NationStates Jolt Archive

Well if you really cared about the babies you would take care of them since the mother didn't want them.

I don't want to be a father, so no, not really.

Dead baby pyramid?

I would adopt one.

Dead baby pyramid?

hehe, for some reason that's a funny image to me.

Sure, I need my wall repainted anyway. LOL....Sorry.:(

Sure, I need my wall repainted anyway. LOL....Sorry.:(

Little legal slaves!

Little legal slaves!


You are not aware of dead baby jokes are you?

Pro-choice, but I'd adopt anyway. The kids shouldn't pay for the conservatives mistakes.

The term pro-choice is only accurate in some aspects as there are many people who support abortion for population control, but not for the belief women should chose weather or not to have the baby.

The term pro-choice is only accurate in some aspects as there are many people who support abortion for population control, but not for the belief women should chose weather or not to have the baby.

Really? Show me one.

Adopt them. :fluffle: 'Cause I just happen to like to have a dozen kids :p.

Pro-Life, and people need to get their head out of the sand and realize that it's not just themselves who actually matter. Take responsibility for a child if you have one, I say... unless for some reason you are unable to, which then I suppose the child should be given onto someone close to them before being passed onto a government/private agency.

Well if you really cared about the babies you would take care of them since the mother didn't want them.

actually my family works with an organisation that *does* provide either support if the mother wants it, or a home for the child if she decides not to keep it. a friend of mine got pregnant in high school (or at least thought she did), and was talking about the potential of an abortion. I told my parents who sincerely promised there would be a home for the child, even if we took it ourselves. turned out to be a false alarm, but some people really do care about it enough to raise the children.

I entirely plan on spending the rest of my life promoting adoption, not just to prevent irresponsible americans from having abortions, but for children who in general have no one to take care of them, particularly in eastern bloc and latin american countries. I'm working on a psychology degree right now and will likely get a masters in social work. promoting gay adoption will be a large part of that.

Pro-Life, and people need to get their head out of the sand and realize that it's not just themselves who actually matter. Take responsibility for a child if you have one, I say... unless for some reason you are unable to, which then I suppose the child should be given onto someone close to them before being passed onto a government/private agency.

So, overall you're saying you're anti-choice, but want the government to take responsibility?

Really? Show me one.

Well, I support abortion for population control as well as for the choice to avoid a brat, so he might get half a point for me.

I really don't see why you'd support the former without supporting the latter.

Edit: And the poll is missing "No, they'll just starve, won't they?" options.

Well if you really cared about the babies you would take care of them since the mother didn't want them.

*rubs hands together*

I've been waiting to hear what the pro-lifers have to say about this for a long time.

No. But yes, but no, but no. Any kid who'd have me for a father doesn't deserve to live.

But thanks for asking, except I know you weren't really, but anyway, and anyway, and why did you ask that?

So, overall you're saying you're anti-choice, but want the government to take responsibility?

Did you even read my post, or did you not get past the part where I said that I'm pro-life? :rolleyes:

Given that I'm pro-choice, I'd find it silly if the US banned abortions, but given my current situation in life (professional student/drunk, part-time secretary) I'd probably not be doing any adopting for more than a little while, although I wouldn't rule it out in the future.

Did you even read my post, or did you not get past the part where I said that I'm pro-life? :rolleyes:

I did. And that was essentially what you said. Force them to have them, and if for some reason they can't take care of them and there's no family who can take care either, let the government handle it.

Well if you really cared about the babies you would take care of them since the mother didn't want them.

As much as I love the idea of making people put their money where their mouth is, I really don't think it's a good idea to have more anti-choicers rearing children.

As much as I love the idea of making people put their money where their mouth is, I really don't think it's a good idea to have more anti-choicers rearing children.

I didn't think of that... some of those kids aren't going to end up with a great life either way.

I did. And that was essentially what you said. Force them to have them, and if for some reason they can't take care of them and there's no family who can take care either, let the government handle it.

Not really. I didn't say people should be forced to have children, I didn't say either that people should be forced to keep their children, although for psychological reasons of the child this is advised. I said that people need to wake up and smell the coffee. Has anyone considered the fact that 99% of people are probably glad that they weren't aborted when they were unborn just because their parents didn't feel like having the maturity to 'bother' with them?

I certainly am. There are countless testimonies of people who are born to rape victims also who are glad they weren't aborted also.

To answer your question, should the responsibility be placed on the government? I believe the answer is no. The responsibility still remains with the parent to find someone they trust. If for some reason they are unable to make a proper desision, then the community... which includes neighbors, friends, family, churches, charities, et cetera... and then finally the government to regulate the process, and support the child if the community is unable to find a solution themselves.

I certainly am. There are countless testimonies of people who are born to rape victims also who are glad they weren't aborted also.

People can't be glad they're alive unless they're alive... so they won't care.

People can't be glad they're alive unless they're alive... so they won't care.

Oh, so you mean if I killed your grandmother [supposing you have one] during her sleep without any warning to her what-so-ever, then it's okay because she doesn't know that she's died and therefore wouldn't care?

Has anyone considered the fact that 99% of people are probably glad that they weren't aborted when they were unborn just because their parents didn't feel like having the maturity to 'bother' with them?

Eh? If I were aborted I would have had no opinion on the matter whatsoever. I would never have existed. My earliest memory is over two years after that decision would have had to have been made, so it wouldn't have made the blindest bit of difference to me. I would never have made it to the me I am now - or any me capable of even noticing - to regret it, just as none of the other sperm or eggs created by my parents (other than the pair that made my sister) regret not turning into a fully-fledged human.

Pro-choice, and I plan to adopt all my children, instead of selfishly bring more into the world when there are so many who need a parent.

Has anyone considered the fact that 99% of people are probably glad that they weren't aborted when they were unborn just because their parents didn't feel like having the maturity to 'bother' with them?

Yes, we've considered that ever time some anti-choice yahoo brings it up, and most of us have long since concluded that it's another of the goofy notions which some people mistake for rational discussion.

I'm sure a lot of people who are alive are happy that they have had a chance to live. But if you want to use that logic to oppose abortion, then you're also going to have to oppose...well, pretty much everything.

See, if my parents had been eating dinner instead of fucking when they conceived me, then the exact sperm which fertilized my mother's egg would not have been there, and I wouldn't have been conceived. So I'm also glad they decided to skip dinner and get to fucking. I'm willing to bet that 99% of people alive today are glad that their parents weren't eating dinner instead of conceiving them.

If my parents had been watching a movie instead of fucking, I wouldn't have been conceived. I'm happy that my parents fucked instead of watching a movie, since otherwise I wouldn't exist.

Of course, if my parents were watching a movie at the moment I was supposed to be conceived, but then they fucked AFTER the movie, then an entirely different person would have been conceived. I'm guessing that THAT theoretical person is theoretically pretty bummed out that they never got to be conceived. But, of course, you can't ask them, since they don't exist.

Yes, I'm glad I wasn't aborted. I'm also glad my parents weren't watching a movie at the time I was supposed to be conceived. But I am just as glad that my mother had the right to abort me, and that my parents had the choice to fuck (or not fuck) when they wanted to. I'm glad to know that my mother wasn't forced to bear me against her wishes. I'm glad to know that nobody was raped in the making of me.

Eh? If I were aborted I would have had no opinion on the matter whatsoever. I would never have existed. My earliest memory is over two years after that decision would have had to have been made, so it wouldn't have made the blindest bit of difference to me. I would never have made it to the me I am now - or any me capable of even noticing - to regret it, just as none of the other sperm or eggs created by my parents (other than the pair that made my sister) regret not turning into a fully-fledged human.

You're missing the point. My point was now that you know, you probably [not always] are glad that you weren't aborted.

If you're going to pull the 'I wouldn't have known or noticed my loss of life'... then answer me this.

Oh, so you mean if I killed your grandmother [supposing you have one] during her sleep without any warning to her what-so-ever, then it's okay because she doesn't know that she's died and therefore wouldn't care?

Oh, so you mean if I killed your grandmother [supposing you have one] during her sleep without any warning to her what-so-ever, then it's okay because she doesn't know that she's died and therefore wouldn't care?
In the post you quoted, the author said, "People can't be glad they're alive unless they're alive... so they won't care."

Do you really think that your grandmother is not alive when she is sleeping?

Not really. I didn't say people should be forced to have children, I didn't say either that people should be forced to keep their children, although for psychological reasons of the child this is advised. I said that people need to wake up and smell the coffee. Has anyone considered the fact that 99% of people are probably glad that they weren't aborted when they were unborn just because their parents didn't feel like having the maturity to 'bother' with them?

I certainly am. There are countless testimonies of people who are born to rape victims also who are glad they weren't aborted also.

To answer your question, should the responsibility be placed on the government? I believe the answer is no. The responsibility still remains with the parent to find someone they trust. If for some reason they are unable to make a proper desision, then the community... which includes neighbors, friends, family, churches, charities, et cetera... and then finally the government to regulate the process, and support the child if the community is unable to find a solution themselves.

99% of statistics are made up on the spot.
I for one wished that my parents had aborted me and saved me that nightmare of a childhood.

In the post you quoted, the author said, "People can't be glad they're alive unless they're alive... so they won't care."

Do you really think that your grandmother is not alive when she is sleeping?

No, the person's arguement was people can't be glad they're alive, unless they know they're alive. Therefore it doesn't matter whether the child is aborted or not, because -it- doesn't know any better.

My question illustrates that like the aborted child, Grannie wouldn't know that she was murdered also... so then. With consideration of the child's rights to opportunity as your now [ex-] Grandma's rights to a future in mind... does it make it okay to terminate either of the two?

Seeing as you asked so nicely...
Oh, so you mean if I killed your grandmother [supposing you have one] during her sleep without any warning to her what-so-ever, then it's okay because she doesn't know that she's died and therefore wouldn't care?

Um, you don't see the difference between a grandmother who has had multitudinous (and, if my own grandmothers were representitive, largely positive) effects on the lives of others, and an aborted foetus whose only effects on others was to cause a woman to undergo a medical procedure, and probably cause one or two people a good deal of consternation?

Never mind that the grandmother will have had plenty of time to appreciate life and all it entails.

Pro-choice, and I think if pro-lifers make the choices for others, then the pro-lifers must take responsibility, since they have denied the other person the right to make her own choice regarding her body.

And I, despite being pro-choice, will not adopt, but rather have my own children.

No, the person's arguement was people can't be glad they're alive, unless they know they're alive. Therefore it doesn't matter whether the child is aborted or not, because -it- doesn't know any better.

My question illustrates that like the aborted child, Grannie wouldn't know that she was murdered also... so then. With consideration of the child's rights to opportunity as your now [ex-] Grandma's rights to a future in mind... does it make it okay to terminate either of the two?
Grannie is a living being who is aware that she is alive. The fact that she may temporarily go to sleep does not change the fact that she is a living being with self-awareness. Even if she is not expressing her desire to live AT THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT, it's likely that she has expressed such a desire at some point during her lifetime.

An embryo is not capable of self-awareness. At no time in its existence has it been capable of registering, let alone evaluating, its life.

Can you see the distinction between your grandmother and an embryo?

No, the person's arguement was people can't be glad they're alive, unless they know they're alive. Therefore it doesn't matter whether the child is aborted or not, because -it- doesn't know any better.

My question illustrates that like the aborted child, Grannie wouldn't know that she was murdered also... so then. With consideration of the child's rights to opportunity as your now [ex-] Grandma's rights to a future in mind... does it make it okay to terminate either of the two?

Ah, that makes it easier to explain, thank you. Neither would know that they were killed; the difference is one knows it's alive, one doesn't.

99% of statistics are made up on the spot.
I for one wished that my parents had aborted me and saved me that nightmare of a childhood.

Well yeah, but my point still stands.

As for you wishing that your parent's had aborted you, then I am truly sorry to hear that. Not having a very good quality life is certainly not a good thing, and wishing for inexistance is something most therapists would consider to be unhealthy. Have you considered seeking assistance?

Life gets better. ;)

Well yeah, but my point still stands.

Which point was that? The fact that most people who exist are glad they exist?

Because that "point" also supports the argument that nobody should ever give birth. See, if a woman is pregnant NOW, she isn't able to conceive another baby. That new baby would have really liked to be conceived and born, but she's denying it the chance to live.

Now, granted, it's probably not going to be possible to convince all people from giving up hetero sex forever, so there are going to be some women who get pregnant. But at least they can abort those pregnancies as quickly as possible, rendering them able to become pregnant again.

People like my friend Dan are living examples of how abortion also allows new people to live. See, if Dan's mother hadn't had an abortion when she did, then she wouldn't have been able to go to college when she did, and she never would have met Dan's father, and Dan never would have been conceived. Dan is very glad to be alive right now, and without his mother's previous choice to have an abortion it never would have been possible.

Well yeah, but my point still stands.

As for you wishing that your parent's had aborted you, then I am truly sorry to hear that. Not having a very good quality life is certainly not a good thing, and wishing for inexistance is something most therapists would consider to be unhealthy. Have you considered seeking assistance?

Life gets better. ;)

Oh, life did eventually get better.
Still, I think the decent thing for them would have been to abort me. But being Catholic, they considered it the morally correct thing to do to give birth to me, and then make my life hell.

So don't presume that 99% of people are glad their parents didn't abort. Even suicide numbers are higher than that.

Seeing as you asked so nicely...


Um, you don't see the difference between a grandmother who has had multitudinous (and, if my own grandmothers were representitive, largely positive) effects on the lives of others, and an aborted foetus whose only effects on others was to cause a woman to undergo a medical procedure, and probably cause one or two people a good deal of consternation?

Never mind that the grandmother will have had plenty of time to appreciate life and all it entails.

Oh, so if nobody cares about dear old Grannie, then it's okay to terminate her life then, even without her consent.

As for the question of self-awareness... I would personally think that aware of yourself or not... you're still entitled to a future of opportunities and experience.

Maybe I should illustrate more clearly. Suppose a child is born who is deaf, dumb, blind, and 'presumerably' [considering we don't have any knowledge whether the embryo is aware of itself or not, memories being different] not aware of themselves. A doctor examines the child and tells the mother that the child will remain in this state for a total of nine months, before naturally coming out of it and then living a normal, happy life... and then gives the mother the option to terminate it. She chooses yes.

Would you consider that to be alright, then?

Oh, life did eventually get better.
Still, I think the decent thing for them would have been to abort me. But being Catholic, they considered it the morally correct thing to do to give birth to me, and then make my life hell.

So don't presume that 99% of people are glad their parents didn't abort. Even suicide numbers are higher than that.

I suppose in that situation, it would have been better for someone to adopt you. I can't really speak into your life though, since I don't know all that much about it.

Oh, so if nobody cares about dear old Grannie, then it's okay to terminate her life then, even without her consent.

As for the question of self-awareness... I would personally think that aware of yourself or not... you're still entitled to a future of opportunities and experience.

Maybe I should illustrate more clearly. Suppose a child is born who is deaf, dumb, blind, and 'presumerably' [considering we don't have any knowledge whether the embryo is aware of itself or not, memories being different] not aware of themselves. A doctor examines the child and tells the mother that the child will remain in this state for a total of nine months, before naturally coming out of it and then living a normal, happy life... and then gives the mother the option to terminate it. She chooses yes.

Would you consider that to be alright, then?

Yes.
It is her choice who or what she allows to use her body.

I suppose in that situation, it would have been better for someone to adopt you. I can't really speak into your life though, since I don't know all that much about it.

It would have been best for EVERYBODY involved if I had been aborted. Trust me on that.
And I wouldn't have missed a thing. Or rather, I wouldn't have been aware on what I might miss, so I wouldn't have minded.

Which point was that? The fact that most people who exist are glad they exist?

Because that "point" also supports the argument that nobody should ever give birth. See, if a woman is pregnant NOW, she isn't able to conceive another baby. That new baby would have really liked to be conceived and born, but she's denying it the chance to live.

People like my friend Dan are living examples of how abortion also allows new people to live. See, if Dan's mother hadn't had an abortion when she did, then she wouldn't have been able to go to college when she did, and she never would have met Dan's father, and Dan never would have been conceived. Dan is very glad to be alive right now, and without his mother's previous choice to have an abortion it never would have been possible.

You raise an interesting point, one which I actually have no answer for. I suppose when it comes down to it, what is the lesser of two evil's? To abort so it is possible to re conceive, or to not abort, and end up preventing someone like Dan being born? For me, I would see Dan's situation as quite rare... and although a very tough desision taking both possibilities in mind, and no offense to Dan intended, I would have chosen the first.

But that's just me, I don't speak on behalf of all pro-lifers, or conservatives by any means.

Providing I get married, I would adopt as many as I could (I also want to have one or two of my own children). But children need a mother and a father, not just a father, so if I weren't married, no I would not adopt. I might help some others who are adopting, but I would not adopt myself.

Yes.
It is her choice who or what she allows to use her body.

Well this is what I mean by most people being selfish. A mother who aborts is selfish because she only considers her own rights, rather than also considering the rights of the child to well, live a life.

It would have been best for EVERYBODY involved if I had been aborted. Trust me on that.

I don't think so. Your life isn't as meaningless as you think... and if you have impacted one person in a positive way, then your existence on Earth has not been futile. So perhaps you had a tough childhood, you just convinced me to consider child adoption as a possibility in the future.

Maybe I should illustrate more clearly. Suppose a child is born who is deaf, dumb, blind, and 'presumerably' [considering we don't have any knowledge whether the embryo is aware of itself or not, memories being different] not aware of themselves. A doctor examines the child and tells the mother that the child will remain in this state for a total of nine months, before naturally coming out of it and then living a normal, happy life... and then gives the mother the option to terminate it. She chooses yes.
How can something be aware of itself unless it is conscious? How can an embryo be away of itself if it has no brain? Or with limited cognitive development, especially in the very earliest of the embryonic development stages.

