NationStates Jolt Archive

Happy Anniversary!

*tosses cookies*

...What? You don't like chocolate chip?

Not so much a matter of "for or against" because of two things:

1] Not everyone here is in the US and their lives are in no way changed by a SCOTUS decision.

2] It's on the books and is the law. Being against it is like giving a fish a bicycle.

However, I'll go ahead and vote "for". It's a good decision. Don't want to hear all that blather over State's rights, either. No State should be given the right to oppress women. Period.

I am all for Roe V Wade. A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with herself.

I don't live in the states, so yes, it doesn't affect me.

However, the shabby treatment of women in many countries doesn't affect me and I'm still opposed to it... I'm glad that american women are free to choose.

Who?

Who?

Two young boxers from the Bronx. Title fight ended in a decision. Wade never returned to the ring.

Two young boxers from the Bronx. Title fight ended in a decision. Wade never returned to the ring.

LOL!

*hands you a cookie*

David Hasselhoff.

If the anniversary could only be properly celebrated. The return of the authority to decide individual matters like this should be in the State's hands.

Two young boxers from the Bronx. Title fight ended in a decision. Wade never returned to the ring.
Oh means nothing to me

If the anniversary could only be properly celebrated. The return of the authority to decide individual matters like this should be in the State's hands.

Yes ... let's give inidividual States the right to oppress women.

That's real smart. Genius.

However, I'll go ahead and vote "for". It's a good decision. Don't want to hear all that blather over State's rights, either. No State should be given the right to oppress women. Period.

Why, oh, why must I always agree with you? It's getting to feel like if you post before me, you'll post all I wanted to say! :)

Why, oh, why must I always agree with you? It's getting to feel like if you post before me, you'll post all I wanted to say! :)

It's all about the fashionable beard. My beard kicks Chuck Norris's beard's ass.

Not so much a matter of "for or against" because of two things:

1] Not everyone here is in the US and their lives are in no way changed by a SCOTUS decision.

2] It's on the books and is the law. Being against it is like giving a fish a bicycle.

However, I'll go ahead and vote "for". It's a good decision. Don't want to hear all that blather over State's rights, either. No State should be given the right to oppress women. Period.

The fact that it's "on the books and is the law" isn't necessarily relevant. SCOTUS changes their mind about decisions occassionally. (Otherwise, blacks might still be segregated.)

I've voted against, because I think Roe v. Wade has been taken too far. Women have to be given the right to terminate their pregnancies to protect their lives, and in the cases of rape and incest. No one should be forced to carry a child when they didn't have a choice in the sex that lead to the conception. I would also extend this to minors (with their parents' permission, because it's a medical procedure). Sex with a minor is automatically rape, so that also counts as not being consentual. I could also see terminating a pregnancy based on gross deformity, on the grounds that it's more merciful than bringing a life into the world that would experience nothing but suffering.

However, to me, if you're an adult, and you make a choice to have sex, you live with the consequences. Scientifically, once conception occurs, and the DNA is unique, that's an individual life. (I'm not going to argue that it has a "soul", because I don't believe in such a thing.)

It's all about the fashionable beard. My beard kicks Chuck Norris's beard's ass.


That is a big claim.

However, to me, if you're an adult, and you make a choice to have sex, you live with the consequences.

I'll remember that if you're ever in a car wreck and ask me to call an ambulance.

Hey, man ... it was your choice to drive the car. You'll just have to live with the consequences. No medical care for you.

I'll remember that if you're ever in a car wreck and ask me to call an ambulance.

Hey, man ... it was your choice to drive the car. You'll just have to live with the consequences. No medical care for you.


LOL so true.

Whoo!

David Hasselhoff.


you made a wise choice.

It's all about the fashionable beard. My beard kicks Chuck Norris's beard's ass.

Well, your beard certainly makes my crotch tingle a lot more than his does, so I am predisposed to agree with you, once more.

I'll remember that if you're ever in a car wreck and ask me to call an ambulance.

Hey, man ... it was your choice to drive the car. You'll just have to live with the consequences. No medical care for you.

Cars are not engineered to have wrecks. The human reproduction system has one purpose: To reproduce. It's got pleasurable side benefits, but its function biologically is reproduction.

The more apt analogy would be walking into the middle of traffic on a highway. If I did that, I wouldn't expect medical care.

One other thing: I'd probably want you to call for an ambulance, but if it was an accident, I wouldn't demand that the one who hit me be executed. We're not talking about medical care to fix something. We're talking about medical care to kill it.

Cars are not engineered to have wrecks. The human reproduction system has one purpose: To reproduce. It's got pleasurable side benefits, but its function biologically is reproduction.

Omg, you poor soul! If that is your view on sexuality, then I truly have to extend a little pity your way.

I am all for it, but for far more practical reasons than the ordinary approved talking points. It is a simple matter of math. I believe that like it or not, activists, the media and government have less influence on a child's belief system once they come to adulthood than the parents do. Since the primary user of abortion as birth control happens to be by a very wide margin those with their heads tilted sharply to left, drug addicts, hookers, and welfare queens, it makes good sense that of the 46 million killed, a huge portion of these subjects would tend to carry on in their would be parents footsteps.

Being a practical and rational person, I can only view the decision not to bring these children into society as a positive thing. I would go even a step further. I would allow for goverment financed abortions on the condition of voluntary sterilization at the time of the abortion thus solving the problem of abortion as birth control.

Long live Roe vs Wade!

Cars are not engineered to have wrecks. The human reproduction system has one purpose: To reproduce. It's got pleasurable side benefits, but its function biologically is reproduction.

My goodness. The idea of someone not being able to reproduce must be horrible to you, then. Sex has one purpose: pleasure. Children are merely a possible side effect of heterosexual sex.

The more apt analogy would be walking into the middle of traffic on a highway. If I did that, I wouldn't expect medical care.

You'd get it anyway, regardless.

One other thing: I'd probably want you to call for an ambulance, but if it was an accident, I wouldn't demand that the one who hit me be executed. We're not talking about medical care to fix something. We're talking about medical care to kill it.

Oh but we are talking about medical care to fix something. We are also talking about people's right to choose. If I want to go have my feet cut off, I've every right to have it done. They're my feet.

Incidently, you kill millions of bacteria just washing your hands. Why does one collection of cells matter more than another?

Wasn't the 32nd a few months ago? I swear like 6 months ago they had this on yahoo for 32.

Omg, you poor soul! If that is your view on sexuality, then I truly have to extend a little pity your way.
Agreed. What a depressing way to think about things.

By the same extention you could say the only purpose of a human in general is reproduction anything else is frivilous and un-nessisary

I personaly derive more joy from my life then that

However, to me, if you're an adult, and you make a choice to have sex, you live with the consequences. Scientifically, once conception occurs, and the DNA is unique, that's an individual life. (I'm not going to argue that it has a "soul", because I don't believe in such a thing.)
Making a choice to have sex is different from making a choice to have a kid. Furthermore, it's not an indvidual life until it can perform stimulus response as per the scientific definition of life.

My goodness. The idea of someone not being able to reproduce must be horrible to you, then. Sex has one purpose: pleasure. Children are merely a possible side effect of heterosexual sex.
I like your take on it much better. :)

Omg, you poor soul! If that is your view on sexuality, then I truly have to extend a little pity your way.

I'm not saying that that's all sex is good for. It's obviously a pleasurable thing, and that's where the focus has been for at least the last few hundred years. The fact remains, though, that when you engage in that act, you're engaging in an act that's got only one biological purpose: Procreation. Ask yourself: Doesn't it make sense that sexuality would be pleasurable, given how much of an evolutionary advantage pleasurable sex confers? Creatures that enjoy procreating tend to procreate more, and thus heighten the chances that their species will survive.

Also, I'm not saying that women should be forced to keep their children. Many states have "safe harbor" laws, which allow mothers to leave their children anonymously in designated areas. I'm all for that.

But the fact remains that taking a human life requires something a little more substantial than convenience as a justification. There are justifiable reasons to have an abortion (as I noted previously), but "just because I want one" is not one of them.

Wasn't the 32nd a few months ago? I swear like 6 months ago they had this on yahoo for 32.



The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe vs. Wade on Jan. 22, 1973, and abortion has been legal in the United States ever since.

33 years my friend

I'm not saying that that's all sex is good for. It's obviously a pleasurable thing, and that's where the focus has been for at least the last few hundred years.


Whose focus?

I was unaware that people enjoying the pleasure of sex has only been around for "the last few hundred years."

Whose focus?

I was unaware that people enjoying the pleasure of sex has only been around for "the last few hundred years."

thats when the female orgasm came about :D

But the fact remains that taking a human life requires something a little more substantial than convenience as a justification.

