NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I was just talking to my friend about how she had gotten an abortion 7 months ago, and she feels that it was the right thing to do.

How do you feel about abortion? Would you get one/let your fuckbuddy get one?

Are your views based on science or religion?

Should it be available for everyone?

Should it be available for everyone?

Indeed, although I may not have the ability to have an abortion, I'd certainly like the right to have one.

Moar men's rights!

I'll trust those who voted "good" understood the question to mean "are abortion rights good?" Abortion itself is a recourse for someone who unintentionaly got pregnant, or who is in danger from the pregnancy/unable to support a child.

You could argue abortion rights are good. I'd probably agree with you. But abortion itself is, at best, a "nessissary evil."

I am with the illuminati on this one.

How do you feel about abortion? I don't hold them in particularly high regard. Fortunately, I'm unlikely to ever need one.

Would you get one/let your fuckbuddy get one? I doubt I'll ever need one/ Not my decision.

Are your views based on science or religion? It's based on personal opinion and personal liberty.

I find it interesting that the people most in favor of banning abortions are the least in favor of comprehensive sex education, free condoms for teenagers, the morning-after pill, paid maternity leave, financial assistance and educational opportunities for single mothers, comprehensive healthcare for everyone and free daycare?

Don't you find that interesting?

The bourgeois will always be inexorably opposed to abortion because they opposed a sustainable population, ie a population which keeps pace with the resources at hand to ensure a good life. The bourgeois also oppose contraception because they desire women to have more children than they can afford, thus creating future reserves of unemployed and welfare dependent youths who are willing (before of scarce work and money) to work for less than the older worker who can be sacked.

The bourgeois will always be inexorably opposed to abortion because they opposed a sustainable population, ie a population which keeps pace with the resources at hand to ensure a good life. The bourgeois also oppose contraception because they desire women to have more children than they can afford, thus creating future reserves of unemployed and welfare dependent youths who are willing (before of scarce work and money) to work for less than the older worker who can be sacked.

Use of the word "bourgeois" annoys me. It's a very un-working class way to speak.

On topic: I support a woman's right to abortion. It's her body, nobody else has a right to it.

The bourgeois will always be inexorably opposed to abortion because they opposed a sustainable population, ie a population which keeps pace with the resources at hand to ensure a good life. The bourgeois also oppose contraception because they desire women to have more children than they can afford, thus creating future reserves of unemployed and welfare dependent youths who are willing (before of scarce work and money) to work for less than the older worker who can be sacked.

Andares, the question was not "why do you think other people believe X", the question was "what do you think and why?".
So whilst what you said may or may not be the case it is nevertheless irrelevant.

i like george carlin's take

"ever notice that women who are anti-abotion are women you wouldn't want to screw in the first place."

Would you get one/let your fuckbuddy get one? I, as a male, don't have the last say in the matter; I can merely voice a suggestion, but it's not my body - it's not my decision.
Anyway, whatever my partner (the term 'fuckbuddy' is quite horrible) decides, I have the duty to support her.

Are your views based on science or religion?Neither. On ethics.

Should it be available for everyone?Yes. Giving birth and raising a child should always be a responsible choice, at least for humans.

It's my right to choose. If I want to have an abortion, I should be able to. Unfortunately, where I am from, that is not the case.

I find it interesting that the people most in favor of banning abortions are the least in favor of comprehensive sex education, free condoms for teenagers, the morning-after pill, paid maternity leave, financial assistance and educational opportunities for single mothers, comprehensive healthcare for everyone and free daycare?


I also find interesting that, here in Italy, the two most staunch anti-abortion politicians, MP Binetti (centre fraction of PD) and Mr.Ferrara (a right-wing journalist who failed to get elected as MP in the last elections, also Minister in a former Berlusconi cabinet), who claim to support strong, traditional ethical values when it comes to sex, never said aught about the affairs of Berlusconi's with some TV starlettes (one of them has become Minister for Equal Opportunities), or about cases of paedophilia involving catholic priests and Vatican cover-ups; still both oppose strongly the morning-after pill and, more than anything else, the Ru-486 (a pill that allows pharmacologically-inducted abortion, that is less painful and less brutally invasive than a surgical abortion).

It's my right to choose. If I want to have an abortion, I should be able to. Unfortunately, where I am from, that is not the case.

Where are you from? Chile?

Very few people think too deeply about abortion anymore, even in America, that it's an issue at all is down to pressure groups under a religious banner and a stupid media that'll try and make a controversy over anything in the hope of increasing sales.

I doubt it's a strong enough issue to sway an election anymore, more a concern for the right, to not alienate a certain portion of their own voters, than a serious concern anymore.

Look at Ruffy's two threads, God and Abortion, throw in Evolution and you have the holy triumvirate of 'debatable' threads, all spurred by a minority religious agenda.

The majority of religious people probably aren't overly fussed either way, whatever their private opinions, I suspect they don't care to interfere and impose their beliefs on others.

A minority do, a minority on the other side react to this, the media keeps it boiling over.

Forgive my sweeping statements.

Where are you from? Chile?

Queensland, Australia. Where it is still the law that abortions can only be performed where there is a risk to the life or health of the mother.

Where are you from? Chile?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/AbortionLawsMap.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/AbortionLawsMap.png

Look, I know Chile isn't the only country where abortion is illegal. It was the first one that came to mind.

