NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally, I find this issue very difficult. I think both sides make good points. I'm surprised how people can take a side so easily. (poll coming)

Pro-abortion.

Pro-choice. The reason? If I were a woman, I'd want the right to decide what happens to my body. It's that simple. If I were a woman, I would not like for someone else to be able to force me to become a human incubator.

That's amusing! You're not asking what people's stance is, just whether they've got one!
Hehehe :)

Oh, yes I do, thanks for asking :)

Pro-choice. The reason? If I were a woman, I'd want the right to decide what happens to my body. It's that simple. If I were a woman, I would not like for someone else to be able to force me to become a human incubator.

Like I said, I know what both side's arguments are. I lean toward pro-choice, but mostly I just let myself be happy that I'm not in charge of the law.

Since I have a penis, no. I am not allowed to have an opinion. If you have a penis, neither are you.

This is a woman's issue and while I am pro-choice, it is none of my business.

Personally, I find this issue very difficult. I think both sides make good points. I'm surprised how people can take a side so easily. (poll coming)
well im old. ive had lots of years to think about it and to see the practical effects both good and bad.

by the time you are 48 youll probably have a stance too.

Pro-choice

It's not so much that I took a side, just that my own conclusions are vaguely in line with one of the "sides".

My stance is, abortions are going to continue, and I prefer that they be as medically safe as possible. I would not have one unless the pregnancy was seriously threatening my health, but I would never prevent someone from having one.

Yawping Stance. :)

I'm pro choice because I refuse to recognize a fetus as a human any more than I recognize a brain-dead patient on a respirator as a human.

Yes, I have a 'stance'. Ours is a patriarchal, phallocentric society, whether we choose to admit it or no. My stance redresses the balance.

Since I have a penis, no. I am not allowed to have an opinion. If you have a penis, neither are you.

This is a woman's issue and while I am pro-choice, it is none of my business.

It is very much my business, as my penis may end up somewhere and cause things to happen.

My opinion is that it's not my choice, but her's and that whomever it happened to be, I would be obliged to support her. At the very least provide comfort and at most, provide direct assistance.

Therefore, pro-choice.

But it would be nice if a girl that I accidently impregnated at least talked to me about it. Nice, but not 100% necessary. Although I would like to be able to trust my future wife, so I'd expect her to at least talk with me if the issue even arises (which it shouldn't in the first place, but oh well).

I don't think I can explain myself.

Since I have a penis, no. I am not allowed to have an opinion. If you have a penis, neither are you.

This is a woman's issue and while I am pro-choice, it is none of my business.

Good for you. :)

Personally, I find this issue very difficult. I think both sides make good points. I'm surprised how people can take a side so easily. (poll coming)

Whereupon you hit the nail squarely on the head.

The problem being that pro-choicers give you the option NOT to have an abortion if it violates your personal moral code, but the pro-life side insists on their right to make the decision for everyone.

I also have a stance. Pro-choice. As it has been mentioned before, I don't think anyone should have the ability to take away control of a person's body from them.

"If Roe v. Wade was overturned, would not the desire remain intact? Leaving young girls to risk their healths, and doctors to botch, and watch as they kill themselves..."

--Mister Butterfly, of The Diggable Planets

;)

I have a stance.
Im pro-choice but i want a lot of re-education. I think babies, even rape babies, deserve to live, they deserve a chance, thats why im in favour of Adoption centers, but i do understand choice is needed.

Whereupon you hit the nail squarely on the head.

The problem being that pro-choicers give you the option NOT to have an abortion if it violates your personal moral code, but the pro-life side insists on their right to make the decision for everyone.

we need a third party, someone who says abortions for everyone[/sarcasm] then the pro-lifers will have someone to target and the pro-choice can finally get through.

I have one, altought it is quite unusual.

It allows the prevention of spawning more people. It prevents those embryos from ever growing up and becoming new, useless, irrational morons, who in turn will spawn even more. Basically, anything that allows for the elimination of a human being without causing any (or minimal) misery is great.

However, the way it is currently used, it is pretty much useless in that sense. (I also support it in, basically, the standard pro-choice sense) The proper way to utilize it would be to make it compulsory with absolutely no exceptions whatsoever. People who then try to avoid it, (which should be against the law) and give birth to a child, (should they succeed, then the child should be killed as mercifully as possible -- to the child. to the mother, who would be forced to carry it out in person, it could be made as nerve-wrecking and horrible as possible, to teach her a lesson) should be sterilized, to eliminate the risk of them ever successfully procreating.

This would be an exceptionally nice and merciful way of killing off humanity. Too bad it's pretty much impossible to achieve.

we need a third party, someone who says abortions for everyone[/sarcasm]<snip>What a coincidence! :p I just noticed your post after posting just that.

It is very much my business, as my penis may end up somewhere and cause things to happen.

Aye, maybe, and as a married man with kids, I could easily say the same thing.

Except for one thing: I don't own my wife.

My opinion is that it's not my choice, but her's and that whomever it happened to be, I would be obliged to support her. At the very least provide comfort and at most, provide direct assistance.

Exactly.

"If Roe v. Wade was overturned, would not the desire remain intact? Leaving young girls to risk their healths, and doctors to botch, and watch as they kill themselves..."

Yeah and we have the desire to do all kinds of different things. Doesn't mean we legalize them.

