NationStates Jolt Archive

I think most people would agree with these 2 ideas:

1. Abortion kills something. (Some call that 'something' a human being; others call it a living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality. Either way, something dies.)

2. It is unacceptable to kill any animals for any reason, with the exceptions of when that animal is endangering a human, or for food. (Of course, vegetarians would disagree with that last exception, but that's not the point of this thread.)

So in discussing non-life threatening abortions, how is it acceptable to kill that living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, also known as a fetus, if it is unacceptable to kill any other living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, such as cats, horses, or whales?

It seems to me that we should either allow abortion as well as the random killing of animals, or we should ban both.

Your thoughts?

I think most people would agree with these 2 ideas:

1. Abortion kills something. (Some call that 'something' a human being; others call it a living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality. Either way, something dies.)

2. It is unacceptable to kill any animals for any reason, with the exceptions of when that animal is endangering a human, or for food. (Of course, vegetarians would disagree with that last exception, but that's not the point of this thread.)

So in discussing non-life threatening abortions, how is it acceptable to kill that living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, also known as a fetus, if it is unacceptable to kill any other living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, such as cats, horses, or whales?

It seems to me that we should either allow abortion as well as the random killing of animals, or we should ban both.

Your thoughts?

1 - So does medicine, and cleansing appliances.

2 - Never killed a spider, then? Or a fly? People kill for all sorts of reasons, not just self-defense and food.
(PS, ever wondered just how many small animals and insects die during harvesting? Not to mention plants are alive as well, so Vegetarians are hardly innocent :D)

<snip>So in discussing non-life threatening abortions, <snip>

Your thoughts?
I presume you mean elective abortions, since, according to you, all abortions are life-threatening.

My thought: The difference between an early term fetus and a born organism (human or otherwise) will no doubt be explained (over and over) by the scientists on the forum. I'll jump to the bottom line of the coming arguments: The fetus and the born creature are not comparable, biologically or functionally. Thus, your OP is flawed.

I think most people would agree with these 2 ideas:

1. Abortion kills something. (Some call that 'something' a human being; others call it a living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality. Either way, something dies.)Yes. You've pointed it out, it kills tissue.

2. It is unacceptable to kill any animals for any reason, with the exceptions of when that animal is endangering a human, or for food. (Of course, vegetarians would disagree with that last exception, but that's not the point of this thread.)Don't forget medical experimantation occasionally requires animal death, but that aint the point. It isnt an animal you are killing, its a ball off tissue.

If you're goint to make killing tissue illigal, you will make tatoos, piercings, sunbathing and drinking illigal.

I think most people would agree with these 2 ideas:

1. Abortion kills something. (Some call that 'something' a human being; others call it a living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality. Either way, something dies.)

2. It is unacceptable to kill any animals for any reason, with the exceptions of when that animal is endangering a human, or for food. (Of course, vegetarians would disagree with that last exception, but that's not the point of this thread.)

So in discussing non-life threatening abortions, how is it acceptable to kill that living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, also known as a fetus, if it is unacceptable to kill any other living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, such as cats, horses, or whales?

It seems to me that we should either allow abortion as well as the random killing of animals, or we should ban both.

Your thoughts? I'm a vegetarian! Anyhoo, yes I agree with you. If a fetus isn't a real human, it's close enough that to kill it would be wrong.

1 - So does medicine, and cleansing appliances.

2 - Never killed a spider, then? Or a fly? People kill for all sorts of reasons, not just self-defense and food.
Oh, and people kill animals for fun, don't forget. Didn't you ever hear of hunting?

Not to mention plants are alive as well, so Vegetarians are hardly innocent :D)
That's like killing a human, then saying: "meat eaters kill animals, killing humans is not any more wrong."

I'm a vegetarian! Anyhoo, yes I agree with you. If a fetus isn't a real human, it's close enough that to kill it would be wrong.
Close enough? Where do you draw that line in the water? :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, the abortion argument isn't one that can be settled by logic.

Close enough? Where do you draw that line in the water? :rolleyes:
Much further then most humans, since I'm a vegitarian. A chimp is close enough to wrong, for instance.

That's like killing a human, then saying: "meat eaters kill animals, killing humans is not any more wrong."
Killing is never good, but killing can be justified or even made necessary by circumstances.

Much further then most humans, since I'm a vegitarian. A chimp is close enough to wrong, for instance.
A chimp is a born creature that will carry on living if you don't shoot it. How is it comparable to an early term fetus that doesn't have the organs (brain, central nervous system, etc) to live?

That's like killing a human, then saying: "meat eaters kill animals, killing humans is not any more wrong."

Well, logically it isn't. We just tend to get all emotional about it.

It's kind of a species-wide superiority complex.

Oh, and people kill animals for fun, don't forget. Didn't you ever hear of hunting?

Yeah, that too. Like I said, there's all sorts of reasons.

If, mind you, we're talking about the animal sub-classification 'human', then we have even more reasons: philospohy, theology, territory, Daddy didn't finish the job...

I think most people would agree with these 2 ideas:

1. Abortion kills something. (Some call that 'something' a human being; others call it a living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality. Either way, something dies.)

2. It is unacceptable to kill any animals for any reason, with the exceptions of when that animal is endangering a human, or for food. (Of course, vegetarians would disagree with that last exception, but that's not the point of this thread.)

Burning off this wart on my arse isn't self defense but it is alive and I'm still going to kill it because it's on my body. You can keep your warts if you like. Just don't expect me to shake hands with you. Same goes for intestinal worms. Sure I could be kind to endoparasites and let them multiply inside of me until I'm lugging around several kilos of worms in my gut. I mean they're not likely to kill me so taking worm medicine isn't really self defense but I'm still going to kill the buggers because they make my life worse. You can say I'm being selfish or call me a worm murderer, but it's my body, I paid for the worm tablets and I'm takin them. No one has a right to stop me.

2. It is unacceptable to kill any animals for any reason, with the exceptions of when that animal is endangering a human, or for food. (Of course, vegetarians would disagree with that last exception, but that's not the point of this thread.)

So this whole invasion of Iraq thing and the 100,000+ dead was just some sort of mistake? I mean it seemed that people were killing other people to achieve geopolitical goals, but since it's unacceptable to kill except in self defence that obviously can't be what's happening.

2. It is unacceptable to kill any animals for any reason, with the exceptions of when that animal is endangering a human, or for food. Or if it's a pest (rats, mice). Or a general nuisance (mosquitos, flies (why yes, those are animals)). Or if the have a nice fur (baby seals, minks)
People kill animals for all sorts of reasons other than food or self defense.

Yes, choice is the logical argument.

You state that taking life is wrong except; when. And thats just what goes when it comes to abortion. Abortions are not the rule, but thew exeptions, people that by accident have become pregnant in a time of their life where they are not ready, after a rape, after incest etc. Don't tell me you would not aprove that your daughter took an abortion if she got raped.

I think most people would agree with these 2 ideas:

1. Abortion kills something. (Some call that 'something' a human being; others call it a living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality. Either way, something dies.)

2. It is unacceptable to kill any animals for any reason, with the exceptions of when that animal is endangering a human, or for food. (Of course, vegetarians would disagree with that last exception, but that's not the point of this thread.)

So in discussing non-life threatening abortions, how is it acceptable to kill that living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, also known as a fetus, if it is unacceptable to kill any other living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, such as cats, horses, or whales?

It seems to me that we should either allow abortion as well as the random killing of animals, or we should ban both.

Your thoughts?
Some people think that's an acceptable thing to do...

It seems to me that we should either allow abortion as well as the random killing of animals, or we should ban both.

Your thoughts?

It does not follow. They are not equal. The random killing of animals does not benefit me. But if I became pregnant I may want an abortion. It could definitely be of benefit to me.

I do not believe we should allow people to randomly stab other people with knives but I don't think doctors should be banned from doing surgery. People benefit from being operated on, they do not benefit from being randomly stabbed. They are not the same thing.

If people are to have free will and be moral creatures, they must have choice. They must have the option to make wrong choices as well as right ones for right and wrong to have any meaning. If you are against choice you are for amorality (as opposed to immorality), denying people the right to be moral creatures.
So in that respect pro-choice is the logical option. All you can hope for is that people will use their choice responsibly.

Pro-choice is really the only logical argument.

Life in undefined. It has been defined as that with dna, that which is responsive, that which is born, and much more. Therefore, the government cannot force its beliefs on life, which is all they are until proven, PROVEN, otherwise, as it is against the constitution.

People have a right to their own beliefs. A belief is a principle one holds true despite any proof. Life has not proof as to when it begins. As such, it is a belief as to when life begins.

It is in this manner that one must be given the right to choose, until such a time as life can be proven, as an abortion, with some definitioins of life, can be held in the first trimester without killing anyone.

And no one better bring in the "god doesnt want abortions" argument. If you actually met and talked with god, and actually know what he "wants", then I suggest you go and see a therapist.

I am not saying, either, that I personally would want an abortion on anyone, and if I had the option, I would likely go through with it, but I believe in freedom, and so I must allow for abortions.

There's already a thread on this issue.... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=483125)

No pro choice is not logical, but not for the reasons you stated

The fact is that the majority of the evidence leans towards the idea that to call the fetus a 'person' at one point and not another is an artifical creation and not a scientific one. Therefore we should have the mentality 'if in doubt, don't'. The point being that since we do not know if we are killing someone or not, we should outlaw it in case we are.

Furthermore, how can 'personhood' as it has been called before, be decided upon by someone else. If someone were to decide that Arabs were not people, would that give them the right to kill them. The answer is of course, not. Giving people a choice to say when something is and isnt human is a dangerous route to go down

Some claim that abortion should be an option in the case of an unwanted child. However wanting the child is an opinion or state of thought in the mind of the adult, not the child. So again it is wrong to allow one human to decide upon the existance of another when there is extreme doubt as to the human not being a "person".

(PS, ever wondered just how many small animals and insects die during harvesting? Not to mention plants are alive as well, so Vegetarians are hardly innocent :D)Ever heard of Fruitarianism? Fruitarians are crazy.

edit: for the purposes of Fruitarians I will agree that it is more accurate to describe a tomato as a fruit. :p

I think most people would agree with these 2 ideas:

1. Abortion kills something. (Some call that 'something' a human being; others call it a living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality. Either way, something dies.)?

So? Whats your point? People die every day. LIVING people who are already here. Millions of children around the world die every day due to famine, disease, abuse and neglect. Millions of childrend are born all around the world every day as well. Millions of people die every day, from crime, hunger, war, disease, torture, accidents, etc. Its called the cycle of life.:rolleyes:

2. It is unacceptable to kill any animals for any reason, with the exceptions of when that animal is endangering a human, or for food. (Of course, vegetarians would disagree with that last exception, but that's not the point of this thread.)

Thats your opinion. What kind of underground bunker have you been living in? While I personally find killing animals for sport wrong, that does not mean I will deprive others of THEIR RIGHT to do so as part of their CULTURAL HERITAGE or entertainment.

So in discussing non-life threatening abortions, how is it acceptable to kill that living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, also known as a fetus, if it is unacceptable to kill any other living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, such as cats, horses, or whales?

It seems to me that we should either allow abortion as well as the random killing of animals, or we should ban both.

Your thoughts?

So, you are now equating fetuses with animals? :confused:

Thats a new one from the ignorant pro-life camp:rolleyes: Your entire post is not only totally immature but completly simplistic. Forcing your views on others will get you very little support around here.

I think most people would agree with these 2 ideas:

1. Abortion kills something. (Some call that 'something' a human being; others call it a living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality. Either way, something dies.)

2. It is unacceptable to kill any animals for any reason, with the exceptions of when that animal is endangering a human, or for food. (Of course, vegetarians would disagree with that last exception, but that's not the point of this thread.)

I think you're a nut if you believe most people agree with that second point. However, just for fun we can assume you're right.


So in discussing non-life threatening abortions, how is it acceptable to kill that living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, also known as a fetus, if it is unacceptable to kill any other living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, such as cats, horses, or whales?

It seems to me that we should either allow abortion as well as the random killing of animals, or we should ban both.

Your thoughts?
The random killing of animals is allowed, at least where I live. You aren't permitted to kill an animal that belongs to somebody else, of course, but that's property law.

Furthermore, we are allowed to remove a leech that has stuck to our own skin. We are permitted to have a tapeworm expunged from our body, even if doing so will likely cause the death of the tapeworm. We are permitted, and usually encouraged, to have animal parasites removed. We are permitted and encouraged to have many different bacterial lifeforms killed...hell, anti-bacterial cleaning products are everywhere these days, and such products slaughter living entities at a remarkable rate.

A fetus is most certainly a living thing, whether you want to identify it as a "human being" or not. However, if your argument is that a fetus is animal life and therefore should not be killed, then I am assuming you also believe that tapeworms should not be removed from the bodies of human beings even if the human beings in question desire to be free of the parasites. I'm assuming you believe that antibiotics should be illegal, as well as all antibacterial products, and that medical treatment of cancer should likewise be forbidden (for, indeed, human cancer cells are both living and human, and have their own unique DNA).

So, you are now equating fetuses with animals? :confused:

Thats a new one from the ignorant pro-life camp:rolleyes: Your entire post is not only totally immature but completly simplistic.
Well, it's really not a new one at all. It's also quite reasonable. Fetuses ARE animal life, just like you and me. A live fetus is composed of living human tissue, just like you and me, and humans are animals.

However, usually the anti-choice crowd gets angry with me when I point this out. They shriek whenever I compare fetuses to other animal parasites, most likely because they think that other forms of life are inherently inferior to fetal life and thus that it is an insult to make this comparison.