I'm a very strong supporter of abortion rights. It should and will never be an easy choice for a woman to make, but I think she should have that choice. I firmly believe that quality of life is the most important consideration and bringing a child into the world just for the sake of it, despite the fact the parents are feel unwilling or unable to care for them properly, is just cruel for both parties. More than that it can lead to severe long-term repercussions for both the child (who will be at higher risk of abuse or neglect), the parent (who may not be able to cope mentally, physically or financially) and society (neglected children are more at risk of criminal behaviour, drug addiction etc...).

Look, I know Chile isn't the only country where abortion is illegal. It was the first one that came to mind.

No offence meant: it's just something I thought useful for everyone.
The biggest surprise to me was seeing that abortion in Germany has an "illegal but unenforced" status... looks like an italian-like sort of stance. ;)

The fact that the legality of abortion depends on the region in Australia strikes me as a bit odd. Mexico seems to have the same system. How does that work, exactly?

Also I'm pretty certain that in Portugal abortion is not legal on request, but in Spain it is. Looks like the map provided by Risottia and Wikipedia is not entirely correct.

*Dons asbestos helmet and ducks for cover*

Expecting the worst, Bakamyht?

Queensland, Australia. Where it is still the law that abortions can only be performed where there is a risk to the life or health of the mother.


I never thought that Australia would be like that when it comes to abortion. How about the other Australian states ?

Everyone knows that if abortion were ever universally legalized that God would be furious in wrath and throw down burning meteors to the earth, he would turn the rivers to blood, snakes would crawl out of the ground etc etc.

It's about time the UK had abortion on demand just like most of Europe does.

I find it interesting that the people most in favor of banning abortions are the least in favor of comprehensive sex education, free condoms for teenagers, the morning-after pill, paid maternity leave, financial assistance and educational opportunities for single mothers, comprehensive healthcare for everyone and free daycare?

Don't you find that interesting?

It's almost as if certain churches wanted LOTS more lower-class, under-educated people around...perhaps because those people might be inclined to join said churches.

Nah...couldn't be. :rolleyes:

It's almost as if certain churches wanted LOTS more lower-class, under-educated people around...perhaps because those people might be inclined to join said churches.

Nah...couldn't be. :rolleyes:

Why do you think the Catholic Church opposes contraception in Africa? More ignorant slaves.

How do you feel about abortion?

its good much like the pill

Would you get one/let your fuckbuddy get one?

as the first man to ever bear a child I would be entitled to go through with it/currently I'd actively encourage it and also threaten to leave her if she kept it (though I hope I avoid such stupid people)

Are your views based on science or religion?

convenience

Should it be available for everyone?

yes

I doubt I'll ever need one

thats just dodging the question isn't it? :wink:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/AbortionLawsMap.png

woot the UK is worse than North Korea! *mutters about Blair's agenda*

Ceauşescu, Romania's stalinist dictator, outlawed abortion and contraceptives in order to create a "new Romanian people". Given the fact that abortion was legal in all other Eastern Bloc countries, that was a rather weird deviation.

It's about time the UK had abortion on demand just like most of Europe does.

it pretty much dose

I find it interesting that the people most in favor of banning abortions are the least in favor of comprehensive sex education, free condoms for teenagers, the morning-after pill, paid maternity leave, financial assistance and educational opportunities for single mothers, comprehensive healthcare for everyone and free daycare?

Don't you find that interesting?


I find that interesting, telling, and bloody strange.

Ceauşescu, Romania's stalinist dictator, outlawed abortion and contraceptives in order to create a "new Romanian people". Given the fact that abortion was legal in all other Eastern Bloc countries, that was a rather weird deviation.
Sorry to interrupt your clearly nicely developed Cold War narrative, but abortion was completely legal and unrestricted in Albania, in which Enver Hoxha declared and upheld womens rights at the forefront of the struggle. In actual fact Albania was the only 'eastern bloc' country that had completely free products, healthcare, etc, all the others had some form of state-vouchers or currency which eventually become a means of circulation (for the restoration of capitalism).

"The entire party and country should hurl into the fire and break the neck of anyone who dared trample underfoot the sacred edict of the party on the defense of women's rights." - Enver Hoxha


And this is all from the same guy who was a 'Stalinist' (read: non-revisionist Marxist-Leninist), all the others accepted the revisionist line of Khrushchev which eventually saw women 'encouraged' to stay at home and be housewives, which culminated under Brezhnev's chauvinist line some years later which practically destroyed womens rights in the USSR and their eastern puppets.

Funny to see this topic popping up again at this particular time, since my period is late this month. Hopefully it will turn out that I don't need abortion services, but if I do then I am delighted to know that I live in one of the few places in the world where I have both legal AND practical access to safe medical abortion.

I never thought that Australia would be like that when it comes to abortion. How about the other Australian states ?

I'm certain it's not, well Tasmania might be, but I grew up in Queensland and I can tell you abortions are performed regardless of whether or not it endangers the woman's health. I personally know 4 woman that have obtained abortions in queensland simply because they considered them selves too young and immature to be parents.

Abortion is a highly personal, and individualized decision. While there may be prevailing social forces that push people o decide something a certain way, there are even more powerful influences that work in the microcosms of society.

Given the many factors that decide whether or not a person chooses to abort her child, others are in no position to judge that decision, much less restrict it.

The bourgeois will always be inexorably opposed to abortion because they opposed a sustainable population, ie a population which keeps pace with the resources at hand to ensure a good life. The bourgeois also oppose contraception because they desire women to have more children than they can afford, thus creating future reserves of unemployed and welfare dependent youths who are willing (before of scarce work and money) to work for less than the older worker who can be sacked.

