NationStates Jolt Archive

[QUOTE=Desperate Measures]


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.

Wonderful way to look at numbers. Another way is that a mid-sized town has a population of 10000. Which means on average that five children are victims of incest in a town of that size. My town has about 55,000 residents. Also, that number was from children in daycare facilities where the incest was actually proven to have occurred. I don't think I need to say that incest does go unreported. Really, though. Say it's only one child per town. I guess to people like you, that isn't much.

[QUOTE=Aquilapus]

Wonderful way to look at numbers. Another way is that a mid-sized town has a population of 10000. Which means on average that five children are victims of incest in a town of that size. My town has about 55,000 residents. Also, that number was from children in daycare facilities where the incest was actually proven to have occurred. I don't think I need to say that incest does go unreported. Really, though. Say it's only one child per town. I guess to people like you, that isn't much.


Given that this is getting slightly off topic...the fact that it does happen is uncalled for, period. It does happen. Those cases or rape and incest that might lead to abortion, do happen. To think that they happen all the time, that they are a rampent factor to abortions is absurd. That is my point. I was not making a point that "Oh well, it's just a few kids." I was not coming down as pro-incest or pro-rape. They happen, I don't want them to happen. AT ALL. Not one, not half of one. AT ALL. I care about EVERY life, even the one you say doesn't exist when it does exist. Stick to what I am saying and not what you think I am implying. These attempted character attacks or trying to spin my arguments outside of what they actually say is a weak argument. Do I make my stance clear on these figures of yours? Is my point coming across? That goes to everyone. Am I making myself clear?

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 I'm still me. Different me, of course. Still me.

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

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

It's part of her body for 9 months. Her body changes and responds to the pregnancy, and her body provides the protection and nourishment the foetus requires. Pregnancy or giving birth can even put her own life at risk. So, how is it "not her body?" It's very much her body, and ultimately it should be her choice to make regarding what happens to it.

[QUOTE=Desperate Measures]


Given that this is getting slightly off topic...the fact that it does happen is uncalled for, period. It does happen. Those cases or rape and incest that might lead to abortion, do happen.
Actually... :rolleyes:

There are no recorded cases of an abortion because of incest.

Victims of incest usually view their rapists as true lovers. They think the person really does love them, so if there is a baby, they rarely wish to give them up. They would view the baby as a token of the supposed love, not as the result of a taboo relationship. And, you have to remember that there's a built-in defense against babies from incest: the egg won't usually accept the sperm.

Now, if it's a case of rape by an uncle or something, that counts as rape. And, all the stuff I said before applies: the chances of a girl getting pregnant are very low. Again, it happens. However, official records show no recorded abortions in the case of incest.

It's part of her body for 9 months. Her body changes and responds to the pregnancy, and her body provides the protection and nourishment the foetus requires. Pregnancy or giving birth can even put her own life at risk. So, how is it "not her body?" It's very much her body, and ultimately it should be her choice to make regarding what happens to it.
YAY! N00B! (Or someone with more than one nation...that could be it too. But n00bs are more fun, so I'm gonna go with n00b).

The thing growing inside of her isn't her body, and she doesn't have the right to tell it to die any more than she has the right to tell anyone else to die.

How does my being "new" affect anything regarding this issue? That just makes your argument sound all the more weak.

My point is, the pregnancy affects not only her body, but for many, the quality of life she'll live and perhaps the type of life she'll be able to give the child if it is born. She should be able to decide for herself what happens to her own body and her own child.

[QUOTE=Aquilapus]

Wonderful way to look at numbers. Another way is that a mid-sized town has a population of 10000. Which means on average that five children are victims of incest in a town of that size. My town has about 55,000 residents. Also, that number was from children in daycare facilities where the incest was actually proven to have occurred. I don't think I need to say that incest does go unreported. Really, though. Say it's only one child per town. I guess to people like you, that isn't much.
I love how people always act like you're the bad guy when you point out things like this.

So, you're willing to legalize a practice that kills well over a million human beings a year (arguable, I know, but just go with me here), in order to give five children the option to kill other children.

And you want to take the moral high road. :rolleyes:

How does my being "new" affect anything regarding this issue? That just makes your argument sound all the more weak.
Nothing at all. :D

I just like pointing out the fact that you're a n00b.

My point is, the pregnancy affects not only her body, but for many, the quality of life she'll live and perhaps the type of life she'll be able to give the child if it is born. She should be able to decide for herself what happens to her own body and her own child.
That, my n00bie friend, is bullshit. The only thing it does is keep her from getting raging drunk, operating a wrecking ball, or joining in competitive figure skating for a measly 9 months of her probable 70+ year life. After that, there is this thing called "adoption," maybe you've heard of it. ;)

You can have an opinion, and you obviously do.

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

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

This is exactly the point. You can have an arguement, and it can be valid, but the truth is that you can't know. You can't understand the complex relationship that goes on between a soon-to-be (or-not-to-be) mother and the fetus growing in her. People have never understood that just because you are pro-choice doesn't mean that we think that abortion is for everybody every time. This simply means that a woman should be in control of her body. I don't even refer to it as being pro-choice, i say its more pro-woman and being pro woman means believing in the woman and the woman's pain over all else.

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

Actually, I think it's the baby's body - and life - that is generally at risk.
(Although, in some circumstances the mother's life may be at risk also.)

I was a fetus once. I have a very strong opinion about whether my mother should have had an abortion or not.
When it is only the mother's right to decide about abortion, then only the mother has the (social, physical, moral, financial, civil, criminal) responsibility for the life of the child.

Unsurprisingly, as pro-abortion arguments increase in popularity (from males and females) people taking the rest of parenting responsibilities seriously decreases. They are both symptoms of desire to avoid accountability for your own actions.

Actually, I think it's the baby's body - and life - that is generally at risk.
(Although, in some circumstances the mother's life may be at risk also.)

I was a fetus once. I have a very strong opinion about whether my mother should have had an abortion or not.
When it is only the mother's right to decide about abortion, then only the mother has the (social, physical, moral, financial, civil, criminal) responsibility for the life of the child.

Unsurprisingly, as pro-abortion arguments increase in popularity (from males and females) people taking the rest of parenting responsibilities seriously decreases. They are both symptoms of desire to avoid accountability for your own actions.

The wonderful moral decay of the American society. If it feels right, do it! Accountability, does that mean you can keep books really well for businesses? As some might belive nowadays.

[QUOTE=Desperate Measures]


Given that this is getting slightly off topic...the fact that it does happen is uncalled for, period. It does happen. Those cases or rape and incest that might lead to abortion, do happen. To think that they happen all the time, that they are a rampent factor to abortions is absurd. That is my point. I was not making a point that "Oh well, it's just a few kids." I was not coming down as pro-incest or pro-rape. They happen, I don't want them to happen. AT ALL. Not one, not half of one. AT ALL. I care about EVERY life, even the one you say doesn't exist when it does exist. Stick to what I am saying and not what you think I am implying. These attempted character attacks or trying to spin my arguments outside of what they actually say is a weak argument. Do I make my stance clear on these figures of yours? Is my point coming across? That goes to everyone. Am I making myself clear?
You were downplaying the numbers of incest and that is an argument for having an abortion. The last thing I would think of anyone I didn't know was that they were pro-incest. I'd be a very weird individual if I did have such notions of perfect strangers. Also, I wasn't spinning your arguments. I'm saying that the number is significant.
I consider myself pro-choice. That includes the freedom for you to have any argument you like to be pro-life. Convince us all that having an abortion is a terrible thing. Help by giving women the tools necessary to provide for a child that they thought they couldn't raise. Believe in whatever your God says to you. But making a law is not going to prevent abortions. It will only raise more dangerous back alley fixes. Besides there are too many arguments for having an abortion for me to accept what most (not all) pro-life people have to say which stems from a religion which I don't believe in, I cannot accept your stance. The negatives are numerous and dangerous to society as a whole: Overpopulation. Yes, incest. Rape. Poverty. Crime. It has been suggested the lowered crime rate is influenced by women having abortions. So, please. Show us the grisly pictures of botched abortions. Dictate to us when you believe life begins. But creating a law against abortions is, in the long run, morally wrong.

[QUOTE=Desperate Measures]
I love how people always act like you're the bad guy when you point out things like this.

So, you're willing to legalize a practice that kills well over a million human beings a year (arguable, I know, but just go with me here), in order to give five children the option to kill other children.

And you want to take the moral high road. :rolleyes:
I don't have to legalize it. It's legal.

[QUOTE=RhynoD]
I don't have to legalize it. It's legal.
Indeed. You know what I meant, or at least, I hope you do.

[QUOTE=Aquilapus]
You were downplaying the numbers of incest and that is an argument for having an abortion. The last thing I would think of anyone I didn't know was that they were pro-incest. I'd be a very weird individual if I did have such notions of perfect strangers. Also, I wasn't spinning your arguments. I'm saying that the number is significant.
I consider myself pro-choice. That includes the freedom for you to have any argument you like to be pro-life. Convince us all that having an abortion is a terrible thing. Help by giving women the tools necessary to provide for a child that they thought they couldn't raise. Believe in whatever your God says to you. But making a law is not going to prevent abortions. It will only raise more dangerous back alley fixes. Besides there are too many arguments for having an abortion for me to accept what most (not all) pro-life people have to say which stems from a religion which I don't believe in, I cannot accept your stance. The negatives are numerous and dangerous to society as a whole: Overpopulation. Yes, incest. Rape. Poverty. Crime. It has been suggested the lowered crime rate is influenced by women having abortions. So, please. Show us the grisly pictures of botched abortions. Dictate to us when you believe life begins. But creating a law against abortions is, in the long run, morally wrong.

The belief that lowered crime rate has any corrolation between abortion rates is going off of the assumption that the child was going to be a menace to society. It is that arrogance and line of thinking that truely worries me. You have know way of knowing what kind of person this child might have become, to believe otherwise is pure arrogance. You assume that if there was a law against abortions it would lead directly to "back alley abortions", it would be a direct consequence from it. Do you also assume that if the people, the States, were to decide this issue and not the Supreme Court, that they would automatically choose to go against it? The biggest debate is how this view came to be held by the country. It wasn't by the people, by Congress, or the president. It was the Supreme Court that felt it was an unconstitutional invasion of privacy by the government to decide such things. There is now law for it or against it. It is an untouchable problem that the governments can't touch because the Supreme Court won't let them. Society is the only one that can decide its morality right now, not government. You are up-playing the numbers of incest and rape! Again, 1 is too much in ANY case! What sort of tools do you want a woman to have to raise a child? More government funding for welfare programs? Government funded daycare center's? A father that wasn't a deadbeat dad? It is the "choice" that the woman made to have unprotected sex with someone she thought sincere. Is it the responsibility of the government to make sure every individual is making the "right" choice? That sounds like a "Big Brother" crisis to me. I don't believe in God for the record, and this isn't just a religious debate. Don't have sex until you are ready to accept whatever the consequences might be. Have a child when you are ready to accept that responsibilty. I respect your stance that you hold, to view the "rights" against the "wrongs". It is your logic that frightens me. You can believe what you want, but be clear of what it is you believe. Crystal clear. I belive every life is important, in whatever form. Abortion is not an answer to poverty, to crime, to back alley abortions no matter how much you might want it to be. There is no panacea for this moral, yes moral, problem in our society.

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.

So apparently my political outlook is what YOU say it is? That makes no sense. Please try again. You only know what I think of THIS issue, if you're calling me a liberal.

Also, it's easy to dismiss people's arguments when you attach a label to them.

[QUOTE=Desperate Measures]

The belief that lowered crime rate has any corrolation between abortion rates is going off of the assumption that the child was going to be a menace to society. It is that arrogance and line of thinking that truely worries me. You have know way of knowing what kind of person this child might have become, to believe otherwise is pure arrogance. You assume that if there was a law against abortions it would lead directly to "back alley abortions", it would be a direct consequence from it. Do you also assume that if the people, the States, were to decide this issue and not the Supreme Court, that they would automatically choose to go against it? The biggest debate is how this view came to be held by the country. It wasn't by the people, by Congress, or the president. It was the Supreme Court that felt it was an unconstitutional invasion of privacy by the government to decide such things. There is now law for it or against it. It is an untouchable problem that the governments can't touch because the Supreme Court won't let them. Society is the only one that can decide its morality right now, not government. You are up-playing the numbers of incest and rape! Again, 1 is too much in ANY case! What sort of tools do you want a woman to have to raise a child? More government funding for welfare programs? Government funded daycare center's? A father that wasn't a deadbeat dad? It is the "choice" that the woman made to have unprotected sex with someone she thought sincere. Is it the responsibility of the government to make sure every individual is making the "right" choice? That sounds like a "Big Brother" crisis to me. I don't believe in God for the record, and this isn't just a religious debate. Don't have sex until you are ready to accept whatever the consequences might be. Have a child when you are ready to accept that responsibilty. I respect your stance that you hold, to view the "rights" against the "wrongs". It is your logic that frightens me. You can believe what you want, but be clear of what it is you believe. Crystal clear. I belive every life is important, in whatever form. Abortion is not an answer to poverty, to crime, to back alley abortions no matter how much you might want it to be. There is no panacea for this moral, yes moral, problem in our society.
The belief that crime rates have gone down and that it is, in part, due to abortion is sensical. A child who is born that is unloved and unwanted by his or her parents is not growing up in a healthy and productive manner. He is less likely to receive a good education and he is more likely to find himself in the wrong element.
Abstinence only does not work. It may for you. You won't ever have to be in the unfortunate position of caring for a child you hadn't planned on. There is nothing wrong with that and what is more is that that is good. But asking people to be abstinant doesn't work and it never has. It leads to less knowledge of sexuality, higher birth rates and higher incidents of STD's.
So, yes. What I'm saying is if you want abortion rates to drop - better welfare programs, more day care centers, more money to single mothers.

