NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you mind rephrasing the first sentence? I'm not sure I understand.

I mean that tissues from known miscarriages have been examined. Sometimes, there is a chromosomal or physical problem with the embryo/fetus. Sometimes, there is not.

So? That's part of the process.

So it is ridiculous to suggest that the mother's body "deliberately" gets pregnant. It isn't and would, in fact, destroy the embryo if its natural defenses were not circumvented by signals from the embryo.

Yes, but the baby DOES give back. Emotional well-being, happiness, joy.

If the mother wants to be pregnant it might do those things. If the mother does not want to be pregnant, being forced to be will bring her emotional hardship on top of the physical issues. So, is it your contention that the embryo/fetus is a parasite if the mother does not want it and a symbiote if she does?

Not to mention there are physical advantages, mostly based on hormomal stuff, but studies have shown, just as one example, that breast feeding lowers the risk of breast cancer.

When was the last time you saw someone breastfeed an embryo or fetus?

When? I must have missed it.

Every time the topic comes up. In my very first post in this thread.

Alright so if you're NOT personally okay with it, may I know the reason?

I personally think that the most moral choice in most cases is for a woman to continue a pregnancy to term, both due to my religious views on the matter and the value I place on the embryo/fetus itself.

Partial Birth Abortion is never medically necessary.

There is no such thing.

Intact dilation and extraction, on the other hand, is a possible option in a medically necessary late-term abortion. Depending on the particular case, it might be the best option.

Claiming that it is "never medically necessary" simply because there is another available procedure is like claiming that aspirin is never medically necessary because we have tylenol. Yes, they are used for much the same purpose, but one may be safer and more effective in a given case than the other.

I also find it hilarious that anyone would suggest that a quick death which allows the fetus to be removed intact is somehow more "barbaric" than ripping it limb from limb and pulling it out in pieces.


Aside from the point that aborted embryos and (later on) fetal matter, have absolutely no medical use, even in stem cell research..... (just FYI, by the time a woman knows she's pregnant, the embryo has progressed too far for stem cell research, so this whole thing is a moot point indeed.)

That isn't completely true. It has progressed well beyond any use in embryonic stem cell research, but there are stem cells that can be obtained from a fetus.

I wasn't going for any side either. I just thought you might be because you picked up on a pro-choicer's argument against a pro-lifer. A natural mistake, no?

I feel quite free to attack arguments from either side, though I'm basically in agreement with Dempublicents' position.



Under the comparison of an embryo to a ten year old child, yes. I don't particularly agree with that comparison, so I'm inclined to say no.


I think we can both agree that the ten year old and the embryo are not the same,though. I don't like the link between destruction/research use of embryos/blastocysts and organ donation. With organ donation, there are two sentient, legal persons (even if one is currently deceased, he or she was recently sentient). With the embryo situation, there's only the 'owner' or 'parent' of the embryos, which ends up being the woman in the abortion scenario, or both a man and woman (hopefully acting as one mind, to avoid extra complications to this idea) in the in vitro fertilization scenario, and the non-sentient embryo.

That isn't completely true. It has progressed well beyond any use in embryonic stem cell research, but there are stem cells that can be obtained from a fetus.

Are you possibly referring to the same stem cells that may be extracted from cord blood?

Are you possibly referring to the same stem cells that may be extracted from cord blood?

No. If I was, I'd refer to umbilical cord blood cells or hematopoetic stem cells. I am referring to stem cells that can be derived from fetuses. The ones I've heard about most often are neural stem cells - committed to a neural fate, but not yet terminally differentiated.

No. If I was, I'd refer to umbilical cord blood cells or hematopoetic stem cells. I am referring to stem cells that can be derived from fetuses. The ones I've heard about most often are neural stem cells - committed to a neural fate, but not yet terminally differentiated.

Neural stem cells. Thanks, Dem.

Neural stem cells. Thanks, Dem.

NP

Ok so you take upon yourself the ability to play god and decide whose life has enough meaning or happiness to live based on whatever your own personal criteria are.

Please show me something, anything, that I have said that indicates that I do this.

Oh, wait, you can't. Because I don't. I can, however, show you something from the very post you're responding to that refutes you:


Nope, I don't think myself qualified to judge "who should live and who should die."

Gee, that sort of sounds like I don't think I'm qualified to judge who should live and who should die, doesn't it?


Go ahead. I know what you're getting at and you're proving that you're not reading my responses. I'm not going to hold your hand for you.

...says the person who just accused me of saying something I explicitly refuted in the very post he quoted. Cute.

I'm glad, at least, that you're apparently capable of figuring out what I'm getting at in between grossly misrepresenting my position. Perhaps you should try thinking about what I'm getting at rather than tilting at strawmen about how I want to kill orphans.


So, relevance?

None to this thread. You were the one who decided to make this a point of dispute by insisting that someone who said "sometimes" religion could be used for ill "didn't know anything about religion."


Oh but it's not just about forcing abortions. It's about promoting abortion anytime the rationale is "well the baby whouldn't have a happy life anyway."


Please show me even one example of me "promoting abortion anytime the baby wouldn't have a happy life." I suspect you'll have a hard time, seeing as I'm largely anti-abortion. (But then, you still haven't grasped the very large difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion," have you?)

Fully developed humans can and do, however, consent to their organs being harvested prior to the event. I'm a potential organ donor myself, because I gave that consent.

I understand that a person can make the decision for the deceased or brain dead. But that's generally allowed under the presumption that the person making the decision in their place understands what the deceased or brain dead persons wishes would be. The fetus has never had the chance to make their wishes known to anyone, so I'm not sure why the same principle would apply in both cases.

A parent can consent to harvesting of organs from their under-age-of-consent child, right?

What if the child didn't like the idea of being harvested? Can that actually stop the parent having the last word?

See where I'm going with that?

A parent can consent to harvesting of organs from their under-age-of-consent child, right?

What if the child didn't like the idea of being harvested? Can that actually stop the parent having the last word?

See where I'm going with that?

Angry Fruit Salad and I already had a pleasant discussion on the matter a few posts back.

A bit late to the party, Grave?

Here's why I won't play your game. You're creating the most improbable of scenarios: A burning lab containing easily accessible and easily identifiable storage media for human embryos, and a trapped person.