A fetus is not a human life in any sense of the word. Not Biblically, legally, or morally.

And happy birthday, Roe v Wade, you are a cornerstone of our liberty.

I'm not saying that that's all sex is good for. It's obviously a pleasurable thing, and that's where the focus has been for at least the last few hundred years. The fact remains, though, that when you engage in that act, you're engaging in an act that's got only one biological purpose: Procreation.
That's funny, because you might as well be telling us that being gay is unnatural and against our biology... I mean, if two men or two women have sex, no procreation is possible. And really, why should homosexuals get to have all the fun?
Seriously, look at the clitoris before you try telling us that sex is for procreational purposes. You want to know what the clitoris has to do with procreation? Absolutely nothing. You want to know how much clitoral stimulation is involved in vaginal intercourse? Not a hell of a lot, necessarily. The only function of the clitoris is pleasure, women can become pregnant without clitoral stimulation, without arousal et c so by your reasoning, it shouldn't exist.

Ask yourself: Doesn't it make sense that sexuality would be pleasurable, given how much of an evolutionary advantage pleasurable sex confers? Creatures that enjoy procreating tend to procreate more, and thus heighten the chances that their species will survive.
Oral sex is as good as intercourse (sometimes better) in terms of pleasure yet it involves no procreation whatsoever...

Also, I'm not saying that women should be forced to keep their children. Many states have "safe harbor" laws, which allow mothers to leave their children anonymously in designated areas. I'm all for that.
No, your'e not saying women should be forced to keep their children, you're just saying that they should be forced to act as incubators.

But the fact remains that taking a human life requires something a little more substantial than convenience as a justification. There are justifiable reasons to have an abortion (as I noted previously), but "just because I want one" is not one of them.
There is no life to take. There is potential for a life, but that's all. And usually "just because I want one" is not a reason for an abortion, you disgusting, insensitive jerk.

My goodness. The idea of someone not being able to reproduce must be horrible to you, then. Sex has one purpose: pleasure. Children are merely a possible side effect of heterosexual sex.

I'm well aware that there are people who are unable to reproduce. That's why I specified the biological purpose. The pleasure of sex is an evolutionary adaptation.



You'd get it anyway, regardless.

I probably would, assuming I wanted it. Walking headlong into highway traffic, odds are pretty good I wouldn't want the medical attention. But it would be applied regardless, if I couldn't give consent, to save a life. And there's the rub: Preserving life is a very different thing from taking it.

Oh but we are talking about medical care to fix something.

No. We're talking about medical care to kill a human. Albeit, a human in a very early stage of development, but a human nonetheless.

We are also talking about people's right to choose. If I want to go have my feet cut off, I've every right to have it done. They're my feet.

Absolutely. And if you want to have your feet cut off, have at it. Or your ovaries, for that matter. But when you're talking about abortion, you're not just talking about your body. If you rent out a room in your house, should you be able to shoot your tenant for no reason, just because it's your house?

Incidently, you kill millions of bacteria just washing your hands. Why does one collection of cells matter more than another?

Bacteria aren't human. If millions of humans died every time you washed your hands, it'd be a different issue.

Absolutely. And if you want to have your feet cut off, have at it. Or your ovaries, for that matter. But when you're talking about abortion, you're not just talking about your body. If you rent out a room in your house, should you be able to shoot your tenant for no reason, just because it's your house?

.


so you can cut out your ovaries but you can't take out a fetus?

There are justifiable reasons to have an abortion (as I noted previously), but "just because I want one" is not one of them.Should couples who do not wish to have children remain celebate all their lives? If so, why not? Sex is something in which the vast majority of people engage in at some point in their lives. Having sex for pleasure is an entirely healthy and normal state of affairs, and there is really no viable reason for anyone to suppose people should be punished for thinking that.

Edit: Of course people can have vasectomies/steralisations, but here in the UK you have to be over 25 - and even then it's like you're asking to resurrect Hitler. So in the short-term normal couples not wishing to have children have to make provisions.

Cars are not engineered to have wrecks. The human reproduction system has one purpose: To reproduce. It's got pleasurable side benefits, but its function biologically is reproduction.

The more apt analogy would be walking into the middle of traffic on a highway. If I did that, I wouldn't expect medical care.

One other thing: I'd probably want you to call for an ambulance, but if it was an accident, I wouldn't demand that the one who hit me be executed. We're not talking about medical care to fix something. We're talking about medical care to kill it.

Well, the problem I have with your POV is that a fetus can't survive without the woman's body, sort of like a parasite. Just because someone decides to engage in an act that is instinctual should not translate to being forced against their will to upheave their existance, especially in a world where resources are gradually becoming more scarce, and technologies exist to relieve said burden.

Which would you prefer? An unwanted child forced upon someone who isn't ready, and is likely to suffer because of it? Or, a child that is planned for and raised by loving, nurturing, and prepared parents?

Whose focus?

I was unaware that people enjoying the pleasure of sex has only been around for "the last few hundred years."

Prior to that (and I was thinking Enlightenment times), the Church's teachings on the matter prevailed in people's minds. There were all kinds of rituals engaged in (witnesses in the newlyweds' bedchamber, etc.) to assure that the act was consumated, and that there were no "performance" issues. There were arranged marriages because the legacy (i.e., the children) were the most important thing, far above the personal pleasure of either of the people involved. And, in the Christian world, at least, sex for pleasure was frowned upon as sinful.

Absolutely. And if you want to have your feet cut off, have at it. Or your ovaries, for that matter. But when you're talking about abortion, you're not just talking about your body. If you rent out a room in your house, should you be able to shoot your tenant for no reason, just because it's your house?
If you befriend someone at a bar and they follow you home and deceide to set up camp in your living room, however, you can kick them out at any time.

Well, the problem I have with your POV is that a fetus can't survive without the woman's body, sort of like a parasite.

The parasitic nature of the fetus has nothing to do with whether or not it is a separate entity, though. Ringworms are parasites, but they aren't part of the host animal.


Just because someone decides to engage in an act that is instinctual should not translate to being forced against their will to upheave their existance, especially in a world where resources are gradually becoming more scarce, and technologies exist to relieve said burden.

I have no problem with women giving up their babies, either for adoption or through utilizing "safe harbor" laws. I'm not saying they need to raise the children.


Which would you prefer? An unwanted child forced upon someone who isn't ready, and is likely to suffer because of it? Or, a child that is planned for and raised by loving, nurturing, and prepared parents?

It's arguable whether parents are ever "prepared" to have children -- especially if it's a first child. However, like I said above, I'm not looking to burden mothers with children to raise for 18 years or more. But bringing the pregnancy to term is a different issue.

I'm not saying that that's all sex is good for. It's obviously a pleasurable thing, and that's where the focus has been for at least the last few hundred years. The fact remains, though, that when you engage in that act, you're engaging in an act that's got only one biological purpose: Procreation.

Umm, I'm gay. When I engage in the act, it'll truly be a miracle if anyone ends up procreating. And, really, it's time heterosexuals got how good non-procreative sex is.

"Abortions for Some, Tiny Flags for Others!"

All in all, it's not your body, so you don't get to say to anyone what they should do with it. Woman's body, her choice. It's that simple. And your talk of "taking life" is irrelevant.

Making a choice to have sex is different from making a choice to have a kid.

I'm not saying anyone should be forced to raise kids. That's obviously a separate issue.


Furthermore, it's not an indvidual life until it can perform stimulus response as per the scientific definition of life.

Cells can respond to outside stimuli (i.e., environmental conditions). Consciousness isn't required to do that.

The entire issue of consciousness is separate from whether or not a human being exists. Biologically, consciousness isn't necessary. (i.e., a brain-dead human doesn't become not-human. They're still the same species, even if they lose the higher functions associated with that species.)

Umm, I'm gay. When I engage in the act, it'll truly be a miracle if anyone ends up procreating. And, really, it's time heterosexuals got how good non-procreative sex is.

I was speaking of heterosexual sex, obviously. Homosexual sex obviously is in a completely different class, and not relevant to abortion.

"Abortions for Some, Tiny Flags for Others!"

All in all, it's not your body, so you don't get to say to anyone what they should do with it. Woman's body, her choice.

And if she wants to have her appendix out, more power to her. But when another life is involved, it's a whole different ballgame.

I was speaking of heterosexual sex, obviously. Homosexual sex obviously is in a completely different class, and not relevant to abortion.

It will save you time next time not to be so heteronormative.

And if she wants to have her appendix out, more power to her. But when another life is involved, it's a whole different ballgame.

Nope, since there is no other life involved.