Fetal Development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_development)

Real Time Embryo (http://www.ivanbelchev.com/myembryo/) - interesting flash project.

Well if you really cared about the babies you would take care of them since the mother didn't want them.

Pro-life, I guess, and pro-choice, so long as nobody gets killed, including embryos.

As for adoption, I already have one kid of my own, and hopefully will have another. But would love to adopt as many unwanted kids as I could possibly take good care of (should I earn enough money to raise them well, with a good education, health, etc.).

How can something be aware of itself unless it is conscious? How can an embryo be away of itself if it has no brain? Or with limited cognitive development, especially in the very earliest of the embryonic development stages.

Fetal Development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_development)

Well, I don't really know the scientific aspects of this discussion, so I can't do much to address the stages of Fetal Development, sorry.

Well this is what I mean by most people being selfish. A mother who aborts is selfish because she only considers her own rights, rather than also considering the rights of the child to well, live a life.

Who says she isn't considering the "child" and its "rights"?

I've giving serious consideration to that very topic, and I've concluded that no person, born or unborn, has any right to live inside my body against my wishes. I've concluded that no person, born or unborn, has the right to harvest my organs or my blood or my tissues without my consent. I've concluded that no person, born or unborn, has the right to use my body to prolong their own life unless I give my consent.

Even if you want to assume that a fetus has the same "right to life" as any born human person, that still does not mean a fetus has the right to take another person's body to sustain its life. No born human being has that right...why should fetuses have it?

Well, I don't really know the scientific aspects of this discussion, so I can't do much to address the stages of Fetal Development, sorry.
Waitaminute.

You're prepared to declare that a fetus or embryo is a being with rights that are at least equal to, if not superior to, the rights of a living human woman...and YOU DON'T KNOW about the stages of fetal development?

You seem to feel strongly enough about this topic that you think women and girls should be forced to endure pregnancies and child birth against their wishes, yet you don't feel strongly enough to have actually read up on the fetuses that you are inflicting upon them?

Wow. That pretty much says it all, I guess.

Waitaminute.

You're prepared to declare that a fetus or embryo is a being with rights that are at least equal to, if not superior to, the rights of a living human woman...and YOU DON'T KNOW about the stages of fetal development?

You seem to feel strongly enough about this topic that you think women and girls should be forced to endure pregnancies and child birth against their wishes, yet you don't feel strongly enough to have actually read up on the fetuses that you are inflicting upon them?

Wow. That pretty much says it all, I guess.

The answer is: it doesn't matter.

The fetus is a separate human being with its own genetic make-up, not just an extension of the mother. And, whatever developmental stage it is at, that's what a human being is supposed to be at that stage.

The stage of development of a human has nothing to do with the rights of a human.

Who says she isn't considering the "child" and its "rights"?

I've giving serious consideration to that very topic, and I've concluded that no person, born or unborn, has any right to live inside my body against my wishes. I've concluded that no person, born or unborn, has the right to harvest my organs or my blood or my tissues without my consent. I've concluded that no person, born or unborn, has the right to use my body to prolong their own life unless I give my consent.

Even if you want to assume that a fetus has the same "right to life" as any born human person, that still does not mean a fetus has the right to take another person's body to sustain its life. No born human being has that right...why should fetuses have it?

Shame that they don't have much of a choice.

Waitaminute.

You're prepared to declare that a fetus or embryo is a being with rights that are at least equal to, if not superior to, the rights of a living human woman...and YOU DON'T KNOW about the stages of fetal development?

You seem to feel strongly enough about this topic that you think women and girls should be forced to endure pregnancies and child birth against their wishes, yet you don't feel strongly enough to have actually read up on the fetuses that you are inflicting upon them?

Wow. That pretty much says it all, I guess.

Lol. I don't think that not knowing in great detail the stages of how an embreyo develops really invalidates me from having a moral opinion on the subject. :rolleyes:

The answer is: it doesn't matter.

The fetus is a separate human being with its own genetic make-up,

You're going to have to define "human being" very carefully, here.

If "genetic makeup" is what defines a human being, then identical twins are one person. If having unique DNA defines personhood, then your mitochondria are individual people living inside your cells.


not just an extension of the mother. And, whatever developmental stage it is at, that's what a human being is supposed to be at that stage.

The stage of development of a human has nothing to do with the rights of a human.
If the stage of development has nothing to do with rights, then infants are allowed to vote, right? And teenagers can get the Senior Discount at the movies? And 3 year olds can go to the pub?

Hmm, maybe some stages matter then, huh?

Well this is what I mean by most people being selfish. A mother who aborts is selfish because she only considers her own rights, rather than also considering the rights of the child to well, live a life.


Ah. So everybody who does not give blood is selfish, right? and everybody who still has both kidneys, too, right?


I don't think so. Your life isn't as meaningless as you think... and if you have impacted one person in a positive way, then your existence on Earth has not been futile. So perhaps you had a tough childhood, you just convinced me to consider child adoption as a possibility in the future.

I never said my life is meaningless. I said it was hell. And how would adoption solve that? My best friend was adopted, and believe me, her family was not one iota better than mine.

Shame that they don't have much of a choice.

So you believe that any born human person who needs your body to survive should be allowed to use it, regardless of your consent?


Lol. I don't think that not knowing in great detail the stages of how an embreyo develops really invalidates me from having a moral opinion on the subject. :rolleyes:
If you don't know the stages of human development, then you don't even know what an embryo is. I'd say that makes any of your "moral opinions" on the subject pretty irrelevant.

It's like how my moral opinions on the subject of Quizblorgs are pretty irrelevant, since I don't know what a Quizblorg is. I can get as opinionated as I want about Quizblorgs, but it would be stupid of anybody to take me seriously until I at least learn what the hell they are.

If the stage of development has nothing to do with rights, then infants are allowed to vote, right? And teenagers can get the Senior Discount at the movies? And 3 year olds can go to the pub?

He's talking about the right to life, I think. All those things you mentioned are maturity related issues, and/or the fact that a sixteen year old isn't exactly a Senior.

Very well. To the anti-choice people in the thread, I suggest this, then.

Instead of abortions, the embryo or fetus should simply be removed from the mother. If it can survive outside the mother, then it can proceed into actual personhood.

This would preserve both the rights of the mother and the rights of the embryo/fetus.

However, if the it dies at any point after being removed from the mother, well, tough luck to it. After all, it's genetically distinct, and is it's own person, so theoretically, it should be able to survive on its own, without the biology of its mother.

And it will die. I assure you.

He's talking about the right to life, I think. All those things you mentioned are maturity related issues, and/or the fact that a sixteen year old isn't exactly a Senior.
Parents are allowed to decide on life-or-death matters for their children. Parents are allowed to take their infant off a respirator, or decline medical treatment for their children. A born human child's "right to life" doesn't block any of these decisions. Why should a fetus have more rights than a born human child?

I find it amusing that people who are against abortion are anti-choice. So on the same token wouldn't that make the pro-choice people anti-life or pro-muder?

But in response to the OP, right now I wouldn't be that decent a parent since I only just started college; however, when I am financially stable I would have no problem with adopting the unwanted children.

Very well. To the anti-choice people in the thread, I suggest this, then.

Instead of abortions, the embryo or fetus should simply be removed from the mother. If it can survive outside the mother, then it can proceed into actual personhood.

This would preserve both the rights of the mother and the rights of the embryo/fetus.

That's what I always say to anti-choicers:

If I end up with a fetus in my body, I'm going to have it removed. I'd be more than willing to send it to you once it's out.

Oh, so if nobody cares about dear old Grannie, then it's okay to terminate her life then, even without her consent.

Well, presumably Granny cares about dear old Granny.

As for the question of self-awareness... I would personally think that aware of yourself or not... you're still entitled to a future of opportunities and experience.

Maybe I should illustrate more clearly. Suppose a child is born who is deaf, dumb, blind, and 'presumerably' [considering we don't have any knowledge whether the embryo is aware of itself or not, memories being different] not aware of themselves. A doctor examines the child and tells the mother that the child will remain in this state for a total of nine months, before naturally coming out of it and then living a normal, happy life... and then gives the mother the option to terminate it. She chooses yes.

Would you consider that to be alright, then?

That analogy warrants John Cleese walking on in a Sergeant Major's uniform, it really does.
And "presumably"? Come on... (Note: This is not a dig at the typo. Presumably just doesn't cut it.)

Shame that they don't have much of a choice.



Neither does someone who needs an organ transplant. That still doesn't give him the right to your organs, does it?

I find it amusing that people who are against abortion are anti-choice. So on the same token wouldn't that make the pro-choice people anti-life or pro-muder?

No.

This has been another edition of Short Answers To Stupid Questions.

So you believe that any born human person who needs your body to survive should be allowed to use it, regardless of your consent?


If you don't know the stages of human development, then you don't even know what an embryo is. I'd say that makes any of your "moral opinions" on the subject pretty irrelevant.

Well no, I don't believe that any person has the right to use my body to survive, regardless of my consent. There aren't any situations that I know of which would actually require this however. Problem with your argument, is that an embryo doesn't even have the ability to ask anyone's consent, since it kind of is just conceived.

And while we're on the subject of lack of education about this, who ever said that I didn't know what an embryo is.

I find it amusing that people who are against abortion are anti-choice. So on the same token wouldn't that make the pro-choice people anti-life or pro-muder?

But in response to the OP, right now I wouldn't be that decent a parent since I only just started college; however, when I am financially stable I would have no problem with adopting the unwanted children.

No, not really. If we were pro-murder, then we would be for repealing murder laws. If we were anti-life, we would support the destruction of the human race, probably in the method of nuclear holocaust, seeing as how it would be most effective.

However, people who are 'pro-life' are definitely anti-choice.

I find it amusing that people who are against abortion are anti-choice. So on the same token wouldn't that make the pro-choice people anti-life or pro-muder?

But in response to the OP, right now I wouldn't be that decent a parent since I only just started college; however, when I am financially stable I would have no problem with adopting the unwanted children.

It wouldn't, as they don't advocate abortion but the option to abort.
Pro-lifers advocate no choice.

Well no, I don't believe that any person has the right to use my body to survive, regardless of my consent. There aren't any situations that I know of which would actually require this however.

Are you KIDDING me?

Do you know how many people are waiting for organ transplants right now? Do you know how many people die waiting for donor organs that never become available?

Your organs, blood, skin, and tissues could save a dozen lives, easily. These people are dying without them.


Problem with your argument, is that an embryo doesn't even have the ability to ask anyone's consent, since it kind of is just conceived.

Where's the problem? A 2 year old kid who is dying for want of a heart transplant can't ask that question either. So what?


And while we're on the subject of lack of education about this, who ever said that I didn't know what an embryo is.
You did. If you don't know the stages of human development, then you don't know what an embryo is.

Now, you might have been lying, or you might have misspoken. I'm more than willing to accept either of those possibilities.

No, not really. If we were pro-murder, then we would be for repealing murder laws. If we were anti-life, we would support the destruction of the human race, probably in the method of nuclear holocaust, seeing as how it would be most effective.

However, people who are 'pro-life' are definitely anti-choice.

Really? I find that hard to believe, because I definitely feel that I am supporting the right of the unborn child to be given a choice. As for the anti-life thing, I'm still not convinced, because, now bear with me, the future of the human race depends on reproducing, so if children are aborted, where is the reproduction?

So you believe that any born human person who needs your body to survive should be allowed to use it, regardless of your consent?

Here's a popular analogy ;)
You wake up one day in the hospital with a total stranger lying in the bed next to yours. You're told that he can only live if you remain there for 9 months with some tube connected between the 2 of you. Even if you choose to remain there, he might not survive. You might die as well. Is his right to live greater than your right to spend those 9 months in any other way? Don't forget that you might die as well so add in your own right to live in the equation.

*Edit* Forgot to add, this question is for pro-lifers ;)

Are you KIDDING me?

Do you know how many people are waiting for organ transplants right now? Do you know how many people die waiting for donor organs that never become available?

Your organs, blood, skin, and tissues could save a dozen lives, easily. These people are dying without them.

You know what that means? All of us who're more-or-less healthy and in a reasonable state of repair are selfish. If we went to the nearest hospital and killed ourselves carefully, under medical supervision, so that our organs weren't damaged, we could do so much good...

Edit: And all the bits that can't be used as spares could be processed into fertiliser and used to grow crops for the starving millions.

Are you KIDDING me?

Do you know how many people are waiting for organ transplants right now? Do you know how many people die waiting for donor organs that never become available?

Your organs, blood, skin, and tissues could save a dozen lives, easily. These people are dying without them.

I should probably re-mention, 'without my consent'.


Where's the problem? A 2 year old kid who is dying for want of a heart transplant can't ask that question either. So what?

Well, sure it does. I would suppose that the kid's parents would act as his/her voice when applying for a new heart.

You did. If you don't know the stages of human development, then you don't know what an embryo is.

Now, you might have been lying, or you might have misspoken. I'm more than willing to accept either of those possibilities.

I believe I must have mis-spoken... my bad.

My answers in Red.

Really? I find that hard to believe, because I definitely feel that I am supporting the right of the unborn child to be given a choice.

And you are opposing the right of born human women to have choice. Is it really so hard to remember that they exist, too?


As for the anti-life thing, I'm still not convinced, because, now bear with me, the future of the human race depends on reproducing, so if children are aborted, where is the reproduction?
If a bunch of people are at the movies, most of them aren't fucking, and therefore most of those people aren't reproducing at the moment. So where is the reproduction?!?!

ZOMG, BAN THE MOVIES OR OUR SPECIES WILL DIE OUT!!!!

And you are opposing the right of born human women to have choice. Is it really so hard to remember that they exist, too?


If a bunch of people are at the movies, most of them aren't fucking, and therefore most of those people aren't reproducing at the moment. So where is the reproduction?!?!

ZOMG, BAN THE MOVIES OR OUR SPECIES WILL DIE OUT!!!!

The born women made their choice when they chose to have sex, so really they've already made their choice, now it's time to deal with the consequences of their actions. And yes, I will admit that the end of my arguement was a very bad example. Forgive me please.

My answers in Red.

I should probably re-mention, 'without my consent'.
Oh, so you consent to have your heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, blood, etc. all donated right now, to save the lives of the people who need them?


Well, sure it does. I would suppose that the kid's parents would act as his/her voice when applying for a new heart.

So what's your point with this? It doesn't matter who does the asking, the child or her parents, because the DONOR must give consent if there is going to be a transplant.

Thus, if a fetus needs to use a woman's body to prolong its life, it (or somebody acting on its behalf) must get the woman's consent first.

Really? I find that hard to believe, because I definitely feel that I am supporting the right of the unborn child to be given a choice. As for the anti-life thing, I'm still not convinced, because, now bear with me, the future of the human race depends on reproducing, so if children are aborted, where is the reproduction?

The reproduction is happening over in Africa because the first-world countries are allowing the Holy See to use their doctrine as a weapon.

And frankly, if you're for taking away the rights of existing people over those who have the potential to become people, well... that's a slippery slope.

Also: Did you know that God performs abortions as well? They're called 'miscarriages'.

Also: Did you know that God performs abortions as well? They're called 'miscarriages'.

Good, if God is doing abortions then women shouldn't have to go see a doctor to get them done.

The born women made their choice when they chose to have sex, so really they've already made their choice, now it's time to deal with the consequences of their actions. And yes, I will admit that the end of my arguement was a very bad example. Forgive me please.

Oh, right. The fact that I choose to have sex means of course that I have to have the child. :rolleyes:

Good, if God is doing abortions then women shouldn't have to go see a doctor to get them done.
Hey, we're made in God's image, right? If God is in favor of abortion, who are we to argue?

Good, if God is doing abortions then women shouldn't have to go see a doctor to get them done.

Yes, I'm sure you fully support the right of women to injure their abdomen so that God's will be done.

Good, if God is doing abortions then women shouldn't have to go see a doctor to get them done.

Right. Let's get back to the good old days of coat hangers...

Hey, we're made in God's image, right? If God is in favor of abortion, who are we to argue?

Can we get internet-married? I mean, I'm gay, so there'll be no inappropriateness. <3

Oh, right. The fact that I choose to have sex means of course that I have to have the child. :rolleyes:
Yeah, it's like how if you get in a car you consent to die of blood loss.

See, if you get in a car, there's a chance you will get in an accident. There's a chance that you'll be lying in the road bleeding to death, and you will want a doctor to come help you and give you a transfusion. But when you got in the car you knew there was a chance you'd get in an accident, and since you decided to get in the car anyway this means that you've consented to die of blood loss on the pavement. It's selfish and irresponsible of you to expect a doctor to help you escape the consequences of your choice to get in a car.

Oh, right. The fact that I choose to have sex means of course that I have to have the child. :rolleyes:

No, it means that you have to deal with the consequences of your actions. If you don't get pregnant, lucky you. If you do, you knew that was a possibility from the outset and still took the risk. The child, born or not yet born, should not be punished for the crimes of the parents.

Can we get internet-married? I mean, I'm gay, so there'll be no inappropriateness. <3
Internet gay marriage makes internet baby Jesus cry.

Good, if God is doing abortions then women shouldn't have to go see a doctor to get them done.

Assuming that god made human beings, we shouldn't reproduce because "it" can just make more of us.

The child, born or not yet born, should not be punished for the crimes of the parents.

