abortion should be legal but only if you have a damn good reason, of course who is to say if a reason is good or not?
A zygote is part of a woman's body, it is there, it is dependent on the woman and cannot survive outside of the uterus, it is not it's own life. Then people say it has the potential for life. Here's my question, doesn't an egg have the same potential? should having your period be considered murder because that tinny little cel had the potential to become it's own lifeform? What about the sperm that didn't get a chance to fertilize the egg, they too had that potential so how come that's ok. I just really don't get the whole potential for life argument.

While women go through the hardships of pregnancy and only women go through it, doesn't mean they are the guru when it comes to abortion.

What about the pain a man goes through when he might be forced with the decision of either killing his wife or his unborn child if his wife is in capable of making the decision? What about the pain a man feels if his wife or girlfriend is raped and decides to go through the abortion? Of course who talks about those instances? Men are the cruel ones responsible for the rape and incest (which are rare instances) and men can never understand, right? The fact that a guy could never truely empathize with what a woman might be feeling when forced to make such a decision doesn't give you the right to shut him down of having any opinion whatsoever.

The worst feeling I have when I truely care about someone is know full well that nothing you can do can make a decision like that any easier. Knowing full well that you can never truely understand what they are feeling. Abortions don't just affect the mother, physically and emotionally, it affects her husband, boyfriend, father, mother, sister, cousin, etc., anyone who cares about her. Also, if the decision ever came that a father or mother must decide to let their child live or die or else the mother dies, I don't know why anyone would not choose the life of the child. That is a pure act of paramount selfishness on both parts if you choose otherwise. Of course I wouldn't want to see the mother die, but I don't know one mother who wouldn't do anything for her child, yes, even die.

No, his point seemed to be that just because you can't get pregnant doesn't mean you can't understand pregnancy to the same extent someone who can get pregnant can. This is obviously false. And how you came to that conclusion about my post is beyond me because it had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not pregnancy/abortion can affects you. If there's one thing that annoys me around here is the utter lack of comprehension so many people display by making comments like this...
when a man says things like "she shoulda kept her legs closed" and "a woman should only be able to get an abortion in cases of rape and incest" you can be pretty sure that he is not even trying to understand what its like to be pregnant.

unwanted pregnancy is one of the worst situations that a woman ever faces. it doesnt matter how she ended up pregnant. she is now facing the hardest most wrenching decision of her life. if your response doesnt reflect this reality then no, you dont know what its like to be pregnant.

im not accusing YOU of being this way. im just saying that this thread tends to answer the question posed by the original post.

So you're saying you're still the exact same person you were before you were born? That growing up and actually experiencing life hasn't changed you one little bit from the time you were in the womb?
No, I'm saying that the embryo my mother got pregnant with went through my experiences. Thus, me.

You were you five minutes ago, yes?

Maybe a slightly different you, but still you.

[QUOTE=Aquilapus] Men are the cruel ones responsible for the rape and incest (which are rare instances) and men can never understand, right? QUOTE]
An average of 5.5 children per 10,000 enrolled in day care are sexually abused, an average of 8.9 children out of every 10,000 are abused in the home
Source: Finkelhor & Williams, 1988.

Not as rare as we'd like it.

the reason for the bias aganst the male's opinion on abortion I think is that they don't have to deal with it. a guy can simply not understand what it is like to have a child or to carry one. on individual basis, the father should only bea ble to stop the abortion if he is willing to raise the child on his own. I also feel that abortion should be legal but only if you have a damn good reason, of course who is to say if a reason is good or not?
A zygote is part of a woman's body, it is there, it is dependent on the woman and cannot survive outside of the uterus, it is not it's own life. Then people say it has the potential for life. Here's my question, doesn't an egg have the same potential? should having your period be considered murder because that tinny little cel had the potential to become it's own lifeform? What about the sperm that didn't get a chance to fertilize the egg, they too had that potential so how come that's ok. I just really don't get the whole potential for life argument.

I think the States should be the ones to decide about abortion, the only jurisdiction the Federal government has is when problems arise between the standing laws of States in despute with one another.

That thing inside the women (if fertilized) wouldn't be there with out a man's sperm cell. Just because it's in your body now doesn't make it yours. During intercourse, does the man's penis temporarily belong to a woman? How does that work out? An egg, by itself, is just an egg. It does have the potential to become a life, but only once it has been fertilized. A man's sperm, by itself, is just a sperm cell. It does have the potential to become a life, but only once it has fertilized an egg. If the egg becomes fertilized, it has the potential to become a human baby. 50'000 things can happen to change that. Science, however, has shown us that human DNA exists the very millisecond the egg become fertilized. When a woman has her period and it doesn't become fertilized is not murder. It takes one sperm cell to fertilize an egg, am I a murderer when I send the other million to their deaths? Are you a murderer if you try to have a baby, but your hubby is shoting blanks or you try to have a baby and it just fails for whatever reason? That logic is obsurd.