The fact is that the majority of the evidence leans towards the idea that to call the fetus a 'person' at one point and not another is an artifical creation and not a scientific one. Therefore we should have the mentality 'if in doubt, don't'. The point being that since we do not know if we are killing someone or not, we should outlaw it in case we are.But contrariwise you don't know whether you're letting a future massmurderer being born. So when in doubt don't?
It does not seem to be not a sensible argument.

Certainly you are correct that there is a boundary problem. An egg is not a person, a sperm is not a person, when they combine, really, not a person. When they're born, arguably, a person. But generally I think that the stage at which abortions are still allowed are on the safe side of the grey area.

Some claim that abortion should be an option in the case of an unwanted child. However wanting the child is an opinion or state of thought in the mind of the adult, not the child.In all fairness it's the adult that bears the burden. It is not like giving birth doesn't in any way concern the parent. Having a child is not something that should be forced on people that don't want it. It's not good for anyone involved.

No pro choice is not logical, but not for the reasons you stated

The fact is that the majority of the evidence leans towards the idea that to call the fetus a 'person' at one point and not another is an artifical creation and not a scientific one. Therefore we should have the mentality 'if in doubt, don't'. The point being that since we do not know if we are killing someone or not, we should outlaw it in case we are.

Except that the personhood of a fetus is utterly irrelevant to the discussion of abortion.

In my country, as in most modern nations, I have the right to refuse to donate my tissues and organs to another person. I cannot be enslaved against my wishes, and my body cannot be harvested for another person's use. I have the right to refuse to donate my tissues and organs even if there is a patient who requires them to survive. I have the right to refuse even if their need of an organ is directly my fault (for instance, I hit them with my car and they suffer injuries which require organ transplant). I have the right to refuse even if I conciously and deliberately put them in the position of needing my organs (i.e. shooting them through the liver or something). At no time does my government have the right to force me to donate my organs to another human being.

I would retain this right even if I were a convicted serial killer. However, you are suggesting that I would not retain this right if I were to become pregnant.

The claim that a fetus is entitled to the use of a woman's organs and tissues is only valid if you grant a fetus rights that no born human being possesses, and if you rob a woman of her most fundamental human rights at the moment she becomes pregnant.


Furthermore, how can 'personhood' as it has been called before, be decided upon by someone else. If someone were to decide that Arabs were not people, would that give them the right to kill them. The answer is of course, not. Giving people a choice to say when something is and isnt human is a dangerous route to go down

Some claim that abortion should be an option in the case of an unwanted child. However wanting the child is an opinion or state of thought in the mind of the adult, not the child. So again it is wrong to allow one human to decide upon the existance of another when there is extreme doubt as to the human not being a "person".
It has nothing to do with deciding upon the existence of another. Whether or not a fetus is a person is completely irrelevant to whether or not another human being should have the right to refuse to donate their body to the fetus.

I have an idea - why not let people have a choice?

The anti-abortion people won't get made to have abortions, and I'm sure a great deal of young people are thankful that abortions are legal, as they're entirely not in any state to have a child.

I have an idea - why not let people have a choice?

The anti-abortion people won't get made to have abortions, and I'm sure a great deal of young people are thankful that abortions are legal, as they're entirely not in any state to have a child.

Well said, Yootopia. Why should other people have the right to decide my morals, and intrude on my personal liberty? Each to his/her own - and that means choice - Abortion, Drugs, Homosexual marriage, you name it. Don't like it? Don't do it.

Well, it's really not a new one at all. It's also quite reasonable. Fetuses ARE animal life, just like you and me. A live fetus is composed of living human tissue, just like you and me, and humans are animals.

However, usually the anti-choice crowd gets angry with me when I point this out. They shriek whenever I compare fetuses to other animal parasites, most likely because they think that other forms of life are inherently inferior to fetal life and thus that it is an insult to make this comparison.
Beat me to it.

The anti-abortion people won't get made to have abortions, and I'm sure a great deal of young people are thankful that abortions are legal, as they're entirely not in any state to have a child.
This is by far the most sensible choice. If you're against abortions, don't have one -- don't ban other people from having them as well just because you disagree with their morality.

That's like killing a human, then saying: "meat eaters kill animals, killing humans is not any more wrong."

Ok I have to get this out there...

Alot of animals die during the harvesting process so even vegetarians/vegans kill animals.

Well said, Yootopia. Why should other people have the right to decide my morals, and intrude on my personal liberty? Each to his/her own - and that means choice - Abortion, Drugs, Homosexual marriage, you name it. Don't like it? Don't do it.
And, hence, why "pro-life" is a totally misleading name for the anti-choice movement. The policies pursued by the anti-choice movement have been directly linked to higher levels of infant mortality and increased frequency of abortion, so they clearly aren't actually working to protect life. Instead, they put their own desire to control other humans' personal lives ahead of the health and safety of other human beings. It's about control, not about the little womb babies.

And, hence, why "pro-life" is a totally misleading name for the anti-choice movement. The policies pursued by the anti-choice movement have been directly linked to higher levels of infant mortality and increased frequency of abortion, so they clearly aren't actually working to protect life. Instead, they put their own desire to control other humans' personal lives ahead of the health and safety of other human beings. It's about control, not about the little womb babies.
Not to mention the vast number of "pro-lifers" who support the war in Iraq. :rolleyes:

I'd rather abort my hypothetical unborn child than hurt my 2 year old dachshund in any way. I'm not sure what that adds to the discussion, but it's absolutely true.

I'd rather abort my hypothetical unborn child than hurt my 2 year old dachshund in any way. I'm not sure what that adds to the discussion, but it's absolutely true.
Well, there isn't much difference really, except that the dachshund is slightly more likely to grow up to become a functioning contributor to society....

Well, there isn't much difference really, except that the dachshund is slightly more likely to grow up to become a functioning contributor to society....

Haha, true.

I think most people would agree with these 2 ideas:

1. Abortion kills something. (Some call that 'something' a human being; others call it a living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality. Either way, something dies.)

2. It is unacceptable to kill any animals for any reason, with the exceptions of when that animal is endangering a human, or for food. (Of course, vegetarians would disagree with that last exception, but that's not the point of this thread.)

So in discussing non-life threatening abortions, how is it acceptable to kill that living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, also known as a fetus, if it is unacceptable to kill any other living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, such as cats, horses, or whales?

It seems to me that we should either allow abortion as well as the random killing of animals, or we should ban both.

Your thoughts?
My thoughts:

People kill animals all the time when it's convinient to them. Like you said, to feed us or because they are a danger to us. They are also killed for other reasons which I am sure that you would find unacceptable. And yes, I do think that women should have the right to abort. You should do whatever is best for yourself. If that involves aborting an unwanted child or enjoying your steak then go ahead and do it! Why have a baby if it is just going change your life for the worse and make you unhappy?

As for a fetus having a human personality, my steak which previously was once a cow had more personality than a fetus.

Let us look at the bigger picture:
You seem to care so much about life, so what do you think about our planets future? We humans are destroying it. It doesn't help that there are so many of us. Soon enough we'll be extinct huh? It won't just be us though, what about the animals you care so much about? We should be decreasing the human population, not adding to it. But we don't have to worry about that yet, right?

In the meanwhile, we carry on multiplying and building over the animals natural habitats. Do you ever think about the entire species being close to eliminated this way or are your delicate sensibilities only hurt when you think of farmyard animals being slaughtered? So then, what sounds better to you? Culling fulling-grown, thinking humans or destroying entire species of animals? Not an easy choice, right! Well we wouldn't have to worry about that if there wasn't so many people.

Making abortion illegal is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

I have an idea - why not let people have a choice?

The anti-abortion people won't get made to have abortions, and I'm sure a great deal of young people are thankful that abortions are legal, as they're entirely not in any state to have a child.
Why not let people have a legal choice of controlling the human infestation on Earth, by exterminating the extra ones until you're back on sustainable levels? You could start killing those against it and I'm sure a lot of people would be thankful, as the planet is entirely not in any state to have them all. I know it's a hard decision, my little things, but think of the good to mankind as a whole...

Well said, Yootopia. Why should other people have the right to decide my morals, and intrude on my personal liberty? Each to his/her own - and that means choice - Abortion, Drugs, Homosexual marriage, you name it. Don't like it? Don't do it.
I agree. I think individuals have shown may times in the past that they are perfectly capable of self-regulation, without anyone preaching "moral teachings" in their ears. Like when they lived in caves...

And, hence, why "pro-life" is a totally misleading name for the anti-choice movement. The policies pursued by the anti-choice movement have been directly linked to higher levels of infant mortality and increased frequency of abortion, so they clearly aren't actually working to protect life. Instead, they put their own desire to control other humans' personal lives ahead of the health and safety of other human beings. It's about control, not about the little womb babies.

How exactly do "anti-choice" policies increase the frequency of abortion? (Pro-life are the ones seeking to ban abortions, no?).
I was led to believe there are choices other than abortion, like say not having sex, or Adoption, which is something no one seems to even consider these days. It'd all those infertile people a 5 year wait to get a kid if they didn't allow unwanted babies to be killed.

Also, to point out a seemingly obvious flaw in your other argument, being pregnant isn't a pernament thing, (I'm told the things come out after 9 months, and the doctor spanks "it" and vola! It turns into a tiny person.) When it comes out it leaves all you organs behind, so oppose to donating organs which will leave you lacking in some area (in most cases life), you're still complete. You haven't lost anything.

So it's really as bad as who ever said this furthur up
A chimp is a born creature that will carry on living if you don't shoot it. How is it comparable to an early term fetus that doesn't have the organs (brain, central nervous system, etc) to live?
A fetus may not be a born creature but if you don't shoot/stab/ect it, it will continue to live, (and eventually be born).

and i'm not "anti-choice", I simply don't think it's a choice that should be taken as lightly as it seems to be. It can (I'm not saying it will) infict some pretty hardcore phsycological damage (Doubly so thanks to those retarded pro--choice extremists), and not just to the mother. Getting someone pregnant can be just as huge a thing to the guy, which is often overlooked.

I have an idea - why not let people have a choice?

The anti-abortion people won't get made to have abortions, and I'm sure a great deal of young people are thankful that abortions are legal, as they're entirely not in any state to have a child.

Its because it may be wrong enough to have a law against

Why do we have a law against steeling? Why not let people have a choice? Because it is objectively morally wrong enough to outlaw it. So in the same way, the discussion here is, is abortion morally wrong enough to outlaw.

Why do we have a law against steeling? Why not let people have a choice? Because it is objectively morally wrong enough to outlaw it. So in the same way, the discussion here is, is abortion morally wrong enough to outlaw.

I am free to let people steal my stuff if I want to.

Its because it may be wrong enough to have a law against

Why do we have a law against steeling? Why not let people have a choice? Because it is objectively morally wrong enough to outlaw it. So in the same way, the discussion here is, is abortion morally wrong enough to outlaw.
I think it's morally wrong to start wars that kill thousands of people, but there's no law against that.

I think it's morally wrong for there to be capitalism, due to its inherent exploitation of the working class. But there's no law against that.

Morality is entirely subjective. I'm sure you don't like the Sharia laws in the Middle East, but they're "moral" in some peoples' eyes.

How exactly do "anti-choice" policies increase the frequency of abortion? (Pro-life are the ones seeking to ban abortions, no?).
If you ban abortions, more people will head to shady back-street clinics for abortions instead and possibly die. I think that's the reasoning. Look at Costa Rica.

I was led to believe there are choices other than abortion, like say not having sex,
'Cause people only have sex in order to procreate. Yeah.

or Adoption, which is something no one seems to even consider these days. It'd all those infertile people a 5 year wait to get a kid if they didn't allow unwanted babies to be killed.
It generally takes several months for the adoption process to be fulfilled, during which the mother naturally grows closer to the kid and doesn't want to give it up.


Also, to point out a seemingly obvious flaw in your other argument, being pregnant isn't a pernament thing, (I'm told the things come out after 9 months, and the doctor spanks "it" and vola! It turns into a tiny person.) When it comes out it leaves all you organs behind, so oppose to donating organs which will leave you lacking in some area (in most cases life), you're still complete. You haven't lost anything.
I'm assuming you have no kids. You've lost nothing except your freedom, your appearance, and anything between $100,000 and $300,000 depending on how well you want your kid to grow up. Not to mention for those mothers who happen to be single, or teenaged, or raped. Or people who never wanted kids in the first place.

and i'm not "anti-choice", I simply don't think it's a choice that should be taken as lightly as it seems to be. It can (I'm not saying it will) infict some pretty hardcore phsycological damage (Doubly so thanks to those retarded pro--choice extremists),
And how, may I ask? How would any psychological damage due to an abortion be caused by "pro-choice extremists"? If anything, it would be caused by anti-choice extremists.


and not just to the mother. Getting someone pregnant can be just as huge a thing to the guy, which is often overlooked.
Really? I guess rapists don't exist then. And doubtlessly the father feels all the pain their partner does when she is giving birth, or has to feed and carry the baby for nine months, or is obliged to take care of it afterwards. Seriously, I could get someone pregnant, walk out, and never see them again. Nothing's forcing me to take care of the kid afterwards.

Its because it may be wrong enough to have a law against

Why do we have a law against steeling? Why not let people have a choice? Because it is objectively morally wrong enough to outlaw it. So in the same way, the discussion here is, is abortion morally wrong enough to outlaw.
I might believe stealing is morally right or permissible. Just because you believe it isn't doesn't make it the objective truth.

There's a logical fallacy in this, but I'm not sure which one it is.