Yes, so get the Army out of Iraq, or at the very least, have them stop killing civilians because they're killing generations upon generations of potential Iraqis.

And when the planes crashed into the twin towers, they didn't only kill 3000 people, they killed the children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, et cetera, of the people in the towers who hadn't reproduced yet.

Get a fucking grip.

No, it means that you have to deal with the consequences of your actions. If you don't get pregnant, lucky you. If you do, you knew that was a possibility from the outset and still took the risk. The child, born or not yet born, should not be punished for the crimes of the parents.

Crime??? Oh wow, this is fun.
I would like to draw your attention to Bottle's analogy of how getting in a car automatically means your consenting to die in case of an accident, and are not entitled to medical attention.

Internet gay marriage makes internet baby Jesus cry.

Good, I like making the internet baby Jesus cry. Don't you?

No, it means that you have to deal with the consequences of your actions. If you don't get pregnant, lucky you. If you do, you knew that was a possibility from the outset and still took the risk.

Yes, getting pregnant was a possibility. That doesn't say anything about STAYING pregnant.

If I go skiing, I know there's a chance I'll fall and break my leg. I accept that risk. But that doesn't mean I "consent" to have my leg STAY broken. I still want to have my leg bone set and my leg put in a cast so it can heal correctly.

When I have hetero sex, I know there is a chance I'll get pregnant. That is a possible consequence of my actions. However, giving birth is only one of the many possible consequences of getting pregnant. The fact that I got pregnant means that I now have to decide which course of action to take in dealing with my pregnancy, and then accept the consequences of THAT action.


The child, born or not yet born, should not be punished for the crimes of the parents.
Sex is a crime! Getting pregnant is a crime! You heard it here first, folks!

Seriously, if you want to encourage people to reproduce, you probably shouldn't go around saying that fucking and getting pregnant are crimes for which somebody gets punished.

Sex is a crime! Getting pregnant is a crime! You heard it here first, folks!

Seriously, if you want to encourage people to reproduce, you probably shouldn't go around saying that fucking and getting pregnant are crimes for which somebody gets punished.

Hm. I always thought that abortion was one method of dealing with the consequences of pregnancy. Maybe I'm confused.

But yes, dealing with the quote, perhaps the whole 'ha, you got pregnant, your child is your punishment' mentality is the reason why there are so many broken homes and unwanted children. Just a thought.

When I have hetero sex, I know there is a chance I'll get pregnant. That is a possible consequence of my actions.

Not any real chance if you have hetero sex with me, because I have a well-tested vasectomy. I have had a zero sperm count for years now.

Oh, so you consent to have your heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, blood, etc. all donated right now, to save the lives of the people who need them?

Nope... unfortunately for them, my life comes first. Good to mention, I'm not opposed to an abortion if it's going to harm the woman's life.


So what's your point with this? It doesn't matter who does the asking, the child or her parents, because the DONOR must give consent if there is going to be a transplant.

I'm afraid it looks as if you're confusing yourself. I said the fetus can't ask for permission, to which you replied neither can a two year old looking for a heart transplant. Now you're asking me what my point is if I tell you that the child does have a voice via his Parents?

Thus, if a fetus needs to use a woman's body to prolong its life, it (or somebody acting on its behalf) must get the woman's consent first.

Nice try. I'd like to see you try to get that passed into law. Perhaps you'd also like to impose large fines if the child doesn't seek permission before being conceived. Better yet, impose fines, and then also set suggest judges set precedent which allows newborn children to be sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars, the very approximate cost to bring up a child from birth into adulthood.

Give me a break. ;)

Same deal.

Same deal.

You do know that the risk to die during pregnancy is several times that of dying due to abortion? Every pregnancy is possibly lethal.

No one adopts in this country. OK, a few do, but it's highly discouraged and seems to be looked down upon; it's also hardly anyone's first choice. People would rather spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on ridiculous procedures such as in-vitro fertilization that may or may not work just so they will have their own kids than adopt some kid that may not even - heaven forbid - be the same color as them. And adoption agencies don't make it any easier - people would rather that kids be raised in a system of foster care units, government-run orphanages, and pretty much any other form of squalor and hopelessness than allow them to be adopted by anyone who doesn't fit a profile. You know, white, married, and well-off.

People who favor banning abortion are in the same crowd that would rather have kids raised by bureaucrats than a loving single parent or gay couple...basically, they take what they know doesn't work over what may work. And people buy into it. Religions want to increase their numbers, and they don't even factor in adoptions - many Christians believe it is their duty to have kids of their own. The Catholics tend to be particularly bad about this, although there are worse denominations.

Those types of people wouldn't adopt; they would find some convenient excuse not to. And of course, they would rather see the baby starve to death and the mother be stoned to death for murder (because after all, killing people for things they can't really control is the most pro-life thing you can do) because she couldn't take care of the child but is forced to because the law says there's no giving the kid up. Now granted, the father of that child would get something bad, too, but not nearly as bad, since, although they say children need a mother and a father and he's a sinner for having sex out of wedlock and not marrying the mother of his child, it's just a lot easier to blame the mother, and it makes the Falwell-worshippers feel better about themselves.

That said, I am pro-choice more because I believe that banning abortion is a bad idea, not because i believe in the whole "right to choose" horseshit. If that is a valid argument in any way, I should be allowed to put cocaine into my system because it's my own body, and I should be allowed to drive drunk because it's my body and my car. To hell with hurting other people, as those who commit abortions might be (again, to hell with the unborn baby; I refer to people who would be looking forward to being parents or grandparents but can't be because of an abortion,) it's my right.

You do know that the risk to die during pregnancy is several times that of dying due to abortion? Every pregnancy is possibly lethal.

Wombs aren't allowed to have opinions, remember. And science is just a bunch of facts. Don't doubt the truthiness you feel in your gut. That's where babies live, in women.

Hm. I always thought that abortion was one method of dealing with the consequences of pregnancy. Maybe I'm confused.

Well, keep in mind that these are people who don't bother to read up on human development. They believe that a fertilized egg is equal to a born infant, after all. They don't like to face that women's bodies make babies, and that women's bodies contribute 100% of the raw materials and 100% of the labor in making a fertilized egg into a baby.

For these people, it's a baby the moment it's conceived. All the stuff that happens between conception and birth is irrelevant. It's like being unable to tell the difference between a bag of flour and a finished batch of cookies. Small wonder that they can't distinguish between getting pregnant and having a baby.

Wow, I can't seem to keep up with all of you, but I will keep trying. So, to the first point I missed, let God do the work for abortions then. And yes, I do understand that I risk dying every time I get in a car, so the thought of me dying in a wreck doesn't really bother me because if I get in a wreck I should have been smarter than to let it happen. And yes, we should pull out of Iraq, because now we are only causing more problems and as you pointed out, taking away potential life, just as the destruction of the World Trade Center did. I have also been noticing an increasing trend in belief that I am a fundy. Not entirely true, I am pro-life (including death sentence), pro separation of church and state, anti Iraq war, etc etc.

That said, I am pro-choice more because I believe that banning abortion is a bad idea, not because i believe in the whole "right to choose" horseshit. If that is a valid argument in any way, I should be allowed to put cocaine into my system because it's my own body, and I should be allowed to drive drunk because it's my body and my car. To hell with hurting other people, as those who commit abortions might be (again, to hell with the unborn baby; I refer to people who would be looking forward to being parents or grandparents but can't be because of an abortion,) it's my right.

Until the fetus is capable of surviving outside the mother, it is not a person. Therefore, the mother can prevent it from actually becoming a life.

Personally, you should be able to do cocaine. Or any sort of drug. But if you harm another person while intoxicated, then you've committed a crime. Your rights end at another person's body.

Wow, I can't seem to keep up with all of you, but I will keep trying. So, to the first point I missed, let God do the work for abortions then. And yes, I do understand that I risk dying every time I get in a car, so the thought of me dying in a wreck doesn't really bother me because if I get in a wreck I should have been smarter than to let it happen. And yes, we should pull out of Iraq, because now we are only causing more problems and as you pointed out, taking away potential life, just as the destruction of the World Trade Center did. I have also been noticing an increasing trend in belief that I am a fundy. Not entirely true, I am pro-life (including death sentence), pro separation of church and state, anti Iraq war, etc etc.

So, you'd happily die in the wreck and refuse medical attention? Really?

Well, keep in mind that these are people who don't bother to read up on human development. They believe that a fertilized egg is equal to a born infant, after all. They don't like to face that women's bodies make babies, and that women's bodies contribute 100% of the raw materials and 100% of the labor in making a fertilized egg into a baby.

For these people, it's a baby the moment it's conceived. All the stuff that happens between conception and birth is irrelevant. It's like being unable to tell the difference between a bag of flour and a finished batch of cookies. Small wonder that they can't distinguish between getting pregnant and having a baby.

That should be the political test.

'Are you smart enough to tell this bag of flour from a finished batch of cookies?'

'So that's why my mouth was so dry...'

'Okay, off to the Republican party with you.'

(Not that the Dems are much better anymore.)

You do know that the risk to die during pregnancy is several times that of dying due to abortion? Every pregnancy is possibly lethal.

And? There are risks associated with almost all things in life. I could be walking along the side of the road, get hit by an out of control car... and die. Doesn't make driving any more of an acceptable means of travelling than walking... In fact, I don't see mass groups of people holding anti-walking or anti-driving signs because one is safer than the other. At least, not in my neighborhood.

And? There are risks associated with almost all things in life. I could be walking along the side of the road, get hit by an out of control car... and die. Doesn't make driving any more of an acceptable means of travelling than walking... In fact, I don't see mass groups of people holding anti-walking or anti-driving signs because one is safer than the other. At least, not in my neighborhood.

You: A woman should not be able to have a medical procedure to cure a condition caused by a particular activity.

Us: Then refuse medical attention when you get injured.

Simple enough?

No, sex is not a crime, my apology for believing you had the base intelligence to see that for what it was. And, I am not saying that if something happens, like breaking your leg or getting in a wreck, you shouldn't get it fixed, I am saying that you shouldn't abort a child simply because you don't feel like having it. Put the child up for adoption and give it a chance. About the wreck thing, I wouldn't be happy, but I wouldn't bitch about it too much.

And? There are risks associated with almost all things in life. I could be walking along the side of the road, get hit by an out of control car... and die. Doesn't make driving any more of an acceptable means of travelling than walking... In fact, I don't see mass groups of people holding anti-walking or anti-driving signs because one is safer than the other. At least, not in my neighborhood.

Nope. Because people have the choice to do either, as they see it fit.
See how that works?

Nope... unfortunately for them, my life comes first. Good to mention, I'm not opposed to an abortion if it's going to harm the woman's life.

You could live without one of your kidneys. You could live if you were donating blood at least once each week. You could live even if a large chunk of your liver were removed.

So, do you consent to have all these removed right now, so that other people can live?


I'm afraid it looks as if you're confusing yourself. I said the fetus can't ask for permission, to which you replied neither can a two year old looking for a heart transplant. Now you're asking me what my point is if I tell you that the child does have a voice via his Parents?
I'm asking what your point is in saying that a fetus can't ask for permission. Why does that matter?


Nice try. I'd like to see you try to get that passed into law.

Um, it's already law. You can't take a woman's tissues without her consent, even if you are taking them to give them to a baby.


Perhaps you'd also like to impose large fines if the child doesn't seek permission before being conceived.

If a woman is forced to bear a child against her wishes, I would say that the people involved in forcing her to do so should face the same penalty as organ thieves face, at the very least.

As you already pointed out, a minor is not legally responsible for such things. If somebody steals a kidney for a two year old patient, we don't punish the two year old. We punish the people who stole the kidney.


Better yet, impose fines, and then also set suggest judges set precedent which allows newborn children to be sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars, the very approximate cost to bring up a child from birth into adulthood.

Or how about we just let all people decide when and how their own bodies participate in reproduction? Wouldn't that be a lot simpler?

There's a word for the kind of person who tries to force somebody to participate in reproduction against their wishes. Rapist. We have plenty of laws and procedures in place for dealing with rapists. I see no problem with using these systems to deal with anybody who would force a woman to bear a child against her wishes.

Or how about we just let all people decide when and how their own bodies participate in reproduction? Wouldn't that be a lot simpler?

Hey, I can't reproduce, no matter how many times I do it.

Very well. To the anti-choice people in the thread, I suggest this, then.

Instead of abortions, the embryo or fetus should simply be removed from the mother. If it can survive outside the mother, then it can proceed into actual personhood.

This would preserve both the rights of the mother and the rights of the embryo/fetus.

However, if the it dies at any point after being removed from the mother, well, tough luck to it. After all, it's genetically distinct, and is it's own person, so theoretically, it should be able to survive on its own, without the biology of its mother.

And it will die. I assure you.

I have yet to hear any compelling reason why this shouldn't be the order of the day.

Hey, I can't reproduce, no matter how many times I do it.

Yeah, but you (presumeably) voluntarily got snipped. That was your choice. ;)

Hey, I can't reproduce, no matter how many times I do it.
From what you said, you opted to get a vasectomy. You decided how you wanted your body to participate in reproduction. In your case, the decision was, "I don't want to make babies."

And more power to you. I, also, have chosen "no babies." Doesn't mean I'm gonna stop fucking, though. :D

Yeah, but you (presumeably) voluntarily got snipped. That was your choice. ;)

Yes, and i find it very refreshing to be able to fuck at will without worrying about the spectre of accidental pregnancy.

Yes, and i find it very refreshing to be able to fuck at will without worrying about the spectre of accidental pregnancy.

I'm not heterosexual in any way, shape or form. Problem solved, for me. ;p

I have yet to hear any compelling reason why this shouldn't be the order of the day.

The main reason I didn't argue that point was because I viewed it as a similar line to opposing medical treatment. But if that is what you fully support, then I suppose that the doctors wouldn't mind taking you off of life support should anything tragic happen to you. I mean, after all, you are your own person, so you should be able to survive on your own, without any machine helping.

I'm not heterosexual in any way, shape or form. Problem solved, for me. ;p

Just because your method is free doesn't mean it isn't good!

The main reason I didn't argue that point was because I viewed it as a similar line to opposing medical treatment. But if that is what you fully support, then I suppose that the doctors wouldn't mind taking you off of life support should anything tragic happen to you. I mean, after all, you you are your own person, so you should be able to survive on your own, without any machine helping.

A womb is not a machine. Your analogy fails.

No, sex is not a crime, my apology for believing you had the base intelligence to see that for what it was. And, I am not saying that if something happens, like breaking your leg or getting in a wreck, you shouldn't get it fixed, I am saying that you shouldn't abort a child simply because you don't feel like having it. Put the child up for adoption and give it a chance. About the wreck thing, I wouldn't be happy, but I wouldn't bitch about it too much.

Simply because you don't feel like it....
How many people do you know who have aborted? Did any of them tell you they "were not feeling like it at the time"?
I suggest you actually take a look at some real life cases, and the social, economical and medical reasons that lead to decisions to abort before you go on argueing things you don't understand.

A womb is not a machine. Your analogy fails.

Surely you cannot be that stupid. The human body is a machine plain and simple. An organic one I will grant you, but a machine none the less. That is like saying a machine isn't a machine unless its made of aluminum.

Surely you cannot be that stupid. The human body is a machine plain and simple. An organic one I will grant you, but a machine none the less. That is like saying a machine isn't a machine unless its made of aluminum.

Very well. One machine is controlled by a being with free will, and the other would be sustaining me. However you want to play this.

Just because your method is free doesn't mean it isn't good!

Are you Deep Kimchi?

Are you Deep Kimchi?

For the thousandth time, no.

Simply because you don't feel like it....
How many people do you know who have aborted? Did any of them tell you they "were not feeling like it at the time"?
I suggest you actually take a look at some real life cases, and the social, economical and medical reasons that lead to decisions to abort before you go on argueing things you don't understand.

I fully support abortion as a result of rape, or if the pregnancy will undoubtedly kill the mother. Social, and economic though, I will never support because there are alternatives that allow the child to live.

Are you Deep Kimchi?

DK is a freakshow. EO is in no way DK. Ugh.

Surely you cannot be that stupid. The human body is a machine plain and simple. An organic one I will grant you, but a machine none the less. That is like saying a machine isn't a machine unless its made of aluminum.
Now who's playing stupid?

A respirator is a non-sentient device designed for the sole purpose of keeping a human being alive.

Unless you are prepared to argue that women are non-sentient devices with the sole purpose of keeping fetuses alive, your analogy fails.

There, now it's been spelled out for you. Can we move on?

I fully support abortion as a result of rape, or if the pregnancy will undoubtedly kill the mother. Social, and economic though, I will never support because there are alternatives that allow the child to live.

So abortions ok if the mother didn't enjoy the sex?
Even after rape, there's still the possibility to put the kid up for adoption, after all.

You could live without one of your kidneys. You could live if you were donating blood at least once each week. You could live even if a large chunk of your liver were removed.

So, do you consent to have all these removed right now, so that other people can live?

I've been considering donating blood, actually. But haven't gotten around to actually doing it. I suppose if it was mandatory, I would.

I'm asking what your point is in saying that a fetus can't ask for permission. Why does that matter?

Because you seem making dumb associations that an unborn child = somebody with a medical condition, and needs attention, and then trying to tell me that if I support the unborn child then I support the medical patient taking my organs without permission. The fact is, that an unborn child cannot ask for permission, whilst a medical patient can... in some way or another. At the same time... an unborn child doesn't take your heart, lungs, liver, stomach. Which I believe you tried to ask me if I don't mind a medical patient taking. You're comparing apples with oranges.

Um, it's already law. You can't take a woman's tissues without her consent, even if you are taking them to give them to a baby.