Aye, maybe, and as a married man with kids, I could easily say the same thing.

Except for one thing: I don't own my wife.



See... I find your position 'pro-choice'. You are not advocating abortion, or demanding that it's availability be curtailed. Instead, you believe the CHOICE belongs elsewhere, which... to me... means pro-choice.

I wouldn't dream of telling my wife whether she could or couldn't have an abortion (although, I'd hope we'd discuss it, before she made her choice)... but I would take whatever means were necessary, to ensure she COULD get one, if she wanted one.

Ethics aside, I think from a practical point of view, it is best to have pro-choice legislation.

Since I have a penis, no. I am not allowed to have an opinion. If you have a penis, neither are you.

This is a woman's issue and while I am pro-choice, it is none of my business.


Bullshit. That's like saying, unless you're a black man in 19th century America, you don't have a right to an opinion on slavery. Everyone can, and does have an opinion. Freedom of speech AND freedom of thought, you know?

Yeah and we have the desire to do all kinds of different things. Doesn't mean we legalize them.

Don't be so sure. We've never made it illegal to climb treacherous mountains, or jump out of perfectly good airplanes, and those things are much easier to come back from alive if you use the proper equipment. And, similarly, making them illegal wouldn't stop people from doing them, it would just stop people from doing them safely.

Since I have a penis, no. I am not allowed to have an opinion. If you have a penis, neither are you.

This is a woman's issue and while I am pro-choice, it is none of my business.

I disagree with you. Completely. I have a penis, and I most definately have an opinion, and it WILL be heard. I also like sex. And accidents happen. So I demand the right for whatever girl I happen to be sleeping with at the time to have an abortion if she accidently gets pregnant.

Believing in abortion is actually one of the things I look for in a girl. If she is pro-life, then I don't bother. Of course, I refuse to date active Christians, so that about eliminates most of the pro-lifers anyways.

Bullshit. That's like saying, unless you're a black man in 19th century America, you don't have a right to an opinion on slavery. Everyone can, and does have an opinion. Freedom of speech AND freedom of thought, you know?
things would have been so much easier and SOOOO much clearer if slavery was made a personal choice of those who were in involuntary servitude.

there might well have been some, just as there was indentured servitude but it it would be OK because it was chosen, not forced.

Pro-stay-the-hell-out-the-womb-and-let-people-make-their-own-choices

Don't be so sure. We've never made it illegal to climb treacherous mountains, or jump out of perfectly good airplanes, and those things are much easier to come back from alive if you use the proper equipment. And, similarly, making them illegal wouldn't stop people from doing them, it would just stop people from doing them safely.

In that case you are just risking your own life and not killing an unborn child.

Those who enjoy bungee jumping and the like, hey go for it. With all the safetly measures taken its not THAT dangerous. ;)

In that case you are just risking your own life and not killing an unborn child.

Those who enjoy bungee jumping and the like, hey go for it. With all the safetly measures taken its not THAT dangerous. ;)

You're obviously not getting the point. So, I'll change tack.

How would you go about enforcing a law which bans abortion while at the same time guaranteeing the safety and health of those women who were vehemant about NOT giving birth, and were determined to the point of considering serious risk of bodily harm to get an abortion?

I don't understand why it's so hard to take a stance on the issue.

You're obviously not getting the point. So, I'll change tack.

How would you go about enforcing a law which bans abortion while at the same time guaranteeing the safety and health of those women who were vehemant about NOT giving birth, and were determined to the point of considering serious risk of bodily harm to get an abortion?

How can you guarantee anything? Besides it's not my responsibility to make sure that people obey the law. If you break the law then you accept the risks that are part of criminal activity.

Having a kid is a huge committment (18years - your whole life)

If you don't think your ready or up to it, you shouldn't be forced to keep it. Sex education should be good enough to prevent abortion situations where possible, but the option should still be on the table if need be.

Since I have a penis, no. I am not allowed to have an opinion. If you have a penis, neither are you.

This is a woman's issue and while I am pro-choice, it is none of my business.

It becomes a mans business if the mother wants the father to support her. If he's given no say than he should have the option of not being involved in anything else (if he choses) otherwise I think men are being discriminated against.

How can you guarantee anything? Besides it's not my responsibility to make sure that people obey the law. If you break the law then you accept the risks that are part of criminal activity.

I want's asking you about your responsibilities. Though if you get down to it, you're the one that want to take away the right of self determination, so you should feel obligated to come up with a workable solution that gets you what you want. Otherwise you're nothing but hot air.

But, I can see what you're really saying is that you don't care about women.

That they give up their rights once a sperm makes it past an egg's outer membrane.

Not entirely original, and certainly repugnant.

I do have a stance in fact. Albeit not a particularly traditional one. ;)

I have a stance...nobody much likes it though.

What Keruvalia said. I don't consider myself competent to have a stance, and certainly not able to have a say in it (and thank fuck for that, because it's a complex issue), and thus would fall in the 'pro-choice' bracket.

What Keruvalia said. I don't consider myself competent to have a stance, and certainly not able to have a say in it (and thank fuck for that, because it's a complex issue), and thus would fall in the 'pro-choice' bracket.

Wait wait wait. If you are pro-choice, you HAVE an opinion. That's your stance! Pro-choice!

My belief is that life legally begins three months or so into gestation, when the fetus' heart starts beating. Abortion beyond that point is murder.

