NationStates Jolt Archive

I declare this discussion to be flame-free. :)

And there was much rejoicing. :)

I want to prevent unwanted children. I will not wait until marriage to have sex.

Then, accept the consequences of your acts of choice.

Ball's in your court, champ.

Returned.

However, the thread is pointless. I doubt anyone has changed their position.

Then, accept the consequences of your acts of choice.
One would hardly call having an abortion a denial of consequence. A woman getting an abortion is fully aware of the cause of her predicament; she has accepted the consequences of her choice and chooses to deal with them in a terminatory manner.

However, the thread is pointless. I doubt anyone has changed their position.

For that same reason, every serious thread on this forum ends up nowhere.

I want to prevent unwanted children. I will not wait until marriage to have sex.

Ball's in your court, champ.

The best way to prevent unwanted children is wait until marriage. Condoms break and the pill can be ineffective.

Abortion IS birth control, no matter who is using it.

Birth. Control. Controlling birth. Every abortion is birth control. Women who have abortions because they will die otherwise are still engaging in birth control.
An abortion that saves the mother's life or the pregnancy of incest can be considered a health benefit or necessity. The problem I have with abortions is that women will act like sluts get pregnant and then turn around and say "oh I can't keep my legs shut but I don't want to be responsible for my actions so I will just get an abortion". That sort of thing is just completely wrong any way you look at it.

For that same reason, every serious thread on this forum ends up nowhere.

Debates rarely are meant for the purpose of changing the other debater's minds. Usually they're meant to give informed opinions to others, not involved in the debate, who might not have formed an opinion one way or the other.

They're also meant to make the participants feel good about themselves when they score a particular point against the opposition. *grin*

So I'd say this debate is doing exactly what it's intended to do.

The best way to prevent unwanted children is wait until marriage. Condoms break and the pill can be ineffective.


An abortion that saves the mother's life or the pregnancy of incest can be considered a health benefit or necessity. The problem I have with abortions is that women will act like sluts get pregnant and then turn around and say "oh I can't keep my legs shut but I don't want to be responsible for my actions so I will just get an abortion". That sort of thing is just completely wrong any way you look at it.

How are they being irreponsible for their actions when they're taking care of the problem?

If you oppose my right to decide how my body participates in reproduction (AT ALL STAGES), then you are anti-choice. Your feelings in regard to the fetus are irrelevant in deciding whether or not you are anti-choice.


Then you support the recognition of women's right to ownership of their own bodies, as men have. If you do not support this right, then you do not believe in equal rights for women.

Many people don't support legal equality. If you don't, that's up to you. Just don't lie to yourself about the stance you are taking.


If you oppose a woman's right to choose how her body participates in reproduction, you are anti-choice. Your motives are irrelevant to whether or not that label applies to you.

Will you just PLEASE listen to me? The only reason I could ever be considered "anti-choice" is because I believe that women should not have the right to determine whether someone lives or dies if the person they are deciding for

A. Has done NOTHING wrong.

B. Is not even concious to fight for it's own survival.

Also: I believe that a fetus' right to live farly superscedes a woman's right to decide what happens in her body or to choose her role in reproduction. Hell, she did ACTUALLY decide to take the risk to get pregnant, so techincally she DOES have choice. Of course, that is unless she was raped, which is an ENTIRELY different story.

So if that makes me anti-choice, so be it. I am anti-choice. But only because I am pro-life.

Will you just PLEASE listen to me? The only reason I could ever be considered "anti-choice" is because I believe that women should not have the right to determine whether someone lives or dies if the person they are deciding for

A. Has done NOTHING wrong.

B. Is not even concious to fight for it's own survival.

Also: I believe that a fetus' right to live farly superscedes a woman's right to decide what happens in her body or to choose her role in reproduction. Hell, she did ACTUALLY decide to take the risk to get pregnant, so techincally she DOES have choice. Of course, that is unless she was raped, which is an ENTIRELY different story.

So if that makes me anti-choice, so be it. I am anti-choice. But only because I am pro-life.

A fetus is defined as an animal in the later stages of development. In humans, that starts in the second trimester.

Therefore, we're not discussing a fetus' right to live. We're discussing zygotes, which aren't individual living organisms. At that point, they're simply a chunk of protein in a woman's body. A woman has the right to excise this protein.

How are they being irreponsible for their actions when they're taking care of the problem?

The "problem"? Sorry, a pregnancy is not a problem you just "take care of"

The "problem"? Sorry, a pregnancy is not a problem you just "take care of"

Yeah it is. It's a problem and naturally you take care of problems. You don't allow problems to get worse, you nip them in the bud.

Yeah it is. It's a problem and naturally you take care of problems. You don't allow problems to get worse, you nip them in the bud.

Oh, so now human life is a BAD thing? Something that we must get rid of?

And you were making fun of me for calling for mass genocide...

Oh, so now human life is a BAD thing? Something that we must get rid of?

And you were making fun of me for calling for mass genocide...

Did I say anything about human life?

Did I say anything about human life?

The zygote, the fetus, all of it is human life. Just because it hasn't developed doesn't mean it's not human.

The zygote, the fetus, all of it is human life. Just because it hasn't developed doesn't mean it's not human.

By that statement, the sperm, the eggs, hell even your skin cells (as was pointed out by the cloning argument earlier) are human life. So don't have sex unless you plan on having children. And don't scratch, you could be killing off potential humans. And, for gods sake, don't ovulate if you're a woman, unless you're going to get pregnant! You're a murderer!!!!!

There, are we finished now? Potential human life isn't human life. Legally, a zygote isn't human, and it is legal to abort it. According to the bible (depending on which parts of it you read) a fetus isn't human until it moves in its mother's womb, or (by old testament judgement) until it's been born and survived for 30 days.

Any other comments?

By that statement, the sperm, the eggs, hell even your skin cells (as was pointed out by the cloning argument earlier) are human life. So don't have sex unless you plan on having children. And don't scratch, you could be killing off potential humans. And, for gods sake, don't ovulate if you're a woman, unless you're going to get pregnant! You're a murderer!!!!!

There, are we finished now? Potential human life isn't human life. Legally, a zygote isn't human, and it is legal to abort it. According to the bible (depending on which parts of it you read) a fetus isn't human until it moves in its mother's womb, or (by old testament judgement) until it's been born and survived for 30 days.

Any other comments?

For one thing, nothing in the human body can create a whole nother human besides the sperm and eggs. And sperm regenerates. And women have enough eggs to last them until they are not in a condition to even be pregnant. And I said don't have sex unless you plan on taking the risk of getting pregnant. And I know a legally a zygote isn't a human. And that's part of the law that I want to change. You know you CAN change the law in this country, right? And last I checked we don't take our laws from the Bible. We can most certainly have our decisions affected by the beliefs we get from it, but we don't take our laws from it.

2) Abortion prevents unwanted children from being born. Crime in the US fell after 1993 because abortions were legalised in 1973. This meant that fewer children born after 1973 were growing up into potential criminals.

No. You've proven that crime fell in 1973 and that abortions were legalised in 1973. There is nothing here that proves those two facts are linked other than your supposition.

No. You've proven that crime fell in 1973 and that abortions were legalised in 1973. There is nothing here that proves those two facts are linked other than your supposition.

Of course, the problem with that line of reasoning is that I could say that killing all black male children would lower the crime rate because they are statistically more likely to be engaged in crime at some point in their lives.

It's not a good line of argument by any stretch, and kind of dubious at that.

For one thing, nothing in the human body can create a whole nother human besides the sperm and eggs. And sperm regenerates. And women have enough eggs to last them until they are not in a condition to even be pregnant. And I said don't have sex unless you plan on taking the risk of getting pregnant. And I know a legally a zygote isn't a human. And that's part of the law that I want to change. You know you CAN change the law in this country, right? And last I checked we don't take our laws from the Bible. We can most certainly have our decisions affected by the beliefs we get from it, but we don't take our laws from it.

Actually, with cloning you can create a whole new human being from any part of your body which holds DNA. Ergo, by your ideals every part of the human body has the right to life. Oops, pulled out some hair? Guess you're guilty of manslaughter.

For one thing, nothing in the human body can create a whole nother human besides the sperm and eggs.

False. Any nucleated cell in the human body has the capacity to generate an entire human.

Actually, with cloning you can create a whole new human being from any part of your body which holds DNA. Ergo, by your ideals every part of the human body has the right to life. Oops, pulled out some hair? Guess you're guilty of manslaughter.

Ugh...

Look, my hair hasn't begun the process of becoming human. A fertilized egg HAS. There's a difference.

Ugh...

Look, my hair hasn't begun the process of becoming human. A fertilized egg HAS. There's a difference.

Wrong. A fertilized egg has not. It will not until implantation, and there is, at best, a 50-50 chance it will implant. Just like any cell you choose will not start to produce a human until the proper requirements are filled.

Ugh...

Look, my hair hasn't begun the process of becoming human. A fertilized egg HAS. There's a difference.

You're making false assumptions again. 50% of all fertilized eggs result in miscarriage. Those eggs aren't in the process of becoming human.

However, whether you argue ovulation occurs or not, birth control still prevents the egg from becoming human, with the end result that the egg "dies". So, by the standards of the people claiming any destruction of material which "might" become human, birth control is still murder.

Ah..for the people that think that way then essentially pregnancy would be murder too (as you do not ovulate during pregnancy)

You're making false assumptions again. 50% of all fertilized eggs result in miscarriage. Those eggs aren't in the process of becoming human.

Yes, that I know. However, why do we have to destroy the eggs which DO manage to survive?

Wrong. A fertilized egg has not. It will not until implantation, and there is, at best, a 50-50 chance it will implant. Just like any cell you choose will not start to produce a human until the proper requirements are filled.

Like I said above, why should we destroy them if they have a chance or have already survived the chance?

Like I said above, why should we destroy them if they have a chance or have already survived the chance?

And why should we treat the potential as the actual? I could potentially win the lottery, but that doesn't mean I should pay taxes on my potential winnings.

hang on now depending on trimester limitations (i do believe that there should be a deadline) there is no nervous system developing, nothing that makes us human or concious or able to feel at all, except for maybe a soul, but that's religion, and last i checked there was a separation between church and state in most western/European countries. If u have qualms about taking a life in general (e.g. ur a vegetarian, u have never swatted a fly) then that's another issue altogether, and last time i checked a lot of the anti abortion blokes were also pro war.

if u have a problem with inhibiting the potential for life, u should be fighting to have masturbadion as well as all non vaginal, and wrong time of the month intercourse banned while ur at it (lost semen oh no)

i guess maybe u could alow women to masturbate, since they don't lose any genetic material..... but u should probably make it illegal go a whole cycle w/o an honest attempt to get pregnant (u dont want her unecesarrily losing eggs right? those eggs also have the potential for life.)

Triple post AND bad grammar.

At least he didn't use a smiley.

And in case you didn't read, sperm regenerates. So don't give me that crap about how masturbation kills potentional life.

Also: I'm pro-life, but anti-war. Not all anti-abortion people are neocons, you know.

And: You are stopping the life from even being able to develop the nervous systems and all that. So techincally you ARE killing a living being. Of course you're killing it before it is even living, but you are stoping it from ever being able to live, when it is already on the path to becoming a living being. (of course, I'm going along your guys' idea about "living" here) Is that not as wrong as killing something which is already living?

i guess maybe u could alow women to masturbate, since they don't lose any genetic material..... but u should probably make it illegal go a whole cycle w/o an honest attempt to get pregnant (u dont want her unecesarrily losing eggs right? those eggs also have the potential for life.)

Forced Breeding? I don't like the directions this thread is suggesting we send the world..... or do I :p

i guess maybe u could alow women to masturbate, since they don't lose any genetic material..... but u should probably make it illegal go a whole cycle w/o an honest attempt to get pregnant (u dont want her unecesarrily losing eggs right? those eggs also have the potential for life.)

Yeah, but the point here is the woman's choice. If she doesn't want to get pregnant, fine by me. The egg isn't techincally life, since it hasn't been fertilized. When it's been fertilized is when it is life, and therefore should not be destroyed.

Yeah, but the point here is the woman's choice. If she doesn't want to get pregnant, fine by me. The egg isn't techincally life, since it hasn't been fertilized. When it's been fertilized is when it is life, and therefore should not be destroyed.

Women's choice, my point exactly, well not quite, i don't actualy think masturbation kills life, that would make most of us mass murderers, just as I don't believe women should be forced to breed, my point is, that a woman's egg has potential to be fertilized, a man's sperm has potential to fertilize an egg, and a fertilized egg has potential to develop into life, it's just a step a head of the other two, and as long as ur doing it before it develops a nervous system of some kind, then u aren't actualy killing an independant life any more than u would be by masturbating by or allowing an egg to go unfertilized, w/o getting into the religios stuff, which like i said before, is seperate from state.

i am originaly german, please excuse my grammar and spelling

Is that not as wrong as killing something which is already living?

Why should it be?

Women's choice, my point exactly, well not quite, i don't actualy think masturbation kills life, that would make most of us mass murderers, just as I don't believe women should be forced to breed, my point is, that a woman's egg has potential to be fertilized, a man's sperm has potential to fertilize an egg, and a fertilized egg has potential to develop into life, it's just a step a head of the other two, and as long as ur doing it before it develops a nervous system of some kind, then u aren't actualy killing an independant life any more than u would be by masturbating by or allowing an egg to go unfertilized, w/o getting into the religios stuff, which like i said before, is seperate from state.

i am originaly german, please excuse my grammar and spelling

Ok, that gives a good excuse.

Anyways...

If a woman took the risk that she knew could get her pregnant, it is her responsibility to carry the pregnancy instead of being selfish and killing something which has a chance to turn into life. Just because it is not life yet does not mean it cannot turn into life later, and, as I said, killing something which could easily turn into life is just as wrong as killing something which is alive.

And why should it be? Well, it can become life, am I not correct? Therefore, we are techincally killing a living thing before it becomes living. Ok, I'm even confusing myself here. But if it is on the road to becoming a living being, then it should not be killed.

Ok, that gives a good excuse.

Anyways...

If a woman took the risk that she knew could get her pregnant, it is her responsibility to carry the pregnancy instead of being selfish and killing something which has a chance to turn into life. Just because it is not life yet does not mean it cannot turn into life later, and, as I said, killing something which could easily turn into life is just as wrong as killing something which is alive.

And why should it be? Well, it can become life, am I not correct? Therefore, we are techincally killing a living thing before it becomes living. Ok, I'm even confusing myself here. But if it is on the road to becoming a living being, then it should not be killed.


A cow is a living being, what about it?

A cow is a living being, what about it?

I'm a vegetarian.

I'm a vegetarian.

plants are living too.

For that matter, so are bacteria. Ever take an antibiotic?

plants are living too.

For that matter, so are bacteria. Ever take an antibiotic?

:rolleyes: Fact of life, everyone's a hypocrite.

plants are living too.

For that matter, so are bacteria. Ever take an antibiotic?

I hold animals in higher regard than plants. Plus I myself have to eat something otherwise I would die.

And if that bacteria is trying to kill me, then I have the right to protect myself.

I hold animals in higher regard than plants. Plus I myself have to eat something otherwise I would die.

And if that bacteria is trying to kill me, then I have the right to protect myself.

so you admit to, intentionally, killing living organisms.

So what is your point then, exactly?

so you admit to, intentionally, killing living organisms.

So what is your point then, exactly?

I think his point is he wants to live... and he can accept eating plants more than animals because plants have a lower mental capacity (ie none). Although this seems odd as he objects to killing unborn children that also have no mental capacity.

I think his point is he wants to live... and he can accept eating plants more than animals because plants have a lower mental capacity (ie none). Although this seems odd as he objects to killing unborn children that also have no mental capacity.

Unborn children can obtain a mental capacity if we let them.

Plants can't.

so you admit to, intentionally, killing living organisms.

So what is your point then, exactly?

I'm killing living organisms to live.

People who have abortions aren't, unless of course the woman's life is at risk, which is a completely different story all together.

Ok, that gives a good excuse.
If a woman took the risk that she knew could get her pregnant, it is her responsibility to carry the pregnancy instead of being selfish and killing something which has a chance to turn into life. Just because it is not life yet does not mean it cannot turn into life later, and, as I said, killing something which could easily turn into life is just as wrong as killing something which is alive.


That's the point, it has a chance to turn into live. So does any unfertilized egg. By this logic women should stop menstruating as they are "killing" something that has the chance to turn into life.

Unborn children can obtain a mental capacity if we let them.

Plants can't.

Both of those points are debatable

Unborn children can obtain a mental capacity if we let them.

Plants can't.
Hypothetical situation: a scientist invents some way to give plants intelligence through injecting chemicals into them. Or something. Do you stop eating plants?

Hypothetical situation: a scientist invents some way to give plants intelligence through injecting chemicals into them. Or something. Do you stop eating plants?

If we give them enough time and stop eating them they might end up with that ability anyway.

Ok, that gives a good excuse.

Anyways...

If a woman took the risk that she knew could get her pregnant, it is her responsibility to carry the pregnancy instead of being selfish and killing something which has a chance to turn into life.

Meh. We've already established that you are every bit as "selfish" with the use of your own body, and you are fully prepared to selfishly allow other life to die simply because you can't be bothered to donate your organs and blood and tissues.

This makes it difficult to give a crap about your admonishments to 'selfish' women.


Just because it is not life yet does not mean it cannot turn into life later, and, as I said, killing something which could easily turn into life is just as wrong as killing something which is alive.

Then you're a mass killer. You kill living things every second of every day in order to sustain your own life.


And why should it be? Well, it can become life, am I not correct? Therefore, we are techincally killing a living thing before it becomes living. Ok, I'm even confusing myself here. But if it is on the road to becoming a living being, then it should not be killed.
Your sperm/eggs are alive. Not "going to be" alive, but alive. Living things. You kill them through your actions. Hello, hypocrisy!

minor technicalities.

If by minor technicality you mean completely wrong

Will you just PLEASE listen to me? The only reason I could ever be considered "anti-choice" is because I believe that women should not have the right to determine whether someone lives or dies if the person they are deciding for

A. Has done NOTHING wrong.

B. Is not even concious to fight for it's own survival.

Also: I believe that a fetus' right to live farly superscedes a woman's right to decide what happens in her body or to choose her role in reproduction. Hell, she did ACTUALLY decide to take the risk to get pregnant, so techincally she DOES have choice. Of course, that is unless she was raped, which is an ENTIRELY different story.

So if that makes me anti-choice, so be it. I am anti-choice. But only because I am pro-life.
Darling, you are the one who isn't listening. You are anti-choice because you believe that female human beings do not possess the right to choose how their own bodies participate in reproduction. Your reasons for believing this are immaterial to the fact that you are anti-choice.

You assign rights to fetuses that no born human beings have, and you strip away rights from pregnant women which even convicted serial killers possess. Nobody is forcing you to hold these views. You are choosing them. You make yourself comfortable with that.

The best way to prevent unwanted children is wait until marriage. Condoms break and the pill can be ineffective.

Um...I don't know if anybody has explained this to you before, but it's possible to become pregnant even if one is married. Marriage is not a contraceptive.


An abortion that saves the mother's life or the pregnancy of incest can be considered a health benefit or necessity. The problem I have with abortions is that women will act like sluts get pregnant and then turn around and say "oh I can't keep my legs shut but I don't want to be responsible for my actions so I will just get an abortion". That sort of thing is just completely wrong any way you look at it.
Getting an abortion is one way of taking responsibility for one's actions. A woman who chooses to have an abortion instead of carrying to term is taking as much responsibility as a woman who chooses to carry to term, provided that the second woman is also planning to provide the baby with a good home.