No shit. But the way I wrote it, I thought it was obvious that I was specifically referring to unborn children getting permission to be conceived, since that was your arguement. Again, apples and oranges.

If a woman is forced to bear a child against her wishes, I would say that the people involved in forcing her to do so should face the same penalty as organ thieves face.

As you already pointed out, a minor is not legally responsible for such things. If somebody steals a kidney for a two year old patient, we don't punish the two year old. We punish the people who stole the kidney.

Why are you still talking about organ thieves? Applies and Oranges, again.

So in the meantime, you continue to suggest that unborn children should be punished for being conceived without a mother's consent. Again, too bad they didn't get the opportunity to ask.

Or how about we just let all people decide when and how their own bodies participate in reproduction? Wouldn't that be a lot simpler?

There's a word for the kind of person who tries to force somebody to participate in reproduction against their wishes. Rapist. We have plenty of laws and procedures in place for dealing with rapists. I see no problem with using these systems to deal with anybody who would force a woman to bear a child against her wishes.

No, according to your rule all pro-lifers are rapists, then.


raper: someone who forces another to have sexual intercourse
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

For the thousandth time, no.

Oh, sorry. I'd never noticed you deny it before.

@Lydania: I quite liked DK, even if I disagreed with him much of the time.

No, according to your rule all pro-lifers are rapists, then.

'Rape' doesn't solely consist of the action of sticking a penis into an unwilling person. And honestly, I consider the 'pro-life' stance a rape of free will. So... yeah. You're a rapist.

You could live without one of your kidneys. You could live if you were donating blood at least once each week. You could live even if a large chunk of your liver were removed.

So, do you consent to have all these removed right now, so that other people can live?



But you do see a difference between the need of your neighbour (lying in hospital in need of a kidney) and your own child, don't you? The whole issue of responsibility is at stake here. The the law recognises this. If you neglect to feed your child (e.g. a five year old kid), you are legally responsible. If you neglect to donate a kidney to the five year old kid in the hospital, you are not legally responsible.


If a woman is forced to bear a child against her wishes, I would say that the people involved in forcing her to do so should face the same penalty as organ thieves face, at the very least.

The embryo is the parent's responsibility. You seem to be missing the whole responsibility issue.


As you already pointed out, a minor is not legally responsible for such things. If somebody steals a kidney for a two year old patient, we don't punish the two year old. We punish the people who stole the kidney.


Yes, that's because we recognise that the thieves are responsible for the theft, not the kid. So you do recognise the responsibility issue!


Or how about we just let all people decide when and how their own bodies participate in reproduction? Wouldn't that be a lot simpler?


But once you recognise that there is a third party involved, it isn't that simple, particularly if the issue of the responsibility of the parents are involved.


There's a word for the kind of person who tries to force somebody to participate in reproduction against their wishes. Rapist. We have plenty of laws and procedures in place for dealing with rapists. I see no problem with using these systems to deal with anybody who would force a woman to bear a child against her wishes.

So you are lumping pro-lifers in the same category as rapists? Just wow! Are you trying to blow your credibility?

Until the fetus is capable of surviving outside the mother, it is not a person. Therefore, the mother can prevent it from actually becoming a life.

The problem with that argument is this - when exactly is that point? Lots of premature babies grow up to live normal, healthy lives even if they did start off a little rough. Right now, with our technology, I don't think it's possible to save a fetus that's a month old, but the line is getting earlier and earlier. I don't think it's defined except by birth, but with as many premature babies as there are that do fine, at what point would the line be drawn? It's a muddy legal question that the present explanation oversimplifies.

Personally, you should be able to do cocaine. Or any sort of drug. But if you harm another person while intoxicated, then you've committed a crime. Your rights end at another person's body.

Personally, I agree with your statement. However, what I was pointing out was that I don't agree with the whole "it's my right to choose" and "keep your laws off my body" bit that most modern feminists spout any more than I agree with the "abortion is murder" and "God hates abortion" argument from most modern evangelicals. Put simply, the debate is far more complex than that, and people can't simply make the arguments that they make for abortion and not for everything else.

If we put the "keep your laws off my body" and "it's my right to choose and hurting people is rare" into practice, then laws about drug use, public smoking, and noise pollution should be stricken from the books. If someone's allowed to have an abortion because it's their own body and the fact that it can hurt other people is irrelevant, then people should be allowed to smoke anywhere they want because it's their body and the fact that it can hurt other people is irrelevant. And for the record, I am 100% behind smoking bans.

If we put the "God hates abortion because it's murder" into practice, then we have to look at all the other things that God hates. No more shrimp cocktail on the menu; God hates that. Also, your business can't stay open on Sunday. Of course, that also means that all law enforcement has Sunday off, so go nuts with the crime, but don't violate any of God's laws or else, come Monday, we'll stone you.

Neither way works. So we can't look at it from an ideological standpoint and instead have to do what works best. We all know how prohibitions turn out - alcohol, marijuana, cocaine - what makes abortion any different? And frankly, it was no different when abortions were performed in back alleys. I wouldn't want anyone in a back alley trimming my fingernails, let alone performing a serious medical operation on me. The same thing happened with beer barrels during Prohibition and is now happening with all kinds of drugs now. LSD was the worst stuff out there until crack, and crack was the worst stuff out there until crystal meth. Give it enough time and people will be trying to infect themselves with deadly diseases for the rush - oh wait, Rolling Stone tells me they already are.

Botttom line: Conventional wisdom doesn't work for most issues, and it certainly doesn't work in the abortion debate.

I fully support abortion as a result of rape, or if the pregnancy will undoubtedly kill the mother. Social, and economic though, I will never support because there are alternatives that allow the child to live.
I absolutely LOVE this kind of "pro-lifer."

The "right to life" is contingent upon whether or not the woman consented to have sex. If she consented to have sex, then her fetus magically receives the "right to life" so that she can be punished for fucking as if she had the right to choose or something. However, as long as we can be positive that she didn't ENJOY the sex (i.e. she was raped), it's okay to let her off the hook by allowing her to get an abortion.

'Rape' doesn't solely consist of the action of sticking a penis into an unwilling person. And honestly, I consider the 'pro-life' stance a rape of free will. So... yeah. You're a rapist.

Rape is a crime wherein the victim is forced into sexual activity against his or her will, in particular sexual penetration. It is considered by most societies to be among the most severe crimes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapist

*cough*

And please don't call me a rapist, I really don't appreciate it.

Really? Show me one [person who supports abortion as a means of population control].

<-------

*cough*

And please don't call me a rapist, I really don't appreciate it.

Hang on... forcing someone to reproduce is not sexual?

*cough*

And please don't call me a rapist, I really don't appreciate it.


rape
noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.
–noun
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
–verb (used with object) 6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
7. to plunder (a place); despoil.
8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
–verb (used without object) 9. to commit rape.

The abuse and violation of the free will of a pregnant woman is a rape of her free will. The people attempting to remove it from her are rapists.

However, as long as we can be positive that she didn't ENJOY the sex (i.e. she was raped), it's okay to let her off the hook by allowing her to get an abortion.

Considering that the majority of women do not achieve orgasm from every act of intercourse, any woman could argue that "well I didn't enjoy it, so take it out".

Unless you are prepared to argue that women are non-sentient devices with the sole purpose of keeping fetuses alive, your analogy fails.

Quite true. Women are, in fact, non-sentient devices with the sole purposes of keeping foeti alive and doing the housework. ;)

Quite true. Women are, in fact, non-sentient devices with the sole purposes of keeping foeti alive and doing the housework. ;)

You sure? Most women I've spoken to can pass the Turing test... I'm not so sure about that...

You sure? Most women I've spoken to can pass the Turing test... I'm not so sure about that...

Lydania, meet Czardas. Czardas, Lydania...

Hang on... forcing someone to reproduce is not sexual?

Nope. The sexual act comes with intercourse... abortion deals with the pregnancy. So to you, I suppose giving birth is sexual also?

As to the definition of Rape and how it applies to abortion... I see it more as a protection for the unborn child. So if you want to really call me a rapist, bite me.

You sure? Most women I've spoken to can pass the Turing test... I'm not so sure about that...

You can actually speak to them? :eek:

What are you implying -- that women are actually living things like you or I, and possibly even... human? YOU INFIDEL!! THE BIBLE SAYS THAT ALL WOMEN ARE MY SLAVES IN LEVITICUS 79:18, SO SCREW OFF YOU FEMINAZI PINKO COMMIE HIPPIE LIBERAL!!!!111one

But you do see a difference between the need of your neighbour (lying in hospital in need of a kidney) and your own child, don't you?

You are legally allowed to decline to donate a kidney to your child.

Not to mention that I have a far more individual and personal relationship with my neighbor than I have with a fertilized egg, no matter whose body it's living in. My "relationship" to a fertilized egg inside my body is no more (or less) serious than my relationship to one of my liver cells.


The whole issue of responsibility is at stake here. The the law recognises this. If you neglect to feed your child (e.g. a five year old kid), you are legally responsible. If you neglect to donate a kidney to the five year old kid in the hospital, you are not legally responsible.

...EVEN IF THAT KID IS YOUR OWN. Don't forget that part.


The embryo is the parent's responsibility. You seem to be missing the whole responsibility issue.

Hardly. I simply feel that choosing to have an abortion can be just as responsible a choice as choosing to carry a pregnancy to term. I believe that each individual should decide for themselves which choice is best for their situation.


Yes, that's because we recognise that the thieves are responsible for the theft, not the kid. So you do recognise the responsibility issue!

Seriously, I'm just not getting what the point is, here. Yes, it is wrong to force somebody to donate their body or tissues against their wishes. Yes, minors are treated differently under the law when it comes to criminal or civil prosecution, and are often not held criminally responsible for actions which adults would be prosecuted for.

So?

I have never argued that a born human infant should be punished for being conceived or born. A human infant is, obviously, a minor, and it would be unreasonable to punish it in that manner.

Perhaps the problem is that some people view it as a "punishment" directed at the fetus when a woman chooses to abort a pregnancy. Of course, this is not the case, any more than I am "punishing" a person who wants my kidney if I decline to give it to them. My kidney belongs to me, not to them. I'm not taking anything away from them by choosing to keep my kidney, because my kidney is not theirs to begin with.

Similarly, a woman's body does not belong to a fetus. She is not punishing the fetus by declining to let it use her body, because her body was not the fetus's to begin with.


So you are lumping pro-lifers in the same category as rapists?

I believe that somebody who would force a woman to give birth against her wishes is fundamentally no different than a person who would force her to conceive a child against her wishes. Both reflect a total disregard for the rights and consent of the woman involved.

However, most anti-choice individuals don't actually want to do this. If you talk to them for a little while, you find out that most of them are well-meaning individuals who don't actually want to force women in this way.

Lydania, meet Czardas. Czardas, Lydania...

I caught that, next post makes it clearer.

The abuse and violation of the free will of a pregnant woman is a rape of her free will. The people attempting to remove it from her are rapists.

What do you do with the law that prevents suicide?

The abuse and violation of the free will of a pregnant woman is a rape of her free will. The people attempting to remove it from her are rapists.
Thanks for posting that definition. Save me the time. :D

I find it really cute when people try to get all uppity about my word choice before having bothered to look up the word in question.

Nope. The sexual act comes with intercourse... abortion deals with the pregnancy. So to you, I suppose giving birth is sexual also?

As to the definition of Rape and how it applies to abortion... I see it more as a protection for the unborn child. So if you want to really call me a rapist, bite me.

Rape does not equal forced intercourse, but any form of forced sexual action. And reproduction as such is a sexual action.
And while I wouldn't call giving a potential person more rights than an existing person automatically rape, it certainly is a form of enslavement at least.

As to the definition of Rape and how it applies to abortion... I see it more as a protection for the unborn child. So if you want to really call me a rapist, bite me.

Wouldn't sully my mouth in such a manner.

And regardless, the problem here is the unclarity between the word 'child' and 'fetus'.

I think most sane people use 'child' to describe the potential person after the point where it can survive outside the womb. A 'fetus', however, is completely dependant on the mother, and has no legal rights.

The only tests for personhood within the Homo sapiens species, as far as I'm concerned, are that the prospective person can survive outside the womb and have brain activity. Without those, I'd have no more qualms about stepping on this 'child' than I would about stepping on an ant.

What do you do with the law that prevents suicide?

What laws would that be?

What do you do with the law that prevents suicide?

Fortunately, in Canada, there is no such law because we're freaking sensible.

Thanks for posting that definition. Save me the time. :D

I find it really cute when people try to get all uppity about my word choice before having bothered to look up the word in question.

Yeah, especially when they use Wikipedia to look up the definition of a word. Classic.

The reproduction is happening over in Africa because the first-world countries are allowing the Holy See to use their doctrine as a weapon.

And frankly, if you're for taking away the rights of existing people over those who have the potential to become people, well... that's a slippery slope.

Also: Did you know that God performs abortions as well? They're called 'miscarriages'.

Nicely put. I couldn't agree more.

If God causes divine abortions, aka, miscarriages, then if he lets the brat live, he must be punishing you, then right?

Hm. I always thought that abortion was one method of dealing with the consequences of pregnancy. Maybe I'm confused.

But yes, dealing with the quote, perhaps the whole 'ha, you got pregnant, your child is your punishment' mentality is the reason why there are so many broken homes and unwanted children. Just a thought.

So then... the more children Christians have, the more evidence we have that God hates them and is punishing them? :D

Well, keep in mind that these are people who don't bother to read up on human development. They believe that a fertilized egg is equal to a born infant, after all. They don't like to face that women's bodies make babies, and that women's bodies contribute 100% of the raw materials and 100% of the labor in making a fertilized egg into a baby.

For these people, it's a baby the moment it's conceived. All the stuff that happens between conception and birth is irrelevant. It's like being unable to tell the difference between a bag of flour and a finished batch of cookies. Small wonder that they can't distinguish between getting pregnant and having a baby.

As proven by Austar Union's reluctance to reply to my post where I cite fetal development.

Until the fetus is capable of surviving outside the mother, it is not a person. Therefore, the mother can prevent it from actually becoming a life.

Personally, you should be able to do cocaine. Or any sort of drug. But if you harm another person while intoxicated, then you've committed a crime. Your rights end at another person's body.

This is a valid point.

After all, if one examines the stages of embryonic and foetal development, they would realise that it takes time for many crucial parts to form...

It would seem that most foetal development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_development) occurs later on, or more rapidly.

* Weeks 9 to 12 (11th to 14th week of pregnancy)
o The fetus reaches a length of 8 cm (3.2 inches).
o The head comprises nearly half of the fetus' size.
o The face is well formed and develops a human appearance.
o The eyelids close and will not reopen until about the 28th week.
o Tooth buds, which will form the baby teeth, appear.
o The limbs are long and thin.
o The fetus can make a fist with its fingers.
o Genitals appear well differentiated.
o Red blood cells are produced in the liver.

* Weeks 13 to 16 (15th to 18th week of pregnancy)
o The fetus reaches a length of about 15 cm (6 inches).
o A fine hair called lanugo develops on the head.
o Fetal skin is almost transparent.
o More muscle tissue and bones have developed, and the bones become harder.
o The fetus makes active movements.
o Sucking motions are made with the mouth.
o Meconium is made in the intestinal tract.
o The liver and pancreas produce fluid secretions.

* Week 18 (20th week of pregnancy)
o The fetus reaches a length of 20 cm (8 inches).
o Lanugo covers the entire body.
o Eyebrows and eyelashes appear.
o Nails appear on fingers and toes.
o The fetus is more active with increased muscle development.
o "Quickening" usually occurs (the mother can feel the fetus moving).
o The fetal heartbeat can be heard with a stethoscope.

* Week 22 (24th week of pregnancy)
o The fetus reaches a length of 28 cm (11.2 inches).
o The fetus weighs about 725 g (1 lb 10 oz).
o Eyebrows and eyelashes are well formed.
o All of the eye components are developed.
o The fetus has a hand and startle reflex.
o Footprints and fingerprints continue forming.
o Alveoli (air sacs) are forming in lungs.
* Weeks 23 to 26 (25th to 28th week of pregnancy)
o The fetus reaches a length of 38 cm (15 inches).
o The fetus weighs about 1.2 kg (2 lb 11 oz).
o The brain develops rapidly.
o The nervous system develops enough to control some body functions.
o The eyelids open and close.
o The cochleae are now developed, though the myelin sheaths in neural portion of the auditory system will continue to develop until 18 months after birth.
o The respiratory system, while immature, has developed to the point where gas exchange is possible.
o A baby born prematurely at this time may survive, but the possibilities for complications and death remain high.

* Weeks 27 to 31 (29th to 33rd week of pregnancy)
o The fetus reaches a length of about 38-43 cm (15-17 inches).
o The fetus weighs about 2 kg (4 lb 6 oz).
o The amount of body fat rapidly increases.
o Rhythmic breathing movements occur, but lungs are not fully mature.
o Thalamic brain connections, which mediate sensory input, form.
o Bones are fully developed, but are still soft and pliable.
o The fetus begins storing iron, calcium, and phosphorus.

* Week 34 (36th week of pregnancy)
o The fetus reaches a length of about 40-48 cm (16-19 inches).
o The fetus weighs about 2.5 to 3 kg (5 lb 12 oz to 6 lb 12 oz).
o Lanugo begins to disappear.
o Body fat increases.
o Fingernails reach the end of the fingertips.
o a baby born at 36 weeks has a high chance of survival, but may require medical interventions.