I believe Ruffy asked for an opinion, not a live show involving fellatio being performed on Karl Marx.

I think its a damn shame that some people use abortions as birth control. I know many people who would give anything for the ability to have a baby, but the adoption process is very expensive now that lawyers and such are involved, in some cases.

I know that abortions aren't for me. Period. I want a lot of kids. But I have to respect other women enough to fight for them to have rights. Just because I believe in having the children I become pregnant with, doesn't mean my views should be imposed on anyone else.

I think its a damn shame that some people use abortions as birth control.
Forgive me, but what else could abortion possibly be used for, other than to control if/when one gives birth?

I hate the poll options though...

Abortion isn't good or evil, it's morally ambiguous.

I seriously doubt any women uses abortion as birth control, I fear your just going off some stereotype, not reality. The hassle of going through with it compared with using a condom is not comparable.

Sorry to interrupt your clearly nicely developed Cold War narrative, but abortion was completely legal and unrestricted in Albania, in which Enver Hoxha declared and upheld womens rights at the forefront of the struggle.

Ceauşescu, Romania's stalinist dictator, outlawed abortion and contraceptives in order to create a "new Romanian people". Given the fact that abortion was legal in all other Eastern Bloc countries, that was a rather weird deviation.

Is it not enough that most people disagree with you already that you have to also disagree with the people that agree with you?

Or is 'clearly nicely developed Cold War narrative' supposed to be exaggerated complement rather than sarcasm?

I never thought that Australia would be like that when it comes to abortion. How about the other Australian states ?

Funnily enough, it's pretty similar in most of the states. The only one that is different is the ACT, where abortion has been removed from the Criminal Code. Western Australia surprisingly (it's like our answer to the Deep South) has the next most liberal laws, where abortions are available on request up to 20 weeks. This was only changed in 2002 after 2 doctors were charged in 1998 with procuring unlawful abortions, though.

I'm certain it's not, well Tasmania might be, but I grew up in Queensland and I can tell you abortions are performed regardless of whether or not it endangers the woman's health. I personally know 4 woman that have obtained abortions in queensland simply because they considered them selves too young and immature to be parents.

And they can be prosecuted for it, as well as the doctors who performed it. Just because it's not prosecuted doesn't mean it's not a crime. Abortion laws for all the states (http://www.racgp.org.au/afp/200611/12685).

Why do you think the Catholic Church opposes contraception in Africa? More ignorant slaves.

What blows your little rant out of the water is that they promote abstinence.

So it is easy to say no they don't support contraceptives (hardly a rule more like a recommendation) but they would say no to sex at all.

The poll needs to have another option, Neither good or bad.

I seriously doubt any women uses abortion as birth control, I fear your just going off some stereotype, not reality. The hassle of going through with it compared with using a condom is not comparable.

I think it's been pointed out above that it's specifically for birth control...

...but I understand the point, it's not as though anyone thinks 'I can have unprotected sex whenever I want, I'll just get an abortion'.

The one thing people against abortion consistently fail to acknowledge is that an abortion is no trip to the carnival - merely as a mental exercise in justification and doubt, it's no easy trip.

Yet the statement that it's for birth control remains relevant, it is - the decision to have a child is one of the more important decisions we make in life and the ability to choose not to have a child, regardless of circumstance, is valid. The only argument against is that it goes against the rules of a higher being for whom existence is in some doubt, let alone trying to ascertain what it demands us to do.

What blows your little rant out of the water is that they promote abstinence.

So it is easy to say no they don't support contraceptives (hardly a rule more like a recommendation) but they would say no to sex at all.
No, because the Church knows (as any rational human being does) that you cannot repress sexuality in such a vulgar way, even repressing it within marriage causes distortions and ills. The Church should know this of course, considering the sheer amount of their clergy engaging in whatever sex they can get.

The Church knows, as we do, that promotion of abstinence = more kids because repressing sexuality does not work, it's not natural to human biology.

No, because the Church knows (as any rational human being does) that you cannot repress sexuality in such a vulgar way, even repressing it within marriage causes distortions and ills. The Church should know this of course, considering the sheer amount of their clergy engaging in whatever sex they can get.

The Church knows, as we do, that promotion of abstinence = more kids because repressing sexuality does not work, it's not natural to human biology.

Blah blah blah

So the church promotes abstinence, and if people refuse to follow that promotion then why not refuse to follow the contraceptives promotion

What blows your little rant out of the water is that they promote abstinence.

How does that blow anything out of the water?

The Church promotes abstinence...UNTIL MARRIAGE.

You may not realize this, but marriage isn't a contraceptive. Unwanted pregnancies occur even if the woman is married.

How does that blow anything out of the water?

The Church promotes abstinence...UNTIL MARRIAGE.

You may not realize this, but marriage isn't a contraceptive. Unwanted pregnancies occur even if the woman is married.

The Catholic Church promotes the idea that a woman is a semen receptacle for her husband, and is duty bound to pump out every baby she conceives.

It's kind of hard to try to have a rational discourse with a Church that believes that sort of shit.

So, I was just talking to my friend about how she had gotten an abortion 7 months ago, and she feels that it was the right thing to do.

How do you feel about abortion? Would you get one/let your fuckbuddy get one?

Are your views based on science or religion?

Should it be available for everyone?