Cells can respond to outside stimuli (i.e., environmental conditions). Consciousness isn't required to do that.

The entire issue of consciousness is separate from whether or not a human being exists. Biologically, consciousness isn't necessary. (i.e., a brain-dead human doesn't become not-human. They're still the same species, even if they lose the higher functions associated with that species.)
It's not a matter of consciousness. The fetus isn't an organism until it responds to stimulus as an organism. Until then, it is a collection of cells, i.e. a collection of organisms. It's not a matter of species, it's a matter of what makes something a life and what makes something an individual.

A fetus is not a human life in any sense of the word. Not Biblically, legally, or morally.

Care to cite some references? (Offhand, I can say definitively that you're wrong Biblically, as there is a passage in the Bible that says words to the effect that "I knew you while you were in your mother's womb".) Legally, you're obviously correct, because that's what Roe v. Wade is based on.

As for morally: Whether a fetus is human or not is not a moral question. It's a scientific question. And there's a very simple test: Next time a pregnant woman gives birth do a chimpanzee, call me. A fetus produced by two humans is always a human fetus, by definition.

The parasitic nature of the fetus has nothing to do with whether or not it is a separate entity, though. Ringworms are parasites, but they aren't part of the host animal.
The fetus isn't an organism though, it has potential to become one, but it is not until pretty late in development.

I have no problem with women giving up their babies, either for adoption or through utilizing "safe harbor" laws. I'm not saying they need to raise the children.
Again, so you just want women to be forced to function as incubators.

It's arguable whether parents are ever "prepared" to have children -- especially if it's a first child. However, like I said above, I'm not looking to burden mothers with children to raise for 18 years or more. But bringing the pregnancy to term is a different issue.
So you propose lowering a woman to the status of a life support machine?

Care to cite some references? (Offhand, I can say definitively that you're wrong Biblically, as there is a passage in the Bible that says words to the effect that "I knew you while you were in your mother's womb".)
There are more moral systems out there than the christian ones.

And there's a very simple test: Next time a pregnant woman gives birth do a chimpanzee, call me. A fetus produced by two humans is always a human fetus, by definition.
How about this, I'll flag you down next time an embryo is naturally aborted. It happens on a fairly regular basis.
Just because something is a human fetus does not mean it will ever become a human being.

I don't live in the states, so yes, it doesn't affect me.

However, the shabby treatment of women in many countries doesn't affect me and I'm still opposed to it... I'm glad that american women are free to choose.
I agree. Roe vs. Wade may also have caused the drop in crime that occurred in America in the early 1990s, so that's another good thing.

The more apt analogy would be walking into the middle of traffic on a highway. If I did that, I wouldn't expect medical care.

You would probably get it. You'd still be an idiot, but at least an idiot with medical care.

I am all for it, but for far more practical reasons than the ordinary approved talking points. It is a simple matter of math. I believe that like it or not, activists, the media and government have less influence on a child's belief system once they come to adulthood than the parents do.

Lol, that's an amusing one. Long live the right to abortion indeed!

One thing I never understood. The central argument is that pro-choice parents would have raised pro-choice children, right? If there are only a minority of pro-choice people left, and abortion gets banned, wouldn't a great number of pro-choice people arise within a generation or two?

Or are you assuming that pro-choice people would also be anti-war leftists as well?

The fetus isn't an organism though, it has potential to become one, but it is not until pretty late in development.

A fetus is a human in an early stage of development. The fact that it lives off the mother doesn't make it less of an organism.


Again, so you just want women to be forced to function as incubators.

No, I don't "just" want women to function as incubators. It would be preferable if they didn't get pregnant without wanting to in the first place. But having failed that, there are things that take precedence over convenience -- particularly when getting into their predicament was predicated by a voluntary act.

So you propose lowering a woman to the status of a life support machine?

So that's all pregnant women are? Life-support machines? It's not as if I'm advocating locking women up and having them forcibly impregnated so they can give birth. We're talking about the consequence of a voluntary act which has implications beyond the woman's comfort. If force was a factor in getting her pregnant, none of this applies.

There are more moral systems out there than the christian ones.

Absolutely. But you used the word "biblically". (Of course, this could also refer to the Hebrew Bible, but the Christian teaching is Old Testament.) If you wnat to expand it to other theologies, that's fine, but when life begins still isn't a theological question. It's a scientific one.

How about this, I'll flag you down next time an embryo is naturally aborted. It happens on a fairly regular basis.
Just because something is a human fetus does not mean it will ever become a human being.

Isn't that hair-splitting? The difference between a human fetus and a human being, I mean? The point is, they're both human, and they're both alive in the biological sense. (Note: I'm not talking about consciousness. "Alive" and "conscious" are not the same thing, and I don't think there'd be much argument that killing someone who simply lost consciousness on a temporary basis wouldn't be killing.)

A fetus is a human in an early stage of development. The fact that it lives off the mother doesn't make it less of an organism. [/quote
No, but the fact that it doesn't perform stimulus response as an organism makes it less of an organism.

[quote]No, I don't "just" want women to function as incubators. It would be preferable if they didn't get pregnant without wanting to in the first place.
Of course this would be preferable.

But having failed that, there are things that take precedence over convenience -- particularly when getting into their predicament was predicated by a voluntary act.
When will people like you get the picture that:
1) consenting to sex does not equal consenting to pregnancy
and
2) Most women who have abortions do not abort out of "convenience"

You, sir, have a very low opinion of women. Why don't you just come out and admit that you would prefer us barefoot, pregnant and chained to the stove? Or admit that you don't like it when women derive pleasure from sex.

So that's all pregnant women are? Life-support machines?
If she doesn't want to have a kid and you're forcing her to give birth, that's what you're forcing her to be.

We're talking about the consequence of a voluntary act which has implications beyond the woman's comfort. If force was a factor in getting her pregnant, none of this applies.
What we're talking about is forcing women to undergo a preventable hardship because you think it's wrong for them to have sex simply because they enjoy having sex. Saying "oh, it's ok if they were raped" doesn't make it better, if anything, it makes it worse on your part. You go on exhalting the fetus, proclaiming it to be a percious human life until it was forced on a woman, when it becomes excusable for her to refuse to carry to term.. but what has changed in this situation? If the fetus of a consenting woman was a human being then the fetus of a raped woman is still a human being. The difference is that the woman who wasn't raped might have enjoyed the expreience of intercourse. You are condemning women for receiving pleasure.

Care to cite some references? (Offhand, I can say definitively that you're wrong Biblically, as there is a passage in the Bible that says words to the effect that "I knew you while you were in your mother's womb".)

That was said about one person, a Prophet, and thus not a normal person. It was not said to all of humanity.

Now .... reference ....

Genesis 2:7 - "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

First, God forms Adam, he forms of dust, a flesh and blood body. SECOND, he "breathes into his nostrils the breath of life" and THEN man became a living soul. Man did not become a living soul when God first formed the IDEA of creating Adam, in Genesis 1:26. Man did not become a living soul when God created his BODY. Not until God gave man his first BREATH did he become a living soul. Life comes from God. It does not come from human conception.

Job 33:4 - "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life."

Just like Adam, who had a body before he had a soul, like every fetus in the womb, these dry bones were given sinew, flesh and skin, and AFTER they received the body GOD breathed into them and THEN they became alive.

Exodus 21:22 - "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

In this instance a woman has been so injured, in a fight between two men, that she has aborted. The law states that if "no harm follows" the outsider must pay the husband a fine. An abortion has been induced through violence and this is not considered harmful. Abortion, then, is not a capital offense or a violation of the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."

Many people are surprised to learn that God gave Mary a choice concerning her pregnancy with the future Savior. In the gospel of Luke the angel came to her announcing what the will of God was for her life. In verse 1:38 Mary replies, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." Mary gives her assent. To believe that Mary had no voice in the process is unthinkable, for that would mean that God forced Himself on (raped) an unwed, teenaged virgin.

And so on and so on. Sufficient, or do you need more?

Cars are not engineered to have wrecks. The human reproduction system has one purpose: To reproduce. It's got pleasurable side benefits, but its function biologically is reproduction.

The more apt analogy would be walking into the middle of traffic on a highway. If I did that, I wouldn't expect medical care.

One other thing: I'd probably want you to call for an ambulance, but if it was an accident, I wouldn't demand that the one who hit me be executed. We're not talking about medical care to fix something. We're talking about medical care to kill it.
Human sexuality has much more than just one purpose. If sex were only for reproduction and that is the be all end all of it, why have more than one gender?

Absolutely. But you used the word "biblically". (Of course, this could also refer to the Hebrew Bible, but the Christian teaching is Old Testament.) If you wnat to expand it to other theologies, that's fine, but when life begins still isn't a theological question. It's a scientific one.
I didnt' bring morals into this at all.