* Weeks 35 to 38 (37th to 40th week of preganancy)
o The fetus is considered full-term at the 37th week of pregnancy.
o It may be 48 to 53 cm (19 to 21 inches) in length.
o The lanugo is gone except on the upper arms and shoulders.
o Fingernails extend beyond fingertips.
o Small breast buds are present on both sexes.
o Head hair is now coarse and thicker

Fetal Development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_development)

Very well. To the anti-choice people in the thread, I suggest this, then.

Instead of abortions, the embryo or fetus should simply be removed from the mother. If it can survive outside the mother, then it can proceed into actual personhood.

This would preserve both the rights of the mother and the rights of the embryo/fetus.

However, if the it dies at any point after being removed from the mother, well, tough luck to it. After all, it's genetically distinct, and is it's own person, so theoretically, it should be able to survive on its own, without the biology of its mother.

And it will die. I assure you.

See above for validation of this point.

Yes, medical science could cover the lack of development, but up until a certain point. Then we would need stem cells...

Well if you really cared about the babies you would take care of them since the mother didn't want them.

Not me but there are many people desperate for children so they gotta look as far as China...

-snip-

*bows at the honor of being quoted so extensively by Kryozerkia*

You are legally allowed to decline to donate a kidney to your child.

Not to mention that I have a far more individual and personal relationship with my neighbor than I have with a fertilized egg, no matter whose body it's living in. My "relationship" to a fertilized egg inside my body is no more (or less) serious than my relationship to one of my liver cells.


It's nice that you a personal relationship (if it is a nice one) with your neighbour, but that's not the issue. If you have a fertilized egg in your body, you are responsible for it, to a degree at least, and the law recognises that, even current laws that allow abortion. Thus you cannot compare it to the situation where someone else's kid needs your kidney.



...EVEN IF THAT KID IS YOUR OWN. Don't forget that part.


Quite so, but even there is a difference too. If your kid needs a kidney, he/she cannot demand one from you and expect the law to support that demand, unless you are responsible for causing the original kidney to fail. In that case, it would be interesting to see who won the case. I wouldn't be surprised if children take their parents to court for smoking or drinking during their childhood--and perhaps rightly so, if it can be shown to contribute to poor health. I don't know. But just don't forget the issue of responsibility. If you have sex, and a fertilized embryo is the result, then you are to a degree responsible. That's just life.


Hardly. I simply feel that choosing to have an abortion can be just as responsible a choice as choosing to carry a pregnancy to term. I believe that each individual should decide for themselves which choice is best for their situation.


That is a fair point, but that's not what you were saying before. At any rate, whether it is responsible and sensible to have an abortion must be considered from the point of view of the developing embryo also, not only the mother. And since the embryo can't communicate with us, we should at least allow accept that it would most probably want to live, IMO.


Seriously, I'm just not getting what the point is, here. Yes, it is wrong to force somebody to donate their body or tissues against their wishes. Yes, minors are treated differently under the law when it comes to criminal or civil prosecution, and are often not held criminally responsible for actions which adults would be prosecuted for.

So?



Come on, Bottle, you were the one originally making the point that thieves should be prosecuted for forcing (by theft) an organ away from the owner, and that a pro-lifer should also be prosecuted for forcing an unwanted organ/embryo onto the owner, because in both cases force is being applied to the victim. A complicated analogy, but I think I understood it. I was simply pointing out that in one case, the thieves are not responsible for the organ, while the parents are responsible for the embryo. Thus your analogy isn't a fair one.


I have never argued that a born human infant should be punished for being conceived or born. A human infant is, obviously, a minor, and it would be unreasonable to punish it in that manner.

Then we can agree on that point.



Perhaps the problem is that some people view it as a "punishment" directed at the fetus when a woman chooses to abort a pregnancy. Of course, this is not the case, any more than I am "punishing" a person who wants my kidney if I decline to give it to them. My kidney belongs to me, not to them. I'm not taking anything away from them by choosing to keep my kidney, because my kidney is not theirs to begin with.


It's not so much an issue of punishment, but rather a deliberate disregard of the embryo as having rights. You are categorising the embryo as an unwanted organ, and that just doesn't work for the pro-lifers.

The term 'punishment' is misleading, in my view, because I don't see any woman going through with an abortion as deliberately punishing the embryo. Rather, it has to do with how one sees the embryo. If we see it as 'sacred', then preserving the sacredness will mean that human life (at any stage of development) will be protected. If it isn't sacred, then it is subject to terms and conditions, depending our own personal feelings about it. Once that happens, we have opened the door to euthanasia and ethnic cleansing and all sorts of abuses.

Sure, it might be inconvenient for the woman to carry a fetus that she doesn't want, but that is the cost to preserving the sanctity of life, to preserving our own human dignity.


Similarly, a woman's body does not belong to a fetus. She is not punishing the fetus by declining to let it use her body, because her body was not the fetus's to begin with.



I agree with you that it isn't punishment. But I disagree about the 'belonging'. We all belong to one another, to a certain degree. And I'm not talking about 'flower power' hippy stuff. I mean that what you chose to do with your life is always going to impact those around you, to some degree or another. Thus your choices need to be regulated by the same laws that regulate everyone's behaviour, to some degree or another. You cannot be free to do as you like. That would be anarchy.


I believe that somebody who would force a woman to give birth against her wishes is fundamentally no different than a person who would force her to conceive a child against her wishes. Both reflect a total disregard for the rights and consent of the woman involved.

But just apply that assertion for a moment. The little old lady that raises 18 unwanted street kids and gives them a chance is no different from a rapist who rapes 18 women simply because she is against legalizing abortion. Sorry, but you are way, way out of line there.


However, most anti-choice individuals don't actually want to do this. If you talk to them for a little while, you find out that most of them are well-meaning individuals who don't actually want to force women in this way.

Which means that they are completely different to rapists, because they are well-meaning (as opposed to the rapist), and actually have the interests of the embryo in mind (and possibly the woman also), probably because they hold that the embryo is an unborn human rather than a parasite. What you are doing is condemning them because of their view point--because that view point causes some women inconvenience.

Personally, I find their view point more humane than yours.

I have a solution that might just get both sides to shut up. Maybe.

First of all, there are several concessions to the pro-lifers. Abortion is illegal, and treated as murder. Life begins, officially, at conception. Embryos are legal persons.


However,
No one has the legal right to parasite off anyone else without the other's consent.
A woman, if she wishes, may have a procedure done to remove the fetus/embryo/bundle of cells, at any time. And at that point, she does not have to worry about it ever again.


Now, though, the pro-life people are most likely just as angry as before. So here's their angle. These fetuses, embryos, etc. are independent persons, so if the pro-lifers so choose, they can throw as much money into designing an artificial uterus as they want, which they can use to simulate the remaining months of pregnancy.

Having the procedure done legally counts as giving the thing up for adoption. The mother has no say in what goes on with the fetus during the months of its development (if such an artificial uterus has been designed at this point). If she changes her mind and wants to re-adopt it, the agency that kept it developing has the say-so.



As an added bonus of sorts..
...no human being with over 70 IQ points honestly denies the fact that 99% of pro-lifers are the evangelical christian type. With this new law in place, it would be completely anti-their-message for people like Pat Robertson etc. to ask for the pro-lifers money to go anywhere other than to a scientific institution for developing said artificial uterus. Therefore, Pat might just not get that new christ's-love-mobile (read: sports car) that he was counting on his fans to get him.


SO:
-women do not have to give birth if they don't want to, but at the same time,
-if those which are pro-life want to try and save the fetuses themselves, they can.

What if we're opposed to abortion after a certain point? I mean, if I only support abortion up to the first trimester, am I pro-life or pro-choice?

What if we're opposed to abortion after a certain point? I mean, if I only support abortion up to the first trimester, am I pro-life or pro-choice?

Generally you'd be considered pro-choice, with exceptions.

Pro-life is a very exclusive club.

The parents ability to be a good is more important.

pro-choice: not unless i had a stable financial base and sufficient living space and i actually wanted kids at that point anyway. let the community provide care for them somehow, it's not a thing for centralised government to handle, they'd only screw it up.

I'm pro-life.... I'm in favour of life.

I'm also pro-choice, being in favour of those who are alive being granted a choice in what they do.

I am not, however, anti-choice, which means I am not in favour of those who are alive not being granted a choice in what they do.




In the end, I support abortion primarily because the world has too many people and if we can save some from their meaningless, stupid, and ultimately damaging lives, we should. That's just the opinion of a cruel heartless baby eating kitten killing sociopath, however. Yours might be different.

In the end, I support abortion primarily because the world has too many people and if we can save some from their meaningless, stupid, and ultimately damaging lives, we should. That's just the opinion of a cruel heartless baby eating kitten killing sociopath, however. Yours might be different.

Wow, fuck. I'm like your opposite...I see our lives as meaningful, profound, and immensely beneficial.

Antimatter...

Pro-life and pro-choice are stupid terms. Everyone's pro-life and pro-choice. The issue is pro-abortion or anti-abortion.

Pro-life and pro-choice are stupid terms. Everyone's pro-life and pro-choice. The issue is pro-abortion or anti-abortion.

It's only to make the other side look bad. Anti-Abortion call themselves pro-coice, so stupid people will thing that Pro-Abortion are anti-life. Pro-Abortion counters by calling themselves pro-choice, making possibly the same stupid people think Anti-Abortion are anti-choice.

Or vice versa, I don't know which side started it.
Wow, fuck. I'm like your opposite...I see our lives as meaningful, profound, and immensely beneficial.

Antimatter...
Noooo, don't touch him!

Wow, fuck. I'm like your opposite...I see our lives as meaningful, profound, and immensely beneficial.

Antimatter...

Remind me never to come to Ohio, we'd annihilate and get converted into pure energy upon contact and likely cause the planet Earth to be destroyed in the process.

Not that that's a bad thing. :p

It's nice that you a personal relationship (if it is a nice one) with your neighbour, but that's not the issue. If you have a fertilized egg in your body, you are responsible for it, to a degree at least, and the law recognises that, even current laws that allow abortion. Thus you cannot compare it to the situation where someone else's kid needs your kidney.

I can't even pretend to understand what you are on about, here.

I am "responsible for" a fertilized egg inside my body, in that it's inside my body and I'm going to have to deal with it one way or another. I can choose to remove it from my body, or I can choose to have somebody else remove it, or I can leave it inside my body until it comes out due to either miscarriage or childbirth.

The only way I can avoid "taking responsibility" for the fertilized egg is if I simply pretend it's not there until either I miscarry or I go into labor. Ignoring the fact that I have a fertilized egg inside me is the only way to avoid "taking responsibility" for it. Beyond that, aborting my pregnancy is just as much a way of taking responsibility for it as intentionally continuing the pregnancy would be.


Quite so, but even there is a difference too. If your kid needs a kidney, he/she cannot demand one from you and expect the law to support that demand, unless you are responsible for causing the original kidney to fail. In that case, it would be interesting to see who won the case. I wouldn't be surprised if children take their parents to court for smoking or drinking during their childhood--and perhaps rightly so, if it can be shown to contribute to poor health. I don't know. But just don't forget the issue of responsibility. If you have sex, and a fertilized embryo is the result, then you are to a degree responsible. That's just life.

Again, yes, you are responsible for dealing with your body's involvement in reproduction. This includes deciding whether or not you want your body to gestate any embryos that might be inside it. What's your point?


That is a fair point, but that's not what you were saying before. At any rate, whether it is responsible and sensible to have an abortion must be considered from the point of view of the developing embryo also, not only the mother.

Legally speaking, the embryo's "point of view" is completely irrelevant if the woman does not consent.

It's like how the "point of view" of the kidney-needing patient is beside the point once the potential donor has decided not to donate their kidney. Is it worth considering the patient's feelings when making one's decision about donating a kidney? Absolutely! But if you've decided not to donate your kidney, that's the end of it. It doesn't matter how anybody else feels about it, because it's your kidney and your choice.

Honestly, do you really think that women just go get abortions without thinking about these things? If you honestly believe women are that stupid or that thoughtless, why the fuck do you want them to be having BABIES?!


And since the embryo can't communicate with us, we should at least allow accept that it would most probably want to live, IMO.

Whether or not the embryo wants to live does not matter, if the woman in question does not want to donate her body to the gestation of the embryo. It doesn't matter how much you want to live, you still don't get to harvest other people's bodies against their wishes in order to sustain your own life.


Come on, Bottle, you were the one originally making the point that thieves should be prosecuted for forcing (by theft) an organ away from the owner, and that a pro-lifer should also be prosecuted for forcing an unwanted organ/embryo onto the owner, because in both cases force is being applied to the victim. A complicated analogy, but I think I understood it. I was simply pointing out that in one case, the thieves are not responsible for the organ, while the parents are responsible for the embryo.

Thus your analogy isn't a fair one.

Legally speaking, I am not "responsible" for any embryo in the way you are talking about. At least not in my country.


It's not so much an issue of punishment, but rather a deliberate disregard of the embryo as having rights. You are categorising the embryo as an unwanted organ, and that just doesn't work for the pro-lifers.

Ahhhhhhh. I see where the confusion is.

My analogy does not equate babies with kidneys. Allow me to put it in a handy Aristotelian format:

KIDNEY : KIDNEY PATIENT : : UTERUS : EMBRYO

Again, I am NOT equating the embryo with the kidney in this analogy. The embryo is categorized as the "kidney patient" not the kidney.

A human being who is renal failure has a medical condition wherein they are "non-viable" without a new kidney. In parallel, a human embryo has a medical condition wherein it is non-viable without a uterus.

The kidney patient needs to acquire a kidney to be viable. However, we do not permit the kidney patient to acquire a kidney from a non-consenting individual.

The embryo needs to have a uterus to be viable. Why should we allow the embryo to acquire a uterus from a non-consenting party?


The term 'punishment' is misleading, in my view, because I don't see any woman going through with an abortion as deliberately punishing the embryo. Rather, it has to do with how one sees the embryo. If we see it as 'sacred', then preserving the sacredness will mean that human life (at any stage of development) will be protected. If it isn't sacred, then it is subject to terms and conditions, depending our own personal feelings about it. Once that happens, we have opened the door to euthanasia and ethnic cleansing and all sorts of abuses.

Personally, I think I probably view embryos as more beautiful, valuable, amazing, and wonderful than 99.99% of people in the world, and that includes anti-choicers. I have spent the last several years studying embryos in great detail, and it seems like every day I learn another reason why embryos are awesome.

And guess what? I still believe that human individuals have the right to decide how their own bodies participate in reproduction. No matter how wonderful and sacred an embryo may be, I still do not believe it is right or just to force any human individual to donate their body to the gestation of an embryo.


Sure, it might be inconvenient for the woman to carry a fetus that she doesn't want,

Inconvenient, potentially life-threatening, whatever...


but that is the cost to preserving the sanctity of life, to preserving our own human dignity.

Yes, to preserve "human dignity" all we have to do is make sure that women don't have any.


I agree with you that it isn't punishment. But I disagree about the 'belonging'. We all belong to one another, to a certain degree. And I'm not talking about 'flower power' hippy stuff. I mean that what you chose to do with your life is always going to impact those around you, to some degree or another. Thus your choices need to be regulated by the same laws that regulate everyone's behaviour, to some degree or another. You cannot be free to do as you like. That would be anarchy.

So if we let individuals choose not to donate their organs and tissues, we have anarchy?

If I decide I don't want to have sex with somebody, that impacts them. I guess that means I have no right to decline sex, right? Maybe they really wanted to impregnate me, to make a little baby who would get the chance to experience some sacred life of its very own. I guess I don't have the right to decline that, either, right?

*bows at the honor of being quoted so extensively by Kryozerkia*

Only because it made sense.

I have a solution that might just get both sides to shut up. Maybe.

First of all, there are several concessions to the pro-lifers. Abortion is illegal, and treated as murder. Life begins, officially, at conception. Embryos are legal persons.

However,
No one has the legal right to parasite off anyone else without the other's consent.
A woman, if she wishes, may have a procedure done to remove the fetus/embryo/bundle of cells, at any time. And at that point, she does not have to worry about it ever again.

Now, though, the pro-life people are most likely just as angry as before. So here's their angle. These fetuses, embryos, etc. are independent persons, so if the pro-lifers so choose, they can throw as much money into designing an artificial uterus as they want, which they can use to simulate the remaining months of pregnancy.

Having the procedure done legally counts as giving the thing up for adoption. The mother has no say in what goes on with the fetus during the months of its development (if such an artificial uterus has been designed at this point). If she changes her mind and wants to re-adopt it, the agency that kept it developing has the say-so.

As an added bonus of sorts..
...no human being with over 70 IQ points honestly denies the fact that 99% of pro-lifers are the evangelical christian type. With this new law in place, it would be completely anti-their-message for people like Pat Robertson etc. to ask for the pro-lifers money to go anywhere other than to a scientific institution for developing said artificial uterus. Therefore, Pat might just not get that new christ's-love-mobile (read: sports car) that he was counting on his fans to get him.


SO:
-women do not have to give birth if they don't want to, but at the same time,
-if those which are pro-life want to try and save the fetuses themselves, they can.

Ok, so we have a 'procedure' instead of an abortion, and that procedure takes the embryo and puts it in the test tube...?

There is another possibility or two for this idea.

If a woman is medically unable to carry the baby, but wants one and would have otherwise used a surrgate, this would prove to be a good alternative. It could also work for a single man who wants a kid but doesn't want that ball and chain.

Or, the artificial uterus could be used for stem cell research. Instead of aborting a fetus, it would be developed by scientists and placed in the artificial uterus.

Remind me never to come to Ohio, we'd annihilate and get converted into pure energy upon contact and likely cause the planet Earth to be destroyed in the process.