I have a stance.
Considering the fact that pro-choice does not automatically mean pro-abortion, just respecting a grown up woman enough to treat her as a human being and allow her to have control over her own body. It doesn't mean that I'd ask any woman to have abortions, it just means that I don't want the law to take away her right to her own body.

Wait wait wait. If you are pro-choice, you HAVE an opinion. That's your stance! Pro-choice!
Well, I guess if you're going to play that game. I was saying I don't have a stance, but I guess I do, in that my stance is the decision is for the woman alone to make. But if we're doing that, then surely saying "I don't care about abortion" is just as much a stance.

You're obviously not getting the point. So, I'll change tack.

How would you go about enforcing a law which bans abortion while at the same time guaranteeing the safety and health of those women who were vehemant about NOT giving birth, and were determined to the point of considering serious risk of bodily harm to get an abortion?

Should we legalize rape, just so those that do rape might be able to do it safely? So that there is as little risk to both the rapist and the victim?

If it's wrong why say to keep it legal just because people will do it anyway? Murder, rape, and stealing are all illegal, yet those are outlawed.

Aye, maybe, and as a married man with kids, I could easily say the same thing.

Except for one thing: I don't own my wife.



Exactly.

I know that. Why do you think I am pro-choice?

Should we legalize rape, just so those that do rape might be able to do it safely? So that there is as little risk to both the rapist and the victim?

If it's wrong why say to keep it legal just because people will do it anyway? Murder, rape, and stealing are all illegal, yet those are outlawed.

Murder, rape and stealing are not anything like abortion.

Murder, rape and stealing are not anything like abortion.

I didn't say they were, though as a pro-lifer I believe abortion is murder. I was merely pointing out that refusing to outlaw abortion because "people might do it anyway" is a faulty argument.

You outlaw something to discourage people from doing it. If they do it anyway, you punish them. The idea that they might do it anyway has no effect on whether the action in question is wrong.

I am pro-choice, because that is what is better for society as a whole. (I don't think that individual rights arguments are very strong.)

Banning abortion causes more problems than it solves.

Since I have a penis, no. I am not allowed to have an opinion. If you have a penis, neither are you.

This is a woman's issue and while I am pro-choice, it is none of my business.
Everyone has the right to an opinion. But is a man's opinion an informed opinion? Well on one side we don't have to go through pregnancy. But on the other hand, there can be no pregnancy without us.

If it's wrong why say to keep it legal just because people will do it anyway? Murder, rape, and stealing are all illegal, yet those are outlawed.
well i dont steal, rape or murder so it isnt ny buisness...

i think it should cost something to get an abortion, not money more like 3 month of contry service for both the mother and the father... so that people dont just abort their child just because its not 100% perfect (some people actually do that) ...ofcours an exeption should be made for rape victims underage mothers.... the idea isnt fully finished yet...

Since I have a penis, no. I am not allowed to have an opinion. If you have a penis, neither are you.

This is a woman's issue and while I am pro-choice, it is none of my business.

I LOVE YOU.
and i'm pro-choice. i want to have control over my own body.

Should we legalize rape, just so those that do rape might be able to do it safely? So that there is as little risk to both the rapist and the victim?

If it's wrong why say to keep it legal just because people will do it anyway? Murder, rape, and stealing are all illegal, yet those are outlawed.

The problem is that those things still take away the right of self determination from people who know what the concept is.

Where I stand on the abortion debate: Somewhere far enough away from the clinics that I don't get blown up in the process. I used to care about that sort of thing, but I realized two things:
1) I'm not going to convince anybody, and
2) I don't have a uterus, so I really don't need to convince anybody.

I am definitely pro-abortion. Every single pregnancy should be terminated.

pro-choice

if i was a women i would want the choice. however im not sure what i would chose:confused:

Personally, I find this issue very difficult. I think both sides make good points. I'm surprised how people can take a side so easily. (poll coming)
never dealt with an unwanted pregnancy?
i did. not pleasant. both options.
i did choose to minimise damage and have 2 unhappy persons instead of 3.

no, i don't feel bad about it.

I believe it is best to wait until the embryo/fetus is a full grown 18 year old human. At this point in time they can make their own informed decision. If they chose, then the doctors may abort.

I have a stance, and that stance is that I am not qualified to make a choice, and so I leave it up to the woman to choose. If that makes me pro-choice, then so be it.

Personally, I find this issue very difficult. I think both sides make good points. I'm surprised how people can take a side so easily. (poll coming)

What makes you think those who do have a stance came to it "easily"? For many of us, our stance was arrived at after a great deal of thought, and is modified with new experiences and talking to more people.

Yeah and we have the desire to do all kinds of different things. Doesn't mean we legalize them.

Everything is legal, unless a law is made against it. In our governmental system, the default is legal. Thus, to talk about "legalizing" actions doesn't really make sense. You can either leave them at the default - legal, criminilize them, make them illegal, or return them to the default if they were previously made illegal (this last is the only time at which you might use the term "legalize").

What makes you think those who do have a stance came to it "easily"? For many of us, our stance was arrived at after a great deal of thought, and is modified with new experiences and talking to more people.