The point is, they're both human, and they're both alive in the biological sense.
But again, until late in development, the fetus isn't a life in the biological sense.

(Note: I'm not talking about consciousness. "Alive" and "conscious" are not the same thing, and I don't think there'd be much argument that killing someone who simply lost consciousness on a temporary basis wouldn't be killing.)
Again, I'm not talking about consciousness either.


edit: I'm leaving the forums to do homework, so don't take a lack of response on my part as a signal that you're right.

Prior to that (and I was thinking Enlightenment times), the Church's teachings on the matter prevailed in people's minds. There were all kinds of rituals engaged in (witnesses in the newlyweds' bedchamber, etc.) to assure that the act was consumated, and that there were no "performance" issues. There were arranged marriages because the legacy (i.e., the children) were the most important thing, far above the personal pleasure of either of the people involved. And, in the Christian world, at least, sex for pleasure was frowned upon as sinful.

So no one in an arranged marriage had a mistress? The thing didnt exist because "sex for pleasure was frowned upon as sinful," exactly like it is today.

I hate the just put the unwanted children up for adoption shit.
There are estimated to be 450 million orphans world-wide. To put that into context, that is the entire population of Japan, three and a half times over.

Re. the Bible.

Numbers, chapter 5, verses 11 through end of the chapter, in detail explain how to obtain an abortion if you suspect your wife have been with another man, and got knocked up by said action.
So, sure, the Bible talk about abortions, just not the way most Christians would want it.

Re. the topic.

It doesn't really apply to me, as I don't live in the US any more.
But I am staunchly supporting a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy for any, or no, reason.

No, but the fact that it doesn't perform stimulus response as an organism makes it less of an organism.

A fetus does respond to stimuli, actually. Hell, cellular organisms respond to stimuli.


Of course this would be preferable.

When will people like you get the picture that:
1) consenting to sex does not equal consenting to pregnancy

Consenting to sex means understanding the implications of the sex act and its possible consequences. That's one of the reason we have age of consent laws. By the time you reach a certain age (which varies by state) it's assumed you understand the possible implications of your act and are willing to face the possible consequences.



2) Most women who have abortions do not abort out of "convenience"

If the demand is for an abortion "just because I want one", it's hard to draw any other conclusion.

You, sir, have a very low opinion of women.

Not true. I have a low opinion of people who refuse to accept any responsibility for their actions.


Why don't you just come out and admit that you would prefer us barefoot, pregnant and chained to the stove? Or admit that you don't like it when women derive pleasure from sex.

Probably because neither of those things is true. I've never said that sex wasn't pleasurable, or that the only valid reason to have sex was procreation. (See my response to Fass.) There are ways to ensure you can have sex without getting pregnant, and I fully support those methods.




If she doesn't want to have a kid and you're forcing her to give birth, that's what you're forcing her to be.

No one forced her to get pregnant in the first place. You're no more a "baby machine" when you're pregnant than you'd be a "feeding machine" because the state forced you to feed and support your child once you had it.


What we're talking about is forcing women to undergo a preventable hardship because you think it's wrong for them to have sex simply because they enjoy having sex.

No. What we're talking about is forcing women to behave responsibly with their own bodies. Would drinking and driving be okay just because someone said, "Hey, I like to drink. Do you have something against people getting enjoyment from drinking?" And the hardship is preventable before the pregnancy ever happens. There are methods of birth control that are 99.98% effective (for each year of sex), when used properly. (The way these percentages are calculated, that translates to 1 birth every 5,000 years.) That's an awful lot of pleasurable, non-procreative sex, wouldn't you say?


Saying "oh, it's ok if they were raped" doesn't make it better, if anything, it makes it worse on your part. You go on exhalting the fetus, proclaiming it to be a percious human life until it was forced on a woman, when it becomes excusable for her to refuse to carry to term.. but what has changed in this situation? If the fetus of a consenting woman was a human being then the fetus of a raped woman is still a human being. The difference is that the woman who wasn't raped might have enjoyed the expreience of intercourse. You are condemning women for receiving pleasure.

Not at all. I'm acknowledging that people should only be held responsible for acts for which they're culpable. If there's no consent, obviously there's no culpability.

It will save you time next time not to be so heteronormative.

True. In the context of the discussion, though, I think it's understandable.

Nope, since there is no other life involved.[/QUOTE]

In a biological sense, that's not true.

It's not a matter of consciousness. The fetus isn't an organism until it responds to stimulus as an organism. Until then, it is a collection of cells, i.e. a collection of organisms. It's not a matter of species, it's a matter of what makes something a life and what makes something an individual.

An individual cell forms the initial zygote, and this has all the DNA information of a human. And by the time the pregnancy can be detected (11/2 to 2 weeks after fertilization), the embryo is already implanted in the uterus, no longer a mere collection of cells, but an organism.

Human sexuality has much more than just one purpose. If sex were only for reproduction and that is the be all end all of it, why have more than one gender?

Well, I was speaking of biological purposes. But I'd refute the notion that there has to be a "why" in terms of the different sexes. Asking "why" makes it sound purposeful. Now, if you were to ask, "What evolutionary advantage does sexual reproduction convey?", I'd have to admit that I don't know. I could speculate that it's related to genetic diversity...

That was said about one person, a Prophet, and thus not a normal person. It was not said to all of humanity.

Now .... reference ....

Genesis 2:7 - "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

First, God forms Adam, he forms of dust, a flesh and blood body. SECOND, he "breathes into his nostrils the breath of life" and THEN man became a living soul. Man did not become a living soul when God first formed the IDEA of creating Adam, in Genesis 1:26. Man did not become a living soul when God created his BODY. Not until God gave man his first BREATH did he become a living soul. Life comes from God. It does not come from human conception.

Job 33:4 - "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life."

Just like Adam, who had a body before he had a soul, like every fetus in the womb, these dry bones were given sinew, flesh and skin, and AFTER they received the body GOD breathed into them and THEN they became alive.

Exodus 21:22 - "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

In this instance a woman has been so injured, in a fight between two men, that she has aborted. The law states that if "no harm follows" the outsider must pay the husband a fine. An abortion has been induced through violence and this is not considered harmful. Abortion, then, is not a capital offense or a violation of the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."

Many people are surprised to learn that God gave Mary a choice concerning her pregnancy with the future Savior. In the gospel of Luke the angel came to her announcing what the will of God was for her life. In verse 1:38 Mary replies, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." Mary gives her assent. To believe that Mary had no voice in the process is unthinkable, for that would mean that God forced Himself on (raped) an unwed, teenaged virgin.

And so on and so on. Sufficient, or do you need more?

Just a few questions:

First, the way I've always understood it (and this is coming from an atheist, so bear with me...) Mary was given the choice of conceiving Jesus or not, rather than the choice to carry Jesus to term.

In terms of life coming from God: I'll buy that (as a theological position, of course), but what measure is there of when this takes place?

In terms of Adam, doesn't Genesis have two creation stories: one where Adam is created from dirt, and the other where he's created from nothing?

The passage you refer to about the two men fighting over the woman "with child": If it was truly not to be considered a life, why use that terminology? (I realize the English is translated from the Hebrew, but I'd still be interested in the original meaning of the phrase, since it does seem to attribute some sort of personhood to what the woman is carrying.) Also, keep in mind: Not all killing is murder, and the commandment is actually, "Thou shalt not commit murder" rather than "Thou shalt not kill". God does command a lot of killing in the Bible, and one would assume that he would not do so, if all killing was created equal.

These are just questions, though. For the sake of discussion, I'll stipulate that the Bible doesn't say that the fetus has a soul. It's not really relevant to my thinking.

Well, I was speaking of biological purposes. But I'd refute the notion that there has to be a "why" in terms of the different sexes. Asking "why" makes it sound purposeful. Now, if you were to ask, "What evolutionary advantage does sexual reproduction convey?", I'd have to admit that I don't know. I could speculate that it's related to genetic diversity...
Why dispute the why? There is a reason for everything. B happens because A came before it.

There are scores of reasons for why people have sex and it's not likely to stop and it's not always with procreation in mind (not even nearly always). We do not have to worry about the survival of our species, at least not in the pre-apocalyptic, and many people have very different ideas from you about when life starts and who is in charge of their personal reproductive organs.

I'm surprised by comments, not only made by you, that it's the responsibility of a woman to give birth to an unwanted child but not the responsibility of the couple who caused it to come about to take care of said child. When my future wife gives birth it will be because I and she can take care of it. Not so it could be lost in the halls of some orphanage because she was forced to give birth in circumstances which could not tolerate another life.