The potential of life argument is in the realm of the very milliscond an egg is fertilized, because science has shown DNA exists at that moment. That is when the potential for that egg to become a baby exists, not when the egg is unfertilized.

Plus, how do you know the baby won't become a Nobel Prize Winner or, granted, the next Jack the Ripper. You don't know. It is supreme arrogance to say otherwise.

my only arguments:

1:what is it: A human being
2:can we kill it: Only if justice demands it.
3:does justice demand it: It broke no laws, no, it has no right to die.

END OF ARGUMENT.

oh, fine, one more clause, the women think that they can have abortions because the baby is in them.
That doesn't make it part of your body, it's not your body, it's the baby's body, you cannot kill it.
period.

Also, if the decision ever came that a father or mother must decide to let their child live or die or else the mother dies, I don't know why anyone would not choose the life of the child. That is a pure act of paramount selfishness on both parts if you choose otherwise. Of course I wouldn't want to see the mother die, but I don't know one mother who wouldn't do anything for her child, yes, even die.
... Yes, so selfish to choose the life of the mother over the life of the fetus. Never mind that the fetus has never experienced life, will not be mourned to the extent of the mother, will now grow up never knowing its mother, will never replace its mother in the case that said mother has already previously had children, will put an even greater burden on the father financially while having to deal with the emotional burden of losing his wife, etc... You make one critical mistake here, one that's been pointed out in this thread already: A fetus is not a child, just like a child is not an adult. Also, there's rarely a guaruntee that only the mother will die, so why risk both dying by trying to give birth?

[QUOTE=Aquilapus] Men are the cruel ones responsible for the rape and incest (which are rare instances) and men can never understand, right? QUOTE]
An average of 5.5 children per 10,000 enrolled in day care are sexually abused, an average of 8.9 children out of every 10,000 are abused in the home
Source: Finkelhor & Williams, 1988.

Not as rare as we'd like it.


What?! 5.5 out of 10,000 is .05%, that's not rare? 8.9 out of 10,000 is .1% is not rare? It happens, yes. It's unfortunate, yes. To call it rampant is absurd.

I have no problem with men having an opinion on abortion. I just won't take it into account.

I don't mean to sound rude, but there is no way a man can understand what I went through being pregnant.

Actually, if we want to be perfectly truthful, abortion was perfectly legal throughout the majority of US history. At that point, English common law was used. Common law held that an abortion - through whatever procedure the woman may try - was perfectly legal up until the time of the quickening (basically, when she could feel it kicking). It was only after medically safe abortions became available that there were any laws passed making abortion illegal. Then, the injuries from unsafe attempts at a procedure that could possibly be safely performed began building up.


What :confused: Let's just re-write everything shall we, why confuse ourselves with real history and facts… *la la la, skipping through the meadows*

Samplings of records include a 1648 execution for infanticide in Massachusetts, a 1652 conviction for intention to abort in Maryland, abortifacient use in the 1680s, and a 1719 murder of a newborn in New York. Additionally, a review of conditions in colonial Massachusetts via records shows that about 2 percent of all children were illegitimate, yet 90 percent of murdered newborns were illegitimate.

In America’s early years abortion was recognized as a negative phenomenon and an attack on human life. Early American colonies adopted laws drawn from English common law which you claimed gave them the right to abortions but actually declared abortion prior to quickening (feeling life) a misdemeanor, and after quickening a felony. But at no time, ‘legal.’

After the foundation of the United States, abortion laws began to reappear in the governing processes by the 1820s, forbidding abortion after the fourth month of pregnancy.

In 1869, the British Parliament passed the "Offenses Against the Persons Act." It pushed the felony punishment back to fertilization ~ the point at which scientific evidence proves life begins because the identity is then separate from the mother. During the same time period, every existing state passed their own laws against abortion as well.

Through the efforts primarily of physicians, the American Medical Association, and legislators, most abortions in the US had been outlawed by 1900.

I have no idea what you have been reading, but it’s a crock. No one should have the right to re-write history… “everyone in history has always been on my side…” yadda yadda yadda. :rolleyes:

... Yes, so selfish to choose the life of the mother over the life of the fetus. Never mind that the fetus has never experienced life, will not be mourned to the extent of the mother, will now grow up never knowing its mother, will never replace its mother in the case that said mother has already previously had children, will put an even greater burden on the father financially while having to deal with the emotional burden of losing his wife, etc... You make one critical mistake here, one that's been pointed out in this thread already: A fetus is not a child, just like a child is not an adult. Also, there's rarely a guaruntee that only the mother will die, so why risk both dying by trying to give birth?

