NationStates Jolt Archive

I am pro-choice but unlike some other posters on this forum, I don't feel that abortion is one of the huge issues of our age. The biggest issues are, I think, the environment and world poverty. Abortion is just a hyped-up issue made by politicians to rile up people around religion.

So how important do you think it is, one a scale of 1 to 5? 1 means unimportant, while 5 means very important.

Pro-choice means that you think abortion should be generally legal. It does not necessarily mean pro-abortion.

Pro-life means that you think abortion should be generally illegal.

i would say at the moment about 1...if my GF/Wife was going to have an abortion i suppose it would be about 5... *galic shrug*

abortion isnt a huge issue for most people because its available. if it were suddenly outlawed or so restricted that 800,000 women a year are forced to have babies they dont want, it would be very different.

its important enough for me that i would never vote for a pro-life candidate for any office where it might matter.

abortion isnt a huge issue for most people because its available. if it were suddenly outlawed or so restricted that 800,000 women a year are forced to have babies they dont want, it would be very different.

its important enough for me that i would never vote for a pro-life candidate for any office where it might matter.
Actually I live in a country where abortion is illegal, but I still believe that there are far bigger issues. I can't say that I don't vote for pro-life candidates, because the politicians here are so afraid to talk about abortion. It would be like unleashing a volcano. Whenever it's mentioned in this country, both sides in this country get so wildly emotional that it is soon stopped.

There's more important things out there. It's a right that still needs protection though.

I hate the names "pro-life" and "pro-choice." Being choice myself, it makes me feel so vicious, like I am out to kill babies. Then it makes all the others sounds like evil despotists.

I voted 4. It is a very important issue, as it deals with a woman's right to privacy and what happens to her body.

However, the only thing keeping me from placing it at 5 is that there ARE more important issues out there than privacy. Sorry.

Actually I live in a country where abortion is illegal, but I still believe that there are far bigger issues. I can't say that I don't vote for pro-life candidates, because the politicians here are so afraid to talk about abortion. It would be like unleashing a volcano. Whenever it's mentioned in this country, both sides in this country get so wildly emotional that it is soon stopped.
are you sure that doesnt mean that its such an important issue that it cant even be discussed?

yeah i guess if nothing can change the status quo then its silly to base your political choices on a moot point. more practical considerations can trump important but impossible ones.

I think a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to abort her child.

Now that doesn't mean I think that women deciding they don't want to use contraceptives and sleep around and get pregnant before routinely aborting - but then I don't think abortion gives rise to this sort of behaviour.

That said, if it does, I'd imagine that's more a society symptom - I feel that we'd then need to treat the disease rather than the symptom.

My opinion is influenced mainly by the fact that the last controversy on abortion in my country was the Catholic Church pulling out of the Pregnancy Conflict Councilling Program and Cardinal Lehmann offering his resignation because of it (which got declined by JP2). This happened a couple years ago. Just this week, we've had a case where a mother killed 9 of her 13 children after their birth... But the main hype about that now is about a quote from Brandenburg's Interior Minister partly blaming the GDR for the crime.

EDIT: I suppose that means that it's not much of an issue in Germany, but I feel deeply pro-choice when the issue comes up in the States, especially with our current administration.

It's a non-issue where I live, so I can't even pick an option in this poll. Abortions are legal, and that's it. It's not debated. Anti-abortionists are basically confined to small groups that most people think are loony.

It's a non-issue where I live, so I can't even pick an option in this poll. Abortions are legal, and that's it. It's not debated. Anti-abortionists are basically confined to small groups that most people think are loony.
It's similar in the UK - there was an attempt to make a big deal of the issue a few months back and people had already forgotten / lost interest within a week. For better or for worse, pro-lifers have lost in the UK.

I voted pro-choice (2).

EDIT: I suppose that means that it's not much of an issue in Germany, but I feel deeply pro-choice when the issue comes up in the States, especially with our current administration.

Dubya really pisses me off but Bush's anti-abortion stance is the only good thing I can say
about him.

Dubya really pisses me off but Bush's anti-abortion stance is the only good thing I can say
about him.To each his own. I personally believe that legalizing abortion is the lesser of two evils...

are you sure that doesnt mean that its such an important issue that it cant even be discussed?
The issue's importance in Ireland is subjective; it's contentiousness is indubitable.

what is WRONG with me?!

I'm always one of those people who click the wrong buttons. Damnit.

I said I was pro life and I gave a 4.

I'm pro-choice and a 4.

I think it'll stop being important once people get off the case. I just really think people should know that ultimately it'll be my decision, so quit bugging me.

Apparently I have PMS right now, so that might've been testy. I don't think so, but apparently I have to warn people now.

I'd think the war in Iraq should be top on our list right now... but abortion should be up there because the governments position on human embryos also affects abortions younger half-brother, stem cell research.

Instead what we got last election was gay marriage and whether John Kerry actually deserved his medals in Vietnam or not... that's politics in the USA for ya. :rolleyes:

For the record I voted 2 pro-choice. I have an opinion but outside its potential impact on scientific research I really don't give a shit because, being a man, I have no say whatsoever in the decision anyway. My role is merely to shoulder the 18-25 year financial burden should the woman in question decide she wants to keep the child.

Meh... I said Pro-Choice - 3. It's an issue, but it's not really important to me, but then again it does have some importance.

Um… not sure whether to vote pro-life 3 or 4. It's important to me, 'cos I feel that life is very important… but not so important I'd hare off after the issue by itself. Actually, that'd be a stupid and impractical thing to do… to outlaw it, you'd have to set up support and LEFTIE-ISM! Sorry Bush/others, but you have to support them if you're going to force them to give birth!

For the record, I'm "pro-life" on most other issues as well.

Um… not sure whether to vote pro-life 3 or 4. It's important to me, 'cos I feel that life is very important… but not so important I'd hare off after the issue by itself. Actually, that'd be a stupid and impractical thing to do… to outlaw it, you'd have to set up support and LEFTIE-ISM! Sorry Bush/others, but you have to support them if you're going to force them to give birth!
Yeah it's funny how conservatives only seem to care about the welfare of children before they're born!

Yeah it's funny how conservatives only seem to care about the welfare of children before they're born! Not funny for me, they give the rest of us (pro-lifers, not conservatives, I'm not a conservative) a bad image. :mad: Letting the side down, don'tcha know.

It's not abortion that's the important issue for me--it's the underlying right to privacy that's the biggie in my book. So I'm pro-choice and it's a 5.

I chose Pro-Choice 1, rather unimportant. Of course, if abortion were not already legal where I live, I would choose differently.

Well, I come from a country where abortion is legal (ok, "illegal but not punishable" is the correct term) and moved to a country were abortion is illegal.
I don't honestly think that I will ever have to have one, but shoud the need arise I'm save in the knowledge that it is legal in the UK, and that's really not far of. So, as long as this option is available, I'm quite happy.

Abortion is nothing I give too much thought to on a daily basis (apart from having a good laugh at the handful of anti-abortionists standing on O'Connell Street on saturdays, trying to scare the public into signing petitions by showing photos of aborted feotuses), it is something that can drive me up the wall if denied. I don't feel that anybody has the right to take advantage of another persons body unasked, not even a foetus. If it's not wanted for whatever reason, remove it.

Well, I come from a country where abortion is legal (ok, "illegal but not punishable" is the correct term) and moved to a country were abortion is illegal.
Germany? Is abortion not legal there? How is it illegal if it's not punishable? Can you get an abortion in German hospitals? Are there any safety laws to regulate abortion?

It is my belief that our primary purpose in life is to nurture, love, and protect our children. They are the most wonderful gift of all the gifts that God has given us. They are our gift to the future, and our greatest achievement. It seems to me, that, out of convenience, selfishness, and lack of responsibility, some in our society have tried to "dehumanize" our unborn children by insisting on referring to them as "fetuses". They are in the fetal stage of development, but they are no less human than you or I. Human development goes through many phases, the first being the embryonic or fetal stage.