An individual cell forms the initial zygote, and this has all the DNA information of a human. And by the time the pregnancy can be detected (11/2 to 2 weeks after fertilization), the embryo is already implanted in the uterus, no longer a mere collection of cells, but an organism.


But not human, a group of cells, with potential to become a human, but not yet human. Nucleic acids don't change that, they don't even make something living, much less human.



P.S. Not to mention, apparently a woman becomes nothing but a uterus once she's pregnant.

who'd ever thought Jebus would find his way into this thread.

The more apt analogy would be walking into the middle of traffic on a highway. If I did that, I wouldn't expect medical care.

Oh, I SO call not true.

The doctors wanted my mom to abort me.

A fetus is not a human life in any sense of the word. Not Biblically, legally, or morally.

Does that mean if my mom had aborted me, it wouldn't have been me? What, would I have turned out to be someone else? Would I just never have existed? I don't buy it.

I'm glad my mom didn't abort me. She's not the perfect mom, but y'know, I'm alive. That's more than you can say for millions of other people who have gotten "aborted" as if they were a teeny little computer process.

Are you people even human?

The doctors wanted my mom to abort me.



Does that mean if my mom had aborted me, it wouldn't have been me? What, would I have turned out to be someone else? Would I just never have existed? I don't buy it.

I'm glad my mom didn't abort me. She's not the perfect mom, but y'know, I'm alive. That's more than you can say for millions of other people who have gotten "aborted" as if they were a teeny little computer process.

Are you people even human?
Nothing that is you could be worried about such a thing.

You previously stated that in cases of rape or incest a woman could get an abortion. My question is : What stops a woman from saying that she was raped (even if she wasn't), thereby making an abortion necessary?:confused:

I voted against Roe v. Wade on the poll because i like state's rights, although I am for abortion in all cases. :)

The fetus isn't an organism though, it has potential to become one, but it is not until pretty late in development.

So what makes something a unique organism? One could argue that because the DNA in a fetus is unique to it, it is not part of the mother. If it is not part of the mother, what else is it, but a separate being?


Again, so you just want women to be forced to function as incubators.


So you propose lowering a woman to the status of a life support machine?
Mere hyperbole. Why do you insult us with this nonsense?

Does that mean if my mom had aborted me, it wouldn't have been me? What, would I have turned out to be someone else? Would I just never have existed? I don't buy it.You wouldn't have existed. The cells that existed as your pre-person self would have ceased to function biologically. I would have thought that was straightforward enough.

I'm glad my mom didn't abort me. She's not the perfect mom, but y'know, I'm alive. That's more than you can say for millions of other people who have gotten "aborted" as if they were a teeny little computer process.Yeah, but they don't know what life might have been like, because they haven't had the chance to find out. Therefore, their involvement in the issue is irrelevant.

Are you people even human?Sadly yes. As a misanthrope, I'd be quite happy to be some other species. Misanthropy is one of the many reasons I support (indeed, often, encourage) abortion.

Prior to that (and I was thinking Enlightenment times), the Church's teachings on the matter prevailed in people's minds. There were all kinds of rituals engaged in (witnesses in the newlyweds' bedchamber, etc.) to assure that the act was consumated, and that there were no "performance" issues. There were arranged marriages because the legacy (i.e., the children) were the most important thing, far above the personal pleasure of either of the people involved. And, in the Christian world, at least, sex for pleasure was frowned upon as sinful.

Ah, we're bringing Christianity into it, and trying to place religious mores ahead of social ones. Let me be Devil's Advocate for a moment.

Humans existed before the church. Any church.
Sex for pleasure existed before the guilt imposed on people by the church.
Abortion drugs have existed naturally in plants and other sources all this time.

If God created the world, and God created plants, bacteria, and fungi that can cause abortions, and God created a man with enough intelligence to apply the knowledge, perhaps there's another conclusion to be made here.

To those arguing over whether a fetus is a living organism or not:
Who really cares? If I'm guessing right about your positions, I'd bet most of you eat meat, and eliminate bacteria infecting you, and get rid of housepests. Even if you don't eat meat, plants are organisms too.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with killing things that are alive, even by your moral systems.

To the people saying that abortion is escaping responsibility:
If I randomly decide to stab myself inthe arm for some reason or other, and I then go to a hospital and pay to get stitched back up, am I avoiding responsibility? What is different about sex?

Let me be Devil's Advocate for a moment.



If God created the world, and God created plants, bacteria, and fungi that can cause abortions, and God created a man with enough intelligence to apply the knowledge, perhaps there's another conclusion to be made here.

To play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, that argument clearly supports mass murder (by which I dont mean abortion) so long as it is by means of "plants, bacteria and fungi."

Which is to say, it dodges the question of whether or not "killing a fetus" is right or wrong.

Why dispute the why? There is a reason for everything. B happens because A came before it.

I'd dispute the whole question of "why" because "why" suggests that biological systems are purposeful (as in Creationism).

There are scores of reasons for why people have sex and it's not likely to stop and it's not always with procreation in mind (not even nearly always). We do not have to worry about the survival of our species, at least not in the pre-apocalyptic, and many people have very different ideas from you about when life starts and who is in charge of their personal reproductive organs.

Please understand: I have zero interest in controling people's reproductive organs. As long as I've got control of mine, that's good enough for me. ;)

What we're talking about is regulating the ending of a human life that's not your own. (i.e., I have no problem w/ suicide or physician-assisted suicide, because those are both controlled by the person ending their lives.)

As far as when life starts, it's not a philosophical question. When the soul enters the body (or indeed, even if there is a soul) is a philosophical/theological question, but when life starts is a biological question, which has a concrete, scientific answer. Now, the answer might be different from what I've researched and what I've presented here (although from what I've seen and the discussions I've had here, it doesn't look like it), but regardless of that, there is a point when life starts, scientifically, so it doesn't need to go into the philosophical realm.

I'm surprised by comments, not only made by you, that it's the responsibility of a woman to give birth to an unwanted child but not the responsibility of the couple who caused it to come about to take care of said child. When my future wife gives birth it will be because I and she can take care of it. Not so it could be lost in the halls of some orphanage because she was forced to give birth in circumstances which could not tolerate another life.

Ideally, it should be the responsibility of the couple who caused it to come about to take care of it. However, for me, it's a matter of picking your battles, and settling for the lesser of two evils. The circumstances of my life have been far from easy (I'm handicapped, in a wheelchair, and have some cognitive problems, to boot), but it would seem to me, from an atheist standpoint (and I think I've heard others on the board state similar comments) that death would be far worse than most ways people could suffer. (At least where there's life, there's a glimmer of hope.) Even in the worst cases of abuse, before death there's at least a chance for the suffering to be removed. And even in the halls of some orphanage, there's a chance for a child to find a home of a couple that can take care of it.

Anyway, to answer your question more succinctly: I'd like couples to act responsibly all the way around, but a little is better than nothing. I also acknowledge I've been speaking exclusively of the woman, rather than the couple, but that's only because the man doesn't have much (if any) power in these situations.

To those arguing over whether a fetus is a living organism or not:
Who really cares? If I'm guessing right about your positions, I'd bet most of you eat meat, and eliminate bacteria infecting you, and get rid of housepests. Even if you don't eat meat, plants are organisms too.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with killing things that are alive, even by your moral systems.

I'm not going to speculate about others' moral systems, but my moral system makes a distinction between human life and non-human life. That's what all the "Is it a human" discussions were about.

To the people saying that abortion is escaping responsibility:
If I randomly decide to stab myself inthe arm for some reason or other, and I then go to a hospital and pay to get stitched back up, am I avoiding responsibility? What is different about sex?

The difference is that when you stab yourself in the arm, and get yourself patched up, it's only you that's affected by it. To put it another way, when you stab yourself in the arm, no one else bleeds. Taking someone else's life is a different thing altogether.

I ASKED YOU A QUESTION, ULDARIA, : IF A WOMAN JUST SAYS SHE WAS RAPED (BUT REALLY WASNT) IN ORDER TO GET AN ABORTION, WHAT THEN?:mad:

OR ARE YOU UNABLE TO ANSWER THIS?

forgive the caps lock, but i got desperate:)

I'm not going to speculate about others' moral systems, but my moral system makes a distinction between human life and non-human life. That's what all the "Is it a human" discussions were about.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. I didn't see an "Is it a human" discussion going on that I know of, I saw "is it life". But this is a new question that might be useful to discuss.
What is it that makes it human? What is it about that that makes abortion wrong?
The difference is that when you stab yourself in the arm, and get yourself patched up, it's only you that's affected by it. To put it another way, when you stab yourself in the arm, no one else bleeds. Taking someone else's life is a different thing altogether.
Well, for that you have to accept it already as true that a fetus is a person. If we agreed on that, then we've got a difference here.