And that's how we learned our lesson...

Not that that's a bad thing. :p

Eh, you can take anything except the Cincinnati area. That's where I grew up and where my job's probably going to be after I graduate.

Only because it made sense.



Ok, so we have a 'procedure' instead of an abortion, and that procedure takes the embryo and puts it in the test tube...?

There is another possibility or two for this idea.

If a woman is medically unable to carry the baby, but wants one and would have otherwise used a surrgate, this would prove to be a good alternative. It could also work for a single man who wants a kid but doesn't want that ball and chain.

Or, the artificial uterus could be used for stem cell research. Instead of aborting a fetus, it would be developed by scientists and placed in the artificial uterus.

An artificial uterus would do the scientific world (as well as people who want children, but are in awkward situations to do so) a whole lot of good, but designing one would in no way be easy. Or cheap.. that's the problem.

An artificial uterus would do the scientific world (as well as people who want children, but are in awkward situations to do so) a whole lot of good, but designing one would in no way be easy. Or cheap.. that's the problem.

I never said it was easy, or cheap. I was just pointing out possible uses that would be beneficial.

Pro-choice. Me and my wife talk about adopting in the future as well as have kids of our own.

There are already lots of kids available for adoption. They happen to be minority, or older, or have problems in some way. Yet we spend billions on fertility because no one wants someone else's kid. How screwy is that? I would like someone to give me one good reason for fertility medicine.

Second, isn't it strange that the "conservatives" are against abortion, but they are also against giving the mother hope for the future. They don't want to spend one dime on food, clothing, shelter, medicine, education, etc. on someone else's child. That is why you can't be conservative and a true Christian at the same time.

The implied argument of this thread is flawed.

I hope to adopt one day anyways, so nothing would change for me on that count. Even now, there are plenty of children who need good homes.

The implied argument of this thread is flawed.

Oh?

Banning abortion would have consequences - many of them adverse consequences. You don't think those in favor of banning abortion should also be a part of dealing with those consequences?

Oh?

Banning abortion would have consequences - many of them adverse consequences. You don't think those in favor of banning abortion should also be a part of dealing with those consequences?

That implies that there will be a need for them to adopt, when there may be more then enough people already willing to adopt.

It is also logically flawed: whether or not pro lifers adopt unwanted babies, it doesn't have an affect on the actual intrinsic value of banning abortion.

It may be used to attack pro lifers, but not their arguments, so it is really an ad homeniem.

That implies that there will be a need for them to adopt, when there may be more then enough people already willing to adopt.

There obviously are not, considering the huge numbers of children awaiting adoption already. And then there would be the added strain of children from pregnancies that would have otherwise been aborted....

It is also logically flawed: whether or not pro lifers adopt unwanted babies, it doesn't have an affect on the actual intrinsic value of banning abortion.

Of course it does. The argument is generally that life is sacred and important and wonderful. But, without someone to take care of a child, that life is not being treated as important and it will not amount to a very wonderful life.

It may be used to attack pro lifers, but not their arguments, so it is really an ad homeniem.

Actually, those who wish to ban abortion almost always use the, "She can put it up for adoption!" line of argument, as if this automatically means that the child will be well cared for. The fact that children quite often become and remain wards of the state for up to 18 years of their lives makes it exceedingly clear that adoption is not the magic bullet - it doesn't make the child from an unplanned pregnancy suddenly have a healthy life. Of course, if all those who wish to ban abortion would be willing to take those children in themselves, it might begin to address the problem.

The problem is that those who are unwilling are obvious hypocrites. They quite obviously don't care about life - because they only care about making sure the child is born, and not about making sure that the child actually receives adequate care. This, in the end, reveals the true reason that those who are anti-choice seek to ban abortion - control of those who become pregnant. If it had anything at all to do with life, they'd try to ensure that the child born actually had a decent life.

Of course it does. The argument is generally that life is sacred and important and wonderful. But, without someone to take care of a child, that life is not being treated as important and it will not amount to a very wonderful life.

That's the key, for me. A fetus is so important that we get to force a woman to bear and birth it against her wishes, but not important enough for the anti-choicer to adopt it themselves. We can "inconvenience" women by mandating forced childbirth, but we can't expect anti-choicers to actually care for the babies that they force women to produce. Such BS. We hear all about the "sacred" embryos that absolutely MUST be saved, but after birth it is suddenly somebody else's job to change the sacred diapers.

No, it means that you have to deal with the consequences of your actions. If you don't get pregnant, lucky you. If you do, you knew that was a possibility from the outset and still took the risk. The child, born or not yet born, should not be punished for the crimes of the parents.

So you're one of those freaks who considers sex a crime? Shame...

Anyone who says abortion should be banned, but will not accept responsibility for the resulting unwanted babies hasn't got a leg to stand on.

If you really care, adopt (or at least help in some way).

If you don't care that much, shut up.

Anyone read Freakonomics? The author of that makes the case that falling crime rates are a direct result of abortion, or more specifically, the ability of poor women to access abortion. Unwanted inner city children are statistically the most likely to commit crimes, so by terminating their pregnancies, they don't grow up to become criminals. Makes sense to me...

There obviously are not, considering the huge numbers of children awaiting adoption already. And then there would be the added strain of children from pregnancies that would have otherwise been aborted....
THe Adoption and Foster home system is screwed up enough as it is, it would take a massive amount of aid to take care of all these unwanted kids.


Of course it does. The argument is generally that life is sacred and important and wonderful. But, without someone to take care of a child, that life is not being treated as important and it will not amount to a very wonderful life. In fact it will be a horrible life from day one.



Actually, those who wish to ban abortion almost always use the, "She can put it up for adoption!" line of argument, as if this automatically means that the child will be well cared for. The fact that children quite often become and remain wards of the state for up to 18 years of their lives makes it exceedingly clear that adoption is not the magic bullet - it doesn't make the child from an unplanned pregnancy suddenly have a healthy life. Of course, if all those who wish to ban abortion would be willing to take those children in themselves, it might begin to address the problem. Children who grow up in overcrowded foster homes, (And they would become very crowded if Abortion was banned) tend to grow up with a horrible childhood, this leads to anger and violent crime, so eventually the 'saved' child will end up dead in the street somewhere.

The problem is that those who are unwilling are obvious hypocrites. They quite obviously don't care about life - because they only care about making sure the child is born, and not about making sure that the child actually receives adequate care. This, in the end, reveals the true reason that those who are anti-choice seek to ban abortion - control of those who become pregnant. If it had anything at all to do with life, they'd try to ensure that the child born actually had a decent life. Which was the point of this thread. To prove how much they are hypocrites, they care about the embryo or fetus, but they don't think about how horrible thier life could be AFTER they're born. After all they FORCED the mother to have the child.

Anyone read Freakonomics? The author of that makes the case that falling crime rates are a direct result of abortion, or more specifically, the ability of poor women to access abortion. Unwanted inner city children are statistically the most likely to commit crimes, so by terminating their pregnancies, they don't grow up to become criminals. Makes sense to me...
That was a very interesting book, and a very interesting theory.

I don't think it's as simple as the idea of "aborting future criminals," which is how I have heard some people discuss it, but I think it makes a lot of intuitive sense. Particularly when you take into account that the majority of American women who have abortions already have at least one child.

The image of selfish women casually aborting their pregnancies out of a desire to live free and uninhibited is not only misogynist, but also classist and a bit racist. The reality is that most women who have abortions already are caring for a family of their own. Most women who have abortions are not immediately galloping off to the Caribbean to party it up...they're heading back home to work and to care for their family.

Women who are already poor and who already have a child or children to support are going to be further overburdened by a new baby in the house. Not only are they going to struggle to provide for the new baby, they are also going to have an even harder time supporting the child/ren they already have.

Basically, we're talking about families that already have "at-risk" children. They're poor kids who probably don't get to see enough of their parents as it is, since their parents are working their asses off trying to make ends meet. A new baby costs more, which means longer work hours for Mom and/or Dad, and also requires more parental attention, so now the kids are at even higher risk than before.

Which was the point of this thread. To prove how much they are hypocrites, they care about the embryo or fetus, but they don't think about how horrible thier life could be AFTER they're born. After all they FORCED the mother to have the child.

I may be giving them more credit than is due, but I think a lot of people who are anti-choice are convinced that, once she actually has the baby, a woman will immediately go into "mother-mode" and become a loving, competent parent happy that she wasn't able to keep such a wonderful gift from coming into the world and somehow capable of providing adequate care, just by virtue of being a mommy. It's a happy-go-lucky-chocolate-and-bunnies way of looking at the world, but I really do think that some people are that naive. They are the same people who will tell you that all poor people are poor simply because they are lazy, and any hard-working kid who grew up on the streets can be CEO of a major company if they just try hard.

I may be giving them more credit than is due, but I think a lot of people who are anti-choice are convinced that, once she actually has the baby, a woman will immediately go into "mother-mode" and become a loving, competent parent happy that she wasn't able to keep such a wonderful gift from coming into the world and somehow capable of providing adequate care, just by virtue of being a mommy. It's a happy-go-lucky-chocolate-and-bunnies way of looking at the world, but I really do think that some people are that naive.
It doesn't hurt that a lot of the very vocal anti-choicers are male. They can convince themselves that womenfolks are just wired to love them babies. They themselves don't want babies, or at least don't want to have to deal with the messy aspects of babies, but that's because they're MEN. Women like all that messy stuff because it's a woman-thing.

Women who are already poor and who already have a child or children to support are going to be further overburdened by a new baby in the house. Not only are they going to struggle to provide for the new baby, they are also going to have an even harder time supporting the child/ren they already have.

This is the problem right here! What are women like this doing fucking? If they've got time to fuck they've got time to work more hours! If they worked a bit harder then they wouldn't be poor, the lazy sluts! Won't they think of their children? Growing up poor? And to top it off, if they get pregnant they kill their baby rather than work harder to support it! Probably just so they still have time to fuck!

This is the problem right here! What are women like this doing fucking? If they've got time to fuck they've got time to work more hours! If they worked a bit harder then they wouldn't be poor, the lazy sluts! Won't they think of their children? Growing up poor? And to top it off, if they get pregnant they kill their baby rather than work harder to support it! Probably just so they still have time to fuck!

Fucking can be done in minuets ... I don't think any amount of work will force someone not to have sex.

Fucking can be done in minuets ... I don't think any amount of work will force someone not to have sex.

Well, it can be done in minutes, and when it's necessary it should be; but these whores probably take their time and enjoy it! They probably perform all sorts of perverse acts with their "lovers"!

Well, it can be done in minutes, and when it's necessary it should be; but these whores probably take their time and enjoy it! They probably perform all sorts of perverse acts with their "lovers"!

Wait, so does this mean that being anti-choice is actually all about the buttsex?

Wait, so does this mean that being anti-choice is actually all about the buttsex?

Suprise Buttsex.

Wait, so does this mean that being anti-choice is actually all about the buttsex?

Hahaha, that made me laugh too much to think of an ironic reply :D

Suprise Buttsex.

(sorry I had to)
http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1166468297-NoButtsecks.jpg

Pro-choice, but I'd adopt anyway. The kids shouldn't pay for the conservatives mistakes.

I think you mean pro-choicer. Being butched inside the womb because you were conceived....sounds like the blame is on the pro-death person ehh?

I think you mean pro-choicer. Being butched inside the womb because you were conceived....sounds like the blame is on the pro-death person ehh?
WTF? We're talking about if they were forced to be born.

Are you just an idiot?

yes I would like to adopt a child in the future (I am only 20 now, and I live in a country where abortion is banned)

However, I think that government education, health and welfare programmes have the potential to drive down the demand for abortions to almost nothing, so I want more of them too.

I'm pro-choice simply for the fact that I believe that government control on abortions would be impossible to regulate, cause corruption, and lead to destructive and even life-threatening consequences for many women. However, if there was a way to prevent abortions done for purely elective/economic reasons, I would be all for it. I believe that the question posed in the OT is based on flawed logic. After all, one may be against the death penalty, but that doesn't mean that they would want to feed and take care of all prisoners who would be executed but remain in prison due to a law prohibiting the practice personally. Although I still stand as pro-choice, I see nothing wrong with pushing for a child to have a troubled life than having his or her life taken when his mother's life or physical or mental health is not at stake (and no, I don't mean the sort of mental "damage" a woman might receive from giving birth).

Although I still stand as pro-choice, I see nothing wrong with pushing for a child to have a troubled life than having his or her life taken when his mother's life or physical or mental health is not at stake (and no, I don't mean the sort of mental "damage" a woman might receive from giving birth).
Huh? Are you stating that, if Abortion was banned, that you are okay with unwanted children growing up being hated by their parents for being forced to have them?

The Romans had the luxury of just kind of discarding the babies they didn't care the keep, and their empire lasted for 1200 years!

I'm pro choice and I am snipped. I already planned on adopting a kid or three in desperate need in the future when I can provide a good home to them and I have the time to devote to them.

I hope those that are anti-choice but willing to adopt (according to the poll) are actually serious because there are a lot of unwanted kids out there who need a good home.

I absolutely LOVE this kind of "pro-lifer."

The "right to life" is contingent upon whether or not the woman consented to have sex. If she consented to have sex, then her fetus magically receives the "right to life" so that she can be punished for fucking as if she had the right to choose or something. However, as long as we can be positive that she didn't ENJOY the sex (i.e. she was raped), it's okay to let her off the hook by allowing her to get an abortion.
That isn't what I am saying at all. The viewpoint I'm argueing from is that the choice to have a child was made at the point consentual intercourse was had. However, if the act of conception was not consentual, the choice was not made, but instead forced, so thus the choice can still be made on whether or not to keep the child. Whether or not the sex was enjoyable is irrelevant. Additional risk of the intercourse.

So you're one of those freaks who considers sex a crime? Shame...

My apologies to you too for assuming you had the base intelligence to see that for what it was.

That isn't what I am saying at all. The viewpoint I'm argueing from is that the choice to have a child was made at the point consentual intercourse was had. However, if the act of conception was not consentual, the choice was not made, but instead forced, so thus the choice can still be made on whether or not to keep the child. Whether or not the sex was enjoyable is irrelevant. Additional risk of the intercourse.

Consenting to intercourse =/= constenting to having a child.

That isn't what I am saying at all. The viewpoint I'm argueing from is that the choice to have a child was made at the point consentual intercourse was had. However, if the act of conception was not consentual, the choice was not made, but instead forced, so thus the choice can still be made on whether or not to keep the child. Whether or not the sex was enjoyable is irrelevant. Additional risk of the intercourse.

I don't know how many times it has to be explained to you people.

FERTILIZATION =/= CHILD BIRTH.

We're heading back to remedial sex ed today, because it seems a whole lot of people don't understand that A WHOLE LOT OF SHIT HAPPENS between the time an egg is fertilized and a baby is born.

I hate to break it to the boys out there, but your sperm is not magical. Your sperm does not make babies. When you splooge, you are not shooting a baby up into a woman's womb.

At fertilization, there is a single human cell. Without the active participation of a woman's body, that cell WILL NEVER become a baby. The woman's body provides signals that are needed to direct the growth of the baby, every single raw material that will be used to build the baby, and all the energy and nourishment to fuel the process.

If a woman has consented to have heterosexual intercourse, she faces the risk that one of her eggs will be fertilized. That is all.

Whether or not she then consents to have her body build a baby is a completely different matter.

Again, and hopefully for the last time:

A FERTILIZED EGG IS NOT A BABY. Fertilizing an egg does not make a baby. Babies are grown over an extended period of time, and require significant effort, material, and energy to be grown.


My apologies to you too for assuming you had the base intelligence to see that for what it was.
Tossing boring insults at me won't make you any less wrong. I'd suggest you save your energy.

I can't even pretend to understand what you are on about, here.

OK, then leave it, perhaps.


I am "responsible for" a fertilized egg inside my body, in that it's inside my body and I'm going to have to deal with it one way or another. I can choose to remove it from my body, or I can choose to have somebody else remove it, or I can leave it inside my body until it comes out due to either miscarriage or childbirth.

The only way I can avoid "taking responsibility" for the fertilized egg is if I simply pretend it's not there until either I miscarry or I go into labor. Ignoring the fact that I have a fertilized egg inside me is the only way to avoid "taking responsibility" for it. Beyond that, aborting my pregnancy is just as much a way of taking responsibility for it as intentionally continuing the pregnancy would be.


Perhaps I meant 'being accountable'. Thus, a woman is accountable to the community for the embryo in her body, because that embryo is a member of the community, a member of the 'human race'.


Again, yes, you are responsible for dealing with your body's involvement in reproduction. This includes deciding whether or not you want your body to gestate any embryos that might be inside it. What's your point?


The accountability, from a legal standpoint. If it was illegal to have an abortion, it would be because the law recognised that the woman is accountable to the community for the embryo that she carries in her body, and that her behaviour regarding that embryo ought to be regulated, just as my behaviour towards another adult is also regulated by the law. It all has to do with how you define an embryo. Does it have rights, or does it not? Is it human, or is just a bunch of cells, much like a cancer? And if it isn't human, at what point does it become human?

Is there something magical about birth, or the 3 months point that confers human rights to an embryo? If you define a state of independency from the mother as somehow conferring humanity upon an embryo, then a newborn infant cannot be a human either, because it needs its mother. Or at least it is needy. It may not need it's biological mother, but it does need a mother. Just like a fertilized egg, actually. It also may not need its biological mother, but it does need a mother to survive. In fact, I'm not sure that any adult would do that well in complete isolation from humanity. Perhaps none of us are ever completely independent. So then, how do we define humanity? Upon what basis do we decide that one bunch of cells can die, while another must be protected? Maturity?