Me = Pwnd! :p

It took me a long time to formalize an opinion on abortion, and I'm still not exactly a staunch supporter of mine. For a while, I was mildly pro-life, but after learning about women in developing countries using chemicals or things like knitting needles to attempt their own abortions, I realised that abortions need to remain legal. That way, they can be performed by trained doctors in safe enviroments. However, as a way of making abortions next-to-oboselete, more money needs to be put into FULL sex-ed programs in schools as well as family planning clinics where contraceptives can be available.

My belief is that life legally begins three months or so into gestation, when the fetus' heart starts beating. Abortion beyond that point is murder.

For the record, the heart starts beating in the embryonic stage - well before 3 months. It begins, in humans, at 22-23 days - about three weeks in. So if you really want to place the legal beginning of life at the beginning of a heartbeat, you would have to put it at about 3 weeks. Of course, I don't really know how you would back up that placement, since the heart isn't even pumping blood at that point, and since a heartbeat does not, in and of itself, make someone alive. A brain-dead person can still have a heartbeat.

Me = Pwnd! :p

Hehe. =)

It took me a long time to formalize an opinion on abortion, and I'm still not exactly a staunch supporter of mine. For a while, I was mildly pro-life, but after learning about women in developing countries using chemicals or things like knitting needles to attempt their own abortions, I realised that abortions need to remain legal. That way, they can be performed by trained doctors in safe enviroments. However, as a way of making abortions next-to-oboselete, more money needs to be put into FULL sex-ed programs in schools as well as family planning clinics where contraceptives can be available.

Sounds like a wonderful idea. None of this "abstinence-only" crap that is pretty much guarranteed to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies (and thus the number of abortions, because even the staunchest of pro-lifers will often come up with some excuse for their daughter when she gets pregnant...)

Hehe. =)



Sounds like a wonderful idea. None of this "abstinence-only" crap that is pretty much guarranteed to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies (and thus the number of abortions, because even the staunchest of pro-lifers will often come up with some excuse for their daughter when she gets pregnant...)

Abstinence only? Uggh, I absolutely shudder at the thought. (And I'm as virgin as they come).

I see nothing wrong with abortion, so... abortions for everyone! (who wants one.)

Abortion is murder, plain and simple. Don't murder the baby just because the mother did something stupid. Even if the mother got raped, it is not right to punish the baby for a horrible crime that it just happened to be the result of. Also, it could help solve the crime, because they could run the baby's DNA against a suspect and see if he was the father.

Abortion is murder, plain and simple.

That's a nice opinion there, but it isn't exactly proven fact, now is it?

Meanwhile, if it is murder, why aren't those trying to pass laws against it calling for the same punishments for it as they would for murder?

Don't murder the baby just because the mother did something stupid.

Is having sex stupid these days? Is having sex with a condom, a diaphragm, spermicide, and being on the pill all at once stupid?

Even if the mother got raped, it is not right to punish the baby for a horrible crime that it just happened to be the result of.

No one is advocating punishing any babies here.

Also, it could help solve the crime, because they could run the baby's DNA against a suspect and see if he was the father.

They could most likely do that with or without a continued pregnancy, unless the abortion pill was used.

Abortion is murder, plain and simple. Don't murder the baby just because the mother did something stupid. Even if the mother got raped, it is not right to punish the baby for a horrible crime that it just happened to be the result of. Also, it could help solve the crime, because they could run the baby's DNA against a suspect and see if he was the father.

First, if abortion is legal it is by definition not murder. Second, there is no baby involved in an abortion. Third, there are plenty of other ways to catch rapists, especially if the woman doesn't clean herself up before reporting the rape, as well, you don't need a fully formed baby to get DNA. An embryo will have the same DNA as the possible resultant baby.

Personally, I find this issue very difficult. I think both sides make good points. I'm surprised how people can take a side so easily. (poll coming)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
You just had to make an abortion thread didn't you! For the record I am currently pro-life but that's mostly because I'm in the mood to anoy feminists. Next week I'll probably be pro-choice to piss off the bible belt. It's hard work being a moderate but somebody's got to keep us sane. I like that. I'm going to add it to my sig.

Abortion is murder, plain and simple. Don't murder the baby just because the mother did something stupid. Even if the mother got raped, it is not right to punish the baby for a horrible crime that it just happened to be the result of. Also, it could help solve the crime, because they could run the baby's DNA against a suspect and see if he was the father.

What's more punishing: being aborted as a fetus or growing up HIV positive/in extreme poverty/with a mother who can't take care of you/ with an abusive father, etc? Now I'm not saying one should run out and get an abortion every time one chooses not to use a condom. But I am saying that women get abortions for many different reasons, and it's not fair to pass judgement on them.

Abortion should be completely illegal except when the woman is in danger. Doctors who do abortions should be hung.

Abortion should be completely illegal except when the woman is in danger. Doctors who do abortions should be hung.

A woman is always in danger from a pregnancy.

Problem solved. =)

I'd rather jump over a mud puddle when I see one.

Abortion should be completely illegal except when the woman is in danger. Doctors who do abortions should be hung.

Was that purposefully hypocrytical?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
You just had to make an abortion thread didn't you!


No, I didn't have to.
Questions end in a question mark.
This one is different. I'm not asking what people think, I'm asking them if they have an opinion.

This one is different. I'm not asking what people think, I'm asking them if they have an opinion.

It's still going to turn into "Abortion is wrong!" "Yeah well, Christians are stupid."

