NationStates Jolt Archive

At least 75,000 abortions were performed in Australia during 2003.
These figures are not just pulled from thin air, these are the Medicare figures reported by the Health minister. (Link at bottom)

For non-Australians, Medicare is the Australian public health scheme, funded by the Government (Taxpayers). There also non-Medicare funded abortions, estimated at 25,000.
So with rough calculations that means at least 1 out of a 100 women had an abortion in 2003, and is more likely around the mark of 1 in 50 women. I would say that the most likely figure would be around 1 in 60 women, to allow for multiple abortions

I support the right to abortions, but this is nuts, we need to reduce this. Even if my per person is really off, 75,000+ in a nation of 20 million is too high. Not only because of the loss of unborn lives and cost financially, but also on the mental and emotional wellbeing of society.

I'm a male Deist, so my views will obviously differ to others due to gender and relegious beliefs. Incidently can someone post the Jewish and Muslim views on this, I can not find anything on it.

I think abortions should be available, but not dispersed freely or encouraged. I know people who have had them, and seen first-hand the damage that can be caused to a woman well-being. Adoption and protection such as ther pill and condoms need to be better supported as a viable alternative. Can anyone suggest other ideas besides the obvious tightening of rquirements ?

here is the source and calculations I used
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1231924.htm

Approximate calculations
20 million Australians, 50% female, 50% of Child bearing age 18-50 years
thus 5 million possible candidates
Using five values of abortions per women, and total amount
75000 total, 25000 multiple so 50000 women 1 in 100
75000 total, 0 multipe so 75000 women 1 in 67
100000 total, 0 multiple so 100000 women 1 in 50
100000 total, 20000 multiple so 80000 women 1 in 62.5
100000 total, 10000 multiple so 80000 women 1 in 62.5
100000 total, 5000 multiple so 90000 women 1 in 53

We're pro-choice, we can't have everything like we're morally superior beings lest we have a double-standard.

(Oddly enough I'm Muslim, doubt this is the Muslim view your looking for)

Why is it "ridiculous"? I don't understand why this is a problem. Financial cost? Probably less than (lets assume) several thousand single mothers having to take out welfare payments to feed these children. Emotional trauma? probably less than having to raise a child that they are physically or mentally unprepared for.

Add to your statistics the current number of unadopted children in Australia. SO we know how many to add each year by reducing abortion.

P.S.: Contraception is a wonderful thing. As long as you're not catholic. :p

Am I missing something? I'm failing to see a "problem" here.

I'm pro-life, so I think that the number is WAY too high. No-one has the right to destroy a child before it has even experienced a moment of life.

I do think that abortions should be available in special cases such as rape, serious deformity, and if the mother's life is in serious danger.

Well, I guess this means I'll come under attack from both pro-lifers and pro-choicers, huh?

Arutane,

I agree with you here.

The pro-eugenics crowd (abortion is nothing more than another eugenics program, after all...just read any expose' on the origins of Planned Parenthood) should be having a party/parade with numbers like that.

Good job! Wouldn't be proper to have too many of them there minority babies running around, muddying up the gene pool. :insert barf icon here:

You don't see a problem with 75,000 babies being killed?

If you're pregnant it's your own damn fault.

Special cases are fine - it's just that rape, incest, etc only constitute less than 1% of the abortions.

If you're pregnant it's your own damn fault.


Not always. It could be rape, incest, other...
And sometimes even if you have birth control you can still get pregnant, and thats not your own damn fault.

So with rough calculations that means at least 1 out of a 100 women had an abortion in 2003, and is more likely around the mark of 1 in 50 women.

So over a lifetime every single Australian woman aborts one to two fetuses on average, if they continue at this rate?

I'm not saying your figures are wrong, but I would suggest double checking them.

If you're pregnant it's your own damn fault.

I think perhaps your parents are the ones who should explain this to you, but it takes two to make a baby.

I think perhaps your parents are the ones who should explain this to you, but it takes two to make a baby.

Exactly. Why is it always solely the woman's fault, and why should they suffer for it?

By most standards I would be considered a fundamentalist Christian, but you might call me extremely pro-choice. To the point I'm pro-life. As a Christian, is it not my calling to lead as many people to Christ as I can? Now, if I'm not mistaken (this does not apply to Catholics as their beliefs differ from mine), children up to the age of accountability, are seen as innocent in the eyes of God. This would give them a straight shot into Heaven. So, wouldn't it be in our, as Christians, best interest to abort as many as we could? That's 75,000 souls now celebrating in Heaven. I say outlaw live birth and abort every pregnancy. Sure we'll go extinct, but then the hippies will be happy because the world is returned to the animals. Christians are happy because we'll all be in Heaven. It's a win-win situation.

I think perhaps your parents are the ones who should explain this to you, but it takes two to make a baby.
And the mother is still just as responsible for allowing herself to get pregnant, unless it was something like rape.

Abortion, though a sick, twisted and vile thing, cannot be made illegle. In a society, we give up rights for safety. For instance, we give up our "right" to murder people for the safety of society. Abortion doesn't threaten society as a whole (and neither does homosexuality, for that matter) and therefore cannot be criminalized.

It is sad, however, that over 75,000 potential childern have been betrayed by their mothers...

*Erects shetter to hide from angry pro-choicers and pro-lifers*

hmmmm according to the cia fact page there are ~6.7 million women ages 15-64 in australia.

you claim 100,000 abortions/ year

thats 1 for every 67 women

that seems like alot. but let me look at the rates of other similar countries

I don't agree with abortions, however, I don't have the right to impose my beliefs on anyone else.

Lazurus Long

Exactly. Why is it always solely the woman's fault, and why should they suffer for it?
Anyone who actually believs it is solely the woman's fsult is full of crap. But it is partially her fault, and she should be more responcible knowing that she will be the one to carry the child.

And the mother is still just as responsible for allowing herself to get pregnant, unless it was something like rape.

That right. And people who drive are responsible for any accidents they get into. What are you getting at?

So over a lifetime every single Australian woman aborts one to two fetuses on average, if they continue at this rate?

I'm not saying your figures are wrong, but I would suggest double checking them.

I did not say this was at a yearly rate, altough I see your point. Indeed Abbott Health minister is pro-life and may have quoed the 2003 rate because it was high, I'm not sure

I see this as a problem because there are adequate means to stop unwanted pregnancies, and people are killing fetuses unnecessarily in many cases.
A person I know paid over $2,000, which I believe was non-medicare. Assuming this hold for all cases, abortions for that year cost the taxpayers $150 million dollars.
If a reduction of 10% occurs, or 7,500 cases, 1.5 million dollars is saved

75,000 is IMO really too low.

I'm for preventing ANYONE from being born. Well, mostly everyone.

The pro-eugenics crowd (abortion is nothing more than another eugenics program, after all...just read any expose' on the origins of Planned Parenthood) should be having a party/parade with numbers like that.

Good job! Wouldn't be proper to have too many of them there minority babies running around, muddying up the gene pool. :insert barf icon here:

Dude where the fuck did you pull the minority babies remark from? THis is the total amount of abortions, not how many of a race are aborted

hmmmm according to the cia fact page there are ~6.7 million women ages 15-64 in australia.

you claim 100,000 abortions/ year

thats 1 for every 67 women

that seems like alot. but let me look at the rates of other similar countries

That's total abortions.Multiple abortions are not part of the calculations, so it is probably higher than that, but I can not see it being too much.

The author is right. 75,000 abortions are too high. 1 abortion is too high, in my opinion.

Most Pro Abortionists have never even seen an aborted baby. I think its time for YOU to see one.
www.donotlinktothesesitesagain.com (Edited by Euroslavia)

I think you get the point.

See, this isnt propoganda here, this is the truth. Abortion is murder. It is a discrase to society.

I bet you were'nt aware of the fact that at 6 weeks - before the mother even knows shes pregnant, the baby has the ability to feel pain, feel pleasure sense movment, move its arms, move its legs, and prob more.

Lets look at a story
www.letsnotlookbecausetherearegraphicpictures.com (Edited by Euroslavia)

In other words

The baby had the moter skills the find the hole in the mother, the ability to reach out of the hole, and the ability to grab the doctors hand. The nurse even said "they do that all the time"

But who really cares? That's all Republican Propoganda, that us republicans make to decive you. It doesnt matter that the baby has many the skills a normal, born person has, or the fact that there are alterinitives to abortion, such as adoption. No, it only matters that the mother doesnt feel like having the baby. Abortion is bad.

A person I know paid over $2,000, which I believe was non-medicare. Assuming this hold for all cases, abortions for that year cost the taxpayers $150 million dollars.

But think of how much it costs the taxpayer per year for every child until it starts working. Parents get money for just having children, for immunizing them, they get a familly payment every month, the parents get tax breaks.

I think contraception is better than abortions, but you can't really argue that abortions are costing tax payers money, since they actually save money, assuming the mother is already pregnant.

Dude where the fuck did you pull the minority babies remark from? THis is the total amount of abortions, not how many of a race are aborted
I was referring more to US statistics than Australian stats. I have no idea what the distribution of abortion rates among race are in Australia, but in the US, minority abortions VASTLY outnumber anglo abortions (at least in the last statistics I've read, but it's been a while, admittedly).

Put those stats together with the fact that Planned Parenthood was started by white supremacists to promote abortions among "lesser races", and you can understand my remarks.

The fact that so many have been brainwashed into thinking abortions are a good thing just makes me even sicker.

If 75,000 (or 75 million) women want an abortion then I have no problem with that as they have the right to have full control over their own bodies.

I was referring more to US statistics than Australian stats. I have no idea what the distribution of abortion rates among race are in Australia, but in the US, minority abortions VASTLY outnumber anglo abortions (at least in the last statistics I've read, but it's been a while, admittedly).

Put those stats together with the fact that Planned Parenthood was started by white supremacists to promote abortions among "lesser races", and you can understand my remarks.

The fact that so many have been brainwashed into thinking abortions are a good thing just makes me even sicker.

Sorry I did not get where you were coming from.
Racism while still a problem in Australia is nowhere near the magnitude of the problem in America

See, this isnt propoganda here, this is the truth. Abortion is murder. It is a discrase to society.


Bullshit re look up your definition of murder before you use non descriptive emotive language

Some people say abortion is murder, and I say okay abortion is murder.

Some people say abortion isn't murder, and I say okay abortion isn't murder.

Whether it is murder or not is irrelevant to me. I also think it would be better if no one who didn't want to become pregnant became pregnant, but the world doesn't work that way. It would be helpful to think about what is the best course of action to take in the real world. I think allowing people to make their own decisions and possibly their own mistakes is the best way. And you don't have to approve of abortion to agree with me on that.

Well, it is a very high number in my opinion.
However, it is difficult to come up with any measures to lower that number without knowing what reasons were behind those abortions.
Were the women uninformed on contraception? Were social reasons the main factor? Is contraception financed by the Health System or do the women have to finance it privately? I remember that in Germany, an abortion can be paid by the Health Care, but contraception has to be paid for privately.

So, what are the reasons?

Most Pro Abortionists have never even seen an aborted baby. I think its time for YOU to see one.
-snip-

Uh-huh. Terminated fetus.

I think you get the point.

Not really. Not the most pleasant thing to look at, no, but that doesn't particularly mean anything in the context of your argument.

I bet you were'nt aware of the fact that at 6 weeks - before the mother even knows shes pregnant, the baby has the ability to feel pain, feel pleasure sense movment, move its arms, move its legs, and prob more.

Does it now? Most physicians believe it occurs after 20-something weeks, when the nerve system becomes connected.