You may not like the fact that women go around having sex as if they had the right or something, and you may not like the fact that women control their own bodies as if they had the right or something, but none of that changes the fact that abortion is a perfectly responsible option for women to consider.

Furthermore, as somebody who is so very concerned about what women are up to, I'm sure you are well aware that the majority of women who have abortions are already mothers, right? They're already caring for at least one child. So all your bullshit about them not wanting to "take responsibility" is kind of...well, bullshit, right?

If by minor technicality you mean completely wrong
Yeah, I love the logic.

"We just have to leave a fertilized egg alone, and it will grow into a baby!"

"Er, actually, a woman's body has to provide for every need for that fertilized egg, and actively nurture it in every way for many months before it will have been built into a baby."

"Minor technicality."

These fellows will never get even a tiny little bit of sex, unless they deliberately seek out emotionally crippled women who have no dignity or self-respect. I can say this with utmost confidence, because no healthy woman will be turned on by a man who views her body and her human rights as "minor technicalities."

Um...I don't know if anybody has explained this to you before, but it's possible to become pregnant even if one is married. Marriage is not a contraceptive.

You forget, apparently once your are married life becomes happy and joyful, filled with rainbows and money, and every pregnancy becomes wanted. According to Soviestan that is.

You forget, apparently once your are married life becomes happy and joyful, filled with rainbows and money, and every pregnancy becomes wanted. According to Ritlina that is.

I think it was Soviestan, but I agree with the sentiment

Yeah, I love the logic.

"We just have to leave a fertilized egg alone, and it will grow into a baby!"

"Er, actually, a woman's body has to provide for every need for that fertilized egg, and actively nurture it in every way for many months before it will have been built into a baby."

"Minor technicality."

These fellows will never get even a tiny little bit of sex, unless they deliberately seek out emotionally crippled women who have no dignity or self-respect. I can say this with utmost confidence, because no healthy woman will be turned on by a man who views her body and her human rights as "minor technicalities."

Yeah I mean with the length of the argument it was not a "technicality" rather the basis for the entire argument.

The "problem"? Sorry, a pregnancy is not a problem you just "take care of"
An unwanted pregnancy is absolutely a problem, and a potentially serious one. Pretty much no woman "just" takes care of an unwanted pregnancy, since it is almost always a difficult experience (both mentally and physically), but it still has to be taken care of in one way or another. A woman may choose to take care of the problem by preparing herself for pregnancy and childbirth. A woman may choose to end the pregnancy. But, regardless, the problem must be dealt with.

The only women who don't deal with the problem of an unwanted pregnancy are the ones who go into denial and try to pretend they aren't pregnant until they actually go into labor.

You forget, apparently once your are married life becomes happy and joyful, filled with rainbows and money, and every pregnancy becomes wanted. According to Ritlina that is.
Oh yeah, that's right. I forgot that wedding bands are Magical Marriage Force Power Rings which grant the wearers superhuman abilities. Like the power to only become pregnant when you are willing and able to support a child.

Magical Marriage Force...UNITE!!!

Oh yeah, that's right. I forgot that wedding bands are Magical Marriage Force Power Rings which grant the wearers superhuman abilities. Like the power to only become pregnant when you are willing and able to support a child.

Magical Marriage Force...UNITE!!!

I am sure you have brought it up in this thread (well maybe you have) but the fact that most abortions are actually for married and or people that have at least one kid.

(I seem to remember it being you that had the stats on it)

I've often thought that if men could get pregnancy as women can that the tides on the whole debate would change and that men who also have to be held accountable for their sexual actions, since they too would, if the logic that spreading your legs was you agreeing to carrying the fetus to term if pregnancy was the result.

If men had to bear the burden of childbirth they would be sympathetic to the pro-choice position and understanding of the logic that just because a woman wants to have sex, that does not make her a slut. Perhaps if we applied the reverse, men would have a change of heart; if men wants to have sex, then he would be a slut for putting his meat in the grinder/spreading his legs...

I am sure you have brought it up in this thread (well maybe you have) but the fact that most abortions are actually for married and or people that have at least one kid.

(I seem to remember it being you that had the stats on it)
And yet, the pro-life people have a magical barrier of ignorance to that; unable to link abortion with marriage, as marriage is the magical solution that controls pregnancy!

I think it was Soviestan, but I agree with the sentiment

Sorry, fixed it.

And yet, the pro-life people have a magical barrier of ignorance to that; unable to link abortion with marriage, as marriage is the magical solution that controls pregnancy!

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8436/ignoranceshieldrt6.png

I've often thought that if men could get pregnancy as women can that the tides on the whole debate would change and that men who also have to be held accountable for their sexual actions, since they too would, if the logic that spreading your legs was you agreeing to carrying the fetus to term if pregnancy was the result.

If men had to bear the burden of childbirth they would be sympathetic to the pro-choice position and understanding of the logic that just because a woman wants to have sex, that does not make her a slut. Perhaps if we applied the reverse, men would have a change of heart; if men wants to have sex, then he would be a slut for putting his meat in the grinder/spreading his legs...

Ahh..but men ARE held accountable for their actions already if the result is pregnancy. Hear of child support? Alot of men I think would be pro-choice if the result is an unwanted pregnancy. Why be straddled with more responsibilty just because you wanted to have a night of fun?

I demand government subsidized compulsory impregnation-abortion cycles.


And fondue.

Ahh..but men ARE held accountable for their actions already if the result is pregnancy. Hear of child support? Alot of men I think would be pro-choice if the result is an unwanted pregnancy. Why be straddled with more responsibilty just because you wanted to have a night of fun?

Men are not held to the same standard of accountability as women, your participation is "the fun part" and "the money part" you are not forced to do anything else. If that's what you think is on par with a woman's contribution to gestating and raising a child, you are seriously delusional.

Men are not held to the same standard of accountability as women, your participation is "the fun part" and "the money part" you are not forced to do anything else. If that's what you think is on par with a woman's contribution to gestating and raising a child, you are seriously delusional.
And women too have to pay child support.

Case and point, when I left my mother's house as a minor (aka - walked out on her because she's a damn cold-hearted bitch sometimes) , I moved in with my dad and because I had moved in with him, and he had a single income, and my mother had duel-income, she had to paid child support, so it's not just men who have to pay child support.

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8436/ignoranceshieldrt6.png
Woohoo! That's awesome! :)

That's the point, it has a chance to turn into live. So does any unfertilized egg. By this logic women should stop menstruating as they are "killing" something that has the chance to turn into life.

Ugh... You obviously don't read, do you?

Women have enough eggs to last them to the age to where they are simply physically incapable of having a child. Therefore regular menstration really doesn't do anything to "kill life".

Yeah, I love the logic.

"We just have to leave a fertilized egg alone, and it will grow into a baby!"

"Er, actually, a woman's body has to provide for every need for that fertilized egg, and actively nurture it in every way for many months before it will have been built into a baby."

"Minor technicality."

These fellows will never get even a tiny little bit of sex, unless they deliberately seek out emotionally crippled women who have no dignity or self-respect. I can say this with utmost confidence, because no healthy woman will be turned on by a man who views her body and her human rights as "minor technicalities."

Well, let's consider the fact that the woman chose to take the risk to get pregnant. AGAIN. Now let's consider the fact that because she chose that risk, she should also choose to accept the consequences that come with failing that risk, I.E. getting pregnant and the baby not miscarriaging on its own. I mean, everybody else who accepts the risk of anything else accepts the consequences if they fail the risk, (which, if you want to do the "Car Accident Arguement", is the car accident, not the being stuck between metal), so why shouldn't women who take the risk of getting pregnant if they have sex? And if those consequences mean they have to nurture a baby through a pregnancy, so be it.

And I'm asexual, so...

Men are not held to the same standard of accountability as women, your participation is "the fun part" and "the money part" you are not forced to do anything else. If that's what you think is on par with a woman's contribution to gestating and raising a child, you are seriously delusional.

Of course not. But the poster was saying that if men were held accountable for their actions they would be more apt to be pro-choice.

My opinion..even without being pregnant..men would be more apt to be pro-choice because they don't want to help with a child they did not want.. And having to pay child support is considered being accountable.

I certainly was not saying anything about men being "on par" with women's responsibilities.

Hypothetical situation: a scientist invents some way to give plants intelligence through injecting chemicals into them. Or something. Do you stop eating plants?

For one thing, that hasn't happened yet. Fetuses growing into living, thinking beings has.

For another thing, I still need to eat. I'd rather eat something that is in abundance (I.E. plants), and can easily reproduce, and seemingly would have lesser intelligence, rather than something which is not in as much abundance (I.E. cows), and can't as easily reproduce, and seemingly would have greater intelligence.

And I'm asexual, so...

...that explains why you can talk about humans abstaining as if it was normal.

Of course not. But the poster was saying that if men were held accountable for their actions they would be more apt to be pro-choice.

My opinion..even without being pregnant..men would be more apt to be pro-choice because they don't want to help with a child they did not want.. And having to pay child support is considered being accountable.

I certainly was not saying anything about men being "on par" with women's responsibilities.

I guess I misread. I was thinking that if men actually had to go through the physical pregnancy maybe they wouldn't say such idiotic things like "it's just a little pain" and crap (not that you did)

Darling, you are the one who isn't listening. You are anti-choice because you believe that female human beings do not possess the right to choose how their own bodies participate in reproduction. Your reasons for believing this are immaterial to the fact that you are anti-choice.

You assign rights to fetuses that no born human beings have, and you strip away rights from pregnant women which even convicted serial killers possess. Nobody is forcing you to hold these views. You are choosing them. You make yourself comfortable with that.

They already fracking chose to take the risk to get pregnant. They chose to have sex. Unless it was rape, the woman already had a choice. Now she needs to live with that choice, whether it turned out for her to be better (not pregnant), or worse (pregnant). People need to learn to accept the consequences of their actions, whatever it may be.

mmm... tacos. :)

I guess I misread. I was thinking that if men actually had to go through the physical pregnancy maybe they wouldn't say such idiotic things like "it's just a little pain" and crap (not that you did)


I wouldn't...as I am female and have kids. I know what pregnancy is like.

I wouldn't...as I am female and have kids. I know what pregnancy is like.

oh, well, then I don't have to explain, you know what I meant ;)

They already fracking chose to take the risk to get pregnant. They chose to have sex. Unless it was rape, the woman already had a choice. Now she needs to live with that choice, whether it turned out for her to be better (not pregnant), or worse (pregnant). People need to learn to accept the consequences of their actions, whatever it may be.

No, actually she doesn't. If a woman is planning to have sex with a man but changes her mind and the man forcibly has sex with her anyway, does she have to live with the fact that she intended to have sex? Must she accept the consequences of her decision?

If a man drinks unsafe water and gets a tapeworm, must he live with the tapeworm inside of him because he decided to risk the unsafe water?

Consequences for a decision is one thing, but removing one's control over one's own body as a consequence for a risky decision is far more than a mere consequence. It's rape.

Getting an abortion is one way of taking responsibility for one's actions. A woman who chooses to have an abortion instead of carrying to term is taking as much responsibility as a woman who chooses to carry to term, provided that the second woman is also planning to provide the baby with a good home.

You may not like the fact that women go around having sex as if they had the right or something, and you may not like the fact that women control their own bodies as if they had the right or something, but none of that changes the fact that abortion is a perfectly responsible option for women to consider.

Furthermore, as somebody who is so very concerned about what women are up to, I'm sure you are well aware that the majority of women who have abortions are already mothers, right? They're already caring for at least one child. So all your bullshit about them not wanting to "take responsibility" is kind of...well, bullshit, right?

To me, abortion doesn't seem very "responsible" at all. Abortion is just a way to get out of a problem. It's not actually facing the problem. Not to mention solving the "problem" of pregnancy through abortion would mean KILLING ANOTHER BEING.

And if mothers are having abortions, it's no difference. They simply don't want to own up.

Also: Just a little thing to those who say "Well if a mother doesn't get an abortion she might not be able to have children again!" etc. etc....

If I recall correctly, a large number of abortions actually result in the female reproductive system being so damaged that she cannot have children again.

...that explains why you can talk about humans abstaining as if it was normal.

I'm not saying abstaining, I'm saying owning up for their actions. Frankly, if they don't want to get pregnant, they just shouldn't have sex, because there is an undeniable risk of getting pregnant if you have sex.

I guess I misread. I was thinking that if men actually had to go through the physical pregnancy maybe they wouldn't say such idiotic things like "it's just a little pain" and crap (not that you did)

Well, no matter how much pain it is, I don't think that you selfishly getting rid of the pain at the cost of someone's life is at all a good thing.

Actually, along that line of thinking...

Say you were burning in the pits of hell. You would be suffering for all eternity. The devil gives you an offer. Sacrifice one random person on the planet, and your suffering will end. Would you take it?

They already fracking chose to take the risk to get pregnant. They chose to have sex. Unless it was rape, the woman already had a choice. Now she needs to live with that choice, whether it turned out for her to be better (not pregnant), or worse (pregnant). People need to learn to accept the consequences of their actions, whatever it may be.

So you will accept death with absolute calmness? You will take death and have full acceptance of that fact? You risk death with every step you take, accept that and will sit down and take it when it comes?

Ugh... You obviously don't read, do you?

Women have enough eggs to last them to the age to where they are simply physically incapable of having a child. Therefore regular menstration really doesn't do anything to "kill life".

Sure it does. An egg is alive. Each individual egg would produce a different child (or multiple different children, in the case of monozygotic twins/triplets etc.). Those are distinct and different "potential people."


Well, let's consider the fact that the woman chose to take the risk to get pregnant. AGAIN. Now let's consider the fact that because she chose that risk, she should also choose to accept the consequences that come with failing that risk, I.E. getting pregnant and the baby not miscarriaging on its own. I mean, everybody else who accepts the risk of anything else accepts the consequences if they fail the risk, (which, if you want to do the "Car Accident Arguement", is the car accident, not the being stuck between metal), so why shouldn't women who take the risk of getting pregnant if they have sex? And if those consequences mean they have to nurture a baby through a pregnancy, so be it.

The consequences of having sex do not include having to nurture a baby through a pregnancy, unless YOU decide that you want to artificially force that upon women.

I hate to tell you this, but sex doesn't make babies. I know, I know, Sunday School says it does, but they're actually quite wrong.

Women's bodies make babies. It takes them many months to do so. Men don't plant babies in women's bodies, which are then passively allowed to remain there; rather, women's bodies must build babies, using all the woman's own raw materials, machinery, and energy, from a tiny blueprint of a single cell.

A fertilized egg is made into a baby only through the significant and active involvement of a woman's body. Splooging in a woman doesn't make a baby. Sorry, lads. Splooging in a woman gives her one of the many, many ingredients her body needs to make a baby.

No matter how much sex you have, there will NEVER, ever, be a baby unless a woman's body does all this work. (Or, theoretically, unless technology provides a way to simulate all the work that the woman's body does. But we're not there just yet.)

I've used this example before, but let's try it out again:

Let's say you're going to make some cookies. You have all the ingredients you need, and you've got a full kitchen with all the necessary equipment. But then you notice that you're completely and totally out of chocolate chips, without which you absolutely cannot make the cookies you are trying to make.

So you call up a friend and ask if they have some chocolate chips you could use. Success! They do! So they toddle over and drop off the chips, then leave, and you proceed to make the cookies. You mix in all the ingredients, you prepare the dough, you spoon it out, and you bake up the cookies.

Later that night, you have some pals over and you pass around the cookies. And then, for some reason, the friend who gave you the chocolate chips pipes up and says, "Yeah, aren't they great? We made them together!"

You'd be a bit miffed, right? I mean, your friend did give you an important ingredient, but they didn't actually do any of the work. They didn't provide any of the equipment or most of the ingredients or their own time and energy. So why are they trying to take credit for your work?

Claiming that a fertilized egg = a baby is like claiming that a pile of chocolate chips and butter is the same as a finished batch of cookies. It's not even cookie dough yet, since many critical ingredients have yet to be added. Claiming that it's a baby once a man's contribution has been made is like claiming that you helped make the cookies even though all you did was contribute a bag of chocolate chips. Yes, your contribution was important, but it is wrong for you to try to take credit for work you didn't do. Give credit where it is due.


And I'm asexual, so...
*Heartfelt thanks*

No, actually she doesn't. If a woman is planning to have sex with a man but changes her mind and the man forcibly has sex with her anyway, does she have to live with the fact that she intended to have sex? Must she accept the consequences of her decision?

If a man drinks unsafe water and gets a tapeworm, must he live with the tapeworm inside of him because he decided to risk the unsafe water?

Consequences for a decision is one thing, but removing one's control over one's own body as a consequence for a risky decision is far more than a mere consequence. It's rape.

Ok look. Rape is an ENTIRELY different thing when it comes to abortions and the morning after pill. If a woman is raped, then, because it was against her will that she became pregnant, she has every right to take a morning after pill or get an abortion.

And please, don't call me a "rapist" because I'm pro-life.

Say you were burning in the pits of hell. You would be suffering for all eternity. The devil gives you an offer. Sacrifice one random person on the planet, and your suffering will end. Would you take it?

Yes, and it's the nature of your average-and-therefore-selfish-at-the-core human to do so. A random person you don't know dies and your pain ends. Even when you know someone you'll probably give them up under torture to end it.

oh, well, then I don't have to explain, you know what I meant ;)


My favs of idiotic sayings:

"Breathe honey,just breath normally"

"What? You're peeing AGAIN?!"

Ok look. Rape is an ENTIRELY different thing when it comes to abortions and the morning after pill. If a woman is raped, then, because it was against her will that she became pregnant, she has every right to take a morning after pill or get an abortion.

And please, don't call me a "rapist" because I'm pro-life.

why isn't it murder if she gets an abortion then? I mean is that "child" less of a person? because of their conception circumstances?

To me, abortion doesn't seem very "responsible" at all. Abortion is just a way to get out of a problem. It's not actually facing the problem. Not to mention solving the "problem" of pregnancy through abortion would mean KILLING ANOTHER BEING.

And if mothers are having abortions, it's no difference. They simply don't want to own up.



snip

Thats like calling getting medical care for a car accident not responsible

If you're going to say that having sex and getting pregnant is a risk. Then would it be too far of a stretch to say that going out carries a similar risk of being raped?

So you will accept death with absolute calmness? You will take death and have full acceptance of that fact? You risk death with every step you take, accept that and will sit down and take it when it comes?

Umm, yes... But I don't see what that has to do with this...

Sure it does. An egg is alive. Each individual egg would produce a different child (or multiple different children, in the case of monozygotic twins/triplets etc.). Those are distinct and different "potential people."

But the egg is unfertilized. Unless it becomes fertilized can it beconsidered the beginnings of life. And a woman has enough eggs to last her until it is physically incapable for her to have sex.

Snip the rest of that... And...

But without the chocolate chips the cookie could never have been made. You needed the chocolate chips. And yes, I realize that a woman goes through most of the process of making a child, but sex is the beginning of that process. Without sex the process of making a child could never have begun.

Also: Great. Now I'm a neocon bastard...

Also: What did you mean at the end of that post? That you're happy I'll never reproduce?

These kind of anti-abortion arguments don't work with anything else.

"You were driving 50mph over the speed limit and got in a disfiguring car crash, suck for you, live with it."

why isn't it murder if she gets an abortion then? I mean is that "child" less of a person? because of their conception circumstances?