Is pro-choice really the logical argument?

Yes because if you're too fucking stupid to use a condom you don't need to be propagating your genetic material.

Yes because if you're too fucking stupid to use a condom you don't need to be propagating your genetic material.

I agree with you there, but even if you do use contraceptives, they aren't 100% certain. So if you keep fucking enough times you could still wind up pregnant even using a condom.

Anal sex. Never got anyone pregnant!

I agree with you there, but even if you do use contraceptives, they aren't 100% certain. So if you keep fucking enough times you could still wind up pregnant even using a condom.
That's why we have the morning after pill...

I agree with you there, but even if you do use contraceptives, they aren't 100% certain. So if you keep fucking enough times you could still wind up pregnant even using a condom.

Well the reason condoms arent 100% effective is misuse. Yes, alot of people dont know how to use condoms properly.

Anal sex. Never got anyone pregnant!
Neither did necrophilia (except for Isis, but that was millennia ago), oral sex, certain forms of S&M, Extreme Sex™, Hardcore Sex™, etc.

But naturally those are banned in the Bible Belt. One would think they'd be happy. :rolleyes:

I think most people would agree with these 2 ideas:

1. Abortion kills something. (Some call that 'something' a human being; others call it a living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality. Either way, something dies.)

2. It is unacceptable to kill any animals for any reason, with the exceptions of when that animal is endangering a human, or for food. (Of course, vegetarians would disagree with that last exception, but that's not the point of this thread.)

So in discussing non-life threatening abortions, how is it acceptable to kill that living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, also known as a fetus, if it is unacceptable to kill any other living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, such as cats, horses, or whales?

It seems to me that we should either allow abortion as well as the random killing of animals, or we should ban both.

Your thoughts?
I, for one, do not think women should bear the burden of the whale population if they choose not to. Every woman should be free to arm herself with a harpoon.

Well the reason condoms arent 100% effective is misuse. Yes, alot of people dont know how to use condoms properly.


They do on rare occasion break also.

Yes because if you're too fucking stupid to use a condom you don't need to be propagating your genetic material.
Listen to the Man...

* whispers to Khadgar "You may thank me now, for the majority of the people not being able to afford contraception."*

That's why we have the morning after pill...
But you wouldn't know until it's too late for the morning after pill. So it's of to the doctors to talk about getting an abortion.

But naturally those are banned in the Bible Belt. One would think they'd be happy. :rolleyes:
They need more recruits, not less :p

If you ban abortions, more people will head to shady back-street clinics for abortions instead and possibly die. I think that's the reasoning. Look at Costa Rica.
And if you don't ban, they'll go to a legal clinic. Either way, I win.

It generally takes several months for the adoption process to be fulfilled, during which the mother naturally grows closer to the kid and doesn't want to give it up.
Unfortunately some little horrible women have a nasty habit of bothering to search themselves for the adoptive parents. No doubt, the ones that end up keeping their own child in the end are the worse ones of all...

They do on rare occasion break also.

If you dont put them on properly.

If they're "fresh" that's true. Some people can't apparently be bothered to pay attention to such things.

I was led to believe there are choices other than abortion, like say not having sex, or Adoption, which is something no one seems to even consider these days.

No one considers putting children up for adoption? Do you know how many children are waiting in orphanages and foster homes - hoping to get adopted?

Perhaps you mean that no one considers adopting children who aren't healthy white infants?

It'd all those infertile people a 5 year wait to get a kid if they didn't allow unwanted babies to be killed.

Maybe if those people weren't waiting for a healthy newborn of their same ethnicity, they wouldn't have to wait so long....

Also, to point out a seemingly obvious flaw in your other argument, being pregnant isn't a pernament thing,

No, but it does cause life-long changes and increase the risk of certain diseases decades later.

If you hate your child enough to kill it then it is probably better off dead than living with you.


You do realize that your picture has little to nothing to do with abortion, right? If an abortion was carried out at a stage that late, it was carried out for medically necessary reasons.

i've had many of conversation like this.

the reason why we have laws, is because people make wrong choices. its why childmolestation is illeagal. its a choice that harms the growth of a living being.

the unborn child goes through many levels of evolution, that humans have gone by about 13billions years, in the nine months before its born. we should defend our evolution. some religious people call it gods will. i call it natures plan. abortion destrupts our evolutions path, like insest.

some adults are inconvience by an unplan pregnancy. but i would strongly argue that the unborn childs future is more important cause its has more potential to become something great, wereas the adult has already reached its prime.

love and birth should be enforced as the governments main priority. unwanted children should be raised by state of the art orphanages. being thought by the finest teachers and sport trainners, raised as children of the government.

and for rapests, does anyone object slave labour as punishment? or bring in the old celtic law, if a woman is raped a family member has 3 days to take vengance.

I think most people would agree with these 2 ideas:

1. Abortion kills something. (Some call that 'something' a human being; others call it a living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality. Either way, something dies.)

2. It is unacceptable to kill any animals for any reason, with the exceptions of when that animal is endangering a human, or for food. (Of course, vegetarians would disagree with that last exception, but that's not the point of this thread.)

So in discussing non-life threatening abortions, how is it acceptable to kill that living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, also known as a fetus, if it is unacceptable to kill any other living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, such as cats, horses, or whales?

It seems to me that we should either allow abortion as well as the random killing of animals, or we should ban both.

Your thoughts?
Because logically and medically it is nothing more than a parisite within the woman's body.
I don't personally agree with abortion but I beleive I have the right to choose. Of course I won't put myself into a situation were I'll accidentally get pregnant in the first place(barring a rape...Hope that never happens either).

Well guess what: If I got pregnant tomorrow because the condom broke and the morning after pill either didn't work or I didn't know the condom broke, I'd have an abortion. There is not a single person here who can stop me or put me in jail for it. If it gets outlawed in the U.S., I'd go to another country and do it. If it gets outlawed all over the world, I'd do it secretly.

...sooooo I really don't care what gets said here. You can't do shit! Sorry!

No, but it does cause life-long changes and increase the risk of certain diseases decades later.
This is exactly the same reason why I've been telling poor people they should have the right kill one rich person, if this is necessary so that a whole family of them can survive. Poor things...

If you hate your child enough to kill it then it is probably better off dead than living with you.


Why do the pro-lifers always show the dead babies? Actually that looks more like a partially melted plastic doll head than a baby, but still the point stands. You people are fucking nuts, no one wants to see that shit, why you wave it around proudly is beyond me. That's something no sane or reasonable person would do.

I think most people would agree with these 2 ideas:

1. Abortion kills something. (Some call that 'something' a human being; others call it a living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality. Either way, something dies.)

2. It is unacceptable to kill any animals for any reason, with the exceptions of when that animal is endangering a human, or for food. (Of course, vegetarians would disagree with that last exception, but that's not the point of this thread.)

So in discussing non-life threatening abortions, how is it acceptable to kill that living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, also known as a fetus, if it is unacceptable to kill any other living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, such as cats, horses, or whales?

It seems to me that we should either allow abortion as well as the random killing of animals, or we should ban both.

Your thoughts?

Um we already alow killing of animals for all sorts of reason ... from sport to food I dont know where the hell you are geting this

How exactly do "anti-choice" policies increase the frequency of abortion? (Pro-life are the ones seeking to ban abortions, no?).
I was led to believe there are choices other than abortion, like say not having sex, or Adoption, which is something no one seems to even consider these days. It'd all those infertile people a 5 year wait to get a kid if they didn't allow unwanted babies to be killed.

Also, to point out a seemingly obvious flaw in your other argument, being pregnant isn't a pernament thing, (I'm told the things come out after 9 months, and the doctor spanks "it" and vola! It turns into a tiny person.) When it comes out it leaves all you organs behind, so oppose to donating organs which will leave you lacking in some area (in most cases life), you're still complete. You haven't lost anything.

So it's really as bad as who ever said this furthur up
A chimp is a born creature that will carry on living if you don't shoot it. How is it comparable to an early term fetus that doesn't have the organs (brain, central nervous system, etc) to live?
A fetus may not be a born creature but if you don't shoot/stab/ect it, it will continue to live, (and eventually be born).

and i'm not "anti-choice", I simply don't think it's a choice that should be taken as lightly as it seems to be. It can (I'm not saying it will) infict some pretty hardcore phsycological damage (Doubly so thanks to those retarded pro--choice extremists), and not just to the mother. Getting someone pregnant can be just as huge a thing to the guy, which is often overlooked.
That was me. I was talking about the difference between a fetus (of any species) and a born creature (of any species). The OP focused on elective abortion. Elective abortions are performed on embryos and early stage fetuses. In the first trimester, embryos and fetuses do not have the organs necessary to live. They are living tissue, but they are not living creatures. A born creature not only has all those organs, but they are already fully functioning. By trying to equate embryos/early stage fetuses with born creatures, you are ignoring all the stages of development in between, like jumping from A to Z without going through the rest of the alphabet. Further, you are trying to equate A with Z, as if they function in the exact same way, even though they clearly do not.

Equating a fetus with a born creature doesn't work, because a fetus is not a born creature. The same sets of rules/standards do not work for both. This is the basic flaw in the OP.

I notice that equating a fetus with a born creature and ignoring the different stages of development doesn't even work as an analogy either, since, in order to object to my observation, you present an argument from potential -- i.e. the fetus is not a creature now, but it might become one -- which forces you to rely on all those stages of development that the original argument tries to ignore. This just proves my point. The fetus is not a creature/being/animal/person/living, breathing, separate entity/what have you. What it might be 9 months from now is irrelevant to what it is now.

There may be logical arguments against choice (although I haven't heard any), but equating a fetus with a born animal is not one of them.

In any event, I don't see how my statement has anything to do with the argument you're putting forth in the rest of your post.

If you hate your child enough to kill it then it is probably better off dead than living with you.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y258/shoechew/coicehead.jpg

Because when something is gross-looking, it's evil

Oh wait, anyone ever seen childbirth? Or maybe a Life-saving heart operation? (http://www.fitchicago.com/heart%20surgery%203.jpg)

Also, to point out a seemingly obvious flaw in your other argument, being pregnant isn't a pernament thing, (I'm told the things come out after 9 months, and the doctor spanks "it" and vola! It turns into a tiny person.) When it comes out it leaves all you organs behind, so oppose to donating organs which will leave you lacking in some area (in most cases life), you're still complete.

You realize you're suggesting that while the state does not have a right to make you give up your organs, it does have the right to make you loan them out to a needy person until a true replacement can be found, correct? So far as I'm aware, this is not true.

The argument holds.

Well guess what: If I got pregnant tomorrow because the condom broke and the morning after pill either didn't work or I didn't know the condom broke, I'd have an abortion. There is not a single person here who can stop me or put me in jail for it. If it gets outlawed in the U.S., I'd go to another country and do it. If it gets outlawed all over the world, I'd do it secretly.

...sooooo I really don't care what gets said here. You can't do shit! Sorry!My feelings exactly.

If you hate your child enough to kill it then it is probably better off dead than living with you.Exactly; those who have abortions have saved their unborn 'children' from a lifetime of misery! Good call :)

So, it seems I misjudged the argument of the pro-choice. Or should I call them anti-life as I am accused of being anti-choice? I am not against choice, I am against abortion. Abstinence, alternative methods of sex (non-intercourse), and adoption are great choices to be made. And I realize that pro-choice does not mean anti-life, just trying to prove a point. Look from both perspectives before attacking, okay?

Back to the argument. I had gathered that choice advocates equated embryonic/fetal humans with animals. I did not realize that they are really pests or parasites in your eyes. This in and of itself shows me that our opinions are irreconcilable.

But I want to clarify a few things. First, do people not realize that when MOST people hunt, they eat the meat? Thus, hunting is almost always for food.

Second, my definition of animal was incorrect. I didn't think of the pest issue. Yes, pests are also killed whenever. I suppose I didn't think of this because it seemed to have no bearing on abortion. I was wrong.

And one final point. Yes, I am out for control. I don't really care about what I personally believe are live children in the wombs of women. I'm not trying to persuade you to my side peacefully, I simply want to take all freedom from you so I can own your lives FOREVER!!! I think I'll even invent a more painful Hell to throw all those who oppose me into!!! I think I'll call it "Abortion Land"! :rolleyes:

(Seriously, do you really believe this? Those who disagree with you are probably NOT out to control you. Do you even try to look at the viewpoint of the other side? I didn't attack anyone except in a debate format, but the vast numbers of angry responces I got back astounds me! I suppose it shouldn't considering I put it on the internet...)

Well, as I said before, our ideas are irreconcilable. I won't waste any more of my time or ours.

And you know how you're supposed to look both ways before crossing the street? The same goes for debate. Look at both sides, then form your arguments. Those who don't often wind up either getting hit by cars, or causing accidents...

The fetus is not a creature/being/animal/person/living, breathing, separate entity/what have you. What it might be 9 months from now is irrelevant to what it is now.
I say switch off all life supporting machines on people that can't pay medical expenses. Those useless little things can't breathe on their own anyway, why should YOU spend any tax money on them? Why should the poor pay with their bread and bodies to support other people's lives?

There may be logical arguments against choice (although I haven't heard any), but equating a fetus with a born animal is not one of them.
Absolutely, why should an unborn fetus have more rights than a living animal? There are no logical arguments against choice. In fact, pro-choice is perfect. I actually think it's so perfect that women should be forced to abort always, whether they like it or not. After all, the world is too populated and orphanages are full... More, since most fetus aren't any more than living tissue, with no rights (because they aren't born), I say regulations withholding scientific experimentation with fetuses don't make any sense; BAN THEM. Think of the good to mankind! Think of the excitement for some scientists to be able to do it without limitations.