What's more punishing: being aborted as a fetus or growing up HIV positive/in extreme poverty/with a mother who can't take care of you/ with an abusive father, etc? Now I'm not saying one should run out and get an abortion every time one chooses not to use a condom. But I am saying that women get abortions for many different reasons, and it's not fair to pass judgement on them.

actually, most women don't get abortions because of this, In fact very few women get abortions due to rape.

Oh and i'm pro-choice.

actually, most women don't get abortions because of this, In fact very few women get abortions due to rape.

Oh and i'm pro-choice.

Er, most of the life conditions mentioned aren't exclusive companions to rape.

This will be my first any only reply to an abortion thread.

It is as simple as this;
If a woman does not want to have children she does not have sex or gets herself sterilized. She does not get pregnant with an unwanted child and does not need to have an abortion.
There, problem solved.

Murder is wrong no matter what it is called. Abortion is murder.
I hope in the very near future abortion is made illegal except in the case of severe physical/mental abnormalities or when a child is conceived through incest.

To all abortion supporters. Since you support the murder of innocent children the you should have no problem with people killing whoever they whant for whatever reason.

To all abortion supporters. Since you support the murder of inocent chuildren the you should have no problem with people killing whoever they whant for whatever reason.

It's not murder by definition and there's no children involved. <3

To all abortion supporters. Since you support the murder of innocent children the you should have no problem with people killing whoever they whant for whatever reason.

I do not support abortion but I do support the murder of innocent children.

Er, most of the life conditions mentioned aren't exclusive companions to rape.

In fact, I specifically didn't mention rape, as many pro-lifers make exceptions in cases of rape.

It's not murder by definition and there's no children involved. <3
He's not going to understand that.

It's not murder by definition and there's no children involved. <3
So YOU say.
The malicious ending of any life is murder. I do not care what you or anyone else says.

I guess that will not be my first and only post in an abortion thread.

So YOU say.
Well you ought to know, you quoted him after all.

It's still going to turn into "Abortion is wrong!" "Yeah well, Christians are stupid."

Not my fault. I cannot be blamed for the quantity of immature posters on the forum.

So YOU say.

Nope. So says the dictionary.

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Therefore, if abortion is legal it can't be murder.

Abortion is murder

Not my fault. I cannot be blamed for the quantity of immature posters on the forum.
Every thread started even remotely about abortion is going to end up like that. It's just the way it works.

So YOU say.
The malicious ending of any life is murder. I do not care what you or anyone else says.

No ending someone's life and getting caught is murder.

Abortion is murder
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10544030&postcount=88

Right above your post, buddy.

Abortion is murder
So HE says.

Oh, wait no, I already read that bit.

What?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10544030&postcount=88

Right above your post, buddy.

Do you think if that's repeated enough, it might actually get through to someone one day?

Yes. I do have a stance. I am pro-choice. I measure my life from the day I was born.

Most abortions aren't even of fetuses (fetii?), they are of embryos.

Yes. I do have a stance. I am pro-choice. I measure my life from the day I was born.

Most abortions aren't even of fetuses (fetii?), they are of embryos.
Still human. Still alive.

Do you think if that's repeated enough, it might actually get through to someone one day?
I doubt it. I mean, it'll get through but then you gotta remember the definition of "conservative": close-minded. And then they'll make abortion illegal, so it will be murder. I guess it is murder in S.D. now, even in cases of rape. It's a sad reflection on society when the religion and morals of the relatively few dictate everyone. What really gets me, are women who vehemently oppose abortion. It's like black people being against the civil rights movement.

Still human. Still alive.

Curious, what is your exact definition of human?

Still human. Still alive.
What if the support of the mother was removed? Would the fetus be alive then? The fetus is under physical jurisdiction of the mother, so the mother should be able to control what she wants done with her fetus, not other people.

Curious, what is your exact definition of human?
Probably two cells containing human DNA.

This will be my first any only reply to an abortion thread.

Oh goody.

It is as simple as this;
If a woman does not want to have children she does not have sex or gets herself sterilized. She does not get pregnant with an unwanted child and does not need to have an abortion.
There, problem solved.

Good to know that all the responsibility associated with sex and childrearing falls on the woman.

On the one hand, I agree that someone who would not, under any circumstances, carry a pregnancy to term should either be sterilized or remain abstinent until such time that they are willing to do so. Of course, I also realize that this is my personal opinion of the matter, not a something I would force upon another.

Murder is wrong no matter what it is called. Abortion is murder.

Prove it.

I hope in the very near future abortion is made illegal except in the case of severe physical/mental abnormalities or when a child is conceived through incest.

Why should an embryo conceived through incest be aborted? Is it responsible for the actions of its parents? How exactly do you think we are going to know about mental abnormalities before birth?

And I take it then that, even if the woman were most likely going to die if she continued pregnancy, you wouldn't think an abortion should be available? After all, you didn't include the life or health of the mother in your exceptions.

To all abortion supporters.

I haven't met many "abortion supporters". I've met quite a few "right to choice" supporters, but that isn't exactly the same thing, now is it?

Since you support the murder of innocent children the you should have no problem with people killing whoever they whant for whatever reason.

Who is talking about the murder of innocent children? I think you need to hop over to a different thread, since you seem to want to go off-topic here.

Curious, what is your exact definition of human?
Homo sapiens

What really gets me, are women who vehemently oppose abortion. It's like black people being against the civil rights movement.
"Damnnit, I like sitting at the back of the bus. Like I'm supposed to!"