Well, it is still murder. The only difference is that the woman had no previous choice in the matter. Therefore she should be allowed a choice now.

Thats like calling getting medical care for a car accident not responsible

Look, getting an abortion means you kill another human being to solve your problem. That's not responsible. You aren't killing another human being if you get medical care after a car accident.

If you're going to say that having sex and getting pregnant is a risk. Then would it be too far of a stretch to say that going out carries a similar risk of being raped?

Well, I have to admit that there is that risk. I mean, you never know if your date is psychotic and going to rape you.

These kind of anti-abortion arguments don't work with anything else.

"You were driving 50mph over the speed limit and got in a disfiguring car crash, suck for you, live with it."

Exactly. The idea that works for one thing doesn't necessarily have to work for different things which are somewhat related.

Well, it is still murder. The only difference is that the woman had no previous choice in the matter. Therefore she should be allowed a choice now.

so it's okay to kill the baby if you didn't have a "choice" because you value "choice".

I didn't choose to get pregnant any of the times that I did. I ended up with pregnant......even though I didn't choose to be.

so it's okay to kill the baby if you didn't have a "choice" because you value "choice".

I didn't choose to get pregnant any of the times that I did. I ended up with pregnant......even though I didn't choose to be.

But did you choose to have sex? If you did so, then you chose to accept the risk of getting pregnant.

To me, abortion doesn't seem very "responsible" at all. Abortion is just a way to get out of a problem.

The problem is being pregnant when you don't want to be. A perfectly reasonable choice is to stop being pregnant. Whether or not you LIKE that choice doesn't mean a thing unless you are the one who is pregnant.


It's not actually facing the problem.

Hehehehehehehehehehe.

Sure, ok, you just keep telling yourself that. You just keep pretending that women who have abortions are unthinking heartless sluts who are casually getting their pregnancies terminated without a thought in their head.

Meanwhile, those of us here in the real world will talk about real, live women who have real abortions. These women face a serious problem when they find themselves pregnant.

Given that you will never face that problem, I find it adorable that you presume to tell other people how they must do so.


Not to mention solving the "problem" of pregnancy through abortion would mean KILLING ANOTHER BEING.

Meh. We've already established that you are quite comfortable killing other beings through your own negligence and selfish desire to retain your own organs. If women wish to retain their own organs, I don't think you are in any position to criticize their choice.


And if mothers are having abortions, it's no difference. They simply don't want to own up.

Yeah, selfish whores, always worrying about things like how they will feed their born children...


Also: Just a little thing to those who say "Well if a mother doesn't get an abortion she might not be able to have children again!" etc. etc....

If I recall correctly, a large number of abortions actually result in the female reproductive system being so damaged that she cannot have children again.

Nope, that's just a lie that anti-choicers like to spread around. There is actually a higher chance of maternal injury or death from giving birth.


I'm not saying abstaining, I'm saying owning up for their actions. Frankly, if they don't want to get pregnant, they just shouldn't have sex, because there is an undeniable risk of getting pregnant if you have sex.

I've said it a million times: most people accept the risk that a woman may become pregnant if she has heterosexual sex. This says nothing about whether or not she must REMAIN pregnant.

If I eat too much crap food, I may become fat. I accept that as a risk of eating crap food. However, that doesn't mean I must STAY fat for ever and ever. There are plenty of things I can do to make myself non-fat once I have become fat.

A woman who has become pregnant doesn't have to stay pregnant. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of human females who become pregnant DO NOT remain pregnant long enough to give birth. And this is BEFORE you factor in artificial abortions.


Well, no matter how much pain it is, I don't think that you selfishly getting rid of the pain at the cost of someone's life is at all a good thing.

You do. You selfishly avoid personal pain even though it is costing lives that you could be saving. Go donate your bone marrow.


Actually, along that line of thinking...

Say you were burning in the pits of hell. You would be suffering for all eternity. The devil gives you an offer. Sacrifice one random person on the planet, and your suffering will end. Would you take it?
Of course, and so would you. If you were suffering for all eternity you would be out of your mind with pain and you'd be willing to do just about anything to stop it. People who are crazy with pain will do crazy things. That has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic.

Pregnant women are just as rational and moral as any other human beings. They are just as able to make rational moral choices as any other human beings. They are human beings in a difficult situation, who must make a serious choice about their own bodies and their own lives.

I believe that pregnant women deserve to be regarded as full, competent human beings. As such, they deserve to have the same right to decide their personal medical treatment as every other human being. I do not believe that becoming pregnant, or choosing to have sex, strips women of their fundamental human and civil rights.

Yes, yes, I know that YOU believe it does. You believe that choosing to fuck means that a woman has given up her right to say "no" if somebody else wants to use her body. But that's the same type of thinking that leads people to conclude it's not rape if she's a prostitute, or if she's his wife. It's rapist thinking, and it's pathetic.

But did you choose to have sex? If you did so, then you chose to accept the risk of getting pregnant.

If I drive my car to the store I accept the risk of getting into a wreck, does that mean that the ambulance driver should not scrape me off the side of the road and put me back together?

tired of that one?

I ate chicken for dinner last night, if I had gotten salmonella should I chalk that up to me being a gluttonous bitch and I deserve the consequences?

Ok look. Rape is an ENTIRELY different thing when it comes to abortions and the morning after pill. If a woman is raped, then, because it was against her will that she became pregnant, she has every right to take a morning after pill or get an abortion.

And please, don't call me a "rapist" because I'm pro-life.

Oh, no. Please don't misundestand. I'm not calling you a rapist.

I'm all for fewer abortions.

I'm calling people who believe it's alright to force their agendas onto the bodies of women against their will rapists. :)

Umm, yes... But I don't see what that has to do with this...

If you take a risk and lose you will always try to find a way out of it. My example is relevant because when you are about to die you won't just lie down and take it, it make not be something that you want or can control... but you will want to live. You knew that going outside was a risk, you took it and you are dying for it. But it isn't something you will take without a thought to surviving.

In other words, I'm trying to convey a point and failing horribly :D

But the egg is unfertilized. Unless it becomes fertilized can it beconsidered the beginnings of life.

Why that point? What is so special about fertilization? It is only one of the many steps along the process of human development, so why is fertilization so magical?


And a woman has enough eggs to last her until it is physically incapable for her to have sex.

An average woman actually has far more eggs than she will need in her lifetime, even assuming she never becomes pregnant (and therefore never misses a period). Women who experience at least one pregnancy will actually "discard" more eggs at the end of their life than women who did not become pregnant. There go more "potential people"!


But without the chocolate chips the cookie could never have been made. You needed the chocolate chips. And yes, I realize that a woman goes through most of the process of making a child, but sex is the beginning of that process. Without sex the process of making a child could never have begun.

Yes, I mentioned that. But you snipped the entire lesson. Try reading it again.

And answer the question: would you consider it fair for your friend to claim that the cookies were already made once they handed over the chocolate chips? Would you consider your friend justified in claiming that they "helped make" the cookies?



Also: Great. Now I'm a neocon bastard...

I don't know your political orientation, nor do I know whether or not your parents were lawfully married when you were born. I only know that you are anti-choice.


Also: What did you mean at the end of that post? That you're happy I'll never reproduce?
I am very glad that you are choosing not to have sex. You have some extremely disturbing ideas about how sex robs women of their rights to their own body. I am glad you are refraining from having sex entirely, given those views.

The problem is being pregnant when you don't want to be. A perfectly reasonable choice is to stop being pregnant. Whether or not you LIKE that choice doesn't mean a thing unless you are the one who is pregnant.


Hehehehehehehehehehe.

Sure, ok, you just keep telling yourself that. You just keep pretending that women who have abortions are unthinking heartless sluts who are casually getting their pregnancies terminated without a thought in their head.

Meanwhile, those of us here in the real world will talk about real, live women who have real abortions. These women face a serious problem when they find themselves pregnant.

Given that you will never face that problem, I find it adorable that you presume to tell other people how they must do so.


Meh. We've already established that you are quite comfortable killing other beings through your own negligence and selfish desire to retain your own organs. If women wish to retain their own organs, I don't think you are in any position to criticize their choice.


Yeah, selfish whores, always worrying about things like how they will feed their born children...


Nope, that's just a lie that anti-choicers like to spread around. There is actually a higher chance of maternal injury or death from giving birth.


I've said it a million times: most people accept the risk that a woman may become pregnant if she has heterosexual sex. This says nothing about whether or not she must REMAIN pregnant.

If I eat too much crap food, I may become fat. I accept that as a risk of eating crap food. However, that doesn't mean I must STAY fat for ever and ever. There are plenty of things I can do to make myself non-fat once I have become fat.

A woman who has become pregnant doesn't have to stay pregnant. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of human females who become pregnant DO NOT remain pregnant long enough to give birth. And this is BEFORE you factor in artificial abortions.


You do. You selfishly avoid personal pain even though it is costing lives that you could be saving. Go donate your bone marrow.


Of course, and so would you. If you were suffering for all eternity you would be out of your mind with pain and you'd be willing to do just about anything to stop it. People who are crazy with pain will do crazy things. That has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic.

Pregnant women are just as rational and moral as any other human beings. They are just as able to make rational moral choices as any other human beings. They are human beings in a difficult situation, who must make a serious choice about their own bodies and their own lives.

I believe that pregnant women deserve to be regarded as full, competent human beings. As such, they deserve to have the same right to decide their personal medical treatment as every other human being. I do not believe that becoming pregnant, or choosing to have sex, strips women of their fundamental human and civil rights.

Yes, yes, I know that YOU believe it does. You believe that choosing to fuck means that a woman has given up her right to say "no" if somebody else wants to use her body. But that's the same type of thinking that leads people to conclude it's not rape if she's a prostitute, or if she's his wife. It's rapist thinking, and it's pathetic.

Look, I would willingly give up parts of my body I don't need if I could. I can't because I'm pretty sure it says somewhere in the law that minors can't do that. So don't say I'm just like the people who get abortions.

And remember what I said earlier in the thread? Social services. If you don't want the child, give birth to it, but then hand it over to a preferably governement run orphange or foster system.

And as I've said before. Just because a woman might have a miscarriage on her own DOES NOT MEAN we are allowed to make an "artificial" miscarriage. If the baby has a chance to live, we should give it that chance.

Hmm? I thought somewhere along the lines of this little debate you said something like... Children are part of the mother? So your little arguement about how another human being is taking advantage of the mother is kind of contradicting some of your previous statements...

And I regard fetuses as full, competent human beings.

Hooray. I'M A FRACKING RAPIST.

But did you choose to have sex? If you did so, then you chose to accept the risk of getting pregnant.

So are saying is that Choice IS more valuable than Life, but women have to treat sex like a pregnancy slot machine and don't have the right to change their mind? I'm insane and that sounds pretty nuts to me. :p

I am very glad that you are choosing not to have sex. You have some extremely disturbing ideas about how sex robs women of their rights to their own body. I am glad you are refraining from having sex entirely, given those views.

But it entirely possible that his stance on this issue stems from that asexuality. Perhaps if he were to desire and experience it, his stance would change, or never have existed in the first place...

In other words. New Ritlina, you need to get laid.

So are saying is that Choice IS more valuable than Life, but women have to treat sex like a pregnancy slot machine and don't have the right to change their mind? I'm insane and that sounds pretty nuts to me. :p

choice is only more valuable than life when it's the choice he thinks someone should make.

And I regard fetuses as full, competent human beings.

:eek: I don't know about where you're from, but in my city human beings have more than 10 brain cells.... well most of them.

choice is only more valuable than life when it's the choice he thinks someone should make.

This is a bit harsh, but I'm reminded of somehing George Carlin said, "You don't see these white anti-abortion women volunteering to have black fetuses transplanted into their uteruses, do you? No. You don't see them adopting a whole lot of crack babies, do you? No, that might be something Christ would do."

My point being that the anti-abortion movement has nothing to do with preventing abortion. Because if half the time anti-abortion activists spent doing their shtick were spent promoting adoption and helping to get the hundreds of thousands of unadopted children homes, or improving social structures that make it easier for poor single parents to raise children on their own, or promoting contraception and teachig safer sex, then there would be a LOT fewer abortions!

But it isn't about saving lives. It's about who is in control. It's about who decides who lives or dies. Nothing more.

But without the chocolate chips the cookie could never have been made. You needed the chocolate chips. And yes, I realize that a woman goes through most of the process of making a child, but sex is the beginning of that process. Without sex the process of making a child could never have begun.


IVF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilization) - In vitro fertilisation

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a technique in which egg cells are fertilised by sperm outside the woman's womb.

Pwn'd!

1) It's not the government’s role to mandate whether or not a person can make a personal choice to do what they choose with their own body.
True! It's also not your role to make a choice on what to do with another's body. It's not my role to decide what to do with your body. In other words, the government cannot mandate what you can do with YOUR OWN body, but they can and SHOULD mandate what you can do with someone else's body. (i.e. kill)

The government should not have any say as to whether or not you get tattoos, piercings, or brand yourself (heck I might even say end your own life if that's what you want to do) -- but IF you want to decide that your child, or mine, or me should have tattoos, piercings, brandings, and life surrender, well I'm going to have to step out and say something should be done about that.

While I think that abortion is wrong, I also think that it is wrong for the government to wage a war on abortion.
The government has a duty to protect its citizens. I believe this includes life in the womb; obviously many other people do as well. Did you know that in most of the world if I kill a woman who is pregnant via gun, car, whatever... I have to pay for the life of the woman AND the baby? With that in mind why does "the world" recognize the baby's life when somebody else is responsible for ending the life. How come the baby loses its identity because the hand that ended its life belonged to its mother? Seems pretty contradictory to me.


The best way to stop abortion is via informal social pressure and not by central government making more arbitrary laws. In Ireland, abortion is illegal except when a woman's life is at risk. This violates the EU constitution and various other common laws made in Brussels.
EU, UN, etc... LAME! All attempts at world government are, in fact, the word I just used... LAME! Just as you believe a government has no right to tell you what to do with your body, why should a world government have the right to tell my country what to do with its "body"? To me... it sounds like Ireland is pretty on target...

2) Abortion prevents unwanted children from being born.
And governments prevent wanted children from being adopted. There are more than enough people willing to give homes to children, the problem is most nations make it ridiculously tough.

Crime in the US fell after 1993 because abortions were legalised in 1973. This meant that fewer children born after 1973 were growing up into potential criminals.

In Ireland, where abortion is still effectively illegal, we have the highest rate of violent and property crime in Europe apart from in UK. This is because thousands of children are born into families where they are not properly looked after.
*rolls on the floor laughing* Wow, science at work! Abortion becomes legal, and crime rates are lower 20 years later, therefore we contribute the reason must be that we killed a bunch of future Dahmer's. Not only is the argument ridiculous, it goes against another issue that liberals are supposed to support.

MOST liberals are opposed to the death penalty. MOST will tell you a big reason is that they believe ending an innocent life is wrong. So you mean to tell me these same people who argue against capital punishment would tell you that it's wrong to sentence a criminal to death AFTER they've committed a crime, but it's ok to hand out a death sentence BEFORE the crime was committed because one MIGHT occur? *rolls eyes*

Some others have said, "Here's a guy who is 'against' abortion, but he still 'gets it.'" I have to say, you completely "missed it."

Ugh... You obviously don't read, do you?

Women have enough eggs to last them to the age to where they are simply physically incapable of having a child. Therefore regular menstration really doesn't do anything to "kill life".
And I'm asexual, so...

I do read, I just don't agree with you.

As long as women are capable of becoming pregnant they abviously can become pregnant after an abortion again. Same difference.

Look, I would willingly give up parts of my body I don't need if I could. I can't because I'm pretty sure it says somewhere in the law that minors can't do that. So don't say I'm just like the people who get abortions.

I've already responded to this, by asking if you are planning to donate ALL non-essential parts of your body the moment you attain legal majority. You failed to respond.


And remember what I said earlier in the thread? Social services. If you don't want the child, give birth to it, but then hand it over to a preferably governement run orphange or foster system.

Social services won't be pregnant for me. If I don't want my body to remain pregnant, the responsible thing for me to do is to make sure that it doesn't. Which is exactly what I will do if I ever become pregnant.


And as I've said before. Just because a woman might have a miscarriage on her own DOES NOT MEAN we are allowed to make an "artificial" miscarriage. If the baby has a chance to live, we should give it that chance.

Says the MALE ASEXUAL. "We" wouldn't be giving anything a chance. Other people, specifically female people, would be the ones making 100% of the sacrifice in creating these "new lives." I'm sure you, somebody who will never have to actually bear the burden of producing these "new lives," are quite comfortable offering up other people's bodies for your agendas. But that's nothing special. Most people are quite happy to have somebody else do all the hard work.


Hmm? I thought somewhere along the lines of this little debate you said something like... Children are part of the mother?

Nope. You're getting sloppier.


So your little arguement about how another human being is taking advantage of the mother is kind of contradicting some of your previous statements...

No, it only contradicts your mistaken assumptions.


And I regard fetuses as full, competent human beings.

Then you are clearly divorced from reality. Even if you want to assert that fetuses are human beings, they are obviously not competent as we recognize it. They are physically unable to be so. Born human children are not considered fully competent, yet you want to claim that a FETUS is competent? It is to laugh...


Hooray. I'M A FRACKING RAPIST.
If you believe that you have the right to use other people's bodies for your own agenda without their consent, then yes. You are, fundamentally, a rapist. If you believe that other people's bodies can be used for reproduction without their consent, then yes, you are fundamentally a rapist.

If you don't feel comfortable with that, then perhaps you should take a good long look at why you feel you have the right to use people's bodies against their wishes.

But it entirely possible that his stance on this issue stems from that asexuality. Perhaps if he were to desire and experience it, his stance would change, or never have existed in the first place...

In other words. New Ritlina, you need to get laid.
I think he needs to FIRST develop some basic respect for female human beings, and then perhaps, maybe, he will be ready to start considering having sex with another person. Until then, I wouldn't wish him upon any poor female. Or male, for that matter. Misogynists are lousy in the sack.

Oh, no. Please don't misundestand. I'm not calling you a rapist.

I'm calling him one. Or, at the very least, a wanna-be rapist.


I'm calling people who believe it's alright to force their agendas onto the bodies of women against their will rapists. :)
And that's why. Any person who believes it's okay to use women's bodies for their own purposes against the wishes of those women is a wanna-be rapist in my book. Any person who actively tries to do so is a rapist.

choice is only more valuable than life when it's the choice he thinks someone should make.

We are all free to make our own choices, as long as we choose what he wants us to. Otherwise we're bad people.

Holy shit, he's god!

And remember what I said earlier in the thread? Social services. If you don't want the child, give birth to it, but then hand it over to a preferably governement run orphange or foster system.

So you think it is a responsible action to have a child with the express purpose of handing it off to a flawed system in which the child, unless they are perfectly healthy and white, will be likely to spend a life being shuttled from home to home or live in an overcrowded orphanage?

And I regard fetuses as full, competent human beings.

Eh? Really? Should all women who miscarry be investigated for manslaughter or murder?

And what about embryos? Or does this viewpoint begin at the fetal stage?

What does "competent" mean in your vocabulary?


True! It's also not your role to make a choice on what to do with another's body.

And if I choose not to use my body to support another, developing body?

The government has a duty to protect its citizens. I believe this includes life in the womb; obviously many other people do as well. Did you know that in most of the world if I kill a woman who is pregnant via gun, car, whatever... I have to pay for the life of the woman AND the baby?