Has anybody else noticed how "pro-life" individuals like NB manage to make abortion seem way better than pregnancy and childbirth?

The way they tell it, having an abortion is the easiest thing in the world, and allows you to escape any and all negative outcomes after sex. (Pregnancy and childbirth, on the other hand, are a horribly difficult punishment that must be endured as penance for the sin of fucking.)

Frankly, they make abortion sound way better than it really is.

I just find that weird.

It's also a rather improbable scenario, wouldn't you say? ;)

Because they sit and wait for a healthy, race-matched, newborn, rather than adopting any of the numerous children already in the system.

Not all the time, sometimes they go and adopt a child from a country that isn't doing too well. Personally if I was rich I'd just send them the money so that their entire community can benefit.

Yes, but the baby DOES give back. Emotional well-being, happiness, joy. That counts for a lot.

Ah yes, the wonderful feeling of raising an unwanted child, happiness and joy felt by mother and child alike.

Angry Fruit Salad and I already had a pleasant discussion on the matter a few posts back.

A bit late to the party, Grave?

I know, right? Normally in on the first floor... bit behind right now. I saw the trend after I posted the post - but it was worth saying. :)

I know, right? Normally in on the first floor... bit behind right now. I saw the trend after I posted the post - but it was worth saying. :)

Indeed. I expected you to be at the front lines, fighting the good fight and whatnot.

Sadly, AFS said it before you did, and I don't feel like re-treading ground I've just covered. Perhaps another time.

Ah yes, the wonderful feeling of raising an unwanted child, happiness and joy felt by mother and child alike.

children don't make you happy or joyous or any of that other BS people spout, they make you tired, and cranky and stupid and frustrated. I promise. They aren't the most horrible thing ever, but really don't expect anything from them other than whining and puking and crapping everywhere, also they break your stuff and yeah.

I think maybe 1/2 of the postpartum blues crap is because of the propagated lie that children are supposed to make your life fulfilled......they don't. They are just little people, who need you. They don't have unconditional love, they aren't puppies, and unless you really really really want one and really really really don't mind all the crap (literal and figurative) you probably shouldn't acquire one. Srsly.

children don't make you happy or joyous or any of that other BS people spout, they make you tired, and cranky and stupid and frustrated. I promise. They aren't the most horrible thing ever, but really don't expect anything from them other than whining and puking and crapping everywhere, also they break your stuff and yeah.

I think maybe 1/2 of the postpartum blues crap is because of the propagated lie that children are supposed to make your life fulfilled......they don't. They are just little people, who need you. They don't have unconditional love, they aren't puppies, and unless you really really really want one and really really really don't mind all the crap (literal and figurative) you probably shouldn't acquire one. Srsly.

My children do make me happy, AND joyous. Yes, there's the Diaper of Death, the Projectile Poop and Puke, the pitching of the fits, the breaking things, scribbling on things, falling off of things... falling ON things, all that good stuff. I guess I'm one of the people that keeps the 'lie' propogated. They fulfill me like nothing else ever did. Poop or no poop... what really comes out of their butts is sunshine. :D

Indeed. I expected you to be at the front lines, fighting the good fight and whatnot.

Sadly, AFS said it before you did, and I don't feel like re-treading ground I've just covered. Perhaps another time.

Aah... working double shifts and all that good stuff. I know, I'm slacking. At least there are other people fighting the good fight when I'm not around. :)

<snip>

Sarcasm was implied.

children don't make you happy or joyous or any of that other BS people spout, they make you tired, and cranky and stupid and frustrated. I promise. They aren't the most horrible thing ever, but really don't expect anything from them other than whining and puking and crapping everywhere, also they break your stuff and yeah.


:eek: Who pissed in your wheaties?

I only have one and she does both. Happy and cranky. To say a kid can't turn bad days around? Nope sorry.

I think maybe 1/2 of the postpartum blues crap is because of the propagated lie that children are supposed to make your life fulfilled......they don't. They are just little people, who need you. They don't have unconditional love, they aren't puppies, and unless you really really really want one and really really really don't mind all the crap (literal and figurative) you probably shouldn't acquire one. Srsly.

Postpartum is mainly chemical. I used to think some of it was in their heads until I saw my wife and a couple friends deal with it.

Why so angry today?

Or is my sarcasm detector broken again?

How is this thread staying alive??!! Wait...*gasp* it must be necromacy! Burn the necromancer at the steak!!!! Mmmmmmm...steak....*drool*...

:eek: Who pissed in your wheaties?

I only have one and she does both. Happy and cranky. To say a kid can't turn bad days around? Nope sorry.



Postpartum is mainly chemical. I used to think some of it was in their heads until I saw my wife and a couple friends deal with it.

Why so angry today?

Or is my sarcasm detector broken again?

*taps sarcasm detector* you should probably get that checked out, it seems to be malfunctioning.

*taps sarcasm detector* you should probably get that checked out, it seems to be malfunctioning.

What? I just bought this *turns over detector*

Made in China! Damn it!

What? I just bought this *turns over detector*

Made in China! Damn it!

That's what you get for shopping at Wal*Mart. *nods*

children don't make you happy or joyous or any of that other BS people spout, they make you tired, and cranky and stupid and frustrated. I promise. They aren't the most horrible thing ever, but really don't expect anything from them other than whining and puking and crapping everywhere, also they break your stuff and yeah.

I think maybe 1/2 of the postpartum blues crap is because of the propagated lie that children are supposed to make your life fulfilled......they don't. They are just little people, who need you. They don't have unconditional love, they aren't puppies, and unless you really really really want one and really really really don't mind all the crap (literal and figurative) you probably shouldn't acquire one. Srsly.

as evidenced by that author who was on the colbert report a month or so back (which is why i cant remember his name). he wrote a book on happiness and reported that children dont make you happier. too many downsides to go along with the upsides.

children are great as long as you dont mind never sleeping through the night for the next 5 years or so, never being able to use the bathroom in peace, having to make a plan in order to have time to take a freaking shower, never being able to leave your good stuff out without watching it constantly, never being able to go to the store without someone begging you to buy useless crap. the list can go on and on. if you arent ready for it, its hell.