If the anniversary could only be properly celebrated. The return of the authority to decide individual matters like this should be in the State's hands.

Wrong.

The authority to decide individual matters like this is protected by the Constitution. Accordingly, the authority is in individual hands.

BTW, why would you want to repeal the 14th Amendment?

The fact that it's "on the books and is the law" isn't necessarily relevant. SCOTUS changes their mind about decisions occassionally. (Otherwise, blacks might still be segregated.)

I've voted against, because I think Roe v. Wade has been taken too far. Women have to be given the right to terminate their pregnancies to protect their lives, and in the cases of rape and incest. No one should be forced to carry a child when they didn't have a choice in the sex that lead to the conception. I would also extend this to minors (with their parents' permission, because it's a medical procedure). Sex with a minor is automatically rape, so that also counts as not being consentual. I could also see terminating a pregnancy based on gross deformity, on the grounds that it's more merciful than bringing a life into the world that would experience nothing but suffering.

However, to me, if you're an adult, and you make a choice to have sex, you live with the consequences. Scientifically, once conception occurs, and the DNA is unique, that's an individual life. (I'm not going to argue that it has a "soul", because I don't believe in such a thing.)

So what?

I bet you had an individual life for lunch.

Moreoever, by having sex, a woman has to live the possibility that she may get pregnant. That does not mean that by having sex she agrees to carry a child to birth. Get your facts straight.

I'd dispute the whole question of "why" because "why" suggests that biological systems are purposeful (as in Creationism).



Please understand: I have zero interest in controling people's reproductive organs. As long as I've got control of mine, that's good enough for me. ;)

What we're talking about is regulating the ending of a human life that's not your own. (i.e., I have no problem w/ suicide or physician-assisted suicide, because those are both controlled by the person ending their lives.)

As far as when life starts, it's not a philosophical question. When the soul enters the body (or indeed, even if there is a soul) is a philosophical/theological question, but when life starts is a biological question, which has a concrete, scientific answer. Now, the answer might be different from what I've researched and what I've presented here (although from what I've seen and the discussions I've had here, it doesn't look like it), but regardless of that, there is a point when life starts, scientifically, so it doesn't need to go into the philosophical realm.



Ideally, it should be the responsibility of the couple who caused it to come about to take care of it. However, for me, it's a matter of picking your battles, and settling for the lesser of two evils. The circumstances of my life have been far from easy (I'm handicapped, in a wheelchair, and have some cognitive problems, to boot), but it would seem to me, from an atheist standpoint (and I think I've heard others on the board state similar comments) that death would be far worse than most ways people could suffer. (At least where there's life, there's a glimmer of hope.) Even in the worst cases of abuse, before death there's at least a chance for the suffering to be removed. And even in the halls of some orphanage, there's a chance for a child to find a home of a couple that can take care of it.

Anyway, to answer your question more succinctly: I'd like couples to act responsibly all the way around, but a little is better than nothing. I also acknowledge I've been speaking exclusively of the woman, rather than the couple, but that's only because the man doesn't have much (if any) power in these situations.
In your world, man doesn't have much responsibility in these situations. But given the options of contraceptives and abortions, there is a shared responsibilty between two consenting adults deciding what is best for their own fate and their unborn child's. Your choosing the lesser evil is not my idea of a lesser evil at all but a greater one. The idea of bringing an unwanted child into this world is every bit horrifying to me as me killing a so-called innocent soul is to you.

There is little science to promote your idea of the beginning of life and what there is, there is equal amounts of science promoting my idea of when life begins. Making it a mute point.

The answer to "Why?" smacks of creationism to you? Heh. Why?
The answer to life's whys are simply facts. Why don't we fall off the edge of the earth? Because the Earth is round. Yet if I asked why we fell off the edge of the Earth a thousand years ago the answer would be because God wills that we do not fall of the biblically flat Earth. The answers to why are not necessarily purpose driven... it's just the way things happen to be.

I'm not going to speculate about others' moral systems, but my moral system makes a distinction between human life and non-human life. That's what all the "Is it a human" discussions were about.

I'd love to see you justify that moral distinction. The correct inquiry is whether or not an entity is a person.

A person has rights. A non-person does not.

A chimp, a pig, or a dolphin all have more characteristics of personhood than a zygote, embryo, or early-term fetus.

I voted against Roe v. Wade on the poll because i like state's rights, although I am for abortion in all cases. :)

You are for the "rights" of states to violate individual Constitutional rights? How odd.

You are for the "rights" of states to violate individual Constitutional rights? How odd.

very odd indeed.

people are silly

A fetus does respond to stimuli, actually. Hell, cellular organisms respond to stimuli.
Do you refuse to read what I post or something?

A fetus does not preform stimulus response as an organism until very late in development. Until then it is not an organism.

Consenting to sex means understanding the implications of the sex act and its possible consequences. That's one of the reason we have age of consent laws. By the time you reach a certain age (which varies by state) it's assumed you understand the possible implications of your act and are willing to face the possible consequences.
That's like saying that if you consent to skiing you consent to having your legs broken, as that is a possible outcome of skiing and you shouldn't be permitted medical treatment.
Pregnancy is treatable. Abortion is still a negative experience that should be sufficient punishment to all us filthy whores who dared to have fun with sex. :rolleyes:

If the demand is for an abortion "just because I want one", it's hard to draw any other conclusion.
Hmm... perhaps if you actually listened, read the studies and surveys you'd notice that's not why women get abortions.

Not true. I have a low opinion of people who refuse to accept any responsibility for their actions.
Having an abortion is much more responsable than leaving a baby on someone's doorstep.

There are ways to ensure you can have sex without getting pregnant, and I fully support those methods.
And 50% of women who have abortions were using birth control during the month they became pregnant.

No one forced her to get pregnant in the first place. You're no more a "baby machine" when you're pregnant than you'd be a "feeding machine" because the state forced you to feed and support your child once you had it.
And you propose denying her medical treatment for an undesirable and unhealthy physical condition.

No. What we're talking about is forcing women to behave responsibly with their own bodies.
Funny, as getting an abortion is behaving responsably.

Would drinking and driving be okay just because someone said, "Hey, I like to drink. Do you have something against people getting enjoyment from drinking?"
You can get enjoyment from drinking without gettign behidn the wheel after. To make better use of your analogy, you're letting someone who was drinking and driving get away with it because they had an unpleasant drinking experience, say they vomited, while punishing the person who was drinking and driving and had a fun time.

And the hardship is preventable before the pregnancy ever happens. There are methods of birth control that are 99.98% effective (for each year of sex), when used properly. (The way these percentages are calculated, that translates to 1 birth every 5,000 years.) That's an awful lot of pleasurable, non-procreative sex, wouldn't you say?
Yes, and many women employ these methods of birth control and still end up pregnant. You would deny them the ability to abort.
Some women don't know about these methods of preventing pregnancy because they were taught to abstain only.

To play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, that argument clearly supports mass murder (by which I dont mean abortion) so long as it is by means of "plants, bacteria and fungi."

Which is to say, it dodges the question of whether or not "killing a fetus" is right or wrong.

You got me there -- however, I am really tired of the "God says so" argument...
and me a Christian. God says so takes the responsibility right out of man's hands.

It is human society that has decided that murder is wrong -- and clearly, since there is so much argument over abortion, human society has not yet decided the issue.

An individual cell forms the initial zygote, and this has all the DNA information of a human. And by the time the pregnancy can be detected (11/2 to 2 weeks after fertilization), the embryo is already implanted in the uterus, no longer a mere collection of cells, but an organism.
My arm has the DNA formation of a human.
An embryo does not perform stimulus response as an organism, much like my arm does not perform stimulus response as an organism.
Neither of these things are organisms, neither are individual lives.

Not true. I have a low opinion of people who refuse to accept any responsibility for their actions.

Probably because neither of those things is true. I've never said that sex wasn't pleasurable, or that the only valid reason to have sex was procreation. (See my response to Fass.) There are ways to ensure you can have sex without getting pregnant, and I fully support those methods.

No one forced her to get pregnant in the first place. You're no more a "baby machine" when you're pregnant than you'd be a "feeding machine" because the state forced you to feed and support your child once you had it.

No. What we're talking about is forcing women to behave responsibly with their own bodies. Would drinking and driving be okay just because someone said, "Hey, I like to drink. Do you have something against people getting enjoyment from drinking?" And the hardship is preventable before the pregnancy ever happens. There are methods of birth control that are 99.98% effective (for each year of sex), when used properly. (The way these percentages are calculated, that translates to 1 birth every 5,000 years.) That's an awful lot of pleasurable, non-procreative sex, wouldn't you say?