(a) I cannot think of a single country which views embryos or fetuses as citizens. Can you find me one?

(b) In the US, laws which punish someone who kills a pregnant woman for a double murder have only been applied after the fetus is viable - after it could conceivably survive outside the womb on its own. Interestingly enough, elective abortion is illegal at this point as well.

(c) Do you think women should be investigated for possible homicide any time that they miscarry? Should we be checking women's menses every month for possible dead citizens? Considering the fact that at least 50% of fertilized eggs will never make it to birth naturally, shouldn't we be devoting the entirety of our medical research money into preventing 50% of our "citizens" from dying?

With that in mind why does "the world" recognize the baby's life when somebody else is responsible for ending the life. How come the baby loses its identity because the hand that ended its life belonged to its mother? Seems pretty contradictory to me.

The purpose of an abortion is not to kill anything. It is to end a pregnancy. If the embryo/fetus could be removed intact and incubated elsewhere with no increased risk to the mother, that would still be an abortion of the pregnancy.

And governments prevent wanted children from being adopted. There are more than enough people willing to give homes to children, the problem is most nations make it ridiculously tough.

Most of those people are not simply willing to give homes to children. They are willing to take in a perfectly healthy, ethnically matched child (which generally means white). A child of an ethnic minority, or one with health problems, is much less likely to ever be adopted. Healthy white infants, on the other hand, are snatched up pretty quickly and most of those people who say they wish to give a child a home are perfectly willing to sit on years-long waiting lists for that perfectly healthy white infant they want.

...why does my response with IVF get ignored, or my statement that the "Virgin" Mary is a Hermaphrodite?

To people who support abortion up to birth, whats the difference between a month premature Baby and an 8 month developed foetus?

To people who support abortion up to birth, whats the difference between a month premature Baby and an 8 month developed foetus?

What pro-lifers fail to understand in this case is that pro-choicers tend to support abortion only in the first and early second trimester, and those who support late term abortion are far and few. Those who support late term abortion do so on medical grounds. The remaining couple who support it all the way say they do because they feel that they and others have no right to control the woman's body.

To people who support abortion up to birth, whats the difference between a month premature Baby and an 8 month developed foetus?
One is living inside the body of another human being. The other is not.

Ok, that gives a good excuse.

Anyways...

If a woman took the risk that she knew could get her pregnant, it is her responsibility to carry the pregnancy instead of being selfish and killing something which has a chance to turn into life. Just because it is not life yet does not mean it cannot turn into life later, and, as I said, killing something which could easily turn into life is just as wrong as killing something which is alive.

And why should it be? Well, it can become life, am I not correct? Therefore, we are techincally killing a living thing before it becomes living. Ok, I'm even confusing myself here. But if it is on the road to becoming a living being, then it should not be killed.

Ur avoiding my point. I dont deny that it can become life, my point is that so can sperm and egg cells, they're just a step behind, and yet we have no obligation to them

And if I choose not to use my body to support another, developing body?
What about it? Barring rape, you can certainly make that choice without opting for abortion. There are choices some refer to as abstinence and birth control. Birth control is an option to help combat even the rape case. If you have a problem with those alternatives then you need to debate the laws of nature and science, not pro-lifers.


(a) I cannot think of a single country which views embryos or fetuses as citizens. Can you find me one? As far as I know, no baby is recognized to have citizenship until a birth certificate is issued. That's why I never said that I knew of any country that recognizes a "fetus" as a citizen, I said that most respect the BABY's life. (Which I'll get to in point B in a moment.)

(b) In the US, laws which punish someone who kills a pregnant woman for a double murder have only been applied after the fetus is viable - after it could conceivably survive outside the womb on its own. Interestingly enough, elective abortion is illegal at this point as well.
This is simply not true. States laws differ in how far into a pregnancy a woman must be for the act you speak to count as a double murder. Even in the ultra-liberal state of California their Constitution was ammended to read that if a person ends the life of a "fetus" in the first tri-mester the perpetrator can be tried for murder if it can be shown that the woman had no intention of ending the pregnancy. I find that rather amusing/interesting, as it goes along with what I said about how the rules should not change based upon who is ending the life.

Furthermore, I decreed that in most of the WORLD the unborn life, if murdered, can seek justice through the legal system. This would not have much to do with U.S. law which you were incorrect about anyway. My argument is held even more valid when I said that "most of the world respects the life of the unborn child" in that most everywhere a person can be found guilty of for numerous crimes even when murder is not recognized as a "valid" crime. This tells us, that tossing around words like "fetus" and "embryo" do not confuse people enough that they can't still see that a third party injurying/killing the life is simply "ok."

(c) Do you think women should be investigated for possible homicide any time that they miscarry? Should we be checking women's menses every month for possible dead citizens? Considering the fact that at least 50% of fertilized eggs will never make it to birth naturally, shouldn't we be devoting the entirety of our medical research money into preventing 50% of our "citizens" from dying?
You used this argument about miscarriage earlier with another user too. It has been equally as ridiculous on both occasions.

A miscarriage is an accidental event. Mothers are not tried for homicide when their children fall out of trees and die. Mothers are not tried for homicide when their children are attacked by sharks. Mothers are not tried for homicide when their children are electrocuted by accident in the home. All of these things share a common bond. That bond is that the mother did not end the child's life. No decision was made; an accident occurred. Now with that said, let us examine closer. I have no intention of dodging "tough" questions. So, since you asked...

A mother should not and would not be tried for homicide in the cases I mentioned, but...

A mother can be tried for manslaughter, neglect, and/or child endangerment if she is found to have contributed to the death of the child in some way. For instance, if a mother told her child to climb a damaged tree; if a mother told her child to swim in shark infested waters; if a mother was found to have known about bad or loose wiring and did absolutely nothing to prevent the electrocution. In all of these cases a woman can be tried for crimes against the child; similarly I WOULD and DO endorse prosecuting a woman if it can be proved that the miscarriage was her fault.


The purpose of an abortion is not to kill anything. It is to end a pregnancy. If the embryo/fetus could be removed intact and incubated elsewhere with no increased risk to the mother, that would still be an abortion of the pregnancy.
The purpose of an abortion may not be to kill anything (although I have to disagree... we just don't say that's the purpose because it doesn't sound pretty and if we did, people would be forced to stare at reality), but it IS the result. The purpose of driving home drunk is not to kill anything either. The purpose of driving home is to reach your destination... point being, purpose does not equal result.


Most of those people are not simply willing to give homes to children. They are willing to take in a perfectly healthy, ethnically matched child (which generally means white). A child of an ethnic minority, or one with health problems, is much less likely to ever be adopted. Healthy white infants, on the other hand, are snatched up pretty quickly and most of those people who say they wish to give a child a home are perfectly willing to sit on years-long waiting lists for that perfectly healthy white infant they want.
This is another fallacy. First of all there are a lot of couples willing to adopt children. Children that aren't white; aren't "perfect" (by whatever means society labels such things); have had a birthday or two. I know, because my wife and I are one of these couples. And we belong to several groups. We are far from alone. Furthermore, there are plenty of "healthy white babies" who go "unsnatched" and live a life in the system. I know two people who are close to me who fit the definition of healthy white babies who went unadopted.

What can be learned of this? Well for starters being healthy and white doesn't guarantee a home. What can be learned from folks like my wife and I and our friends? Well, for starters a child does not have to be "healthy" or "white" to find a home. What can be found in both instances is that my call for government cooperation in helping to make the adoption process work better and not against couples is needed.

Having said that, I can and will concede that a child of different ethnicity or of "poor health" may have more trouble finding a set of loving parents if you can concede the fact that we are out there. Lastly, let us pretend for a moment that you are correct and that there are a lack of people willing to give a "special" child a good life. Does that stop the child from the right to having a life or the opportunities at making his/her life special?

Before you answer, you should probably take note on the background of the person with which you speak. I was born with multiple physical deformities; my parents were welfare recipients my whole childhood; both of my parents were repeat offenders of the law. Now I ask you, should the mistakes of my parents have kept me from having a life. Should my parents "inability" to care for me kept me from seeking out my own future?

I find that often times people who lobby that abortion is a "better" alternative for a child than being born into a poor home or with blindness do not really have the child's best interest at heart. Instead, they like to use the word INABILITY to care for the child when in reality they have a LACK OF INTEREST. Some people don't want to sacrifice, so they disguise their selfishness with the word inability so that they are seen as the victim and not the child.

I'm also offended when people look at me and say things like, "I'm glad that things have worked out for you, but that doesn't mean that they will for everyone." No, they may not, but they don't work out well for every rich kid either. While giving life to a child with special needs does not guarantee that their life will be labeled a "success" to on-lookers, preventing them from being born does ensure that they won't have the option.

What about it? Barring rape, you can certainly make that choice without opting for abortion. There are choices some refer to as abstinence and birth control. Birth control is an option to help combat even the rape case. If you have a problem with those alternatives then you need to debate the laws of nature and science, not pro-lifers.

I have a problem with those alternatives seeing as they didn't work for me.

The zygote, the fetus, all of it is human life. Just because it hasn't developed doesn't mean it's not human.

I disagree. You are not human until you are born.

What about it? Barring rape, you can certainly make that choice without opting for abortion. There are choices some refer to as abstinence and birth control. Birth control is an option to help combat even the rape case. If you have a problem with those alternatives then you need to debate the laws of nature and science, not pro-lifers.

Those choices allow me to lower the chances that I will get pregnant. They say nothing about making a choice not to let my body be used by another in the instance that I do become pregnant.

As far as I know, no baby is recognized to have citizenship until a birth certificate is issued.

Precisely.
That's why I never said that I knew of any country that recognizes a "fetus" as a citizen, I said that most respect the BABY's life. (Which I'll get to in point B in a moment.)

No, that isn't what you said at all. You said that you see "life within the womb" as a citizen of a country that should thus be protected, and that many people agree with you. If so many people agreed with you, one would expect to see "life within the womb" listed in censuses of many countries.

This is simply not true. States laws differ in how far into a pregnancy a woman must be for the act you speak to count as a double murder. Even in the ultra-liberal state of California their Constitution was ammended to read that if a person ends the life of a "fetus" in the first tri-mester the perpetrator can be tried for murder if it can be shown that the woman had no intention of ending the pregnancy. I find that rather amusing/interesting, as it goes along with what I said about how the rules should not change based upon who is ending the life.

The law is often written so that it can be used that way, yes. But it hasn't been used that way. A DA isn't going to try that in a case where he might not be able to get a conviction - when all the defense would have to say is, "He was not aware she was pregnant and thus did not intend to kill an embryo/fetus."

Furthermore, I decreed that in most of the WORLD the unborn life, if murdered, can seek justice through the legal system. This would not have much to do with U.S. law which you were incorrect about anyway.

The US is one of the few countries that ever recognizes such a thing. In some countries, fines are imposed if a woman loses a pregnancy as the result of an attack, but it is very rare indeed for it to be treated as murder.

And I wasn't incorrect about US law. I told you how it was used, not precisely what it says.

You used this argument about miscarriage earlier with another user too. It has been equally as ridiculous on both occasions.

Eh?

It isn't ridiculous at all.

A miscarriage is an accidental event. Mothers are not tried for homicide when their children fall out of trees and die.

They are if it can be shown that the mother was not watching her child as closely as she should have been. You see, we have constructs within the law for accidental deaths caused by negligence - manslaughter or even murder 2 can fall under that category.

A mother who improperly feeds her child can be charged with neglect and manslaughter if said child dies, even if she was unaware that the diet she was feeding her child would be harmful. If a woman does not eat properly just before and during her pregnancy, a miscarriage can result. Both are accidental occurrences. The first, however, counts as neglect. The second does not. Do you think it should?

Mothers are not tried for homicide when their children are attacked by sharks. Mothers are not tried for homicide when their children are electrocuted by accident in the home. All of these things share a common bond. That bond is that the mother did not end the child's life. No decision was made; an accident occurred. Now with that said, let us examine closer. I have no intention of dodging "tough" questions. So, since you asked...

None of those things are due to direct action by the mother. Miscarriage, on the other hand, often can be. If she lives a stressful lifestyle, has a poor diet, or engages in heavy labor during her pregnancy, she could very well induce a miscarriage. Her actions directly cause the result.

A mother can be tried for manslaughter, neglect, and/or child endangerment if she is found to have contributed to the death of the child in some way. For instance, if a mother told her child to climb a damaged tree; if a mother told her child to swim in shark infested waters; if a mother was found to have known about bad or loose wiring and did absolutely nothing to prevent the electrocution. In all of these cases a woman can be tried for crimes against the child; similarly I WOULD and DO endorse prosecuting a woman if it can be proved that the miscarriage was her fault.

So, in other words, you do think that all women who have miscarriages should be investigated. In some cases, her involvement can be immediately ruled out - many miscarriages are the result of chromosomal deficiency. Beyond that, we'd have to investigate the woman's lifestyle to determine whether or not she was at fault.

The purpose of an abortion may not be to kill anything (although I have to disagree... we just don't say that's the purpose because it doesn't sound pretty and if we did, people would be forced to stare at reality), but it IS the result. The purpose of driving home drunk is not to kill anything either. The purpose of driving home is to reach your destination... point being, purpose does not equal result.

You were comparing an event in which the intent was to kill with an event in which it was not. They are disparate.

And you can disagree all you want, but the reality of the situation is that the purpose of an abortion is to end pregnancy.

This is another fallacy.

No, it isn't. The fact of the matter is that healthy, white infants are proportionally much, much, much, much more likely to get adopted. There are those that sit on waiting lists for years to adopt one, while other children continue to grow up in orphanages and foster homes.

I didn't say that no one would adopt such children. I intend to myself one day. I simply pointed out that there are many who will not, and would rather sit and wait for their perfect, white infant.

Furthermore, there are plenty of "healthy white babies" who go "unsnatched" and live a life in the system. I know two people who are close to me who fit the definition of healthy white babies who went unadopted.

Were they put into the system as infants? I highly doubt it.

Having said that, I can and will concede that a child of different ethnicity or of "poor health" may have more trouble finding a set of loving parents if you can concede the fact that we are out there. Lastly, let us pretend for a moment that you are correct and that there are a lack of people willing to give a "special" child a good life. Does that stop the child from the right to having a life or the opportunities at making his/her life special?

We don't have to "pretend." You have just conceded the fact. And no, it doesn't change anything about the child. It just ups the chance that they will lead a shitty life without all those opportunities you speak of. As long as our foster care and adoption system remains as it is, the idea that a woman can be responsible by intentionally bringing a child into the world to place him there is laughable. In truth, the idea that putting a child up for adoption is ever a "responsible" action is a fallacy. It is, by definition, irresponsible. It can, however, be the least irresponsible choice left to a woman.


On a different note, you seem to be convinced that I'm arguing in favor of abortions all the time, or something like that. I am not. In fact, I am personally opposed to abortion. But when an illogical argument is brought up, I point it out. Attempting to label an embryo/fetus as a full human person with all the rights therein, and then saying that the woman carrying it is responsible for its welfare would make all sexually active women nothing more than baby incubators who must live their entire lives terrified that any action they take could cause the death of another. It's bad enough for women when they find that they have miscarried. Do we really want to make it so that they have to be afraid to live their lives just in case they do? I have yet to meet a single person who does not make a clear distinction between the treatment of an embryo/fetus and all born human beings, so why try an argument that depends on that premise?

:eek: I don't know about where you're from, but in my city human beings have more than 10 brain cells.... well most of them.

i highly doubt that...

saying that the woman carrying it is responsible for its welfare would make all sexually active women nothing more than baby incubators.

arn't they?

Um...I don't know if anybody has explained this to you before, but it's possible to become pregnant even if one is married. Marriage is not a contraceptive.

Unwanted pregnancies are less likely to occur with a married couple. And if they do occur, there is a better chance the couple will not break up and will provide a stable home for the child.


Getting an abortion is one way of taking responsibility for one's actions. A woman who chooses to have an abortion instead of carrying to term is taking as much responsibility as a woman who chooses to carry to term, provided that the second woman is also planning to provide the baby with a good home.

You may not like the fact that women go around having sex as if they had the right or something, and you may not like the fact that women control their own bodies as if they had the right or something, but none of that changes the fact that abortion is a perfectly responsible option for women to consider.

Furthermore, as somebody who is so very concerned about what women are up to, I'm sure you are well aware that the majority of women who have abortions are already mothers, right? They're already caring for at least one child. So all your bullshit about them not wanting to "take responsibility" is kind of...well, bullshit, right?
No its not. Carrying the child to term is taking responsibility for the fact they chose to have sex, which btw,the main reason for sex is reproduction. People can't just have sex for fun or whatever and then kill the baby that resulted from such action as if they are throwing away an old hand bag. Thats wrong, thats not being responsible.

Unwanted pregnancies are less likely to occur with a married couple.

Are they? Do all married couples want (more) children?

And if they do occur, there is a better chance the couple will not break up and will provide a stable home for the child.

Is there? Plenty of unmarried people have children together and raise them together with no problem. Plenty of married people end up with an unstable home life. And either couple may find that the best thing for them is not to have said child at all.

No its not. Carrying the child to term is taking responsibility for the fact they chose to have sex, which btw,the main reason for sex is reproduction.

Is it? Most sex is not reproductive. In fact, most sex, even within the confines of a marriage, does not have the purpose of causing a pregnancy. Saying that reproduction is the main reason for sex is like saying that gaining weight is the main reason for eating. One may gain weight by eating. That may even be their goal. But most of us do not eat with the purpose of gaining weight.

People can't just have sex for fun or whatever and then kill the baby that resulted from such action as if they are throwing away an old hand bag. Thats wrong, thats not being responsible.

If one has an abortion, there is no baby.

Now, whether or not a person, morally, should allow the potential life within them to become a baby is another discussion.

Is it? Most sex is not reproductive. In fact, most sex, even within the confines of a marriage, does not have the purpose of causing a pregnancy. Saying that reproduction is the main reason for sex is like saying that gaining weight is the main reason for eating. One may gain weight by eating. That may even be their goal. But most of us do not eat with the purpose of gaining weight.

the main function of sex is reproduction, just as gaining nutrients is the main function of eating. sex that is not reproductive is like overeating.

not the other way around as you seem to believe.

Yeah, but you're killing the baby. Another being. Because somebody else wants you to. And believe me, just because the baby doesn't have a working mind doesn't mean he doesn't have the want to live.
umm yes it does. if you take the brain out of someone's head do clasify them as alive or wanting things. hmmmmmmmmmmm. i think that if a baby has a brain (not just the brain stem, wich just make the hart and lungs go lumpty lump)then no abortion but if not then. it just like those nuts that think stem cells have awareness. I am truly sorry if i offend you or your religon but i am a godless athiest. so you have to use logic to prove that a lump of cells thinks or "wants" anything. but you cant. cheak for brain then gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

the main function of sex is reproduction, just as gaining nutrients is the main function of eating. sex that is not reproductive is like overeating.

not the other way around as you seem to believe.

If that were true, sex would be an awfully poorly evolved/designed/whatever you think process. Especially in human beings (and many other primates), sex rarely leads to reproduction. It does, however, help cement bonds between people - social bonds - and, in general, make people happier. Given the fact that these things happen with an overwhelmingly greater frequency, even when no attempt at preventing reproduction is made, it seems rather silly to say that reproduction is the "main" function of sex. It is something that can happen from sex, but it is hardly the result of most sex, or the reason behind most sex.