I'm totally against it unless it's a case of serious medical reasons and rape. Even then I really don't like it. How can someone say they're "pro-choice" and then allow a defenseless child to be killed and thrown in the dumpster without having any say in the matter. to those people that use the lame argument that without abortion there would just be a lot of babies in dumpsters and women with children they can't afford to take care of, there are many more effective and less appalling choices out there.
Don't want teenagers getting pregnant? Teach them better sex-ed and actually encourage the use of condoms instead of telling them that sex is evil. If you worry about families with too many children to support how about trying to improve the foster care and adoption systems. Hell there are even other medical procedures that are covered by insurance that work just as well at preventing pregnancy and don't involve murder :eek:. Instead of treating children like they're some great burdens or throwing them away like garbage why not actually try to improve their lives and teach them enough to keep from getting in a position where some people now think they would have to get an abortion. What pro-choicers are doing is blaming the unborn for society's problems instead of actually trying to fix them.

I'm totally against it unless it's a case of serious medical reasons and rape. Even then I really don't like it. How can someone say they're "pro-choice" and then allow a defenseless child to be killed and thrown in the dumpster without having any say in the matter. to those people that use the lame argument that without abortion there would just be a lot of babies in dumpsters and women with children they can't afford to take care of, there are many more effective and less appalling choices out there.


so its OK to "allow a defenseless child to be killed and thrown in the dumpster without having any say in the matter" if its father did a bad thing?

I'm still trying to figure out the problem with the morning after pill. The morning after "conception" it is still just a random collection of dying sperm and a halfway penetraded egg. how does that resemble life in any way shape or form?:sniper:

The question is not "whose rights trump whose." we know that a fetus has a right to life, and we know that a woman has the right to control her own body. These two rights conflict with one another. Therefore, someone's rights are bound to get trampled on, because the two sets of rights are mutually exclusive.

Therefore, we have ot look at this in a different manner - what are the consequences of banning abortion versus allowing it?

We know what legalized abortion's consequences are - people go into an abortion clinic, get the procedure done, it's unpleasant as hell, and it's unlikely to cause any complications (at least not any moreso than childbirth, I don't think...not really up on the research, but I do know that an abortion performed in a sterile environment by a professional is relatively safe. You can add the disclaimer "for half the parties involved" if you so desire.)

OK, so what if we ban abortion tomorrow? Everything's the same, except abortion clinics are now illegal and law enforcement is trained to treat them as homicides. I'll say a second-degree homicide, just for semantics' sake. We have a lot of people going into secret back alleys in bad neighborhoods for abortions, medical consequences are potentially ruinous, many young women die in the process or suffer severe infections, the STD rate jumps because of unsterilized equipment, and all the while, it doesn't stop people from having sex or getting pregnant.

The bottom line is this - the argument of "We must ban X, Y, and Z to discourage SEX and DRUG USE!" doesn't work. It has a miserable track record. And most of the time, it causes other negative consequences aside from sex and drug use.

Therefore, for these reasons, I do not support banning abortion. And it's not for ideological reasons.

I'm totally against it unless it's a case of serious medical reasons and rape. Even then I really don't like it. How can someone say they're "pro-choice" and then allow a defenseless child to be killed and thrown in the dumpster without having any say in the matter.

another contestant for the burning fertility clinic challenge!

here is the scene. there is a fertility clinic which you are in for some reason. in the fertility clinic there is a petri dish over on the table which you know contains two blastocysts all ready to be implanted. also in the clinic is a two year old child. oh, and the fertility clinic is on fire and you have time to save either the two blastocysts on the petri dish or the toddler, but not both, before the flames and smoke will overcome you. whichever you save will not die in the fire, whichever you don't save will so die. which do you save?

so its OK to "allow a defenseless child to be killed and thrown in the dumpster without having any say in the matter" if its father did a bad thing?

well, obviously. otherwise we'd have to believe that anti-choicers haven't actually put any thought into their position...

well, obviously. otherwise we'd have to believe that anti-choicers haven't actually put any thought into their position...

*smacks self on forehead*

what was i thinking? his thoughtfulness was so obvious from the whole "kill a child and put it in the dumpster" version of abortion.

Erm, we just got over this one, BUT -

I'm pretty much pro-choice, because it's not really my right to say if a woman gets an abortion or not, it's up to her. But there we go.

*edits* YUS FOR THE THREADSTEAL!

im not gonna force my views on any one, but heres my point of view:
you are a woman, you're getting ready to do it, shouldnt you use birthcontrol as well as the dude? if you do and you get pregnant then have an abortion if you are not ready, but if you say oh i forgot, or does it matter then i will slap you silly its your fault your pregnant, so you'll punish the kid for your idiot mistake?!?! that doesnt seem right, in my mind unless you cant afford a kid, you were raped, or it affects your health you should have it. anyone would like to argue please message me to talk

I'm still trying to figure out the problem with the morning after pill. The morning after "conception" it is still just a random collection of dying sperm and a halfway penetraded egg. how does that resemble life in any way shape or form?:sniper:

Ok, if we remove the gun smiley, it seems this person makes a very valid point.

After all, the emergency contraceptive pill is only effective in the first 72 hours following sexual intercourse. It doesn't actually trigger a miscarriage, it is an inhibitor, like the birth control pill, and prevents the fertilised egg from implanting itself.

Ok, if we remove the gun smiley, it seems this person makes a very valid point.

After all, the emergency contraceptive pill is only effective in the first 72 hours following sexual intercourse. It doesn't actually trigger a miscarriage, it is an inhibitor, like the birth control pill, and prevents the fertilised egg from implanting itself.

IIRC, it also helps prevent fertilization.

The question is not "whose rights trump whose." we know that a fetus has a right to life....

Do we?

I'm not sure we know anyone has a 'right to live', except as specifically allowed/assured by their society.

I support a women's a women's right to self determination. Also, a fetus is not a self reliant human being with rights until it is wholly seperate (from the mother) until after birth.
http://www.alf.org/papers/abortion.shtml
http://pro-choicelibertarians.net/

I'M PRO CHOICE ON EVERYTHING!

I'm not sure we know anyone has a 'right to live', except as specifically allowed/assured by their society.