I'd miss my mother terribly, but knowing she gave her life so I could have the chance to live a life doesn't seem selfish to me. Yeah, after all it's just a fetus, who'd miss that ball of goup, it's not a child. It's like throwing away a piece of trash isn't it? The father worried about the finances over his child, or HIM having to deal with the loss, how will HE go on by himself, that's not being selfish at all. I don't know one parent who looks at a child as a financial debt or as a future plague of emotional burden. And my "critical mistake" is the point being debated today. On camp feels it's just a fetus. The other camp feels it's a child at the millisecond of conception because science has shown DNA to be present at that very moment. Of course, it can't think perhaps (no one can know that). It can't talk. It can't read a book. All those things we consider living it possibly can't do, so it's not REALLY alive. Let's just biff it in the bin.

Science, however, has shown us that human DNA exists the very millisecond the egg become fertilized.
Umm, hate to break this to you, but science has shown that both eggs and semen contain human DNA. It doesn't just magically appear the millisecond a sperm cell enters the egg; it's already there BEFORE it happens. So I'm afraid your point is moot

Umm, hate to break this to you, but science has shown that both eggs and semen contain human DNA. It doesn't just magically appear the millisecond a sperm cell enters the egg; it's already there BEFORE it happens.
It's not a complete blueprint of human genetics and chromosomes (DNA RNA etc.,) until after fertilization. Both sides are required, not optional.

Umm, hate to break this to you, but science has shown that both eggs and semen contain human DNA. It doesn't just magically appear the millisecond when a sperm cell enters the egg; it's already there BEFORE it happens.

Well in that case I must be comitting abortion everytime I masturbate or have one of those wet dreams. Women must be having an abortion when they have their periods. Is that the logic you are using?

If it is, then right now I have a baby inside me, or is it just a fetus? Same goes for the women. I guess we reproduce asexually, right?

A human life doesn't exist like that. The second you put the male sperm (26 chromosomes I think it is, help me out on this one) and a female egg together (the other 26 chromosomes, double check me on that) life begins. Sperm and egg are just pieces of the puzzle.

It's not a complete blueprint of human genetics and chromosomes (DNA RNA etc.,) until after fertilization. Both sides are required, not optional.
Fact remains that any kind of human cell contains human DNA, which is what makes it a human cell. It was probably meant that it has human DNA distinctive from that of the mother's DNA, but the way it was worded put it on equal level to any other kind of cell in her body.

I am not about to read through 50 pages of arguing, so I'll just add my own opinion (I am male).

How does having a uterus determine the right to have an opinion on abortion? It doesn't. You're allowed to think whatever the hell you want. However, whether anyone cares about those opinions depends on your ability to express said opinions in a legible, sensible and convincing way.

As for my own opinion... Having sex is sometimes an expression of love, sometimes an expression of lust and sometimes an expression of having consumed too much alcohol. It is not, however, a way of saying that you're the new ruler of the partner's uterus. If you wish to have a child, how about you actually TALK about it with your partner before you make that decision? If you can't keep your pants on long enough to ask a single question when so much is at stake, then you don't have the prerequisites to make a half-decent father anyway.

And if you know the girl is going to have an abortion, and you STILL had to "plant your seed", only to whine when she keeps her promise, then you don't deserve to live, let alone breed. And for the sake of mankind, your child should probably be killed to ensure that whatever horrible genetic defect led to your unimaginable levels of arrogance, selfishness and irresponsibility dies with you.

Just my opinion of course. *dons flame retardant suit*

*snip*

/signed

I am not about to read through 50 pages of arguing, so I'll just add my own opinion (I am male).

How does having a uterus determine the right to have an opinion on abortion? It doesn't. You're allowed to think whatever the hell you want. However, whether anyone cares about those opinions depends on your ability to express said opinions in a legible, sensible and convincing way.

As for my own opinion... Having sex is sometimes an expression of love, sometimes an expression of lust and sometimes an expression of having consumed too much alcohol. It is not, however, a way of saying that you're the new ruler of the partner's uterus. If you wish to have a child, how about you actually TALK about it with your partner before you make that decision? If you can't keep your pants on long enough to ask a single question when so much is at stake, then you don't have the prerequisites to make a half-decent father anyway.

And if you know the girl is going to have an abortion, and you STILL had to "plant your seed", only to whine when she keeps her promise, then you don't deserve to live, let alone breed. And for the sake of mankind, your child should probably be killed to ensure that whatever horrible genetic defect led to your unimaginable levels of arrogance, selfishness and irresponsibility dies with you.

Just my opinion of course. *dons flame retardant suit*

Nicely done.