[QUOTE=Aquilapus]
The belief that crime rates have gone down and that it is, in part, due to abortion is sensical. A child who is born that is unloved and unwanted by his or her parents is not growing up in a healthy and productive manner. He is less likely to receive a good education and he is more likely to find himself in the wrong element.
Abstinence only does not work. It may for you. You won't ever have to be in the unfortunate position of caring for a child you hadn't planned on. There is nothing wrong with that and what is more is that that is good. But asking people to be abstinant doesn't work and it never has. It leads to less knowledge of sexuality, higher birth rates and higher incidents of STD's.
So, yes. What I'm saying is if you want abortion rates to drop - better welfare programs, more day care centers, more money to single mothers.

That is going off of the assumption that the parents don't love or don't want the child. What of a parent who just lost there job and the child was born a few weeks ago, or is going to be born in a few months. Does that make it OK to abort the child because the parents know how much of a problem it will be? Sounds like horrible parents period. That does not mean abortion should be legalized on the account of bad parenting, a bad society, or a lack of morality throughout a society. You say that asking for abstinence has led to higher birth rates and higher STDs? What are the consequences of pushing sexual liberation? Have sex because it feels good? Have sex because it's natural and normal? What are the consequences of that? You believe that their is one idea or one motivation behind these "statistics". That is not sensical. You concentrate on the rare circumstances that might cause for a parent to have an abortion, and you use those instances to justify it all together. That does not make sense. You also speak of abstinence as not working AT ALL. You speak in abosolutes. This problem will not be solved by increased government spending to help out single mothers. This is a problem of society, not of governments lack of intervention. What of children who grow up in poverty and become movie stars or have enormous success? You assume in absolutes. That is dangerous and flawed thinking. To look at a child as an "unfortunate" circumstance of two peoples decisions is dangerous. What happened to people taking responsibility for their actions and the actions of others?

[QUOTE=Desperate Measures]

That is going off of the assumption that the parts don't love or don't want the child. What of a parent who just lost there job and the child was born a few weeks ago, or is going to be born in a few months. Does that make it OK to abort the child because the parents know how much of a problem it will be? Sounds like horrible parents period. That does not mean abortion should be legalized on the account of bad parenting, a bad society, or a lack of morality throughout a society. You say that the pushing of abstinece has led to higher birth rates and higher STDs? What are the consequences of pushing sexual liberation? Have sex because it feels good? Have sex because it's natural and normal? What are the consequences of that? You are pushing the concept that there is one idea or one motivation behind these "statistics". That is not sensical. You concentrate on the rare circumstances that might cause for a parent to have an abortion, and you use those instances to justify it all together. That does not make sense. You also speak of abstinence as not working AT ALL. You speak in abosolutes. This problem will not be solved by increased government spending to help out single mothers. This is a problem of society, not of governments lack of intervention. What of children who grow up in poverty and become movie stars or enormous success? You assume in absolutes. That is dangerous and flawed thinking. To look at a child as an "unfortunate" circumstance of two peoples decisions is dangerous. What happened to people taking responsibility for their actions and the actions of others?
Abstinence as a tool in society does not work. It has never worked and will never work.
You are taking my positions as if they were absolutes but they are not. I am not saying that every aborted fetus would have been a gun toting gangsta.
You don't want government intervention but you'd like the government to say that abortion is illegal? Perhaps I'm not clear on this.
And saying that mistreating a child is wrong and parents should be responsible is naive. Yes, of course that is how life should be. Life is not like that.
My instances for women having abortions are not rare. Poverty is not a rare reason for having an abortion. Other reasons? A woman making a mistake with a man she does not love. My girlfriend had an abortion because the man she was with turned out to be abusive a month after she had conceived. If it were not for her abortion and her break up with that asshole, I would not be with the woman I love. She would be caring for a child that had an abusive father. She would most likely be a single mother. Single mothers must have two jobs. Raising her child and making money. A government that cares for it's citizens should care for someone like her. I was pro choice before I met my girlfriend and I'm glad that I didn't have any beliefs that stood in the way of me loving her.
You offer no alternatives but abstinence. It is close minded and dangerous and unrealistic. For you personally, that should work. For the world at large, safe sex works too.
Another thought is that abortion is not murder. Yes, it will develop into a human. And yes people with a strong sense of conscience who have had an abortion will always think of the child that could have been. But the child never was.

Some of you have the attitude that 'big deal, it's just nine months, it's an inconvenience, deal.' For those of you who blithely are dismissing the risk to a woman's health during pregnancy, I offer these links and excerpts.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/healthnet/SAsia/forums/Nutrition/Nutrition/S007.HTM

"Child bearing imposes both physical and mental strain on the body and mind and it is important that the would be mother leads a healthy life during pregnancy. One of the major factor that promotes health and well being of both mother and baby in the womb is a wholesome nourishing diet."

"Energy Cost of Pregnancy

About 60% of the energy cost of pregnancy is accounted for by the energy content of the fetus and increments in the maternal tissue, and the remaining 40% is due to a higher basal metabolic rate (BMR) and the extra cost of a normal and heavier body."

"...there is an increased need for calcium, iron, folic acid, magnesium, selenium, iodine, zinc and other vitamins from B-Complex group. Minerals have three general roles in metabolism: as structural components (e.g. calcium and phosphorous), as cofactors to enzymes (e.g. zinc, magnesium and . selenium), and as constituents complexed or covalently bound to hormones (e.g. Iodine and various other fundamental molecules such as iron and cobalt). The roles are unaltered in pregnancy but the mineral needs must take account of fetal transfer. It is said that there are adaptive mechanisms which alter the rates of mineral absorption and utilisation during pregnancy."

"Women with a low dietry calcium intake during pregnancy have increased blood pressure, the physiological explanation for this is not clear, however, higher levels of parathyroid hormones associated with low levels of calcium increases the level of intracellular ionized calcium. This causes myocyte contraction, arteriolar constriction and blood pressure elevation.[15]"

"Dietary intake of magnesium in pregnant women may be as low as two-third that of recommended daily allowances. Plasma magnesium levels are considerably reduced during third trimester of pregnancy and during labour. This creates a need for magnesium therapy in pregnant women, in whom magnesium has various beneficial effects.

* Anticonvulsive magnesium activity in pregnancy induced hypertension and pre-eclampsia.[10]
* Antihypertensive efficacy, in hypertensive women.[10]
* Reduced incidences of pre-eclampsia, premature delivery and vaginal haemorrhage.[11,12,13]

Based on these favourable effects there is a need for magnesium supplementation during pregnancy."

"The human body contains 2 to 3 g of zinc. Adequate levels of zinc are required for normal fertility & normal fetal development. Its deficiency has been reported to be associated with neural tube defects and the risk of congenital malformations [1] Intrauterine growth retardation, low birth weight and pregnancy induced hypertension.[7,17]"

"Increased requirement of iron in an Indian environment is essential,"

"Complications of pregnancy / mild nausea and vomiting

During the first trimester the physiological and biochemical balances are often disturbed possibly because of excessive hormonal production. Gastrointestinal upsets including loss of appetite, nausea and vomiting are relatively frequent and loss of weight takes place because of inability to eat sufficient food.

Mild early morning nausea may usually be overcome by the use of high carbohydrate foods like crackers, dry toast, hard candies or jelly. Frequent small meals rather than the large meals are preferable. Fatty foods such as a pastries, desserts, fried foods, excessive seasoning, coffee in large amounts and strongly flavoured vegetables may be restricted or eliminated

Constipation

A normal balanced wholesome diet rich in fibre is recommended.. It is also necessary to stress the importance of adequate fluid intake regular habits of exercise sleep and recreation.

Toxemia

It is a combination of symptoms including hypertension edema and albuminuria. Sodium restriction is advised with caution. "


http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/uvahealth/peds_hrpregnant/cardiac.cfm

"In pregnancy, there is a large increase in blood volume. Beginning in the first trimester, the mother's blood volume increases to approximately 50 percent more than before pregnancy. This extra fluid puts an increased workload on the heart. The heart responds by increasing the cardiac output - the amount of blood that goes through the circulatory system in one minute. Other body systems also respond. Blood pressure decreases to allow flow of the increased blood volume.

During labor and delivery, there can be great changes in the heart and vascular system. Large amounts of blood move from the uterus into the mother's circulation as the uterus contracts. This causes major changes in blood pressure, heart rate, and cardiac output. Epidural or spinal anesthesia may cause blood pressure to decrease."

"Diagnosing heart disease in pregnancy:

Heart disease is a major complication of pregnancy. It occurs in about 1 percent of all pregnancies. Sometimes, heart disease is known before pregnancy. However, some women may have unknown heart conditions that only become apparent during pregnancy."



http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/90/1/321

http://www.womenfitness.net/allergies_preg.htm

"During pregnancy, the body's a immune system tends to be less reactive than at other times. This is normal, and necessary to prevent your body 'rejecting' your pregnancy. (As, half of your baby's genetic material is 'alien' to your body.) Because of this, allergic conditions (such as asthma and eczema) - often seem to get better during pregnancy, although a minority of women may find they get worse. Similarly, autoimmune conditions tend to improve – but not always. There is no way of predicting exactly what will happen.

At certain times, you may become sensitive to certain soaps or other washing or cleaning products, or to cosmetics or perfumes. You may also be more sensitive to sunlight. (a local reaction – itching or a rash.)"

http://www.diabetes.org/gestational-diabetes.jsp

"Pregnant women who have never had diabetes before but who have high blood sugar (glucose) levels during pregnancy are said to have gestational diabetes. Gestational diabetes affects about 4% of all pregnant women - about 135,000 cases of gestational diabetes in the United States each year.

We don't know what causes gestational diabetes, but we have some clues. The placenta supports the baby as it grows. Hormones from the placenta help the baby develop. But these hormones also block the action of the mother's insulin in her body. This problem is called insulin resistance. Insulin resistance makes it hard for the mother's body to use insulin. She may need up to three times as much insulin.

Gestational diabetes starts when your body is not able to make and use all the insulin it needs for pregnancy. Without enough insulin, glucose cannot leave the blood and be changed to energy. Glucose builds up in the blood to high levels. This is called hyperglycemia."

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000898.htm#Causes,%20incidence,%20and%20risk%20factors

"Preeclampsia is the development of swelling, elevated blood pressure, and protein in the urine during pregnancy.

Causes, incidence, and risk factors

The exact cause of preeclampsia has not been identified. Numerous theories of potential causes exist, including genetic, dietary, vascular (blood vessel), and autoimmune factors. None of the theories have yet been proven.

Preeclampsia occurs in approximately 8% of all pregnancies. Increased risk is associated with first pregnancies, advanced maternal age, African-American women, multiple pregnancies, and women with a past history of diabetes, hypertension, or kidney disease."

http://www.niams.nih.gov/bone/hi/bone_pregnancy.pdf


It's rough enough to assume these risks and complications when you are ready, willing, and able to do so -- financially, emotionally, medically. To dismiss them and force them upon the unwilling and the unable is, in my opinion, unimaginable cruel, vicious, and callous. These are potentially life threatening risks -- to say nothing of the exhaustively studied post-partum depression.

http://womenshealth.gov/faq/postpartum.htm#5

"How common is depression during and after pregnancy?

Depression that occurs during pregnancy or within a year after delivery is called perinatal depression. The exact number of women with depression during this time is unknown. But researchers believe that depression is one of the most common complications during and after pregnancy. Often, the depression is not recognized or treated, because some normal pregnancy changes cause similar symptoms and are happening at the same time. Tiredness, problems sleeping, stronger emotional reactions, and changes in body weight may occur during pregnancy and after pregnancy. But these symptoms may also be signs of depression.

What causes depression?

There may be a number of reasons why a woman gets depressed. Hormone changes or a stressful life event, such as a death in the family, can cause chemical changes in the brain that lead to depression. Depression is also an illness that runs in some families. Other times, it’s not clear what causes depression.

During Pregnancy
During pregnancy, these factors may increase a woman’s chance of depression:

* History of depression or substance abuse
* Family history of mental illness
* Little support from family and friends
* Anxiety about the fetus
* Problems with previous pregnancy or birth
* Marital or financial problems
* Young age (of mother) Emphasis mine; exactly what women undergoing an unwanted pregnancy would deal with, perhaps?

After Pregnancy
Depression after pregnancy is called postpartum depression or peripartum depression. After pregnancy, hormonal changes in a woman's body may trigger symptoms of depression. During pregnancy, the amount of two female hormones, estrogen and progesterone, in a woman's body increases greatly. In the first 24 hours after childbirth, the amount of these hormones rapidly drops back down to their normal non-pregnant levels. Researchers think the fast change in hormone levels may lead to depression, just as smaller changes in hormones can affect a woman's moods before she gets her menstrual period.

Occasionally, levels of thyroid hormones may also drop after giving birth. The thyroid is a small gland in the neck that helps to regulate your metabolism (how your body uses and stores energy from food). Low thyroid levels can cause symptoms of depression including depressed mood, decreased interest in things, irritability, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, sleep problems, and weight gain. A simple blood test can tell if this condition is causing a woman's depression. If so, thyroid medicine can be prescribed by a doctor.