Lets look at a story
-snip-

In other words

The baby had the moter skills the find the hole in the mother, the ability to reach out of the hole, and the ability to grab the doctors hand. The nurse even said "they do that all the time"

Fits more or less with the timeline of CNS development. Would have thought it was a couple of weeks later than that, but eh.

The author is right. 75,000 abortions are too high. 1 abortion is too high, in my opinion.

Most Pro Abortionists have never even seen an aborted baby. I think its time for YOU to see one.
-snip-
I think you get the point.

See, this isnt propoganda here, this is the truth. Abortion is murder. It is a discrase to society.

I bet you were'nt aware of the fact that at 6 weeks - before the mother even knows shes pregnant, the baby has the ability to feel pain, feel pleasure sense movment, move its arms, move its legs, and prob more.

Lets look at a story
-snip-
In other words

The baby had the moter skills the find the hole in the mother, the ability to reach out of the hole, and the ability to grab the doctors hand. The nurse even said "they do that all the time"

But who really cares? That's all Republican Propoganda, that us republicans make to decive you. It doesnt matter that the baby has many the skills a normal, born person has, or the fact that there are alterinitives to abortion, such as adoption. No, it only matters that the mother doesnt feel like having the baby. Abortion is bad.

Honey, if you think you are the first to post images like that, think again.
They never made for any argument whatsoever, and they never will.
:rolleyes:

Does anybody have that link to the "I oppose heart surgery"-thread?

But think of how much it costs the taxpayer per year for every child until it starts working. Parents get money for just having children, for immunizing them, they get a familly payment every month, the parents get tax breaks.

I think contraception is better than abortions, but you can't really argue that abortions are costing tax payers money, since they actually save money, assuming the mother is already pregnant.

I think that conception is better as well, I was pointiong out the abortion rate is very high when you consider that contraceptives are readily available, the so-called Morning After pill is available upon a doctor visit, and the full contraceptive pill is also easily available.

So, what are the reasons?

Personally I think someone has inflated the numbers.

However, I don't think many people want to have childern anymore. I mean, they are a lot of hard work, and when they misbehave in public lots of people look at you as though your some sort of horrible mother for having children that don't act like angels.

Also, you are expected to be in a stable relationship with a man or woman before having children. Perhaps reliable men or lesbian partners are hard to find.

The opportunity cost of having a baby has gone up as women's wages and educational and work opportunities have risen.

Personally I think someone has inflated the numbers.


Actually, I seem to recall this year an announcement that we had the greatest birth-rate of any first-world nation...or something like that.

Well, it is a very high number in my opinion.
However, it is difficult to come up with any measures to lower that number without knowing what reasons were behind those abortions.
Were the women uninformed on contraception? Were social reasons the main factor? Is contraception financed by the Health System or do the women have to finance it privately? I remember that in Germany, an abortion can be paid by the Health Care, but contraception has to be paid for privately.

So, what are the reasons?

I agree entirely. We need more information before we commence the finger pointing.

Actually, I seem to recall this year an announcement that we had the greatest birth-rate of any first-world nation...or something like that.

America is mistress of the first world birth rate, and is around or slightly above replacement rate. Australia's is below replacement rate and has been trending downward for a long time, although there could have been some sort of upward spike I haven't heard of, but I think it's more likely to be something else.

Not always. It could be rape, incest, other...
And sometimes even if you have birth control you can still get pregnant, and thats not your own damn fault.

Of course it's still your own damned fault.

Just because you had sex with a relative doesn't mean it's not your own damn fault.

And having sex in the first place makes it your own damn fault.

Hell, even getting raped makes it your own damned fault for not packing heat, and fighting the guy off.

I did not say this was at a yearly rate, altough I see your point. Indeed Abbott Health minister is pro-life and may have quoed the 2003 rate because it was high, I'm not sure

I see this as a problem because there are adequate means to stop unwanted pregnancies, and people are killing fetuses unnecessarily in many cases.
A person I know paid over $2,000, which I believe was non-medicare. Assuming this hold for all cases, abortions for that year cost the taxpayers $150 million dollars.
If a reduction of 10% occurs, or 7,500 cases, 1.5 million dollars is saved
that money is only saved if you PREVENT unwanted pregnancy. surely the cost to public health for the birth of a healthy baby is more than $2k. it certainly is in the US.

Actually, I seem to recall this year an announcement that we had the greatest birth-rate of any first-world nation...or something like that.

Well the article I saw said the the abortions were one quarter of all pregnancies, therefore if correct approximately 225,000 births in 2003.

America is mistress of the first world birth rate, and is around or slightly above replacement rate. Australia's is below replacement rate and has been trending downward for a long time, although there could have been some sort of upward spike I haven't heard of, but I think it's more likely to be something else.

You're right.

The USA has 14.14 births/1,000...
Australia has 12.26/1000.

2004 figures, I think.

Well the article I saw said the the abortions were one quarter of all pregnancies, therefore if correct approximately 225,000 births in 2003.

After some maths, using nationmaster.com, the figure for 2004 is 246,309. Not sure about 2003.

Of course it's still your own damned fault.

Just because you had sex with a relative doesn't mean it's not your own damn fault.

And having sex in the first place makes it your own damn fault.

Hell, even getting raped makes it your own damned fault for not packing heat, and fighting the guy off.

:rolleyes:

If 75,000 is only about 1 out of 60, then isn't that still only 1.67% of the entire population getting abortions?

Furthermore, what exactly is wrong with abortion? The killing of life? Isn't the Republican party for the death penalty, last I checked? Or is killing different from killing?

Australia has roughly 12 births per thousand per year, which is about 24,000 a year. 225,000 is way too high.

EDIT: No, this can't be right! Let me get back to you.

Okay, got my maths straight, roughly 250,000 births a year. Sorry.

Australia has roughly 12 births per thousand per year, which is about 24,000 a year. 225,000 is way too high.

No, it's not. :)

Furthermore, what exactly is wrong with abortion? The killing of life? Isn't the Republican party for the death penalty, last I checked? Or is killing different from killing?
I'm by no means a "Republican", but let me get this straight: You think it's okay to rob a child of a chance at life, but those that commit the most heinous crimes shouldn't have their chance at life taken from them?

I'll never understand people like you...never.

No, it's not.
Yes, I fixed that up. Sorry.

Exactly. Why is it always solely the woman's fault, and why should they suffer for it?

Because they should either keep their legs closed or be protected (unless its against their will, which is the ONLY way I believe in abortion). But in todays world, its never the person who does somethings fault. Its society or whatnot, so bleeding hearts get the run of the place. Joy. Killing is wrong, period. That number is disgusting.

I'm by no means a "Republican", but let me get this straight: You think it's okay to rob a child of a chance at life, but those that commit the most heinous crimes shouldn't have their chance at life taken from them?

I'll never understand people like you...never.

"Chance at life" isn't the same as "life".

Because they should either keep their legs closed or be protected (unless its against their will, which is the ONLY way I believe in abortion). But in todays world, its never the person who does somethings fault. Its society or whatnot, so bleeding hearts get the run of the place. Joy. Killing is wrong, period. That number is disgusting.

Oh yes! because if they weren't such dirty sluts, this wouldn't be a problem, would it? :rolleyes:

Yes, I fixed that up. Sorry.

Hehe. I was doubting myself for a second there! :)

Because they should either keep their legs closed or be protected (unless its against their will, which is the ONLY way I believe in abortion).

And that's why I believe that when there's a car smash only the people who didn't cause the accident should be taken to hospital. People who caused the accident, or who didn't take precautions like wearing a seat belt, should be left to bleed by the side of the road. There are too many bleeding hearts around (some by the side of the road) who want to treat every injured person, even if it was their own fault they got injured.

Because they should either keep their legs closed or be protected (unless its against their will, which is the ONLY way I believe in abortion). But in todays world, its never the person who does somethings fault. Its society or whatnot, so bleeding hearts get the run of the place. Joy. Killing is wrong, period. That number is disgusting.
yes lets make babies the punishment for the crime of having sex.

By most standards I would be considered a fundamentalist Christian, but you might call me extremely pro-choice. To the point I'm pro-life. As a Christian, is it not my calling to lead as many people to Christ as I can? Now, if I'm not mistaken (this does not apply to Catholics as their beliefs differ from mine), children up to the age of accountability, are seen as innocent in the eyes of God. This would give them a straight shot into Heaven. So, wouldn't it be in our, as Christians, best interest to abort as many as we could? That's 75,000 souls now celebrating in Heaven. I say outlaw live birth and abort every pregnancy. Sure we'll go extinct, but then the hippies will be happy because the world is returned to the animals. Christians are happy because we'll all be in Heaven. It's a win-win situation.

I like the way you think!

You think it's okay to rob a child of a chance at life, but those that commit the most heinous crimes shouldn't have their chance at life taken from them?


I agree that there should be consistency there. A good deal of pro-choicers are also pro gun-control, which kinda robs women of a good defense against rapists and people of home defense. Anyway, I'm for capital punishment, pro abortion, and against gun control laws.

And I just don't see a fetus as a child. So comparing one with the other, you could do that with a fetus and any other stage... robbing a twenty-something, a middle age, or a crotchety old man of his life. It just isn't the same. I don't have memories from when I was a fetus, if I had gotten aborted I don't think I would have cared or frankly, that it would have mattered. Maybe I'm a nihilist though...

I'm by no means a "Republican", but let me get this straight: You think it's okay to rob a child of a chance at life, but those that commit the most heinous crimes shouldn't have their chance at life taken from them?

I'll never understand people like you...never.

That's not my question. My question is why do you claim to be trying to safe human life when you're not opposed to killing others?


Because they should either keep their legs closed or be protected (unless its against their will, which is the ONLY way I believe in abortion). But in todays world, its never the person who does somethings fault. Its society or whatnot, so bleeding hearts get the run of the place. Joy. Killing is wrong, period. That number is disgusting.

First, I'm pretty sure you're not a woman, as I'm not either. You probably assume all women would just suddenly abort.

Second, how are you sure it's life?

Third, isn't it the woman's choice, since it is HER womb? Are you saying you know better than the woman? You know more about her life and needs than herself? You know better than the person who has to make the choice?

Finally, are you saying society has no impact on human beings? Then you truly are retarded.

Furthermore, I consider a fetus to be life in the sense that it's like an arm or a limb. It's not able to survive on its own, and up to that point it's not a human life, it's part of another human. And if you think that women would just randomly abort, then consider chopping off your own arm.

EDIT:

And that's why I believe that when there's a car smash only the people who didn't cause the accident should be taken to hospital. People who caused the accident, or who didn't take precautions like wearing a seat belt, should be left to bleed by the side of the road. There are too many bleeding hearts around (some by the side of the road) who want to treat every injured person, even if it was their own fault they got injured.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word "accident". Nobody CAUSES accidents, they just happen. Go read a dictionary or something.

yes lets make babies the punishment for the crime of having sex.

Excellent idea! and let's put the punishment totally upon women.

Guys are just being guys, after all! Can't blame them for playing around a bit!


:rolleyes:

Ow, my eyes are starting to hurt.

This whole "pro life" thing is a scam by the Republicans to be sexist. :)

So over a lifetime every single Australian woman aborts one to two fetuses on average, if they continue at this rate?

I'm not saying your figures are wrong, but I would suggest double checking them.

Somewhat sounds like the # of people who die each day in the US due to smoking. If you calculate these figure and enter in the birthrate, every american would be dead in approximately 6 months.

#'s are just that. Anyone can manipulate them any way they want. I wouldn't be surprised if the abortion #'s included surgically removed miscarriages.

This whole "pro life" thing is a scam by the Republicans to be sexist. :)

Republicans don't need a scam to be sexist. The seem to be ok with being sexist without a scam.