Better! Let a few of you educated little things profit from selling abortions to uneducated little things that can't afford contraceptives. Work really hard doing abortions and maybe you'll be able to buy more contraceptives, plus a nice house and a nice car for you and your own little wanted things. So, as long as you can keep a good amount of people poor, abortion is good for you. Why let criminals profit, when we can legalize abortions and take the profit for ourselves? Now the criminals will have to lower their prices to continue in business while the poor people will have better access to illegal clinics, which is FANTASTIC for me, because you'll end up selling more and more death at an ever decreasing price.

Alas, you've finaly understood how your life is worthless and how your mothers and fathers should have the "moral" right to take it from you. I am so proud of you all, my little things.... BAN MORALS!

snip

Absolutely, why should an unborn fetus have more rights than a living animal? There are no logical arguments against choice. In fact, pro-choice is perfect. I actually think it's so perfect that women should be forced to abort always, whether they like it or not. snip
How would that be pro-CHOICE?

How would that be pro-CHOICE?

Oh you naive little thing... I don't need your laws; I have my own ways...

http://www.prochoice.org/

But I want to clarify a few things. First, do people not realize that when MOST people hunt, they eat the meat? Thus, hunting is almost always for food.

Have you ever heard of a place called America? Most people I know kill for sport. Not to eat. I hate the concept but I can't stop them.

logically and medically it [sic] is nothing more than a parisite within the woman's body.
You can't even imagine how delicious you sound...

Oh you naive little thing... I don't need your laws; I have my own ways...

http://www.prochoice.org/
Who said anything about laws? I was just wondering how the straw man you gave was even pro choice

Who said anything about laws? I was just wondering how the straw man you gave was even pro choice
How could I ever use a straw man about pro choice, if I am not opposed to it? I should tell you to figure out that one for yourself...

Did you even check the link, little thing?
When you looked for a question did I not give you an answer?
When you looked for CHOICE, did you not find ABORTION?
Have I not delayed the adoption processes until you started shouting how orphanages are useless DUMPS, associating orphans with RUBBISH?
Have I not branded women who use their FREEDOM to choose adoption as IRRESPONSIBLE and a BURDEN on all?
Have your peers not pressured you to believe that abortion is the ONLY responsible way out?
Have I not made you think of MONEY when you should be thinking of a CHILD?

Do you believe you will have the FREEDOM to choose for much longer? You little things believe that liberation is freedom and you are RIGHT; it's freedom for the powerful and wealthy FROM YOU, to take away your free education and indoctrinate you with whatever brings them profit.

When I finish bringing down the middle class and when I close that very last orphanage, you shall see... Enjoy your FREEDOM to choose to be branded as IRRESPONSIBLE, while it lasts. Poor, indoctrinated and without orphanages, I will laugh at the choices you'll have then and the choice you will ultimately make.

How could I ever use a straw man about pro choice, if I am not opposed to it?

Because the satan gimmick is annoying.

Because the satan gimmick is annoying.
So if I change my name and pretend to be a man it's fine...
You are learning...

So if I change my name and pretend to be a man it's fine...
You are learning...
Nope ... as you are a man and I am pretty sure your name is not Crown Prince Satan in real life ... the gimmic is still annoying

If you hate your child enough to kill it then it is probably better off dead than living with you.

You realize posting that kind of shit is against the rules and can get you deated, right? No graphic images.

So, it seems I misjudged the argument of the pro-choice. Or should I call them anti-life as I am accused of being anti-choice? I am not against choice, I am against abortion.

You can be against abortion and not wish to legislate that point-of-view - in other words, leaving the choice to the woman involved.

Many who are pro-choice are, in fact, anti-abortion - myself included. If you are against the choice being available, then you are anti-choice. If you are simply against abortion, you are anti-abortion.


Back to the argument. I had gathered that choice advocates equated embryonic/fetal humans with animals. I did not realize that they are really pests or parasites in your eyes. This in and of itself shows me that our opinions are irreconcilable.

Don't try to paint all those who are pro-choice with the same brush. Not all of us view embryos/fetuses as animals or pests or parasites.

(Seriously, do you really believe this? Those who disagree with you are probably NOT out to control you.

No, those who want to legislate their personal viewpoints are. If you said, "I'm against abortion, but I'm not going to force anyone to abide by my view," you could say that you were not out to control someone. Otherwise, you are quite obviously trying to put the government in legal control over a pregnant woman's body.

In fact, pro-choice is perfect. I actually think it's so perfect that women should be forced to abort always, whether they like it or not.

I know this was meant to be sarcastic, but it is important to note that those who are pro-choice would not advocate forced abortions. That kind of removes the choice, does it not?

I am "pro-choice" on a lot of things. Abortion has always been a little "iffy" for me. I guess I'm pro-choice, but favor a democratic solution. It seems like there would be ways of banning abortion without invading someone's privacy. Banning doctors from practicing abortion could work. (sure, some might do it anyway, but what if a woman got an abortion, felt guilty about it, and turned the doctor in?) Of course, you would have the back-alley problem, but that's not really a constitutional one. I think that was what Planed Parenthood V. Casey was about.

*runs off to check*

I guess I'm pro-choice, but favor a democratic solution.

???? So we should all vote on whether or not a woman carries out her pregnancy?

It seems like there would be ways of banning abortion without invading someone's privacy. Banning doctors from practicing abortion could work.

A person's privacy includes the right to make their own medical decisions - to control their own bodies. Banning abortion keps them from doing so.

The fact is that the majority of the evidence leans towards the idea that to call the fetus a 'person' at one point and not another is an artifical creation and not a scientific one.

You mean this is your personal opinion. There is no evidence to suggest that.

Furthermore, how can 'personhood' as it has been called before, be decided upon by someone else. If someone were to decide that Arabs were not people, would that give them the right to kill them. The answer is of course, not. Giving people a choice to say when something is and isnt human is a dangerous route to go down

In that case, we must declare all things human persons. This rock is human person. It gets all the rights of a human. :rolleyes:

So in discussing non-life threatening abortions, how is it acceptable to kill that living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, also known as a fetus, if it is unacceptable to kill any other living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, such as cats, horses, or whales?

Easy. The cats, horses and whales do not wish to die. The fetus wishes nothing.

???? So we should all vote on whether or not a woman carries out her pregnancy?

And that is worse than a court ruling on whether or not a woman carries out her pregancy because...?

A person's privacy includes the right to make their own medical decisions - to control their own bodies. Banning abortion keps them from doing so.

It wouldn't be against the law for a woman to seek an abortion, just for a doctor to perform one.

And that is worse than a court ruling on whether or not a woman carries out her pregancy because...?

Because the court isn't deciding between illegal abortions and compulsory ones.

It wouldn't be against the law for a woman to seek an abortion, just for a doctor to perform one.

...Effectvily making it pointless to seek one....Did I miss something? You're still making it illegal.

And that is worse than a court ruling on whether or not a woman carries out her pregancy because...?

It isn't. Having a judge decide what a woman does with her own body would be just as bad.

Luckily, as it is is now, it is the woman's choice - not the public or any judge.

It wouldn't be against the law for a woman to seek an abortion, just for a doctor to perform one.

...which still removes the choice.

I know this was meant to be sarcastic, but it is important to note that those who are pro-choice would not advocate forced abortions. That kind of removes the choice, does it not?
This is your choice:
http://www.prochoice.org/ (http://www.prochoice.org/)


When you looked for a question did I not give you an answer?
When you looked for a CHOICE, did you not find ABORTION?
Have I not delayed the adoption processes until you started shouting how orphanages are useless DUMPS, associating orphans with RUBBISH?
Have I not branded women who use their FREEDOM to choose adoption as IRRESPONSIBLE and a BURDEN on all?
Have your peers not pressured you to believe that abortion is the ONLY responsible way out?
Have I not made you think of MONEY when you should be thinking of a CHILD?

Do you believe you will have the FREEDOM to choose for much longer? You little things believe that liberation is freedom and you are RIGHT; it's freedom for the powerful and wealthy FROM YOU, to take away your free education and indoctrinate you with whatever brings them profit.

When I finish bringing down the middle class and when I close that very last orphanage, you shall see... Enjoy your FREEDOM to choose to be branded as IRRESPONSIBLE, while it lasts. Poor, indoctrinated and without orphanages, I will laugh at the choices you'll have then and the choice you will ultimately make.

This is your choice:
http://www.prochoice.org/ (http://www.prochoice.org/)

That is one possible choice, yes.

It isn't one that I would choose, but that is neither here nor there.

I say switch off all life supporting machines on people that can't pay medical expenses. Those useless little things can't breathe on their own anyway, why should YOU spend any tax money on them? Why should the poor pay with their bread and bodies to support other people's lives?


Absolutely, why should an unborn fetus have more rights than a living animal? There are no logical arguments against choice. In fact, pro-choice is perfect. I actually think it's so perfect that women should be forced to abort always, whether they like it or not. After all, the world is too populated and orphanages are full... More, since most fetus aren't any more than living tissue, with no rights (because they aren't born), I say regulations withholding scientific experimentation with fetuses don't make any sense; BAN THEM. Think of the good to mankind! Think of the excitement for some scientists to be able to do it without limitations.

Better! Let a few of you educated little things profit from selling abortions to uneducated little things that can't afford contraceptives. Work really hard doing abortions and maybe you'll be able to buy more contraceptives, plus a nice house and a nice car for you and your own little wanted things. So, as long as you can keep a good amount of people poor, abortion is good for you. Why let criminals profit, when we can legalize abortions and take the profit for ourselves? Now the criminals will have to lower their prices to continue in business while the poor people will have better access to illegal clinics, which is FANTASTIC for me, because you'll end up selling more and more death at an ever decreasing price.

Alas, you've finaly understood how your life is worthless and how your mothers and fathers should have the "moral" right to take it from you. I am so proud of you all, my little things.... BAN MORALS!
Can you tap dance while saying that?

It wouldn't be against the law for a woman to seek an abortion, just for a doctor to perform one.
:rolleyes: Same damn thing because it has the same outcome. A woman dies for trying to preform and illegal abortion.

You realize posting that kind of shit is against the rules and can get you deated, right? No graphic images.

Deat me then.

You do realize that your picture has little to nothing to do with abortion, right? If an abortion was carried out at a stage that late, it was carried out for medically necessary reasons.
That's just silly, dead is dead. It doesn't matter if you make yourself feel better by calling it a fetus or even a parasite, it is still your dead child that is disposed of. Can you feel the love?

Reason: Don't post your graphic abortion pics here
LOL Why not? Is it too much for you to see a murder that you can so easily condone with your words?

From a strictly moral, not legal point of view, I've always said, no one will say a mother has done anything wrong by having the baby if she wants to. On the other hand there may be something wrong with aborting the fetus. It's what we've been fighting about all this time.

That's just silly, dead is dead. It doesn't matter if you make yourself feel better by calling it a fetus or even a parasite, it is still your dead child that is disposed of. Can you feel the love?

So you think the woman, who might already have children she needs to take care of, should have died instead? If saving someone else would kill me or make me incredibly unhealthy, am I legally required to do so?

Once again, as I said in the post you responded to, which you obviously didn't even read, a fetus aborted that late is aborted for MEDICAL NECESSITY. In other words, the mother wanted the fetus, was planning on carrying the pregnancy to term, but cannot for some reason.

So you think the woman, who might already have children she needs to take care of, should have died instead? If saving someone else would kill me or make me incredibly unhealthy, am I legally required to do so?

Once again, as I said in the post you responded to, which you obviously didn't even read, a fetus aborted that late is aborted for MEDICAL NECESSITY. In other words, the mother wanted the fetus, was planning on carrying the pregnancy to term, but cannot for some reason.
how can you be so certain Dem? maybe it's the product of an illegal clinic or a home-assisted abortion...

I think most people would agree with these 2 ideas:

1. Abortion kills something. (Some call that 'something' a human being; others call it a living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality. Either way, something dies.)

2. It is unacceptable to kill any animals for any reason, with the exceptions of when that animal is endangering a human, or for food. (Of course, vegetarians would disagree with that last exception, but that's not the point of this thread.)
1. It's hard to kill something that isn't a life yet, and given how many skin cells we "kill" every single day I don't think that this is an issue.

2. So you don't take antibiotics or use fungisides? I mean, not all bacteria or fungi are deadly, some are just inconvenient. So next time you have athlete's foot, remember how wrong it is to kill anything.

So in discussing non-life threatening abortions, how is it acceptable to kill that living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, also known as a fetus, if it is unacceptable to kill any other living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, such as cats, horses, or whales?
When most abortions occur, it isn't a fetus, it's an embryo.
Furthermore, animals have more sentience and awareness than an embryo.

Reason: Don't post your graphic abortion pics here
LOL Why not? Is it too much for you to see a murder that you can so easily condone with your words?
No, because you obviously can't support your argument properly so you chose the gross-out factor in an attempt to win it. Argue with words before someone starts pulling out pictures of women who died in childbirth.

Reason: Don't post your graphic abortion pics here
LOL Why not? Is it too much for you to see a murder that you can so easily condone with your words?

Its not like people have babies just to murder them. Noone gets off to an abortion. Just because people think a woman should have the right to choose doesnt mean we get off to killing an unborn child.

I'm a vegetarian! Anyhoo, yes I agree with you. If a fetus isn't a real human, it's close enough that to kill it would be wrong.
I'm a vegetarian.

I'm also pro-choice.