Morning after pill, I'm pretty sure it only inhibits fertilization and that's not abortion that's just a belated dose of the pill.

Burning fertility clinic. That's not a very realistic situation and it doesn't really prove a pint but I'd take the alive baby because it could feel the pain of being burned alive and or suffocating to death and that's a pretty horrifying image to have in your mind.

And I realize that banning abortion could cause back alley unsafe medical procedures which is why i said we should educate people and advise them of ways to prevent pregnancy and the dangers of going through an operation in some van. I'm not some idiot that thinks simply banning things cause problems, it takes progressive social policies working hand in hand with laws to get anything real done.

The argument of not being able to afford a kid is also wrong. By that reasoning we should start killing the elderly once social security runs out.

As of this moment, more people have set their pants on fire than are opposed to abortion. Long may this continue.

Well, I suppose that's one form of contraception.

I'm pro-choice. It's none of my business if someone wants to get an abortion, and it's no one else's business other than mine and my doctor's if I do.

Agreed.

Although, I suppose if you had a loving life partner, who was the father of the child, you should at least discuss it with him.

i find the general outline of the supreme court decision in roe v wade to be suprisingly wise.

abortion on demand in the early stages with increasing need for medical justification as the pregnancy progresses.

Would you include mental illness as a medical justification? For example, if someone who required an abortion used depression or an eating disorder as justification, would you grant it?

Abortion is murder.

Do you eat meat?

Do you own anything made of timber?

If we're talking about murder, we may as well discuss all possible interpretations of the word.

A foetus is not yet a human being, therefore an abortion is not the act killing a human being. However, it is a living being, but a cow is a living being, and they are slaughtered everyday so that we human beings can eat. Trees are living things, and they are cut down (and thus, killed) everyday so that we human beings have shelter.

But we don't call this murder.

At least, most people don't.

100% of pro-Abortionists were not aborted.

Just because someone isn't against abortion, doesn't mean they're PRO-abortion! Seriously, who do you know that's pro-abortion?

"Yeh, dude. Look at that pregnant chick. That baby better be aborted."
"Yeh, man! Abort! Abort! Abort!"
"Let's ABORT ALL BABIES!"

No one loves abortion, but some people, like me for example, are pro-choice. Women should be granted the right to choose what do with her body. How dare anyone say the rights of a being that isn't even born yet are more important than the rights of a living, breathing woman?

This is also what annoys me about the term "pro-life". Just because you believe in the importance of HUMAN RIGHTS, and thus believe that women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, doesn't mean you're anti-life!

I love life. I love kids. I'm not anti-life: I am pro-choice, and that, in essense, makes me pro-life, because I believe that preserveing the quality of life of a living, breathing woman is more important than preserving a bunch of unborn cells.

Rolling squid;13226447']Hitler was unaborted

So was Stalin

infact, 100% of all serial-killers were not aborted.

remember: Abortion saves lives, your kid may grow up to be a serial-killer.

Haha.

I fully support abortion, but one can never forget the gender inequality surrounding it.

If a woman doesn't want a child, she can simply have an abortion, she doesn't even have to tell the man, but if she tells him and he wants the child, he can't stop her from getting an abortion.

Now if she wants the child and he doesn't, she can simply have it and he has to pay, without having any say whatsoever in the matter.

Then women spout nonsense about their right to choose and control their bodies to try and soften the fact that they are having an abortion, killing a fetus. Say abortion, don't be a pansy about what you are doing.

Rolling squid;13225975']for abortion, outlaw it and people won't stop having sex/getting pregnant, so all you'll get are lots more babies in dumpsters/shelters, as well as many more kids being raised by parents that can't support them.

I'd rather be a baby in a dumpster/shelter than a dead baby.

Agreed.

Although, I suppose if you had a loving life partner, who was the father of the child, you should at least discuss it with him.
I would have thought it was implied, but yes, that third party would be inclusive in the decision process.

Would you include mental illness as a medical justification? For example, if someone who required an abortion used depression or an eating disorder as justification, would you grant it?


i would defer to a more educated medical judgement but i think there are mental illnesses severe enough to qualify in the second trimester. it would certainly require professional judgement though.

I'd rather be a baby in a dumpster/shelter than a dead baby.

For the most part, not only are those two things not mutually exclusive, they are very often concurrent.

Would you rather be a baby left to freeze to death or be smothered by rotting garbage or chewed on by rats and die in pain in a dumpster, or would you rather be a bunch of unaware cells that has no sensations at all and are simply removed from the uterus?

I know which one I would pick.

I fully support abortion, but one can never forget the gender inequality surrounding it.

If a woman doesn't want a child, she can simply have an abortion, she doesn't even have to tell the man, but if she tells him and he wants the child, he can't stop her from getting an abortion.

Now if she wants the child and he doesn't, she can simply have it and he has to pay, without having any say whatsoever in the matter.

Then women spout nonsense about their right to choose and control their bodies to try and soften the fact that they are having an abortion, killing a fetus. Say abortion, don't be a pansy about what you are doing.

Of course there is a gender equality about it - only the female of the species is (currently) able to carry offspring to term. The 'inequality' is built in.

If the woman doesn't want the baby, she can't "simply have an abortion"... and the current political will seems to be to make it even LESS simple. Even without the added complication, I doubt that abortion is a simple choice, most of the time.

And - yes - she can abort, and the male can't stop her... but how is thata bad thing? I'd be first to say that the man should be allowed to have the foetus carried to term inside his own body, if he wants it that bad. To INSIST that the female has to carry the 'child' if the male wants it, is to make the female a slave as long as her uterus serves the male agenda.

Is it softening the concept to say that women want the right to choose? No - in fact, that's the problem. Some people see it as a pure abortion issue, but it's really not. Abortion isn't about 'killing foetuses' - it's about 'get this thing out of me NOW'. If we had technology that could remove the foetus intact, with minimal risk to the female - and 'raise' it until it became a viable baby that someone else wanted, very few people would really have a problem with it.

Don't try to confuse the issue - destruction of the foetus is a side-effect of abortion, not the goal. The goal, is emancipation of women from unwilling reproductive slavery.

I'd rather be a baby in a dumpster/shelter than a dead baby.

No you wouldn't.

If you were aborted, you'd not care either way. You'd be dead.