Other factors that may contribute to postpartum depression include:

* Feeling tired after delivery, broken sleep patterns, and not enough rest often keeps a new mother from regaining her full strength for weeks.
* Feeling overwhelmed with a new, or another, baby to take care of and doubting your ability to be a good mother.
* Feeling stress from changes in work and home routines. Sometimes, women think they have to be "super mom" or perfect, which is not realistic and can add stress.
* Having feelings of loss — loss of identity of who you are, or were, before having the baby, loss of control, loss of your pre-pregnancy figure, and feeling less attractive.
* Having less free time and less control over time. Having to stay home indoors for longer periods of time and having less time to spend with the your partner and loved ones."

...

"What is the difference between “baby blues,”postpartum depression, and postpartum psychosis?

The baby blues can happen in the days right after childbirth and normally go away within a few days to a week. A new mother can have sudden mood swings, sadness, crying spells, loss of appetite, sleeping problems, and feel irritable, restless, anxious, and lonely. Symptoms are not severe and treatment isn’t needed. But there are things you can do to feel better. Nap when the baby does. Ask for help from your spouse, family members, and friends. Join a support group of new moms or talk with other moms.

Postpartum depression can happen anytime within the first year after childbirth. A woman may have a number of symptoms such as sadness, lack of energy, trouble concentrating, anxiety, and feelings of guilt and worthlessness. The difference between postpartum depression and the baby blues is that postpartum depression often affects a woman’s well-being and keeps her from functioning well for a longer period of time. Postpartum depression needs to be treated by a doctor. Counseling, support groups, and medicines are things that can help.

Postpartum psychosis is rare. It occurs in 1 or 2 out of every 1000 births and usually begins in the first 6 weeks postpartum. Women who have bipolar disorder or another psychiatric problem called schizoaffective disorder have a higher risk for developing postpartum psychosis. Symptoms may include delusions, hallucinations, sleep disturbances, and obsessive thoughts about the baby. A woman may have rapid mood swings, from depression to irritability to euphoria."

Still think it's just an 'inconvenience'?

Maybe you should read about what is happening in Texas.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5469437/

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1717

http://www.statehealthfacts.kff.org/cgi-bin/healthfacts.cgi?action=profile&area=Texas&category=Health+Status&subcategory=Births&topic=Teen+Birth+Rate+by+Race%2FEthnicity

Also interesting is the rate of prenatal care teen mothers give in Texas as compared to the rest of the US.

http://www.statehealthfacts.kff.org/cgi-bin/healthfacts.cgi?action=profile&area=Texas&category=Health+Status&subcategory=Prenatal+Care&topic=Prenatal+Care

[QUOTE=Aquilapus]
Abstinence as a tool in society does not work. It has never worked and will never work.
You are taking my positions as if they were absolutes but they are not. I am not saying that every aborted fetus would have been a gun toting gangsta.
You don't want government intervention but you'd like the government to say that abortion is illegal? Perhaps I'm not clear on this.
And saying that mistreating a child is wrong and parents should be responsible is naive. Yes, of course that is how life should be. Life is not like that.
My instances for women having abortions are not rare. Poverty is not a rare reason for having an abortion. Other reasons? A woman making a mistake with a man she does not love. My girlfriend had an abortion because the man she was with turned out to be abusive a month after she had conceived. If it were not for her abortion and her break up with that asshole, I would not be with the woman I love. She would be caring for a child that had an abusive father. She would most likely be a single mother. Single mothers must have two jobs. Raising her child and making money. A government that cares for it's citizens should care for someone like her. I was pro choice before I met my girlfriend and I'm glad that I didn't have any beliefs that stood in the way of me loving her.
You offer no alternatives but abstinence. It is close minded and dangerous and unrealistic. For you personally, that should work. For the world at large, safe sex works too.
Another thought is that abortion is not murder. Yes, it will develop into a human. And yes people with a strong sense of conscience who have had an abortion will always think of the child that could have been. But the child never was.

Stop confusing me with a sterotypical person who is pro-life. Government is not the solution. I don't believe abstinance to be the absolute solution for society. I have had protected sex at the age of 20 and I discused with my partner what would happen IF she became pregnant BEFORE we had sex. I wanted to be clear on where we stood. She and I both felt that if that would happen she would have the baby. Adoption is another solution. In your situation, that is an example of two people making poor decisions. Did she not use protection? She could of had the baby and put it up for adoption. Yes, that has physical and emotional consequences. She decided to have an abortion, why? Because she didn't want to go through being a single parent? She did not want to have THIS guy's child -- did she feel different about it before he became physically abusive? Would she of had the child if he was a great guy? Just because the circumstances change after the fact does not mean abortion is OK. Also, I don't believe there should be a law against abortion. I don't think it should be legal without any guidelines. Abortion should be the last resort and considered very carefully. The society and circumstances you are describing to me are of a society that sees abortion as a tool to curb unwanted results. A tool to erase ones poor decision making. It is not naive to believe in the ideal society. Yes, that's not the way it is, but that does not mean you should throw up your arms and say "Oh, well, people make mistakes." There is no naivety in beliving that people should be responsible for their actions and held responsible for the outcome of their actions. That is a fundamental belief of right and wrong is it not? You will not curb poverty by allowing people to have abortions. Does it help, I don't know. If it does, can you take our society down that road? There are other ways to fix such problems, not just with abortion. I do not believe in abosolutes either, but this reverence for looking at abortions that you and others might have can not be tolerated as the only moral way to do things. What do you define as murder? How can you accept ending a life, or a zygote, or whatever you want to call it other than what it is, that can't defend itself or say how it feels? Isn't that a basis of our democracy and morality? To defend those that can't defend themselves?

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.

Reading your opinions Aquilapus, I hope you never get married. You would be effectively asking your wife to die in any case of complicated pregnancies that may result in death. Any idea how sick that sounds? "Honey, I got you pregnant, and you will die delivering the child. Can you die for it?"

You would be lucky to get a response other than "No asshole. You die first."

Throwing out the extremes on both sides of the situation isn't going to solve the problem. The fear tactics and trying to paint a bad name for the otherside is childish. Some of us won't move on our positions whatsoever. The extremes of this argument will not solve anything. To get anywhere, you must understand both sides and find a common ground regardless of what you believe. People, apparently, are going to have abortions regardless. People see it as the governments responsibility, but as I mentioned before, the government can't touch this problem because the Supreme Court will not let them -- there IS no legallity over abortions. There is no law for or against it in the US, because the Supreme Court doesn't let that happen. Society is the only thing that can change this. Abortion is an issue for society to decide. NOT the government -- even if they could, they CAN'T because no law can be made for or against it. Do people finally understand what Roe v. Wade means? It's not about a woman's right to choose or that abortion is legal or morally right or wrong. It's the fact that the Supreme Court has kept the people, that is through Congress, to act accordingly with the Constitution. It is up to us as a society to decide when abortion is "right or wrong" and there are instances when it is both "right and wrong". Simply using it as a tool to curb the bad parts of society is disgusting. Abortion is not the only answer.

Maybe you should read about what is happening in Texas.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5469437/

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1717

http://www.statehealthfacts.kff.org/cgi-bin/healthfacts.cgi?action=profile&area=Texas&category=Health+Status&subcategory=Births&topic=Teen+Birth+Rate+by+Race%2FEthnicity

Also interesting is the rate of prenatal care teen mothers give in Texas as compared to the rest of the US.

http://www.statehealthfacts.kff.org/cgi-bin/healthfacts.cgi?action=profile&area=Texas&category=Health+Status&subcategory=Prenatal+Care&topic=Prenatal+Care

Desperate Measures' point, I believe, is that if you are going to keep education on how to prevent pregnancy away from kids in school, and parents refuse to discuss it at home, you are begging for an increase in teen pregnancies and therefore an increase in abortions.

Reading your opinions Aquilapus, I hope you never get married. You would be effectively asking your wife to die in any case of complicated pregnancies that may result in death. Any idea how sick that sounds? "Honey, I got you pregnant, and you will die delivering the child. Can you die for it?"

You would be lucky to get a response other than "No asshole. You die first."

Uhm, I don't know if you've read any of the other posts on here by me. But I already mentioned what I would do before I had sex. I wouldn't have sex with my wife, or girlfriend, I wouldn't even get married to a woman without discussing such things, if I wasn't sure exactly where she stands with abortion or wanting or not wanting kids. I'd ask her, "If there were problems and one of us had to make the choice between the child living or dying, what would you do?" Is that being an asshole? Having an open discussion with the woman I loved about the worst circumstances that I would hope never to happen? Of course, that wouldn't be normal in today's society to think about such things would it? To think about the worst case scenario with the people you loved? You're right, I sound like a pure selfish meglomanical asshole.

[QUOTE=Desperate Measures]

Stop confusing me with a sterotypical person who is pro-life. Government is not the solution. I don't believe abstinance to be the absolute solution for society. I have had protected sex at the age of 20 and I discused with my partner what would happen IF she became pregnant BEFORE we had sex. I wanted to be clear on where we stood. She and I both felt that if that would happen she would have the baby. Adoption is another solution. In your situation, that is an example of two people making poor decisions. Did she not use protection? She could of had the baby and put it up for adoption. Yes, that has physical and emotional consequences. She decided to have an abortion, why? Because she didn't want to go through being a single parent? She did not want to have THIS guy's child -- did she feel different about it before he became physically abusive? Would she of had the child if he was a great guy? Just because the circumstances change after the fact does not mean abortion is OK. Also, I don't believe there should be a law against abortion. I don't think it should be legal without any guidelines. Abortion should be the last resort and considered very carefully. The society and circumstances you are describing to me are of a society that sees abortion as a tool to curb unwanted results. A tool to erase ones poor decision making. It is not naive to believe in the ideal society. Yes, that's not the way it is, but that does not mean you should throw up your arms and say "Oh, well, people make mistakes." There is no naivety in beliving that people should be responsible for their actions and held responsible for the outcome of their actions. That is a fundamental belief of right and wrong is it not? You will not curb poverty by allowing people to have abortions. Does it help, I don't know. If it does, can you take our society down that road? There are other ways to fix such problems, not just with abortion. I do not believe in abosolutes either, but this reverence for looking at abortions that you and others might have can not be tolerated as the only moral way to do things. What do you define as murder? How can you accept ending a life, or a zygote, or whatever you want to call it other than what it is, that can't defend itself or say how it feels? Isn't that a basis of our democracy and morality? To defend those that can't defend themselves?
First let me say that I find you to be rational. I'm not getting faith based answers from you and you're causing me to think which doesn't happen much when I argue with anyone on this forum. I've indicated before that I have no problem with how you want to live and the decisions you choose to make. If any of my arguments against you were misdirected, I apologize and hope they hit someone where those arguments will do some good.
We have a different idea of when life begins. I don't think any amount of arguing will resolve that disagreement.
My definition of murder is killing another person. A fetus, in my opinion, is potential. Do I believe that a man who kills a pregnant woman should be charged with two murders? Yes. I do. It may seem to be a contradiction but it is not in my mind. The pregnant woman planned to have a baby. She gave it prenatal care. She cared for the person her fetus would become. I've used a simple story to get to the point that no one has the right to take that away from a person against their will.
How could you not but help to curb some amount of poverty by allowing abortions? The cost of raising and caring for a child is substantial. People that hardly have the means to care for themselves cannot be expected to care for another in a way that would benefit the child or society.

Desperate Measures' point, I believe, is that if you are going to keep education on how to prevent pregnancy away from kids in school, and parents refuse to discuss it at home, you are begging for an increase in teen pregnancies and therefore an increase in abortions.
That's exactly my point. :)

Uhm, I don't know if you've read any of the other posts on here by me. But I already mentioned what I would do before I had sex. I wouldn't have sex with my wife, or girlfriend, I wouldn't even get married to a woman without discussing such things, if I wasn't sure exactly where she stands with abortion or wanting or not wanting kids. I'd ask her, "If there were problems and one of us had to make the choice between the child living or dying, what would you do?" Is that being an asshole? Having an open discussion with the woman I loved about the worst circumstances that I would hope never to happen? Of course, that wouldn't be normal in today's society to think about such things would it? To think about the worst case scenario with the people you loved? You're right, I sound like a pure selfish meglomanical asshole.

You can have your discussion alright, but the topic itself is incredibly selfish. And your question is also incorrect. Based on your opinions, you would correctly word it as "If there were problems, would you choose between you dying or the fetus dying."

I don't know where you live, and I don't care, but I find your ideals (the woman dying on the off chance that the fetus MIGHT grow to term and survive child birth) to be repugnant.

[QUOTE=Aquilapus]
First let me say that I find you to be rational. I'm not getting faith based answers from you and you're causing me to think which doesn't happen much when I argue with anyone on this forum. I've indicated before that I have no problem with how you want to live and the decisions you choose to make. If any of my arguments against you were misdirected, I apologize and hope they hit someone where those arguments will do some good.
We have a different idea of when life begins. I don't think any amount of arguing will resolve that disagreement.
My definition of murder is killing another person. A fetus, in my opinion, is potential. Do I believe that a man who kills a pregnant woman should be charged with two murders? Yes. I do. It may seem to be a contradiction but it is not in my mind. The pregnant woman planned to have a baby. She gave it prenatal care. She cared for the person her fetus would become. I've used a simple story to get to the point that no one has the right to take that away from a person against their will.
How could you not but help to curb some amount of poverty by allowing abortions? The cost of raising and caring for a child is substantial. People that hardly have the means to care for themselves cannot be expected to care for another in a way that would benefit the child or society.