When a woman has an abortion because "it is her body and she has the right to do with it as she wishes" it is at the expense of the sacrifice of another human body. The mother had the choice (in over 99% of aborted pregnancies) to participate in activities that led to her pregnancy. When a tiny child is violently ripped from it's mother's womb, it has no choice or voice in the decision. Its life is forfeit for no crime other than "being".

It doesn't matter if you deny the humanity of that little person by referring to him/her in clinical terms. He/she is still a person. I shake my head in disbelief and sadness in a society that has deluded itself to the point it can approve of such a barbaric practise. If we can kill our unborn children, how much longer until we can convince ourselves that it is acceptable to kill our elderly, handicapped, or anyone who is less than perfect or in need of our assistance?

I would never forcibly press my beliefs and opinions on others, but I do not and will never understand, respect, or accept abortion any more than I could child molestation or murder.

Yeah it's funny how conservatives only seem to care about the welfare of children before they're born!

Untrue!! When it comes to abortion, I fall into the conservative category. I had no children, but chose to adopt 4 special needs kids. It was a challenge, to say the least, but we managed to raise 4 responsible adults who all became loving parents. Others whom I know, with conservative views regarding abortion, are involved in all manner of youth oriented organizations and charities. One of the most conservative of organizations, the Catholic church, handles more adoptions world wide than any other agency. Conservatives are active in education, health, and welfare of children on a large scale. On what data do you base your outlandish statement?

It's not abortion that's the important issue for me--it's the underlying right to privacy that's the biggie in my book. So I'm pro-choice and it's a 5.

Is it a "right to privacy" that would allow you to murder another person? Why are unborn children denied the right to live merely because of the attachment of an unbilical cord? My bellybutton is an outie, so do I have less of a right to life than someone who has an innie because I have more vestige of my umbilical cord?

Is it a "right to privacy" that would allow you to murder another person? Why are unborn children denied the right to live merely because of the attachment of an unbilical cord? My bellybutton is an outie, so do I have less of a right to life than someone who has an innie because I have more vestige of my umbilical cord?
Spare me the histrionics, please. More pregnancies are terminated biologically than are terminated by abortion clinics every month, and they happen in about the same time frame--the clinical term for a miscarriage is "spontaneous abortion," after all, and it's estimated that approximately 1 out of every 4 fertilized eggs fails to implant, thereby never even getting the chance to become a fetus.

And virtually all abortions in the US that take place after the first trimester involve a direct threat to the health or life of the mother or involve fetuses that have severe defects--I'm not going to get in the middle of that very private decision by the woman carrying that fetus as to whether or not she ought to carry it to term.

But here's your real question--is my right to privacy more important than the right for nosy busybodies like you to decide that every woman who gets pregnant has to carry that fetus to full term? Here's my answer--you're damn right it is.

Spare me the histrionics, please. More pregnancies are terminated biologically than are terminated by abortion clinics every month, and they happen in about the same time frame--the clinical term for a miscarriage is "spontaneous abortion," after all, and it's estimated that approximately 1 out of every 4 fertilized eggs fails to implant, thereby never even getting the chance to become a fetus.

And virtually all abortions in the US that take place after the first trimester involve a direct threat to the health or life of the mother or involve fetuses that have severe defects--I'm not going to get in the middle of that very private decision by the woman carrying that fetus as to whether or not she ought to carry it to term.

But here's your real question--is my right to privacy more important than the right for nosy busybodies like you to decide that every woman who gets pregnant has to carry that fetus to full term? Here's my answer--you're damn right it is.

It's a sad commentary when you have to resort to name calling to try to enforce your invalid point. Here are the statistics for the US:

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

According to a USA Today, CNN Gallup Poll in May, 1999 - 16% of Americans believe abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy and 55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.
According to a Gallup Poll in January, 2001 - People who considered themselves to be pro-life rose from 33% to 43% in the past 5 years, and people who considered themselves to be pro-choice declined from 56% to 48%.

The majority of these statistics were taken from The Alan Guttmacher Institute.


Please note that I managed to back up my point with valid statistics rather than demeaning name calling.

It's a sad commentary when you have to resort to name calling to try to enforce your invalid point.
Point out again in my post where I called you a name. Do that first, then apologize for being mistaken, and then maybe we'll continue this discussion. I don't take kindly to being accused of something I haven't done.

Conservatives are active in education, health, and welfare of children on a large scale. On what data do you base your outlandish statement?

What are your feelings on the war in Iraq? I can't speak for swim, but I think the reference is to the fact that conservatives tend to be pro-things like the Iraq war and the death penalty and against things like social welfare programs and stiffer gun control laws. Given that, it seems odd for conservatives as a whole to try and take the 'sanctity of life' high road on things like abortion and euthanasia. Is it sanctity of life or religious dogma?

The argument here is similar to the argument about terminating life support for severly brain damaged people. Neither category of person is self-aware. In cases of people who are not self-aware, I have my beliefs and you have yours, but the difference between me and many people who share your view is that I think very personal, intimate decisions like that should be left up to the family whereas the people on your side want to impose their own beliefs on their decision based upon, in most cases, their religious beliefs. The families involved all have their opinions and beliefs just like we do, and they should be respected. It's none of my business what they do, and it's none of yours or the governments, either.

Having said all that I'm against partial-birth abortions, and I think abortions of fetuses over 4 months old should be banned... that is the point of self awareness for a fetus by most accounts I've seen.

I think 'pro-life' is gonna win out in this country anyway eventually so its a losing battle for us liberals. This doesn't make it right, it just will be another indication that the USA is riding the train to Fundamentalist Christian Land.

Plus our opinions are moot. It's been proven that banning abortions won't stop them, so why not drop the hypocrisy and just make them safe for people who opt to have them?

Point out again in my post where I called you a name. Do that first, then apologize for being mistaken, and then maybe we'll continue this discussion. I don't take kindly to being accused of something I haven't done.

I think she's referring to this.

is my right to privacy more important than the right for nosy busybodies like you

What I hate about abortion is that pro-choicers seem to never ever think that perhaps it's wrong once in a while. Maybe just once in a while there shouldn't be abortion. What I hate about pro-lifers is that they think that abortion is wrong always - except usually in cases of rape. Never giving thought to may be it would be the best option. You're so damn confined to your beliefs, it's funny. Never thought that you may be killing an innoncent? Never thought that a collection of cells early in the pregnancy doesn't count as a baby? Maybe both sides should start considering it logically, not politically.

I think 'pro-life' is gonna win out in this country anyway eventually so its a losing battle for us liberals. This doesn't make it right, it just will be another indication that the USA is riding the train to Fundamentalist Christian Land.

Just like legalizing gay marriage and abortion and increasing social welfare will lead everyone down the path of Communist Land, right? Hyperboles are fun.

What I hate about abortion is that pro-choicers seem to never ever think that perhaps it's wrong once in a while. Maybe just once in a while there shouldn't be abortion. What I hate about pro-lifers is that they think that abortion is wrong always - except usually in cases of rape. Never giving thought to may be it would be the best option. You're so damn confined to your beliefs, it's funny. Never thought that you may be killing an innoncent? Never thought that a collection of cells early in the pregnancy doesn't count as a baby? Maybe both sides should.

You know what... that spells out my beliefs real well. I'll say this for pro-choice people though, they can't afford to budge even a little bit, because with the climate in this country the pressure from conservatives will close the whole door real quickly with any sign of weakness.

But America is retarded regarding this whole issue... here if someone kills a pregnant woman, they're also liable for charges for killing the fetus. But that same woman can kill the fetus with no charges. Until both sides budge a little, we're gonna see illogical things like that.

Just like legalizing gay marriage and abortion and increasing social welfare will lead everyone down the path of Communist Land, right? Hyperboles are fun.

Do you live in America? If abortion is made illegal, would you say that that's the only concession made to the religious right over the past few years?