The argument about "the Man wanting the child" - well, if the man wants a child, he can go try to adopt. If that man is in such a f&^#ed up relationship that the woman is not committed to having a child with him (obviously, if she isn't, they most likely were not planning it and it was most likely an abusive and/or meaningless relationship outside of sex, or it's a dead-end relationship which would result in a divorce at some point in time), then isn't it better off the child is NOT born? How many more children need to be born into broken homes, forcing more individuals into reproductive slavery? I see plenty of parents who should have been forced by the state to HAVE abortions - not a nice thing to say, but the truth is not always nice.

If the man doesn't want to be FORCED to pay for a child he did not want, why did he not wear a condom - or better yet, have a vasectomy? Or even better still - just abstain from having sexual intercourse with that female individual?

"Oh, I just shot a load in her and I didn't want that damn kid!" What kind of messed up logic is that? Is that truly how people think? :sniper:

No you wouldn't.

If you were aborted, you'd not care either way. You'd be dead.


And if I wasn't aborted I'd be alive. Which I am. So I do care.

.

Would you rather be a baby left to freeze to death or be smothered by rotting garbage or chewed on by rats and die in pain in a dumpster, or would you rather be a bunch of unaware cells that has no sensations at all and are simply removed from the uterus?

I know which one I would pick.


I'd rather have a shot at living. So I'll take my chances against the rats.

If we had technology that could remove the foetus intact, with minimal risk to the female - and 'raise' it until it became a viable baby that someone else wanted, very few people would really have a problem with it.

I'm of the opinion that the abortion controversy will pretty much end once we do have that technology.

Contraception issues will probably still be controversial, though.

I'm of the opinion that the abortion controversy will pretty much end once we do have that technology. ...

I seriously doubt it

I seriously doubt it

That's nice.

You do realise that newborn babies are very fragile beings, right?
They are?!?
You realise babies can't walk, right?
They can't?!?

Just checking...
Oh, OK

I'd rather be a baby in a dumpster/shelter than a dead baby.

I'd rather have a shot at living. So I'll take my chances against the rats.

You do realise that newborn babies are very fragile beings, right?

You realise babies can't walk, right?

Just checking...

I would have thought it was implied, but yes, that third party would be inclusive in the decision process.

I was just adding on.

And if I wasn't aborted I'd be alive. Which I am. So I do care.

But, since you weren't aborted, you have no basis for comparison...

Also - of course - it might be worth pointing out that abortion is not the only reason a fertilised egg doesn't always become a functional baby.

You might never have been aborted, and still dropped straight through unimplanted, started growing ectopically, miscarried, died in utero... etc.

It's a false dichotomy.. it isn't just 'abort' or 'be born'.

Oh - and, if you WERE a baby in a dumpster, you'd probably have more pressing concerns than 'damn, I'm glad mommy didn't abort me'. Your whole premise is ridiculous.

I'm of the opinion that the abortion controversy will pretty much end once we do have that technology.

Contraception issues will probably still be controversial, though.

Agreed on both points. Maybe.

I'm of the mind that it's all about control, anyway - much more than about 'pro-life-ness'. SO - even if the foetus could be removed unharmed, I'm of the suspicion it would somehow be decided that such an act was immoral or non-scriptural or... etc.

I'm of the mind that it's all about control, anyway - much more than about 'pro-life-ness'. SO - even if the foetus could be removed unharmed, I'm of the suspicion it would somehow be decided that such an act was immoral or non-scriptural or... etc.

And it probably will be so long as there are people who think every one else should ascribe to their line of "moral thinking". There is nothing wrong with that thinking itself. It only becomes a problem when forced on others. If we over come it, deciding each to his own thinking, then the we would reach a point where both sides are happy.

You do realise that newborn babies are very fragile beings, right?

You realise babies can't walk, right?

Just checking...




What are you trying to say?

You know, I just noticed...

MY PANTS.

THEY DO NOT PROTECT FROM THE FLAMES.

Myrth!

As for me, only for necessary medical reasons and rape/incest. However, in those cases, it's still up to the mother to decide.

Yes of course, any woman who accidentally becomes pregnant is evil and must be punished with continuing a pregnancy.

And exactly how would the "ok in the case of rape" work? Wait until after the rape trial? Oh hang on, that would be 3 months after the baby was born.

Agreed on both points. Maybe.

I'm of the mind that it's all about control, anyway - much more than about 'pro-life-ness'. SO - even if the foetus could be removed unharmed, I'm of the suspicion it would somehow be decided that such an act was immoral or non-scriptural or... etc.

Well, the technophobes and misogynists would still be pissed. I'll grant you that. It's just that abortion would no longer be the target of their ire, so there would be no abortion controversy. It'd be a new and different controversy.

I would like to address the biased poll questioning....

Yes, a women has the right to choose.
A factually accurate statement, no wonder it is the #1 answer.

Yes, it helps keep our population under control.
Second opportunity to vote in favor of abortion!

Yes, even though I find it personally wrong, I don't want to force my beliefs on others.
Third opportunity to vote in favor of abortion!

No, the unborn have rights. Abortion is murder.
Ah, the first "No" option, and it is given an extreme caveat.

No, because my religion says so.
Ooo... Second "No" option, also with an extreme caveat.

Yes, other.
Fourth opportunity to vote "yes!"

No, other.
First opportunity to vote "no" without an extreme caveat attached.

Undecided, or other
...Just in case someone participates in the poll when they have no opinion.

Dammit, I just set my pants on fire.
...Just to add some text to further hide the lone "no" option without an extreme caveat.

Option 10.5
One more line for good measure!

======================================

It is painfully obvious, the person who posted this poll is in favor of abortion. It reminds me of the typical framing of the NS issues, where you are given a respectable liberal choice, and an extreme wacko right-wing choice. ...Do you favor A.) raising taxes to care for the handicapped or B.) Execute them all! I guess liberals can't play on a level field?

Since you went out of your way to attach extreme caveats to the pro-life choices, why not add some extreme caveats for the left as well? Yes, a woman should have the right to kill her baby! or Yes, and extend the right to kill her baby up until it is 3 years old and can talk!