I think we are finally seeing eye to eye. I only wish most debates and our politicians could see it that way. I respect your position, disagree with it here and there, but would agree with you here and there as well. All I urge is caution and serious reflection on both our parts.

[QUOTE=Desperate Measures]

I think we are finally seeing eye to eye. I only wish most debates and our politicians could see it that way. I respect your position, disagree with it here and there, but would agree with you here and there as well. All I urge is caution and serious reflection on both our parts.
It seems we're adults...

You can have your discussion alright, but the topic itself is incredibly selfish. And your question is also incorrect. Based on your opinions, you would correctly word it as "If there were problems, would you choose between you dying or the fetus dying."

I don't know where you live, and I don't care, but I find your ideals (the woman dying on the off chance that the fetus MIGHT grow to term and survive child birth) to be repugnant.

While re-wording my opinions to be that simplistic of a phrase, I'd agree with what you typed. I lived in Saint Charles Country, Missouri for 20 years. I'm currently living overseas in New Zealand. My mother is pro-choice, my dad could care less, and my views are my own and arrived to only by thinking about it day and night. I don't appreciate being called an "asshole" or my views being seen as repugnant, but you are open to your opinion, whatever that may be. I find it hard to view the discussion between two responsible people about what they would do if the worst would happen repugnant. I would want my wife to live, that would be selfish on my part, but the life of our child far outweighs whatever I might believe. The child is more important than my life and I'd glady give it up so that my wife and child would live. That might be selfish as well, but so be it. In the perfect world, I wouldn't have to consider such thoughts, but that's not the way it is, is it? Call it what you will, you can believe what you want. At the end of the day, all that matters is what I feel to be the right thing to do [while considering every bit of information I could gather to make a clear educated, and emotional, decision].

[I'm going to go eat some pizza, I'll be on later, telegram me if need be.]

So apparently my political outlook is what YOU say it is? That makes no sense. Please try again. You only know what I think of THIS issue, if you're calling me a liberal.

Also, it's easy to dismiss people's arguments when you attach a label to them.
I'm not calling you a liberal. I'm saying that calling yourself concervative, christian, pro-choice, just about any label you choose for yourself, does not actually make it true.

I don't know where you live, and I don't care, but I find your ideals (the woman dying on the off chance that the fetus MIGHT grow to term and survive child birth) to be repugnant.
Conversely: the baby dying on the off chance that its mother might not be very happy in life.

Stop pushing extremes to prove your point. Illegalize abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and life/death situations, and you eliminate over 90% of the abortions done in America. That means 90+% of abortions are only done because the mother feels like it. Only a measly 2% are done for serious health issues.

2%. Keep that in mind. ;)

While re-wording my opinions to be that simplistic of a phrase, I'd agree with what you typed. I lived in Saint Charles Country, Missouri for 20 years. I'm currently living overseas in New Zealand. My mother is pro-choice, my dad could care less, and my views are my own and arrived to only by thinking about it day and night. I don't appreciate being called an "asshole" or my views being seen as repugnant, but you are open to your opinion, whatever that may be. I find it hard to view the discussion between two responsible people about what they would do if the worst would happen repugnant. I would want my wife to live, that would be selfish on my part, but the life of our child far outweighs whatever I might believe. The child is more important than my life and I'd glady give it up so that my wife and child would live. That might be selfish as well, but so be it. In the perfect world, I wouldn't have to consider such thoughts, but that's not the way it is, is it? Call it what you will, you can believe what you want. At the end of the day, all that matters is what I feel to be the right thing to do [while considering every bit of information I could gather to make a clear educated, and emotional, decision].

[I'm going to go eat some pizza, I'll be on later, telegram me if need be.]

Very well. Looking at this overall, I will have to accept that I am guilty of making several key assumptions that may or may not be true, and for that I apologize.

However, I want to know your views in the following scenario. Assuming that you have a partner, and that it is found that she is not only pregnant, but is suffering from complications that, if taken to full term, will ensure the death of the mother (i.e. head growth too large as pointed out by others in this thread), and the fetus will only have a marginal chance of surviving.

What would you want in this case, and what would you do if your wife disagrees?

This was based on as much information I could gather from your posts and am constructing the scenario based on it. I will refrain from making any judgements until I hear from you.

Very well. Looking at this overall, I will have to accept that I am guilty of making several key assumptions that may or may not be true, and for that I apologize.

However, I want to know your views in the following scenario. Assuming that you have a partner, and that it is found that she is not only pregnant, but is suffering from complications that, if taken to full term, will ensure the death of the mother (i.e. head growth too large as pointed out by others in this thread), and the fetus will only have a marginal chance of surviving.

What would you want in this case, and what would you do if your wife disagrees?

This was based on as much information I could gather from your posts and am constructing the scenario based on it. I will refrain from making any judgements until I hear from you.

Again, I would make sure of exactly, within the guidelines of any given hypothesis, what my wife and I would do in any given situations. Of course, we wouldn't agree 100% on everything or think of everything, and that would require me to rethink how strongly I felt about my position, morally and emotionally. If, we disagree on abortion and she makes her case to allow it in such and such examples. OK, I'd probably go with that, still have reservations, but as long as I understood exactly where she was coming from to justify (I use this term very loosely here) such actions. I would of course look at what exactly the "chances" of survival would be. 4:1, 100'000:1, odds against my child living. If the odds were wildly out of favor for the child, though I would still take a chance on 1'000'000:1, I would consider abortion as an option. But, I would also need to see why my wife was choosing to have an abortion instead. Did she come to that decision lightly? Did she consider all her options available to her? What are her chances of living or dying as compared with that of the child? If my wife had a better chance than the child, then I'd reluctantly choose my wife. If the child's chances were better than my wife's I'd choose my child's. Even if it was .0000001 in or out of favor of either or, that make sense? If my wife says she wanted to have an abortion because she didn't want the child to suffer or that she felt the possibility of the child living were too rare, I'd agree with her. See, I'd discuss this way before hand. I would need to know why she would choose this over that. I'd give such rare examples and see what she'd do. I would want the child to live over all other odds, but would respect my wife's wishes with great reluctancy. It is in those instances that I would consider every single option available no matter how far fetched it might be. The only way to justify abortion in this example, for me personally, is that if my wife was alive, we might be able to try again. That is not to say abortion should be used when the results aren't what we both want. Afterwords we might find out that there is something wrong with one of our reproductive systems and we can't have children. Then I'd of course go to adoption rather than keep trying and continuosly having children that may or may not have a good chance of living. That make sense? In any case, I'd want the child to live, but if the odds were so incredibly remote, I'd choose my wife. I'd have alot of difficulty comming to such a decision, and would probably get counseling and talk with my wife day in and day out. That would be an incredibly difficult choice. This being a hypothesis, and there would be 50'000 other things I'd think about before getting into such a situation (if humanly possible). Those types of situations do occur and, with great discussion between the parents, doctors, family, and friends, also with great reluctancy would I allow abortion to come into the picture as a possible option. I hope that answers your question (it was a good one) and if you need me to clear anything up, let me know.

Nothing at all. :D

I just like pointing out the fact that you're a n00b.


That, my n00bie friend, is bullshit. The only thing it does is keep her from getting raging drunk, operating a wrecking ball, or joining in competitive figure skating for a measly 9 months of her probable 70+ year life. After that, there is this thing called "adoption," maybe you've heard of it. ;)

Sorry, but it's a bit weak to keep hitting on the 'n00b' references, friend... it's only serving to hurt any point you might be trying to make.

And - if you honestly believe that the "only thing it keeps her from doing is..." (followed by a weird list of stuff), then you really need to do a little research on the subject.

I'd advise that you start by cross-referencing 'diabetes', 'post-partum depression', 'osteoporosis', etc.

Conversely: the baby dying on the off chance that its mother might not be very happy in life.

Stop pushing extremes to prove your point. Illegalize abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and life/death situations, and you eliminate over 90% of the abortions done in America. That means 90+% of abortions are only done because the mother feels like it. Only a measly 2% are done for serious health issues.

2%. Keep that in mind. ;)

I think you would have to view the world through VERY rose-coloured spectacles, to believe that 'illegalising' abortion would eliminate them.

You colour your arguments with passion and imagery, and it's very impressive... but it's not the same as facts... and certainly nothing akin to objective.

To trivialise ALL the myriad reasons WHY a woman MIGHT need abortion, into one flippant remark, "because the mother feels like it"... is to ignore the entire scope of female existence. Effectively, you reduce it to 'reproduce or you have an attitude problem".

And peppering your commentary with emoticons does not equate to making a valid point.

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.

No. By definition, Christian means those who follow Christ, or Jesus Christ. The definition of pro choice has nothing to do with being liberal.

Abortions were done when they were illegal. The death rate was high as was permanent injury. Making it illegal won't stop it, it would only increase the risk. And yes it is fully possible to force an abortion through herbs or self injury, though the second way is very risky and could fail.

THat bein said, their is no evidence that a fetus is alive in early stages. I firmly believe in freedom of choice. I'm not going to tell another woman that she has to carry this fetus to full term. When I got pregnant I lost my job, ran out of savings and was horrendously ill for the majority of the pregnancy. I'm truly amazed that my daughter was born healthy, the doctors were even more suprised. I know what it's like to have a rough pregnancy. I wouldn't dream of telling someone she had to go through all of that to give a kid up for adoption, especially with the high rate of unadopted children already in the system. That and what about if it would be born with a deformity, chances of adoption then become slim to none. I also wouldn't pressure another woman to have an abortion. I was pressured by the state as a teenager to have an abortion and it drove me right into a miscarriage. I think people should keep their noses out of it and let women make their own choices when it comes to their bodies. I have never heard a valid reason for forbidding abortion, religion not being a valid reason in my book. If your faith forbids abortion then don't do it.

Hmmm, I am not certain that I got the gist of it Aquilapus, but I will highlight the points as I come across them.

Again, I would make sure of exactly, within the guidelines of any given hypothesis, what my wife and I would do in any given situations. Of course, we wouldn't agree 100% on everything or think of everything, and that would require me to rethink how strongly I felt about my position, morally and emotionally. If, we disagree on abortion and she makes her case to allow it in such and such examples. OK, I'd probably go with that, still have reservations, but as long as I understood exactly where she was coming from to justify (I use this term very loosely here) such actions.

That you would discuss it and accept her decision (if justified), is a good thing. However, I think that you misunderstood the scenario somewhat.


I would of course look at what exactly the "chances" of survival would be. 4:1, 100'000:1, odds against my child living. If the odds were wildly out of favor for the child, though I would still take a chance on 1'000'000:1, I would consider abortion as an option.

All well and good that you are keeping your doors open and not automatically rejecting options out of hand. But here is the problem. In the case that was listed, I meant that if the mother went through with childbirth, the possibility that she will die is extremely high, just as with the child. If we wanted to look at it objectively, we could say that in the event of birth, the odds are stacked against both mother AND child. The odds of survival in childbirth favor the child slightly, but the risk that both will die is still very high.

So it is a matter of risking everything on a gamble against stacked odds or not taking the gamble in the first place.


But, I would also need to see why my wife was choosing to have an abortion instead. Did she come to that decision lightly? Did she consider all her options available to her? What are her chances of living or dying as compared with that of the child? If my wife had a better chance than the child, then I'd reluctantly choose my wife. If the child's chances were better than my wife's I'd choose my child's. Even if it was .0000001 in or out of favor of either or, that make sense?

This one is a bit moot because it doesn't fit the scenario I described. In cases like this, the fates of the mother and child are often tied together. It is not a matter of being able to choose who survives and who doesn't but whether you want to risk them both on a gamble or not.


I hope that answers your question (it was a good one) and if you need me to clear anything up, let me know.

For the most part. You have shown that you are keeping an open mind and that you have a level headed approach to the issues. The only detraction was the incorrect interpretation of the scenario, but I think I might be able to extrapolate your actions from there, which are promising to say the least.

[QUOTE=Desperate Measures]So, you're willing to legalize a practice that kills well over a million human beings a year (arguable, I know, but just go with me here), in order to give five children the option to kill other children.
In order to give five children the option to kill other children? If you're talking about the incest numbers, that'd be over 3 million children (assuming a world population of 6 billion), and if you want to take the other number of 8.9 for sexual abuse, that'd be over 5 million. And that's just the ones reported and proven.

[QUOTE=RhynoD]
In order to give five children the option to kill other children? If you're talking about the incest numbers, that'd be over 3 million children (assuming a world population of 6 billion), and if you want to take the other number of 8.9 for sexual abuse, that'd be over 5 million. And that's just the ones reported and proven.

Again, 1 is too much. The belief that incest and rape are the leading causes (which some of you may or may not believe, hope you don't) for abortion is non-sensical. .09% of the total population of the Earth is affected by rape or incest, while it is a problem, it is not as big a problem as say poverty or malnutrition is it? Again, for the hundredth time, 1 victim of rape or incest is too much, but to look at 300'000'000:6'000'000'000 (are the other 5'700'000'000 leading healthy lives?) as the worst thing afflicting humanity (while, again, I wish it didn't exist) is naive. It would be more "shocking" to say, that that 300'000'000 is the population of the US, so every person in the US has been affected by rape or incest. Put's things into perspective, but is highly irrational. I'd like to see alot of other problems with that low of a % since 0 is probably not going to happen. I know it sounds so heartless to be rational, but I've said it a hundred times before, time for hundred and one, 1 is too much in any problem that affects humanity.