Which brings up an interesting point. Why is it that when I see large groups (or really small for that matter) it is comprised of conservative looking older men?

Look, it comes down to this: It's not your damn body.

You wouldn't make it a crime to commit suicide in the interest of "saving life," you wouldn't tell men that they can't have vasctecomies because they'd be "killing life," so why do it for women?

No other reason than the Republicans being sexist.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word "accident". Nobody CAUSES accidents, they just happen. Go read a dictionary or something.

"Stop running with sissors or you'll cause an accident!"

I never thought my grade one teacher would lie to me like that. I feel so used.

"Stop running with sissors or you'll cause an accident!"

I never thought my grade one teacher would lie to me like that. I feel so used.

Your teacher, like most, were idiots due to funding cuts by the government.

DEFINITION OF ACCIDENT, DICTIONARY.COM:

ac·ci·dent
n.
1. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.
2. An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to his promotion.
3. An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's clothing.
2. Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.
3. Logic. A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the nature of something.


My point stands.

Of course it's still your own damned fault.

Just because you had sex with a relative doesn't mean it's not your own damn fault.

And having sex in the first place makes it your own damn fault.

Hell, even getting raped makes it your own damned fault for not packing heat, and fighting the guy off.
I don't think abortion should be available more in cases of incest… that IS eugenics, pure and simple.

Being raped is NOT your own fault. Maybe we should execute all rescued POWs, for allowing themselves to get captured?

It is the woman's fault mostly… AND the man's fault. The father should be made to pay at least half the cost.
An unwanted child certainly isn't a fair punishment for having sex once. But given that the alternative is killing the foetus, there's not much you can do.
Actually, there is… although many pro-lifers are opposed to the very idea of spending government money on helping single women bring up their children. But if you're going to restrict abortion, you'll have to do that.

What else?… oh yes, Serapindal, you're becoming more incoherent every day.

My point stands.

Do you understand that the accident post is not meant to be serious?

Most Pro Abortionists have never even seen an aborted baby. I think its time for YOU to see one.
http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/more5.jpg
http://www.prolife.org.uk/Images/Malachi.jpg


I believe that most pro-abortionist have seen those pictures over and over and over and...

at least on this forum, where they have been posted at least twice in the last week, and they weren't new

also, most civilized countries don't allow abortions past a certain date, unless there is a serious medical condition, so aborted babies won't look like that in most of the cases

I think contraception is better than abortions, but you can't really argue that abortions are costing tax payers money, since they actually save money, assuming the mother is already pregnant.

But if you assume that the woman is not already pregnant, but is going to get so, you can argue that contraception is cheaper

of course, accident and failures happen, but planning abortion as a contraception method, while can't really be made unlawful without interfering with "legitimate" abortions, is just wrong

Do you understand that the accident post is not meant to be serious?

And neither is your pro-life stance?

I don't think abortion should be available more in cases of incest… that IS eugenics, pure and simple.

Being raped is NOT your own fault. Maybe we should execute all rescued POWs, for allowing themselves to get captured?

It is the woman's fault mostly… AND the man's fault. The father should be made to pay at least half the cost.
An unwanted child certainly isn't a fair punishment for having sex once. But given that the alternative is killing the foetus, there's not much you can do.
Actually, there is… although many pro-lifers are opposed to the very idea of spending government money on helping single women bring up their children. But if you're going to restrict abortion, you'll have to do that.

What else?… oh yes, Serapindal, you're becoming more incoherent every day.


Tell you what we will just surgicaly remove it ... if it is a good god fearin kid it will survive ... if not god must not have ment it to be and it deserves to die

Other then that like any good restraunt she has the right to refuse service to anybody the fetus can figure out what it wants to do from there on

And neither is your pro-life stance?

Doesn't really matter. It's the ideas that count. When you try to prove sincereity though the internet you end up doing stuff like typing in capitals which is never very convincing.

Doesn't really matter. It's the ideas that count. When you try to prove sincereity though the internet you end up doing stuff like typing in capitals which is never very convincing.
YES IT IS!!!11!!!!

Doesn't really matter. It's the ideas that count. When you try to prove sincereity though the internet you end up doing stuff like typing in capitals which is never very convincing.

So are you for or against abortion?

YES IT IS!!!11!!!!

UpwardThrust, I want to have your baby. Of course, if it's god fearing spermatoza it'll survive just fine without my womb, so feel free.

UpwardThrust, I want to have your baby. Of course, if it's god fearing spermatoza it'll survive just fine without my womb, so feel free.
Got to have faith that it will survive friend :)

So are you for or against abortion?

If I became pregnant and I didn't want to have the child I would like access to safe, legal abortion.

Look, it comes down to this: It's not your damn body.

You wouldn't make it a crime to commit suicide in the interest of "saving life," you wouldn't tell men that they can't have vasctecomies because they'd be "killing life," so why do it for women?

No other reason than the Republicans being sexist.

While vasectomies are legal, technically suicide is illegal in some countries including most of the US. People cannot take their own lives. Of course their sentence is always amounts of time in a counseling facilty, but it is still a crime.

Which is just as stupid really.

My vasectomy analogy still stands. It's not your damn body, and you have no right to tell anyone what to do with theirs. It's just Republicans trying to be sexist.

Frankly, I'm suprised there are still women in the Republican party.

My vasectomy analogy still stands. It's not your damn body, and you have no right to tell anyone what to do with theirs. It's just Republicans trying to be sexist.

Frankly, I'm suprised there are still women in the Republican party. Not all pro-lifers are Republican… for instance, those who live in countries beyond the borders of the USA. Like me (although I am moderately Republican, it's not in the political sense).

Laws tell people what they can do with other people's bodies. Not their own, other people's.

Not all pro-lifers are Republican… for instance, those who live in countries beyond the borders of the USA. Like me (although I am moderately Republican, it's not in the political sense).

Laws tell people what they can do with other people's bodies. Not their own, other people's.
If this is true I wonder why suicide is illegal

If this is true I wonder why suicide is illegal

Nobody knows, but I think it's just there so that they can "punish" attempted people by trying to rehab them. Othewise they really have no warrant for treating them.

If this is true I wonder why suicide is illegal Not in my country it's not! Er… I think it isn't, anyway.

Nobody knows, but I think it's just there so that they can "punish" attempted people by trying to rehab them. Othewise they really have no warrant for treating them.

Well, I figure nobody wants to lose a loved one, so the authorities are acting in the interests of the family as a whole...and making suicide illegal gives a pathway for them to step in and give aid to the suicidal person. It's just a technicality needed before they can dispense welfare (as opposed to punishment), really.

I'm not really pro-life.

I'm anti-choice.

It may be your body, but you're under OUR air space, you follow our rules?

You got raped? I don't give a damn.

Incest? Don't give a damn.

You have that baby to increase our population, and industrial capacity, as well as millitary manpower. Or else.

Anyway, to summarize.

Abortion: woman's choice, not yours, unless you're a woman, then it's your choice.

Suicide: Nobody knows.

Vasectomy: Man's choice, just like abortion.

Accident: Running with scissors into cars.

Republicans: Sexist.

Democrats: Need better arguments.

EDIT:

Serapindal: Complete idiot who should be shot for that comment.

Feminists are more sexist then Republicans.

The man has the baby too, but they get no say? It's their fetus to. It's not just the mothers. Another example of Feminist Hypocrisy and Sexism.

EDIT:

Serapindal: Complete idiot who should be shot for that comment.

I find you liberals so funny. You always advocate peace, and never touching a fly. You're always preaching how all people who kill people are horrible, but then, you start trying to kill everyone who disagrees with you. Blah.

Feminists are more sexist then Republicans.

The man has the baby too, but they get no say? It's their fetus to. It's not just the mothers. Another example of Feminist Hypocrisy and Sexism.

Right, because the man goes through childbirth, correct? And the man has to push a baby through his vagina, right?

I agree on one level: the baby is both theirs, but the bigger share goes to the woman, because it's her damn body.

And for the record, both feminists and republicans are sexist. One being sexist doesn't justify the other one.

I'm not really pro-life.

I'm anti-choice.

It may be your body, but you're under OUR air space, you follow our rules?

You got raped? I don't give a damn.

Incest? Don't give a damn.

You have that baby to increase our population, and industrial capacity, as well as millitary manpower. Or else.

I think you're just a kid who is trolling.

Right, because the man goes through childbirth, correct? And the man has to push a baby through his vagina, right?

I agree on one level: the baby is both theirs, but the bigger share goes to the woman, because it's her damn body.

And for the record, both feminists and republicans are sexist. One being sexist doesn't justify the other one.

Then again, using the same argument, the man wins, because it's also the BABY's BODY. Anyways, a higher birthrate is needed, because with more people, we can increase our industrial capacity, our millitary manpower, and thus, our GDP, and country's strength.

I think you're just a kid who is trolling.

You have a ****ing -10, -9. Who the hell gets a -10, and -9!?!?!

Feminists are more sexist then Republicans.

The man has the baby too, but they get no say? It's their fetus to. It's not just the mothers. Another example of Feminist Hypocrisy and Sexism.

You know what? Take the foetus, but don't force the woman to have it in her body if she doesn't want to.

Right, because the man goes through childbirth, correct? And the man has to push a baby through his vagina, right?

I agree on one level: the baby is both theirs, but the bigger share goes to the woman, because it's her damn body.

And for the record, both feminists and republicans are sexist. One being sexist doesn't justify the other one.

However, if other countries want to have Abortions, why not. They'll be weakened, not us.

You know what? Take the foetus, but don't force the woman to have it in her body if she doesn't want to.

If only that were possible...

You have a ****ing -10, -9. Who the hell gets a -10, and -9!?!?!

Me, obviously. Uh...fear me, or something.

If only that were possible...

Well, it is. It's called an abortion.

No person has the right to live of another person's body. A person with a serious malfunction of his kidneys can't force you to give him one of your's, can he?

So, take the foetus out. What you do with it afterwards is up to you.

Then again, using the same argument, the man wins, because it's also the BABY's BODY. Anyways, a higher birthrate is needed, because with more people, we can increase our industrial capacity, our millitary manpower, and thus, our GDP, and country's strength.

Or we could use immigrants, as the US has done since the DAWN OF ITS EXISTENCE.


You have a ****ing -10, -9. Who the hell gets a -10, and -9!?!?!

What the hell?


However, if other countries want to have Abortions, why not. They'll be weakened, not us.

What if we end up producing a Hitler through your method? Then we're screwed.

What if we end up producing a Hitler through your method? Then we're screwed.

What if we do? It probably wouldn't happen, but then Bush is US president, that's not too far off. People are stupid, let them do to themselves what they must while those of us who are smart enough survive and create a better gene pool. Darwinism at it's finest.

Or we could use immigrants, as the US has done since the DAWN OF ITS EXISTENCE.



What the hell?



What if we end up producing a Hitler through your method? Then we're screwed.

1. If we do BOTH, our manpower will skyrocket.

2. What if we produce an Einstein through my method. That argument is the worst Pro-Choice argument I've ever seen.

Well, it is. It's called an abortion.

No person has the right to live of another person's body. A person with a serious malfunction of his kidneys can't force you to give him one of your's, can he?

So, take the foetus out. What you do with it afterwards is up to you.

Terrible comparison.

Childbirth and Pregnancy is temporary.

Losing your kidney is permanent.

1. If we do BOTH, our manpower will skyrocket.

2. What if we produce an Einstein through my method. That argument is the worst Pro-Choice argument I've ever seen.

No, the worst is that you might produce an einstein. You have no guarantee.

Besides, the World cannot support much more people. If we followed your method we would end the world sooner.

And why do we need to increase manpower? Why not just make our technology better?