Where is the "moderate" view? Abortion should be kept legal, but only used under extreme medical circumstances, in case of rape, incest, or life of the mother. or No, abortion should only be used in rare situations concerning the life of the mother, rape or incest. Those choices don't appear in your poll, although you seemed to have thought of every possible unrelated answer you could, to dilute the actual results.

This poll is anything BUT scientific or fair. It's not even remotely close.

And exactly how would the "ok in the case of rape" work? Wait until after the rape trial? Oh hang on, that would be 3 months after the baby was born.
Then it's the slow justice system that must be addressed, if that's your problem.

As for me, only for necessary medical reasons and rape/incest. However, in those cases, it's still up to the mother to decide.Yes of course, any woman who accidentally becomes pregnant is evil and must be punished with continuing a pregnancy.
You, my friend, has to stop making assumptions about my beliefs, mmmkay? Stop putting words in my mouth, the words you put are based on your generalizations which are rather tasteless anyway. Where in the post did I say or even imply that, hmmmm?

But, since you weren't aborted, you have no basis for comparison...

Basis for comparsion for what? Being dead or being alive?

Also - of course - it might be worth pointing out that abortion is not the only reason a fertilised egg doesn't always become a functional baby.

It my be worth pointing out that out, if this thread was about something other than abortion.

You might never have been aborted, and still dropped straight through unimplanted, started growing ectopically, miscarried, died in utero... etc.

Your adding a bunch of extra variables that don't matter.

It's a false dichotomy.. it isn't just 'abort' or 'be born'.

It's about not being aborted or being aborted.

Having a 0% chance of survival vs. having a very small one.

Oh - and, if you WERE a baby in a dumpster, you'd probably have more pressing concerns than 'damn, I'm glad mommy didn't abort me'.

Never the less you'd still be alive. In the next 5 seconds a garbage man could find you and you could be adopted by Angelina Jolie.

Your whole premise is ridiculous.

I was building off someone elses' comment. Which included 3 options, abortion, dumpster baby, or shelter.

I would like to address the biased poll questioning....

Yes, a women has the right to choose.
A factually accurate statement, no wonder it is the #1 answer.

Yes, it helps keep our population under control.
Second opportunity to vote in favor of abortion!

Yes, even though I find it personally wrong, I don't want to force my beliefs on others.
Third opportunity to vote in favor of abortion!

No, the unborn have rights. Abortion is murder.
Ah, the first "No" option, and it is given an extreme caveat.

No, because my religion says so.
Ooo... Second "No" option, also with an extreme caveat.

Yes, other.
Fourth opportunity to vote "yes!"

No, other.
First opportunity to vote "no" without an extreme caveat attached.

Undecided, or other
...Just in case someone participates in the poll when they have no opinion.

Dammit, I just set my pants on fire.
...Just to add some text to further hide the lone "no" option without an extreme caveat.

Option 10.5
One more line for good measure!

======================================

It is painfully obvious, the person who posted this poll is in favor of abortion. It reminds me of the typical framing of the NS issues, where you are given a respectable liberal choice, and an extreme wacko right-wing choice. ...Do you favor A.) raising taxes to care for the handicapped or B.) Execute them all! I guess liberals can't play on a level field?

Since you went out of your way to attach extreme caveats to the pro-life choices, why not add some extreme caveats for the left as well? Yes, a woman should have the right to kill her baby! or Yes, and extend the right to kill her baby up until it is 3 years old and can talk!

Where is the "moderate" view? Abortion should be kept legal, but only used under extreme medical circumstances, in case of rape, incest, or life of the mother. or No, abortion should only be used in rare situations concerning the life of the mother, rape or incest. Those choices don't appear in your poll, although you seemed to have thought of every possible unrelated answer you could, to dilute the actual results.

This poll is anything BUT scientific or fair. It's not even remotely close.
Nice how you point out the caviats on one site of the arguement and not the other ... If you treat the yes options by the same method you proscribe for the no options there is like the no's a single yes option without a caviat as well

Nice how you point out the caviats on one site of the arguement and not the other ... If you treat the yes options by the same method you proscribe for the no options there is like the no's a single yes option without a caviat as well

Yes, but that would require honesty. *nod*

I would like to address the biased poll questioning....

*snip*

It is painfully obvious, the person who posted this poll is in favor of abortion. It reminds me of the typical framing of the NS issues, where you are given a respectable liberal choice, and an extreme wacko right-wing choice. ...Do you favor A.) raising taxes to care for the handicapped or B.) Execute them all! I guess liberals can't play on a level field?

Since you went out of your way to attach extreme caveats to the pro-life choices, why not add some extreme caveats for the left as well? Yes, a woman should have the right to kill her baby! or Yes, and extend the right to kill her baby up until it is 3 years old and can talk!

WAAAH! The poll isn't biased in the way I want it to be, so it is unfair!

Where is the "moderate" view? Abortion should be kept legal, but only used under extreme medical circumstances, in case of rape, incest, or life of the mother. or No, abortion should only be used in rare situations concerning the life of the mother, rape or incest. Those choices don't appear in your poll, although you seemed to have thought of every possible unrelated answer you could, to dilute the actual results.

1. As you admit, there is at least one correct poll answer for this position. "No, other"

2. There is nothing "moderate" about the position you posit. What, for example, about abortions that are necessary to preserve, not the life, but the health of the mother?

This poll is anything BUT scientific or fair. It's not even remotely close.

ROTFLASTC. Since when is any NSG poll scientific?

ROTFLASTC. Since when is any NSG poll scientific?

Or fair for that matter.

I guess liberals can't play on a level field?

Can you make a single argument without raving about the liberal bogeyman?

Agreed on both points. Maybe.

I'm of the mind that it's all about control, anyway - much more than about 'pro-life-ness'. SO - even if the foetus could be removed unharmed, I'm of the suspicion it would somehow be decided that such an act was immoral or non-scriptural or... etc.
I agree. All anti-choice arguments boil down to "the woman doesn't have the right to make THAT choice because I don't approve of it" and "the woman must submit to what I say her fate is because she has a uterus." Even the ones that claim to be only interested in "saving babies" show not the slightest concern for what happens to those babies after they are born. They only care about maintaining the pregnancy and not about what happens afterwards, so their claims ring false.