[QUOTE=Omnibenevolent Discord]

Again, 1 is too much. The belief that incest and rape are the leading causes (which some of you may or may not believe, hope you don't) for abortion is non-sensical. .09% of the total population of the Earth is affected by rape or incest, while it is a problem, it is not as big a problem as say poverty or malnutrition is it? Again, for the hundredth time, 1 victim of rape or incest is too much, but to look at 300'000'000:6'000'000'000 (are the other 5'700'000'000 leading healthy lives?) as the worst thing afflicting humanity (while, again, I wish it didn't exist) is naive. It would be more "shocking" to say, that that 300'000'000 is the population of the US, so every person in the US has been affected by rape or incest. Put's things into perspective, but is highly irrational. I'd like to see alot of other problems with that low of a % since 0 is probably not going to happen. I know it sounds so heartless to be rational, but I've said it a hundred times before, time for hundred and one, 1 is too much in any problem that affects humanity.

I think your numbers are nonsense... sorry.

Not that I believe that rape and incest are the major factors in abortion... I admit I lack knowledge to make that claim... but you must know that you are using fictitious numbers.

Or do you have proof that can attest to the number of 'rape' incidents among involuntary prostitutes? Among those who are unsure where coercion becomes rape? Among those who have been taught that you can't be raped by your spouse? Among those that have tried to forget about an episode of forced sexual action?

You must not know many people... since, I would estimate that about HALF of all the females I have ever discussed such issues with, have been victims in SOME DEGREE of non-consensual sexual activity.

Your .09% figure doesn't come close to matching that figure, now does it? And why? Because NONE of those incidents got reported as 'rape'.

And, since such things are not reported as rape in legal situations... what makes you think they would be admitted as the decision-maker in an abortion?

NVay, I am a man and I agree totally with your opinion in all respects. The baby is not part of the woman. She does not have responsibility over the baby's life. It is the baby's choice and as the baby can't make it the woman has to hav the baby. Not neccesarily for herself, if she doesn't want the child for the baby. For the baby. She can put him/her up for adoption if she doesn't want it. I know several people who are adopted that are perfectly normal, happy people. As for some of the comments about the baby not being alive....? It's hardly dead. You can't live after you're dead. And if you say that they are neither and are just a few hundred cells, you might as well stick to your arument and say we are all just matter with electrical circuits that enable us to do the several things which technically alive. Respiration, excretion, etc., etc. People who agree with abortion should seriously think about their argument thouroghly before they open their mouths. The taking of a live is the person who owns that life's choice. They can take their own life if they want. Make the choice for themselves. The only time someone's right to llife should be taken away is when they denied someone else that right.

I'm not calling you a liberal. I'm saying that calling yourself concervative, christian, pro-choice, just about any label you choose for yourself, does not actually make it true.

Conversely, your opinion about how I define myself is worth the paper it's written on.

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?

If a father can stop an abortion, he is being given rights to use the woman's body to carry the child he wants. In other words, he is making her a slave for nine months. I'm not into slavery.

And - if you honestly believe that the "only thing it keeps her from doing is..." (followed by a weird list of stuff), then you really need to do a little research on the subject.

I'd advise that you start by cross-referencing 'diabetes', 'post-partum depression', 'osteoporosis', etc.

Or check the post I made, linking to reputable references for same.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9403139&postcount=771

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.

I hate to break it to you, but a full set of DNA (which is 46 chromosomes normally, but can be 45, 47, 48, etc, depending on which are deleted or in multiples) is not the only scientific requirement of life. In fact, it isn't even a specific requirement for life - although the actual requirements could not be met without it.

That, my n00bie friend, is bullshit. The only thing it does is keep her from getting raging drunk, operating a wrecking ball, or joining in competitive figure skating for a measly 9 months of her probable 70+ year life. After that, there is this thing called "adoption," maybe you've heard of it. ;)

Way to completely ignore biology. Continuing a pregnancy causes irreversable hormonal and physical changes to a woman's body. Every pregnancy is dangerous - even the healthiest of women may have complications and die from their pregnancy.

And what happens in a nine-month period can and does affect the rest of your life. If that woman misses out on a college scholarship, for instance, because she has to deal with the medical bills associated with prenatal care and cannot move to go off to college, she may never get such a chance again. If a woman has a chance at a job overseas, she may never get that chance again. To suggest that, even with the possibility of putting a child up for adoption - an action that many find to be immoral in and of itself, a pregnancy only affects a woman for nine months is ludicrous.

Conversely: the baby dying on the off chance that its mother might not be very happy in life.

Stop pushing extremes to prove your point. Illegalize abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and life/death situations, and you eliminate over 90% of the abortions done in America. That means 90+% of abortions are only done because the mother feels like it. Only a measly 2% are done for serious health issues.

2%. Keep that in mind. ;)
Well, assuming your figures are accurate, I still maintain that abortions remain legal because a) people will still have abortions, just illegally and b) who gives a fuck? As I said before, there are plenty more potential mewling brats where they came from.

Excuse the blunt language, but I'm sick of pussyfooting around. The day you have control over a woman's body is the day that humanity has really fucked up.

NVay, I am a man and I agree totally with your opinion in all respects. The baby is not part of the woman.

You are right. Of course, a baby is outside of a woman as well.

As for some of the comments about the baby not being alive....? It's hardly dead. You can't live after you're dead.

"Not alive" and "dead" are not equivalent.

And if you say that they are neither and are just a few hundred cells, you might as well stick to your arument and say we are all just matter with electrical circuits that enable us to do the several things which technically alive. Respiration, excretion, etc., etc.

In the end, that is exactly what we are. However, we do the things that make us alive. An embryo cannot, as an entity, sense and respond to stimulus - one of those little things which technically make us alive.

Now, we can choose to attribute importance to the embryo's potential to eventually meet all requirements of life. However, that importance is a subjective one, and one which each of us decides on our own.

NVay, I am a man and I agree totally with your opinion in all respects. The baby is not part of the woman. She does not have responsibility over the baby's life. It is the baby's choice and as the baby can't make it the woman has to hav the baby. Not neccesarily for herself, if she doesn't want the child for the baby. For the baby. She can put him/her up for adoption if she doesn't want it. I know several people who are adopted that are perfectly normal, happy people. As for some of the comments about the baby not being alive....? It's hardly dead. You can't live after you're dead. And if you say that they are neither and are just a few hundred cells, you might as well stick to your arument and say we are all just matter with electrical circuits that enable us to do the several things which technically alive. Respiration, excretion, etc., etc. People who agree with abortion should seriously think about their argument thouroghly before they open their mouths. The taking of a live is the person who owns that life's choice. They can take their own life if they want. Make the choice for themselves. The only time someone's right to llife should be taken away is when they denied someone else that right.
No, the baby is part of the woman. Christ, how difficult is this? Basic biology, chillun.

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

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


on the contrary, until the umbilical cord is cut the fetus in question, is infact part of her body. it uses her nutrients, her O2, her everything. the woman on the other hand gets the fetus' waste products. in acutality a fetus is a parasite and unhealthy for the mother. "it" is very much a part of her until expelled and cut off. a fetus is not a person. it does not gain that definition until AFTER it is born. until then is is part of the mother and she can do as she wishes with it. as a man all we are entitled to do is to make sure the woman knows what she is doing and is well informed before making the choice.

Way to completely ignore biology. Continuing a pregnancy causes irreversable hormonal and physical changes to a woman's body. Every pregnancy is dangerous - even the healthiest of women may have complications and die from their pregnancy.

And what happens in a nine-month period can and does affect the rest of your life....

Actually, young women who get pregnant and carry to term have a significantly reduced likelihood of getting breast cancer. My point being, the aspects of carrying a child to term are not all negative. The fetus is a benevolent partner in the relationship between mother and child, it is not all one sided as the people who like to call it a parasitic relationship like to pretend.

Actually, young women who get pregnant and carry to term have a significantly reduced likelihood of getting breast cancer. My point being, the aspects of carrying a child to term are not all negative.

I never suggested that the only aspects were negative. However, like many such isues, the positive and negative aspects should be weighed by the mother.

The main positive aspect of carrying to term - and the only one that can counterbalance the negatives and the riks - is having a child to take care of. If that is not a positive to the woman involved, then the negatives far outweigh the postives.

The fetus is a benevolent partner in the relationship between mother and child, it is not all one sided as the people who like to call it a parasitic relationship like to pretend.

It is a parastic relationship by definition. The problem is the negative connotation that people put onto the word. The fact that it may confer resistance to breast cancer later does not change this. Although I hate to compare a pregnancy to an infection, infections of various types also confer resistances to diseases. That doesn't make the invading organisms any less parasitic.

The thing is, if the mother wants to be pregnant, the fact that it is a parastic relationship doesn't matter. She wants that relationship and is freely giving her resources to it.

I, like many people, think a woman should be willing to sacrifince and carry to term except in the most extreme of circumstances. And I think she should be willing to give up some of her own wants and wishes to do so. However, "should" does not equate to "does". And having never been in the situation of any of these women, I'm not going to even try and claim that my opinion is all there is to it.

Again, 1 is too much. The belief that incest and rape are the leading causes (which some of you may or may not believe, hope you don't) for abortion is non-sensical. .09% of the total population of the Earth is affected by rape or incest, while it is a problem, it is not as big a problem as say poverty or malnutrition is it? Again, for the hundredth time, 1 victim of rape or incest is too much, but to look at 300'000'000:6'000'000'000 (are the other 5'700'000'000 leading healthy lives?) as the worst thing afflicting humanity (while, again, I wish it didn't exist) is naive. It would be more "shocking" to say, that that 300'000'000 is the population of the US, so every person in the US has been affected by rape or incest. Put's things into perspective, but is highly irrational. I'd like to see alot of other problems with that low of a % since 0 is probably not going to happen. I know it sounds so heartless to be rational, but I've said it a hundred times before, time for hundred and one, 1 is too much in any problem that affects humanity.
Umm, what exactly does this have to do with anything? All I was asking was how the person I quoted came up with said statement of only five children needing an abortion, and was pointing out that if that number was derrived by the 5.5 out of every 10,000 stat, it wouldn't be five, it'd be over three million. Do try to say something relevant if you're going to butt in like that, though there's really nothing of relevance you could have said in response to my post you quoted since only RhynoD could answer my question.

Umm, what exactly does this have to do with anything? All I was asking was how the person I quoted came up with said statement of only five children needing an abortion, and was pointing out that if that number was derrived by the 5.5 out of every 10,000 stat, it wouldn't be five, it'd be over three million. Do try to say something relevant if you're going to butt in like that, though there's really nothing of relevance you could have said in response to my post you quoted since only RhynoD could answer my question.

I apologize for "butting in" and not offering anything to your conversation. I'll be VERY careful whenever I see any of your posts, don't want to make you upset.

I never suggested that the only aspects were negative. However, like many such isues, the positive and negative aspects should be weighed by the mother.

The main positive aspect of carrying to term - and the only one that can counterbalance the negatives and the riks - is having a child to take care of. If that is not a positive to the woman involved, then the negatives far outweigh the postives.

It is a parastic relationship by definition. The problem is the negative connotation that people put onto the word. The fact that it may confer resistance to breast cancer later does not change this. Although I hate to compare a pregnancy to an infection, infections of various types also confer resistances to diseases. That doesn't make the invading organisms any less parasitic.

Too many people today go around emphasizing the negative aspects of having children, its a sociological attempt to retain support for the legality and politics in the abortion debate. There are negatives, however, the negative emphasis flood the young woman's media and community to the exclusion of all other data. And this is bad.

Studies have shown that women who have never had children are twice as likely to develop ovarian cancer--which takes the lives of about 14,000 American women each year--compared to those who have given birth. As I already mentioned with the breast cancer (that women who have children at an early age are about three times less likely to develop breast cancer as women to wait until later in life or forgo having children at all), the more full-term pregnancies a woman had, the lower her risk of ovarian cancer as well.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Childbearing is the most important known factor in preventing ovarian cancer, suggesting that hormones play a role in its development. Several studies have also shown that having few or no children is also a risk factor for endometrial cancer.

Childbirth has been shown to have a positive impact on women's mental health as well. A 1992 Canadian study that examined more than 1,000 women health care workers, lawyers, engineers and accountants found that married women with children had the highest levels of psychological well-being compared to married and single women who did not have children. Researcher Ethel Roskies concluded that "childless women don't really get much out of giving up having children," an opinion that I happen to agree with.

A study examining all women in Finland of reproductive age over a seven year period found that women who carried to term were half as likely to die within the following year as women who had not been pregnant, and three-and-a-half times less likely to die as women who had abortions. Delivering women were less likely to die across all categories: natural deaths, accidents, suicides, and homicides, I for one do not want to pretend that these are purely medical results of pregnancy, but that physical ailments did not cause harm and mental changed brought about via pregnancy and carrying to term (having a baby to think about and provide for) creates a likelihood to improve other lifestyle choices conducive to long term health.

It can even bring relief from asthma, women with multiple sclerosis experience a decline in symptoms during the last three months of pregnancy, rheumatoid arthritis frequently goes into remission, research suggests that the body’s protection of the developing fetus against rejection likely plays the leading role in guarding these mothers against many diseases.