Sex that is not reproductive is the norm, rather than the exception, even when reproduction is a goal of the participants.

hmmmmmmmmmmm. i think that if a baby has a brain (not just the brain stem, wich just make the hart and lungs go lumpty lump)then no abortion but if not then.

I'm not arguing with you on the larger point, but I do need to point something out here. Many people seem to have the impression that a brainstem is necessary for a heartbeat, but this is inaccurate biologically. The heart beats spontaneously, through it's own mechanisms, and begins doing so before the first neural synapses are even formed. Later in development, signals from the brain will alter the speed of the heartbeat, but the heartbeat itself always originates within the heart - the sinoatrial node to be exact (if everything is working properly).

...
Would this be a good time for one of those "Don't feed the Troll" posters?

there have been threads like this so many times before and ones about stuff like gay marriage and the such, i agree with this but can you use credible sources next time you make an arguement (the bible, scripture or whatever is NOT a credible source, just becuase you believe it, doesnt mean i dont think its bullshit)

:D This became New Ritlina's thread didn't it. I can't even remember who the OP was, just that I agreed with some of his points.

the main function of sex is reproduction, just as gaining nutrients is the main function of eating. sex that is not reproductive is like overeating.

not the other way around as you seem to believe.

The main function of sex would be procreation, if the year was 1845. Sorry, we're in the year 2007, even if some posters here want to still pretend it's the bygone days of the idyllic 50s, where women slaved over a stove, popping out the damn blighters left right and centre, while her husband brought home money.

We've reached a point in scientific research where we don't need sex for procreation. I refer you to my earlier argument of IVF - In Vitro Fertilisation.

The main function of sex would be procreation, if the year was 1845.

Even in 1845, it would have been silly to say that the main function of sex was procreation. Even then, most sex had nothing to do with making babies.

Even in 1845, it would have been silly to say that the main function of sex was procreation. Even then, most sex had nothing to do with making babies.

Well, in earlier times it was primarily for procreation, but we've developed beyond the need for sex as simply a tool of procreation because we have greater longevity and medical advancements that help ensure we can live a long life.

Well, in earlier times it was primarily for procreation,

When?

Abortion should be legal. I am not saying the fetus is not a life, but it is the mothers choice to have a baby and if the baby is unwanted it will probably be mistreated and grow up badly.

I have a problem with those alternatives seeing as they didn't work for me.

As I said, barring rape....

And unless your pregnancy was a result of rape, or your child's name is Jesus Christ, you didn't try both alternatives as abstinence is 100% effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy.

As I said, barring rape....

And unless your pregnancy was a result of rape, or your child's name is Jesus Christ, you didn't try both alternatives as abstinence is 100% effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy.

...not the way most people use the word. Most people think that "abstinence" means "no penis-in-vagina sex." Although it rarely happens, non-penetrative sexual activity can result in pregnancy. And do you really expect a married couple to refrain from all sexual activity?

People want to have sex. People are not going to stop having sex if they are worried about becoming pregnant. Christian views should not be incorporated in politics.

I disagree. You are not human until you are born.
Many dictionary definitions of the words species, class, and human would all disagree with you. But I'm ok with that... I mean, if people want to rewrite the meanings of words to clear their consciences so be it.

IVF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilization) - In vitro fertilisation



Pwn'd!

You didn't own anyone... there are two types of reproduction amongst living organisms. Those two types are sexual and asexual reproduction. Humans are not asexually reproductive, and "artificial" means of fertilization does not change that fact.

In order for you to be correct a woman would have to have the ability to procreate without man and vice-versa. This is not possible. SEXUAL INTERCOURSE may not be required for reproduction, but SEX is.

Come up with any diagram you want and the fact remains that to produce a human being two ingredients are needed, those two ingredients are the gametes ova and spermatazoon. These are produced by the female and male sexes. Thus sex is most assuredly a requirement for reproduction.

I've already responded to this, by asking if you are planning to donate ALL non-essential parts of your body the moment you attain legal majority. You failed to respond.


Social services won't be pregnant for me. If I don't want my body to remain pregnant, the responsible thing for me to do is to make sure that it doesn't. Which is exactly what I will do if I ever become pregnant.


Says the MALE ASEXUAL. "We" wouldn't be giving anything a chance. Other people, specifically female people, would be the ones making 100% of the sacrifice in creating these "new lives." I'm sure you, somebody who will never have to actually bear the burden of producing these "new lives," are quite comfortable offering up other people's bodies for your agendas. But that's nothing special. Most people are quite happy to have somebody else do all the hard work.


Nope. You're getting sloppier.


No, it only contradicts your mistaken assumptions.


Then you are clearly divorced from reality. Even if you want to assert that fetuses are human beings, they are obviously not competent as we recognize it. They are physically unable to be so. Born human children are not considered fully competent, yet you want to claim that a FETUS is competent? It is to laugh...


If you believe that you have the right to use other people's bodies for your own agenda without their consent, then yes. You are, fundamentally, a rapist. If you believe that other people's bodies can be used for reproduction without their consent, then yes, you are fundamentally a rapist.

If you don't feel comfortable with that, then perhaps you should take a good long look at why you feel you have the right to use people's bodies against their wishes.

Screw it. I don't care if it gets me banned or not. I'm saying it.

YOU, DEAR BOTTLE, ARE A FREAKING FEM-NAZI!

Oh, so now people are responsible if they do what they want? So, if I murdered a bunch of people, because I wanted to, I'm responsible.

God, how many times must I say this?

The woman chose the risk to get pregnant by having sex. She's already given her consent to take that risk. Therefore she gives her consent to accept the consequences if she fails that risk. Doing other wise would be IRRESPONSIBLE.

And I'm not saying that I should be allowed to use other people's bodies without their consent. I'm saying that a being which needs to use the body in order to live should be allowed to use it.

Also: I'm not against abortion because I don't want women to have rights. I'm against abortion because I want people to live. Get it fracking straight.

And I would give as much of my body to help people as possible without seriously disabling me.

Abortion should be legal. I am not saying the fetus is not a life, but it is the mothers choice to have a baby and if the baby is unwanted it will probably be mistreated and grow up badly.

SOCIAL. FREAKING. SERVICES. They exist, you know.

Also: She already chose to take the risk to have the baby by having sex.

Please, whoever is up there, make that the last time I have to say that.

I disagree. You are not human until you are born.

But the baby is on the way to becoming human. Stopping it from becoming human is just as bad as killing it once it becomes human.

Ok: Let me clear this up.

I am NOT Catholic, or any branch of any Abrahamiac religion, who are the usual ones to fight against abortion. I'm more weakly agnostic, and in a religious identity crisis.

I am NOT conservative. I am fairly moderate when it comes to most social issues.

I simply do and say what I believe is right. And allowing something to live is something I believe is right.

You didn't own anyone... there are two types of reproduction amongst living organisms. Those two types are sexual and asexual reproduction. Humans are not asexually reproductive, and "artificial" means of fertilization does not change that fact.

In order for you to be correct a woman would have to have the ability to procreate without man and vice-versa. This is not possible. SEXUAL INTERCOURSE may not be required for reproduction, but SEX is.

Come up with any diagram you want and the fact remains that to produce a human being two ingredients are needed, those two ingredients are the gametes ova and spermatazoon. These are produced by the female and male sexes. Thus sex is most assuredly a requirement for reproduction.

And this has what to do with IVF, which has no actual sex involved.

Screw it. I don't care if it gets me banned or not. I'm saying it.

YOU, DEAR BOTTLE, ARE A FREAKING FEM-NAZI!

Oh, so now people are responsible if they do what they want? So, if I murdered a bunch of people, because I wanted to, I'm responsible.

God, how many times must I say this?

The woman chose the risk to get pregnant by having sex. She's already given her consent to take that risk. Therefore she gives her consent to accept the consequences if she fails that risk. Doing other wise would be IRRESPONSIBLE.

And I'm not saying that I should be allowed to use other people's bodies without their consent. I'm saying that a being which needs to use the body in order to live should be allowed to use it.

Also: I'm not against abortion because I don't want women to have rights. I'm against abortion because I want people to live. Get it fracking straight.

And I would give as much of my body to help people as possible without seriously disabling me.



SOCIAL. FREAKING. SERVICES. They exist, you know.

Also: She already chose to take the risk to have the baby by having sex.

Please, whoever is up there, make that the last time I have to say that.

You have the strangest ideas about what phrases like "taking responsibility" and "accepting consequences" mean.

People have already tried the car accident analogy on you, so let's try a new one. Here, I'll even tailor it towards your apparent perception that sex is somehow bad.

So, I go to a party, where a guy talks me into trying some dangerous and expensive new drug - let's call it Substance Q. I know that Substance Q can sometimes be addictive, but I decide to take that risk and try it anyway. Pretty dumb of me, huh? I become addicted to Substance Q. Now, I have a family to feed, and I know I can't afford to pay for my newly-acquired Substance Q habit and take care of them, too. This leaves me with a choice - keep taking Substance Q and let my family starve, or check myself into rehab and rid my body of its dependence on Substance Q.

Which of those seems more responsible to you?

Accepting that your actions have consequences does not mean giving up the right to change those consequences. If I listen to loud music and get a headache, I accept that the headache is a consequence of my choice to listen to loud music. I take responsibility for that decision. I also take aspirin. If I choose to eat lots of junk food, I'll probably gain weight. I accept that. I take responsibility for that. But I'll still probably diet so I can get back to a weight I'm happy with. I don't have to suffer through the headache for as long as it may last, or never eat healthy food again - no one in their right mind would suggest that I should, any more than they would suggest that a drug addict must stay addicted or that someone who gets in a car accident must refuse medical treatment. Accepting that one may become injured, or become sick, or become addicted, or become fat, or become pregnant, does not require accepting that one has no choice but to stay injured, sick, addicted, fat, or pregnant. Get it?

(Oh, and by the way? If you think believing that women have the right to control their own bodies makes someone a "freaking fem-nazi," then you are a very, very sadly confused person.)

And I'm not saying that I should be allowed to use other people's bodies without their consent. I'm saying that a being which needs to use the body in order to live should be allowed to use it.

So not you're using other people's bodies without their consent, but you want to give others the right too?

Also: I'm not against abortion because I don't want women to have rights. I'm against abortion because I want people to live. Get it fracking straight.

And I would give as much of my body to help people as possible without seriously disabling me.

Even if it seriously disabled or killed you, you've already said you want people to live, you can save more than one person by giving up organs. So you don't want people to live if it inconveniences you.

And how many babies are you going to father and give life to?

You didn't own anyone... there are two types of reproduction amongst living organisms. Those two types are sexual and asexual reproduction. Humans are not asexually reproductive, and "artificial" means of fertilization does not change that fact.

In order for you to be correct a woman would have to have the ability to procreate without man and vice-versa. This is not possible. SEXUAL INTERCOURSE may not be required for reproduction, but SEX is.

Come up with any diagram you want and the fact remains that to produce a human being two ingredients are needed, those two ingredients are the gametes ova and spermatazoon. These are produced by the female and male sexes. Thus sex is most assuredly a requirement for reproduction.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/human-cloning-diagram.gif

Does this count?

Also: She already chose to take the risk to have the baby by having sex.

Please, whoever is up there, make that the last time I have to say that.
There has never been a time where you had to say that; primarily because in many cases, it isn't true. Many young women, particularly in the working classes, are not aware of this risk, either through ignorance of it or through faith in contraception.

Too bad it's not the mother's body: the child has different DNA.



Why? If it's murder (which Scripture and reason say it is) then the government not only has the right but the responsibility to wage war against it.



Good for Ireland. It's standing up for morality even when the majority is against it.



Irrelevant. Wantedness does not determine value.



Oh, please. This is pure speculation. Yes, it might be true that there were fewer criminals, but you cannot possibly link that to abortion.



So let's okay their murders.

Or, we could do the moral thing and through charities support their families and begin teaching the responsibilities of families and marriages.


I agree with everything said here, being a writer, I could not have said it better myself. My thoughts often run faster than my fingers and this sums up perfectly how I feel about this issue.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/human-cloning-diagram.gif

Does this count?

no. thats cloning. it's a whole different thing dude.

Humans lost the ability to detect ovulation sometime in our evolution, to compensate for this and ensure the continuation of our species we are wired to find sex so enjoyable we want to do it all the time. In primitive times it was also in the best interest of the species that this urge result in pregnancy as often as possible. Not so any more. In fact in our modern world our biology sometimes is counter productive to the best interests of our species. Our world is becoming crowded with humans, we are rapidly depleting our resources. The human mind and technology have advanced faster than biological evolution. It is no longer necessary or even desirable that every healthy female try to reproduce as much as possible. In fact it can be argued that in our modern world a person can contribute more torwards the advancement and success of our species with ideas and knowledge than with offspring.
For this reason alone a female should be given the freedom to choose whether or not she wants to have a child, even if she has succumbed to the biological urges in all of us and become pregnant. Childbirth is still risky business even today in modern first world countries. Even in America it still is one of the top ten causes of death for women under 30 and one in 115 births is a stillbirth. An individual should not be forced to undertake such risks against their will. Just because someone has sex, protected or not, doesn't mean that they have given up the right to decide what happens to their own body.

Come up with any diagram you want and the fact remains that to produce a human being two ingredients are needed, those two ingredients are the gametes ova and spermatazoon.

no. thats cloning. it's a whole different thing dude.

It does not fit your ingredients, and the product it a human. It is not completely different. Even if it has no relevance in this thread I took your challenge and as far as I can tell I have won :rolleyes:

Now hand over the money :D

The Bible is PRO-CHOICE

Did that get your attention ? Good.
Fact 1: most people read a translation of the Bible.
Fact 2: many different translations of the Bible exist.
Fact 3: those translations often disagree on what the text actually says.
Fact 4: the "eye for an eye, life for a life" passage is such a source of disagreement. Some translations state that the loss of life of the fetus is included in the life for life. Others say only killing the mother is murder and the killing of the fetus gives the father the right to demand monetary compensation for the inconvenience.
Fact 5: all throughout the Bible there are dozens of examples of when it is ok to kill women who can be pregnant. Good examples are victims of rape within city limits and adulterers. In none of these cases a 9-month waiting period to avoid killing the offspring is recommended, on the contrary even.

Conclusion: based on the whole Bible, the "the father can decide if a fine should be paid" translation is the correct one. This effectively makes Gods position on abortion pro-choice; albeit He places the choice with the father instead of the mother.

Screw it. I don't care if it gets me banned or not. I'm saying it.

YOU, DEAR BOTTLE, ARE A FREAKING FEM-NAZI!

No, I am a feminist. "Fem-Nazi" is what terrified anti-feminists shriek when an uppity woman insists that she has the same rights as men do. I know it is upsetting to be confronted with a woman who does not belong to you, or any other man, but you really are going to have to get used to it. Chill out.


Oh, so now people are responsible if they do what they want? So, if I murdered a bunch of people, because I wanted to, I'm responsible.

If that's the best you can do, I feel sincerely sorry for having argued with you this long. Because that's just sad. I feel like I've been pushing an old woman down a flight of stairs.


God, how many times must I say this?

The woman chose the risk to get pregnant by having sex. She's already given her consent to take that risk. Therefore she gives her consent to accept the consequences if she fails that risk. Doing other wise would be IRRESPONSIBLE.

Poliwanacraca already responded to this wonderfully. Your logic leads us to conclude that people should never be permitted to take aspirin if they get a headache from listening to loud music, because it is IRRESPONSIBLE to not "accept the consequences" of any given action. And "accept the consequences" appears to mean "endure whatever outcome may occur without taking any personal action."

That's pretty much the OPPOSITE of responsible, darling. That's like saying, "If you go skiing and break your leg, the responsible thing to do is to simply endure the pain and the unset bone without having any medical care at all!" That's actually the LEAST responsible thing to do. That's being lazy/stupid/helpless in the face of a problem.


And I'm not saying that I should be allowed to use other people's bodies without their consent. I'm saying that a being which needs to use the body in order to live should be allowed to use it.

Ok, so something that isn't even a person should be allowed to use people's bodies without their consent?

Wow, so women's rights are trumped by a "being" that isn't even a person? Lovely.


Also: I'm not against abortion because I don't want women to have rights. I'm against abortion because I want people to live. Get it fracking straight.

I've said it several million times, but here it is again:

I don't care WHY you want to violate women. Your motivation is irrelevant to me at this point. You want to violate women's bodies for the sake of your own agenda. The fact that you claim to care so much about teh bay-beez doesn't really make a difference. To me, it doesn't really matter why a serial rapist wants to keep raping women...no matter what his reason, he's still a rapist.

You are still a person who believes that female human beings should not have the same rights as male human beings. You are still a person who believes that women's bodies should be used for your agenda against their wishes. It doesn't matter WHY you want to do this, you're still an anti-choicer.


And I would give as much of my body to help people as possible without seriously disabling me.

Then you're a hypocrite.


SOCIAL. FREAKING. SERVICES. They exist, you know.

Find me social services that will experience a pregnancy for a woman, or stop harping on this.


Also: She already chose to take the risk to have the baby by having sex.

Just like you choose to take the risk that you'll be hit by a falling brick when you left your house this morning. I assume that if, heaven forbid, you were struck by a falling brick, you would insist upon not receiving any medical care whatsoever, right? Since you accepted that risk, and you will "do the responsible thing" by enduring all the consequences without taking action yourself.


Please, whoever is up there, make that the last time I have to say that.
You never had to say it, dear. It's bunk, and it's been disproven countless times by me and others on this thread. You can say it as many times as you want and it still won't mean a thing.

Seriously, you need to stop getting so upset with me. Hollering in CAPSLOCK isn't going to get you anywhere. At least half a dozen other people on this thread have noticed exactly the same problems with your thinking that I have. Don't blame me for the fact that those flaws exist in your reasoning. I'm not putting them there, I'm just pointing them out.

YCome up with any diagram you want and the fact remains that to produce a human being two ingredients are needed, those two ingredients are the gametes ova and spermatazoon. These are produced by the female and male sexes. Thus sex is most assuredly a requirement for reproduction.


http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/human-cloning-diagram.gif

Does this count?

no. thats cloning. it's a whole different thing dude.

Very well then, since you dismiss the above image as simply cloning, though it IS a form of reproduction, I will provide IVF diagrams, and I hope I don't have to further explain it.

I already provided a text link to IVF, explaining it as a procedure for allowing women who are infertile to become pregnant, and the method doesn't involve sex, in any way shape or form. In fact, she could become pregnant while still a virgin, as for IVF has shown, the fertilisation happens outside of the uterus.

http://www.childbirthsolutions.com/articles/preconception/saART/ivf.gif
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/images/2811_baby_1.gif

As the second diagram shows, you don't even need to plant the seed in the donating mother, as the donor for the egg as well as the sperm are just that, donors, and a third party woman is the one carrying the pregnancy to term. She hasn't donated her eggs nor has her potential male partner given her the fertiliser. She is the one simply carrying the child and providing it with the nutrients it needs; it feeds off her body.

There are other methods outside of IVF that work in a similar way, such as GIFT and ZIFT.

IVF (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577126/In_Vitro_Fertilization_(IVF).html) - yet another link

There, proof that pregnancy does NOT require any sex in any shape or form. It only requires the genetic material of a man and a woman, and for a woman to be the carrier of the genetic material so that it may eventually form into what medicine and science considers to be a human.

Heck, we could get even more simple than all that.

A man could masturbate by himself, give the resulting sperm to a woman, who could then use it to become pregnant. No sex of any kind between the two of them, but look! A pregnancy!