The mind reels.

Homo sapiens

:p

No, I mean what is the most fundamental a homosapien can get?

A sperm?
An egg?
or the both combined?

Pro killing babies.

Still human. Still alive.

What definition of "alive" are you using?


I doubt it. I mean, it'll get through but then you gotta remember the definition of "conservative": close-minded. And then they'll make abortion illegal, so it will be murder. I guess it is murder in S.D. now, even in cases of rape. It's a sad reflection on society when the religion and morals of the relatively few dictate everyone. What really gets me, are women who vehemently oppose abortion. It's like black people being against the civil rights movement.

Actually, even the SD law doesn't treat abortion as murder, but as a separate, much lesser crime. And it's pretty much the only crime that you can't be prosecuted for asking someone to do - strangely enough. Even the pro-lifers who scream "MURDER!" over and over again won't actually try to place that in the law. Instead, they make a clear distinction between the value of born persons and embryos/fetuses, and then still try to claim that their position is consistent.

What if the support of the mother was removed? Would the fetus be alive then? The fetus is under physical jurisdiction of the mother, so the mother should be able to control what she wants done with her fetus, not other people.

OK. Come to my house and say that. Since I do not like what you said and you are under the jurisdiction of my home I should be able to control weather to kill you or let you live.


BTW: this is not a threat.

Actually, even the SD law doesn't treat abortion as murder, but as a separate, much lesser crime. And it's pretty much the only crime that you can't be prosecuted for asking someone to do - strangely enough. Even the pro-lifers who scream "MURDER!" over and over again won't actually try to place that in the law. Instead, they make a clear distinction between the value of born persons and embryos/fetuses, and then still try to claim that their position is consistent.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up, then!

OK. Come to my house and say that. Since I do not like what you said and you are under the jurisdiction of my home I should be able to control weather to kill you or let you live.


BTW: this is not a threat.
That's not quite the same physical jurisdiction. Perhaps if you ate me there might be some similarities.

BTW: I think you broke your campaign promise.

This will be my first any only reply to an abortion thread.

OK. Come to my house and say that. Since I do not like what you said and you are under the jurisdiction of my home I should be able to control weather to kill you or let you live.

The analogy only works if Achtung is living inside of you, leaching nutrients from your body, making irreversible changes to it, and has no brain with which to form a thought, much less say something you don't like.

Meanwhile, you could change the analogy by pointing out that, should Achtung enter your house, you could throw him/her out for any reason you chose. You could forcibly remove Achtung from your house if simply asking was not enough. You could do this even if Achtung would surely die if removed from your house. In the case of abortion, a woman is removing something from her uterus - something that, by most definitions, can't even be considered to be a human person. Don't you think that removing something from your own person would be a right considering that you can remove someone/something from a building you own without any legal problems?

Still human. Still alive.

So are tumors.

I have one, altought it is quite unusual.

It allows the prevention of spawning more people. It prevents those embryos from ever growing up and becoming new, useless, irrational morons, who in turn will spawn even more. Basically, anything that allows for the elimination of a human being without causing any (or minimal) misery is great.

However, the way it is currently used, it is pretty much useless in that sense. (I also support it in, basically, the standard pro-choice sense) The proper way to utilize it would be to make it compulsory with absolutely no exceptions whatsoever. People who then try to avoid it, (which should be against the law) and give birth to a child, (should they succeed, then the child should be killed as mercifully as possible -- to the child. to the mother, who would be forced to carry it out in person, it could be made as nerve-wrecking and horrible as possible, to teach her a lesson) should be sterilized, to eliminate the risk of them ever successfully procreating.

This would be an exceptionally nice and merciful way of killing off humanity. Too bad it's pretty much impossible to achieve.

Wow. Didn't even see this. I agree entirely. But while we're about it, why not start the slow destruction of the adult population as well? Make it go a helluva lot faster. Have a lottery six times a day in every country.

So are tumors.

Exactly. The question isn't whether or not embryonic tissue is alive. Every cell in my body is technically alive.

Fine. Screw it.
Remove all laws making the killing of anything illegal and lets have a free for all. When I and the rest of the strongest are left standing we can start everything from scratch, first and foremost making abortion illegal.

I done with you ignorant pro choicers (same as pro abortion). Bitch among your selves, I'm going to go blow up an abortion clinic. Wait can't do that, it's murder.

Pro killing babies.
I prefer calling them "baby professional killers" so as to avoid confusion. You know, with babies who kill professionals. Those kids are psychos.

Fine. Screw it.
Remove all laws making the killing of anything illegal and lets have a free for all. When I and the rest of the strongest are left standing we can start everything from scratch, first and foremost making abortion illegal.

I done with you ignorant pro choicers (same as pro abortion). Bitch among your selves, I'm going to go blow up an abortion clinic. Wait can't do that, it's murder.

Seesh you have no patience or the will to listen to an opposing side. You're doomed to fail a debate before you even speak.

Fine. Screw it.

*sigh* And here I thought there was going to be something productive from you....

Remove all laws making the killing of anything illegal

Why would we do that?

I done with you ignorant pro choicers (same as pro abortion).

Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. I am pro-choice and anti-abortion. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Bitch among your selves, I'm going to go blow up an abortion clinic. Wait can't do that, it's murder.