Greetings,

I believe in the sanctity of life, I believe that a fetus (as we define an unborn child) is life, and therefore the killing of it is murder. Sure it is a convience issue for some but it is still murder. That individual would have been a human being, and the killing of humans is deemed murder so likewise so is the killing of a 'fetus'. Obviously there are health reasons why it might be necessary to do it but at the end it is us playing 'god' and that is wrong for us to do (though I can see by the results that many will disagree with my viewpoints) :)

Cheers, Eagle Scream

Blah blah blah

So the church promotes abstinence, and if people refuse to follow that promotion then why not refuse to follow the contraceptives promotion
Wow, sounds like someone doesn't like criticize of his infallible holiness:rolleyes:

Greetings,

I believe in the sanctity of life, I believe that a fetus (as we define an unborn child) is life, and therefore the killing of it is murder. Sure it is a convience issue for some but it is still murder. That individual would have been a human being, and the killing of humans is deemed murder so likewise so is the killing of a 'fetus'.
Just so you know, the killing of a human being is quite often NOT murder. Murder is specifically the UNLAWFUL killing of a human being.

I figure that since you care so much about this subject you will want to use correct terminology.

A fetus is a human being? Ughhh, that's just strange.....

...and the killing of humans is deemed murder...

Deemed murder by who?

There's the death sentence for one, surely not murder because it's legal under certain circumstances, as is abortion.

There's condemning a class or race to death through failing to provide proper education or rights.

There's sending people into battle, knowing that some will die.

At what point is killing 'murder'?

Who defines it?

Wow, sounds like someone doesn't like criticize of his infallible holiness:rolleyes:

Oh good grief, his(her?) point was that if someone wasn't going to follow the church's directives on one point regarding sex, then they should have disregarded all other recommendations the church made.

Personally I don't agree with abortion, both in terms of science and religion, but considering that I could type till my fingers bleed and not change anyone's opinion here, then at least I'll advocate safe sex.

After all, abortion is only an issue that arises when an unwanted pregnancy happens, regardless of how and to whom said pregnancy occurs.

That said, I won't vote yes or no. I belong in the situational group.

Oh good grief, his(her?) point was that if someone wasn't going to follow the church's directives on one point regarding sex, then they should have disregarded all other recommendations the church made.

Personally I don't agree with abortion, both in terms of science and religion, but considering that I could type till my fingers bleed and not change anyone's opinion here, then at least I'll advocate safe sex.

After all, abortion is only an issue that arises when an unwanted pregnancy happens, regardless of how and to whom said pregnancy occurs.

And I was simply pointing out that it's in the interests of the Church to support abstinence because it means more uneducated, poor populations in the third world to bring into the flock, and we all know that 'traditional' religions are dying on the vine in the first world, the Church needs more ignorant uneducated Mexicans, Africans etc or they will die out.

And we all know since 'Mother Theresa' that the Church believes in the whole 'deserving poor' theory of the world, that you can convert them to the faith but you can't really do anything to help the poor.

The Catholic Church - Saving Humanities Souls, 1 million AIDS deaths at a time.

And I was simply pointing out that it's in the interests of the Church to support abstinence because it means more uneducated, poor populations in the third world to bring into the flock, and we all know that 'traditional' religions are dying on the vine in the first world, the Church needs more ignorant uneducated Mexicans, Africans etc or they will die out.

And we all know since 'Mother Theresa' that the Church believes in the whole 'deserving poor' theory of the world, that you can convert them to the faith but you can't really do anything to help the poor.

The Catholic Church - Saving Humanities Souls, 1 million AIDS deaths at a time.

Well, actually to a certain point I'll agree with you that the church can, and really should, do a lot more regarding the issue of children which their members, in all honesty, can't support adequately.

They certainly could get more funds channeled at welfare, for one.

But for me I feel that they really should have lessons in sex and fertility. What I don't get is the lack of willingness to educate the people regarding sex at least, while also giving strong recommendations against using contraceptives. Teach people family planning at least!

And while you can look at it as a vast baby-making-propagate-the-poor conspiracy, I choose to see it as a lack of courage and boldness to do what must be done (in this case, sex education and family planning).

On this at least I believe we can choose to agree to disagree, while I'll certainly agree that the church isn't doing enough regarding the more pertinent issue here, which is not abortion actually.

The Catholic Church promotes the idea that a woman is a semen receptacle for her husband, and is duty bound to pump out every baby she conceives.

It's kind of hard to try to have a rational discourse with a Church that believes that sort of shit.

Can you point this out to me where church doctrine says this. Or is it simply what you believe it says.

And I was simply pointing out that it's in the interests of the Church to support abstinence because it means more uneducated, poor populations in the third world to bring into the flock, and we all know that 'traditional' religions are dying on the vine in the first world, the Church needs more ignorant uneducated Mexicans, Africans etc or they will die out.

And we all know since 'Mother Theresa' that the Church believes in the whole 'deserving poor' theory of the world, that you can convert them to the faith but you can't really do anything to help the poor.

The Catholic Church - Saving Humanities Souls, 1 million AIDS deaths at a time.

Yes but your point is meaningless, because it doesn't back up anything you said just some rant about which you wish to blame all the problems in Mexico and Africa on the church, well done.

*Sigh*

Why did I bother entering this thread? I might as well let you live in your own twisted little world and let you believe what you want to believe.

Is it not enough that most people disagree with you already that you have to also disagree with the people that agree with you?

Or is 'clearly nicely developed Cold War narrative' supposed to be exaggerated complement rather than sarcasm?