And that brings me to my earlier point? How do we protect humanity? In my opinion, part of what it means to be human is to protect humanity. (Those who would destroy humanity, I consider them to be either dangerous enemies, or fools.) Of course those in favour of abortion are obviously not necessarily set on destroying humanity, but people like Saddam and Hitler were. How do we protect against such people? Thus we need to be able to define humanity, and construct our laws to protect it. And that is why we ought to hold every person accountable in their actions towards another member of humanity. And if an embryo is a human, then actions towards that human must be regulated, regardless of whether it comes about through rape, ignorance, carelessness, poverty, etc. The responsibility lies first on the parents, but also on the community to take care for any unwanted babies, through the making of just laws.


Legally speaking, the embryo's "point of view" is completely irrelevant if the woman does not consent.

I don't agree with that basis of that legality. An embryo is no less human for coming from a rape incident.


It's like how the "point of view" of the kidney-needing patient is beside the point once the potential donor has decided not to donate their kidney. Is it worth considering the patient's feelings when making one's decision about donating a kidney? Absolutely! But if you've decided not to donate your kidney, that's the end of it. It doesn't matter how anybody else feels about it, because it's your kidney and your choice.

I think you can see the difference between someone in need of a kidney and the unwanted embryo. The person in need of a kidney is dying because they are sick. The embryo dies because someone decided that it was not wanted, because it is thought to be inconvenient, healthy or not.


Honestly, do you really think that women just go get abortions without thinking about these things? If you honestly believe women are that stupid or that thoughtless, why the fuck do you want them to be having BABIES?!

There would undoubtly be some women who think nothing or very little of having an abortion. In fact, I know some personally. None of which are mothers, and all of which have histories of terrible family backgrounds, alcohol and drug abuse. On the contrary, I don't know any mother who has had an abortion, but that could be because they are more likely to keep it a secret. And I wouldn't blame them. But those statistics about most abortions being done by mothers seem to be pretty much a product of invention, so far as I have experienced.

Personally, I don't want irresponsible women bringing children into the world. A big message to them all--don't get pregnant, for heaven's sake!!! But if you do, don't make it worse by killing the baby. Give it up for adoption. And in Australia, at least, there are many more parents wanting to adopt than there are babies available. The waiting list is something like years. Germany seems to be rather similar. My wife and I have already checked that out. And it was a discouragement. No wonder people turn to artificial fertilization (which I think is a bad idea).


Whether or not the embryo wants to live does not matter, if the woman in question does not want to donate her body to the gestation of the embryo. It doesn't matter how much you want to live, you still don't get to harvest other people's bodies against their wishes in order to sustain your own life.

In no other legal area governing the interactions between humans do we see a total protection for the rights of one individual (the mother) at the complete expense of another (the unborn). It does seem rather unfair.

And I disagree that babies harvest from their mother's bodies. They rely on them. Harvest implies that once the babies no longer need the mother's body, it is discarded. Obviously not the case.

And this is not comparable to a situation where one adult relies on the body of another. We are talking about babies here.


Ahhhhhhh. I see where the confusion is.

My analogy does not equate babies with kidneys. Allow me to put it in a handy Aristotelian format:

KIDNEY : KIDNEY PATIENT : : UTERUS : EMBRYO

Again, I am NOT equating the embryo with the kidney in this analogy. The embryo is categorized as the "kidney patient" not the kidney.

A human being who is renal failure has a medical condition wherein they are "non-viable" without a new kidney. In parallel, a human embryo has a medical condition wherein it is non-viable without a uterus.


In that case, I don't deny that you have indeed found some similarities between the kidney patient and an embryo. Both are needy.



The kidney patient needs to acquire a kidney to be viable. However, we do not permit the kidney patient to acquire a kidney from a non-consenting individual.

The embryo needs to have a uterus to be viable. Why should we allow the embryo to acquire a uterus from a non-consenting party?


Because we do see a difference between death from sickness and death from being unwanted.


Personally, I think I probably view embryos as more beautiful, valuable, amazing, and wonderful than 99.99% of people in the world, and that includes anti-choicers. I have spent the last several years studying embryos in great detail, and it seems like every day I learn another reason why embryos are awesome.


The beauty and complexity of an embryo is not why it is sacred. It is sacred because it is us, because it is human.


And guess what? I still believe that human individuals have the right to decide how their own bodies participate in reproduction. No matter how wonderful and sacred an embryo may be, I still do not believe it is right or just to force any human individual to donate their body to the gestation of an embryo.


I also agree that humans have the right to decide if their bodies participate in reproduction. But if a human already has a fertilized egg inside, the decision is already made. If you don't want to be a mother, get the snip, or avoid sex, or at least sex where reproduction is a risk. Or if that fails, give your baby up for adoption.




Yes, to preserve "human dignity" all we have to do is make sure that women don't have any.


Having babies makes a woman lose her dignity? What planet are you from?


So if we let individuals choose not to donate their organs and tissues, we have anarchy?

Not at all. You see, we can easily recognise the difference between 'dying from sickness plus lack of a donor', and 'dying because mother doesn't want me'.


If I decide I don't want to have sex with somebody, that impacts them. I guess that means I have no right to decline sex, right?

Not at all. Sexual reproduction is how reproduction begins. Any amount of foreplay or pressure to have sex doesn't actually make babies. Your right and responsibility is to decline sex, unless you are prepared to fall pregnant, or unless you have taken appropriate precautions.


Maybe they really wanted to impregnate me, to make a little baby who would get the chance to experience some sacred life of its very own. I guess I don't have the right to decline that, either, right?

Wrong again. Potential little babies are not little babies until sex occurs. And if you don't want to have any babies, the safest thing to do is not have any sex.

Having babies makes a woman lose her dignity? What planet are you from?


Taking away a human being's right to decide what happens or doesn't happen to it's body is taking away it's dignity.

To answer the OP, No, I would not. Reason is simple. I'm single. At this time my choice is to remain single. I'd rather deal with having dogs than kids at this time. When and if I'm ready to have a family, it will be when I'm in a better financial position, have my own house (hopefully with in a few months...:D ), when I feel that I'm in a good position to give my child the best life I possibly can, and so on. To me, this is the responsible choice.

To answer the OP, No, I would not. Reason is simple. I'm single. At this time my choice is to remain single. I'd rather deal with having dogs than kids at this time. When and if I'm ready to have a family, it will be when I'm in a better financial position, have my own house (hopefully with in a few months...:D ), when I feel that I'm in a good position to give my child the best life I possibly can, and so on. To me, this is the responsible choice.

Well, imagine you got pregnant right now. You've just been to the doctor and got the news.

Taking away a human being's right to decide what happens or doesn't happen to it's body is taking away it's dignity.

As I understand it that an unborn child may independently have the ability to live outside of the womb during the 2nd and 3rd trimesters of the pregnancy. So, if that is true then it is also true to be murder of a living being. No matter that I feel that an abortion is wrong and in no way can I convince anybody of this concept, but to me anything that can independantly live on it's own is a living being. When does the child rights become a reality? I hear all about womens rights but how about a child's rights?

link: http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.jsp?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/hc/wom/preg/overview.jsp

The first trimester is usually defined as including weeks one to 12 (counting from the first day of the LMP). During this period, your child grows very rapidly, forming all of the major organs and body structures, and size, though increasing, is still relatively tiny.

The second trimester may be defined as including weeks 13 to 26. The third trimester begins at week 27 and continues to term. As the second and third trimesters progress, your child's organs will mature to the point where your baby can survive as an independent being outside the womb. Your child also increases in size and, particularly toward the end of the third trimester, develops the rounded fat deposits characteristic of a healthy, cuddly baby.

Well, imagine you got pregnant right now. You've just been to the doctor and got the news.

Heck, if that were to happen I'd be in the Guiness Book of World Records or possible quarentined by the government's secret labs to dissect me, being a guy that is... :eek:

Perhaps I meant 'being accountable'. Thus, a woman is accountable to the community for the embryo in her body, because that embryo is a member of the community, a member of the 'human race'.

Bullshit. In my community, embryos are not recognized as members of the human race. In countless cultures around the world, embryos are not recognized as such. Hell, in many cultures and for much of human history, a born infant wasn't even considered a real person until it was a year or more old.

YOU may personally decide that embryos are human persons. Not everybody shares your belief, and nobody is beholden to you or your "community" simply because you believe certain things about embryos. I'm under no obligation to you, or to anybody else, to house any other being inside my body.


The accountability, from a legal standpoint. If it was illegal to have an abortion, it would be because the law recognised that the woman is accountable to the community for the embryo that she carries in her body, and that her behaviour regarding that embryo ought to be regulated, just as my behaviour towards another adult is also regulated by the law.

That is only one of a great many reasons why abortion might be made illegal. It's also a polite way of saying that these policies are about making women's bodies public property, as if women have some obligation to the community to donate their bodies or organs even if they don't want to.

Sorry, but that's just the same old sexist BS. Grow your own damn embryos.


It all has to do with how you define an embryo. Does it have rights, or does it not? Is it human, or is just a bunch of cells, much like a cancer? And if it isn't human, at what point does it become human?

An embryo is alive. A human embryo is human and also alive.

Human cancer cells are also human and alive. Human liver cells are also human and alive.

What you are asking is about PERSONHOOD. Is a fertilized egg a human person? Is an embryo? A fetus? A baby?

As far as I'm concerned, none of it is remotely relevant to the subject of a woman's right to choose. Even if we assume that a fertilized egg, an embryo, and a fetus are all human persons with rights completely equal to any born person, a woman still should have the right to end her body's participation in a pregnancy at any time and for any reason.

I've said it a million times but nobody seems to bother to read it: NO BORN HUMAN BEING HAS THE RIGHT TO USE MY BODY TO SUSTAIN THEIR OWN LIFE AGAINST MY WISHES. I see no reason to grant "unborn people" superhuman rights.


Is there something magical about birth, or the 3 months point that confers human rights to an embryo?

No. What happens at birth is that the infant is no longer physically dwelling inside the body of another human being. Remember that other human being? The woman? The one the embryo is living inside? Yeah, guess what...she matters too.


If you define a state of independency from the mother as somehow conferring humanity upon an embryo, then a newborn infant cannot be a human either, because it needs its mother.

No, it doesn't. A normal human infant does not physically require the presence of its biological mother to survive.


Or at least it is needy. It may not need it's biological mother, but it does need a mother.

No, it doesn't. A normal human infant does not require any mother at all to survive.


Just like a fertilized egg, actually.

No, it's absolutely nothing like a fertilized egg. You see, a fertilized egg requires a uterus to survive. If a fertilized egg is going to be made into a baby, a woman's body must do the work. Period.

A born infant does not require a woman's body. Males can feed and care for infants. Hell, at this point robots can feed and care for infants.


It also may not need its biological mother, but it does need a mother to survive. In fact, I'm not sure that any adult would do that well in complete isolation from humanity. Perhaps none of us are ever completely independent. So then, how do we define humanity? Upon what basis do we decide that one bunch of cells can die, while another must be protected? Maturity?

Your mistake is that you seem unable to actually focus on the WOMAN in question.

The "humanity" of the embryo is irrelevant. No human person has the right to harvest the body of another non-consenting human person. It doesn't matter how "human" an embryo is, it still doesn't have any "right" to live inside an unwilling woman.


And that brings me to my earlier point? How do we protect humanity? In my opinion, part of what it means to be human is to protect humanity. (Those who would destroy humanity, I consider them to be either dangerous enemies, or fools.) Of course those in favour of abortion are obviously not necessarily set on destroying humanity, but people like Saddam and Hitler were. How do we protect against such people?

Blah blah, Godwin, blah blah...


Thus we need to be able to define humanity, and construct our laws to protect it. And that is why we ought to hold every person accountable in their actions towards another member of humanity. And if an embryo is a human, then actions towards that human must be regulated, regardless of whether it comes about through rape, ignorance, carelessness, poverty, etc. The responsibility lies first on the parents, but also on the community to take care for any unwanted babies, through the making of just laws.

Again we find that women's bodies have become public property, and women are obligated to let their bodies be used for the good of "humanity." Never mind that women are actual human people themselves and might deserve the fundamental right to live their own lives and own their own bodies. No, to protect HUMANS we just need to make sure that women understand their duty provide babies for the Fatherland.

Ooops, sorry, you just got me into this whole Godwin mindset...my bad.


I think you can see the difference between someone in need of a kidney and the unwanted embryo. The person in need of a kidney is dying because they are sick.

And because nobody has given them a kidney. If somebody gave them a kidney, they could live.


The embryo dies because someone decided that it was not wanted, because it is thought to be inconvenient, healthy or not.

There's that "inconvenient" thing again. Really, you shouldn't tip your hand so often with that one.

Women don't just get abortions because they find a pregnancy "inconvenient." In countries where abortion is illegal, women shove broken glass into their bodies in an effort to end a pregnancy. Even in countries where abortion is nominally legal, women thrown themselves down stairs, drink toxic house cleaning products, or even shoot themselves in the stomach when they cannot find a way to obtain a safe medical abortion. Do you really think that they do this because they don't want to be "inconvenienced"?

Or is it, perhaps, possible that women actually have reasons to get abortions beyond simply not wanting to be inconvenienced?


There would undoubtly be some women who think nothing or very little of having an abortion. In fact, I know some personally. None of which are mothers, and all of which have histories of terrible family backgrounds, alcohol and drug abuse.

Meh. I know plenty of women who think abortion is perfectly acceptable and reasonable, and they aren't any more likely to come from shitty backgrounds than anybody else.


On the contrary, I don't know any mother who has had an abortion, but that could be because they are more likely to keep it a secret. And I wouldn't blame them. But those statistics about most abortions being done by mothers seem to be pretty much a product of invention, so far as I have experienced.

Actually, they're a product of research. If you'd like to present your own studies on the subject, I'm sure we'd all be delighted to read them.


Personally, I don't want irresponsible women bringing children into the world. A big message to them all--don't get pregnant, for heaven's sake!!! But if you do, don't make it worse by killing the baby.

Ain't no baby until her body builds one. Sorry boys, that's just how nature works.


Give it up for adoption. And in Australia, at least, there are many more parents wanting to adopt than there are babies available. The waiting list is something like years. Germany seems to be rather similar. My wife and I have already checked that out. And it was a discouragement. No wonder people turn to artificial fertilization (which I think is a bad idea).

People want healthy white babies. There are far more children waiting to be adopted than there are parents to adopt them, because a surprising number of children have the bad taste to be born non-white and non-healthy.


In no other legal area governing the interactions between humans do we see a total protection for the rights of one individual (the mother) at the complete expense of another (the unborn). It does seem rather unfair.

Bullshit. I've explicitly described the exact legal parallel on this very thread. You've just chosen to ignore it.

The rights of a kidney donor are completely protected at the potential expense of the recipient. Somebody's need of a kidney NEVER trumps the right of the donor to refuse. Even if the person needing the kidney is the donor's child, or spouse, or parent, or anything else. Even if the person needs the kidney specifically because of the potential donor's actions (i.e. if the donor shot the patient in the kidney or something).

You've actually got it completely backwards on this one. Pregnant women are the only people who are NOT granted these legal protections. Convicted serial killers retain the right to refuse use of their bodies and organs, but pregnant women do not. How's that for "unfair"?


And I disagree that babies harvest from their mother's bodies. They rely on them. Harvest implies that once the babies no longer need the mother's body, it is discarded. Obviously not the case.

More bullshit. Harvest implies no such thing. The growing fetus harvests the mother's tissues, energy, and internal processes TO MAKE ITSELF INTO A BABY. This stuff is what is used to build the baby itself, and none of it is "discarded" until the baby dies.


And this is not comparable to a situation where one adult relies on the body of another. We are talking about babies here.

You're the one who wants to consider embryos/fetuses/babies equal to human persons. So let's do that.


In that case, I don't deny that you have indeed found some similarities between the kidney patient and an embryo. Both are needy.

If that's all the "similarity" you see, then read through it again.


Because we do see a difference between death from sickness and death from being unwanted.

Irrelevant.


The beauty and complexity of an embryo is not why it is sacred. It is sacred because it is us, because it is human.

"Sacred" is subjective. You define sacred that way; many other people don't. I don't, nor does anybody in my family, nor does my lover, nor do my coworkers, nor does my boss...I could go on and on. I see no reason why your definition should be legally imposed on anybody else.


I also agree that humans have the right to decide if their bodies participate in reproduction. But if a human already has a fertilized egg inside, the decision is already made.

Um...no. See, the woman's body continues to participate in reproduction THROUGHOUT PREGNANCY. It's not simply a passive vessel in which reproduction occurs. A woman's body must actively participate if a baby is going to be made from the initial fertilized egg.

The idea that "the decision is already made" just because an egg has been fertilized is fundamentally the same as the idea that a woman doesn't get to say "no" to sex once she's been making out with a guy. She consented to mess around, so she's committed herself to the "full process!" She can't back out now!!

Rapist ideology is as tragic as it is tired.


If you don't want to be a mother, get the snip, or avoid sex, or at least sex where reproduction is a risk. Or if that fails, give your baby up for adoption.

If you don't want to be a mother, don't become a mother. This can be avoided by preventing pregnancy, by terminating a pregnancy that does occur, or by carrying through on a pregnancy and then finding alternative parenting for the baby you produce.


Having babies makes a woman lose her dignity? What planet are you from?

Forced childbirth robs women of their dignity. What kindergarten did you flunk out of?


Not at all. You see, we can easily recognise the difference between 'dying from sickness plus lack of a donor', and 'dying because mother doesn't want me'.