EDIT: You can get kidneys, a loss is not permanent.

AND STOP DOUBLE POSTING.

The pro-eugenics crowd (abortion is nothing more than another eugenics program, after all...just read any expose' on the origins of Planned Parenthood) should be having a party/parade with numbers like that.

Good job! Wouldn't be proper to have too many of them there minority babies running around, muddying up the gene pool. :insert barf icon here:
I thought you were pro-choice. Abortion is a eugenics programme (well it's not really a programme, since it is not centrally run by the government), but it is not forced.

The racial comment was utterly fabricated, by you.

The author is right. 75,000 abortions are too high. 1 abortion is too high, in my opinion.

Most Pro Abortionists have never even seen an aborted baby. I think its time for YOU to see one.
-snip-

But who really cares? That's all Republican Propoganda, that us republicans make to decive you. It doesnt matter that the baby has many the skills a normal, born person has, or the fact that there are alterinitives to abortion, such as adoption. No, it only matters that the mother doesnt feel like having the baby. Abortion is bad.
Your emotional arguments will not work. Since you calim to be Republican, can I use this argument against you: How can you support the Iraq war, haven't you ever seen someone getting killed by a bomb?

I also support the war, but at least I am consistent.

Terrible comparison.

Childbirth and Pregnancy is temporary.

Losing your kidney is permanent.

Living of another person's body without consent is unlawful and immoral, whether it is temporary or permanent.

Living of another person's body without consent is unlawful and immoral, whether it is temporary or permanent.

And where does it say that?

And where does it say that?

Everywhere slavery is banned.

No, the worst is that you might produce an einstein. You have no guarantee.

Besides, the World cannot support much more people. If we followed your method we would end the world sooner.

And why do we need to increase manpower? Why not just make our technology better?

EDIT: You can get kidneys, a loss is not permanent.

AND STOP DOUBLE POSTING.

And there is no guarentee we might produce a Hitler.

(...)That's the right stuff!

Everywhere slavery is banned.

You are unaware of Sweatshops in Foreign Nations aren't you?

You are unaware of Sweatshops in Foreign Nations aren't you?

I am aware, and I am AGAINST them. Don't assume I support all or any of the world's policies.

Anyway, I'm calling you out.

You're being a troll.

You are unaware of Sweatshops in Foreign Nations aren't you?

Sure, they exist all over Europe :rolleyes:

I am aware, and I am AGAINST them. Don't assume I support all or any of the world's policies.

Anyway, I'm calling you out.

You're being a troll.

Where did I say you supported them?

I was pointing out the fact, that Slavery is a very specific terms, and currently only applies to our perception of what Slavery was.

1. If we do BOTH, our manpower will skyrocket.

of course it will remain unemployed manpower, useless for the economy and a burden for society, so even if you get a potential genius, he will probably starve early in his life, and stop his intellectual developement.

great idea

of course it will remain unemployed manpower, useless for the economy and a burden for society, so even if you get a potential genius, he will probably starve early in his life, and stop his intellectual developement.

great idea

Uh...we're depending that War will kill a lot of people.

Um, are you guys feeling alright?

I'm not really pro-life.

I'm anti-choice.

It may be your body, but you're under OUR air space, you follow our rules?

You got raped? I don't give a damn.

Incest? Don't give a damn.

You have that baby to increase our population, and industrial capacity, as well as millitary manpower. Or else.
maybe you missed the part where general isnt a role-playing forum

Where did I say you supported them?

I was pointing out the fact, that Slavery is a very specific terms, and currently only applies to our perception of what Slavery was.

Guess what? Nobody's arguing with you on that. We're all against slavery, whether it be in the US, China, Europe, or Southeast Asia. I believe sweatshops are immoral, because they are in a way slavery. If they don't make enough to live off of, then their lives are controlled by the sweatshops. You happy now?


Uh...we're depending that War will kill a lot of people.

And why would we constantly go to war? Is the US in some kind of gigantic game of "Red Alert 2" to you? Or perhaps its in a game of Starcraft, or Rise of Nations?

I'm not really pro-life.

I'm anti-choice.

It may be your body, but you're under OUR air space, you follow our rules?

You got raped? I don't give a damn.

Incest? Don't give a damn.

You have that baby to increase our population, and industrial capacity, as well as millitary manpower. Or else.
That's sick… really. In what way is it a woman's responsibility that she was raped?

That said, I don't believe that it shoul be the kid's responsibility… but it certainly isn't the woman's, contrary to what you earlier said.

And why would we constantly go to war? Is the US in some kind of gigantic game of "Red Alert 2" to you? Or perhaps its in a game of Starcraft, or Rise of Nations?

No, because War is an integral part of society. Nations like us cannot last in Peace. We need war, to acquire more territory, human resources, resources, and etc. And all wars have casulaties. However, I suggest that we invade smaller weaker nations, like Iraq, and Mexico first.

That's sick… really. In what way is it a woman's responsibility that she was raped?

That said, I don't believe that it shoul be the kid's responsibility… but it certainly isn't the woman's, contrary to what you earlier said.

You're a little fatter for 9 months, and you gotta plop out a small baby at the end of it. OMG! YOUR LIFE IS OVER!!! </sarcasm>

No, because War is an integral part of society. Nations like us cannot last in Peace. We need war, to acquire more territory, human resources, resources, and etc. And all wars have casulaties. However, I suggest that we invade smaller weaker nations, like Iraq, and Mexico first.

Ok, now we all know that you can't possibly be serious...

The author is right. 75,000 abortions are too high. 1 abortion is too high, in my opinion.

Most Pro Abortionists have never even seen an aborted baby. I think its time for YOU to see one.
www.donotlinktothesesitesagain.com (Edited by Euroslavia)

I think you get the point.

See, this isnt propoganda here, this is the truth. Abortion is murder. It is a discrase to society.

I bet you were'nt aware of the fact that at 6 weeks - before the mother even knows shes pregnant, the baby has the ability to feel pain, feel pleasure sense movment, move its arms, move its legs, and prob more.

Lets look at a story
www.letsnotlookbecausetherearegraphicpictures.com (Edited by Euroslavia)

In other words

The baby had the moter skills the find the hole in the mother, the ability to reach out of the hole, and the ability to grab the doctors hand. The nurse even said "they do that all the time"

But who really cares? That's all Republican Propoganda, that us republicans make to decive you. It doesnt matter that the baby has many the skills a normal, born person has, or the fact that there are alterinitives to abortion, such as adoption. No, it only matters that the mother doesnt feel like having the baby. Abortion is bad.

I agree with you fully and these people should beable to see these pictures! Its because liberal recruitment propaganda that they won't allow us conservatives a voice.

Whats wrong with these pictures, do they give too much away, would it put people of liberalism? Because this move says exactly that to me, that people care more about others following their ideologies than protecting the sanctity of human life.

Well thats my two cents.

You're a little fatter for 9 months, and you gotta plop out a small baby at the end of it. OMG! YOUR LIFE IS OVER!!! </sarcasm>

I think you should have a very, very long and serious conversation with your mother....

No, because War is an integral part of society. Nations like us cannot last in Peace. We need war, to acquire more territory, human resources, resources, and etc. And all wars have casulaties. However, I suggest that we invade smaller weaker nations, like Iraq, and Mexico first.

Yeah, you need to get out in the real world more often. Seriously. Get off Nationstates now and view the real world. Too many NS role plays are bad for you.

You're a little fatter for 9 months, and you gotta plop out a small baby at the end of it. OMG! YOUR LIFE IS OVER!!! </sarcasm> It was more your flagrant dismissal of rape that alarmed me. And guess what? After the birth (the 9 months through which the attack will haunt you), you have to LOOK AFTER THE CHILD.

Again, I am pro-life.

I think you should have a very, very long and serious conversation with your mother....

Ok. The point is, it's going to hurt.

But the other point is, what's worth more. Inconvenience or Death. Take your pick.

You're a little fatter for 9 months, and you gotta plop out a small baby at the end of it. OMG! YOUR LIFE IS OVER!!! </sarcasm>
Yeah right :rolleyes:
Are you purposely trying to not understand the physical and emotional trauma that comes along with the pregnancy and birthing process?

No one can be dull enough to think the only side effect is a bit of chubbiness

It was more your flagrant dismissal of rape that alarmed me. And guess what? After the birth (the 9 months through which the attack will haunt you), you have to LOOK AFTER THE CHILD.

Again, I am pro-life.

Just put the Child in an Adoption Center. You don't have to look after it.

Ok. The point is, it's going to hurt.

But the other point is, what's worth more. Inconvenience or Death. Take your pick.

What? That's not the two options at all. You're not going to die if you don't have a baby, you sicko.


Again, I am pro-life.

And I'm pro choice- but Serapindal seems to be pro-death.



Just put the Child in an Adoption Center. You don't have to look after it.

You're out of touch with humanity. It'd be the person's frigging child. Imagine your mom deciding whether to give you up or not, or imagine giving up your own kid. And in any case, SOMEBODY still has to look after it.

Morally I believe that abortion is wrong, but I am just one person, I have no right to force that belief on anyone else. Just like pro-choice people have no right to force their belief onto the rest of the population.

I live in America, but I am sure there is a large portion of Australians who are pro-life, just like every other country.

Why should their hard-earned money - paid to the government in the form of taxes - be spent to fund something that they believe to be immoral, evil, and just plain wrong??????


In my opinion:
Tax money should be kept away from funding Abortion
Socialized Medicine should be kept away from sponsoring Abortion

Ok. The point is, it's going to hurt.

But the other point is, what's worth more. Inconvenience or Death. Take your pick.

Have you ever considered the fact that you might seriously incovenience the child by forcing it to live?
Seriously, I still hate my parents for forcing that on me...

So, considering that
1) You don't want that child in your body
2) You don't want to go through the stress and bodily harm of a pregnancy, risking your life at the end of it
3) The child may not want to be born in the first place

Take your pick.

What? That's not the two options at all. You're not going to die if you don't have a baby, you sicko.



And I'm pro choice- but Serapindal seems to be pro-death.

But I'm more Anti-Choice, then I am Pro-Death, so....

Blu-Tac: If you mean 'liberal propoganda' as in, the RULES of Nationstates as defined by The One-Stop Rules Shop, then yes, yes it is. Keep your conspiracies to yourself, these are the rules, and you're expected to follow them. Liberals and conservatives are allowed to equally debate their opinions, but both sides will not be allowed to link to pictures that are as obscene and explicit as those were.

Obscene and Explicit content: Sexually graphic images and posts. Very strictly forbidden. Obscene imagery and content in the forums should be reported to the Moderation Forum. Please provide a link to the topic, but do not quote it while explaining its illegality. Then we have to find and delete your posts too.

Serapindal and Southwest Asia: Both of you need to calm down, and take a break from this debate. Specifically you, Serapindal, I would suggest that you knock off the trolling immediately.

Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). While Trolls often make these posts strictly in an attempt to provoke negative comment, it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs. Intent is difficult to prove over the internet, so mods will work under their best assumptions.

It's obvious that comments such as these:
You got raped? I don't give a damn.
Are trolling. Knock it off.

Just put the Child in an Adoption Center. You don't have to look after it. Adoption is going down. Bad, but true. Also, a mother's first reaction is to keep her child.
If you're going to ban abortion, you have to provide major help. Otherwise they get back-streets… and do you actually understand how bad a rape is?

Morally I believe that abortion is wrong, but I am just one person, I have no right to force that belief on anyone else. Just like pro-choice people have no right to force their belief onto the rest of the population.

I live in America, but I am sure there is a large portion of Australians who are pro-life, just like every other country.

Why should their hard-earned money - paid to the government in the form of taxes - be spent to fund something that they believe to be immoral, evil, and just plain wrong??????