I didn't say that abortion alone would do that.. I said in so many words that it would be part of a trend. We're seeing a lot of that trend here during the Bush administration.

I think she's referring to this.
Fair enough--although I think it's an accurate description.


What I hate about abortion is that pro-choicers seem to never ever think that perhaps it's wrong once in a while. Maybe just once in a while there shouldn't be abortion. What I hate about pro-lifers is that they think that abortion is wrong always - except usually in cases of rape. Never giving thought to may be it would be the best option. You're so damn confined to your beliefs, it's funny. Never thought that you may be killing an innoncent? Never thought that a collection of cells early in the pregnancy doesn't count as a baby? Maybe both sides should start considering it logically, not politically.
The first part of your statement is a straw man--pro-choicers often think that abortion is a bad idea, and may even be morally reprehensible, and yet firmly stand behind the rights of another to make that choice. I'll never have to have an abortion--I'm a man--but I still wish there were far fewer of them in the US and around the world. I don't like abortion--never have--but I'm not the one having to make the call and having to face that choice.

What it comes down to, what the crux of the matter truly is for me is that I'm not the one who's going to be judging someone on this matter. If you're a religious type, then God's going to be doing the judging, and to quote Dennis Miller, "His paybacks have got to be a bitch."

As to the second part of your argument, you're correct--I don't consider an barely formed cluster of cells to be a child, because quite frankly, it isn't. It's a cluster of cells that could not survive outside the womb, and often spontaneously terminates on its own. Pregnancy is a miracle all right--it's a miracle that it works as often and as well as it does. All of which is beside the main point of this argument, which is that what another person does with her pregnancy isn't my business--it's hers and her doctor's. No one elses.

If I wouldn't go to hell for it, I'd immolate myself outside an abortion clinic if it saved lives by scaring all the girls away. :D

I voted 4. It is a very important issue, as it deals with a woman's right to privacy and what happens to her body.

However, the only thing keeping me from placing it at 5 is that there ARE more important issues out there than privacy. Sorry.

I'll second this.

pro-choice, 3.

It's an important issue, but since the law is currently on my side I don't think about it overly much. I think it's important to not neglect, but at the same time I think it's being used as an excuse to neglect even more important issues.

I'd say 5.

I'm pro-choice, BTW.

It comes down to the ability for a woman to choose what happens with her body--and that is one of the most important things on the planet--for a human to own themselves, instead of being owned (and controlled) by an outside force.

If you don't have freedom over yourself, it doesn't matter if you're starving or not.

Point out again in my post where I called you a name. Do that first, then apologize for being mistaken, and then maybe we'll continue this discussion. I don't take kindly to being accused of something I haven't done.

nosy busybodies like you

Even though New Genoa pointed this out to you, did you offer an apology as you so rudely demanded from me? No!! Instead you reinforced your statement as being valid.

Fair enough--although I think it's an accurate description.

As for continuing the discussion, you obviously hadn't noticed that I had already left the forum as I don't take kindly to being called names and did not wish to be goaded into lowering myself to your level of discussion.

As for the hateful name you called me, it is an example of another "strawman", a term that you are so fond of throwing at anyone opposed to your views.

Definition:
The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

You based your low opinion of me without giving credit to what I actually said...


I would never forcibly press my beliefs and opinions on others, but I do not and will never understand, respect, or accept abortion any more than I could child molestation or murder.

I did not condemn women for having abortions, but the practise of abortion itself. I did not say that my beliefs should be forced on everyone, but stated that I personally could never understand or accept abortion. If simply stating my beliefs and the thoughts behind my beliefs make me a "nosy busybody" then this forum is loaded with them...you included.

And you managed to do all of this while blatantly ignoring the statistics I provided that proved your remarks unfounded and untrue.

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

According to a USA Today, CNN Gallup Poll in May, 1999 - 16% of Americans believe abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy and 55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.
According to a Gallup Poll in January, 2001 - People who considered themselves to be pro-life rose from 33% to 43% in the past 5 years, and people who considered themselves to be pro-choice declined from 56% to 48%.

The majority of these statistics were taken from The Alan Guttmacher Institute.

If you want to maintain credibility on NS, then you will apologize for rudely attacking me on a personal level and making demands that I apologize for not dumbly accepting your attacks. But, only for credibility with other NSers, as of this I have lost whatever respect I had developed for you.

Yeah it's funny how conservatives only seem to care about the welfare of children before they're born!
How can you say things like this and still LIVE with yourself???

You seem to want to think of me as a "conservative," ok ... let's say for argument's sake that I'm a conservative. I adopted three children, my ex and I had two more, we now have seven grandchildren, we contribute to the support of several children overseas, etc.

So make up your mind: either I'm NOT a conservative, or conservatives aren't the friggin' ogres you make them out to be. You can't have it both ways now 'cause you've backed yourself into a logical corner.

I'm waiting to see how you try to worm your way out of this one.

I'd say 5.

I'm pro-choice, BTW.

It comes down to the ability for a woman to choose what happens with her body--and that is one of the most important things on the planet--for a human to own themselves, instead of being owned (and controlled) by an outside force.

If you don't have freedom over yourself, it doesn't matter if you're starving or not.

Aside from the less than 3% of pregnancies terminated due to rape, incest, child molestation or health risks, the other 99% of women who have abortions are pregnant because they have exercised their freedom to do what they want with their bodies. Abortion is the sacrifice of an innocent life in deferrence to the "right to convenience" for another. This stance for abortion disputes itself...the unborn "human" children are being owned, controlled, and destroyed by an outside force.

It's a sad commentary when you have to resort to name calling to try to enforce your invalid point. Here are the statistics for the US:

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

According to a USA Today, CNN Gallup Poll in May, 1999 - 16% of Americans believe abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy and 55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.
According to a Gallup Poll in January, 2001 - People who considered themselves to be pro-life rose from 33% to 43% in the past 5 years, and people who considered themselves to be pro-choice declined from 56% to 48%.

The majority of these statistics were taken from The Alan Guttmacher Institute.


Just a couple of points about 'statistical' evidence.

A close friend had an abortion a few years back... and what was her reason? Well, according to the list you have posted above, I would say "to postpone childbearing"... AND "cannot afford a baby"... AND "a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child"... AND "child will disrupt their education or career"... AND "risk to maternal health".

The problem with the kind of statistics you have posted, is that they look for the MAIN reason a person chooses to give - and ignore the fact that an abortion is unlikely to be the result of JUST ONE contributing factor.

Another problem, is the way such things are worded... e.g. "want to postpone childbearing" has a very DIFFERENT sound to it than "I am not ready to care for a child".

How can you say things like this and still LIVE with yourself???

You seem to want to think of me as a "conservative," ok ... let's say for argument's sake that I'm a conservative. I adopted three children, my ex and I had two more, we now have seven grandchildren, we contribute to the support of several children overseas, etc.

So make up your mind: either I'm NOT a conservative, or conservatives aren't the friggin' ogres you make them out to be. You can't have it both ways now 'cause you've backed yourself into a logical corner.

I'm waiting to see how you try to worm your way out of this one.
Geeze calm down there! First off, you're lying on your political compass scores. There is no way you can consider yourself a liberal or at the very least, not conservative. Second, there is always going to be exceptions. Just like I am a liberal but I don't smoke pot.

Aside from the less than 3% of pregnancies terminated due to rape, incest, child molestation or health risks, the other 99% of women who have abortions are pregnant because they have exercised their freedom to do what they want with their bodies. Abortion is the sacrifice of an innocent life in deferrence to the "right to convenience" for another. This stance for abortion disputes itself...the unborn "human" children are being owned, controlled, and destroyed by an outside force.

Not really. There is no legal precedent for determining when free will begins. And don't give me the beating heart stuff, either. A pump doesn't make free will.

Basically, if the being can't survive without a machine--with only the bare basics--food, clothing, and shelter, it's still not viable--it's still part of the mother, and therefore, like a wart, can be removed with clear conscience. Anything before the third trimester definitely falls into this category. After that...it's a toss-up.