It's murder if someone is inside. Otherwise, it is property damage, which carries a lesser sentence. But that is really beside the point.

Let me ask you a question (I stole this from someone, don't remember who):

A fire starts in an IVF clinic. You have the option of either saving a rack with 100 frozen embryos in it, or a three year old child. You cannot save both. What do you save?

<snip>It's no use trying to understand as we think in full scale color, not black and white.

I prefer calling them "baby professional killers" so as to avoid confusion. You know, with babies who kill professionals. Those kids are psychos.
lol, I was wondering if anyone else was going to catch that!

Exactly. The question isn't whether or not embryonic tissue is alive. Every cell in my body is technically alive.

And human, too! Would you believe that?

And human, too! Would you believe that?
Not necessarily, no. Sight unseen.

I prefer calling them "baby professional killers" so as to avoid confusion. You know, with babies who kill professionals. Those kids are psychos.

Yes. I love them. Only babies I can stand the sight of them. However, I believe that each and every child should be killed. And fetus aborted. Hate them. After the killing, eat them. Solve world hunger and overpopulation pretty damn quick, and would lead to the eventual destruction of humanity.

This issue is the only reason I want to become the supreme totalitarian ruler of the world.

Somebody needs a kipper.

And human, too! Would you believe that?

Well, technically, most human beings have more E. coli cells in their bodies than human cells, but then again, technically, there are some dead cells in my body along with the ones that are alive, so we'll just skip over that technicality and go with:

Yeah! =)

Yes, I have a stance. I'm pro-life and pro-choice. That is, I feel strongly that abortion is not something that society should endorse, nor is it something it should legislate.

If we want to do something about abortion, then we should do something about poverty, sex education, and the disempowerment of women, not rule that women protecting themselves from the oppressive society we've created to be criminal.

Well, I feel that's a stance.

Yes I do.

Back. Waaaaay back out of the damn way. I'm far too tired of the debate, but thanks for asking.

The Regressive Party (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive): Against abortion; for killing babies. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive
The only downside is that ska music is banned.

But on a serious note, I don't believe that stem cells are human because exterior factors control whether or not they become human (AKA hormones) or simply a human's liver. But when a fetus intentionally avoids a vacuum or needle, I'm pretty sure that it is choosing not to commit suicide. But perhaps someone could explain this to me, because I'm pretty open minded and genuinely test (and usually disprove most) of my opinions: If RU238 were cheap, readily available, and well known, what reason could someone have for having an abortion, unless they didn't know that the pill failed or they are in the ten percent or so of whom "the morning after" pill didn't work for? It seems to me that waiting until a piece of tissue has a heart beat to flush it is pretty much avoidable 99 times out of 100. The argument would then appear to me to be "babies are inconvenient, just like going to the police, or Wal-Mart..."

This is a really difficult topic.
My opinion on this one has gone back and forth several times and I’m not quite sure that I have a definite opinion
That being said, I suppose this whole argument comes down to whether or not you consider an embryo or fetus a child or not. I haven’t quite made my mind up of this quite yet.


Meanwhile, you could change the analogy by pointing out that, should Achtung enter your house, you could throw him/her out for any reason you chose. You could forcibly remove Achtung from your house if simply asking was not enough. You could do this even if Achtung would surely die if removed from your house. In the case of abortion, a woman is removing something from her uterus - something that, by most definitions, can't even be considered to be a human person. Don't you think that removing something from your own person would be a right considering that you can remove someone/something from a building you own without any legal problems?

Well, I’m no expert but I don't think that forcibly removing someone from your house is not a good analogy. Like I said before, I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that aborting a fetus is not just "removing" it, but actually dismembering or destroying the baby/tissue before it is removed. Not to be grotesque, but wouldn't a better analogy involve killing the person in your home, then dumping them outside.

And human, too! Would you believe that?

See, this is what I’m really not sure about. Is a embryo a living being or a bundle of cells. On one hand, I guess by definition it is a bundle of cells, but on the other hand, isn't a full grown adult just a bundle of cells? I know that sounds corny, but is being alive simply a count of the number of cells in your body? A lot of people say that you’re alive once you make it out of the birth canal, but does that mean that its morally expectable to kill a baby that is one day from delivery. If the answer is yes, then I find it much more difficult to call myself pro-choice. But if the answer is no, then at what point is the bundle of cells alive? And why is that bundle of cells considered alive? If killing a fetus is ok, then why is killing a full grown person not if it’s just destroying a collection of cells?
I know it must sound like I’m pro-life, but I am truly undecided. These are just some of the questions that I can never seem to decide on.

The Regressive Party (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive): Against abortion; for killing babies. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive
The only downside is that ska music is banned.


I think I'll do that. Or I would. If I weren't a pinko socialist pig/asshole. Fuck totalitarianism. Unless I am in charge. But hey, I agree with all the points raised on both vampires and killing. Except fuck age limits. "Abort" anyone, any age.

But on a serious note, I don't believe that stem cells are human because exterior factors control whether or not they become human (AKA hormones) or simply a human's liver. But when a fetus intentionally avoids a vacuum or needle, I'm pretty sure that it is choosing not to commit suicide. But perhaps someone could explain this to me, because I'm pretty open minded and genuinely test (and usually disprove most) of my opinions: If RU238 were cheap, readily available, and well known, what reason could someone have for having an abortion, unless they didn't know that the pill failed or they are in the ten percent or so of whom "the morning after" pill didn't work for? It seems to me that waiting until a piece of tissue has a heart beat to flush it is pretty much avoidable 99 times out of 100. The argument would then appear to me to be "babies are inconvenient, just like going to the police, or Wal-Mart..."