Not at all. I'm acknowledging that people should only be held responsible for acts for which they're culpable. If there's no consent, obviously there's no culpability.

Your premise about irresponsiblity is faulty.

54% of women having abortions in the US used a contraceptive method when they became pregnant.

**throws Uldaria's ranting theory out the window**

I'm not going to speculate about others' moral systems, but my moral system makes a distinction between human life and non-human life. That's what all the "Is it a human" discussions were about.
What exactly makes humans so much better than animals or even bacterium? We're really nasty creatures when you think about it.

The difference is that when you stab yourself in the arm, and get yourself patched up, it's only you that's affected by it. To put it another way, when you stab yourself in the arm, no one else bleeds. Taking someone else's life is a different thing altogether.
And we're not talking about taking a life, we're talking about ending the potential for a life to come into existence. Huge difference, my friend.

Your premise about irresponsiblity is faulty.

54% of women having abortions in the US used a contraceptive method when they became pregnant.

**throws Uldaria's ranting theory out the window**


LOL

What a Roe V Wade Day this has turned out to be.

I hate the just put the unwanted children up for adoption shit.
There are estimated to be 450 million orpans world-wide. To put that into context, that is the entire population of Japan, three and a half times over.
Me too.

Hey, if you don't want a baby, don't abort your pregnancy -- just abandon the infant upon birth and never give it another thought. Indicates just how much some anti-choicers really care about human lives.

Prior to that (and I was thinking Enlightenment times), the Church's teachings on the matter prevailed in people's minds. There were all kinds of rituals engaged in (witnesses in the newlyweds' bedchamber, etc.) to assure that the act was consumated, and that there were no "performance" issues. There were arranged marriages because the legacy (i.e., the children) were the most important thing, far above the personal pleasure of either of the people involved. And, in the Christian world, at least, sex for pleasure was frowned upon as sinful.
Hm.

So what teachings prevailed before the Church existed? You know, for that approximately 15,000 year period when there were societies but no Christians? What were the rules then?

Also, actually, arranged marriages were not about procreation. They were about wealth and power -- the joining of families. You seem to imply that bedroom witnesses were there to ensure pregnancy. Precisely how were they going to do that, since even unprotected sex does not always result in pregnancy?

No, the witnesses were there only to ensure that sex happened because sex was (and still is) a requirement for a marriage to be legal, and when two well-connected families that didn't really like each other all that much forced two of their kids to get married so they could corner the market in spice trading to Italy, they wanted to make sure there would be no annulments later.

Frankly, kids were often the last thing on these families minds. For instance, considering the number of times that the Borgias married off young Lucrezia and then either annulled her marriage or murdered their son-in-law so they could marry her off again to someone else with more money and better connections, I'm sure they were glad she didn't get pregnant every wedding night, because that would have made for way too many conflicting heirs they would have had to murder later, anyway.

I ASKED YOU A QUESTION, ULDARIA, : IF A WOMAN JUST SAYS SHE WAS RAPED (BUT REALLY WASNT) IN ORDER TO GET AN ABORTION, WHAT THEN?:mad:

OR ARE YOU UNABLE TO ANSWER THIS?

forgive the caps lock, but i got desperate:)

Yikes!! :)

(I didn't see your question. Sorry!)

Under such a system (which doesn't exist now, so I can only speculate), a woman would have to have reported the rape, and go through the process one goes through (i.e., filing charges, working with the police, etc.). The process is arduous enough in itself that I don't think women would cry "rape" just for the hell of it.

Hm.
So what teachings prevailed before the Church existed? You know, for that approximately 15,000 year period when there were societies but no Christians? What were the rules then?

I've no idea, actually. I wasn't trying to deal with pregnancy through all of human history. I was only dealing with the marriage tradition as we've known it. (Admittedly, this is with a Western-centric view, but the U.S. (where Roe v. Wade matters) is a Western country.)

Also, actually, arranged marriages were not about procreation. They were about wealth and power -- the joining of families. You seem to imply that bedroom witnesses were there to ensure pregnancy. Precisely how were they going to do that, since even unprotected sex does not always result in pregnancy?

No, the witnesses were there only to ensure that sex happened because sex was (and still is) a requirement for a marriage to be legal, and when two well-connected families that didn't really like each other all that much forced two of their kids to get married so they could corner the market in spice trading to Italy, they wanted to make sure there would be no annulments later.

It was also about heirs, though. The witnesses were there to assure that "the deed" could be done. The reason that consumation of the marriage was a requirement is because of the issue of inheritance.

Frankly, kids were often the last thing on these families minds. For instance, considering the number of times that the Borgias married off young Lucrezia and then either annulled her marriage or murdered their son-in-law so they could marry her off again to someone else with more money and better connections, I'm sure they were glad she didn't get pregnant every wedding night, because that would have made for way too many conflicting heirs they would have had to murder later, anyway.

Too many heirs were often a problem (which is why they had lambskin condoms back then, I believe). But no clear heir was as much of a problem, and for the same reason: If there's no clear heir, people start coming out of the woodwork. (Henry VIII is a good example of how seriously they took having heirs back then.)

Your premise about irresponsiblity is faulty.

54% of women having abortions in the US used a contraceptive method when they became pregnant.

**throws Uldaria's ranting theory out the window**

Firstly, my premise isn't that "women are too irresponsible and don't use birth control, and that's why they get pregnant". Not taking precautions is obviously bad, but it's far more irresponsible to take care of the problem by killing it.

Secondly, I didn't really consider it a rant, but if you've got the statistics, I'd be happy to have a look. There's always going to be a problem with these statistics, though: Because of the nature of the information, it's always self-reported. That makes the numbers less reliable. Like I said, though: If you've got the stats, let's have a look.

My arm has the DNA formation of a human.
An embryo does not perform stimulus response as an organism, much like my arm does not perform stimulus response as an organism.
Neither of these things are organisms, neither are individual lives.

Your arm doesn't perform stimulus response at all. The signals go from your skin cells to your nerves, then through your nervous system to your brain, and then sends signals back to your arm, telling it what to do (pull back, raise your arm hairs, whatever). Your arm is an organ -- a part of your body. The embryo is not an organ -- not a part of the mother. It's an independent life, unique at the cellular level in its DNA from the mother. And embryos do respond from stimuli. They respond to hormones, for example.

I've no idea, actually. I wasn't trying to deal with pregnancy through all of human history. I was only dealing with the marriage tradition as we've known it. (Admittedly, this is with a Western-centric view, but the U.S. (where Roe v. Wade matters) is a Western country.)



It was also about heirs, though. The witnesses were there to assure that "the deed" could be done. The reason that consumation of the marriage was a requirement is because of the issue of inheritance.



Too many heirs were often a problem (which is why they had lambskin condoms back then, I believe). But no clear heir was as much of a problem, and for the same reason: If there's no clear heir, people start coming out of the woodwork. (Henry VIII is a good example of how seriously they took having heirs back then.)
Yet you make quite sweeping statements about the purposes of sex. My point is that, considering that people have been having sex for so much longer than your preferred rules have existed, it seems a bit much to insist that your preferred rules define the proper purposes of sex. Therefore, I fall into that group that declines to adopt your preferred rules to define and govern sex.

As for the history of arranged marriages, the facts you state above are correct, but it brings up for me the following:

You are arguing against abortion on demand on the grounds that a fetus is a human and a human life has value. However, although the people of yore certainly loved their children and wanted to have children, still we cannot underestimate (because it is difficult for modern people in developed nations to imagine) just how high infant mortality rates affected the way people related to children. Yes, heirs were important in arranged marriages, but not as people. They were only important as ensurers of inheritance, and if they created problems in that way, they would be lucky to be simply written out of the family. In many cases, they were actually abandoned. In a few cases, they might be murdered. And they were not at risk only in their infancy. In many cases, children were not considered even fully human until puberty. Ironic, in light of your fetus=human person argument, eh?

And what about, since we didn't bring them up before, arranged marriages among poorer people? They have little or no inheritance to worry about, yet arranged marriages were or are the norm in many regions. Everyone wants kids, of course, but I say those who arrange the marriages are not thinking about the kids they will produce in the future. They are thinking about the benefit to the familes the marriages will produce right now.

Also, Henry VIII is not the best example to bring up if you're trying to make us believe that you don't view women as breeders.

I would argue that a world where unwanted children are aborted before they are ever born is better than a world in which unwanted children are abandoned on hillsides or smothered in their cribs. History is not your ally on this issue.