Geeze calm down there! First off, you're lying on your political compass scores. There is no way you can consider yourself a liberal or at the very least, not conservative. Second, there is always going to be exceptions. Just like I am a liberal but I don't smoke pot.
So not only am I a "conservative" but a lier as well? Fascinating. Next you'll be accusing me of baby-whale raping while their parents watch. :rolleyes:

So not only am I a "conservative" but a lier as well? Fascinating. Next you'll be accusing me of baby-whale raping while their parents watch. :rolleyes:

Just ignore them. I've noticed that there is a little group of like minded people who like to call names and twist your arguments to suit themselves. Speaking of liars, though, check your email. I caught someone in a BIG one!!

So not only am I a "conservative" but a lier as well? Fascinating. Next you'll be accusing me of baby-whale raping while their parents watch. :rolleyes:
lier? OH, "liar"! Then please explain how you got your political compass scores, update them if necessary, it's been bugging me, and several others for quite a while now. And I like your active imagination. If only you could put it to good use instead of using it to insult others.

lier? OH, "liar"! Then please explain how you got your political compass scores, update them if necessary, it's been bugging me, and several others for quite a while now. And I like your active imagination. If only you could put it to good use instead of using it to insult others.
How does anyone get their "political compass scores?" I took the friggin' test that was posted on here. Quite frankly, I couldn't give a shit less whether you or "several others" ( by whom I gather you mean Stephistan ) are "bugged" about anything whatsoever. Live with it. :D

BTW ... I didn't insult anyone ... you are the one going around calling others liars. I suggest you make an effort to avoid flamming in the future; it could be harzardous to your General health. :D

How does anyone get their "political compass scores?" I took the friggin' test that was posted on here. Quite frankly, I couldn't give a shit less whether you or "several others" ( by whom I gather you mean Stephistan ) are "bugged" about anything whatsoever. Live with it. :D

BTW ... I didn't insult anyone ... you are the one going around calling others liars. I suggest you make an effort to avoid flamming in the future; it could be harzardous to your General health. :D
Then please stop getting uptight about the silliest things before someone gets banned for flaming. :D (Flaming, not "flamming") :D

Then please stop getting uptight about the silliest things before someone gets banned for flaming. :D (Flaming, not "flamming") :D
Well, at least I understand that you focus on misspellings because your grasp of facts and logic is so weak. Sorry you're so intellectually deficient. Must be hell being you. Tsk.

Well, at least I understand that you focus on misspellings because your grasp of facts and logic is so weak. Sorry you're so intellectually deficient. Must be hell being you. Tsk.
Looks like someone's begging to be forumbanned again! And you, my friend, focus on insulting other people rather than making up rational arguments. I tried to cool down this assumed hatred between us, but it looks like you chose the path of continuing insults. So much for rationality.

lier? OH, "liar"! Then please explain how you got your political compass scores, update them if necessary, it's been bugging me, and several others for quite a while now. And I like your active imagination. If only you could put it to good use instead of using it to insult others.

When the political compass test first appeared on NS, I took it twice and on both scored smack in the middle. This is the score I have posted, and have not retaken it since to check for variations. Knowing Eut's views through personal correspondence, I know that he is not active in organized religion, supports gay rights, and is pro-choice. His views on the military and specifically the War on Terror are sterotyped as conservative views, so I can very well see how he would end up with a more liberal compass rating. I have also noticed that many of those who are most critical of him tend to be so far to the left in the compass graph that California looks moderate. It should also be noted that the political compass test is far from a consistently accurate guide. Hardly a basis to start calling people names.

Also, as a word to the wise, when you try to belittle someone you end up belittling yourself. Proficiency in spelling is not an indication of intelligence, but to taunt someone for poor spelling is an indication of a bully...

Edit: and a flamebaiter.

I hate the names "pro-life" and "pro-choice." Being choice myself, it makes me feel so vicious, like I am out to kill babies. Then it makes all the others sounds like evil despotists.
Pro-choise is better than anti-life. Of course, I've also heard pro-lifers referred to as anti-choice and anti-freedom. Connotation is a very powerful beast, and I think the pro-choice camp might gain some ground if they started using "anti-choice," of course...that's only if pro-lifers don't start using "anti-life," but even if they do, anti-life seems like so much more of a rediculous extreme label than does anti-choice for some reason.

When the political compass test first appeared on NS, I took it twice and on both scored smack in the middle. This is the score I have posted, and have not retaken it since to check for variations. Knowing Eut's views through personal correspondence, I know that he is not active in organized religion, supports gay rights, and is pro-choice. His views on the military and specifically the War on Terror are sterotyped as conservative views, so I can very well see how he would end up with a more liberal compass rating. I have also noticed that many of those who are most critical of him tend to be so far to the left in the compass graph that California looks moderate. It should also be noted that the political compass test is far from a consistently accurate guide. Hardly a basis to start calling people names.

Also, as a word to the wise, when you try to belittle someone you end up belittling yourself. Proficiency in spelling is not an indication of intelligence, but to taunt someone for poor spelling is an indication of a bully...

Edit: and a flamebaiter.
I have heard that Eutrusca is only conservative when it comes to foreign policy...and supporting Bush...and hating Democrats, but that is not the point here.

Nothing I have said tops this Well, at least I understand that you focus on misspellings because your grasp of facts and logic is so weak. Sorry you're so intellectually deficient. Must be hell being you. Tsk. Maybe he should read your word to the wise also. He seems so intent on insulting me without actually flaming (except for one instance that got him forumbanned) that it just starts to annoy me.

My wife and i had an abortion many years ago...We werent married then. She thought due to other circumstances we needed to have it, i on the other did not. But in the end it was her choice and i supported it regardless of my feelings because i loved her. While i waited downstairs in the clinic for her i watched everyone( im quite an observer in my 43 years of living i think).

Honestly i dont think anyone was happy to be there and if someone came in and said hey i can take you back to the point were you can stop yourself from being here...everyone would have done it. I thought to myself if God for some reason was going to judge these people it would be between that PERSON and GOD. I certainly wasnt going to be with my wife while she got the eye from God about this....so why can or anybody place blanket laws down saying people cant make there on choices?

According to the christian ideal here in America its a sin and your killing a life and if so why do you need to get involved if its between that woman and her choice. God certainly does not stop the action. Ill also put money God doesnt inform people secretly to go out and kill thoose baby killers either...ie doctors and nurses who support this .

Obviously whether God is a theory or real is in constant debate but abortion is real. So in my opinion the choice is the individuals and if that individual thinks God will judge them, it will be between them and him/her/it wont it?

But theres another part that you have to consider and thats the effect of it afterwards...My wife and i in a state of shock went home after the ordeal she went to bed and i chilled on the couch reading a book. The weeks ahead brought tons of tears and deppression for us. The psychology of this may not of have had the impact on any of you that it did on us who've expierneced this choice in life but even 9 years later we still cry and wish he hadnt of made that choice.

We have 4 kids now 3 boys and 1 girl and we love our kids dearly but when were together my wife and i always feel were missing part of our family....his name would have been Oscar after one of our favorite writers Mr. Wilde.


To this day and probably to our graves we will cry about Oscar always wondering what hed look like and all the what "ifs" when we are reminded by life in small ways.

At night when im tucking in my kids and giving hugs out and bedtime stories i end up crying sometimes because inside im hoping Oscar can feel the hugs i give and can hear the stories i tell...there for him as much as they are for the kids im reading to.

So from me to any of you who arent on my side of the fence(who had an abortion) i agree that the choice is yours but the question is...Can you live with it?

Think long and make a wise choice.

I have heard that Eutrusca is only conservative when it comes to foreign policy...and supporting Bush...and hating Democrats, but that is not the point here.

Nothing I have said tops this Maybe he should read your word to the wise also. He seems so intent on insulting me without actually flaming (except for one instance that got him forumbanned) that it just starts to annoy me.