Opposition to abortion rights choice has nothing to do with children and everything to do with someone else claiming the right to control my decisions and my life.

Those choices don't appear in your poll, although you seemed to have thought of every possible unrelated answer you could, to dilute the actual results.

This poll is anything BUT scientific or fair. It's not even remotely close.

Actually the options on the poll are the ones that tend to show up in threads like this the most, and there's three "other" options for those that don't want to vote for one of those reasons.

WTB abortion after birth for some annoying kids!

Yes, even though I find it personally wrong, I don't want to force my beliefs on others.
Third opportunity to vote in favor of abortion!

Since when does "I find it personally wrong" equate to "I am in favor of it"?

Nice how you point out the caviats on one site of the arguement and not the other ... If you treat the yes options by the same method you proscribe for the no options there is like the no's a single yes option without a caviat as well

It doesn't work that way because there are yes options, which help promote the liberal agenda, so we can ignore the caveat attached to it because it goes against everything "natural"... blah blah blah. :p

Since when does "I find it personally wrong" equate to "I am in favor of it"?

It does when there is a yes option tacked on in front of it. Duh!

Since when does "I find it personally wrong" equate to "I am in favor of it"?

When reading comprehension stopped being a requirement to not get instantly laughed off of these forums. *sigh*

Human life only creates human life. No matter how much you argue it being just a "collection of cells" that happens to look amazingly like a human being, or a "parasite" that happens to look amazingly like a human being, what is being made in that womb is still a human life. The unborn have a right to live.

Human life only creates human life. No matter how much you argue it being just a "collection of cells" that happens to look amazingly like a human being, or a "parasite" that happens to look amazingly like a human being, what is being made in that womb is still a human life. The unborn have a right to live.

Ahhh so how it looks is the key ...

With the amount of posts these Abortion Threads recieve you would think that there are actual fetii posting here.

Ahhh so how it looks is the key ...
I love how you pick out what irrelevant bits of my argument you want and, while out of context, think you somehow are making a point.

Human life only creates human life. No matter how much you argue it being just a "collection of cells" that happens to look amazingly like a human being, or a "parasite" that happens to look amazingly like a human being, what is being made in that womb is still a human life. The unborn have a right to live.

Really?

So for the first 2 months you can spot the human if we put other species side by side?

I love how you pick out what irrelevant bits of my argument you want and, while out of context, think you somehow are making a point.

If they are irrelevant why are they in there?

If they are irrelevant why are they in there?
Why are you here?

Why are you here?

Cause I like this place

Really?

So for the first 2 months you can spot the human if we put other species side by side?
Human life creates human life. I'd look for the one with the "human" label underneath it. Obviously you've never seen a two month old fetus.

Why are you here?

Because he wasn't aborted.
Clearly we should outlaw abortion...and kill any fetuses that dare to abort!
Damnit they will finish their missions!

Why can't you abort children after they have been born and found to be extremely annoying?

I find this highly unfair!

:p

Cause I like this place
And I like putting extra information into my posts.

We're all happy.

Human life creates human life. I'd look for the one with the "human" label underneath it. Obviously you've never seen a two month old fetus.

That's a round about way of saying "No I can't tell the difference." Let alone know the difference. At 2 month's it's still an embryo.

And yes I have seen a few. They were in jars.....

That's a round about way of saying "No I can't tell the difference." Let alone know the difference. At 2 month's it's still an embryo.

And yes I have seen a few. They were in jars.....
I can tell the difference, that's why I said I could.

http://www.takegreatpictures.com/content/images/tip1_5134.jpg

Looks rather human to me.

As compared to a dog of the same age:
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/909/793087.JPG

No... not so similar.

Human life only creates human life. No matter how much you argue it being just a "collection of cells" that happens to look amazingly like a human being, or a "parasite" that happens to look amazingly like a human being, what is being made in that womb is still a human life. The unborn have a right to live.

True, a human embryo is "human life." Of course, so is a human fingernail, a vial of human blood, or a blob of human semen. Unless you feel that all of those things deserve the same rights as you, I can't see how something's status as human life has anything to do with this issue.

I can tell the difference, that's why I said I could.

http://www.takegreatpictures.com/con.../tip1_5134.jpg

Looks rather human to me.

As compared to a dog of the same age:
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/pre...909/793087.JPG

No... not so similar.

Also not a two-month old fetus, which is what you said we were to be comparing.

Also not a two-month old fetus, which is what you said we were to be comparing.

Correct! :)

Human life only creates human life. No matter how much you argue it being just a "collection of cells" that happens to look amazingly like a human being, or a "parasite" that happens to look amazingly like a human being, what is being made in that womb is still a human life. The unborn have a right to live.
First: This argument is ludicrous, but others have already explained why, so I won't repeat them.

Second: OK, for the sake of this limited argument only, let's assume the embryo/fetus is a whole person with legal rights (which it isn't, but as I say, let's accept the premise just to argue this point). So, Mr. Tiny McEmbryoman, let's call him, is a little person who somehow got inside my body because one little sperm managed to winkle around all the obstacles I put in its way (contraceptives). Guess what? Tiny landed in the wrong womb, and he is shit out of luck.

Why? For the same reason you would be shit out of luck if you tried to use my body for your purposes against my will. I am no one's slave, not even a fetus's. As long as I am alive, I own my body, and I have the absolute right to decide who else gets to use it, when, how, and why, as well as who doesn't get to use it. At this time, I am not willing to submit my body to be used by a fetus for gestation. I have good reasons for making that decision, and I am not going to second guess it because of an accident. My uterus is private property and it's closed, and any little McEmbryoman who might sneak in is a trespasser and will be treated as such, i.e. ejected. If he dies as a result, well, gosh, them's the breaks. Better luck next time, little guy.

To enhance the perspective for you: Let's say you, claiming your "right to life," tried to hook yourself up to my kidney and use me like a dialysis machine because your kidneys had shut down. For the sake of argument, let's say it's possible to do this (it being analogous to what a gestating embryo/fetus does), and that I'm a perfect match for you, and without this support from me (or someone) you will die. And let's say I don't want you to do this to me. I don't want you to use my body for your own purposes this way. Guess what? I am perfectly within my rights to disconnect you from me by any means necessary to protect the integrity of my own body, even to the extent of deadly force. Not only do I have the right to walk away and let you die, I would have the right to kill you, if I had to, to get you off me.