I actually knew a young girl who became pregnant after a particularly intense "make-out" session with her boyfriend. She was still a virgin, but he had reached orgasm and left a "deposit" near her vagina. She was even wearing panties at the time. Those little buggers can seriously swim, I'm telling you. They had never had sex, yet she got pregnant. Magical, that.

I actually knew a young girl who became pregnant after a particularly intense "make-out" session with her boyfriend. She was still a virgin, but he had reached orgasm and left a "deposit" near her vagina. She was even wearing panties at the time. Those little buggers can seriously swim, I'm telling you. They had never had sex, yet she got pregnant. Magical, that.

And I always thought that was an old wives tale! :p

And I always thought that was an old wives tale! :p
Let me tell you, it really sucked for those of us who were in the graduating class behind hers. Just try to imagine the assemblies and sex-ed lectures we had to get. The grown-ups were in utter panic because all us damn fertile teens were groping each other all over the place, and making babies without even FUCKING.

Meanwhile, most of us kids understood that what happened to that girl was a one-in-a-million kind of thing. It's very, very, very, very rare for that sort of thing to occur. But it still happens, and that's all that is needed to prove Jace and Joe wrong. :D

I actually knew a young girl who became pregnant after a particularly intense "make-out" session with her boyfriend. She was still a virgin, but he had reached orgasm and left a "deposit" near her vagina. She was even wearing panties at the time. Those little buggers can seriously swim, I'm telling you. They had never had sex, yet she got pregnant. Magical, that.

That's probably just her excuse.

That's probably just her excuse.
Hey, at least she didn't blame it on God, right?

Hey, at least she didn't blame it on God, right?

Very good point.

Hey, at least she didn't blame it on God, right?

That's true

You have the strangest ideas about what phrases like "taking responsibility" and "accepting consequences" mean.

People have already tried the car accident analogy on you, so let's try a new one. Here, I'll even tailor it towards your apparent perception that sex is somehow bad.

So, I go to a party, where a guy talks me into trying some dangerous and expensive new drug - let's call it Substance Q. I know that Substance Q can sometimes be addictive, but I decide to take that risk and try it anyway. Pretty dumb of me, huh? I become addicted to Substance Q. Now, I have a family to feed, and I know I can't afford to pay for my newly-acquired Substance Q habit and take care of them, too. This leaves me with a choice - keep taking Substance Q and let my family starve, or check myself into rehab and rid my body of its dependence on Substance Q.

Which of those seems more responsible to you?

Accepting that your actions have consequences does not mean giving up the right to change those consequences. If I listen to loud music and get a headache, I accept that the headache is a consequence of my choice to listen to loud music. I take responsibility for that decision. I also take aspirin. If I choose to eat lots of junk food, I'll probably gain weight. I accept that. I take responsibility for that. But I'll still probably diet so I can get back to a weight I'm happy with. I don't have to suffer through the headache for as long as it may last, or never eat healthy food again - no one in their right mind would suggest that I should, any more than they would suggest that a drug addict must stay addicted or that someone who gets in a car accident must refuse medical treatment. Accepting that one may become injured, or become sick, or become addicted, or become fat, or become pregnant, does not require accepting that one has no choice but to stay injured, sick, addicted, fat, or pregnant. Get it?

(Oh, and by the way? If you think believing that women have the right to control their own bodies makes someone a "freaking fem-nazi," then you are a very, very sadly confused person.)


Ugh, but you don't kill someone by going to rehab. Nor do you kill someone if you take aspirin. Nor do you kill someone if you on a diet.

Also: I called her a femnazi because she decided that I'm a rapist only because I want someone to live over her ability to choose. I still don't see what's wrong with letting someone LIVE. You know, have a life. You know, experience things like love, friendship, joy, happiness? You know, the things aborted fetuses will never experience?

Also, Farflorin. If the woman uses artificial insemenation, then she obviously WANTS the child. Now then, if a woman has an abortion mideway through an artificial insemenation, I'm hoping even Bottle will agree with me that that is probably one of the most sickening things ever.

1st Month: Oh, hello doctor, I want a baby.

2nd Month: Wow, this baby is really starting to show!

3rd Month: Well, this baby is getting annoying...

4th Month: God damnit I hate this baby!

5th Month: Oh, hello doctor, I want an abortion.

Yeah. Just changed your mind about the whole thing. Acting like there's not something which is on the road to becoming life in you.

Also: Someone earlier in this thread said something about how the sperm and eggs are one step below a fertilized egg. You forget that they have not yet made contact and joined. The fertilized egg has. The fertilized egg is already growing. Sperm and egg? Ehh, not so much.

<Sniping story about makeout session>

In that case she became pregnant without her own consent. Abortion is fine there.

.

1st Month: Oh, hello doctor, I want a baby.

2nd Month: Wow, this baby is really starting to show!

3rd Month: Well, this baby is getting annoying...

4th Month: God damnit I hate this baby!

5th Month: Oh, hello doctor, I want an abortion.

<snip>.Strawman arguement. No pro choice group I'm aware of advocates abortion beyond the first trimester for non-medical reasons.

So not you're using other people's bodies without their consent, but you want to give others the right too?

But only because the others need to IN ORDER TO SURVIVE. There is no other way that they can survive besides using the woman's body.

No, I am a feminist. "Fem-Nazi" is what terrified anti-feminists shriek when an uppity woman insists that she has the same rights as men do. I know it is upsetting to be confronted with a woman who does not belong to you, or any other man, but you really are going to have to get used to it. Chill out.

If that's the best you can do, I feel sincerely sorry for having argued with you this long. Because that's just sad. I feel like I've been pushing an old woman down a flight of stairs.

Poliwanacraca already responded to this wonderfully. Your logic leads us to conclude that people should never be permitted to take aspirin if they get a headache from listening to loud music, because it is IRRESPONSIBLE to not "accept the consequences" of any given action. And "accept the consequences" appears to mean "endure whatever outcome may occur without taking any personal action."

That's pretty much the OPPOSITE of responsible, darling. That's like saying, "If you go skiing and break your leg, the responsible thing to do is to simply endure the pain and the unset bone without having any medical care at all!" That's actually the LEAST responsible thing to do. That's being lazy/stupid/helpless in the face of a problem.

Ok, so something that isn't even a person should be allowed to use people's bodies without their consent?

Wow, so women's rights are trumped by a "being" that isn't even a person? Lovely.

I've said it several million times, but here it is again:

I don't care WHY you want to violate women. Your motivation is irrelevant to me at this point. You want to violate women's bodies for the sake of your own agenda. The fact that you claim to care so much about teh bay-beez doesn't really make a difference. To me, it doesn't really matter why a serial rapist wants to keep raping women...no matter what his reason, he's still a rapist.

You are still a person who believes that female human beings should not have the same rights as male human beings. You are still a person who believes that women's bodies should be used for your agenda against their wishes. It doesn't matter WHY you want to do this, you're still an anti-choicer.

Then you're a hypocrite.

Find me social services that will experience a pregnancy for a woman, or stop harping on this.

Just like you choose to take the risk that you'll be hit by a falling brick when you left your house this morning. I assume that if, heaven forbid, you were struck by a falling brick, you would insist upon not receiving any medical care whatsoever, right? Since you accepted that risk, and you will "do the responsible thing" by enduring all the consequences without taking action yourself.

You never had to say it, dear. It's bunk, and it's been disproven countless times by me and others on this thread. You can say it as many times as you want and it still won't mean a thing.

Seriously, you need to stop getting so upset with me. Hollering in CAPSLOCK isn't going to get you anywhere. At least half a dozen other people on this thread have noticed exactly the same problems with your thinking that I have. Don't blame me for the fact that those flaws exist in your reasoning. I'm not putting them there, I'm just pointing them out.

Okay, this is going to be quite interesting.

Look, you're a femnazi because you believe one of three things, and I'm not certain which one it is just yet.

1. You believe that women are somehow better than men.

2. You believe that all men are evil bastards.

3. You believe that all men are evil bastards because they take away one right from you so that other people may live.

I know you fit into one of those categories. And each one of those most definetly makes you a femnazi.

Dear god. I sense a flame war. Should I just get out of this now?

GOD. FUCKING. DAMNIT. I said it before, I'll say it again.

The solution to the consequences of all of the examples you've given me which you said are "like the risks you take of getting pregnant" DO NOT INVOLVE KILLING SOMEBODY ELSE.

The being should only be allowed to use the body SO THAT IT CAN SURVIVE.

I can't fucking believe this. You're acting like I'm against abortion because I'm an evil bastard who wants to put women down. Why the fuck would ANYBODY be anti-abortion just because of that? I am purely and totally against abortion because I believe that "teh bay-beez" should live. And also, I'm taking one right away from women so that other people can live. ONE RIGHT. I'm not taking away their right to vote. I'm not taking away their right to own a business. I'm not taking away their right to work. I'm not taking away their right to go out in public. I'm taking away one right. And remember, that is only so that others may live. If that makes me "anti-choice", I accept that. As long as I am still pro-life.

HOW THE BLOODY HELL DOES THAT MAKE ME A HYPOCRITE?

Ok, listen. Social services can't be pregnant for you. But the pregnancy is NOT what most, and I'm pretty sure nearly all women are concerned about when they have abortions. They're concerned about how they will be able to take care of the baby, how they will feed it, how they will clothe it, how they will shelter it. If they simply hand the baby over to social services, they won't have to worry. In fact, give me a story about a woman who had an abortion simply because she didn't want to go through the pregnancy.

Ok, time to refute this arguement, again. And time to have people not listen to it, again.

Solving the consequences of taking, and failing, the risk of going outside your house and having a brick fall on your head DOES NOT kill somebody else, at least not directly. Solving the consequences of taking, and failing, the risk of having sex and getting pregnant DOES kill somebody else. See the difference?

I've said it plenty of times. Don't give me that bull.

Believe me Bottle, if I have any flaws in my arguement, you have an incredible amount more.

*Put on flame protective suit*

This is going to be an interesting one...

Strawman arguement. No pro choice group I'm aware of advocates abortion beyond the first trimester for non-medical reasons.

You obviously don't know many "pro-choice" groups then. And the point here is that someone is having an abortion after she chose to have a fertilized egg implanted in her. After she chose to have a 100% chance of becoming pregnant.

I fully support abortion for at least 14years after birth. You need to know how the liitle blighter is going to turn out. First few times misbehaving you can threaten them with abortion, if that doesn't work, then bye-bye kiddie-winks, into the bucket you go!

After she chose to have a 100% chance of becoming pregnant.

so what about us who used protection and still got pregnant?

In that case she became pregnant without her own consent. Abortion is fine there.
*sigh*
I still don't understand how people who use birth control are for some reason consenting to pregnancy.

1. You believe that women are somehow better than fetuses.

3. You believe that all men are evil bastards because they take away a basic human right from you in favour of something that's not even a human.
Fixed for accuracy.

New Ritlina, why do you have so much faith in the government to provide for unwanted children? There are many more children up for adoption than is ideal.

You obviously don't know many "pro-choice" groups then. And the point here is that someone is having an abortion after she chose to have a fertilized egg implanted in her. After she chose to have a 100% chance of becoming pregnant.Even if a woman chooses to become pregnant, even if she actively seeks out and pays for invitro treatments, it is still her right to terminate that pregnancy within the first trimester. If you don't have a womb yourself, your opinion on this doesn't really matter for shit.

so what about us who used protection and still got pregnant?

You knew there was still a risk, right? That the condom might break? That the birth control pill might not work? Hell, even if you didn't, you should know that sex is the start of reproduction.

I can find no reason why a woman should be stopped from doing whatever the hell she wants with her own body.

*sigh*
I still don't understand how people who use birth control are for some reason consenting to pregnancy.


Fixed for accuracy.

New Ritlina, why do you have so much faith in the government to provide for unwanted children? There are many more children up for adoption than is ideal.

Because they know there is still a risk. There is a risk the pill could not work. If they don't know, it's because they didn't read the label like they should've.

And don't be an ass. Just because I want something which is on the road to becoming a human to live, and because I want to take away one right from women in order to do so doesn't make me somehow evil.

At least the children are living in semi-decent homes. Aborted children are, well, wherever. Most religions, I think, would put them in hell or limbo since they were never baptised.

Hitler's mother considered an abortion but was talked out of if by her doctor. So the divine right to be born is not always a good argument. Imagine what a better world we would live in today George Dubya and his nomark brother Jeb had been abortions.

You knew there was still a risk, right? That the condom might break? That the birth control pill might not work? Hell, even if you didn't, you should know that sex is the start of reproduction.
How do you know the people in the special circumstances didn't know there was a risk? And thousands of people who have abortions didn't realise there was a risk in the first place, by the way.

I can find no reason why a woman should be stopped from doing whatever the hell she wants with her own body.

Chris, you just came into the discussion. I recommend you do one of two things.

1. Read the thread to see mine an other refutements of that arguement.

2. Run for your life. Now.

You knew there was still a risk, right? That the condom might break? That the birth control pill might not work? Hell, even if you didn't, you should know that sex is the start of reproduction.
Yeah, and chances are you knew that the consequence of the risk would be a trip to a clinic to become un-pregnant. Consenting to sex != consenting to pregnancy.

You act like an abortion is some pain-free magical process with no consequences or downside and women go about purposely getting themselves knocked up just so they can have one.

3. You believe that all men are evil bastards because they take away one right from you so that other people may live.

I know you fit into one of those categories. And each one of those most definetly makes you a femnazi.

Dear god. I sense a flame war. Should I just get out of this now?

GOD. FUCKING. DAMNIT. I said it before, I'll say it again.

The solution to the consequences of all of the examples you've given me which you said are "like the risks you take of getting pregnant" DO NOT INVOLVE KILLING SOMEBODY ELSE.

The being should only be allowed to use the body SO THAT IT CAN SURVIVE.

I can't fucking believe this. You're acting like I'm against abortion because I'm an evil bastard who wants to put women down. Why the fuck would ANYBODY be anti-abortion just because of that? I am purely and totally against abortion because I believe that "teh bay-beez" should live. And also, I'm taking one right away from women so that other people can live. ONE RIGHT. I'm not taking away their right to vote. I'm not taking away their right to own a business. I'm not taking away their right to work. I'm not taking away their right to go out in public. I'm taking away one right. And remember, that is only so that others may live. If that makes me "anti-choice", I accept that. As long as I am still pro-life.

HOW THE BLOODY HELL DOES THAT MAKE ME A HYPOCRITE?

because you admit that you want to take away our rights? one right is one right too many.

Ok, listen. Social services can't be pregnant for you. But the pregnancy is NOT what most, and I'm pretty sure nearly all women are concerned about when they have abortions. They're concerned about how they will be able to take care of the baby, how they will feed it, how they will clothe it, how they will shelter it. If they simply hand the baby over to social services, they won't have to worry. In fact, give me a story about a woman who had an abortion simply because she didn't want to go through the pregnancy.
when I was working at the pregnancy crisis center I met a few, in fact I would say at least 40% of the abortions that came through didn't want to go through the pregnancy. Some of them already had other children, and got deathly ill, or they knew they wouldn't be able to work, or they would have to drop out of school, or they would get kicked out of their house, or they just didn't want to go through 9 months of hell.



Solving the consequences of taking, and failing, the risk of going outside your house and having a brick fall on your head DOES NOT kill somebody else, at least not directly. Solving the consequences of taking, and failing, the risk of having sex and getting pregnant DOES kill somebody else. See the difference?


no, because science hasn't found a way to ascribe 'living human being' status to a fertilized egg, or an embryo, or for that matter even a fetus.

I think abortion is morally wrong in most instances. I am pro-choice because I don't think it's morally right for me to legislate my opinion. If the science ever catches up to my opinion I will probably change sides, but until it does a woman's right to choose is more important than my opinion of that choice.

Yeah, and chances are you knew that the consequence of the risk would be a trip to a clinic to become un-pregnant. Consenting to sex != consenting to pregnancy.

You act like an abortion is some pain-free magical process with no consequences or downside and women go about purposely getting themselves knocked up just so they can have one.

Saw the name when I refreshed the NSG page... Knew I was in for quite a ride.

OK.

When you consent to sex you consent to the risk of becoming pregnant. If you don't, that is highly irresponsible. You know that everytime you have sex, no matter how much protection you use, there is still the chance of becoming pregnant.

Most religions, I think, would put them in hell or limbo since they were never baptised.
I was under the impression you were an atheist, but anyway, no reasonably moderate religious person actually believes that...


Saw the name when I refreshed the NSG page... Knew I was in for quite a ride.

OK.

When you consent to sex you consent to the risk of becoming pregnant. If you don't, that is highly irresponsible. You know that everytime you have sex, no matter how much protection you use, there is still the chance of becoming pregnant.
You know that every time you leave your house, and even when you don't, of course, there is a risk of you being raped. Not very high, obviously, but it's still there. Therefore, we should ban all women who have become pregnant from rape from having abortions.

At least the children are living in semi-decent homes. Aborted children are, well, wherever.
Aborted "children" are never children to begin with.

Most religions, I think, would put them in hell or limbo since they were never baptised.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Are you serious? You think that catholicism is "most religions"?! One branch of one religion != most religions. Get out there and see the world and learn something about it. In buddhism, the aborted embryo would just get put in a new body. I get the feeling that the same goes for hindhuism. These are already more religions than your example of a fetal destination.

You knew there was still a risk, right? That the condom might break? That the birth control pill might not work? Hell, even if you didn't, you should know that sex is the start of reproduction.

actually I was told by my doctor that it was a less than 2% chance, and we got pregnant. after that I took more precaution and was told by my doctor that it was "virtually impossible" to get pregnant, and I did, for the second time. I used birth control with the first kid, and birth control and a condom with the second. Apparently sometimes no matter what you do, you still get pregnant.

When you consent to sex you consent to the risk of becoming pregnant. If you don't, that is highly irresponsible.
No, what would be irresponsable is giving birth to a baby (see when it's born, it's a baby, not before) with fetal alcohol syndrome and then giving it up to the system to take care of.
And every time you go skiing you consent to the risk of breaking your leg, doesn't mean the doctor should refuse to set the bone for you.

You know that everytime you have sex, no matter how much protection you use, there is still the chance of becoming pregnant.
And? That doesn't mean I'm consenting to give birth or remain pregnant.

When you consent to sex you consent to the risk of becoming pregnant. If you don't, that is highly irresponsible. You know that everytime you have sex, no matter how much protection you use, there is still the chance of becoming pregnant.
yes, and when you have an abortion you end the pregnancy. what's your point?

because you admit that you want to take away our rights? one right is one right too many.


when I was working at the pregnancy crisis center I met a few, in fact I would say at least 40% of the abortions that came through didn't want to go through the pregnancy. Some of them already had other children, and got deathly ill, or they knew they wouldn't be able to work, or they would have to drop out of school, or they would get kicked out of their house, or they just didn't want to go through 9 months of hell.





no, because science hasn't found a way to ascribe 'living human being' status to a fertilized egg, or an embryo, or for that matter even a fetus.

I think abortion is morally wrong in most instances. I am pro-choice because I don't think it's morally right for me to legislate my opinion. If the science ever catches up to my opinion I will probably change sides, but until it does a woman's right to choose is more important than my opinion of that choice.

Ok. Say that if the government took away your right of privacy in order to catch a large number of suspected terrorists. They find this large number of suspected terrorists, and they number in the hundreds. They were planning to, on one day, hijack as many planes as humanly possible, and fly them into every monument they can find, and as many tall buildings they can find. The government has taken away one of your rights (or more), but has saved the lives of countless people. Without them taking away your rights there would've been no way to stop said terrorists, and countless lives would have been lost. Do you consider what the government did to be wrong? That's the same idea if your right to abortion is taken away, just on a smaller scale.