I certainly hope that it's a compliment, otherwise I'll need to be re-educated after the World Revolution. I also guess Andaras should learn to read properly, since I was talking about Romania, not Albania. As far as I know, those are two very different countries.

*Dons asbestos helmet and ducks for cover*

Was that......was that a Kingdom of Loathing reference?!

And for those who don't know what Kingdom of Loathing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Loathing) is, click the link. You know, it was pretty hard to keep track of all the popcultural references before Google and Wikipedia. Mind you, the amount of popcultural references digested on a daily basis used to be a lot less before I went online...

Okay, and now back to abortion!

I think the question poorly worded. I have a hard time believing that anyone thinks abortion is inherently good. Now, a better question is, do you believe in a woman's right to choose? To that, I would answer yes. Abortion is a very personal and private issue that no governing body should have control over. A law banning doctor-assisted abortions would not end abortions; it would only end clean and safe abortion procedures.

Time for a new and more elaborate poll?

Abortion in itself is not good, because you destroy the potential for another human life. Same reason we help mentally challenged people, because they have the potential to get better.

For the sake of women's rights, we have to keep the option available to women, but there are things involved that they probably have never considered.

I can understand and sympathize with a woman who had an abortion in Russia, simply because of the fact that a child in Russia will most likely drop your socio-economic class.

But in a place like America, there are tons of money, and with a little bit of digging, you can find extensive financial help for yourself and the child. The help can range from religious groups to the government, and several people out there are generous enough to give a few hundred dollars here and there to help.

The fact of the matter is that it takes work to bring the child into the world, and even more to raise it. Abortion is the easy road out, but that can horribly screw up the woman's natural chemistry for life. If you think you cannot keep it, then a church would gladly take it for free.

The easy path will have more life problems for you in the end as opposed to the difficult path...

Do I support the freedom to choose to have an Abortion? Yes...
Do I think it is necessary? Not in America...

But in a place like America, there are tons of money, and with a little bit of digging, you can find extensive financial help for yourself and the child.

You may have missed the part about the dollar falling in value, the price of oil doubling in a year's time, the mortgage crisis, the awful housing market, banks going out of business by the day, the failing automotive industry...

Obviously abortion isn't good...Neither are nuclear deterrents, but that doesn't mean they don't have their uses. Still, I have too many adopted cousins to agree with abortion--unless the mother is in danger, or was raped, just put him/her up for adoption and call it a day.

Even if you can't handle a baby, that doesn't mean other people can't either.

Obviously abortion isn't good...Neither are nuclear deterrents, but that doesn't mean they don't have their uses. Still, I have too many adopted cousins to agree with abortion--unless the mother is in danger, or was raped, just put him/her up for adoption and call it a day.

Even if you can't handle a baby, that doesn't mean other people can't either.

True, but there are unfortunately far more children in care/orphanages than there are prospective adoptive parents. To say that women shouldn't have an abortion because their child can just be given up for adoption is highly unrealistic.

True, but there are unfortunately far more children in care/orphanages than there are prospective adoptive parents. To say that women shouldn't have an abortion because their child can just be given up for adoption is highly unrealistic.

For adoption, the gold standard is the "healthy white baby".

Any other type of baby, especially one with health issues such as fetal alcohol syndrome, or fetal exposure to meth or crack, are unlikely to be adopted.

I believe Ruffy asked for an opinion, not a live show involving fellatio being performed on Karl Marx.

If Ruffy knew it was an option, he probably would have asked. :p

You may have missed the part about the dollar falling in value, the price of oil doubling in a year's time, the mortgage crisis, the awful housing market, banks going out of business by the day, the failing automotive industry...

I never denied that, but we are still the most powerful country in the world, no?

The dollar is falling in value, but it will take some responsibility on the government and federal reserves part to stabilize it.

And if you actually studied, you would know that there is no excuse for us to have gas lower then 2 dollars a gallon. America does have the option of drilling domestically, and gas prices are now falling... but for the reason, I have a couple of thoughts.

People are now walking out of mortgages on their own now, so there is financial sense in it apparently... this is going to be the new scare for banks these days in the economy we have.

The house prices is bound to stabilize eventually, that is the nature of supply and demand. There is an ever increasing supply, and a lowering demand, therefore house prices are bound to fall sharply, and they are now! This is what is causing the mortgage crisis and people refusing to pay. People just need to get over the fact that their houses are not as valuable as they used to be, and get over the fact that at least THEY HAVE A HOUSE.

Banks on their end need to change their lending practices, simply Capitalism at work. If they don't change their policy, then they are screwed naturally.

The automotive industry is just going to replaced by more efficient companies and corporations that other people will buy products from. That is the nature of Capitalism, competing for survival in an Economy by providing the best services possible.

But the point of the matter is, we still have the STRONGEST economy on earth, there is no excuse that people can't get their hands on money.

I do not know what the classic marxist-leninist stance concerning oral sex is, but at least it doesn't get anyone pregnant.

I do not know what the classic marxist-leninist stance concerning oral sex is, but at least it doesn't get anyone pregnant.

The proletariat is to be ass-fucked repeatedly by the Party leaders.

The proletariat is to be ass-fucked repeatedly by the Party leaders.

Sounds pretty par for the course.

Sounds pretty par for the course.

Well, anarchy is "you're allowed to assfuck anyone you want, but the same can happen to you"

Unregulated free-market capitalism = the rich assfuck the rest of us

Socialism = You'll be assfucked on a schedule, but we'll give you a reacharound

Democracy = if we all vote to assfuck you, well...