In my opinion:
Tax money should be kept away from funding Abortion
Socialized Medicine should be kept away from sponsoring Abortion

Only if those pro life protestors admit they're sexist and stop trying to destroy people to do abortions through physical harm and prejudice.

Ok, ok, ok, Serapindal, the things you are saying are not half as bad as what these pro-abortionists are saying, but still they're a bit dodgy. I don't give a hoot about Iraq, I don't give a hoot about Mexico, they've done nothing to the western world. You're just making yourself look like a bigotted warmonger here. So please touch up on your arguing techniques before you make even more people resent conservatives.

However what you are saying is true, to an extent, just don't deal with things that extremely, and please, in an abortion debate don't bring the military and world domination by the US into it.

Only if those pro life protestors admit they're sexist and stop trying to destroy people to do abortions through physical harm and prejudice. Only if you stop grossly generalising and throwing unwarranted mud.

Why is it "ridiculous"? I don't understand why this is a problem. Financial cost? Probably less than (lets assume) several thousand single mothers having to take out welfare payments to feed these children. Emotional trauma? probably less than having to raise a child that they are physically or mentally unprepared for.

If you don't want a baby, quit your f*&^in'. Personal responsibility, not just personal freedom.

Morally I believe that abortion is wrong, but I am just one person, I have no right to force that belief on anyone else. Just like pro-choice people have no right to force their belief onto the rest of the population.

I live in America, but I am sure there is a large portion of Australians who are pro-life, just like every other country.

Why should their hard-earned money - paid to the government in the form of taxes - be spent to fund something that they believe to be immoral, evil, and just plain wrong??????


In my opinion:
Tax money should be kept away from funding Abortion
Socialized Medicine should be kept away from sponsoring Abortion
I believe that war is morally wrong. My tax dollars still get spent on it.

If you don't want a baby, quit your f*&^in'. Personal responsibility, not just personal freedom.
Hear hear! Woman who like having sex are evil sluts!

God, I just made myself sick. I seriously feel like throwing up after writing that tripe.

I believe that war is morally wrong. My tax dollars still get spent on it.

So? Change that, don't just complain.

Only if you stop grossly generalising and throwing unwarranted mud.

Trust me, from this thread, my comments are no longer unwarranted.

If you don't want a baby, quit your f*&^in'. Personal responsibility, not just personal freedom.

Sigh, see "rape, forced sex, failure of medicine, etc." arguements.

Adoption is going down. Bad, but true. Also, a mother's first reaction is to keep her child.
If you're going to ban abortion, you have to provide major help. Otherwise they get back-streets… and do you actually understand how bad a rape is?

I do agree with you there. Our Adoption System needs to be streamlined, reformed, and made more efficient, as well as simpler.

If you don't want a baby, quit your f*&^in'. Personal responsibility, not just personal freedom. Personal responsibility for those who should bear it is impossible here; however, outlawing abortion is the lesser of two evils. Or should the unborn foetus bear responsibility? "The sin of life is life itself"

Personal responsibility for those who should bear it is impossible here; however, outlawing abortion is the lesser of two evils. Or should the unborn foetus bear responsibility? "The sin of life is life itself"
Then lets just make it a born fetus

So? Change that, don't just complain.

I was pointing out the idiocy in that guy's argument.

Personal responsibility for those who should bear it is impossible here; however, outlawing abortion is the lesser of two evils. Or should the unborn foetus bear responsibility? "The sin of life is life itself"

No it isn't. You're literally telling people that they can't do as they wish with their bodies.

Hear hear! Woman who like having sex are evil sluts!

God, I just made myself sick. I seriously feel like throwing up after writing that tripe.

I'd roll my eyes again at that other guy (girl?) but I think i've sprained that particular muscle since reading this thread. :(

Seriously. What's wrong with abortion?

If a girl gets pregnant through rape, shouldn't it be her choice whether or not to have an abortion? It happened to her, she doesn't want it. She is not responsible. She should be able to have an abortion. It's her choice.

This is a democracy.

I don't support the latest stage of abortion, mainly because the baby has a very good chance to live. But before then, abortion should be legal

Oh the side note.
I want one girl to stand out of the crowd and admit that she was raped, and had an unwanted baby.

I believe that war is morally wrong. My tax dollars still get spent on it.

Correct, but Defense spending is not an infringement on the rights of the people.

If you are against war you can vote to elect officials who are also against war without hampering anyone's civil liberties....

You're literally telling people that they can't do as they wish with their bodies.

And I don't see a problem with that.

Seriously. What's wrong with abortion?

If a girl gets pregnant through rape, shouldn't it be her choice whether or not to have an abortion? It happened to her, she doesn't want it. She is not responsible. She should be able to have an abortion. It's her choice.

This is a democracy.

I don't support the latest stage of abortion, mainly because the baby has a very good chance to live. But before then, abortion should be legal
If a foetus gets conceived through rape, shouldn't it not bear the consequences?
As I said, lesser of two evils.

And I don't see a problem with that.
thank god some of us do

And I don't see a problem with that.

Big fan of slavery then, are you?

I was pointing out the idiocy in that guy's argument.

Idiocy in my argument?? I think my argument holds a lot of merit, especially if you consider my second response.

If a foetus gets conceived through rape, shouldn't it not bear the consequences?
As I said, lesser of two evils.

It's still a part of the woman, so it's still up to the woman.

See fetus=arm example.

Correct, but Defense spending is not an infringement on the rights of the people.

If you are against war you can vote to elect officials who are also against war without hampering anyone's civil liberties....
Did anyone read the post I quoted? I was mocking it, not making a serious argument.

thank god some of us do I apply the libertarian principles to abortion.

Yeah, Serapindal, knock off the control freakery. Try to use morality as a basis, not… well, the current vacuum of reason you're using.

Did anyone read the post I quoted? I was mocking it, not making a serious argument.

Read it? I wrote it...

Correct, but Defense spending is not an infringement on the rights of the people.

If you are against war you can vote to elect officials who are also against war without hampering anyone's civil liberties....

Neither is abortion an infringement on the rights of a citizen

I apply the libertarian principles to abortion.

Yeah, Serapindal, knock off the control freakery. Try to use morality as a basis, not… well, the current vacuum of reason you're using.

What? No you don't? Libertarians would be in favor of abortion!

Read it? I wrote it...
Yeah, I realized that just as I hit "Submit Reply".

Anyways, your argument is still fallicious, as abortion doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.

I apply the libertarian principles to abortion.

Yeah, Serapindal, knock off the control freakery. Try to use morality as a basis, not… well, the current vacuum of reason you're using.

I agree. Serapindal, your current arguments sound both childish and stupid, and you make yourself look like a warmonger, and thats coming from someone who's against abortion.

If a foetus gets conceived through rape, shouldn't it not bear the consequences?
As I said, lesser of two evils.

It as what? The fetus or the mother?

And you just admitted that a fetus is not a human.

Neither is abortion an infringement on the rights of a citizen

No, but banning it is...

If someone is anti war they can vote to get war banned, or atleast lower defense spending...

If someone is anti abortion they can't do anything without infringing on other people's rights.

Morally I believe that abortion is wrong, but I am just one person, I have no right to force that belief on anyone else. Just like pro-choice people have no right to force their belief onto the rest of the population.

It is logically impossible for someone who is pro-choice to force their opinion on the rest of the population - as the entire opinion is that it is not the place of the pro-choice person to decide. No one is forcing anyone else to have an abortion, or even to consider it.

I live in America, but I am sure there is a large portion of Australians who are pro-life, just like every other country.

There are a large portion of pro-choicers who are pro-life in most countries as well.

Why should their hard-earned money - paid to the government in the form of taxes - be spent to fund something that they believe to be immoral, evil, and just plain wrong??????

*looks at law*, *looks back*

Where exactly is there a law using tax money to fund abortions?

In my opinion:
Tax money should be kept away from funding Abortion

You mean like it already is?

Socialized Medicine should be kept away from sponsoring Abortion

Well, we don't even have any such thing in the US, so I guess this isn't really a problem either.

Seriously. What's wrong with abortion?

If a girl gets pregnant through rape, shouldn't it be her choice whether or not to have an abortion? It happened to her, she doesn't want it. She is not responsible. She should be able to have an abortion. It's her choice.

This is a democracy.

I don't support the latest stage of abortion, mainly because the baby has a very good chance to live. But before then, abortion should be legal

Oh the side note.
I want one girl to stand out of the crowd and admit that she was raped, and had an unwanted baby.

If a Fetus gest conceived through rape, shouldn't it be his or her choice whether to be aborted or not? It IS the Fetus who is getting Aborted AFter all.

However, you can't consent in the U.S.A. until your 18. Oh well.

It is logically impossible for someone who is pro-choice to force their opinion on the rest of the population - as the entire opinion is that it is not the place of the pro-choice person to decide. No one is forcing anyone else to have an abortion, or even to consider it.



There are a large portion of pro-choicers who are pro-life in most countries as well.



*looks at law*, *looks back*

Where exactly is there a law using tax money to fund abortions?



You mean like it already is?



Well, we don't even have any such thing in the US, so I guess this isn't really a problem either.


I was referring to Australia in the entire length of my post... In the beginning of your comments it seems like you completely agree with me, so I don't understand why I sense hostility in your tone... I am not saying to ban abortion...just that Pro-life people have no choice...

The Right to your Body is NOT a Constitutional Right. Find it in the Constitution. YOU CAN'T.

It's just a Fabricated Piece of Information.

If a Fetus gest concepted through rape, shouldn't it be his or her choice whether to be aborted or not?

That's like saying the plant should have a choice whether or not it wants to be cut.

It can't think.

Why does it seem like everyone is completely mis-interpreting my posts?

If a Fetus gest concepted through rape, shouldn't it be his or her choice whether to be aborted or not?

It's a frigging fetus! At most, it's the appendage to the woman, just a part of her!

Pro-lifers who make exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother:

1. In one sentence explain why you're pro-life. (Examples: I believe the fetus has a right to life or I believe destroying the potential for life is wrong. Whatever, just keep it short and snappy and consistent.)

2. If your answer to number one was that you think the fetus has a right to life, why does the fetus' life not factor into the equation in a rape, incest or life of the mother scenario? Does its life not deserve protection because of the circumstances behind its creation? If your answer to number one was something similar to the fetus' potential life, then ask yourself why it matters to destroy something with potential. By that argument, I could justify outlawing all contraception.

3. Do you make the "rape, incest, life of the mother" exception just to avoid the extremist label? Because if you make this exception to seem sensible and rational and to avoid harsh criticism from your opponents, you're doing yourself a disservice. You actually seem inconsistent and confused about the issue you are so passionately defending. You hold a weaker position when you make an irrational exception (assuming your premise is that you think the fetus has a right to life).

And for the pro-choiers: no, this statistic shouldn't alarm or offend you. If you think abortion is a right, then be pleased that women are exercising their right so freely. If you're pro-life because you think the fetus has a right to life, then stop making arbitrary exceptions to that truth, otherwise you're justifying murder based on your OWN premise.

The Right to your Body is NOT a Constitutional Right. Find it in the Constitution. YOU CAN'T.

It's just a Fabricated Piece of Information.
Read the damn Constitution. Just because it doesn't mention a right, doesn't mean you don't have it.

The Right to your Body is NOT a Constitutional Right. Find it in the Constitution. YOU CAN'T.

There is this thing called reading comprehensioin. It allows you to realize that exact words need not be used for something to be a part of a statement. You should look into that.

The Right to your Body is NOT a Constitutional Right. Find it in the Constitution. YOU CAN'T.