I don't know, but it seems to me that neither of you are acting like mature adults discussing an issue in a reasonable way. I understand the frustration and misplaced anger that personal insults and constant attacks can cause. I feel the same way when I see a select few on here. I know that, no matter what I say or how carefully and explicitly I phrase it, they are going to twist what I say around and level personal attacks on my intelligence, character, and morals. I have also noticed that these same people do the same thing to Eut. I guess they assume we have the same ideological views since we carry on a friendship off the NS forum.

I can only ask, and hope that I can follow, that we limit ourselves to criticizing the views and ideological differences of others, and stop the personal attacks. It does not accomplish anything, it does not provide support for your views, and it causes a lot of interesting, informative topics to break down into flame fests...running off the people interested in serious discussion. After all, if we can't act like adults, maybe we could better spend our time in preschool.

Well, at least I understand that you focus on misspellings because your grasp of facts and logic is so weak. Sorry you're so intellectually deficient. Must be hell being you. Tsk.

Eutrusca, you're pushing your luck. Insulting his intelligence was another bad idea.

Achtung 45, correcting the spelling of another player can be considered flamebait. I'm sure you knew what he meant by it without having to correct it. There was absolutely no need for it.

Both of you need to cool it, and take Zooke's advice. It's the best advice that someone has given out in quite a while.


~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

Achtung 45, correcting the spelling of another player can be considered flamebait. I'm sure you knew what he meant by it without having to correct it. There was absolutely no need for it.

Both of you need to cool it, and take Zooke's advice. It's the best advice that someone has given out in quite a while.


~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~
Well, that's the first time I heard of that, so thanks for letting me know. I'll try not to correct little spelling mistakes like that anymore! :p

I have tried to cool it down on several occassions, but I sometimes the best medicine when the other party wants to keep going is just to walk away. That's what I did a couple hours ago and I think I'm off again. :D

Does a "5" mean that it's very important to you, or not at all important????

Even though New Genoa pointed this out to you, did you offer an apology as you so rudely demanded from me? No!! Instead you reinforced your statement as being valid.
You know something Zooke--I apologize for hurting your feelings. Plain and simple--I apologize for that.

But I don't apologize for calling people who are trying to outlaw abortion (and I presume you are one from the strident tone you've taken on this issue) nosy busybodies, because you are. You're intruding into one of the most personal decisions a woman can make--the decision of whether or not to terminate an pregnancy--all because of your personal moral values. If that's not the definition of being a busybody, then what is?

Spare me the arguments about "trying to save the babies." When I defend the rights of women to have abortions, I'm not making a moral judgment as to abortion itself. Personally, I dislike the idea, and I wish it were a lot less common than it is. But as I said on another thread concerning this very subject--my likes and dislikes are trumped by your Constitutional rights, just as your likes and dislikes are trumped by mine.

Short form--constitutional rights > personal beliefs, likes, dislikes and opinions.

Got it?

Insisting that the entire country follow your particular point of view on this issue--a point of view, I might add, that is opposed by 65% of Americans according to the most recent poll done on Roe v Wade, a number that astonished even me--is the height of busybodiness.

Again, Zooke--I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. But I stand by my characterization of the anti-abortion movement as a whole.

You know something Zooke--I apologize for hurting your feelings. Plain and simple--I apologize for that.

But I don't apologize for calling people who are trying to outlaw abortion (and I presume you are one from the strident tone you've taken on this issue) nosy busybodies, because you are. You're intruding into one of the most personal decisions a woman can make--the decision of whether or not to terminate an pregnancy--all because of your personal moral values. If that's not the definition of being a busybody, then what is?

Spare me the arguments about "trying to save the babies." When I defend the rights of women to have abortions, I'm not making a moral judgment as to abortion itself. Personally, I dislike the idea, and I wish it were a lot less common than it is. But as I said on another thread concerning this very subject--my likes and dislikes are trumped by your Constitutional rights, just as your likes and dislikes are trumped by mine.

Short form--constitutional rights > personal beliefs, likes, dislikes and opinions.

Got it?

Insisting that the entire country follow your particular point of view on this issue--a point of view, I might add, that is opposed by 65% of Americans according to the most recent poll done on Roe v Wade, a number that astonished even me--is the height of busybodiness.

Again, Zooke--I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. But I stand by my characterization of the anti-abortion movement as a whole.

I appreciate that, Nazz. It does upset me that you should see me as someone who meddles in the business of others. I think the fundamental difference between the arguments on this issue boils down to one main disagreement...is a fetus a human being in its initial stage of development or a mass of parasitic cells. My view is that it is a growing human being when the first cell splits. Unlike a tumor, wart, or other parasitic growth, the fetus will develop into a viable person. With this belief, it follows that an abortion is murder. As far as intruding into the privacy of another, I see it on a par with intruding into the privacy of anyone who would harm a child.

I agree that abortion is a reasonable medical procedure if the mother's health (physical and/or mental) is in serious jeopardy. I also agree that abortion is acceptable if diagnostics have indicated that the baby has severe birth defects...though this could be a slippery slope in determining that fine line. But, as it stands, abortion is available for convenience sake. Don't you ever wonder if a brilliant researcher, a gifted musician, or a world leader that could have made steps towards world peace has been thrown out in a bucket of medical waste?

Edit: following in that train of thought...since liberals (Democrats) are most in favor of abortion on demand, could the aborting of so many potential future Democrats have weakened the liberal vote?

Does a "5" mean that it's very important to you, or not at all important????

"5" means most important to you. At least that's how I voted it.

Yeah, here you go...

So how important do you think it is, one a scale of 1 to 5? 1 means unimportant, while 5 means very important.

I appreciate that, Nazz. It does upset me that you should see me as someone who meddles in the business of others. I think the fundamental difference between the arguments on this issue boils down to one main disagreement...is a fetus a human being in its initial stage of development or a mass of parasitic cells. My view is that it is a growing human being when the first cell splits. Unlike a tumor, wart, or other parasitic growth, the fetus will develop into a viable person. With this belief, it follows that an abortion is murder. As far as intruding into the privacy of another, I see it on a par with intruding into the privacy of anyone who would harm a child.

I agree that abortion is a reasonable medical procedure if the mother's health (physical and/or mental) is in serious jeopardy. I also agree that abortion is acceptable if diagnostics have indicated that the baby has severe birth defects...though this could be a slippery slope in determining that fine line. But, as it stands, abortion is available for convenience sake. Don't you ever wonder if a brilliant researcher, a gifted musician, or a world leader that could have made steps towards world peace has been thrown out in a bucket of medical waste?

Edit: following in that train of thought...since liberals (Democrats) are most in favor of abortion on demand, could the aborting of so many potential future Democrats have weakened the liberal vote?
See--you missed the point again. The fundamental question is not a medical one to me. The medical question of whether a fetus is alive or not is completely irrelevant to this question, and it's telling, I think, that you can't seem to see past that to understand what I'm talking about.

The issue, as a matter of law, has entirely to do with whether or not the federal government or the individual states have more power over a woman's body than the woman has herself. The fetus isn't even an entity in this discussion--the argument is between government and individual over who has the right to determine what happens to that individual. Remember--this issue grew out of a Supreme Court decision over whether or not the state could make the sale of contraceptives to married couples illegal. The Court determined that there were some personal decisions into which the state must not insert itself, and in the years since they decided Griswold v Connecticut, the Court has expanded the scope of those decisions from contraception between married people to contraception between unmarried people to first trimester abortion to consensual homosexual relationships.

Here's the thing about abortion specifically. There's no medical consensus as to when life begins, or even what that means in a subjective sense. You may think there is, but the fact that this country is so divided over the issue is proof that there are very widely divergent opinions on the subject. And as long as there are only opinions, and no established fact (which, considering the huge amount of philosophical argument on what it means to be alive in the first place, means there will likely never be an established definition), then the rights guaranteed us by our Constitution have to trump those opinions, however noble their intentions. You have to realize that this right to privacy is inextricably linked to your freedom to practice whichever religion you wish, it's linked to your right to criticize the government and to your right to own a gun. Those rights and the many others that are protected by the constitution are more important to me than whether or not a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy.