Anarchosyndicalism = we each take it in turn to be in "the barrel"...

Well, anarchy is "you're allowed to assfuck anyone you want, but the same can happen to you"

Unregulated free-market capitalism = the rich assfuck the rest of us

Socialism = You'll be assfucked on a schedule, but we'll give you a reacharound

Democracy = if we all vote to assfuck you, well...

Anarchosyndicalism = we each take it in turn to be in "the barrel"...

*chuckle* Can't say I've ever heard it put quite that eloquently.

Abortion in itself is not good, because you destroy the potential for another human life. Same reason we help mentally challenged people, because they have the potential to get better.

For the sake of women's rights, we have to keep the option available to women, but there are things involved that they probably have never considered.

Why would you assume that?


I can understand and sympathize with a woman who had an abortion in Russia, simply because of the fact that a child in Russia will most likely drop your socio-economic class.

But in a place like America, there are tons of money, and with a little bit of digging, you can find extensive financial help for yourself and the child. The help can range from religious groups to the government, and several people out there are generous enough to give a few hundred dollars here and there to help.

None of which really helps solve your problem, if your problem is that you are pregnant and you don't want to be pregnant.


The fact of the matter is that it takes work to bring the child into the world, and even more to raise it. Abortion is the easy road out, but that can horribly screw up the woman's natural chemistry for life. If you think you cannot keep it, then a church would gladly take it for free.

Which, again, doesn't really do much about that whole "it takes work to bring the child into the world" bit.


The easy path will have more life problems for you in the end as opposed to the difficult path...

In this case I'm assuming you think the "easy" and "problematic" path would be for an individual to make personal medical decisions based on her best evaluation of her own individual situation, while the "difficult path" would be for all women to make the choice that you, an utter stranger, think is best for them based on precisely zero knowledge of them and their situation.

But hey, feel free to correct me.

Do I support the freedom to choose to have an Abortion? Yes...
Do I think it is necessary? Not in America...
If women continue to experience pregnancies that they do not want to experience, and if women continue to desire to stop being pregnant rather than carrying to term, how is abortion not necessary?

I'm an American woman, and I can tell you that right now (this week in particular) abortion is more necessary to me than any other form of medical care.

Well, anarchy is "you're allowed to assfuck anyone you want, but the same can happen to you"

Unregulated free-market capitalism = the rich assfuck the rest of us

Socialism = You'll be assfucked on a schedule, but we'll give you a reacharound

Democracy = if we all vote to assfuck you, well...

Anarchosyndicalism = we each take it in turn to be in "the barrel"...

:D That is win. I salute you Sir! :salute:

Blah blah blah

So the church promotes abstinence, and if people refuse to follow that promotion then why not refuse to follow the contraceptives promotion

Because obviously Roman Catholics are banned from running chemists/owning shops and as such their personal refusal to have anything to do with contraception can't affect non-Catholics.

Oh, wait...

I believe that everyone should have a mandatory abortion. First kid should be terminated, no questions asked. The after that, flip a coin at birth, using the ones who lose as target practice to demonstrate blood splatter.

Abortion is murder plain and simple. Saying its just a fetus and not really a human is just not true, it is merely a developing human being. That is like saying a 5 year old is not as human as a 25 year old.

Abortion is murder plain and simple. Saying its just a fetus and not really a human is just not true, it is merely a developing human being. That is like saying a 5 year old is not as human as a 25 year old.

The funny thing is, even if a fetus were to be given full rights as a human being, abortion would still have to be legal.

Abortion is murder plain and simple. Saying its just a fetus and not really a human is just not true, it is merely a developing human being. That is like saying a 5 year old is not as human as a 25 year old.

Bwhahahaha! How is that true then?

Abortion is murder plain and simple. Saying its just a fetus and not really a human is just not true, it is merely a developing human being. That is like saying a 5 year old is not as human as a 25 year old.

Sorry I didn't mean to laugh at you, but it is your fault.

I sorta agree with you actualy, sorta. It is true that an abortion is killing a life, and it is true that if left alone that life may develop into a fully fledged human.

But sentiant life, at that stage, it just is not.(oooh I went all yoda there)

The best way to fight the demand for abortions is to sterilize everyone. It's the ecologically friendly solution!

The funny thing is, even if a fetus were to be given full rights as a human being, abortion would still have to be legal.
Precisely. Which is why I maintain that the "personhood" of "unborn babies" is completely irrelevant to this subject.

The best way to fight the demand for abortions is to sterilize everyone. It's the ecologically friendly solution!

Now you sound like me...

The best way to fight the demand for abortions is to sterilize everyone. It's the ecologically friendly solution!
Boo!

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

Boo!

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

It's a two party system. You have to vote for one of us.

I'm going to vote for a third party candidate!

Go ahead! Throw your vote away! HA HA HA HA HA!




One of my favorite Simpsons moments.

Abortions are the most fun you can have while pregnant.

Funny to see this topic popping up again at this particular time, since my period is late this month. Hopefully it will turn out that I don't need abortion services, but if I do then I am delighted to know that I live in one of the few places in the world where I have both legal AND practical access to safe medical abortion.

If you do need to get an abortion, when you get back from the clinic will you tell NSG about your experience?

I believe that everyone should have a mandatory abortion. First kid should be terminated, no questions asked. The after that, flip a coin at birth, using the ones who lose as target practice to demonstrate blood splatter.

Wow. Really?