I think you are confusing the morning after pill, also known as Plan B, with RU238, which is an abortificant. Taking RU238 is having an abortion, as it is taken after implantation (at which time pregnancy begins).

Of course, one would only take the morning after pill if one thought that something had happened to get them pregnant. I, for instance, am on birth control pills. So long as I take them correctly, I do not expect to get pregnant, despite being sexually active - so I don't run out and get Plan B every time my fiance and I have sex. But the pill is not foolproof, and I could still get pregnant. Were that to happen, I wouldn't choose to abort, but some would.


That being said, I suppose this whole argument comes down to whether or not you consider an embryo or fetus a child or not. I haven’t quite made my mind up of this quite yet.

When it comes to legislation, it isn't so much what you consider, as it is what you can objectively demonstrate.

Well, I’m no expert but I don't think that forcibly removing someone from your house is not a good analogy. Like I said before, I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that aborting a fetus is not just "removing" it, but actually dismembering or destroying the baby/tissue before it is removed. Not to be grotesque, but wouldn't a better analogy involve killing the person in your home, then dumping them outside.

If that were the only way you could remove them without harm to yourself, then it would be better. Of course, with a house, you can remove someone from the premises without harming them.

Of course, if we really wanted to get into a proper analogy, we would have to say that a lump of cells which didn't even completely meet the definition of life was in your house, and you wanted it out.

See, this is what I’m really not sure about. Is a embryo a living being or a bundle of cells. On one hand, I guess by definition it is a bundle of cells, but on the other hand, isn't a full grown adult just a bundle of cells? I know that sounds corny, but is being alive simply a count of the number of cells in your body?

No. Biologically, life is determined by the ability of an entity to meet certain requirements - requirements that the embryo never meets, and that the fetus only meets after it has developed a functional rudimentary nervous system. Human beings are only considered alive if they have brain function (hence, declaring death at the time of brain-death), so there is no reason to consider a fetus a human being until it has brain activity. These are both things that set the adult bundle of cells apart from the embryonic bundle of cells.

I know it must sound like I’m pro-life, but I am truly undecided. These are just some of the questions that I can never seem to decide on.

They are difficult questions - but the trick is to find an objective definition of life that was derived outside of the entire debate - like that of biology or that of medicine - and then see when they apply. At that point, you are using material that has nothing to do with the debate, and therefore is not biased either way in it.

My stance is exactly this: I would never personally choose to have one, but I'll be damned if I stick my nose into another woman's business regarding her own body and personal choices and I feel that nobody else should try to assume control over what another woman does with her body.

My stance is it should be legal but rare. To make it rare the churches should believe in a separtation of church and state, then dedicate themselves to making sure the mother and child will be cared for over the next 20 years. Not just till birth, then their on their own. Never understood how religious people can care so much about a fetus, but as soon as it's born mother and child are thrown out without a pot and no hope for the future. How is this supposed to limit abortion? Faith, Hope, and Love. What if Christians actually believed in the last two?

My position:

Morally, I find it repugnant, though it's interesting to note that the Old Testament doesn't treat fetuses as full people (i.e. causing a miscarriage isn't a stoning offense), and Jesus never mentions them at all.

Socially, it's a crapshoot. Some, like famed eugenicist and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, would have us believe we're culling the worst elements of society; however, some of our best and brightest members of society have come from rough beginnings. Ending pregnancies early wastes so much potential.

Legally, however, we ultimately cannot legislate either morality or civic duty. There are no social order issues involved, and without taking the extraordinary step of recognizing fetuses as full humans there are no civil rights issues either.

As for men having no say because "they're not affected," every man currently paying child support for a kid he's never even met and every man who wanted a child that was unwanted by the mother can tell you that's a damned lie. It's the biological equivalent of taxation without representation -- the man is shut out of the decision-making process, then expected to fund the results and live with the consequences. If women want abortion to be their decision only, then they need to take ownership of the consequences; if they want men to share the responsibility, then they must also share the authority to decide; if they continue to insist on having their cake and eating it too, they're setting themselves up for a major backlash when the pendulum swings back, as it inevitably does.

Whew.

Since I have a penis, no. I am not allowed to have an opinion. If you have a penis, neither are you.
:rolleyes: Please, that is so ridiculous. Not allowed to have an opinion. Pfft. The holocaust was a German issue, but I encounter people everyday who think the United States had some moral responsibility for it.

In the words of Dr House, “Everybody’s got an opinion.

Oh and look, so do you.

This is a woman's issue and while I am pro-choice, it is none of my business.

I just hope that shit has gotten you laid.

Just say NO! to sex with a pro-life individual.

I'm pro-abortion. Keep it safe, keep it legal.

Don't like it? DON'T HAVE ONE.

And for the confused "pro-lifers" out there, let's review one last time:

*A zygote is a zygote
*A fetus is a fetus
*A baby is a baby

A fetus is not a baby; a zygote is not a baby. Baby = pops out of the womb.

Thanks for reading.

Pro-choice.