It's just a Fabricated Piece of Information.
Hmmm I would think it would be covered in parts under “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness”


lib•er•ty P Pronunciation Key (l b r-t )
n. pl. lib•er•ties
1.
a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.

Pro-lifers who make exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother:

1. In one sentence explain why you're pro-life. (Examples: I believe the fetus has a right to life or I believe destroying the potential for life is wrong. Whatever, just keep it short and snappy and consistent.)

2. If your answer to number one was that you think the fetus has a right to life, why does the fetus' life not factor into the equation in a rape, incest or life of the mother scenario? Does its life not deserve protection because of the circumstances behind its creation? If your answer to number one was something similar to the fetus' potential life, then ask yourself why it matters to destroy something with potential. By that argument, I could justify outlawing all contraception.

3. Do you make the "rape, incest, life of the mother" exception just to avoid the extremist label? Because if you make this exception to seem sensible and rational and to avoid harsh criticism from your opponents, you're doing yourself a disservice. You actually seem inconsistent and confused about the issue you are so passionately defending. You hold a weaker position when you make an irrational exception (assuming your premise is that you think the fetus has a right to life).

And for the pro-choiers: no, this statistic shouldn't alarm or offend you. If you think abortion is a right, then be pleased that women are exercising their right so freely. If you're pro-life because you think the fetus has a right to life, then stop making arbitrary exceptions to that truth, otherwise you're justifying murder based on your OWN premise.

He's got a point there.

The Right to your Body is NOT a Constitutional Right. Find it in the Constitution. YOU CAN'T.

It's just a Fabricated Piece of Information.

Tenth amendment. Plus the amendment banning slavery.

YOU LOSE.

And for the pro-choiers: no, this statistic shouldn't alarm or offend you. If you think abortion is a right, then be pleased that women are exercising their right so freely. If you're pro-life because you think the fetus has a right to life, then stop making arbitrary exceptions to that truth, otherwise you're justifying murder based on your OWN premise.

Not all people who are pro-choice are all, "YAY FOR ABORTION! LET'S ALL HAVE ABORTIONS!!!!!!!!!! WEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" In fact, I haven't met a single one.

Most pro-choicers believe that abortion should be safe, legal, aand rare. Thus, a huge number of abortions would be rather disturbing, as it measn that we aren't doing a proper job of educating and providing for women so that we have less unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Not all people who are pro-choice are all, "YAY FOR ABORTION! LET'S ALL HAVE ABORTIONS!!!!!!!!!! WEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" In fact, I haven't met a single one.

Most pro-choicers believe that abortion should be safe, legal, aand rare. Thus, a huge number of abortions would be rather disturbing, as it measn that we aren't doing a proper job of educating and providing for women so that we have less unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Again will you marry me :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Hmmm I would think it would be covered in parts under “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

Life is before Liberty. A Fetus is still genetically a human. YOU PHAIL.

Pro-choicers: please tell me where in the Constitution it says that you have the right to somebody else's life. The fetus isn't an appendage - it has its own separate DNA unique from the mother's, its own blood type, and after a few months, its own heartbeat and brainwave. Whether you like it or not, the fetus is clearly a separate entity from its mother from day one. However small or stupid or weak or insignificant you think the fetus' life is, there's no denying that an embryo/fetus exists independently from the mother's life, it just happens to reside within the mother. Claiming anything else is just scientifically ignorant.

If abortion's a right, then why put that Clintonesque restriction on it? That's like saying we have the right to freedom of speech and then telling everyone they can do it, just not too much!

Not all people who are pro-choice are all, "YAY FOR ABORTION! LET'S ALL HAVE ABORTIONS!!!!!!!!!! WEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" In fact, I haven't met a single one.

Most pro-choicers believe that abortion should be safe, legal, aand rare. Thus, a huge number of abortions would be rather disturbing, as it measn that we aren't doing a proper job of educating and providing for women so that we have less unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Ok, assuming the figures in the FIRST POST are correct, then that's still only 1.67% of ALL AUSTRALIAN WOMEN HAVING ABORTIONS. THAT IS NOT A LOT.



Life is before Liberty. A Fetus is still genetically a human. YOU PHAIL.

TENTH AMENDMENT. ALSO, THE ONE THAT BANS SLAVERY. YOU"VE LOST, GO HOME.

"The Conditition of Being Free from Control or Restriction?"

That's caled ANARCHY.

EVERY RULE IN THE WORLD, consists of either controlling, or restricting, fact.

Please, be quit, you're doing yourself nor conservatives any favours.

To simplify, I am pro-choice but I don't think the Government should sponsor Abortion...which it does in Australia...plain and simple...hopefully there will be no more misunderstandings.

Pro-choicers: please tell me where in the Constitution it says that you have the right to somebody else's life. The fetus isn't an appendage - it has its own separate DNA unique from the mother's, its own blood type, and after a few months, its own heartbeat and brainwave. Whether you like it or not, the fetus is clearly a separate entity from its mother from day one. However small or stupid or weak or insignificant you think the fetus' life is, there's no denying that an embryo/fetus exists independently from the mother's life, it just happens to reside within the mother. Claiming anything else is just scientifically ignorant.

If the fetus exists independently from the mother's life, then the fetus shouldn't have to depend on the mother. Besides. Have you ever seen the miracle of life?

To simplify, I am pro-choice but I don't think the Government should sponsor Abortion...which it does in Australia...plain and simple...hopefully there will be no more misunderstandings.

Look, it probably just comes down as funding to research institutions, or businesses. You can't just ban that without taking out other funds for other non abortion stuff.

It doesn't matter if life or liberty is more important. Nobody has the right to infringe upon the liberty of others. If you think the fetus has the right to life, then you obviously think an abortion is an infringement upon its liberty. You probably also think the woman's assertion that she can end her own baby's life is tantamount to slavery (the right to own someone else's life and do what you want with that life). If you're pro-choice, you probably think that the baby has no right to life earlier than X-point (all pro-choicers place that line at a different point in the pregnancy), and so therefore denying a woman the right to an abortion is a violation of her liberty. There's no sense in arguing the Constitution when you don't even have your premises down yet.

Pro-lifers and pro-choicers can make EQUALLY VALID CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS DEPENDING ON WHETHER YOU THINK THE FETUS HAS A RIGHT TO LIFE. Establish that issue first before you guys throw around the 10th and 14th Amendments.

Look, it probably just comes down as funding to research institutions, or businesses. You can't just ban that without taking out other funds for other non abortion stuff.

No, it works like insurance. If you have a heart operation the government pays the doctors and the hospital. If you have a perscription to be filled Medicare pays the pharmacist. If you have an abortion medicare pays the doctor and clinic.

Its itemized, except instead of coming from a private institution like insurance it comes from the collective population's tax money.

It doesn't matter if life or liberty is more important. Nobody has the right to infringe upon the liberty of others. If you think the fetus has the right to life, then you obviously think an abortion is an infringement upon its liberty. You probably also think the woman's assertion that she can end her own baby's life is tantamount to slavery (the right to own someone else's life and do what you want with that life). If you're pro-choice, you probably think that the baby has no right to life earlier than X-point (all pro-choicers place that line at a different point in the pregnancy), and so therefore denying a woman the right to an abortion is a violation of her liberty. There's no sense in arguing the Constitution when you don't even have your premises down yet.

Pro-lifers and pro-choicers can make EQUALLY VALID CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS DEPENDING ON WHETHER YOU THINK THE FETUS HAS A RIGHT TO LIFE. Establish that issue first before you guys throw around the 10th and 14th Amendments.

Nope, the Supreme ruled that a fetus is not a human life in a case where a woman claimed being pregnant was enough to classify her as carpooling.

The fetus' life is independent, I already explained how. What you're saying is that it can't take care of itself because it depends on the mother for housing and food. Right, explain to me how this isn't true of a one-year-old baby. The only difference between the one year old and the fetus is location. Both can't take care of themselves without the mother, yet I think we'd classify the one year old as a separate human life. It's not the location and neediness of the baby/fetus that determines separate human life - the fetus is genetically and physically independent in that it has its own DNA, bloodtype, heartbeat, brainwave, etc. and its own separate body. It just lives within the mother.

Anyways, Medicare is a waste of Tax Payer Money, so it doesn't matter in the end.

The fetus' life is independent, I already explained how. What you're saying is that it can't take care of itself because it depends on the mother for housing and food. Right, explain to me how this isn't true of a one-year-old baby. The only difference between the one year old and the fetus is location. Both can't take care of themselves without the mother, yet I think we'd classify the one year old as a separate human life. It's not the location and neediness of the baby/fetus that determines separate human life - the fetus is genetically and physically independent in that it has its own DNA, bloodtype, heartbeat, brainwave, etc. and its own separate body. It just lives within the mother.

Eh. You lost dude.
The supreme court says a fetus isn't a life. Find another point.

Nope, the Supreme ruled that a fetus is not a human life in a case where a woman claimed being pregnant was enough to classify her as carpooling.

You didn't say anything to refute what I wrote in my post. We're not talking about what the Supreme Court has done or will do - we're talking about what the Supreme Court should do. Before we start applying the US Constitution to the issue of abortion, we need to work out whether the fetus has the right to life. Only then can we move forward about constitutional protections.

Your same Supreme Court also said that Bush won the 2000 election.

Stop being a hypocrite. You can't pick or choose Supreme Court Decisions.

You're committing a logical fallacy. I didn't 'lose' because the Supreme Court disagrees with me. Unless the Supreme Court is comprised of all powerful and all knowing deities who are completely infallible, it's possible, I hope you can admit, that they're wrong. We're not arguing about what Congress, the President, the Supreme Court or Bob Johnson has to say about abortion. I didn't lose because you didn't refute my scientific points. When you can explain why I'm wrong based on the merits of my argument, then I'll concede. Until then, you're committing the bandwagon fallacy.

You didn't say anything to refute what I wrote in my post. We're not talking about what the Supreme Court has done or will do - we're talking about what the Supreme Court should do. Before we start applying the US Constitution to the issue of abortion, we need to work out whether the fetus has the right to life. Only then can we move forward about constitutional protections.

No, your point was that "You have to determine whether fetuses were life." And I did.

Anyways, Medicare is a waste of Tax Payer Money, so it doesn't matter in the end.

Lie.

The fetus' life is independent, I already explained how. What you're saying is that it can't take care of itself because it depends on the mother for housing and food. Right, explain to me how this isn't true of a one-year-old baby. The only difference between the one year old and the fetus is location. Both can't take care of themselves without the mother, yet I think we'd classify the one year old as a separate human life. It's not the location and neediness of the baby/fetus that determines separate human life - the fetus is genetically and physically independent in that it has its own DNA, bloodtype, heartbeat, brainwave, etc. and its own separate body. It just lives within the mother.

The difference is that the fetus can't even BREATH on its own.

Your same Supreme Court also said that Bush won the 2000 election.

Red herring. Not the point here.

You're committing a logical fallacy. I didn't 'lose' because the Supreme Court disagrees with me. Unless the Supreme Court is comprised of all power and all knowing deities who are completely infallible, it's possible, I hope you can admit, that they're wrong. We're not arguing about what Congress, the President, the Supreme Court or Bob Johnson has to say about abortion. I didn't lose because you didn't refute my scientific points. When you can explain why I'm wrong based on the merits of my argument, then I'll concede. Until then, you're committing the bandwagon fallacy.

Your scientific point, also applies with parasites.

Oh yeah. And another thing.
Independent means it does not have to depend on anything.
Fetus has to depend on the mother.

Your same Supreme Court also said that Bush won the 2000 election.