Now, I’m not trying to pretend that there aren’t any risks involved, of course there are. However, the healthy female biology has evolved with (or is designed with, depending on your point of view of wording, but not changing the end affect), but with the purpose of producing children. And much like not using your muscles make them whither away, women utilizing all of their biological attributes, namely by having children, could very well be experiencing the benefits of producing the hormones their bodies are designed to use and produce but cannot do outside of bearing children.

Much of this is stated here…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2005/02/15/hpreg15.xml&sSheet=/health/2005/02/15/ixhmain.html

And here:
http://web.sfn.org/content/AboutSFN1/NewsReleases/am2003_pregnancy.html

Now, I’m not trying to pretend that there aren’t any risks involved, of course there are. However, the healthy female biology has evolved with (or is designed with, depending on your point of view of wording, but not changing the end affect), but with the purpose of producing children. And much like not using your muscles make them whither away, women utilizing all of their biological attributes, namely by having children, could very well be experiencing the benefits of producing the hormones their bodies are designed to use and produce but cannot do outside of bearing children.

But are you in favor of forcing women to use their muscles? Are you going to force women to exercise a healthy amount? Of course not! A woman weighs the risks and benefits of exercising her muscles and decides whether or not to do it. We may look at her decision and think it is silly, but it is still her decision to make.

Likewise, the fact that a woman's body was largely designed for childbirth, and that there are benefits to childbirth, is not enough to start forcing women to go through it. They can weigh the risks and benefits and decide when and whether to have a baby. I would personally prefer if that decision were made before having sex, but I am pragmatic enough to know that it won't always be.

I'm not out here advocating that we should force all women to get pregnant before they turn so-and-so an age... But neither do I have to look the other way when they claim that the hardships of pregnancy on their bodies is a good reason we should respect the legality of aborting the unwanted or unplanned child/fetus/offspring.

Too many people today go around emphasizing the negative aspects of having children, its a sociological attempt to retain support for the legality and politics in the abortion debate.

Yes. That MUST be it.

Women get osteoporosis JUST to prove a point....

Yes. That MUST be it.

Women get osteoporosis JUST to prove a point....

:rolleyes:

That must be it, when you don't have a point just quote something out of context and then misdirect attention to that and attack that via the creation of a false premise with a quick sound-bite that sounds like it’s related to the topic at hand.

Sorry, but it's a bit weak to keep hitting on the 'n00b' references, friend... it's only serving to hurt any point you might be trying to make.
Again, I did that for fun. I know it has nothing to do with the argument. It has everything to do with me having fun on this forum instead of acting like I have a christmas tree shoved up my ass all the time.

Hey, I was a n00b once. :)

And - if you honestly believe that the "only thing it keeps her from doing is..." (followed by a weird list of stuff), then you really need to do a little research on the subject.
That would be called "exaggeration." My point was that sure, there are things that they can't do, but millions of people get along without them just fine. I mean, I've never operated a wrecking ball, and I don't ever plan on it. Nor have I ever been a competitive figure skater. I can live without ever doing them, I'm sure women can get along without them for a few months. Keep in mind that this is 9 months out of 70+ years. Take away 25 years of schooling and figuring out what you want to do with your life, the last 10 of being some creepy old lady with too many cats, you still have 35 or so years of your life to live your dream career.

35 years x 12 months is 420 months, - 9 months is 411 months, / 420 months is .978blah, x 100 is 97.8%, from 100% is 2.2%. 2.2% of your career life spent eating a bit more healthy and protecting your body a bit more carefully. About the same as how many abortions aren't done just because someone feels like having it done. 2%.

I'd advise that you start by cross-referencing 'diabetes', 'post-partum depression', 'osteoporosis', etc.
Diabetes and osteoporosis can happen to anyone anyways. And I'm guessing that if you take good enough care of yourself while you're pregnant you don't have to worry about that. As for post-partum depression, you need to read some post-abortion stories. OK, if you give birth and give it away, depression. If you kill a baby and throw it in the trash, depression. Either way, you get depression, why go for the one that involves death? That, and post abortion psychological problems can be a lot worse and include more than just depression.

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

"Technically", if it really were a parasite as you claim, it could not be part of her body. It would be most likely of another species altogether. Parasites propagate their own species by using another species (the "host" species) for basic needs like food and shelter and reproduction, and significantly they do so without any regard for the well-being of the individuals of the host species, even though the host may marshal its defences to get rid of the parasite. Host individuals are frequently weakened and often die from this relationship.

By contrast, the embryo or foetus (depending on the exact stage of development) is the same species as its mother because it is an offspring ("child"). The unborn child is not pitting the future of its offspring against the life of the mother; the unborn child is the mother's own offspring. The mother's body normally responds in recognition of this fact by doing all it can to ensure the survival of that child.

Other small point of difference: the human body does not release hormones and neuro-transmitters and other chemicals to create a feeling of well-being and contentment in response to the presence of a parasite. Ask anyone who ever had a tape-worm or any other parasite. Both in pregnancy and afterwards, it is not unusual for the human body to release all these chemicals in response to the presence of the baby.

Calling a human embryo or foetus a "parasite" is the kind of confusion that can occur when someone more interested in polemics than facts uses words figuratively, but their hearers interpret what is said literally. It is also the kind of confusion that can occur when someone tries to talk beyond their knowledge.

One other side-issue: your argument seems to mean that it was your mother's right to have aborted you all those years ago, if she'd wanted to. Is that correct as you see it? If so, why does your birth mean that it's no longer her right to end your existence? IF all the organisms that we call "children" are simply part of their mother's body when they start out, why should a "child" be able to escape from the mother via the birth canal and why should that escape save that "child" from death if the mother later regrets giving birth? After all, the "child" has stolen some of the mother's body, if you're right. If the mother "owns" that flesh, her rights over it don't end when it's stolen.

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

Hmmm. I'm thinking of the 21st birthday of my godchild which we celebrated not so long ago. Twenty-one years ago the mother miscarried at 19 weeks. Now boasting an IQ of 124, a reading speed of 900 wpm, and a high school career that included the track and field team and dancing as well as academic achievements, my god-child is indistinguishable from others the same age -- the vulnerable lungs are normal and the anticipated epilepsy never materialized. Do I believe my god-child wasn't "actually alive" at the time of the miscarriage? What do you think?

Yes, I know that when people talk about abortions they talk about doing them earlier than that, as if it all could be done to a strict schedule. I also know professionally that advice to abort as well as the practice of abortion can include unborn children significantly older than my god-child.

A good book on bio. could have helped you with all this.

The fact is, that still doesn't answer the question of the person who started the thread. In essence, we could rephrase the question like this: "why is it that only the donor of the egg and the womb -- i.e., half the baby's chromosomes plus the temporary residence -- have any perceived rights? Why does the donor of the sperm and its trigger for the process of cell division get told it's none of his business?"

This topic just isn't as cut and dried as the extreme views on each side would have us think. As long as it's argued as some kind of key issue between the various interest-groups -- the sexes, those of different religious views or none, different cultures, and so on -- it will be treated as a battle-ground to be "won" or "lost". And as long as we keep doing that, we all lose.

Keep in mind that this is 9 months out of 70+ years. Take away 25 years of schooling and figuring out what you want to do with your life, the last 10 of being some creepy old lady with too many cats, you still have 35 or so years of your life to live your dream career.

35 years x 12 months is 420 months, - 9 months is 411 months, / 420 months is .978blah, x 100 is 97.8%, from 100% is 2.2%. 2.2% of your career life spent eating a bit more healthy and protecting your body a bit more carefully. About the same as how many abortions aren't done just because someone feels like having it done. 2%.




So you're saying women should not get abortions because it is not an inconvience, and that they're all gonna be creepy cat ladies?

I assume that you have documented evidence for your equations? What about women who don't have a career? Or women who have one for longer than 35 years? Or less? Is there really scientific proof that women only work 35 years?

There is proof that a fetus is an endo-parasite, and a danger to the mother no matter how well the pregnancy goes. If she does not want to take the risk why force her? Big deal she might have made a mistake. Should we force you to raise a child and carry a fetus for 9 months because you made a mistake?

"Technically", if it really were a parasite as you claim, it could not be part of her body. It would be most likely of another species altogether. Parasites propagate their own species by using another species (the "host" species) for basic needs like food and shelter and reproduction, and significantly they do so without any regard for the well-being of the individuals of the host species, even though the host may marshal its defences to get rid of the parasite. Host individuals are frequently weakened and often die from this relationship.

By contrast, the embryo or foetus (depending on the exact stage of development) is the same species as its mother because it is an offspring ("child"). The unborn child is not pitting the future of its offspring against the life of the mother; the unborn child is the mother's own offspring. The mother's body normally responds in recognition of this fact by doing all it can to ensure the survival of that child.

According to my nursing course, yes a fetus is a parasite. Not all parasites work in exactly the same way. This endo parasite, leeches food and other vital substances from the mother, leaving her only waste products in return. It makes her vulnerable, upsets her equilibrium, and causes a myriad of other complications. A fetus is a direct threat to the health of the mother. These hormones are released in an effort by the mothers body to prevent her from discarding the parasite. Another theory on this subject is that the hormones are released due to the current situation in which we are the human race live. Fostering a more caring female in the months of pregnancy rather than one that will discard the fetus to survive herself is more beneficial to the species as a whole now than it ever was.

NOTE:: This is a summerized excerpt from my Anatomy & Physiology nursing edition text book.

According to my nursing course, yes a fetus is a parasite. Not all parasites work in exactly the same way. This endo parasite, leeches food and other vital substances from the mother, leaving her only waste products in return. It makes her vulnerable, upsets her equilibrium, and causes a myriad of other complications. A fetus is a direct threat to the health of the mother. These hormones are released in an effort by the mothers body to prevent her from discarding the parasite. Another theory on this subject is that the hormones are released due to the current situation in which we are the human race live. Fostering a more caring female in the months of pregnancy rather than one that will discard the fetus to survive herself is more beneficial to the species as a whole now than it ever was.

NOTE:: This is a summerized excerpt from my Anatomy & Physiology nursing edition text book.

That's not completely true. The fetus does lots of things that help the mother maintain a healthy body. Everything from hormones, to immune system strengthening, in fact, much more affect comes out from the fetus than goes into the fetus from the mother's system.

and using the word 'leech' to describe the relationship between mother and child... :rolleyes: Mmmmm yeah, okay. Having a little problem invoking some empathy for other human beings today are we?

and using the word 'leech' to describe the relationship between mother and child... :rolleyes: Mmmmm yeah, okay. Having a little problem invoking some empathy for other human beings today are we?


Nope having trouble invoking some empathy for other human beings everyday :D

also note that i said summerized from a text book. anything left out is because it was not in the few paragraphs the excerpt was taken from but in another part altogether.

That's not completely true. The fetus does lots of things that help the mother maintain a healthy body. Everything from hormones, to immune system strengthening, in fact, much more affect comes out from the fetus than goes into the fetus from the mother's system.

and using the word 'leech' to describe the relationship between mother and child... :rolleyes: Mmmmm yeah, okay. Having a little problem invoking some empathy for other human beings today are we?

Close, but no cigar. You'll actually find out that MOST of the hormonal, chemical, etc benefit that the mother gains, is gained from the placenta, not the foetus.

Also - you have to bear in mind that a parasite protects itself as best it can... if that means that the parasite temporarily boosts a hormone level in the host, it is STILL part of parasitic activity.

I'm also not sure about your claim that the foetus boosts the immune system... if anything, the mere presence of a foetus requires deleterious effect on the immune system... otherwise, the body would reject the parasite.

Again, I did that for fun. I know it has nothing to do with the argument. It has everything to do with me having fun on this forum instead of acting like I have a christmas tree shoved up my ass all the time.

Hey, I was a n00b once. :)


That would be called "exaggeration." My point was that sure, there are things that they can't do, but millions of people get along without them just fine. I mean, I've never operated a wrecking ball, and I don't ever plan on it. Nor have I ever been a competitive figure skater. I can live without ever doing them, I'm sure women can get along without them for a few months. Keep in mind that this is 9 months out of 70+ years. Take away 25 years of schooling and figuring out what you want to do with your life, the last 10 of being some creepy old lady with too many cats, you still have 35 or so years of your life to live your dream career.

35 years x 12 months is 420 months, - 9 months is 411 months, / 420 months is .978blah, x 100 is 97.8%, from 100% is 2.2%. 2.2% of your career life spent eating a bit more healthy and protecting your body a bit more carefully. About the same as how many abortions aren't done just because someone feels like having it done. 2%.


Diabetes and osteoporosis can happen to anyone anyways. And I'm guessing that if you take good enough care of yourself while you're pregnant you don't have to worry about that. As for post-partum depression, you need to read some post-abortion stories. OK, if you give birth and give it away, depression. If you kill a baby and throw it in the trash, depression. Either way, you get depression, why go for the one that involves death? That, and post abortion psychological problems can be a lot worse and include more than just depression.

Diabetes and osteoporosis can happen to anyone. So can cancer... so there's no point in NOT rubbing radioactive material on ourselves, right?

Our lives are full of risks... and, for the most part, we get to choose which ones we want to accept. And yet, certain people would COMPELL certain risks on others, just because it fits their image of what might be 'right'.

Seriously, go read up on some of the risks of pregnancy and childbirth... follow the links that Kat posted, perhaps. There really are risks - even in THIS day and age.