Just like I don't tell other people they shouldn't eat meat, I don't tell other people what they should do with their embryos. Besides, cows are individual organisms, embryos are not.

weather it's legal or not, a woman is still going to have an abortion if she's not in a position to raise a child. Supply and demand - if it's damanded, someone somewhere will offer the service.

ultimatley it should be her decision and she will live with the knowledge that she 'killed' her baby for the rest of her life.

weather it's legal or not, a woman is still going to have an abortion if she's not in a position to raise a child. Supply and demand - if it's damanded, someone somewhere will offer the offer the service.

ultimatley it should be her decision and she will live with the knowledge that she 'killed' her baby for the rest of her life.
i agree, as long as society doesn't automatically slander women as irresponsible if they choose to have the baby and give it to adoption or as long as society doesn't associate pro-choice with abortion, as the link provided a few posts further down clearly shows that is happening these days. that is not really supportive of "choice".

I think most people would agree with these 2 ideas:

1. Abortion kills something. (Some call that 'something' a human being; others call it a living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality. Either way, something dies.)

2. It is unacceptable to kill any animals for any reason, with the exceptions of when that animal is endangering a human, or for food. (Of course, vegetarians would disagree with that last exception, but that's not the point of this thread.)

So in discussing non-life threatening abortions, how is it acceptable to kill that living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, also known as a fetus, if it is unacceptable to kill any other living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality, such as cats, horses, or whales?

It seems to me that we should either allow abortion as well as the random killing of animals, or we should ban both.

Your thoughts?

I don't know if anyone said this or not, because I'm feeling too lazy to go back through and read all of the thread. Abortion isn't "logical" or "illogical." Abortion is an ethical issue rather than a logical one. They are two different fields.

And, as of now, the vast majority of bioethicists do support abortion.

1. Yes, abortion kills something. So does brushing your teeth. The issue isn't that it kills something, but rather what it kills. According to the general concensus in modern bioethics, a fetus is not a 'person' any more than the bacteria you kill when you brush your teeth. This is due to the fact that it fails on two criteria - the capacity to value the self, and the fact that it is directly dependent on another for life.

2. The argument that it is unacceptable to kill animals for any reason is one of opinion. Many people believe its fine to kill animals for food, clothing, or just for fun (like hunting). Using one opinion to support another isn't going to get you too far with objective criteria to demonize abortion. In addition, animals are not directly dependent on another for survival (see criteria 1 above). They fit criteria that a fetus does not.

All you have to do is look at a squirrel and a zygote to see how comparing the two doesn't work.

Also, giving birth often can endanger the mothers life, and an abortion could be considered a form of "defence".


Personally, I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice and I think that is the important distinction here.
It isn't my place to force my Buddhist sensibilities on people.

how can you be so certain Dem? maybe it's the product of an illegal clinic or a home-assisted abortion...

In which case it is still completely irrelevant to the debate. We're talking about what the laws are and what they should be - not about people who choose to break them.

i agree, as long as society doesn't automatically slander women as irresponsible if they choose to have the baby and give it to adoption

You are misusing words. When someone points out that giving a child up for adoption is irresponsible, that isn't slander, it is simply pointing out that the parent(s) is(are) getting out of the responsibility that should be their own and putting it on others. They may be incapable of doing so, and thus an adoption might be the best choice, but that does not change the fact that it is irresponsible.

or as long as society doesn't associate pro-choice with abortion,

Society makes that association because abortion is the choice most often looked down upon. Thus, it is the one that is talked about the most.

Its just a choice. We all make both good and bad choices in life.

Personaly I am anti abortion, but pro choice. I don't like it but I realise that some people will do it and for perfectly valid reasons. In the end what right have you, I, we to tell anybody how to live their lifes?

Also I'll have to stress that eveybody I know that has made the desicion to abort, has had hard times both coming to and living with that desicion.

Right or wrong, anyway is subjective, so lets leave it as a personal choice and not give the people that choose to abort a bad time, coz in the main they are going through a real shitty period in their lives anyway.

Tolerance is the word that i guess I am gropping for.

Yes, pro-choice is the logical argument.

Use the search feature, discussed previously ad nauseam.

Yes, pro-choice is the logical argument.

Use the search feature, discussed previously ad nauseam.

not this stuff again...

Maybe we need a sticky at the top of the forum:

Topics beaten to death shall NOT be the subjects of new threads.

These topics include:

Abortion
Whether or not God exists
Gun control
Why the US sucks
Why Muslims suck
Why Christians or Christianity sucks


someone help me out here with the list...

Yes, pro-choice is the logical argument.


I agree. This argument can never be solved with logic, but pro-choice IS the 'logical' argument. Opposition to choice tends to be an emotional response - and thus, not a necessarily 'logical' one.

not this stuff again...

Maybe we need a sticky at the top of the forum:

Topics beaten to death shall NOT be the subjects of new threads.

These topics include:

Abortion
Whether or not God exists
Gun control
Why the US sucks
Why Muslims suck
Why Christians or Christianity sucks


someone help me out here with the list...


Hehe this is a public forum yeah?

There will be people on here that have only just joined and do not know the history of the place.
It being a public forum you can if you choose to, ignore any thread that does not take your fancy, whilst still letting those new people bash out things that you have seen before. If it is getting all sorta samey, then you are also free to move elsewhere. So what's your beef, no really?

not this stuff again...

Maybe we need a sticky at the top of the forum:

Topics beaten to death shall NOT be the subjects of new threads.

These topics include:

Abortion
Whether or not God exists
Gun control
Why the US sucks
Why Muslims suck
Why Christians or Christianity sucks


someone help me out here with the list...

You forgot "Which is better, Nazism or Communism?"

Okay I'm going to pretend I'm a girl.
Grade 11-12 in Highschool.
I just got knocked up after a party.
Pregnant, shit.
If I have this baby, my entire future falls down the shitter and I'll achieve nothing greater than part-time work for the rest of my days.
Wait?
I don't have the choice not to ruin my life? I can't abort this curse?

Doesn't that seem extremely cruel?
If I was a woman I'd use the old coat hanger trick.

Okay I'm going to pretend I'm a girl.
Grade 11-12 in Highschool.
I just got knocked up after a party.
Pregnant, shit.
If I have this baby, my entire future falls down the shitter and I'll achieve nothing greater than part-time work for the rest of my days.
Wait?
I don't have the choice not to ruin my life? I can't abort this curse?

Doesn't that seem extremely cruel?
If I was a woman I'd use the old coat hanger trick.

Options:
1) Engage brain. Use contraception (not "emergency contraception", either. Take responsibility for what's happening to your body).
Failing that,
2) Adoption.

I don't agree with women being permitted to have abortions because they've made careless mistakes. Rape is something I feel strongly about for personal reasons, and I can see the reasons for allowing an abortion in such an extreme case. The same is true for situations where the mother is in immediate danger.

Okay I'm going to pretend I'm a girl.
Grade 11-12 in Highschool.
I just got knocked up after a party.
Pregnant, shit.
If I have this baby, my entire future falls down the shitter and I'll achieve nothing greater than part-time work for the rest of my days.
Wait?
I don't have the choice not to ruin my life? I can't abort this curse?

Doesn't that seem extremely cruel?
If I was a woman I'd use the old coat hanger trick.


Choices choices. What you have presented us with is what you would think. prove to me that a grade 11-12 girl keeping the baby is doomed to a life of part time work. Prove to me that her life is down the shitter.

It's personal choice, and as I say we shouldn't give people who choose to abort a hard, time, they are having a hard time already. Nobody who makes that choice has an easy life afterwards.

Options:
1) Engage brain. Use contraception (not "emergency contraception", either. Take responsibility for what's happening to your body).
Failing that,
2) Adoption.

I don't agree with women being permitted to have abortions because they've made careless mistakes. Rape is something I feel strongly about for personal reasons, and I can see the reasons for allowing an abortion in such an extreme case. The same is true for situations where the mother is in immediate danger.

What if contraception is not an option? Either because the girl in question was forced or coerced into intercourse - or, like here in rural Georgia, because girls are raised to obey men, and NOT educated about contraception.

Failing that, adoption? You realise how much harm a pregnancy can do even to a fully mature body? And yet you advocate full-term for a pre-teen?

Options:
1) Engage brain. Use contraception (not "emergency contraception", either. Take responsibility for what's happening to your body).
Failing that,
2) Adoption.

I don't agree with women being permitted to have abortions because they've made careless mistakes. Rape is something I feel strongly about for personal reasons, and I can see the reasons for allowing an abortion in such an extreme case. The same is true for situations where the mother is in immediate danger.

So you're saying that because she made a careless mistake, she is now forced to have a child? How is that fair for either the mother or the baby?

Do you know where I live?
Canada.
Do you know what I like about Canada?
Freedom.
Every person should have the freedom to make such life-changing choices like these. Nobody should ever be forced to have a baby.

What is the point in having a baby that you don't want so badly that you are giving it up to adoption the second it's born?
Add one more life to the world's bursting population?
Take that much more of the taxpayer's money to support this orphan?

Choices choices. What you have presented us with is what you would think. prove to me that a grade 11-12 girl keeping the baby is doomed to a life of part time work. Prove to me that her life is down the shitter.

Would you employ a candidate that had freedom to choose any shift, or one that had to be out of the office before school gets out?

A pre-teen? I'm not familiar with American grades, but I'm sure the example given was 11/12 Highschool. Year 11/12 here consist of people aged 16-17.

Forcing or coercing someone into having sexual intercourse is classed as rape, which I mentioned already.

Yes, I'm saying her careless mistake resulted in her pregnancy, and she should deal with the consequences. No one's forced to have a baby, just as no one's forced to have sex. Society shouldn't have to bail you out every time you screw up.

If everyone's free, then they're also free to live, and that should extend to the unborn child in this scenario if you're intending to stick to your beliefs. To be classed as an orphan, the child's parents would have to be dead. Many people live happily with foster parents, just as many do with regular parents - equally, some don't, but that's life.

A pre-teen? I'm not familiar with American grades, but I'm sure the example given was 11/12 Highschool. Year 11/12 here consist of people aged 16-17.

Forcing or coercing someone into having sexual intercourse is classed as rape, which I mentioned already.

Yes, I'm saying her careless mistake resulted in her pregnancy, and she should deal with the consequences. No one's forced to have a baby, just as no one's forced to have sex. Society shouldn't have to bail you out every time you screw up.

If everyone's free, then they're also free to live, and that should extend to the unborn child in this scenario if you're intending to stick to your beliefs. To be classed as an orphan, the child's parents would have to be dead. Many people live happily with foster parents, just as many do with regular parents - equally, some don't, but that's life.

If an embryo gets the same rights as you or I, so should cows, so should sheep, so should plants, etc.
Then I suppose the world would die of hunger.

Would you employ a candidate that had freedom to choose any shift, or one that had to be out of the office before school gets out?


Personly I would choose the best candidate for the job regardless of age, sex, marrital status, sexuality, or wether they where prgant or not. Again your personal opinion does not constitue the proof that I asked for, nor does my personal opinion work as a valid argument against your point. We could go on and on and on like this all night, so I'll say again, personal choice. I don't like it either but I'm not going to give a perosn that has made that choice a bad time, even if I disagree with that choice.

Unfortunately, the abortion argument isn't one that can be settled by logic.

Of course not. It requires talking to anti-choicers who resort to lying and extortion to make their points. Logic was rendered obsolete years ago.

Rather like the homosexuality debate.

Yes, I'm saying her careless mistake resulted in her pregnancy, and she should deal with the consequences. No one's forced to have a baby, just as no one's forced to have sex. Society shouldn't have to bail you out every time you screw up.

If everyone's free, then they're also free to live, and that should extend to the unborn child in this scenario if you're intending to stick to your beliefs. To be classed as an orphan, the child's parents would have to be dead. Many people live happily with foster parents, just as many do with regular parents - equally, some don't, but that's life.

How is it a careless mistake?

You make too many assumptions. People ARE forced to have sex, otherwise there would be no crime called 'rape'... and the definitions can be hazy enough to warrant differentiating between 'rape' and coercion.

If the girl accepts a drink - does she accept sex? What if the drink is stronger than she thought/was told? Or was spiked with a drug?

What if the girl was raised somewhere like rural Georgia, where they raise them to (their version) of good old biblical values... which means girls do whatever the hell a guy TELLS them to do? Is it 'rape' if you 'let them do it' because you were raised that way?

What about those cases of incest where the victim is generally threatened in an ambient way, but not specifically with regard to the acts of abuse? Indeed - the abuse MIGHT be the only time she is NOT threatened.


And - to say that no one is forced to have a baby, is almost too ridiculous to be worth answering. Of COURSE women are forced to have babies. Everywhere abortion is illegal, for starters. Or legal, but expensive. Or small communities where a girl's life will be made hell, if she even considers an alternative. Or religious families... There is no 'stick' bigger, in forcing women to bear, than the Sky Daddy.

As for your assertions about 'unborn children'... it's a matter of opinion. I'd say that the aware/alive woman get's first claim on her uterus... and the collection of cells with no awareness... well, tough shit. 'Freedom' is a value we create as a society - and we accord it as we see fit... and we generally award it first to human lives. There is nothing inconsistent about preaching free choice to the mother-to-be who doesn't WANT-to-be, whilst denying it to a parasitic organism.

I'm all for choice, yet I'd like to make a few changes.

I believe that if the woman decides to get an abortion, she should be able to force the man in question to pay for half of it.

If she feels it was a mistake, he should have to go along for the ride, because she certainly wasn't fucking by herself.

Of course not. It requires talking to anti-choicers who resort to lying and extortion to make their points. Logic was rendered obsolete years ago.