Once again: They consented to have sex, therefore consenting to the risk of becoming pregnant, therefore consenting to the consquences if they fail the risk. I myself, of course, would gladly see some kind of better "materinity leave" for women if they get pregnant, so that the government pays them the same amount they would normally get from working, and when they are able to work again their employers MUST give them back their job. And frankly, if they're so ashamed of being pregnant during school so that they have to drop out, they should've realized the consquences that sex with her boyfriend might get her. Also: I don't know about where you live, but the homeless shelters around her are suprisingly nice.

No, the law hasn't found a way to ascribe "living human being" status to a fertilized egg, an embryo, or a fetus for that matter.

Ok. Say that if the government took away your right of privacy in order to catch a large number of suspected terrorists. They find this large number of suspected terrorists, and they number in the hundreds. They were planning to, on one day, hijack as many planes as humanly possible, and fly them into every monument they can find, and as many tall buildings they can find. The government has taken away one of your rights (or more), but has saved the lives of countless people. Without them taking away your rights there would've been no way to stop said terrorists, and countless lives would have been lost. Do you consider what the government did to be wrong? That's the same idea if your right to abortion is taken away, just on a smaller scale.
I consider what the government does in that hypothetical to be terribly wrong.

Also: I don't know about where you live, but the homeless shelters around her are suprisingly nice.
Wow. That is possibly the most disgusting statement I have ever heard. Have you no compassion?

Ok. Say that if the government took away your right of privacy in order to catch a large number of suspected terrorists. They find this large number of suspected terrorists, and they number in the hundreds. They were planning to, on one day, hijack as many planes as humanly possible, and fly them into every monument they can find, and as many tall buildings they can find. The government has taken away one of your rights (or more), but has saved the lives of countless people. Without them taking away your rights there would've been no way to stop said terrorists, and countless lives would have been lost. Do you consider what the government did to be wrong? That's the same idea if your right to abortion is taken away, just on a smaller scale.

Once again: They consented to have sex, therefore consenting to the risk of becoming pregnant, therefore consenting to the consquences if they fail the risk. I myself, of course, would gladly see some kind of better "materinity leave" for women if they get pregnant, so that the government pays them the same amount they would normally get from working, and when they are able to work again their employers MUST give them back their job. And frankly, if they're so ashamed of being pregnant during school so that they have to drop out, they should've realized the consquences that sex with her boyfriend might get her. Also: I don't know about where you live, but the homeless shelters around her are suprisingly nice.

No, the law hasn't found a way to ascribe "living human being" status to a fertilized egg, an embryo, or a fetus for that matter.

yeah, I don't like any of that. I don't want the government taking away my rights, I don't want them taking my money to pay other people things that they should take care of for themselves.

You aren't going to win any arguments with me if your solutions and suggestions involve "take away your rights" and "more government programs"

Ok. Say that if the government took away your right of privacy in order to catch a large number of suspected terrorists. They find this large number of suspected terrorists, and they number in the hundreds. They were planning to, on one day, hijack as many planes as humanly possible, and fly them into every monument they can find, and as many tall buildings they can find. The government has taken away one of your rights (or more), but has saved the lives of countless people. Without them taking away your rights there would've been no way to stop said terrorists, and countless lives would have been lost. Do you consider what the government did to be wrong? That's the same idea if your right to abortion is taken away, just on a smaller scale.
In hindsight, it was presumably a good thing to do, but it certainly shouldn't set any precedent for doing it in the future whatsoever.

Okay. Another analogy. A guy is dying and needs a kidney donation. The healthcare workers proceed to grab you off the street, club you on the head, take one of your kidneys and sew you back up. Do you consider what they did to be wrong?

Ok. Say that if the government took away your right of privacy in order to catch a large number of suspected terrorists. They find this large number of suspected terrorists, and they number in the hundreds. They were planning to, on one day, hijack as many planes as humanly possible, and fly them into every monument they can find, and as many tall buildings they can find. The government has taken away one of your rights (or more), but has saved the lives of countless people. Without them taking away your rights there would've been no way to stop said terrorists, and countless lives would have been lost. Do you consider what the government did to be wrong?

Yes, it is wrong for the government to violate my right to privacy.

It is also wrong for you to compare abortion to terrorism. Terrorists are not killing "beings" that live inside the terrorists' own bodies. Terrorists are, in fact, far more similar to people like you: terrorists use other people's bodies and lives to advance their personal agendas, regardless of the consent of those people. Terrorists sacrifice other people's lives for the sake of the terrorists' beliefs. That's precisely what you advocate doing.

Once again: They consented to have sex, therefore consenting to the risk of becoming pregnant, therefore consenting to the consquences if they fail the risk.

And the consequences include possibly BECOMING pregnant. The woman is accepting that she may become pregnant. This has nothing to do with whether or not she REMAINS pregnant.


I myself, of course, would gladly see some kind of better "materinity leave" for women if they get pregnant, so that the government pays them the same amount they would normally get from working, and when they are able to work again their employers MUST give them back their job. And frankly, if they're so ashamed of being pregnant during school so that they have to drop out, they should've realized the consquences that sex with her boyfriend might get her. Also: I don't know about where you live, but the homeless shelters around her are suprisingly nice.

Put down the shovel. For real.


No, the law hasn't found a way to ascribe "living human being" status to a fertilized egg, an embryo, or a fetus for that matter.
Meh. Even if it does, there will be no legal foundation for granting fetuses rights which no born human being possesses, or for stripping away fundamental human rights from pregnant women alone.

Also: I don't know about where you live, but the homeless shelters around her are suprisingly nice.
ever lived in one? I wasn't able to when I was homeless because around here they are for men or battered women. I lived in my car, in the winter, with no heat and nowhere else to go. I had to find people to give me money to get enough gas in my car so that I could move it around so I didn't get it impounded.

Until you have been pregnant, I don't want to hear about "oh, it's just a little pain" and until you have been homeless I don't want to hear "it's not that bad".

I forget that you are 14 sometimes, I suggest you live a little more before you start trying to fix other people's lives to meet what you think is "right".

Okay. Another analogy. A guy is dying and needs a kidney donation. The healthcare workers proceed to grab you off the street, club you on the head, take one of your kidneys and sew you back up. Do you consider what they did to be wrong?
He'll just say that he never asked for it, the way women ask for it when they choose to have sex (as if they had the right to control their own bodies or something).

So modify it slightly:

You unintentionally hit somebody with your car. The person in question now requires a blood transfusion and a kidney and liver transplant to live, as a result of injuries sustained in the accident. Surprise! You are a potential donor!

So the health care workers bonk you over the head, take your blood, and harvest your organs to give to this other person.

How do you feel about it?

I was under the impression you were an atheist, but anyway, no reasonably moderate religious person actually believes that...


You know that every time you leave your house, and even when you don't, of course, there is a risk of you being raped. Not very high, obviously, but it's still there. Therefore, we should ban all women who have become pregnant from rape from having abortions.

No, I'm just saying that most religions in America believe that. So I'm just giving the common consesus of what might happen to that fetus.

God damnit... Ok listen. You cannot consent to being raped. Even if you consent to the risk of going outside which could end up having you be raped, does not mean you consent to rape. Rape is without your choice, and most of the time there is nothing you can do to stop it. Women who became pregnant through rape should be allowed to abort.

Aborted "children" are never children to begin with.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Are you serious? You think that catholicism is "most religions"?! One branch of one religion != most religions. Get out there and see the world and learn something about it. In buddhism, the aborted embryo would just get put in a new body. I get the feeling that the same goes for hindhuism. These are already more religions than your example of a fetal destination.

Oh come on. They are on the road to becoming children, and that's good enough for me. You, Dakini, are making like human life is worth the same as tissue paper.

Ugh, no. All three Abrahamiac religions believe something along the lines of that. The Abrahamaic religions are the most dominant in America. I'm simply giving the common consesus of Americans of where they believe that fetus might go.

actually I was told by my doctor that it was a less than 2% chance, and we got pregnant. after that I took more precaution and was told by my doctor that it was "virtually impossible" to get pregnant, and I did, for the second time. I used birth control with the first kid, and birth control and a condom with the second. Apparently sometimes no matter what you do, you still get pregnant.

"Virtually impossible" still has a risk. No matter how small the risk is, you still took the risk, and should still accept the consequences.

No, what would be irresponsable is giving birth to a baby (see when it's born, it's a baby, not before) with fetal alcohol syndrome and then giving it up to the system to take care of.
And every time you go skiing you consent to the risk of breaking your leg, doesn't mean the doctor should refuse to set the bone for you.

And? That doesn't mean I'm consenting to give birth or remain pregnant.

Well, considering the fact that you probably wouldn't be able to take care of the baby, it's probably more responsible to give the baby up to services since they can provide a much better life to the baby than you can.

Oh, so now you believe in third trimester abortions? Interesting.

God damnit. I've already refuted this one too many times. I'm not refuting it again.

But you consented to the risk. If you don't consent to the consquences of that risk, then you are irresponsible.

yes, and when you have an abortion you end the pregnancy. what's your point?

My point is is that if you have an abortion you kill someone. You kill someone who is only a few months away from becoming another, living, breathing, thinking human being. You stop that someone from ever being able to experience any of the things you ever could. You stop it from experiencing joy, happiness, friendship, love, glee, all of it. Tell me you realize that. Please tell me.

Fine then. Apparently I'm just a 14 year old terrorist rapist who doesn't know shit about anything. In that case I'll just leave. I don't need to post anything more if nobody will read it.

God damnit... Ok listen. Even if you consent to the risk of going outside which could end up having you be raped, does not mean you consent to rape. Rape is without your choice, and most of the time there is nothing you can do to stop it. Women who became pregnant through rape should be allowed to abort.
God damnit... Ok listen. Even if you consent to the risk of having sex which could end up having you becoming pregnant, does not mean you consent to pregnancy. In many circumstances, pregnancy is without your choice, and most of the time there is nothing you can do to stop it. Women who became pregnant should be allowed to abort.

*chuckles* Oh, I'm so annoying.

Also, Farflorin. If the woman uses artificial insemenation, then she obviously WANTS the child. Now then, if a woman has an abortion mideway through an artificial insemenation, I'm hoping even Bottle will agree with me that that is probably one of the most sickening things ever.
.
.
.
Also: Someone earlier in this thread said something about how the sperm and eggs are one step below a fertilized egg. You forget that they have not yet made contact and joined. The fertilized egg has. The fertilized egg is already growing. Sperm and egg? Ehh, not so much.
.
.
.
In that case she became pregnant without her own consent. Abortion is fine there.

I only pointed to IVF because people were saying that having sex meant that the woman would become pregnant. My argument was simply that a child doesn't instantly come from sex. In fact, IVF has a greater chance of ensuring the pregnancy starts more than nature itself, because it has been proven that the fertilised egg may not make it out alive.

In order for the fertilised egg to grow, it must first implant itself in the uterus.

To even become an embryo and eventually a foetus, the body must accept the parasite, as that's what it is until birth. A parasite feeds off its host; a foetus feeds off its host.

Pro-lifers don't like to think of the baby in such terms because it makes it less than human, but, until it has its organs developed to a point where it is able to live outside of the womb, it is just a parasite in the uterus because it's leeching nutrients from the carrier.

PARASITE
1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.

By this definition, until the unborn foetus can live outside of the womb, it is a parasite because it obtains its nutrients from the host, who in this case is the mother.

Regardless of whether or not she wants to be pregnant is of no matter because in either case, the foetus is still a type of parasite.

Why do you think that there are studies done that shown that it's unhealthy for women to have another pregnancy within less than two years of a previous one? It's because she needs to rebuild up her body's nutrients back up to its previous levels, otherwise the next pregnancy has complications.

Hence, another reason for abortion; the timing of the subsequent pregnancy.

But only because the others need to IN ORDER TO SURVIVE. There is no other way that they can survive besides using the woman's body.

AKA, parasite.

Look, you're a femnazi because you believe one of three things, and I'm not certain which one it is just yet.

1. You believe that women are somehow better than men.

2. You believe that all men are evil bastards.

3. You believe that all men are evil bastards because they take away one right from you so that other people may live.

I know you fit into one of those categories. And each one of those most definetly makes you a femnazi.

But by that logic, I'm also a femnazi. I'm a woman and I believe in the right to make the choice about whether or not I want to be pregnant.

In fact, by that logic, all women who believe in the right to make their own reproductive choices would be femnazis because they disagree with another person making a decision about their own body and reproductive system.

You've just labelled all women who have a certain belief as such. Way to go. This really does nothing for your side because you've made the decision that if a woman is pro-choice she must therefore be a femnazi.

Dear god. I sense a flame war. Should I just get out of this now?

You better run for the high hills because in your attempt to flame Bottle, you also flamed me because of my beliefs. In fact, I think you should retreat with your tail between your legs because you're out of your league here with your bald-faced naïveté.

GOD. FUCKING. DAMNIT. I said it before, I'll say it again.

The solution to the consequences of all of the examples you've given me which you said are "like the risks you take of getting pregnant" DO NOT INVOLVE KILLING SOMEBODY ELSE.

How is it killing somebody else if the zygote is nothing more than undefined protein cells? It has been shown that about 50% pregnancies do NOT result in birth and the body is effectively killing the parasite.

The few that end in abortion end in abortion for a number of reasons, including that the female is NOT physically strong enough, in that she hasn't had her level of nutrients replenished in her body to a level that can support both her and the unborn foetus.

It is killing if the foetus can survive outside of the womb, ie: it's got its vital organs developed to the point where it has the core physical characteristics common to all human beings.

The being should only be allowed to use the body SO THAT IT CAN SURVIVE.

Thank you for admitting that it is a parasite because that is precisely what a parasite is.

I can't fucking believe this. You're acting like I'm against abortion because I'm an evil bastard who wants to put women down. Why the fuck would ANYBODY be anti-abortion just because of that? I am purely and totally against abortion because I believe that "teh bay-beez" should live. And also, I'm taking one right away from women so that other people can live. ONE RIGHT. I'm not taking away their right to vote. I'm not taking away their right to own a business. I'm not taking away their right to work. I'm not taking away their right to go out in public. I'm taking away one right. And remember, that is only so that others may live. If that makes me "anti-choice", I accept that. As long as I am still pro-life.

In other words, you have zero qualms in forcing your beliefs on someone else, regardless of what the believe because you're of the contention that because you believe it, it must be the right thing to believe.

Ok, listen. Social services can't be pregnant for you. But the pregnancy is NOT what most, and I'm pretty sure nearly all women are concerned about when they have abortions. They're concerned about how they will be able to take care of the baby, how they will feed it, how they will clothe it, how they will shelter it. If they simply hand the baby over to social services, they won't have to worry. In fact, give me a story about a woman who had an abortion simply because she didn't want to go through the pregnancy.

I see you have offered the bait, so I'll bite and you'll regret this BIG time because you have just said something which is not only asinine but offensive.

Why should I have to carry a child to term? My body isn't able to because i have an auto-immune disorder that requires me to take certain medicine, which if I take while pregnant, it will cause harm to the baby. Further, if I do carry the baby, outside of the medication, that child would put more stress on my vital organs, which my auto-immune disorder has already effected.

But, of course, to this you'll reply that it is a medical necessity. So, I have a reason, but once you allow that, you have to allow other women who want it because there are real risks with pregnancies, many unseen risks.

I have a second-cousin who's wife recently gave birth to a beautiful daughter, but the woman wound up, one day during her pregnancy becoming paralysed because of the way she slept. She woke up one day, unable to feel anything in her body.

The baby had put pressure on her spine.

She has recovered, but there are cases where the woman doesn't recover.

Back to my point, I would be concerned with the effects of the pregnancy on my body because there are physical consequences beyond just gaining weight and feeling the stress in your lower back.

Many women see pregnancy as a barrier because it zaps their energy and some of these women may already have young children to care for, or they have a job and it cuts into their performance, which effects their pay, which means that may have less money with which to support their unborn child, (and children they may already have) with.

Being pregnant does affect your ability to enjoy life; in fact, it takes away many of your rights because of the consequences. You have to devout nine months of your life to this unborn foetus to ensure it grows right.

Of course, once it's clear you're keeping it and it appears as though a miscarriage is highly unlikely, then the woman will worry about the post-natal details.

Ok, time to refute this arguement, again. And time to have people not listen to it, again.

Solving the consequences of taking, and failing, the risk of going outside your house and having a brick fall on your head DOES NOT kill somebody else, at least not directly. Solving the consequences of taking, and failing, the risk of having sex and getting pregnant DOES kill somebody else. See the difference?

Further, how DOES it involve killing someone if she just gets pregnant? You haven't specified HOW.

"Virtually impossible" still has a risk. No matter how small the risk is, you still took the risk, and should still accept the consequences.
I would think that by going through such great lengths not to get pregnant I had demonstrated that I didn't want to be pregnant.



My point is is that if you have an abortion you kill someone.
prove it.

God damnit... Ok listen. Even if you consent to the risk of having sex which could end up having you becoming pregnant, does not mean you consent to pregnancy. In many circumstances, pregnancy is without your choice, and most of the time there is nothing you can do to stop it. Women who became pregnant should be allowed to abort.

God Damnit, you are of course right. Personly I don't like the idea of abortion, but then I'm a man so I will never be pregnante wanted or unwanted.

It is a womans right to choose to have an abortion or not, and my dislike for it does not outweigh my feelings of freedom of choice.

My point is is that if you have an abortion you kill someone. You kill someone who is only a few months away from becoming another, living, breathing, thinking human being. You stop that someone from ever being able to experience any of the things you ever could. You stop it from experiencing joy, happiness, friendship, love, glee, all of it. Tell me you realize that. Please tell me.

Sweet baby Jesus and the orphans!! Why are you so hung up on the fact that everybody deserves to live. The popluation of the earth has doubled in the last 40 years. If people had to get a license to breed the world would be alot better. Benefit junkies, people of lower than average I.Q and people likely to produce deficient children should not be allowed to spawn and if found to have done so, receive compulsory abortions and in the event of concealed pregnancy to full term and birth may be even infanticide. All the prolifers are doing is holding up human evolution.

God Damnit, you are of course right. Personly I don't like the idea of abortion, but then I'm a man so I will never be pregnante wanted or unwanted.

It is a womans right to choose to have an abortion or not, and my dislike for it does not outweigh my feelings of freedom of choice.

Ah, live and let live.

You disagree with the procedure because of what it means, but believe that women have the right to make a choice.

I can respect something like this.

New Ritlina should take note of your stance and consider adapting it. That is if he wants to appear even remotely reasonable.

Ah, live and let live.

You disagree with the procedure because of what it means, but believe that women have the right to make a choice.

I can respect something like this.

New Ritlina should take note of your stance and consider adapting it. That is if he wants to appear even remotely reasonable.

After reading the thread I can wholheartedly agree with farflorin

Okay, this is going to be quite interesting.

Look, you're a femnazi because you believe one of three things, and I'm not certain which one it is just yet.

1. You believe that women are somehow better than men.

Nope, just that women and men are equal.


2. You believe that all men are evil bastards.

Nope.


3. You believe that all men are evil bastards because they take away one right from you so that other people may live.

Nope. Plenty of men don't seek to do this. You happen to want to take human rights away from women, but I don't think the fact that you are male is what causes you to do this.