Stop being a hypocrite. You can't pick or choose Supreme Court Decisions.
Who was picking and choosing? I did not see anyone choosing cases
Though it is amazing the double standard ... the feeling I get is you approve of the 2000 decision but not of the featal life decision

Seems to me YOU then would be picking and choosing

It doesn't matter what the U.S. Supreme Court says....

This is an argument about the number of abortions in Australia.

Even if the conversation shifted to America, the concept remains that not all international law bodies have a commonality.

Eh. You lost dude.
The supreme court says a fetus isn't a life. Find another point.

Ah...so you believe that if the Supreme Court says something, it's automatically right and true? Scientifically, a fetus canbe considered a human life. Since it's already been pointed out earlier in this thread, I will not rehash the specific arguments. With the abortion argument, one must also consider the effects on the mother after an abortion. I did a research paper last year for Part. In Govt. on abortion and (I'd have to dig up the links if you'd like to see them) a majority of potential mothers who had abortions reported having depression and a strong urge to have another child afterwords, not caring who they had to sleep with to have it. Like I said, if you wish, I could dig up the links.

Who was picking and choosing? I did not see anyone choosing cases
Though it is amazing the double standard ... the feeling I get is you approve of the 2000 decision but not of the featal life decision

Seems to me YOU then would be picking and choosing

Actually, I don't approve of either, so don't lay this on me.

The Supreme Court is terrible. I honestly say the last Supreme Court Decision I agreed with, was Brown vs. Board.

Those effects are temporary, while having a child will change your life forever.

I completly agree with Phylum on her statement. It is always just the mother's fault, never the father's fault.

Actually, I don't approve of either, so don't lay this on me.

The Supreme Court is terrible. I honestly say the last Supreme Court Decision I agreed with, was Brown vs. Board.

God, you're just trying to shoot yourself in the foot in this argument, aren't you?

The fetus isn't a parasite. The fetus is a human being with human DNA. The parasite has its own genetic code and it's not meant to be there. The fetus is in the woman because the human body is built for reproduction. That's so old and tired. You made a false analogy.

We haven't scientifically determined if the fetus is a life. The Supreme Court did. The Supreme Court doesn't decide right and wrong, it decides the law. I'm telling you to consider the scientific evidence. Again, committing the fallacies of appeal to an authority and bandwagon.

And yeah, the fetus has to depend on the mother. The baby also has to depend on the mother for years and years after its birth. The only difference is location. I thought we already addressed this.

The fetus isn't a parasite. The fetus is a human being with human DNA. The parasite has its own genetic code and it's not meant to be there. The fetus is in the woman because the human body is built for reproduction. That's so old and tired. You made a false analogy.

We haven't scientifically determined if the fetus is a life. The Supreme Court did. The Supreme Court doesn't decide right and wrong, it decides the law. I'm telling you to consider the scientific evidence. Again, committing the fallacies of appeal to an authority and bandwagon.

And yeah, the fetus has to depend on the mother. The baby also has to depend on the mother for years and years after its birth. The only difference is location. I thought we already addressed this.

The problem is that the fetus can't even BREATH on its own, or maintain it's life through that most basic function until it becomes a baby.

The fetus isn't a parasite. The fetus is a human being with human DNA. The parasite has its own genetic code and it's not meant to be there. The fetus is in the woman because the human body is built for reproduction. That's so old and tired. You made a false analogy.

Well done, very well done indeed.

The problem is that the fetus can't even BREATH on its own, or maintain it's life through that most basic function until it becomes a baby.

Why is that a problem? That's an arbitrary standard that you decided matters. Please explain to me why breathing on one's own is the standard for life or protection. So, if you ever can't breathe on your own, you cease being human? Or is it just that once you've been able to breathe on your own for even a second, suddenly the mystical breath of life fills your lungs and you actually deserve to be protected? I don't understand why that's a substantive standard for you to place on a fetus. Why can't we just as easily go with heartbeat, brainwave or even DNA?

The fetus isn't a parasite. The fetus is a human being with human DNA. The parasite has its own genetic code and it's not meant to be there. The fetus is in the woman because the human body is built for reproduction. That's so old and tired. You made a false analogy.

We haven't scientifically determined if the fetus is a life. The Supreme Court did. The Supreme Court doesn't decide right and wrong, it decides the law. I'm telling you to consider the scientific evidence. Again, committing the fallacies of appeal to an authority and bandwagon.

And yeah, the fetus has to depend on the mother. The baby also has to depend on the mother for years and years after its birth. The only difference is location. I thought we already addressed this.

I was joking about the parasite argument. Jeeze.

And you could say the supreme court does deicde what is right and wrong. What the supreme court says is law. And you must follow the law whether you like it or not.

And what I meant by the fetus is that the mother doesn't have to provide it air and nutriets. With a fetus, it can't sustain life on it's own. Only when it can sustain life on it's own, can it be considered a life. This is why I do not like abortion during the final stages of pregnancy, because the child has a chance to survive.

Why is that a problem? That's an arbitrary standard that you decided matters. Please explain to me why breathing on one's own is the standard for life or protection. So, if you ever can't breathe on your own, you cease being human? Or is it just that once you've been able to breathe on your own for even a second, suddenly the mystical breath of life fills your lungs and you actually deserve to be protected? I don't understand why that's a substantive standard for you to place on a fetus. Why can't we just as easily go with heartbeat, brainwave or even DNA?

The difference is that the fetus can't even do that, much less a variety of functions. That's your difference between the 1 year old and the fetus.

Anyway, I"m off. Time to do homework.

I was joking about the parasite argument. Jeeze.

And you could say the supreme court does deicde what is right and wrong. What the supreme court says is law. And you must follow the law whether you like it or not.

And what I meant by the fetus is that the mother doesn't have to provide it air and nutriets. With a fetus, it can sustain life on it's own. Only when it can sustain life on it's own, can it be considered a life. This is why I do not like abortion during the final stages of pregnancy, because the child has a chance to survive.

I never said I didn't have to follow what the Supreme Court says. I just said that it doesn't decide right and wrong. First lesson of any philosophy class you'll ever take: what's legal and what's right aren't always synonymous. That being said, I didn't lose because the Supreme Court isn't an infallible entity incapable of making stupid or flat-out wrong decisions. I'm allowed to make a scientific argument about abortion and still be correct even though the law is against me. Right?

A baby can't sustain itself without milk and warmth from the mother. It can't feed itself or clothe itself. Like the other poster, you've created an arbitrary standard for the right to life: the fetus must be self-sustaining. What you're really saying is that the fetus must be self-sustaining outside the womb. Since a baby isn't self-sustaining until maybe three years old, you're actually discussing location. The fetus is dependent on the mother's care in and out of the womb. The only difference for the fetus is its proximate location.

I never said I didn't have to follow what the Supreme Court says. I just said that it doesn't decide right and wrong. First lesson of any philosophy class you'll ever take: what's legal and what's right aren't always synonymous. That being said, I didn't lose because the Supreme Court isn't an infallible entity incapable of making stupid or flat-out wrong decisions. I'm allowed to make a scientific argument about abortion and still be correct even though the law is against me. Right?

A baby can't sustain itself without milk and warmth from the mother. It can't feed itself or clothe itself. Like the other poster, you've created an arbitrary standard for the right to life: the fetus must be self-sustaining. What you're really saying is that the fetus must be self-sustaining outside the womb. Since a baby isn't self-sustaining until maybe three years old, you're actually discussing location. The fetus is dependent on the mother's care in and out of the womb. The only difference for the fetus is its proximate location.


fe·tus Audio pronunciation of "fetus" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fts)
n. pl. fe·tus·es

1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

You can't argue location because a fetus will always be in the mother's womb.

I never said I didn't have to follow what the Supreme Court says. I just said that it doesn't decide right and wrong. First lesson of any philosophy class you'll ever take: what's legal and what's right aren't always synonymous. That being said, I didn't lose because the Supreme Court isn't an infallible entity incapable of making stupid or flat-out wrong decisions. I'm allowed to make a scientific argument about abortion and still be correct even though the law is against me. Right?

A baby can't sustain itself without milk and warmth from the mother. It can't feed itself or clothe itself. Like the other poster, you've created an arbitrary standard for the right to life: the fetus must be self-sustaining. What you're really saying is that the fetus must be self-sustaining outside the womb. Since a baby isn't self-sustaining until maybe three years old, you're actually discussing location. The fetus is dependent on the mother's care in and out of the womb. The only difference for the fetus is its proximate location.

Outside of the womb the baby can be taken care of by anyone, and there are people willing to, if not adoption there are kindergartens etc. for during the day, so the burden need not fall entirely on the mother. For example there is substitue milk.

Pro-choicers: please tell me where in the Constitution it says that you have the right to somebody else's life.

It doesn't. Of course, you do have the right to take someone else's life in self-defense. You also are not legally required to save someone's life, even if you can.

The fetus isn't an appendage - it has its own separate DNA unique from the mother's,

Separate DNA means nothing. Some people have several types of separate and unique DNA within them.

its own blood type,

Once it develops blood cells.

and after a few months, its own heartbeat and brainwave.

Last I checked, brainwaves were first detected at something like 22 months. At that point, elective abortions aren't even legal for the most part.

Whether you like it or not, the fetus is clearly a separate entity from its mother from day one.

It is a separate entity. Whether it is a separate human, or even a separate life up until a certain point in development, is debateable.

Meanwhile, there is no fetus "from day one". At day one it is a zygote. It then becomes an embryo. At 8 weeks, it becomes a fetus.

Man, the people of this game are all too liberal. :headbang:

Ok, assuming the figures in the FIRST POST are correct, then that's still only 1.67% of ALL AUSTRALIAN WOMEN HAVING ABORTIONS. THAT IS NOT A LOT.

I didn't say it was a lot. I simply refuted the idiotic claim that someone who is pro-choice cannot worry about the number of abortions ocurring.

Quoting a dictionary? Brilliant. No, seriously, how did that definition refute what I said? Unless you're going to explain the quote, don't assume it's self-explanatory. I acknowledge it's in the mother - I also said that doesn't matter because a baby isn't self-sustaining either. I deduced the issue to location, not viability. I don't know how to say this any clearer before you'll understand.

And Blu-Tac, thank you for the meaningful response. That's actually a good point worthy of a debate. But I don't think that justifies murder. Let's say a woman gives birth out in the middle of nowhere. She can't give the baby to anyone - there are no churches or social services or doorsteps wherein to leave her baby. Can she murder the baby outside the womb because it places an undue burden on her? If the fetus indeed has a right to life, the location of it is irrelevant to whether it should be protected. Burden also makes the situation irrelevant because the mother doesn't have the right to murder because of a burden.

Man, the people of this game are all too liberal. :headbang:

I figured that out a long time ago.

Quoting a dictionary? Brilliant. No, seriously, how did that definition refute what I said? Unless you're going to explain the quote, don't assume it's self-explanatory. I acknowledge it's in the mother - I also said that doesn't matter because a baby isn't self-sustaining either. I deduced the issue to location, not viability. I don't know how to say this any clearer before you'll understand.

And Blu-Tac, thank you for the meaningful response. That's actually a good point worthy of a debate. But I don't think that justifies murder. Let's say a woman gives birth out in the middle of nowhere. She can't give the baby to anyone - there are no churches or social services or doorsteps wherein to leave her baby. Can she murder the baby outside the womb because it places an undue burden on her? If the fetus indeed has a right to life, the location of it is irrelevant to whether it should be protected. Burden also makes the situation irrelevant because the mother doesn't have the right to murder because of a burden.

In a debate, that would have dropped your entire case.
You can't state location with a fetus. Because a fetus will always be in a womb. Past birth, it is no longer a fetus.

Last I checked, brainwaves were first detected at something like 22 months. At that point, elective abortions aren't even legal for the most part.