That may sound callous, but you have to understand that she's the one making the choice, and she's the one who has to live with that choice, and it's perhaps the most personal choice she'll ever make as long as she lives. Who am I--who are you, for that matter--to tell her what she has to do?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't speak out about it, and try to encourage women not to have them. By all means, do so--it's your right as an American. But don't try to remove the rights of women to make that very personal and private choice if that's the choice they feel they have to make.

See--you missed the point again. The fundamental question is not a medical one to me. The medical question of whether a fetus is alive or not is completely irrelevant to this question, and it's telling, I think, that you can't seem to see past that to understand what I'm talking about.

The issue, as a matter of law, has entirely to do with whether or not the federal government or the individual states have more power over a woman's body than the woman has herself. The fetus isn't even an entity in this discussion--the argument is between government and individual over who has the right to determine what happens to that individual. Remember--this issue grew out of a Supreme Court decision over whether or not the state could make the sale of contraceptives to married couples illegal. The Court determined that there were some personal decisions into which the state must not insert itself, and in the years since they decided Griswold v Connecticut, the Court has expanded the scope of those decisions from contraception between married people to contraception between unmarried people to first trimester abortion to consensual homosexual relationships.

Here's the thing about abortion specifically. There's no medical consensus as to when life begins, or even what that means in a subjective sense. You may think there is, but the fact that this country is so divided over the issue is proof that there are very widely divergent opinions on the subject. And as long as there are only opinions, and no established fact (which, considering the huge amount of philosophical argument on what it means to be alive in the first place, means there will likely never be an established definition), then the rights guaranteed us by our Constitution have to trump those opinions, however noble their intentions. You have to realize that this right to privacy is inextricably linked to your freedom to practice whichever religion you wish, it's linked to your right to criticize the government and to your right to own a gun. Those rights and the many others that are protected by the constitution are more important to me than whether or not a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy.

That may sound callous, but you have to understand that she's the one making the choice, and she's the one who has to live with that choice, and it's perhaps the most personal choice she'll ever make as long as she lives. Who am I--who are you, for that matter--to tell her what she has to do?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't speak out about it, and try to encourage women not to have them. By all means, do so--it's your right as an American. But don't try to remove the rights of women to make that very personal and private choice if that's the choice they feel they have to make.

With a minor in zoology with the intention of earning a doctorate in veterinarian medicine, I do tend to address matters with a clincial view. I understand your point that abortion is a constitutional right as determined by the Supreme Court. Many, myself included, think that the constitution was loosely interpreted to support that decision. When it was initially drafted, abortion was banned. The issue isn't limited to whether the government can determine what a woman can do to or with her body, but also as to whether the government can override the rights of an unborn child to life. If you believe that a fetus is human, then it follows that it too has rights and the constitutionality of the Roe v Wade decision is questionable.

As for the disputed moment that life begins, National Geographic recently did a documentary on 4-D Ultrasound. This new procedure allows highly detailed pictures of the fetus as well as records movement. It has also blown previous notions of "sense of self" out of the water. Fetuses have been filmed stretching, scratching, waving their arms and legs, and making faces expressing emotions at 8 weeks of development...well within the first tri-mester. I was especially interested by a fetus who was trying to sleep but was being kept awake by his active twin. He was shoving against the lively one and scrunching up his face in anger. So, when is the "moment of life" and why is it not preferrable to possibly err on the side of the unborn child?

I was deeply touched by the grief and regret expressed in Sunsilver's post. He was left out of the decision, but still includes his aborted son as one of his children. Norma McCorvey (Roe) has since admitted that she has suffered emotionally and is now a pro-life activist. Aside from constitutionality, it is reported that in a large number of abortions, the mother suffers from psychological problems associated with regret.

I don't know what I have done to try to remove women's rights to abortion, but I do speak out against it and lay out my logic supporting my beliefs.

I would never have an abortion myself, but I believe wholeheartedly that it should be a woman's choice. While I think that there are better alternatives, like adoption" it ultimately should be up to the persons involved in the decision making (and yes, I think the father should be consulted in the matter). In the end I think it comes down to a person's right to choose.

I would never have an abortion myself, but I believe wholeheartedly that it should be a woman's choice. While I think that there are better alternatives, like adoption" it ultimately should be up to the persons involved in the decision making (and yes, I think the father should be consulted in the matter). In the end I think it comes down to a person's right to choose.

If a woman is pregnant, chances are pretty good she has already made her choice. The one who is not given the right to choose is the unborn child. It is automatically assumed the child has no rights. Abortion denies one very important attribute...personal responsibility.

If a woman is pregnant, chances are pretty good she has already made her choice. The one who is not given the right to choose is the unborn child. It is automatically assumed the child has no rights. Abortion denies one very important attribute...personal responsibility.

I know this is a typical argument, just to play devil's advocate for a few. If a 10 year old girl is raped and becomes pregnant as a result, she made the choice? She should have to raise a child as a child herself? Should she have a prearranged marriage with the rapist as well so that they can take care of the baby together? So say she has the baby and then, because he/she is unwanted and resented, she beats him/her until he/she has suffered and dies. And personally, I don't remember choosing to be born. I know it's a horrible thought, but it is a thought.

I don't know what I have done to try to remove women's rights to abortion, but I do speak out against it and lay out my logic supporting my beliefs.
I assumed--perhaps incorrectly--that you support the overturning of Roe v Wade, which to my mind means that you're trying to remove women's rights to obtain an abortion should they so choose. If I'm wrong in that, then I apologize again for mischaracterizing your position. For me, there is a difference between attempting to discourage abortion and attempting to overturn Roe. I hope you see where I'm coming from here.

I know this is a typical argument, just to play devil's advocate for a few. If a 10 year old girl is raped and becomes pregnant as a result, she made the choice? She should have to raise a child as a child herself? Should she have a prearranged marriage with the rapist as well so that they can take care of the baby together? So say she has the baby and then, because he/she is unwanted and resented, she beats him/her until he/she has suffered and dies. And personally, I don't remember choosing to be born. I know it's a horrible thought, but it is a thought.

You must not have read this:

Aside from the less than 3% of pregnancies terminated due to rape, incest, child molestation or health risks, the other 99% of women who have abortions are pregnant because they have exercised their freedom to do what they want with their bodies.

I have also said that abortion as a medical procedure is necessary when the mother is subject to mental and/or physical damage. I doubt that anyone would disagree that a child would fall into this at-risk category.

The issue isn't limited to whether the government can determine what a woman can do to or with her body, but also as to whether the government can override the rights of an unborn child to life.


One question :

Wouldn't you agree that a person that has already been born has exactly the same rights to live?

The foetus cannot survive without resources from the woman's body. To ensure his survival, the woman has to let the foetus use her body.
Would you say every person, born and unborn, has the same right?

Let's say somebody needs an organ transplant to ensure his/her survival, let's say a kidney. And you would be a perfect match and would be a potential donor. Should the law be able to force you to give one of your kidneys, so this other person can survive?

If not, why should a foetus have MORE rights than a living and breathing person?

I am pro-choice but unlike some other posters on this forum, I don't feel that abortion is one of the huge issues of our age. The biggest issues are, I think, the environment and world poverty. Abortion is just a hyped-up issue made by politicians to rile up people around religion.

So how important do you think it is, one a scale of 1 to 5? 1 means unimportant, while 5 means very important.

Pro-choice means that you think abortion should be generally legal. It does not necessarily mean pro-abortion.

Pro-life means that you think abortion should be generally illegal.


Well said. Although I think that if I disagreed with its legality as much as some forum members it might become an issue. I also think there should be something against religion and politics mixing. I know this is virtually impossible, but they both cause so much trouble in the same sentence!!