If you do need to get an abortion, when you get back from the clinic will you tell NSG about your experience?

Better yet, get photos of the pumped-out fetus bits, and post them on the Internet.

Better yet, get photos of the pumped-out fetus bits, and post them on the Internet.

And then Rule 34.

Now you sound like me...

It's like looking in a mirror, isn't it?

And then Rule 34.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11436281&postcount=15

You don't have to post it on NSG, just on the Internet.

I'm sure a quick Google of images could find something like that already.

as the first man to ever bear a child I would be entitled to go through with it/currently I'd actively encourage it and also threaten to leave her if she kept it (though I hope I avoid such stupid people)

Yes, it's stupid for a woman to make her own medical decisions. :rolleyes:

I really hope you are dating someone. I also hope she sees this. And I hope she has the self-respect to dump you immediately.

It's like looking in a mirror, isn't it?

Except that you're Dutch!

Funny to see this topic popping up again at this particular time, since my period is late this month. Hopefully it will turn out that I don't need abortion services, but if I do then I am delighted to know that I live in one of the few places in the world where I have both legal AND practical access to safe medical abortion.

:eek: Hopefully, it's just stress or something.

Except that you're Dutch!

And male. At least I assume you're a member of the fair gender.

And male. At least I assume you're a member of the fair gender.

Nope, it's my wife who is the hotwife...

Blah blah blah

So the church promotes abstinence, and if people refuse to follow that promotion then why not refuse to follow the contraceptives promotion

That's a good question. And I've never heard an answer that made sense to me, despite knowing more than one Catholic who, for some reason, had a bigger problem with contraceptives than with premarital sex.

I even know one guy who urged his wife to have her tubes tied/a hysterectomy because, even though a vasectomy is a much less invasive surgery, he could do it. He was Catholic. She wasn't. So it was apparently ok for her to use a diaphragm, be on the pill, have elective sterilization surgery while sleeping with him, but not ok for him to use a condom or get a vasectomy.

Abortion as birth control, to me, is abhorrent. Adoption, FTW, if you don't feel momworthy (I wish more felt that way, but meh).

However, the key words in that statement are TO ME.

It's a decision between a woman, the father (if present or interested) and her conscience. AND NOBODY ELSE. Moral rectitude and Biblical compass headings are all well and good so long as the only one subject to them are those who want them. Anything else is an abomination against freedom. Freedom means people making choices you wouldn't make -- and as long as those choices do not involve another person in any harmful way, you've got no real reason to stop them choosing. Ask? Yes. Beg? If you like. Force? Not no, but hell no.

Why would you assume that?


Well, duh. Everyone knows that women don't think! Silly Bottle, next you'll be suggesting that we're capable of holding down jobs or doing math! :tongue:

It's a two party system. You have to vote for one of us.

I'm going to vote for a third party candidate!

Go ahead! Throw your vote away! HA HA HA HA HA!


One of my favorite Simpsons moments.

Which was immediately followed by another fantastic Simpsons moment:

*cut-away to post-apocalyptic nightmare, with humans working as slaves for aliens*

Homer: "Well don't blame me, I voted for Kang!"

Well, duh. Everyone knows that women don't think! Silly Bottle, next you'll be suggesting that we're capable of holding down jobs or doing math! :tongue:

It's a slippery slope I tells ya! Next they'll be wanting the vote next and then where would we be?

Indeed, although I may not have the ability to have an abortion, I'd certainly like the right to have one.

Moar men's rights!

Would you also like us to call you "Loretta", Stan?

Points for the reference.

Precisely. Which is why I maintain that the "personhood" of "unborn babies" is completely irrelevant to this subject.

Even the terminology is weird. "Unborn" doesn't make sense as a word. Lots of things are unborn. A Stilson wrench. A rock. Monkey shit.

The wording of this poll is definitely a little odd.
How could stopping the life of ANYTHING be "good", I actually favour the right of women to choose whether to have an abortion or not, HOWEVER its a very upsetting thing and does effectively stop life from either growing or possibly growing in the future depending on when you believe life begins!

Abortion is not good! its just necessary in certain circumstances, its not a black and white issue like "is Madonna a good singer?"

Well, duh. Everyone knows that women don't think! Silly Bottle, next you'll be suggesting that we're capable of holding down jobs or doing math! :tongue:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/how_it_works.png

:D

i think abortion is murder unless you wher raped but even still you are taking life away

i think abortion is murder unless you wher raped but even still you are taking life away

So? I'm taking life away when I scratch my ass, but that's not murder.

Depends, Antipodesia. Do you eat meat? Animal lives are ended so we can have hamburgers and steaks.

i think abortion is murder unless you wher raped but even still you are taking life away

Let's say we assume that abortion is murder.

How does it cease to be murder because one was raped? If someone rapes me and I go shoot his 5-year old child, is that not murder?

lets start at the very beginning...my views on abortion:
1. If it is because of rape or incest, it should be legal. nuff said.
2. If the sex that caused it was consensual...tough noogies. potential life shouldn't be destroyed cause you don't want the responsibility...yeah 9 months is a hard sentence but hey...
3. uh...no third trimester abortions period...and partial birth is just sick...
4. make abortion more humane...a lot of our methods are macabre and inflict necessary pain (sidenot, at what time period can an unborn baby feel pain?)
5. regarding handicapped kids...again unless they are debilitatingly handicapped, you shouldn't be allowed to abort...I know of families who would rather have kids with down syndrome or who are autistic than "normal" kids. called adoption...again 9 months is tough but if it was voluntary...

the hard part would be defining debilitating...