22 months? You must be confused. :D

A fetus is considered a "member of the species homo sapiens who is carried in the womb."

I was just thinking how different the debate would be if humans laid eggs instead...

In a debate, that would have dropped your entire case.
You can't state location with a fetus. Because a fetus will always be in a womb. Past birth, it is no longer a fetus.

I was refering to a baby, not a fetus in my argument, sorry if you misread it.

Man, the people of this game are all too liberal. :headbang:
yeah, where do they get off thinking that women can be independant moral agents able to make the correct decision for themselves and their families??

yeah, where do they get off thinking that women can be independant moral agents able to make the correct decision for themselves and their families??

Where do they get off thinking they can allow innocent beings get killed?

It doesn't. Of course, you do have the right to take someone else's life in self-defense. You also are not legally required to save someone's life, even if you can.



Separate DNA means nothing. Some people have several types of separate and unique DNA within them.



Once it develops blood cells.



Last I checked, brainwaves were first detected at something like 22 months. At that point, elective abortions aren't even legal for the most part.



It is a separate entity. Whether it is a separate human, or even a separate life up until a certain point in development, is debateable.

Meanwhile, there is no fetus "from day one". At day one it is a zygote. It then becomes an embryo. At 8 weeks, it becomes a fetus.

1. Separate DNA is important because a few people suggested the fetus is nothing more than appendage of the mother. The fetus has its own unique DNA - a combination of its mother's and father's genetic code. The fetus, therefore, can't be an appendage of the mother with DNA that's not even the mother's. As for bloodtype, your bloodtype's determined in your DNA. Just more proof that a fetus can't be an appendage of the mother's. It's most definitely foreign and human.

2. 22 months? Okay, you mean 22 weeks. Anyway, do you have a source? Every statistic I've ever read disputes your figure.

Heart Beat and Brainwave (http://www.cbrinfo.org/RCC/Articles/credo.html)

An unborn baby’s heartbeat is recognized at 21 days and the brainwave is measurable by EEG at five weeks—both well within the first trimester.

Another one (http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,9851,00.html)

The embryonic heart starts beating 22 days after conception, or about five weeks after the last menstrual period, which by convention we call the fifth week of pregnancy. The heart at this stage is too small to hear, even with amplification, but it can sometimes be seen as a flickering in the chest if an ultrasound is done as early as four weeks after conception.

This website also says that at 20 weeks you can hear the fetus' heartbeat through a stethoscope. Maybe that's what you meant.

From day one means conception. There's nothing genetically different between conception, birth, and death. It's obviously a separate human because of its DNA. There's really no disputing that. I see why you might dispute life since that's sort of an emotional or philosophical term, but biologically it's quite separate and quite human.

Where do they get off thinking they can allow innocent beings get killed?

Check, and mate. Well done McClella, you beat me to it.

Where do they get off thinking they can allow innocent beings get killed?
im pretty sure it has to do with the aforementioned thinking that women can be independant moral agents in making their own choice for themselves and their families.

In a debate, that would have dropped your entire case.
You can't state location with a fetus. Because a fetus will always be in a womb. Past birth, it is no longer a fetus.


Fetus is just a term to describe a baby within the womb, just like newborn, toddler, adolescent and teenager are terms to describe human beings throughout their different stages of growth. Yeah, the "fetus" can't be anywhere but inside the womb because being a fetus means to be inside the womb. But being a fetus doesn't mean it's not entitled to the right to life. My point is to get you to see location as arbitrary and ultimately pointless in determining the right to life. Do you see why quoting the dictionary doesn't counter my argument?

im pretty sure it has to do with the aforementioned thinking that women can be independant moral agents in making their own choice for themselves and their families.

Look, I'm all for womens rights, but then again I'm all for everyones rights, and that means I'm for the fetus's rights as well.

I have no problem with women making decisions that affect their own bodies, which is why I am fully in support of drug legalization. But when a woman decides to affect the life of another person--her unborn child--in the name of women's rights is when I get a little bothered.

im pretty sure it has to do with the aforementioned thinking that women can be independant moral agents in making their own choice for themselves and their families.

Women are indeed independant moral agents.

Don't get me wrong I am pro-choice, but just because people can make decisions for themselves doesn't mean that it will be the right decision in the eyes of society.

The debate is not about the equality of women, but whether or not abortion is murder.

Is the entire idea of fetus or human being not really pinned down? If a mother wants her unborn child it is a baby. If she changes her mind the next day and wants it aborted it is automatically a fetus because its her body and she can kill her child if she wants. Those who want their child and those who don't have their babies described differently. I suppose it is all on the woman's state of mind. After all you can be charged with murder if you hurt a pregnant woman and her baby dies. Because she WANTED the baby. Anyway, I'm sure you don't hear a future mother say: "Hey, the fetus just kicked!"

The debate is not about the equality of women, but whether or not abortion is murder.
Which is, as all other popular debates, impossible.

Right. Women's rights and all that jazz are ultimately irrelevant if the fetus has a right to life. That's the central issue of the debate, not whether women are oppressed or independent moral agents or whatever other buzz word we can think of.

Is the entire idea of fetus or human being not really pinned down? If a mother wants her unborn child it is a baby. If she changes her mind the next day and wants it aborted it is automatically a fetus because its her body and she can kill her child if she wants. Those who want their child and those who don't have their babies described differently. I suppose it is all on the woman's state of mind. After all you can be charged with murder if you hurt a pregnant woman and her baby dies. Because she WANTED the baby. Anyway, I'm sure you don't hear a future mother say: "Hey, the fetus just kicked!"


Exactly, there's a major inconsistency in the law. I'm pro-life, but even I'm like, "For god's sakes, just make a decision already! Which is it?! Does the fetus has a right to life or not!?"

Exactly, there's a major inconsistency in the law. I'm pro-life, but even I'm like, "For god's sakes, just make a decision already! Which is it?! Does the fetus has a right to life or not!?"

It has a right to life

Hell, even getting raped makes it your own damned fault for not packing heat, and fighting the guy off.
Sounds like someone wants to legalize rape, as long as you do it to women who aren't carrying weaponry. Beautiful.

Women are indeed independant moral agents.

Don't get me wrong I am pro-choice, but just because people can make decisions for themselves doesn't mean that it will be the right decision in the eyes of society.

The debate is not about the equality of women, but whether or not abortion is murder.
you will never convince me that abortion is murder. a fetus is not a child.

BUT

if you would allow an abortion for ANY reason besides saving the life of the mother than you are in fact allowing it to be a moral choice.

if abortion is murder, then aborting the fetus created by rape or incest is still murder. if abortion is murder than aborting any fetus with any sort of genetic defect or deformity no matter how horrible, is murder.

Sounds like someone wants to legalize rape, as long as you do it to women who aren't carrying weaponry. Beautiful.

Thats one guy, hes the only person I've ever come across who has ever said something remotely like that, so do not judge all conservatives by his words. he is indeed a very... better not say it on a public forum.

you will never convince me that abortion is murder. a fetus is not a child.

BUT

if you would allow an abortion for ANY reason besides saving the life of the mother than you are in fact allowing it to be a moral choice.

if abortion is murder, then aborting the fetus created by rape or incest is still murder. if abortion is murder than aborting any fetus with any sort of genetic defect or deformity no matter how horrible, is murder.

I agree with your last two sentences, which is why I am 100% pro-life.

I don't know what the rape debate's all about, but once when I was in a chatroom arguing the pro-life line, a pro-choice guy said that he hopes I get raped so I am faced with the decision of aborting my child. He said that I'm against abortion until it affects *me* and that I'd probably abort my child if put in that position. What an ass.

Abortion for only Incest, Rape and when it endagers the womans life. As I said before, Women think they are the sole agent when they have an abortion, so let those who do suffer.

Bullshit re look up your definition of murder before you use non descriptive emotive language

Murder:
"To kill brutally or inhumanly."

That is a direct definition of murder. Have you seen what they do to abort a child? The pictures were blocked before, but let me describe it to you... they insert a tool into the woman's womb, and scrape the walls of her womb. They then attempt to forcibly remove the child with tongs, similar to the tongs you use to flip a steak on the grill, and often times, an arm gets ripped off, or a leg, and they have to grab at it again. They then crush the head to kill the child, and that is how you abort. I would say that this qualifies as "To kill brutally or inhumanly." It was alive, now it is dead, and that was pretty brutal.

Threat to a mothers life is really the only possible reason to abort a child. Even then I'd guess some mothers would take the risk. How often does this circumstance occur out of all babies born anyway? I hope it is alot safer nowadays.

Where do they get off thinking they can allow innocent beings get killed?

So, seeing as you think it's immoral to 'allow innocent beings to get killed', that means you're against killing spiders too, right?

im pretty sure it has to do with the aforementioned thinking that women can be independant moral agents in making their own choice for themselves and their families.


If the woman chooses to kill her child then that is not the kind of action that a "moral agent" would take. A "moral agent" will act on behalf of a moral way. They will not kill innocent people, especially ones who can't defend themselves.

Abortion for only Incest, Rape and when it endagers the womans life. As I said before, Women think they are the sole agent when they have an abortion, so let those who do suffer.

Why make those irrational exceptions? It's a life or it isn't. I don't understand. Do you guys make those exceptions to avoid criticism from the pro-choicers? I know the pressures. As soon as you say you're pro-life, pro-choicers come out screaming, "WHAT ABOUT THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER, YOU HORRIBLE PERSON?! YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A WOMAN WHO JUST GOT RAPED KEEP HER BABY - THE CONSTANT REMINDER OF HER TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE?!" Ugh, just the thought of that makes me angry. But anyway, the exception's arbitrary, I don't get it.

So, seeing as you think it's immoral to 'allow innocent beings to get killed', that means you're against killing spiders too, right?

No, spiders aren't innocent. They scare people, it's mean.

Spiders :mp5:

Murder:
"To kill brutally or inhumanly."

That is a direct definition of murder. Have you seen what they do to abort a child? The pictures were blocked before, but let me describe it to you... they insert a tool into the woman's womb, and scrape the walls of her womb. They then attempt to forcibly remove the child with tongs, similar to the tongs you use to flip a steak on the grill, and often times, an arm gets ripped off, or a leg, and they have to grab at it again. They then crush the head to kill the child, and that is how you abort. I would say that this qualifies as "To kill brutally or inhumanly." It was alive, now it is dead, and that was pretty brutal.

Don't they shove a vaccumm cleaner in there as well, just for good measure, or is that some dodgy masturbation technique forwomen.

Some people do think it's murder to kill an innocent spider. ;) I don't get it myself, but hey, go with it.

Abortion for only Incest, Rape and when it endagers the womans life. As I said before, Women think they are the sole agent when they have an abortion, so let those who do suffer.
so YOU can be a moral agent, deciding when it is OK to have an abortion and when it is immoral but a pregnant woman ISNT?

women ARE the sole agent when it comes to deciding abortion. at least in the first trimester. and they are perfectly able to decide if they should or should not carry a pregnancy to term. who knows their situations better than they do? you certainly do not.

Don't they shove a vaccumm cleaner in there as well, just for good measure, or is that some dodgy masturbation technique forwomen.

Sometimes. They'll dismember the fetus and pull the big chunks out--pardon the gross factor--and then vacuum bits of skull fragments and other smaller pieces that, if left in the mother, can cause infection.

so YOU can be a moral agent, deciding when it is OK to have an abortion and when it is immoral but a pregnant woman ISNT?

women ARE the sole agent when it comes to deciding abortion. at least in the first trimester. and they are perfectly able to decide if they should or should not carry a pregnancy to term. who knows their situations better than they do? you certainly do not.

and do you for that matter?