I assumed--perhaps incorrectly--that you support the overturning of Roe v Wade, which to my mind means that you're trying to remove women's rights to obtain an abortion should they so choose. If I'm wrong in that, then I apologize again for mischaracterizing your position. For me, there is a difference between attempting to discourage abortion and attempting to overturn Roe. I hope you see where I'm coming from here.

I am in favor of modifying abortion laws to protect the unborn in cases of convenience abortions. As a society, we have drifted further and further from personal responsibility. It is another's fault and society/government is always at the ready with a quick fix. If a woman doesn't want another baby, then family planning resources are readily available for even the poorest woman. If a woman finds that she is pregnant with a child she doesn't want, why the rush to abortion when thousands of families are eager to adopt? There are valid medical reasons to seek an abortion, but our pro-choice rights have been abused and misused to the point of uncivilization. (is that a word?)

I am in favor of modifying abortion laws to protect the unborn in cases of convenience abortions. As a society, we have drifted further and further from personal responsibility. It is another's fault and society/government is always at the ready with a quick fix. If a woman doesn't want another baby, then family planning resources are readily available for even the poorest woman. If a woman finds that she is pregnant with a child she doesn't want, why the rush to abortion when thousands of families are eager to adopt? There are valid medical reasons to seek an abortion, but our pro-choice rights have been abused and misused to the point of uncivilization. (is that a word?)
See--in my opinion, that makes you a busybody, because you're imposing your moral opinions on another person, and invading their rights, their space, no matter how good your intentions or how noble you think your cause is. You don't know the reasons that these women have abortions, and even if you were absolutely certain that their reasons are frivolous, it's still not your decision to make--it's hers, and she, and only she, has to live with the consequences of that decision.

I've said it before and I'll say it again--express your opinions as loudly and vociferously as you want. Protest. Scream. Shout. Try to convince others not to have abortions. But don't invade the individual rights of others in order to stop them--this right is inextricably tied into rights that you enjoy as an American, most notably the right to say what you wish and worship how you wish. If you weaken the right to make a personal and private medical decision, you weaken these other rights as well. I can't emphasize that enough--if you care about your right to free speech, then you need to care about the right to privacy.

One question :

Wouldn't you agree that a person that has already been born has exactly the same rights to live?

The foetus cannot survive without resources from the woman's body. To ensure his survival, the woman has to let the foetus use her body.
Would you say every person, born and unborn, has the same right?

Let's say somebody needs an organ transplant to ensure his/her survival, let's say a kidney. And you would be a perfect match and would be a potential donor. Should the law be able to force you to give one of your kidneys, so this other person can survive?

If not, why should a foetus have MORE rights than a living and breathing person?

Not a valid comparison. First of all, in most cases, a fetus is the result of the woman's decision to have unprotected sex, willfully risking pregnancy. Kidney disease usually does not come about because of our actions. Second, the donation of a kidney is permanent loss of an organ, whereas a pregnant woman's body merely supplies a fetus with fundamental organic needs for a few months.

What gives a woman the right to create a life and then destroy that life simply because it is attached to her via umbilical cord? If it were 10 minutes after a live birth and the woman killed her child she would be prosecuted for murder. It's a simple matter...if you don't want children either practice birth control or don't ----.

Not a valid comparison. First of all, in most cases, a fetus is the result of the woman's decision to have unprotected sex, willfully risking pregnancy.
Forget the rest of it--how do you know that this is indeed the case? What proof do you have that this is the case, that the majority of abortions are caused by a willful decision to have unprotected sex? Point to something from a source that doesn't have an agenda, if you don't mind.

See--in my opinion, that makes you a busybody, because you're imposing your moral opinions on another person, and invading their rights, their space, no matter how good your intentions or how noble you think your cause is. You don't know the reasons that these women have abortions, and even if you were absolutely certain that their reasons are frivolous, it's still not your decision to make--it's hers, and she, and only she, has to live with the consequences of that decision.

I've said it before and I'll say it again--express your opinions as loudly and vociferously as you want. Protest. Scream. Shout. Try to convince others not to have abortions. But don't invade the individual rights of others in order to stop them--this right is inextricably tied into rights that you enjoy as an American, most notably the right to say what you wish and worship how you wish. If you weaken the right to make a personal and private medical decision, you weaken these other rights as well. I can't emphasize that enough--if you care about your right to free speech, then you need to care about the right to privacy.

And, as I have said before, the fundamental difference is our belief of the status of a fetus. I understand that we must protect our rights at whatever cost, but, I see abortion as the murder of a human being. There is nothing in my rights that allows me to willfully destroy another person if that person is not threatening me. If the decision to have an abortion is based on medical needs, then that is a valid medical decision. Abortion, as a form of birth control, is not a medical decision but a convenience.

I couldnt really care less. Though my gut feeling is that its the womans body so she should be able to have an abortion. This is because i slept through the Theology and Ethics (RE/RS) lesson that we were taught about it.

Forget the rest of it--how do you know that this is indeed the case? What proof do you have that this is the case, that the majority of abortions are caused by a willful decision to have unprotected sex? Point to something from a source that doesn't have an agenda, if you don't mind.

Get back with you on this tonight. Lunch is about over and for some reason they expect me to do some work around here. huh!

Get back with you on this tonight. Lunch is about over and for some reason they expect me to do some work around here. huh!
Fair enough--I'll wait.

Fair enough--I'll wait.

I usually get home around 5:30-6 CDT. Should get settled and be able to log on by 7. See you then.

Not a valid comparison. First of all, in most cases, a fetus is the result of the woman's decision to have unprotected sex, willfully risking pregnancy. Kidney disease usually does not come about because of our actions. Second, the donation of a kidney is permanent loss of an organ, whereas a pregnant woman's body merely supplies a fetus with fundamental organic needs for a few months.

What gives a woman the right to create a life and then destroy that life simply because it is attached to her via umbilical cord? If it were 10 minutes after a live birth and the woman killed her child she would be prosecuted for murder. It's a simple matter...if you don't want children either practice birth control or don't ----.

No, I think the comparison is ok. Nobody can force you to do anything with your body you don't want to do with your body. If you don't WANT to carry a child and give birth to it, nobody can force you.
No second person, foetus or senior citizen has a right to anything regarding your body.

Yes, of course, you should use contraception. But that's not 100% sure, my own mother will be able to tell you about that. Accidents happen.
If your kidney got damaged during an accident while you were jumping out of a plane with a bike, would that mean you have less right to a donor kidney than somebody whose kidney failure was genetic? Of course it's a boneheaded thing to do, of course it's irresponsible, but that doesn't change the fact that you need a new kidney and are entitled to one as soon as available.

I don't agree with people trying to use abortion as some from of contraception, on the contrary. But on the other hand I do know that there are people out there who are - for whatever reason - not capable of bearing and raising a child. And to them, the option simply has to be available.

Yes, I place the right of the mother before the right of the foetus, for the very simple reason that it's her body we are talking about. As soon as there is the option to remove the foetus and have it grow outside the mother's body, my opinion on abortion is going to change drastically.

One of the most conservative of organizations, the Catholic church, handles more adoptions world wide than any other agency. Conservatives are active in education, health, and welfare of children on a large scale. On what data do you base your outlandish statement?
I was actually generalising about American conservatives. The Catholic Church, for its flaws, are largely good at not being hypocrites. But the Americans... their lack of support for various children's health, education and welfare services for silly tax reasons is where my criticism originates.

Despite the talk about personal responsibility, the attribute that is really tragically lost is the collective responsibility that society should take for itself. People should ensure the well-being of the children and the safety of others.

How can you say things like this and still LIVE with yourself???

You seem to want to think of me as a "conservative,"
Wrong. I spent several posts in some thread or another arguing with Stephistan about how you were not as conservative as she thought you were. I was actually saying that you are liberal!

It's good that you and Zooke adopted kids, you did a lot of good for the world... more so than I have yet had the opportunity to do. But on a large scale, more is needed than that. In our experience, government programmes can help by economy of scale.