Honestly, you have a far lower opinion of men than I do. You seem to think that all men are insecure control freaks who feel the need to own women's bodies. You seem to think that all men share your horror at the idea of women actually choosing to control their own lives. You seem to think that all men want to strip women of their human rights.

I, on the other hand, know plenty of men who respect women and regard them as independent individuals who are entitled to control their own bodies. I know plenty of honorable, honest, non-hypocritical men. I am fortunate to have a great many terrific fellows in my life, from my father to my brother to my lover to my friends.

There are some men who are jackasses, just like there are women who are jackasses. It's not like there's some "jackass" gene carried on the Y chromosome. If somebody is a jackass then I'm not going to let them off the hook by simply saying, "Oh, he's a man, that's why he's a jackass." Being male doesn't force you to be a jackass, it's just a lame excuse.


I know you fit into one of those categories. And each one of those most definetly makes you a femnazi.

Then your "knowledge" on this subject is as faulty as on everything else we've discussed so far.


Dear god. I sense a flame war. Should I just get out of this now?

If you cannot behave yourself, then yes. You should leave.


GOD. FUCKING. DAMNIT. I said it before, I'll say it again.

The solution to the consequences of all of the examples you've given me which you said are "like the risks you take of getting pregnant" DO NOT INVOLVE KILLING SOMEBODY ELSE.

So what? You have said that you support allowing women to "kill somebody else" if they are raped. One of the risks in leaving the house is that you may be attacked and raped. Women like me have to accept that risk every time we go out, because it's a fact of life whether we like it or not. So, because I accept that risk, doesn't that mean I'm accepting the risk that I'll be raped and impregnated? So why don't you advocate forcing rape victims to give birth?


The being should only be allowed to use the body SO THAT IT CAN SURVIVE.

So you agree that other people should be allowed to use your body so they can survive, right? You still haven't answered me on that. You are planning to donate ALL non-essential parts of your body as soon as you reach the age of majority, right?


I can't fucking believe this. You're acting like I'm against abortion because I'm an evil bastard who wants to put women down.

No, darling, I'm not. Indeed, I've specifically stated, multiple times, that I don't give a snot why you are against the right to choose. Your motivations are as irrelevant as the motivations of a serial rapist when it comes to the cold hard fact that you want to violate women. WHY you want to violate women doesn't change the fact that you want to violate them.


Why the fuck would ANYBODY be anti-abortion just because of that? I am purely and totally against abortion because I believe that "teh bay-beez" should live. And also, I'm taking one right away from women so that other people can live. ONE RIGHT.

Yep. Just one little right. Just that tiny, insignificant little right to own your own body. A trifle, really. Which is why I'm sure you're more than willing to give up YOUR right to your body for the sake of other peoples' survival, right?


I'm not taking away their right to vote. I'm not taking away their right to own a business. I'm not taking away their right to work. I'm not taking away their right to go out in public. I'm taking away one right.

Well gee, you're just a saint, aren't you? You're letting them still vote and own stuff and work and everything! I mean, sure, they can't actually own their own bodies or make their own medical decisions, but they're WOMEN, right? They oughta be thankful we let them go outside!


And remember, that is only so that others may live. If that makes me "anti-choice", I accept that. As long as I am still pro-life.

Then why do you keep crying about it?


HOW THE BLOODY HELL DOES THAT MAKE ME A HYPOCRITE?

You say one thing and do another. You demand that other people sacrifice their bodies for the good of others, yet you refuse to do so yourself.


Ok, listen. Social services can't be pregnant for you. But the pregnancy is NOT what most, and I'm pretty sure nearly all women are concerned about when they have abortions.

Can't...type...laughing too hard...

Deep, calming breaths.

Honestly, totally serious for a moment on this one: YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY 100% WRONG if you think that the pregnancy is not what women are concerned about when they have abortions. You are so wrong that I can't even begin to express how wrong you are. If you have any desire whatsoever to understand this subject, if you actually give two shits at all about the human beings involved in this subject, then you will educate yourself. Go volunteer at a reproductive health clinic. Go talk to women who have actually had abortions. Hell, come work at the hospital near me, where they frequently have to treat low-income women who performed at-home abortions.

Seriously, if you really do care about human beings, you will do these things before you ever say something so ignorant again.


They're concerned about how they will be able to take care of the baby, how they will feed it, how they will clothe it, how they will shelter it. If they simply hand the baby over to social services, they won't have to worry. In fact, give me a story about a woman who had an abortion simply because she didn't want to go through the pregnancy.

The ability to care for the baby is only one of the many concerns women have. I cannot provide you with "a story" about a woman who had an abortion because she didn't want to go through the pregnancy, because there are literally millions upon millions of such stories. If you had ever actually spoken honestly with women who had abortions, you would know that.


Ok, time to refute this arguement, again. And time to have people not listen to it, again.

You're not refuting anything. You're repeating the same mistakes over and over.


I've said it plenty of times. Don't give me that bull.

Believe me Bottle, if I have any flaws in my arguement, you have an incredible amount more.

You've yet to find one. I encourage you to try, though, it helps me to learn!


*Put on flame protective suit*

This is going to be an interesting one...
Meh. Unlike you, I'm not interested in flaming. But that's probably because I'm on sound ground with my arguments, so there's really no need for me to muddy the waters and try to distract people with insults about "fem-nazis" and so forth.

So what? You have said that you support allowing women to "kill somebody else" if they are raped. One of the risks in leaving the house is that you may be attacked and raped. Women like me have to accept that risk every time we go out, because it's a fact of life whether we like it or not. So, because I accept that risk, doesn't that mean I'm accepting the risk that I'll be raped and impregnated? So why don't you advocate forcing rape victims to give birth?

actually it's a pretty high risk too isn't it? something like 1 in 3 women will be raped in their lifetime in the US? I have to find the source, but I think that's about right.

With my birth control and condom I had a much lower risk of getting pregnant.

I didn't consent to either though, in fact I try to do all I can to prevent both, but all I can doesn't really stop either of them very well does it?:(

My point is is that if you have an abortion you kill someone.
prove it.

Prove it? Oh for shame... :rolleyes:

It's going to have to be Before and After pictures for you then is it?

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/Before_After.jpg

The only way to stop it is to kill it.



Ah, live and let live.

You disagree with the procedure because of what it means, but believe that women have the right to make a choice.

I can respect something like this.

New Ritlina should take note of your stance and consider adapting it. That is if he wants to appear even remotely reasonable.

You can respect something like that? New Ritlina needs to take note and let them have their way for you to think he sounds reasonable?

Okay then, I think the liberals should all let the conservatives have their way (even though they disagree themselves) and then I will think they sound reasonable too... :p

After reading the thread I can wholeheartedly agree with farflorin

;) There, fixed the spelling error for you. :)

I like it when people agree with me. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside.

I have no issues with those who have their beliefs, but make the conscience choice not to forced them onto those who disagree with the beliefs in theory.

So what? You have said that you support allowing women to "kill somebody else" if they are raped. One of the risks in leaving the house is that you may be attacked and raped. Women like me have to accept that risk every time we go out, because it's a fact of life whether we like it or not. So, because I accept that risk, doesn't that mean I'm accepting the risk that I'll be raped and impregnated? So why don't you advocate forcing rape victims to give birth?
:D :D :D :D :D
actually it's a pretty high risk too isn't it? something like 1 in 3 women will be raped in their lifetime in the US? I have to find the source, but I think that's about right.

With my birth control and condom I had a much lower risk of getting pregnant.

I didn't consent to either though, in fact I try to do all I can to prevent both, but all I can doesn't really stop either of them very well does it?:(
Uh... that seems like... a lot. A lot a lot. IIRC it's more like 0.02%...

Prove it? Oh for shame... :rolleyes:

It's going to have to be Before and After pictures for you then is it?

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/Before_After.jpg

The only way to stop it is to kill it.
when does it become a "someone"?

You can respect something like that? New Ritlina needs to take note and let them have their way for you to think he sounds reasonable?
I consider it reasonable if he doesn't force his beliefs onto others. I have no problem if he wants to believe that abortions are evil and that Social Services (SS - anyone else see the underlying tone?) are the answer to the world's abortion problem, that's his choice. But to force it onto others is another thing entirely.

actually it's a pretty high risk too isn't it? something like 1 in 3 women will be raped in their lifetime in the US? I have to find the source, but I think that's about right.

With my birth control and condom I had a much lower risk of getting pregnant.

I didn't consent to either though, in fact I try to do all I can to prevent both, but all I can doesn't really stop either of them very well does it?:(
Yep.

Statistically speaking, I have a greater chance of being raped when I go out of my home than I have of becoming pregnant via sex with my lover. (We use hella contraception, too.)

When I leave my home, I am choosing to take a risk. When I engage in sex with my partner, I am choosing to take a risk. Statistically speaking, the risk is greater in the first case than in the second.

Yet, in neither case will I simply passively "accept" the consequences of my choice. If I am raped, I am not simply going to accept that I took a risk and must now pay for my choice. I'm not going to say, "Oh, well, I knew the risks when I left my house, so I guess I've gotta live with it."

Similarly, if I become pregnant after choosing to have sex with my partner, I'm not going to passively say, "Oh well, I knew the risks, now I've gotta live with this."

In both cases, I will make the responsible, adult choice to take care of my body in the best way I am able. I will exercise my adult reasoning and my capacity for judgment, and I will make the choices that I feel are best for my situation.

:D :D :D :D :D

Uh... that seems like... a lot. A lot a lot. IIRC it's more like 0.02%...

Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey

# Three in four women (76 percent) who reported they had been raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 said that a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, or date committed the assault.31
# One in five (21 percent) women reported she had been raped or physically or sexually assaulted in her lifetime.32
# Nearly one-fifth of women (18 percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives; one in 33 men (three percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives

http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/

snip
:rolleyes:

Before
http://www.aluminum.org/Images/ContentImages/quarry.jpg

After
http://plus.maths.org/issue35/features/dartnell/F22.jpg

What exactly is your point?

Chris, you just came into the discussion. I recommend you do one of two things.

1. Read the thread to see mine an other refutements of that arguement.

2. Run for your life. Now.

I recommend you wake up, realise the insurmountable difficulties in defining when "life" starts, and follow the route of personal freedom.

Fine then. Apparently I'm just a 14 year old terrorist rapist who doesn't know shit about anything. In that case I'll just leave. I don't need to post anything more if nobody will read it.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to getting well. :)

when does it become a "someone"?

When you can take pictures of it.

Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey

# Three in four women (76 percent) who reported they had been raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 said that a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, or date committed the assault.31
# One in five (21 percent) women reported she had been raped or physically or sexually assaulted in her lifetime.32
# Nearly one-fifth of women (18 percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives; one in 33 men (three percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives

http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/
Well, the physical abuse statistics would skew it quite a lot. Even sexual abuse =/= rape, right?

Yes, I know it's wikipedia, but...
In the United States, the adjusted per-capita victimization rate of rape has declined from about 2.4 per 1000 people (age 12 and above) in 1980 to about 0.4 per 1000 people, a decline of about 85%. [8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#Prevalence_and_reports

Sweet baby Jesus and the orphans!! Why are you so hung up on the fact that everybody deserves to live. The popluation of the earth has doubled in the last 40 years. If people had to get a license to breed the world would be alot better. Benefit junkies, people of lower than average I.Q and people likely to produce deficient children should not be allowed to spawn and if found to have done so, receive compulsory abortions and in the event of concealed pregnancy to full term and birth may be even infanticide. All the prolifers are doing is holding up human evolution.

I like you. You're silly. :)

When you can take pictures of it.
Most. Nonsensical. Statement. Ever.

http://home.earthlink.net/~dayvdanls/sperm.jpg

*taps foot nonchalantly*

When you can take pictures of it.

I have pictures of my ovaries are they people?

when does it become a "someone"?

When you can take pictures of it.

I can take pictures of my fingers, does that mean that my fingers are now a 'someone'? :p

:rolleyes:

Before
http://www.aluminum.org/Images/ContentImages/quarry.jpg

After
http://plus.maths.org/issue35/features/dartnell/F22.jpg

What exactly is your point?
Of course! It all makes perfect sense now! :)

I consider it reasonable if he doesn't force his beliefs onto others. I have no problem if he wants to believe that abortions are evil and that Social Services (SS - anyone else see the underlying tone?) are the answer to the world's abortion problem, that's his choice. But to force it onto others is another thing entirely.

I believe slavery is morally wrong and I force my opinion on others by not allowing them to have slaves, I don't care if they like it or not...

I like you. You're silly. :)

No I ain't. My noggins just not right squire. Dropped on me 'ead as a baby (true story - well not dropped, fell out of my pram onto a concrete floor direct onto me bonce).

I can take pictures of my fingers, does that mean that my fingers are now a 'someone'? :p


Of course! It all makes perfect sense now! :)
Pictures of fighter jets clarify any argument. *nods*

I can take pictures of my fingers, does that mean that my fingers are now a 'someone'? :p


I have pictures of my ovaries are they people?



Yes, it's a picture of a part of you... try learning who the person in the mirror is sometime.

Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey

# Three in four women (76 percent) who reported they had been raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 said that a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, or date committed the assault.31
# One in five (21 percent) women reported she had been raped or physically or sexually assaulted in her lifetime.32
# Nearly one-fifth of women (18 percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives; one in 33 men (three percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives

http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/

I also have heard that it's assults (generally unreported) from husband and boyfriends that drive up the rape stat etc. Not peoples normal conseptions of it i.e a stranger lurking in a bush, drugs etc etc.

Still think it's a high percentace though ...but however high a sad fact nevertheless.

when does it become a "someone"?

When it is capable of surviving without you(reasonably capable).

No I ain't. My noggins just not right squire. Dropped on me 'ead as a baby (true story - well not dropped, fell out of my pram onto a concrete floor direct onto me bonce).
You're funny! :) You'll do well here.

Fine then. Apparently I'm just a 14 year old terrorist rapist who doesn't know shit about anything.
Hmm.

Let me try this again.

I don't think you are inherently a bad person. I don't think there is any reason why you must rape women or take away their rights. From talking with you on this thread, I think that your desire to take away women's rights stems from ignorance and profound misinformation rather than from some innate desire to hurt women.

It is okay to be ignorant sometimes. We all start out that way. If you really are 14, then you are quite well-spoken for your age and that bodes well for your mental abilities. You are more than able to learn.

I think you engage in some very sloppy thinking. I think you hold hypocritical and often self-contradictory views. I think your desire to violate other peoples' rights is deplorable. I think you are disturbingly willing to brush aside other people's efforts and suffering in order to make yourself comfortable with your own views.

But I also think you probably mean well, deep down.

I think you need to get educated on this topic. And I don't mean book larnin', I mean real-world experience. I think you need to volunteer at a free clinic or hospital. I think you need to have honest, non-accusatory conversations with real women who have had abortions. I think you need to learn to put a human face on your theories.

I think that doing these things will give you a fresh perspective, because I think you're a decent human being at the core.

Yes, it's a picture of a part of you... try learning who the person in the mirror is sometime.

I never said they were attached to my body. ;)

No I ain't. My noggins just not right squire. Dropped on me 'ead as a baby (true story - well not dropped, fell out of my pram onto a concrete floor direct onto me bonce).

Ah, well then carry on.

*applies Goofball Seal of Approval to your bum*

When it is capable of surviving without you(reasonably capable).

They aren't people until they are eighteen? OMGsh! :eek:

Yes, it's a picture of a part of you... try learning who the person in the mirror is sometime.
I also have a picture of my gallbladder, it's sitting in a jar on a shelf, is it someone?

When it is capable of surviving without you(reasonably capable).

I thought so....

I never said they were attached to my body. ;)

Then they are amputated parts of you, makes no difference, was still a part of you.

I have pictures of my cat, is she a human? (Ignoring the fact that she thinks she is)

http://weaselhut.net/bakaneko/images/cat3.jpg

I thought so....

Then again, I'm a wacko. What do I know? ;)

Then they are amputated parts of you, makes no difference, was still a part of you.

Was. Keyword.

But if they are attached to me, are they human? They need the human body in order to survive, just as the foetus until it reaches a certain point of physical development needs the uterus.

Then they are amputated parts of you, makes no difference, was still a part of you.
So amputated fingers... are... people...

*head explodes*

I also have a picture of my gallbladder, it's sitting in a jar on a shelf, is it someone?...

What part of recognizing yourself are you having the biggest problem with? There are treatments for the inability to self-concept conditions.

So amputated fingers... are... people...

*head explodes*
Or at least according to PootWaddle.

The only time in which abortion should be legal is when it's to save the life of the mother. As well as for major health reasons.

Then again, I'm a wacko. What do I know? ;)

you know the clown arts. that's enough for me ;) people like us should stick together........the "norms" are scary.

I have pictures of my cat, is she a human? (Ignoring the fact that she thinks she is)


Entirely given up on all reaon have you? That's too bad, because your cat needs you to buy food for it.

Entirely given up on all reaon have you? That's too bad, because your cat needs you to buy food for it.


You say this to me, yet Smunkee is the one with a gallbladder on her shelf. :p

And I don't need to buy food for it... it already has food because I bought the food for her yesterday!

You say this to me, yet Smunkee is the one with a gallbladder on her shelf. :p

it was part of me, I wanted to keep it, it's educational........*insert list of random excuses*

it was part of me, I wanted to keep it, it's educational........*insert list of random excuses*

Inserting random excuses is fun.

The only time in which abortion should be legal is when it's to save the life of the mother. As well as for major health reasons.

Who the fuck are you?

See, that's one of the first questions I ask myself when I think of something that other people should or shouldn't be allowed to do; I ask myself, 'Who the fuck am I?'.

Obviously, I have an opinion, beliefs, moral guidelines and voices in my head that tell me right from wrong. They're even correct from time to time. But they're mine. They guide ME. I don't like abortions. I believe that every aborted fetus is the loss of a potential Einstein, DaVinci or Dave Thomas. I'll even share that opinion if asked. But who the fuck am I to decide that abortions are wrong for anybody else? What makes my opinion so special?

And so I ask that of you; Who the fuck are you? What makes your opinion so special that it deserves the weight of law?

Was. Keyword.

But if they are attached to me, are they human? They need the human body in order to survive, just as the foetus until it reaches a certain point of physical development needs the uterus.

No, they need the rest of the body to survive. They too are a part of the body. Really people, self-body recognition shouldn't be so hard, but I supposed once you started from a bad premise you were forced to argue from that position...

you know the clown arts. that's enough for me ;) people like us should stick together........the "norms" are scary.

And they get scarier with each passing day. *huddles closely*

But who the fuck am I to decide that abortions are wrong for anybody else? What makes my opinion so special?
You're LG; you're certifiably insane, so your opinion matters because the doctors need it in order to give you the right medicine. ;)

Who the fuck are you?

See, that's one of the first questions I ask myself when I think of something that other people should or shouldn't be allowed to do; I ask myself, 'Who the fuck am I?'.

Obviously, I have an opinion, beliefs, moral guidelines and voices in my head that tell me right from wrong. They're even correct from time to time. But they're mine. They guide ME. I don't like abortions. I believe that every aborted fetus is the loss of a potential Einstein, DaVinci or Dave Thomas. I'll even share that opinion if asked. But who the fuck am I to decide that abortions are wrong for anybody else? What makes my opinion so special?

And so I ask that of you; Who the fuck are you? What makes your opinion so special that it deserves the weight of law?

QFT.

LG and I are in the same boat.



eww........why's it muddy in here?!