Darling, WE can recognize your repeated BS about "unwanted" babies being aborted for the woman's "convenience."


Not at all. Sexual reproduction is how reproduction begins. Any amount of foreplay or pressure to have sex doesn't actually make babies. Your right and responsibility is to decline sex, unless you are prepared to fall pregnant, or unless you have taken appropriate precautions.

Sex doesn't make babies at all. No sex, in the history of the human species, has ever made a baby. Sex sometimes makes fertilized eggs. Women's bodies, and women's bodies alone, make babies.

Hopefully some day we will be able to make babies through other means, or even allow men's bodies to make babies, but for the time being we are limited by how nature has shaped our species.


Wrong again. Potential little babies are not little babies until sex occurs. And if you don't want to have any babies, the safest thing to do is not have any sex.
Back to remedial sex ed. Sex doesn't make babies. Ever. No matter how big your penis is. Women's bodies make babies, and it takes them months to do it. Sex sometimes is the way in which an egg cell is fertilized by a sperm cell. This fertilized egg is sometimes made into a baby by the active and extensive involvement of a woman's body, in a process that takes roughly 9 months for human beings.

Heck, if that were to happen I'd be in the Guiness Book of World Records or possible quarentined by the government's secret labs to dissect me, being a guy that is... :eek:

I know you are. But thank you for playing along and trying to understand.

As I understand it that an unborn child may independently have the ability to live outside of the womb during the 2nd and 3rd trimesters of the pregnancy. So, if that is true then it is also true to be murder of a living being. No matter that I feel that an abortion is wrong and in no way can I convince anybody of this concept, but to me anything that can independantly live on it's own is a living being. When does the child rights become a reality? I hear all about womens rights but how about a child's rights?

link: http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.jsp?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/hc/wom/preg/overview.jsp

The first trimester is usually defined as including weeks one to 12 (counting from the first day of the LMP). During this period, your child grows very rapidly, forming all of the major organs and body structures, and size, though increasing, is still relatively tiny.

I'm German. Germany allows abortions in the first trimester only, the only exception from that being valid medical reasons.
As I understand, almost all abortions in the US are performed in that period as well, again with the exception of abortions for medical reasons.


The second trimester may be defined as including weeks 13 to 26. The third trimester begins at week 27 and continues to term. As the second and third trimesters progress, your child's organs will mature to the point where your baby can survive as an independent being outside the womb. Your child also increases in size and, particularly toward the end of the third trimester, develops the rounded fat deposits characteristic of a healthy, cuddly baby.

As I said, in this period abortions are normally only performed for medical reasons.

I'm German. Germany allows abortions in the first trimester only, the only exception from that being valid medical reasons.
As I understand, almost all abortions in the US are performed in that period as well, again with the exception of abortions for medical reasons.



As I said, in this period abortions are normally only performed for medical reasons.
Yup. "Late-term" abortions are performed only when medically necessary (in the US). This has been the case for many years, yet anti-choicers still don't seem to know much about abortion laws.

Yup. "Late-term" abortions are performed only when medically necessary (in the US). This has been the case for many years, yet anti-choicers still don't seem to know much about abortion laws.

My youngest sister has had two second trimester abortions, and it really was for convenience, and the doctor in each case merely had to state that it was medically necessary.

No inconvenience on my youngest sister's part at all. She was in no real medical danger at all.

As I said, in this period abortions are normally only performed for medical reasons.

Yep, and in that period, I would support cesareans to remove the child from the mother - at which point, it would become a ward of the state. Wouldn't technically be an abortion, but it would terminate parental rights.

And honestly, I don't think most people are talking about chopping open the head of a baby six days from birth to suck out it's brains unless they're sensationalizing the entire process.

My youngest sister has had two second trimester abortions, and it really was for convenience, and the doctor in each case merely had to state that it was medically necessary.

No inconvenience on my youngest sister's part at all. She was in no real medical danger at all.

I'd ask you to provide more information on this 'convenience' because with the information given, I have to say that I believe your sister and the physician are both irresponsible under those circumstances.

My youngest sister has had two second trimester abortions, and it really was for convenience, and the doctor in each case merely had to state that it was medically necessary.

No inconvenience on my youngest sister's part at all. She was in no real medical danger at all.

So would you rather see the whole process outlawed? Who cares about the possible danger to the lifes of pregnant women, there have been abuses of the law and we have to stop them no matter what the cost?

My youngest sister has had two second trimester abortions, and it really was for convenience, and the doctor in each case merely had to state that it was medically necessary.

No inconvenience on my youngest sister's part at all. She was in no real medical danger at all.
Bolds mine.

I should have been more specific: purely elective "late term" abortions are not LEGAL in the US. I'm sure they are performed anyhow, just as abortions have always been performed whether or not they are legal, and I'm sure there are doctors who are willing to help women obtain elective abortions at very late stages of pregnancy.

Of course, I have no problem at all with this. I support providing safe medical abortion options to all women, and for any reason the woman chooses. I've helped women get illegal abortions before and I will gladly do it again.

I also think it's cute that you think it's "no inconvenience" to go through a second trimester abortion. Try having one some time, then tell me about how it's "no inconvenience." :D

So would you rather see the whole process outlawed? Who cares about the possible danger to the lifes of pregnant women, there have been abuses of the law and we have to stop them no matter what the cost?

(Eve Online is not supporting the pro-life stance as far as I'm aware, although I could be mistaken.)

Of course. That's why we're not allowed to drive. That's why we're forced to do our own taxes. Et cetera.

Bolds mine.

I should have been more specific: purely elective "late term" abortions are not LEGAL in the US. I'm sure they are performed anyhow, just as abortions have always been performed whether or not they are legal, and I'm sure there are doctors who are willing to help women obtain elective abortions at very late stages of pregnancy.

Of course, I have no problem at all with this. I support providing safe medical abortion options to all women, and for any reason the woman chooses. I've helped women get illegal abortions before and I will gladly do it again.

I also think it's cute that you think it's "no inconvenience" to go through a second trimester abortion. Try having one some time, then tell me about how it's "no inconvenience." :D

My sister said the only inconvenience was having to pay for it.

I'm not against abortion BTW. By all means, everyone should have the right AND the financial ability to get one if they want one.

I just find it specious to assume that "medical necessity" is some sort of real medical reason, when in many cases it's a thin veneer of bullshit.

There are parents out there that can't have children but want children, they would adopt the babies. By the way I don't like your poll choices for pro-lifers.

There are parents out there that can't have children but want children, they would adopt the babies.

Most would rather spend tens of thousands of dollars on trying to have one via IVF (even if they try and fail up to ten times) before they try to adopt.

There are parents out there that can't have children but want children, they would adopt the babies.

*slams his head against the desk*

A large majority of people adopting want healthy, white babies. And a large majority of people don't want to adopt. '[P]arents out there' doesn't quite cut it, dude. I don't think they're going to be adopting hundreds upon hundreds of children each.

(And yes, it is that bad.)

My sister said the only inconvenience was having to pay for it.

*Shrug* Then she didn't choose to share the details with you. That's fine. But honestly, I think any reasonable human being would characterize the physical process of having a second-trimester abortion as at least "inconvenient." I mean, having a paper cut is inconvenient, for crying out loud.

The relative discomfort will vary from woman to woman, of course, and I happen to think it's a lot less "inconvenient" than the alternative (carrying a pregnancy to term when you don't want to do so). But it's still not a fun process to go through.


I'm not against abortion BTW. By all means, everyone should have the right AND the financial ability to get one if they want one.

I just find it specious to assume that "medical necessity" is some sort of real medical reason, when in many cases it's a thin veneer of bullshit.
It's intended to be a real way of curbing access to abortion. The fact that lots of doctors refuse to go along with it is a credit to them.

Regardless those babies have as much a right to live there lives as we do, who are you to say they don't. If people don't want babies then use preventive measures or don't do it.

Regardless those babies have as much a right to live there lives as we do, who are you to say they don't. If people don't want babies then use preventive measures or don't do it.

Okay. So. Say a spermicide was used, a condom was used (female or male sort), every possible form of protection was used. And the woman still got pregnant. Would you object if she decided to abort?

It's obvious that she didn't want the child.

And honestly, a baby is a child that has passed through the vagina. Any other definition has been caused by insane religious invective.

And honestly, a baby is a child that has passed through the vagina. Any other definition has been caused by insane religious invective.

Mmmm. If you're born by caesarean, you don't pass through the vagina.

Mmmm. If you're born by caesarean, you don't pass through the vagina.

I haven't slept in over thirty-six hours. I think my meaning was understood.

Regardless those babies have as much a right to live there lives as we do, who are you to say they don't.
Who am I?

I'm one of the people who believes that all human beings have the right to choose how their own body is used, and that includes female human beings.

I'm a human individual who has my own beliefs, my own values, and my own life. I also happen to have a body of my very own. It does not belong to you, or to anybody else. No other person has the "right" to live at the expense of my body.

I'm a person who happens to have the ability to build a human baby inside my body. My body can generate the needed materials and "workers" to construct a human baby, and can provide all the needed energy and effort to do so, using only a single cell as a starting point.

I'm one of the people who would, theoretically, be forced to bear and birth a child against my wishes.

Who the fuck are you?

I haven't slept in over thirty-six hours. I think my meaning was understood.

Yeah, I figured. But I don't think I would want to pass through a sandy vagina on my way into the world.

I reply, "Women say so. Who do you think you are, that you think you're gonna stop them?"

And there's a chorus of voices that have been growing over the years, supporting the women who take this sort of stance. I'm quite proud to have my voice be one of them.

And there's a chorus of voices that have been growing over the years, supporting the women who take this sort of stance. I'm quite proud to have my voice be one of them.
All the bullshit about abortion being a matter of "convenience" is rooted in misogyny and anglo-centrism. Most abortions that happen in the world are not performed in safe, clean settings by medical professionals on nice suburban gals who then go play bridge after their procedure. Most women in the world don't even get the chance to dream about that kind of life.

It's pathetic that so many anti-choicers can't even be bothered to learn about the women who's lives they are so casually appropriating on behalf of "the community." They can't even pretend to give a fuck about non-white non-western humanity, even as they are blathering on about the supposed "sanctity" of all human life.

Regardless those babies have as much a right to live there lives as we do, who are you to say they don't. If people don't want babies then use preventive measures or don't do it.

Do I need to post the three stages foetal development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_development), from the zygote through to the embryonic then to the foetal stage?

In fact, the first week of pregnancy doesn't even begin until the actual third week, as the first two aren't even considered part of that cycle. So, if the zygote isn't even considered a zygote until the third week of pregnancy?

"Weeks of pregnancy" are dated by obstetricians from the start of the last menstrual period which means that ovulation occurs at the end of the 2nd week.

Knowing this, the morning after pill is just another preventative measure, as the pregnancy doesn't actually start until two weeks after conception. And even then, the zygote doesn't become an embryo until well into the second month.

So, then, who are 'we' women to decide if the zygote lives to become an embryo then a foetus and last an infant? The people in control of our own bodies.

It's pathetic that so many anti-choicers can't even be bothered to learn about the women who's lives they are so casually appropriating on behalf of "the community." They can't even pretend to give a fuck about non-white non-western humanity, even as they are blathering on about the supposed "sanctity" of all human life.

Didn't you get the memo? Only white people are sanctified. That's why there's a war going on over in the Middle East where brown people are being killed, simply because 'the American lifestyle' demands oil.

There are parents out there that can't have children but want children, they would adopt the babies. By the way I don't like your poll choices for pro-lifers.

I agree, and thus is the reason I did not partake in voting on the poll.

So, then, who are 'we' women to decide if the zygote lives to become an embryo then a foetus and last an infant? The people in control of our own bodies.
Not to mention being the people who actually make babies.

What a funny idea, that perhaps the people who decide when babies are made should be the people who actually make the babies. Next thing you know, people will be suggesting that painters get to have some say over when they make paintings.

*slams his head against the desk*

A large majority of people adopting want healthy, white babies. And a large majority of people don't want to adopt. '[P]arents out there' doesn't quite cut it, dude. I don't think they're going to be adopting hundreds upon hundreds of children each.

(And yes, it is that bad.)

Sources?

All the bullshit about abortion being a matter of "convenience" is rooted in misogyny and anglo-centrism.

Then why does my sister refer to the ability to get an abortion a "convenience"?

Because it is convenient! Hey, if I don't want to have a baby, I don't have to!

I think my vasectomy is a convenience. In some countries, I couldn't get this sort of operation.

-snip-

And honestly, a baby is a child that has passed through the vagina. Any other definition has been caused by insane religious invective.

Excuse me, I believe any being, being able to independently live on its own out of the womb does indeed mean Life. This is precisely what occurs (reread the above bold print) during the 2nd and 3rd trimesters of a pregnancy as I earlier mentioned.

Then why does my sister refer to the ability to get an abortion a "convenience"?

Because it is convenient! Hey, if I don't want to have a baby, I don't have to!

By that logic, being able to get a heart transplant is very "convenient," too. Hey, if I don't want to die of heart failure, I don't have to!

Compared to dying, yes it is convenient to get a heart transplant. Compared to having to endure an unwanted pregnancy, an abortion is convenient.

However, it's not convenient to have to undergo heart-transplant surgery, as compared to NOT having to undergo heart-transplant surgery. The actual physical process of having surgery is often better than the alternative (i.e. not being able to get surgery when you need it), but that doesn't mean going through surgery is fun or "convenient" in and of itself.

Can you see the distinction?


I think my vasectomy is a convenience. In some countries, I couldn't get this sort of operation.
I view controlling my reproductive health as far more than a "convenience." It is absolutely central to my ability to live my life. Being able to choose when, and if, I become/remain pregnant is essential to me.

There are parents out there that can't have children but want children, they would adopt the babies. By the way I don't like your poll choices for pro-lifers.

Then why are there so many un-adopted children even in todays system much less adding more too it?

Very well. To the anti-choice people in the thread, I suggest this, then.

Instead of abortions, the embryo or fetus should simply be removed from the mother. If it can survive outside the mother, then it can proceed into actual personhood.

This would preserve both the rights of the mother and the rights of the embryo/fetus.

However, if the it dies at any point after being removed from the mother, well, tough luck to it. After all, it's genetically distinct, and is it's own person, so theoretically, it should be able to survive on its own, without the biology of its mother.I have yet to hear any compelling reason why this shouldn't be the order of the day.

Still haven't really heard a reason why this shouldn't be actual policy.

And with this, I go to bed.

Then why are there so many un-adopted children even in todays system much less adding more too it?

Sssh, King Bodacious will ask you for...

SOURCES!

:o

Because it's ... you know, common knowledge and stuff.

Sssh, King Bodacious will ask you for...

SOURCES!

:o

Because it's ... you know, common knowledge and stuff.

Didn't you in the previous post just say you wanted to go to bed?

And I would answer your proposed policy, except for the fact that I'm pro-choice and think like that to begin with.

Sssh, King Bodacious will ask you for...

SOURCES!

:o

Because it's ... you know, common knowledge and stuff.

Here's some numbers (http://www.pobronson.com/factbook/pages/20.html#293)... the most interesting thing is the number of years an average child waits for adoption.

There are parents out there that can't have children but want children, they would adopt the babies. By the way I don't like your poll choices for pro-lifers.

And there are those of us with no reason to believe we are infertile, who still want to adopt children - babies or not.

It doesn't change the fact that there simply are not enough willing and competent parents for all the children already in the system.

Here's some numbers (http://www.pobronson.com/factbook/pages/20.html#293)... the most interesting thing is the number of years an average child waits for adoption.

Better source then I found off hand ... work sucks today no time at all ... thank you Cabra West

And there are those of us with no reason to believe we are infertile, who still want to adopt children - babies or not.

It doesn't change the fact that there simply are not enough willing and competent parents for all the children already in the system.

Not to mention the overzealous child protection services that is more than happy to take a child from its home and callously toss it into a system filled to the teeth with parentless heathens. (The viable alternative would be to leave the child in the care of its relatives).

Not to mention the overzealous child protection services that is more than happy to take a child from its home and callously toss it into a system filled to the teeth with parentless heathens. (The viable alternative would be to leave the child in the care of its relatives).

To be fair, I think child protection services have a rough job. It's hard to tell what is best for a child in many situations, especially when you are an outside agency. Sometimes, they end up leaving a child in a situation they shouldn't, or moving the child to the custody of a grandparent/aunt/uncle/etc. and serious harm results. Sometimes they rush to remove a child from parent or family custody when they shouldn't, and serious harm results.

I do think that, most of the time, they do a good job. As with most agencies, we really only hear about them when they screw up.

And there are those of us with no reason to believe we are infertile, who still want to adopt children - babies or not.

It doesn't change the fact that there simply are not enough willing and competent parents for all the children already in the system.

Some of which is caused by government predice, I am willing but am not allowed to adopt children because I am transgendered.

Not to mention the overzealous child protection services that is more than happy to take a child from its home and callously toss it into a system filled to the teeth with parentless heathens. (The viable alternative would be to leave the child in the care of its relatives).


I understand what you are saying, a friend of mine from college had to adopt two of her grand children because the parents were going to lose them to the the overzealous child protection services here. And now she is trying to adopt two more whos father is in prison and their 33 year old mother just died unexpectantly.

I understand what you are saying, a friend of mine from college had to adopt two of her grand children because the parents were going to lose them to the the overzealous child protection services here. And now she is trying to adopt two more whos father is in prison and their 33 year old mother just died unexpectantly.

At least she's trying to do the right thing.

If you don't mind my asking, what had the child protection services said to justify removing the children from the parents' custody?