Your arm doesn't perform stimulus response at all. The signals go from your skin cells to your nerves, then through your nervous system to your brain, and then sends signals back to your arm, telling it what to do (pull back, raise your arm hairs, whatever). Your arm is an organ -- a part of your body. The embryo is not an organ -- not a part of the mother. It's an independent life, unique at the cellular level in its DNA from the mother. And embryos do respond from stimuli. They respond to hormones, for example.
Good sense it is not part of the mother the lazy basterd can be removed to fend for itself

What exactly makes humans so much better than animals or even bacterium? We're really nasty creatures when you think about it.

You won't get much of an argument from me on that. My only answer is, humans are us. The restriction against murder is more than a moral restraint. It's evolutionary. As a species, you don't get as far when you start limiting your genetic diversity.

And we're not talking about taking a life, we're talking about ending the potential for a life to come into existence. Huge difference, my friend.

From what I've seen so far, a zygote and an embryo both seem to satisfy a biological definition of "life". As I said in another post: By the time the woman is able to detect the pregnancy, it's already got the requisite characteristics.

Now, there are, to my knowledge, birth control methods that keep the process from getting to that point. (Pharmaceutical methods, I'm thinking of.) But as far as I can tell, under normal circumstances, by the time the woman knows about it, it's life.

What exactly makes humans so much better than animals or even bacterium? We're really nasty creatures when you think about it.

You won't get much of an argument from me on that. My only answer is, humans are us. The restriction against murder is more than a moral restraint. It's evolutionary. As a species, you don't get as far when you start limiting your genetic diversity.

And we're not talking about taking a life, we're talking about ending the potential for a life to come into existence. Huge difference, my friend.

From what I've seen so far, a zygote and an embryo both seem to satisfy a biological definition of "life". As I said in another post: By the time the woman is able to detect the pregnancy, it's already got the requisite characteristics.

Now, there are, to my knowledge, birth control methods that keep the process from getting to that point. (Pharmaceutical methods, I'm thinking of.) But as far as I can tell, under normal circumstances, by the time the woman knows about it, it's life.

You won't get much of an argument from me on that. My only answer is, humans are us. The restriction against murder is more than a moral restraint. It's evolutionary. As a species, you don't get as far when you start limiting your genetic diversity.

From what I've seen so far, a zygote and an embryo both seem to satisfy a biological definition of "life". As I said in another post: By the time the woman is able to detect the pregnancy, it's already got the requisite characteristics.

Now, there are, to my knowledge, birth control methods that keep the process from getting to that point. (Pharmaceutical methods, I'm thinking of.) But as far as I can tell, under normal circumstances, by the time the woman knows about it, it's life.

So it is human life, so what?

If the best moral argument you can come up with is "genetic diversity", you don't have much argument against abortion. Why should "genetic diversity" override a woman's right to control her own body?

As I've already explained the correct question is personhood. Zygotes, embryos, and earlier term fetuses aren't persons. They are less person-like than pigs, chimps, or dolphins.

The problem with this is the issue of our civil liberties. If the government takes away a few here adn a few there, then all of the sudden it is snowballing into a dictatorship. The idea here is fighting to for our rights, not for abortion. And yes, some babies will die for this. Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers have died to defend our rights. I think that aborition is morally wrong, but our nation has to fight on every front for civil rights.

Yet you make quite sweeping statements about the purposes of sex. My point is that, considering that people have been having sex for so much longer than your preferred rules have existed, it seems a bit much to insist that your preferred rules define the proper purposes of sex. Therefore, I fall into that group that declines to adopt your preferred rules to define and govern sex.

My "rules" as you call them, aren't primarily societal. They're biological. Biologically, that's what the organs are for.


As for the history of arranged marriages, the facts you state above are correct, but it brings up for me the following:

You are arguing against abortion on demand on the grounds that a fetus is a human and a human life has value. However, although the people of yore certainly loved their children and wanted to have children, still we cannot underestimate (because it is difficult for modern people in developed nations to imagine) just how high infant mortality rates affected the way people related to children. Yes, heirs were important in arranged marriages, but not as people. They were only important as ensurers of inheritance, and if they created problems in that way, they would be lucky to be simply written out of the family.

They were also valuable as farmhands, if you were a peasant. In a high-stakes family like the Borgias, though, you're right. Life was somewhat cheaper then.


In many cases, they were actually abandoned. In a few cases, they might be murdered. And they were not at risk only in their infancy. In many cases, children were not considered even fully human until puberty. Ironic, in light of your fetus=human person argument, eh?

This is true, but it wasn't the norm, even for then. For most people (excluding the nobility, you could argue) children weren't just a matter of heirs. They were also hands to work the field. Intentionally offing your children was a bad idea, if you were a peasant. Now, certainly, the sick and infirm (and I would've fallen into that category, I imagine) would've been completely screwed, but that was more a medical technology issue, rather than an issue of them not having value. Life was just a lot harder back then.



And what about, since we didn't bring them up before, arranged marriages among poorer people? They have little or no inheritance to worry about, yet arranged marriages were or are the norm in many regions. Everyone wants kids, of course, but I say those who arrange the marriages are not thinking about the kids they will produce in the future. They are thinking about the benefit to the familes the marriages will produce right now.

See above. In poorer families, the children could be put to work.

Also, Henry VIII is not the best example to bring up if you're trying to make us believe that you don't view women as breeders.

Hey, I never said the guy was a model husband, or even a nice guy, fer chrissake. I only brought it up as a way to demonstrate the importance of progeny. There was some question that childbearing was the important part of marriage back then, and that's what I was trying to address, however inelegantly.

I would argue that a world where unwanted children are aborted before they are ever born is better than a world in which unwanted children are abandoned on hillsides or smothered in their cribs. History is not your ally on this issue.

I would argue that a world where children are aborted encourages the kind of world where unwanted children are abandoned in garbage cans or smothered in cribs. (I substituted garbage can for mountainside, because you don't here much about mountainside abandonments anymore.) We have laws protecting abortion on the books, and still children are horribly abused, and even killed, by their parents. This, when society bends over backwards to give them an out. I just don't see abortion as the deterrent to abuse that you think it is. I think it makes life cheaper, actually. It seems more logical for me to think that the ones who don't have abortions and can't handle children are the ones who don't know what they're getting themselves into, and are more likely to end up being abusive. Would the problem be worse without abortion? I suppose it's possible, but if you have the belief that it's better not to have the child than to abuse it, it would seem to me that you'd be inclined to give it up for adoption, in the hopes of giving it a better home, than to keep it and abuse it.

Good sense it is not part of the mother the lazy basterd can be removed to fend for itself

That's a specious argument. A 2-year-old is not "part of the mother", but it can't "fend for itself", either. Fending for itself isn't the point.

That's a specious argument. A 2-year-old is not "part of the mother", but it can't "fend for itself", either. Fending for itself isn't the point.

That's a specious argument. A 2-year-old does not require the use of another's body.

Being a practical and rational person, I can only view the decision not to bring these children into society as a positive thing. I would go even a step further. I would allow for goverment financed abortions on the condition of voluntary sterilization at the time of the abortion thus solving the problem of abortion as birth control.

Long live Roe vs Wade!

Sterilization as a condition for abortion (which ought to be provided by the state, along with other forms of medical care, as a matter of course) undermines the principles of reproductive freedom, autonomy, and the right to privacy on which Roe v. Wade rests.

Sterilization as a condition for abortion (which ought to be provided by the state, along with other forms of medical care, as a matter of course) undermines the principles of reproductive freedom, autonomy, and the right to privacy on which Roe v. Wade rests.

Amen.

Sterilization as a condition for abortion (which ought to be provided by the state, along with other forms of medical care, as a matter of course) undermines the principles of reproductive freedom, autonomy, and the right to privacy on which Roe v. Wade rests.

I rest my case.

I rest my case.

Care to try making sense?

Being a practical and rational person, I can only view the decision not to bring these children into society as a positive thing. I would go even a step further. I would allow for goverment financed abortions on the condition of voluntary sterilization at the time of the abortion thus solving the problem of abortion as birth control.

Long live Roe vs Wade!

Why stop there. Why not make people get permits in order to have children?

Long live the Establishment Clause!

Why stop there. Why not make people get permits in order to have children?

Long live the Establishment Clause!

Beyond his "case" being asinine, I don't think Liverbreath realizes that over 60% of abortions in the U.S. are among women who have had 1 or more children.

Beyond his "case" being asinine, I don't think Liverbreath realizes that over 60% of abortions in the U.S. are among women who have had 1 or more children.
Cat Tribe, have you ever tried not being right? Just for fun.