I have also noticed that many of those who are most critical of him tend to be so far to the left in the compass graph that California looks moderate.
California is right-wing: a capitalist society where CEOs and celebrities make sums of money undeserved on the backs of exploited immigrant workers.

I have heard that Eutrusca is only conservative when it comes to foreign policy...and supporting Bush...and hating Democrats, but that is not the point here.
I am a hawk on foreign policy and I hate Democrats (for lacking the guts to be left-wing). Do I look conservative to you?

Does a "5" mean that it's very important to you, or not at all important????
Read my original post. I imagine that you will be voting pro-life 5.

Edit: following in that train of thought...since liberals (Democrats) are most in favor of abortion on demand, could the aborting of so many potential future Democrats have weakened the liberal vote?
Are you serious? I always imagined that this 'argument' was a joke. Are you trying to say that
a) political ideology is genetic?
-or-
b) liberal parents always have abortions?

Abortion denies one very important attribute...personal responsibility.
This is only true if the abortion is given free of charge.

As a society, we have drifted further and further from personal responsibility. It is another's fault and society/government is always at the ready with a quick fix.
We live in an instant-gratification society. What do you expect?

OK, just got on. Give me a few minutes to catch up and gather my sources.

I was actually generalising about American conservatives. The Catholic Church, for its flaws, are largely good at not being hypocrites. But the Americans... their lack of support for various children's health, education and welfare services for silly tax reasons is where my criticism originates.

Despite the talk about personal responsibility, the attribute that is really tragically lost is the collective responsibility that society should take for itself. People should ensure the well-being of the children and the safety of others.

I agree that we don't do enough for our children. I can't help but wonder how we are setting our priorities as I watch public schools close due to lack of funding, and watch our expenditures on criminals, illegal aliens, etc rise each year. But, this is another topic.

I agree that society has the responsibility of ensuring the well-being of children, but we have taken this obvious charge and warped it into a massive welfare system that has enslaved several generations. But, again, this is another topic.

Can we agree that we would do better to spend more of our public funds on our young people?

California is right-wing: a capitalist society where CEOs and celebrities make sums of money undeserved on the backs of exploited immigrant workers.

Yet, with few exceptions, the state votes liberal. Not sure how Arnold got in there.

Are you serious? I always imagined that this 'argument' was a joke. Are you trying to say that
a) political ideology is genetic?
-or-
b) liberal parents always have abortions?

Come on Swimmingpool. You've seen the content of my posts several times before. Of course it was a joke. Though, I didn't know it was an argument that has been used before...I thought I was being clever. :rolleyes:

This is only true if the abortion is given free of charge.

Financial status has nothing to do with common sense. How many people have you seen that obviously had more money than brains? If abortions are provided free of charge to everyone, then tax dollars would have to pay for them. A fair sized segment of tax payers would refuse to pay their taxes if it was used for a procedure they feel is immoral and wrong.

Nazz are you on yet?

I voted 2, pro-choice. Really, it's not that important to me, like most things in debate I do it more out of boredom than anything else.

Forget the rest of it--how do you know that this is indeed the case? What proof do you have that this is the case, that the majority of abortions are caused by a willful decision to have unprotected sex? Point to something from a source that doesn't have an agenda, if you don't mind.

I used the term "unprotected sex" and that is usually used in reference to the use of condoms. I meant unprotected from pregnancy sex, though the use of a condom in conjunction with another birth control method would not only decrease the chance of pregnancy, but would also reduce STDs. Anyway, here is a chart of birth control failure rates put out by the FDA.

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html

If you refer back to my previous source stating primary reasons for abortions primarily sourced from data compiled by the Alan Guttmacher Institute,

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.


6.1% of abortions are due to health risks to the mother or the fetus. 12.2% are attributed to the woman being too young. That leaves 81.7% of abortions are performed as a preference for the mother. With the high rate of success with most birth control methods, and well over 1,200,000 abortions performed each year,
( http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html ),
it is safe to assume that a number of these women chose to not practise birth control. After all, the decision to not have a child is usually well thought out and prepared for.

Well piffle. No fun with no one to argue with. Catch y'all tomorrow.

6.1% of abortions are due to health risks to the mother or the fetus. 12.2% are attributed to the woman being too young. That leaves 81.7% of abortions are performed as a preference for the mother. With the high rate of success with most birth control methods, and well over 1,200,000 abortions performed each year,
( http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html ),
it is safe to assume that a number of these women chose to not practise birth control. After all, the decision to not have a child is usually well thought out and prepared for.
Sorry--I wasn't on.

If I were a lawyer, I would object to your reasoning on the basis of "facts not in evidence." My question was "What proof do you have that this is the case, that the majority of abortions are caused by a willful decision to have unprotected sex?" Your statistics don't answer that question. They provide a list of reasons why these women have decided to have abortions, but they don't address the birth control question. That's an assumption you've made on their own, based on, I assume, the idea that a woman wouldn't get pregnant unless she made the decision to have unprotected sex.

But that ain't necessarily so. My daughter is the product of a situation where we were using both a diaphragm and condoms--talk about slipping one past the goalie! And I'm sure there are many others on this very board who can testify as to similar experiences--they or their parents were trying to avoid pregnancy and it happened anyway.

But let's look at some of those statistics:21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
Do you know any of the stories behind all these cases? I don't, but I can tell you that you'll have some of these scenarios fall into those categories. First--notice what's missing from your overall list: rape and incest. How much would you like to bet that a nice chunk of those three categories come from rape or incest?

Let's add in women in abusive relationships--those probably come from the second answer, but I can imagine them coming from the other two as well.

How about women in abusive relationships who are trying to get out but can't because they already have too many kids and they're not willing to leave them behind? The first two categories at least.

In those three scenarios, we could be talking about a number of people who are not in a position to insist on birth control from their partners. Do we punish them by taking away one potential means of escape from their relationships? Or do we force them to be tied, legally, to their abusive partners for the rest of their lives?

I know that there are women who take abortion lightly, but I can't believe that most of them do--it's not like abortion is an easy thing to undergo. My sister-in-law did it because she had a fetus who had a genetic disease, a disease her 5 year old son already has, and she couldn't handle taking care of two children with it. She took a week to recover--this was a standard, first-trimester abortion, not a mid or late term one, and it took her a week to get back to where she could move around without too much pain.

I wish we lived in a world where there were no excuses, where relationships weren't abusive and where some of my fellow men didn't attempt to keep women captive through pregnancy, but that's not the world we live in. We live in a world where some men--not the majority, but enough to make it important--still think the only place a woman ought to be is barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. Two major advances have helped American women make the advances they have in today's social and economic culture--access to birth control and access to abortion. If that threatens the male-domination of the world, so be it. Men have been running things for at least the last ten thousand years and we do a pretty shitty job of it at times.

Yes, some women abuse the system. Some people cheat on Medicaid as well, but I'm not going to suggest shutting down the entire system in order to catch the cheats, and I won't go along with outlawing abortion just because some women abuse it. They have to live with themselves in the end, and if they wind up having to face God and justify it, I'm sure He can handle their punishment. Me--I'm not going to judge--that whole "judge not, lest ye be judged" bit I take seriously.

It is my belief that our primary purpose in life is to nurture, love, and protect our children. They are the most wonderful gift of all the gifts that God has given us. They are our gift to the future, and our greatest achievement.How so? Really, what is so special about children? They are just mini-humans - in many cases, a lot more cruel and vindictive than adult humans. I have never understood attitudes about how amazing children are, even when I was one myself. I'm not having a go; I just genuinely don't understand.

I think everyone would like to have everything thier way that's why morals are there to set boundries it's like some Christians (like myself) follow God's morals and some others follow thier own morals.

Until recently I thought morals were just opinions of a society, but I have realized that there are right and wrong morals, and abortion is one of those issuse that everyone seems to argue as either choice or being immoral. It does raise an important issue so I'm gonna go with 4/5.