Rather like the homosexuality debate.


You Sir, or Miss(sorry I don't know) have hit it right on the nose.

We have a God given(or humanist given) right to make our own choices and as long as they conform to the law of the land, and what ever cultural laws we find our selves living under, then no man, women or judge has a right to gainsay our choises.

Personly I would choose the best candidate for the job regardless of age, sex, marrital status, sexuality, or wether they where prgant or not. Again your personal opinion does not constitue the proof that I asked for, nor does my personal opinion work as a valid argument against your point. We could go on and on and on like this all night, so I'll say again, personal choice. I don't like it either but I'm not going to give a perosn that has made that choice a bad time, even if I disagree with that choice.

I don't believe you, I'm afraid... I mean, sure you'd pick the 'bet candidate'... but, if you have a business that NEEDS a 9-5 worker, I don't think your 'best candidate' COULD be the mother (or father) with the child in school, that they had to drop off and pick up.

It's not opinion... it's reality. If you work, you know that business relies primarily on employees that can be where you need them, WHEN you need them.

That's not to say that a single-mom CAN'T get employed, but it is clear that she is automatically less LIKELY to get the pick of jobs - because she has a 'handicap' that others don't.

I'm not sure what evidence would satisfy you. I don't know if one COULD compile evidence that would answer your question.

I'm all for choice, yet I'd like to make a few changes.

I believe that if the woman decides to get an abortion, she should be able to force the man in question to pay for half of it.

If she feels it was a mistake, he should have to go along for the ride, because she certainly wasn't fucking by herself.

At least these two ideas would stop making 'precautions' JUST something that women have to take.

I'm all for choice, yet I'd like to make a few changes.

I believe that if the woman decides to get an abortion, she should be able to force the man in question to pay for half of it.

If she feels it was a mistake, he should have to go along for the ride, because she certainly wasn't fucking by herself.


Which bring me to an intersting point. What about the mans rights in any abortion descicion? After all if we have laws protecing our sperm for say IVF or donations(and we do) then should we get a say?

If an embryo gets the same rights as you or I, so should cows, so should sheep, so should plants, etc.
Then I suppose the world would die of hunger.

I said it would've been in line with the argument, not that it was my stance.

How is it a careless mistake? etc

"Careless mistake" is the term used by Hokan. If she/he doesn't consent, it's rape. There is no fuzziness in the definition of the crime, just difficulty in proving it.

They're not forced to have children, because "having children" requires them to be pregnant. You can't force someone to give birth if she isn't pregnant therefore, if they consented to sex (ignorance of contraception is no excuse, as communities which frown upon contraception also make it clear that sex is for marriage to produce a family) then they are aware of the possibilities, and have chosen to have a baby.

Many people on this Earth qualify as parasitic organisms, but they're entitled to freedom.

Which bring me to an intersting point. What about the mans rights in any abortion descicion? After all if we have laws protecing our sperm for say IVF or donations(and we do) then should we get a say?

IMHO, after it starts, it's the woman's decision whether or not to terminate.

But being part of the start, he gets to eat whatever the woman decides. If she wants child support and to have the baby - guess what - no one forced him to fuck. If she wants him to pay for half the abortion - no one forced him to fuck.

As for sperm donors, they know what it's going to be used for.

Which bring me to an intersting point. What about the mans rights in any abortion descicion? After all if we have laws protecing our sperm for say IVF or donations(and we do) then should we get a say?

My personal opinion is - guys get to 'choose', when they can carry the baby.

Which bring me to an intersting point. What about the mans rights in any abortion descicion? After all if we have laws protecing our sperm for say IVF or donations(and we do) then should we get a say?

If the woman doesn't want to, what do you want to do about it? Force her to have the baby for you?

I don't believe you, I'm afraid... I mean, sure you'd pick the 'bet candidate'... but, if you have a business that NEEDS a 9-5 worker, I don't think your 'best candidate' COULD be the mother (or father) with the child in school, that they had to drop off and pick up.

It's not opinion... it's reality. If you work, you know that business relies primarily on employees that can be where you need them, WHEN you need them.

That's not to say that a single-mom CAN'T get employed, but it is clear that she is automatically less LIKELY to get the pick of jobs - because she has a 'handicap' that others don't.

I'm not sure what evidence would satisfy you. I don't know if one COULD compile evidence that would answer your question.


If you don't beive me then what can I say except you don't really know me, so fair doos. However I don't know where your at but over here in the UK, we have job shareing schemes, and creches at the work place. Being a perant is no bar to a good job, if you can get in with the right company. And being the right company is a choice that the MD's make.

Belive me or not, if I was an MD, then job sharing, and creches would be in my plans.

Which bring me to an intersting point. What about the mans rights in any abortion descicion? After all if we have laws protecing our sperm for say IVF or donations(and we do) then should we get a say?

Allowing men to determine whether or not a woman will abort is giving that man rights to her body - enslaving her to him. If a man could get pregnant, he could decide whether or not to continue that pregnancy. But he cannot do either.


Many people on this Earth qualify as parasitic organisms, but they're entitled to freedom.

They do?!?! Years and years of biology and this is new to me. Do tell!

If the woman doesn't want to, what do you want to do about it? Force her to have the baby for you?
Well said. And what abortion foes neglect to mention is that they don't support any kind of birth-control except abstinence. There wouldn't be a need for abortion if kids were properly educated in how to deal with growing up, but all these folks offer is the old saw, "Just say no."

I'd like to bring up something I've personally never seen argued before...

In america at least, if someone is on your property, you have the right to get rid of them. You also have the right to defend yourself, to the extent that you are being threatened.

A person's body is their own property, is it not? A baby is in the womans property, sometimes wanted, sometimes unwanted. If its unwanted, doesn't she have a right to remove it from her property?

And you can bet your sweet ass that the people going "Pro-life, pro-life!" are the same ones bitching about having to pay for unwed mothers trying to take care of a couple children on government support.

New law - abortions are banned. Former abortion opponents have to support the children of women who would have had an abortion until the children are independent.

"Careless mistake" is the term used by Hokan. If she/he doesn't consent, it's rape. There is no fuzziness in the definition of the crime, just difficulty in proving it.


Wrong. If that were the case, 'marital rape' wouldn't be a relatively new addition to the possible rape crimes.

They're not forced to have children, because "having children" requires them to be pregnant. You can't force someone to give birth if she isn't pregnant therefore, if they consented to sex (ignorance of contraception is no excuse, as communities which frown upon contraception also make it clear that sex is for marriage to produce a family) then they are aware of the possibilities, and have chosen to have a baby.


Ignorance of contraception IS an excuse, if it is institutionalised. I live in an area with a high-rate of teen pregnancy. The contributing factors are:

1) A lack of even basic sex education (I have talked to girls who got pregnant without knowing what had caused it).

2) A lack of contraception awareness (A girl can't be protected unless she knows how).

3) A lack of contraception availability (Again - small towns. A girl in a small town, buying contraception, is not being 'careful'... she is announcing on the local community grapevine that she is 'a whore').

4) Patriarchal culture (where girls are raised to OBEY men. It is not a matter of choice, when you HAVE no choice).

Another point worth making... some of these girls, raised in 'christian families' have been taught that disobedience is a mortal sin... try reading the bible, look for the word 'disobedience'. Thus - while they KNOW extra-marital sex is 'bad', it is not as much of a sin for them to acquiesce to unwanted advances, as it would be to refuse.


Many people on this Earth qualify as parasitic organisms, but they're entitled to freedom.

And they are 'people'. There is the difference.

If you don't beive me then what can I say except you don't really know me, so fair doos. However I don't know where your at but over here in the UK, we have job shareing schemes, and creches at the work place. Being a perant is no bar to a good job, if you can get in with the right company. And being the right company is a choice that the MD's make.

Belive me or not, if I was an MD, then job sharing, and creches would be in my plans.

I am currently in the US, but I was born and spent two-and-a-half-decades in the UK. I've worked in the UK work-market, anf job-sharing is far from the norm. Indeed - you know as well as I, that those jobs are the exception, not the rule - proving the point that the single-mom of our example IS going to have less choices, and be more likely to end up with the cruddy McDonalds job.

If I ran a company - I would be similarly progressive about my policies... but we both know that big business operates on bottomlines, and that we would be exceptions, not exemplars of the rule.

And you can bet your sweet ass that the people going "Pro-life, pro-life!" are the same ones bitching about having to pay for unwed mothers trying to take care of a couple children on government support.

New law - abortions are banned. Former abortion opponents have to support the children of women who would have had an abortion until the children are independent.

I've argued before that - if the Pro-Life lobby REALLY cared about foetuses, rather than about making slaves of anyone with a uterus, they'd be spending the money developing science to enable a foetus to be 'aborted' WITHOUT harm, and matured to term artificially.

The fact that the Pro-Life camp, instead, concentrates it's efforts on legislating what a woman can have in, or exclude from, her womb - tells me that the foetus is an afterthought.

What if contraception is not an option? Either because the girl in question was forced or coerced into intercourse - or, like here in rural Georgia, because girls are raised to obey men, and NOT educated about contraception.


I really dislike your logic here.
Is the fact that rural Georgian girls are denied education and are brainwashed into servitude really a complelling abortion argument?

Isn't that just an argument for social change in Georgia?


Failing that, adoption? You realise how much harm a pregnancy can do even to a fully mature body? And yet you advocate full-term for a pre-teen?

Interesting, according to Dem in the Feminism thread, pregnancy is no more rough than a good workout.

I really dislike your logic here.
Is the fact that rural Georgian girls are denied education and are brainwashed into servitude really a complelling abortion argument?

Isn't that just an argument for socail change in Georgia?

Longterm ? Yes.
But what is your short term solution ?

Wrong. If that were the case, 'marital rape' wouldn't be a relatively new addition to the possible rape crimes.

Not to mention that, up until very recently, many rape laws only counted a crime as rape if a penis was inserted into a vagina. Forced anal intercourse was not rape. Forced oral intercourse was not rape. Someone stuffing a bottle into a woman's vagina was not rape. And so on....


Interesting, according to Dem in the Feminism thread, pregnancy is no more rough than a good workout.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop lying. I never even suggested this, and you know it.

I really dislike your logic here.
Is the fact that rural Georgian girls are denied education and are brainwashed into servitude really a complelling abortion argument?

Isn't that just an argument for socail change in Georgia?


Hell yes! Georgia NEEDS social change. These backwaters need to be disinfected in the harsh light of the 21st century sun.

But - the point is, while girls CAN end up pregnant against their will, that SHOULD be a compelling argument. Rural Georgia is just an example of that problem, institutionalised.


Interesting, according to Dem in the Feminism thread, pregnancy is no more rough than a good workout.

I'm not going to argue with Dem about it. I'm married to a person that had babies, I've not done it myself.

But - perhaps Dem and I are actually talking to different issues. Perhaps she is talking about day-to-day strains, and I am talking about the long-term effects like loss of minerals? Every pregnancy, and, especially, birth, carries great risks... although most of the pregnancy might not be too strenuous on a daily basis.

Not to mention that, up until very recently, many rape laws only counted a crime as rape if a penis was inserted into a vagina. Forced anal intercourse was not rape. Forced oral intercourse was not rape. Someone stuffing a bottle into a woman's vagina was not rape. And so on....

Indeed... I'm still not sure it is possible in all states for a man to be raped...

Longterm ? Yes.
But what is your short term solution ?


Well, abortion certainly shouldn't be considered a short term social program, it stands or falls on its own merits.

If abortion is acceptable and legal, then rural Georgian girls certainly deserve to make that choice.

If abortion is NOT acceptable nor legal, the plight of uneducated rural downtrodden Georgian girls is nothing more than appeal to emotion and is in no way compelling to support abortion rights.

Well, abortion certainly shouldn't be considered a short term social program, it stands or falls on its own merits.

If abortion is acceptable and legal, then rural Georgian girls certainly deserve to make that choice.

If abortion is NOT acceptable nor legal, the plight of uneducated rural downtrodden Georgian girls is nothing more than appeal to emotion and is in no way compelling to support abortion rights.

You have Descartes before his horses. You are therfore you think.

If there is 'cause', like the plight of the rural Georgian girls, then the 'acceptability' of abortion should include that factor.

If there were no 'unwanted' pregnancies, the abortion debate would be meaningless... it is 'wanted' that is operative.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop lying. I never even suggested this, and you know it.

I'll gladly stop quoting you when you stop saying things like this from the Feminism Failed thread:

Most women DO need to recover physically after giving birth, it's ridiculous to assert that they don't.

Most people have to recover physically after a big workout too, but they don't physically need time off for it.



Calling me a liar when I quote your words is a bit silly, we disagree, no need to make it into more than it is.

Indeed... I'm still not sure it is possible in all states for a man to be raped...
Which states? I have some vacation time coming my way.

You have Descartes before his horses. You are therfore you think.

If there is 'cause', like the plight of the rural Georgian girls, then the 'acceptability' of abortion should include that factor.

If there were no 'unwanted' pregnancies, the abortion debate would be meaningless... it is 'wanted' that is operative.


If there were no unwanted children, I imagine no one would be drowning their children in bathtubs.
Whether they are wanted or not is not relevant to whether I support the right of a parent to take their child's life.

You must first decide that abortion is acceptable at all before you enter into the debate whether this or that abortion is justified.
So again, if abortion is acceptable, then your Georgia girls get a free pass to their abortion clinic and their backwater life doesn't even factor in.

I'm slightly saddened that you aren't seeing the appeal to emotion you're engaging in here. Perhaps you're too close to the reality to see it.