Why do I have this right? Because people do not own other people. You don't own me. Tiny McEmbryoman doesn't own me. Nobody owns me but me. I do not exist in this world to serve you. I do not exist to serve Tiny McEmbryoman. I am not obligated to serve or help either one of you. My uterus is mine. Nobody else gets to use it just because it exists. They have to have my permission first, and if I don't give it, then tough on them. End of discussion.

While we're looking at the matter from this perspective, I may as well point out that, just as I have the sole and exclusive right to decide who uses my body, so I also have the sole and exclusive right to decide how my body will be used, by me or anyone else. This means that, just as Mr. McEmbryoman doesn't get to take over my uterus without my permission, so you don't get to tell me how to run my life. You don't get to tell me what my sex is life is for or anything else about what I do with my body. You don't get to decide what options my doctors and I can discuss. And you don't get to pass judgment on my decisions about myself.

So, you see that all arguments about the "rights" of an embryo/fetus are doomed to fail, because even if they did have such rights (which they don't), they do not have the right to enslave me.

Actually, I selected all of the first four options.

Basically, I feel that abortion should neither be totally banned nor totally unregulated.

Despite the fact that I find abortion in general to be morally wrong, I submit that it is a form of population control in a rapidly overpopulating world, and I support a woman's right to choose wheither she wants to have an abortion, in general. Neverthelesss, I have to say that abortions can't (or shouldn't) just be done in any fashion, willy-nilly. There ought to be an limit on how soon before birth you can have an abortion, i.e. no abortions if a woman is less than a month from birth, and the fetus is practically fully formed, with a developed brain and nearly everything it needs to survive as a human outside the womb. No partial-birth abortions, basically.

Artificially flushing a small ball of tissue barely recognizable as a fetus from the womb in the first few months of pregnancy, though? I have no problem with that, in the same way I have no problem with stem-cell research. At that point, and not until it has developed a brain and other organs, I do not consider a fetus be anything resembling a being of any kind.

Just My Two Cents

Actually, I selected all of the first four options.

Basically, I feel that abortion should neither be totally banned nor totally unregulated.

Despite the fact that I find abortion in general to be morally wrong, I submit that it is a form of population control in a rapidly overpopulating world, and I support a woman's right to choose wheither she wants to have an abortion, in general. Neverthelesss, I have to say that abortions can't (or shouldn't) just be done in any fashion, willy-nilly. There ought to be an limit on how soon before birth you can have an abortion, i.e. no abortions if a woman is less than a month from birth, and the fetus is practically fully formed, with a developed brain and nearly everything it needs to survive as a human outside the womb. No partial-birth abortions, basically.

Artificially flushing a small ball of tissue barely recognizable as a fetus from the womb in the first few months of pregnancy, though? I have no problem with that, in the same way I have no problem with stem-cell research. At that point, and not until it has developed a brain and other organs, I do not consider a fetus be anything resembling a being of any kind.

Just My Two Cents

So, in other words, you support the status quo as it stands in most countries. Good, so do I.

And I'm sure you will feel better to know that "partial birth abortion" is a fictional term made up by anti-choice activists to sensationalize with inflammatory language the procedures of late term abortions, which are ALWAYS due to extreme medical necessity, and that such procedures are very, very rare and nowhere near as common as the "partial birth abortion" rhetoric can make it seem.

First: This argument is ludicrous, but others have already explained why, so I won't repeat them.

Second: OK, for the sake of this limited argument only, let's assume the embryo/fetus is a whole person with legal rights (which it isn't, but as I say, let's accept the premise just to argue this point). So, Mr. Tiny McEmbryoman, let's call him, is a little person who somehow got inside my body because one little sperm managed to winkle around all the obstacles I put in its way (contraceptives). Guess what? Tiny landed in the wrong womb, and he is shit out of luck.

Why? For the same reason you would be shit out of luck if you tried to use my body for your purposes against my will. I am no one's slave, not even a fetus's. As long as I am alive, I own my body, and I have the absolute right to decide who else gets to use it, when, how, and why, as well as who doesn't get to use it. At this time, I am not willing to submit my body to be used by a fetus for gestation. I have good reasons for making that decision, and I am not going to second guess it because of an accident. My uterus is private property and it's closed, and any little McEmbryoman who might sneak in is a trespasser and will be treated as such, i.e. ejected. If he dies as a result, well, gosh, them's the breaks. Better luck next time, little guy.

To enhance the perspective for you: Let's say you, claiming your "right to life," tried to hook yourself up to my kidney and use me like a dialysis machine because your kidneys had shut down. For the sake of argument, let's say it's possible to do this (it being analogous to what a gestating embryo/fetus does), and that I'm a perfect match for you, and without this support from me (or someone) you will die. And let's say I don't want you to do this to me. I don't want you to use my body for your own purposes this way. Guess what? I am perfectly within my rights to disconnect you from me by any means necessary to protect the integrity of my own body, even to the extent of deadly force. Not only do I have the right to walk away and let you die, I would have the right to kill you, if I had to, to get you off me.

Why do I have this right? Because people do not own other people. You don't own me. Tiny McEmbryoman doesn't own me. Nobody owns me but me. I do not exist in this world to serve you. I do not exist to serve Tiny McEmbryoman. I am not obligated to serve or help either one of you. My uterus is mine. Nobody else gets to use it just because it exists. They have to have my permission first, and if I don't give it, then tough on them. End of discussion.

While we're looking at the matter from this perspective, I may as well point out that, just as I have the sole and exclusive right to decide who uses my body, so I also have the sole and exclusive right to decide how my body will be used, by me or anyone else. This means that, just as Mr. McEmbryoman doesn't get to take over my uterus without my permission, so you don't get to tell me how to run my life. You don't get to tell me what my sex is life is for or anything else about what I do with my body. You don't get to decide what options my doctors and I can discuss. And you don't get to pass judgment on my decisions about myself.

So, you see that all arguments about the "rights" of an embryo/fetus are doomed to fail, because even if they did have such rights (which they don't), they do not have the right to enslave me.

QFA - Quoted for Awesomeness.