I'm also not sure about your claim that the foetus boosts the immune system... if anything, the mere presence of a foetus requires deleterious effect on the immune system... otherwise, the body would reject the parasite.

as is evidenced in those few mothers and fetus' that do not share the same Rh factor. with differing factors, a certain hormone is not released or is released but isnt complient with the mother's system and her immune system attacks the endoparasitic presence. 68% of all feti are attacked by the mothers immune system and lost because certain hormones werent released for one reason or another

Diabetes and osteoporosis can happen to anyone anyways. And I'm guessing that if you take good enough care of yourself while you're pregnant you don't have to worry about that.
Then you would GUESS wrong.

As for post-partum depression, you need to read some post-abortion stories. OK, if you give birth and give it away, depression. If you kill a baby and throw it in the trash, depression. Either way, you get depression, why go for the one that involves death? That, and post abortion psychological problems can be a lot worse and include more than just depression.

Post-partum depression does NOT affect only women who give up their infants. It affects women who keep them and love them as well. A very famous example would be the First Lady of NJ, Mary Codey.

http://www.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/dhss/njnewsline/view_article.pl?id=2648

You make statements as if they are fact without backing them up with sources. You state it is your BELIEF that gestational diabetes and osteoporosis happen to people who do not take care of themselves. It's my belief that there are little purple men who live on the dark side of the moon, but it does not make it true. Belief is a wonderful thing, but you cannot use it to define other people's lives.

You will note that all the medical data I pulled up to support my position, which has been blithely ignored, does NOT come from pro-choice sites but rather sites that concentrate on nutrition and the human body -- medical journals, universities -- in other words, the information provided is slanted neither in favor nor against the entire abortion debate.

Some arguments here have chiefly been anecdotal evidence and ad hominem attacks. For examples of ad hominem, you have dismissed one argument because the poster appears to be new to the forums. You have attempted to discredit arguments by not refuting them but instead labeling people -- as liberals, as non-Christians.... whatever.

I would suggest that providing evidence to back your statements would be a more effective way of making your point, rather than making judgmental, emotional, and uninformed statements.

Close, but no cigar. You'll actually find out that MOST of the hormonal, chemical, etc benefit that the mother gains, is gained from the placenta, not the foetus.

Now what is that? Are you trying to object to pure trivia technicality for the sake of being obstinate or did you have a different purpose? The pregnancy brings about the changes, nuff said.

Also - you have to bear in mind that a parasite protects itself as best it can... if that means that the parasite temporarily boosts a hormone level in the host, it is STILL part of parasitic activity.

The Mother's body and the offspring attempt to work together, balancing each other out, for the good of both.

I'm also not sure about your claim that the foetus boosts the immune system... if anything, the mere presence of a foetus requires deleterious effect on the immune system... otherwise, the body would reject the parasite.

There were links in this thread already posted, it's one of the places I was reminded of the information I was talking about, I felt no compulsion to re-submit links already posted less than a few pages ago...

Other small point of difference: the human body does not release hormones and neuro-transmitters and other chemicals to create a feeling of well-being and contentment in response to the presence of a parasite.

Actually, many parasites do cause the body to create hormones and neuro-transmitters to hide its presence. Anthrax is a good example - it placates the body, keeping the body from knowing that there is an infection at all, until the infection has gotten so out of hand that the person cannot possibly be saved (thus the reason that those exposed to any level of antrax undergo treatment immediately, instead of waiting for some sort of symptoms).

To suggest that parasites cannot cause the body to release such chemicals suggests that you need to study up on biology a bit.

Calling a human embryo or foetus a "parasite" is the kind of confusion that can occur when someone more interested in polemics than facts uses words figuratively, but their hearers interpret what is said literally. It is also the kind of confusion that can occur when someone tries to talk beyond their knowledge.

Calling a fetus a parasite is completely technically correct. The person who is adding a figurative connotation to the word is the one who places such a negative connotation on the word that they feel the need to "defend" the

Yes, I know that when people talk about abortions they talk about doing them earlier than that, as if it all could be done to a strict schedule. I also know professionally that advice to abort as well as the practice of abortion can include unborn children significantly older than my god-child.

It can involve fetuses past 19 weeks, yes - if there is a medical reason to do it.

Now what is that? Are you trying to object to pure trivia technicality for the sake of being obstinate or did you have a different purpose? The pregnancy brings about the changes, nuff said.


Enough said, for you, perhaps. It was claimed that a foetus has such-and-such beneficial effects, which is demonstrably not true - so I commented to that effect.

The comment about 'pregnancy brings about the changes' is misleading. The foetus is a parasite, and has few, or no, direct positive effects on the mother. The OTHER material formed from the first division of the newly fertilised egg and, therefore, a human life, according to the standard pro-life argument) is the placenta, and it is the placenta that serves the beneficial functions.


The Mother's body and the offspring attempt to work together, balancing each other out, for the good of both.


No. The conceptus messes with the host's biology for it's own advantage. If the host gains ANY benefit, it is not by the design of the parasite.

No. The conceptus messes with the host's biology for it's own advantage. If the host gains ANY benefit, it is not by the design of the parasite.

You are flatly and entirely in error.

Even after the baby is gone it has left cells intended to help the mother heal.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6610

You are flatly and entirely in error.

Even after the baby is gone it has left cells intended to help the mother heal.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6610

the fetus does not leave cells, the placenta and other surrounding membrane do

You are flatly and entirely in error.

Even after the baby is gone it has left cells intended to help the mother heal.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6610

First: It doesn't explain any mechanism of HOW these cells are actually 'helping' the mother to heal. As far as the information given, the foetal cells are just part of the cell pallette that the normal healing process uses.

Second: Even if the mechanism DID explain a healing bonus effect, it is still not BY DESIGN, any more that stem-cell research is by the 'design' of the foetus.

Third: Mice.

Seriously. The article is about mice.

You are flatly and entirely in error.

Even after the baby is gone it has left cells intended to help the mother heal.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6610


using your jumps and gaps in logic i can use this::
She notes that the condition of women with autoimmune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis or multiple sclerosis often improves while they are pregnant. But it is not all good news: there is also some evidence that fetal cells that linger in the mother can sometimes trigger autoimmune disorders (New Scientist print edition, 24 February 2001).::
to say that fetal cells cause disease in mothers :fluffle:

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

this attitude stinks. If you are prolife because you believe that it is the murder of an innocent child, then the mothers body is not really an issue is it?

I have had some close brushes with pregnancy and believe me it annoys the hell out of me knowing that when it comes down to it, it will not be my decision at all as to whether the child would be aborted or not. Luckily its never come to that.

Me? Im pro choice. I believe there are circumstances when abortion is necessary but these decisions have to be made by both the mother and the father. Pro life or not I dont think a woman should get the power of veto just because she's carrying the child.

So you're saying women should not get abortions because it is not an inconvience?
No, I'm saying women shouldn't get an abortion because pregnancy being an inconvenience isn't a good enough reason. Some guy cutting me off on the highway is an inconvenience, but that doesn't give me the excuse to shoot him.

And that they're all gonna be creepy cat ladies?
Yes. It's a biological fact that all women become creepy cat ladies. It's programed into their DNA from birth, you can't escape it. One day, when you're old, you'll wake up and decide you want a kitten to keep you company. And then you think that the kitten is lonely, so you get another. And then another. And another! And another! And soon you have 10 cats with odd names (because you ran out of normal names), you spend too much time with them, and your house smells like cabbage for an unknown reason. Some poor kid down the street is crying because his parents are going out of town for the day and they have to go stay with the cat lady. He's sad because all day you're going to talk to him about your cats, naming them all 20 times and telling stories about them for hours.

I assume that you have documented evidence for your equations?
Does it look like I do? Those are very rough estimates. But come on, it's common sense. You usually don't get into your life career until after college, plus a few years to get settled or additional education like grad school. That's where the 25 comes from. And you're probably going to retire sometime, probably around 60. Some people are weird and climb Mt. Everest when they're 92 or something, and anyways, you're not going to get pregnant at 92, so if you do actually want to go mountain climbing then, you don't have to worry about a pregnancy stopping you. The life expectancy for women is in the upper 70s, I believe. Now, I can look up a whole bunch of sites for that, but come on. Modern medicine would put it higher than 40 and the longest anyone's lived besides people in the Bible have lived to be about 120. So, even if I hadn't heard it before, 70 seems like a pretty good guess, eh? Now, you're also not going to be wanting to have children when you get to old, even if menopause didn't stop you first.
So that would be my numbers came from. If you get pregnant before 25 (except for people who get married at 18...and most of them too), you're just stupid. Or you've been raped. If you've been raped, that's a different matter.

What about women who don't have a career?
Then it's a moot point, isn't it? Because then the pregnancy can't interupt anything important.

Or women who have one for longer than 35 years?
Menopause.

Or less?
Nine months is still a low percentage of any real career. And by real, I mean not working as a cashier for a year to make some extra cash.

Is there really scientific proof that women only work 35 years?
Does it matter? The point is, it's not as big of an inconvenience as everyone wants to think.

There is proof that a fetus is an endo-parasite
A 40 year old guy living in his mother's basement is a parasite too. Doesn't mean you can shoot him.
A lot of people are parasites of society. Doesn't mean we should go around shooting mentally handicapped and poor people.

And a danger to the mother no matter how well the pregnancy goes.
But not that dangerous if she takes care of herself. And if it's going to kill her, that's a different issue. And anyways, what the baby might do and what it will do are different things. Other drivers might run a red light and kill me. Doesn't mean I should shoot them all to make sure that doesn't happen.

If she does not want to take the risk why force her?
No one's forcing her to have a baby. No one forced her to get pregnant.

Big deal she might have made a mistake.
Mistakes have consequences.

Should we force you to raise a child and carry a fetus for 9 months because you made a mistake?
Why not? We force people to go to jail when they make mistakes. We force people to retake a grade in school when they make mistakes. We spank our children when they make mistakes.

However, pregnancy is not a punishment. It is simply a consequence. You eat a lot of fatty foods, you get fat. You have sex without adequate protection, you get pregnant.

Abortion is that miracle pill. Instead of dieting and excersizing and eating right, people want a miracle pill that will let them eat anything and do nothing and still not get fat. Abortion is that pill for pregnancy. People want to be able to do anything without making mistakes.

Finally, we are agreed that getting pregnant when you don't want to be is a mistake, yes? If you don't teach people that mistakes have consequences, they won't stop making those mistakes. If people don't have to worry about what will happen, then they won't care what will happen, and people will just have more sex earlier and without protection. You think I'm exaggerating, but I see it in my highschool. My class v. the freshmen class. The dumbest, most immature people in my school are the 14 year olds who think they're special and they're all having sex to prove it. The worst, most slutty and horny kids from my class are better than some of the least horny and slutty of the freshmen class. Part of the reason for this is because they're learning that they don't have to care about consequences in the future, because someone else has a magic pill for them.

Yes. It's a biological fact that all women become creepy cat ladies. It's programed into their DNA from birth, you can't escape it. One day, when you're old, you'll wake up and decide you want a kitten to keep you company. And then you think that the kitten is lonely, so you get another. And then another. And another! And another! And soon you have 10 cats with odd names (because you ran out of normal names), you spend too much time with them, and your house smells like cabbage for an unknown reason. Some poor kid down the street is crying because his parents are going out of town for the day and they have to go stay with the cat lady. He's sad because all day you're going to talk to him about your cats, naming them all 20 times and telling stories about them for hours....


Does it look like I do? Those are very rough estimates. But come on, it's common sense. You usually don't get into your life career until after college, plus a few years to get settled or additional education like grad school. That's where the 25 comes from. And you're probably going to retire sometime, probably around 60. Some people are weird and climb Mt. Everest when they're 92 or something, and anyways, you're not going to get pregnant at 92, so if you do actually want to go mountain climbing then, you don't have to worry about a pregnancy stopping you. The life expectancy for women is in the upper 70s, I believe. Now, I can look up a whole bunch of sites for that, but come on. Modern medicine would put it higher than 40 and the longest anyone's lived besides people in the Bible have lived to be about 120. So, even if I hadn't heard it before, 70 seems like a pretty good guess, eh? Now, you're also not going to be wanting to have children when you get to old, even if menopause didn't stop you first.
So that would be my numbers came from. If you get pregnant before 25 (except for people who get married at 18...and most of them too), you're just stupid. Or you've been raped. If you've been raped, that's a different matter...

But not that dangerous if she takes care of herself...

Oh, I see. So you admit that you are pulling all of this out of the ether.
Nevermind.

All I have to say is that I was pregnant at fifteen and have no regrets about keeping my little one. Abortion is murder

"I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object...Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today's intellectual field, they call themselves 'pro-life.'"

— Ayn Rand

Ok that aside...

If you get pregnant before 25 (except for people who get married at 18...and most of them too), you're just stupid. Or you've been raped. If you've been raped, that's a different matter.

Im shocked that anyone would say that unwanted pregnancy is the result of stupidity. Not every girl who accidentally gets pregnant is an ignorant slut who should have made her boyfriend wear a rubber. Have you ever used a condom? They can break! The only method of preventing pregnancy that is one hundred percent effective is abstinence. You can get pregnant without meaning to. Accidents happen!
A foetus does not have the 'right' to survive off someone else. How is it different if shes raped? Just because she didnt choose to have sex? Is it the fault of the foetus that she was raped? Did it choose? I think not. So why does it lose its 'right' due to sexual history?
It either has a right to exist or it does not. Whether she decided to have sex or not is irrelevent. Make up your mind.