I'll gladly stop quoting you when you stop saying things like this from the Feminism Failed thread:

(a) This quote in no way implies equivalency.
(b) This quote refers specifically to the act of giving birth, not to the pregnancy as a whole.
(c) The physical changes to which Grave was referring are not recoverable - they are, in fact, permanent changes made by pregnancy.

Calling me a liar when I quote your words is a bit silly, we disagree, no need to make it into more than it is.

You are a liar. If all you did was quote me, that would be one thing. Instead, you are making comments that I said something I did not, and then trying to use quotes that don't say it to back yourself up.

The equivalent with reference to abortion is here:

Quote: I do not agree with abortion - I think it is wrong. However, there are many things I do not agree with that I think should be legal. I do not agree with promiscuity, for instance.

You: OMFG!!! YOU JUST SAID THAT MURDERING TEH BABIES IS THE SAME THING AS HAVING SEX WITH MORE THAN ONE PERSON!!!!!!!!! WHY DO YOU WANT TO MURDER BABIES?

Me: I never said that. Stop twisting my words.

You: YES YOU DID!! I QUOTED YOU!!!

If there were no unwanted children, I imagine no one would be drowning their children in bathtubs.
Whether they are wanted or not is not relevant to whether I support the right of a parent to take their child's life.

You must first decide that abortion is acceptable at all before you enter into the debate whether this or that abortion is justified.
So again, if abortion is acceptable, then your Georgia girls get a free pass to their abortion clinic and their backwater life doesn't even factor in.

I'm slightly saddened that you aren't seeing the appeal to emotion you're engaging in here. Perhaps you're too close to the reality to see it.

As usual, you are missing a great deal of context.

The person Grave was responding to stated that rape is an acceptable excuse for having an abortion, while consentual sex is not. The person also suggested that a person who doesn't use contraceptives "deserves" pregnancy. Grave pointed out that some "consentual" sex is not really consentual at all. For instance, girls from backwater GA don't really have the choice of consent because of the way they have been raised. They also don't really have the option of using contraception, partially because the boy may not like it (and they have been told to obey him) and partially because of the social stigma.

Grave (correct me if I'm wrong) isn't arguing that the existence of such girls is, in and of itself, support for the legalization of abortion. It does, however, counter the objections brought by the poster being responded to.

(a) This quote in no way implies equivalency.
(b) This quote refers specifically to the act of giving birth, not to the pregnancy as a whole.
(c) The physical changes to which Grave was referring are not recoverable - they are, in fact, permanent changes made by pregnancy.



You are a liar. If all you did was quote me, that would be one thing. Instead, you are making comments that I said something I did not, and then trying to use quotes that don't say it to back yourself up.

The equivalent with reference to abortion is here:

Quote: I do not agree with abortion - I think it is wrong. However, there are many things I do not agree with that I think should be legal. I do not agree with promiscuity, for instance.

You: OMFG!!! YOU JUST SAID THAT MURDERING TEH BABIES IS THE SAME THING AS HAVING SEX WITH MORE THAN ONE PERSON!!!!!!!!! WHY DO YOU WANT TO MURDER BABIES?

Me: I never said that. Stop twisting my words.

You: YES YOU DID!! I QUOTED YOU!!!


Well then, you clearly are incapable of rationally discussing even your own words.
Have a nice life.

If there were no unwanted children, I imagine no one would be drowning their children in bathtubs.


I was talking about unwanted pregancy, not unwanted children. The two are linked perhaps, but not the same.


Whether they are wanted or not is not relevant to whether I support the right of a parent to take their child's life.


No - but the issue of whether that SHOULD be a 'right', only matters if there ARE 'unwanted' children.


You must first decide that abortion is acceptable at all before you enter into the debate whether this or that abortion is justified.


Again - no, you have to decide whether abortion CAN be justified, in order to decide whether it is acceptable.


So again, if abortion is acceptable, then your Georgia girls get a free pass to their abortion clinic and their backwater life doesn't even factor in.


A free pass? Hardly... it may be expensive, difficult to get, even harder to justify to the neighbours, and even harder to endure.

But, the 'backwater' conditions explain WHY it might be needed, and justify the pursuit of it.


I'm slightly saddened that you aren't seeing the appeal to emotion you're engaging in here. Perhaps you're too close to the reality to see it.

So - 'reality' is now an appeal to emotion?

I haven't appealed to emotion. I haven't used impassioned rhetoric, and sympathetic symbols. I have just stated a couple of facts that explain WHY there are so many unwanted teen pregnancies in areas like this. I am fairly scientific about this. I'm not being inflammatory. Look at my descriptions.. I'm fairly sanguine about it.

Well then, you clearly are incapable of rationally discussing even your own words.
Have a nice life.

I have been quite rational. I'm just sick and tired of you intentionally twisting things to the point they aren't even recognizable anymore. As I have shown, you have clearly stated that a quote said something that it does not - often that it doesn't even come close to saying.

It seems that you are the one being irrational, my dear.

I think most people would agree with these 2 ideas:

1. Abortion kills something. (Some call that 'something' a human being; others call it a living mass of muscle and tissue without a human personality. Either way, something dies.)Yeah, so? My body kills millions of "somethings" every time my immune system fights off a bacterial infection. Doctors killed "something" when they removed my grandmother's brain tumor, and my mom's skin cancer. (Yeah, wonderful family history... and people wonder why I'm paranoid about my moles...)

2. It is unacceptable to kill any animals for any reason, with the exceptions of when that animal is endangering a human, or for food. (Of course, vegetarians would disagree with that last exception, but that's not the point of this thread.)Actually, I doubt you'll find much agreement at all here. In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled to allow animal sacrifice, provided the animal is killed according to the same standards that apply to a slaughterhouse.

Moreover, you fail to state the reason that (many) people find it objectionable to kill, and certainly to abuse, many animals. The sentiment seems to be that many animals--particularly those with advanced nervous systems similar to ours--experience pain and suffering in much the same way that humans do. Thus, it is especially heinous to torture a dog, and to many (vegetarians) it is distasteful to harm anything that "has a face."

We tend to feel much less sympathy for insects and other animals that are apparently "aware" in only the most simplistic way, and which do not appear to share much with the human experience.

It is needless pain and suffering for sentient beings that ethical people wish to minimize. To the extent that a fetus does not meet this standard, such moral considerations are irrelevant to abortion.

It seems to me that we should either allow abortion as well as the random killing of animals, or we should ban both.In addition to the argument above, I would like to point out the implicit slippery slope you mention here. When has abortion been "random"? We do not "randomly" abort pregnancies... rather, we abort pregnancies that are unwanted or unsafe.

Similarly, we may "cull" a deer population that is encroaching on human populations--possibly the humane alternative to slamming into them with trucks and leaving them to bleed to death on the side of the road. Certainly if it is ethical to kill "unwanted" animal populations (for our own good and, arguably, theirs), according to your logic it must also be ethical to prevent the birth of unwanted children as well?

Cutting off an arm is killing ever bit of tissue and every cell that the arm is comprised of, but it isn't the death of an organism.

Until a fetus can feel, think, and survive on its own, it's not quantifiable as a separate organism. The point at which this occurs is the end of the 2nd trimester, when abortions are illegal anyway.

As usual, you are missing a great deal of context.

The person Grave was responding to stated that rape is an acceptable excuse for having an abortion, while consentual sex is not. The person also suggested that a person who doesn't use contraceptives "deserves" pregnancy. Grave pointed out that some "consentual" sex is not really consentual at all. For instance, girls from backwater GA don't really have the choice of consent because of the way they have been raised. They also don't really have the option of using contraception, partially because the boy may not like it (and they have been told to obey him) and partially because of the social stigma.

Grave (correct me if I'm wrong) isn't arguing that the existence of such girls is, in and of itself, support for the legalization of abortion. It does, however, counter the objections brought by the poster being responded to.

I am largely responding to the assertion that pregnancy was consented to, because intercourse occured. Also - I have been expanding on that point, as to whether the logic suggests this 'justification' is secondary to 'acceptability', or should be a factor in determining what is 'acceptable'.

If rape is an 'acceptable' cause for abortion (as I believe it is), then all those 'grey areas' that skirt 'rape', should be 'acceptable', also.

The infamous cliche of the rural Georgian, 13-years-old, pregnant by 'daddy', in which there is no real capacity for consent (even if the act was considered consensual) springs to mind.

Well then, you clearly are incapable of rationally discussing even your own words.
Have a nice life.

With all due repect, if you take words out of context, you cannot expect to be called on it.

Having now read the other thread - I think you are misrepresenting Dems' words.

The infamous cliche of the rural Georgian, 13-years-old, pregnant by 'daddy', in which there is no real capacity for consent (even if the act was considered consensual) springs to mind.

If only it really were just a cliche. My fiance's mother is a neonatal ICU nurse up in Floyd county, and she sees so many of these cases. These girls rarely receive any prenatal care, and half the time don't seem fully aware of what is going on.

I am largely responding to the assertion that pregnancy was consented to, because intercourse occured.The notion that people "consent" to pregnancy because they have sex is somewhat perverse, at least as applied by opponents to abortion.

If I play football, I do not "consent" to injury. Of course, the very real possibility of injury exists, and I would be much safer not playing at all. Moreover, I can significantly reduce my chances of injury by wearing protective gear.

If a woman has sex, this does not mean she "consents" to getting pregnant. Of course, the very real possibility of pregnancy exists, and she would be much safer not having sex at all. Moreover, she can significantly reduce her chances of getting pregnant by using protective equipment.

When someone gets injured playing football, we do not refuse to treat him on the grounds that he chose to do something dangerous--even if he was stupid and did not wear the proper protection. Similarly, there is no reason to refuse an abortion to a pregnant woman--even if she was stupid (and/or coerced) and did not use the proper protection.

Pregnancy is a possible consequence of having sex. Whether or not a baby is born depends on decisions made thereafter. A child is only a "necessary" consequence of pregnancy if our society makes the decision to ban abortions.

I was talking about unwanted pregancy, not unwanted children. The two are linked perhaps, but not the same.


Oh of course, I never meant that you were. I was drawing an analogy. They aren't the same because everyone can agree on one whereas there is considerable discussion for the other.


No - but the issue of whether that SHOULD be a 'right', only matters if there ARE 'unwanted' children.


Sure. I'll agree with that.


Again - no, you have to decide whether abortion CAN be justified, in order to decide whether it is acceptable.


Hmm, we might be getting hung up on justified and acceptable.
We need to justify the concept of abortion and decide that abortin in general is acceptable before we examine individual instances and their unique factors.


A free pass? Hardly... it may be expensive, difficult to get, even harder to justify to the neighbours, and even harder to endure.


My pardon, I mean ethically, legally, morally whatever, for the purposes of debate. Again, I'm not talking about their individual situations.


So - 'reality' is now an appeal to emotion?

I haven't appealed to emotion. I haven't used impassioned rhetoric, and sympathetic symbols. I have just stated a couple of facts that explain WHY there are so many unwanted teen pregnancies in areas like this. I am fairly scientific about this. I'm not being inflammatory. Look at my descriptions.. I'm fairly sanguine about it.

You are not engaging in inflammatory rhetoric, that's correct, but all appeals to emotion will invlove "reality".
But, you are presenting the sad case of these rural folk as a compeling reason to allow abortion.

It's still an appeal to emotion, you do it better than most if that's any consolation.

some adults are inconvience by an unplan pregnancy. but i would strongly argue that the unborn childs future is more important cause its has more potential to become something great, wereas the adult has already reached its prime.

Ah, yes. Clearly, pregnant thirteen-year-old girls have "reached their prime." No one ever does anything worthwhile or useful after such a ripe old age as that. And, heck, those twenty- and thirty-somethings who get abortions are clearly so old and washed-up that they have no potential left in them at all!

:rolleyes:

If only it really were just a cliche. My fiance's mother is a neonatal ICU nurse up in Floyd county, and she sees so many of these cases. These girls rarely receive any prenatal care, and half the time don't seem fully aware of what is going on.

There's a Pratchett line about cliches having such long lives, because they are the toolbox of the vocabulary... they work, they apply, over and over again. These girls are part of the toolbox, because the incidence is frequent enough that they just never leave the consciousness. :(

It's a sad state.

The notion that people "consent" to pregnancy because they have sex is somewhat perverse, at least as applied by opponents to abortion.

If I play football, I do not "consent" to injury. Of course, the very real possibility of injury exists, and I would be much safer not playing at all. Moreover, I can significantly reduce my chances of injury by wearing protective gear.

If a woman has sex, this does not mean she "consents" to getting pregnant. Of course, the very real possibility of pregnancy exists, and she would be much safer not having sex at all. Moreover, she can significantly reduce her chances of getting pregnant by using protective equipment.

When someone gets injured playing football, we do not refuse to treat him on the grounds that he chose to do something dangerous--even if he was stupid and did not wear the proper protection. Similarly, there is no reason to refuse an abortion to a pregnant woman--even if she was stupid (and/or coerced) and did not use the proper protection.

Pregnancy is a possible consequence of having sex. Whether or not a baby is born depends on decisions made thereafter. A child is only a "necessary" consequence of pregnancy if our society makes the decision to ban abortions.

Exactly.

I wear my seatbelt when I drive, because I consent to drive, and because I know there is 'protection' available and I use it. I consent ONLY to the driving, not to the potential idiot driver that decides to take her left turn across my lane about 15 feet in front of me, with no signals. (Yes - a surprisingly specific example... it is based on very real, very recent, experience).

When I order a 10-piece Chicken McNugget meal, I am consenting to chicken, and maybe some Ranch... not to the possibility of choking.

The only place this bizarre 'consent' argument is made, is where women dare to oppose the patriarchal dinosaur of 'social behaviour', and actually take control of their own genitals.

You are not engaging in inflammatory rhetoric, that's correct, but all appeals to emotion will invlove "reality".
But, you are presenting the sad case of these rural folk as a compeling reason to allow abortion.

It's still an appeal to emotion, you do it better than most if that's any consolation.

Thanks, I think...

I'm not presenting this 'sad case' as reason to allow abortion - I am using first-hand experience evidence of the KIND of cases that make abortion so essential.

There is no cut-and-dry definition of 'acceptable' sex, or what constitutes acceptable reason for abortion - but there are some clear cases that show where these borders might lie. The simple scope of these 'grey areas' is part of the reason I argue for 'general' right to abortion, rather than 'specific' rights (like - you can abort if it's rape)... because black and white text simply fails to address the issue.

The only place this bizarre 'consent' argument is made, is where women dare to oppose the patriarchal dinosaur of 'social behaviour', and actually take control of their own genitals.

It might be worth pointing out that any anti-abortion argument which hinges on the legal notion of consent has a very real flaw built into it's framework: consent can be revoked. Even if we were to accept the notion that by having sex a woman somehow consents to having a child that doesn't change the fact that established law and precedent allow a woman to change her mind. Consentual sex become rape the moment a woman who had said yes says no, there is no reason that the rules governing her uterus would be significantly different than the rules governing her vagina.

Basically, you're right, the "consent" argument is really just an attempt to make legitimate the old tribal laws and social mores that have been steadily losing ground since society decided to choose individual liberty over enforced social order. First there was an attempt to force women to obey legally, then an attempt to guilt them, then to intimidate them, now all the pro-life movement has left is a pathetic attempt to win sympathy by taking the law out of context.

Still, for anyone whose a fan of the consent theory, I have a challenge. Yours is a legal argument, please explain to me the contract law that supports your stance. That is, please explain to me how the six essential elements of a contract are met:
1) Offer and acceptance. Your argument seems to be that by engaging in sexual activity a woman is consenting to this contract, but I am unclear how we determine the consent or existance of other parties(presumably the fetus).
2) Consideration. Contracts are not generally considered valid(especially real estate contracts) if they lack some form of valuable consideration, that is, some form of payment.
3) Legal capacity of the parties. A non existant or pre-conscious being would seem to be as unable to enter into a legal contract as a child, and even if they could it would be the parents who made the decisions, how do you get around this requirement of a contract?
4) Reality of consent. A woman who has sex but is too drunk to think things through cannot really enter into a contract for anything, at least not in a legal sense.
5) Legality of object. Most states prohibit the buying or selling of human organs, the the 13th amendment prohibits involuntary servitude. How do you get around these two restrictions, particularily the argument that pregnancy becomes an issue of involuntary servitude the moment a woman decides she does not want to be pregnant.
6) Possibility to complete. You've got this one, women are physically ro give birth.

You have Descartes before his horses. You are therfore you think.
That's awesome. I'm going to quote that for a while. :)

The notion that people "consent" to pregnancy because they have sex is somewhat perverse, at least as applied by opponents to abortion.

If I play football, I do not "consent" to injury. Of course, the very real possibility of injury exists, and I would be much safer not playing at all. Moreover, I can significantly reduce my chances of injury by wearing protective gear.

If a woman has sex, this does not mean she "consents" to getting pregnant. Of course, the very real possibility of pregnancy exists, and she would be much safer not having sex at all. Moreover, she can significantly reduce her chances of getting pregnant by using protective equipment.

When someone gets injured playing football, we do not refuse to treat him on the grounds that he chose to do something dangerous--even if he was stupid and did not wear the proper protection. Similarly, there is no reason to refuse an abortion to a pregnant woman--even if she was stupid (and/or coerced) and did not use the proper protection.

Pregnancy is a possible consequence of having sex. Whether or not a baby is born depends on decisions made thereafter. A child is only a "necessary" consequence of pregnancy if our society makes the decision to ban abortions.
Exactly.

I wear my seatbelt when I drive, because I consent to drive, and because I know there is 'protection' available and I use it. I consent ONLY to the driving, not to the potential idiot driver that decides to take her left turn across my lane about 15 feet in front of me, with no signals. (Yes - a surprisingly specific example... it is based on very real, very recent, experience).

When I order a 10-piece Chicken McNugget meal, I am consenting to chicken, and maybe some Ranch... not to the possibility of choking.

The only place this bizarre 'consent' argument is made, is where women dare to oppose the patriarchal dinosaur of 'social behaviour', and actually take control of their own genitals.
Common sense makes the best of arguments.

Everyone, please repeat after me...


Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.


There. Stop trying to control women's sexuality with threats of them having to put up with unwanted pregnancies and having their lives ruined just because they've been naughty and "consenting to sex means consenting to pregnancy" shit.

Everyone, please repeat after me...


Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.


There. Stop trying to control women's sexuality with threats of them having to put up with unwanted pregnancies and having their lives ruined just because they've been naughty and "consenting to sex means consenting to pregnancy" shit.
Hear, hear!

And again, people who oppose the availability of abortion also seem to oppose any other form of birth control or sex education beyond the clearly ineffective abstenance method. As Skaladora so eloquently put it, "Women have the right to have sex." And they have the right to deal with the consequences, either pre-emptively with birth control or after the fact, if necessary, with an abortion.

Well, looks like I killed the thread. Go me!

Well, looks like I killed the thread. Go me!

You killed it in a good way too -- I like seeing someone INTELLIGENT getting the last word in. Congrats!

You killed it in a good way too -- I like seeing someone INTELLIGENT getting the last word in. Congrats!
*Bows*

It might be worth pointing out that any anti-abortion argument which hinges on the legal notion of consent has a very real flaw built into it's framework: consent can be revoked. Even if we were to accept the notion that by having sex a woman somehow consents to having a child that doesn't change the fact that established law and precedent allow a woman to change her mind. Consentual sex become rape the moment a woman who had said yes says no, there is no reason that the rules governing her uterus would be significantly different than the rules governing her vagina.

Basically, you're right, the "consent" argument is really just an attempt to make legitimate the old tribal laws and social mores that have been steadily losing ground since society decided to choose individual liberty over enforced social order. First there was an attempt to force women to obey legally, then an attempt to guilt them, then to intimidate them, now all the pro-life movement has left is a pathetic attempt to win sympathy by taking the law out of context.

Still, for anyone whose a fan of the consent theory, I have a challenge. Yours is a legal argument, please explain to me the contract law that supports your stance. That is, please explain to me how the six essential elements of a contract are met:
1) Offer and acceptance. Your argument seems to be that by engaging in sexual activity a woman is consenting to this contract, but I am unclear how we determine the consent or existance of other parties(presumably the fetus).
2) Consideration. Contracts are not generally considered valid(especially real estate contracts) if they lack some form of valuable consideration, that is, some form of payment.
3) Legal capacity of the parties. A non existant or pre-conscious being would seem to be as unable to enter into a legal contract as a child, and even if they could it would be the parents who made the decisions, how do you get around this requirement of a contract?
4) Reality of consent. A woman who has sex but is too drunk to think things through cannot really enter into a contract for anything, at least not in a legal sense.
5) Legality of object. Most states prohibit the buying or selling of human organs, the the 13th amendment prohibits involuntary servitude. How do you get around these two restrictions, particularily the argument that pregnancy becomes an issue of involuntary servitude the moment a woman decides she does not want to be pregnant.
6) Possibility to complete. You've got this one, women are physically ro give birth.

Excellent post. Excellent argument, which, I fear, must go unanswered...

That's awesome. I'm going to quote that for a while. :)

It would have been better if I'd spelled it correctly.. :(

I'm just waiting for the inevitable: "In Soviet Russia, Descartes thinks about YOU"... :D

Here is my logical view point on abortion.

Does abortion kill something? Yes.
Is that a bad thing? Depends on the situation.
Obviously people will say they have no problem with murder and some people really have trouble with the concept and how it can possibly be a good thing. But the fact is we only have a problem with murder if it affects us in a negative way. If there is some guy out there killing at random we have a problem with that because you or someone you care about could be next. But the majority approve of the death penalty. We have a problem with another nation going to war and killing thousands of people with no good cause. Yet we allow our own nation to do the same...because we're not the ones in danger. If murder is fundamentally wrong, we're all hypocrites. Which is more likely, we're all hypocrites or killing a person isn't fundamentally wrong? The answer is obvious to me. Killing someone isn't wrong, the reasons for doing it are.
That being the case, I believe abortion should be legal and not very heavily regulated. If someone is willing to kill their child, they are very obviously not fit to be a parent, that choice alone proves it. It hurts the rest of society when people have children they don't want.

Excellent post. Excellent argument, which, I fear, must go unanswered...

Sadly, it generally does. For all the huffing and puffing the pro-life movement makes about "invented rights" and emotional arguments, their stance is unsupported by the law and depends entirely on emotional appeal("won't someone please think of the babies"). I have yet to see a pro-life argument which fits into a more broad understanding of the law, they always depend on specific assumptions and situations whioch are only supported by taking the law out of context.

The "consent" argument is one of these. On the surface it appears to be a strong argument, but it is simply unsupported by precedent, common law, the constitution, or the laws of the land. At the end of the day, the pro-life lobby asks that numerous individual freedoms(the right to be secure in one's own person, the right of humans to not be transferable property, the right to exclude others from one's property, etc) be weakened and important legal concepts(contract law) be ignored in order to bring the behavior of specific members of society in line with the religious views of a minority.

The pro-life movement in America is just another example of the myopic, me-first mentality that has infected American politics. Pro-lifers don't think of the consequences of their battles, they do not think about the ways power can be abused or the unplesant precedents they are trying to set. Anything goes to save a few babies, and the preservation of their worldview is worth gutting the constitution. It makes me glad that we still have the second amendment.

Sadly, it generally does. For all the huffing and puffing the pro-life movement makes about "invented rights" and emotional arguments, their stance is unsupported by the law and depends entirely on emotional appeal("won't someone please think of the babies"). I have yet to see a pro-life argument which fits into a more broad understanding of the law, they always depend on specific assumptions and situations whioch are only supported by taking the law out of context.

The "consent" argument is one of these. On the surface it appears to be a strong argument, but it is simply unsupported by precedent, common law, the constitution, or the laws of the land. At the end of the day, the pro-life lobby asks that numerous individual freedoms(the right to be secure in one's own person, the right of humans to not be transferable property, the right to exclude others from one's property, etc) be weakened and important legal concepts(contract law) be ignored in order to bring the behavior of specific members of society in line with the religious views of a minority.

The pro-life movement in America is just another example of the myopic, me-first mentality that has infected American politics. Pro-lifers don't think of the consequences of their battles, they do not think about the ways power can be abused or the unplesant precedents they are trying to set. Anything goes to save a few babies, and the preservation of their worldview is worth gutting the constitution. It makes me glad that we still have the second amendment.

I agree with the 'me-first', but not the myopic. What I think it is, is an attempt to rewrite 2000 years of social progress and evolution of law, to fit theocratic laws of the ancient middle-east.

Why is consent to sex, equivalent to consent to a baby? Because this particular story about the 'sky daddy' says so... do you think you know better than god?

Etc.

It isn't an attempt to gut the constitution - it's a claim that we have ANOTHER constitution... and this one is beyond reproach.

I agree with the 'me-first', but not the myopic. What I think it is, is an attempt to rewrite 2000 years of social progress and evolution of law, to fit theocratic laws of the ancient middle-east.

Why is consent to sex, equivalent to consent to a baby? Because this particular story about the 'sky daddy' says so... do you think you know better than god?

Etc.

It isn't an attempt to gut the constitution - it's a claim that we have ANOTHER constitution... and this one is beyond reproach.

I think its quite myopic. Pro-lifers want to live in some kind of fantasy jesusland where all the tenets of their faith are adhered to an no one does anything which might earn their disapproval. In their search for such a state, they change the laws and expand the power of the government. What they(like most special interest groups) fail to see is that a time will inevitably come when they are not in power and an opposition government will use the powers they have fought for to do things which they don't like.

They might be fighting to remake the kingdom of Solomon, but all they are doing is handing more power to a government which they currently control without thinking of what will happen when they are no longer so powerful. The theocrats who put Bush into office seem to have forgotten that Clinton held the same position just a few years ago. That is what I mean when I say they are myopic.

I think it is odd that so many vegetarians are pro choice.

Sadly, it generally does. For all the huffing and puffing the pro-life movement makes about "invented rights" and emotional arguments, their stance is unsupported by the law and depends entirely on emotional appeal("won't someone please think of the babies"). I have yet to see a pro-life argument which fits into a more broad understanding of the law, they always depend on specific assumptions and situations whioch are only supported by taking the law out of context.

The "consent" argument is one of these. On the surface it appears to be a strong argument, but it is simply unsupported by precedent, common law, the constitution, or the laws of the land. At the end of the day, the pro-life lobby asks that numerous individual freedoms(the right to be secure in one's own person, the right of humans to not be transferable property, the right to exclude others from one's property, etc) be weakened and important legal concepts(contract law) be ignored in order to bring the behavior of specific members of society in line with the religious views of a minority.

The pro-life movement in America is just another example of the myopic, me-first mentality that has infected American politics. Pro-lifers don't think of the consequences of their battles, they do not think about the ways power can be abused or the unplesant precedents they are trying to set. Anything goes to save a few babies, and the preservation of their worldview is worth gutting the constitution. It makes me glad that we still have the second amendment.

Another excellent post!