Why not? We force people to go to jail when they make mistakes. We force people to retake a grade in school when they make mistakes. We spank our children when they make mistakes.

you obviously have some difficulty grasping the difference between the mistake two people make when they get pregnant (an accident is more like it) and the mistake one makes when they decide to break the law. Pregnancy is not a punishment! You took the words out of my mouth. Forcing a person to have an unwanted child will surely teach them to learn from their mistakes! Yes, they'll think twice before ACCIDENTALLY getting pregnant again wont they? Or maybe we should spank people who get accidentally pregnant? Ass.


My class v. the freshmen class. The dumbest, most immature people in my school are the 14 year olds who think they're special and they're all having sex to prove it. The worst, most slutty and horny kids from my class are better than some of the least horny and slutty of the freshmen class. Part of the reason for this is because they're learning that they don't have to care about consequences in the future, because someone else has a magic pill for them.

If only someone forced your school friends to have children then theyd learn and no one would be having sex at a young age. Anyway, why should we take your word for who's better? Better in what way exactly? How do you know what they are or arent learning? You may not approve of young people or simply other people having sex and thats fine but dont presume to know what they are learning and who they are. Any of them pregnant?

Finally, we are agreed that getting pregnant when you don't want to be is a mistake, yes? If you don't teach people that mistakes have consequences, they won't stop making those mistakes. If people don't have to worry about what will happen, then they won't care what will happen, and people will just have more sex earlier and without protection.

Let me think for a bit about this... "if people dont have to worry about what will happen they wont care what will happen..." Well gee, thats sorted that one out for me. You mean that if people dont have to worry about ACCIDENTALLY becoming pregnant then people wont CARE about becoming pregnant? Yeah sounds about right to me actually. Whats your point exactly? There once was a village who were scared of being bitten by snakes but one day the village shaman prayed to the gods who made the people immune to snake bites so they stopped worrying about it... Does your logic actually work? You cant get angry at people becasuse they do not agree with your views on the sanctity of childbirth and sex.

All I have to say is that I was pregnant at fifteen and have no regrets about keeping my little one. Abortion is murder

Abortion is not murder, becuase murder is the ILLEGAL taking of a human life...

And, it's still debatable if the 'live tissue' + 'human DNA' is enough to consitute = 'human life'.

Abortion is not murder, becuase murder is the ILLEGAL taking of a human life...

Actualy, homicide is the illegal taking of a human life. Murder is the taking of a life. So, her statement was actually true.

God, I'm a legal dork

Fellow Liberals,
It's time we took the matter into our own hands. From now on, only abort the Conservative fetus' (fetusi? feti?). Come. The Revolution is Now.

Well, the good news is, it's mostly liberals that abort thier children. Also, it's been proven that girls are aborted more than men, and women tend to be liberals.

The bad news is that the liberals on this thread weren't part of the millions aborted.

If you get pregnant before 25 (except for people who get married at 18...and most of them too), you're just stupid. Or you've been raped. If you've been raped, that's a different matter.



Oh, that is so offensive.

Hey, I owned up to my mistakes and had the baby but i'm certainly not stupid. Mistakes are made and you deal with the consiquences. You dont kill a child because you made a mistake but telling me i'm stupid for making the mistake is not helping you win anyone over.

Well, the good news is, it's mostly liberals that abort thier children. Also, it's been proven that girls are aborted more than men, and women tend to be liberals.

The bad news is that the liberals on this thread weren't part of the millions aborted.
Can I use these lines the next time I want to pick up a girl at a bar?

Well, the good news is, it's mostly liberals that abort thier children. Also, it's been proven that girls are aborted more than men, and women tend to be liberals.

The bad news is that the liberals on this thread weren't part of the millions aborted.

Wishing death upon people you're debating (as well as liberals in general) with is a horrible thing to say. You've gone beyond the definition of trolling, especially with your wish.

The Lagonia States: Official Warning for Trolling


~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

Wishing death upon people you're debating (as well as liberals in general) with is a horrible thing to say. You've gone beyond the definition of trolling, especially with your wish.

The Lagonia States: Official Warning for Trolling


~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

You're kidding, right? You can't see how being absurd back to someone who is making an absurd argument is just a way of laughing it off? Do you honestly think I'm wishing death to anyone here?

You're kidding, right? You can't see how being absurd back to someone who is making an absurd argument is just a way of laughing it off? Do you honestly think I'm wishing death to anyone here?

The mod probably didn't see the post before yours, that's all. Taken alone, your post does sound like trolling. You should have quoted the guy in the post, it would have cleared this up.

Does it look like I do? Those are very rough estimates. But come on, it's common sense.

How is it 'common' sense?

It is not common to you and I... it is not a common commodity, and since the figures are speculative - they are not even 'sense' in as much as 'meaning anything'.

So - it is neither common, NOR sense.

Actualy, homicide is the illegal taking of a human life. Murder is the taking of a life. So, her statement was actually true.

God, I'm a legal dork

And wrong, also...


Main Entry: ho·mi·cide
Pronunciation: 'häm-&-"sId, 'hO-m&-
Function: noun
1 : a person who kills another
2 : a killing of one human being by another —compare GENOCIDE



mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.


'Hom-icide' just means 'to kill a man' (etymologically). Murder is illegal killing.

Well, the good news is, it's mostly liberals that abort thier children. Also, it's been proven that girls are aborted more than men, and women tend to be liberals.

The bad news is that the liberals on this thread weren't part of the millions aborted.

Apart from the ridiculous, hurtful, vindictive, spiteful and pointless commentary....

Do you have any evidence to back up your 'good news'?

1. Sometimes the old arguments are the best

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

Movement
Respiration
Sensitivity
Feeding
Reproduction
Excretion
Growth

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

An embryo is alive after the sixth week, I'm pretty sure. So if you have an abortiion before the sixth week, it should be legal.

Apart from the ridiculous, hurtful, vindictive, spiteful and pointless commentary....

Do you have any evidence to back up your 'good news'?

See, here's the problem I'm having with his board right now. Someone says something stupid, I respond with an absurd comment to point out how stupid they really are without actually saying it, and everyone who is on the liberal side of the debate knocks me around for pointing it out. A mod even threatened to ban over it!

Meanwhile, when someone on the conservitive side made his own foolish statement, two of us over here pointed it out as hurtfull, mean and incorrect. Just because a man is on your side of the debate does not mean he (or she) is always right.

See, here's the problem I'm having with his board right now. Someone says something stupid, I respond with an absurd comment to point out how stupid they really are without actually saying it, and everyone who is on the liberal side of the debate knocks me around for pointing it out. A mod even threatened to ban over it!

Meanwhile, when someone on the conservitive side made his own foolish statement, two of us over here pointed it out as hurtfull, mean and incorrect. Just because a man is on your side of the debate does not mean he (or she) is always right.

See, the problem is, although you say you were ripping the other poster, it comes across as though you were (in fact) agreeing, and (even) raising the ante.

And, I don't seem to be the ONLY person to see it that way.

In the absence of the obvious sarcasm that can be apparent in face-to-face conversation, you might want to use an emoticon, or invent yourself a sarcasm-tag. I use </sarcasm>.

An embryo is alive after the sixth week, I'm pretty sure. So if you have an abortiion before the sixth week, it should be legal.

What is your source, my friend?

Or are you just speculating a number you like the sound of?

The way I see it... the sperm was 'alive', and the egg was 'alive', so the conceptus is 'alive' as soon as the two are finally merged.

However, a 'live' conceptus is not necessarily the same thing as 'a human life'.

For me, that stage requires the actual machinery to think or remember... which is theoretically functional after about the 20th-22nd week.

So - abort at 16 weeks, to be on the safe side... before it becomes a functional human life.

If you get pregnant before 25 (except for people who get married at 18...and most of them too), you're just stupid.

Of course, this discounts the people who are simply never educated about the matter. Or people who are supposed to be getting married but find out what a jerk their fiancee is.

Then it's a moot point, isn't it? Because then the pregnancy can't interupt anything important.

Yes, because no one who hasn't yet started their long-term career can be doing anything important, like trying to work towards it. Or, if they don't plan a long-term career, raising the other children they have the best they can.

A 40 year old guy living in his mother's basement is a parasite too.

Incorrect. A 40-year old guy living in his mother's basement does not live in or on her body, and does not take sustenance from her body. He does not excrete waste into her bodily systems.

Why not? We force people to go to jail when they make mistakes. We force people to retake a grade in school when they make mistakes. We spank our children when they make mistakes.

But we do not force them to make changes to their bodies. We do not force them into medical decisions they do not wish to make. Human beings have a right to decide what they will and will not do with their own bodies. Even those in jail cannot be forced to submit to medical treatment, or lack thereof.

Abortion is that miracle pill. Instead of dieting and excersizing and eating right, people want a miracle pill that will let them eat anything and do nothing and still not get fat. Abortion is that pill for pregnancy. People want to be able to do anything without making mistakes.

And again, some naive person thinks that abortion is a pleasure cruise. Abortion itself is not a "miracle pill" that takes everything away and makes it wonderful. Women who choose abortions aren't taking an easy route. These women will always have to wonder if they made the right choice. They will always wonder what their child, had they had one, would look like, what it would be doing. Abortion itself is relatively safe, but carries its own health risks along with it.

I have known women who have been in bad situations and chosen abortion. It changed all of their lives. They became obsessive about contraception. None of them went into it lightly, and none ever wanted to be in the position to make such a difficult decision ever again. Abortion isn't a "magic pill" that shields people from the consequences of their mistakes. It is a decision that occurs after a huge wake-up call.

An embryo is alive after the sixth week, I'm pretty sure. So if you have an abortiion before the sixth week, it should be legal.

As far as meeting all the requirements of life, it is closer to the 10th week - where a fetus can reflexively sense and respond to stimuli. I haven't seen much that places the development of functional sensory and response mechanisms earlier than that.

I have known women who have been in bad situations and chosen abortion. It changed all of their lives. They became obsessive about contraception. None of them went into it lightly, and none ever wanted to be in the position to make such a difficult decision ever again. Abortion isn't a "magic pill" that shields people from the consequences of their mistakes. It is a decision that occurs after a huge wake-up call.

Not exactly responding directly to this... but people keep talking about the adverse psychology of abortion, and why that is a good enough reason not to do it (not saying you were).

I agree, it's something that the girl needs to consider... can she 'deal' with what she is about to do.

On the other hand, though, a very dear friend of mine, lost one of her very dear friends four years after her v.d.f. was talked OUT of abortion, because she couldn't live with the choice she made.

Each woman needs to decide for herself - because it truly IS a life-altering decision, WHICHEVER way she decides to go.

As far as meeting all the requirements of life, it is closer to the 10th week - where a fetus can reflexively sense and respond to stimuli. I haven't seen much that places the development of functional sensory and response mechanisms earlier than that.

And, even at that stage, it does seem to be just 'reflex'... random firing in nerves.

Not exactly responding directly to this... but people keep talking about the adverse psychology of abortion, and why that is a good enough reason not to do it (not saying you were).

I agree, it's something that the girl needs to consider... can she 'deal' with what she is about to do.

On the other hand, though, a very dear friend of mine, lost one of her very dear friends four years after her v.d.f. was talked OUT of abortion, because she couldn't live with the choice she made.

Each woman needs to decide for herself - because it truly IS a life-altering decision, WHICHEVER way she decides to go.

Absolutely. In the end, the woman weighs the choices and decides what she feels is best. I have never met a woman who had to make this decision that didn't wonder later if she made the right one (abortion or not). Either choice is life-altering and a woman should decide that for herself.

I have a friend who had an abortion after quite a bit of agonizing over it. To this day, she cries on Mother's Day - every year. But, in the end, she still feels that she made the right choice. It wasn't easy, but she believes she did the right thing.

And, even at that stage, it does seem to be just 'reflex'... random firing in nerves.

No, randomly firing nerves starts closer to week 8, and randomly firing nerves is not a reflex action.

By week 10, my understanding is that true reflexes have generally been developed.

In the absence of the obvious sarcasm that can be apparent in face-to-face conversation, you might want to use an emoticon, or invent yourself a sarcasm-tag. I use </sarcasm>.

Actually, you're right. I don't apologize for the comment, but I do apologize for not adding something that would show it to be sarcasm.

The way I see it... the sperm was 'alive', and the egg was 'alive', so the conceptus is 'alive' as soon as the two are finally merged.

Every spermmmm is sacred! Every sperm is good... If a sperm is wasted, god gets quite irate.

Actually, you're right. I don't apologize for the comment, but I do apologize for not adding something that would show it to be sarcasm.

If the comment is sarcasm, then I applaud it - because it was making a point that NEEDED making. However, in the absence of face-to-face conversation, it is sometimes dangerous to be sarcastic, without 'taking precautions'... and that seems to be where you fell down.

In an ideal world, everyone would have KNOWN that you were being sarcastic... but NationStates is a microcosm that really does seem to attract some 'unusual' types... and the sentiments you expressed (sarcastically) HAVE been bandied around the forum before, in earnest.

Still, no blood, nothing broken. It's all good, right. :)

Absolutely. In the end, the woman weighs the choices and decides what she feels is best. I have never met a woman who had to make this decision that didn't wonder later if she made the right one (abortion or not). Either choice is life-altering and a woman should decide that for herself.


I couldn't agree more.