CthulhuFhtagn: the cells on your but are never going to become full developed humans barring acts of god and even that is stretching it...whereas a fetus has a very good chance of becoming a fully developed contributing member of society...

basically a fetus has a good chance of becoming a human...so essentially the decision does involve someone else...or at least their future...anyone who says its just a womans decision and its only affecting her is obviously not thinking to well...and I will defend that viewpoint vehemently as part of my political affiliation...(see signature)


the main question is , is abortion murder? well to decide that we need to define murder...meh.

I do eat meat, though I don't actually like the idea of it.
I was brought up Buddhist so I kinda believe all life is precious, not necessarily sacred in a Christian sense.

I just think the wording is a little flippant, It's not a GOOD thing to have an abortion as any normal woman would probably tell you its quite a traumatic experience but I think the need for it to be legal, for women to have the choice is fairly crucial there are circumstances such as in the case of rapes, abusive partners, sever financial degradation, the mother being just far too young to actually properly bring up a child that it is OK to have an abortion but it can never be a GOOD thing. It's not necessarily a BAD thing either but its still stopping the POTENTIAL for life (which I see as less important than the life that is currently living), so it can't be GOOD.

A better phrasing for the question would have been is the right to choose to have an abortion good. then I would have willingly voted yes!

antipodesia...most of your scenarious, not all but most can be fixed with one word...adoption.

lets start at the very beginning...my views on abortion:
1. If it is because of rape or incest, it should be legal. nuff said.
2. If the sex that caused it was consensual...tough noogies. potential life shouldn't be destroyed cause you don't want the responsibility...yeah 9 months is a hard sentence but hey...
3. uh...no third trimester abortions period...and partial birth is just sick...
4. make abortion more humane...a lot of our methods are macabre and inflict necessary pain (sidenot, at what time period can an unborn baby feel pain?)
5. regarding handicapped kids...again unless they are debilitatingly handicapped, you shouldn't be allowed to abort...I know of families who would rather have kids with down syndrome or who are autistic than "normal" kids. called adoption...again 9 months is tough but if it was voluntary...

the hard part would be defining debilitating...

CthulhuFhtagn: the cells on your but are never going to become full developed humans barring acts of god and even that is stretching it...whereas a fetus has a very good chance of becoming a fully developed contributing member of society...

basically a fetus has a good chance of becoming a human...so essentially the decision does involve someone else...or at least their future...anyone who says its just a womans decision and its only affecting her is obviously not thinking to well...and I will defend that viewpoint vehemently as part of my political affiliation...(see signature)


the main question is , is abortion murder? well to decide that we need to define murder...meh.

Third trimester abortions are very rare. Generally they only occur when otherwise the mother would die.

CthulhuFhtagn: the cells on your but are never going to become full developed humans barring acts of god and even that is stretching it...whereas a fetus has a very good chance of becoming a fully developed contributing member of society...

A fertilized egg has somewhere around a 30% chance of resulting in a live birth. And that's with all of our medical technology factored in. That's not a good chance. That's the sort of chance casinos make millions off of.

A fertilized egg has somewhere around a 30% chance of resulting in a live birth. And that's with all of our medical technology factored in. That's not a good chance. That's the sort of chance casinos make millions off of.

Quite right. Most pregnancies are aborted by the woman's own body without any conscious action being taken by her. If abortion is murder, a very large portion of women are murderers.

2. If the sex that caused it was consensual...tough noogies. potential life shouldn't be destroyed cause you don't want the responsibility...yeah 9 months is a hard sentence but hey...

So sex is a crime worthy of punishment that includes loss of your right to your own body for a period no less than 9 months?

3. uh...no third trimester abortions period...and partial birth is just sick...

You'd rather both woman and fetus die?

Or did you just forget to include an exception for medical necessity?

4. make abortion more humane...a lot of our methods are macabre and inflict necessary pain (sidenot, at what time period can an unborn baby feel pain?)

Based on the latest research, it would appear that pain cannot be felt until after 20 weeks. Elective abortions are banned after that point in most places anyways.

Of course, if you want to minimize pain for the fetus in a medically indicated late-term abortion, you should actually favor intact dilation and extraction (ie "partial birth abortion").

5. regarding handicapped kids...again unless they are debilitatingly handicapped, you shouldn't be allowed to abort...I know of families who would rather have kids with down syndrome or who are autistic than "normal" kids. called adoption...again 9 months is tough but if it was voluntary...

Late-term abortions for defects are only allowed with major defects. Obviously, "major" is debatable and different states define it in different ways, but you're generally looking at gross chromosomal or physical defects.

the hard part would be defining debilitating...

Precisely!

CthulhuFhtagn: the cells on your but are never going to become full developed humans barring acts of god and even that is stretching it...whereas a fetus has a very good chance of becoming a fully developed contributing member of society...

A fetus, yes. An embryo, not as much chance. A zygote, very little chance.

But that's really neither here nor there.

basically a fetus has a good chance of becoming a human...so essentially the decision does involve someone else...or at least their future...anyone who says its just a womans decision and its only affecting her is obviously not thinking to well...and I will defend that viewpoint vehemently as part of my political affiliation...(see signature)

The problem is that it doesn't matter if it affects anyone else. She gets to decide who uses her body and how. Period. If she doesn't want a developing embryo/fetus using it, that's her choice. You can call her cold and mean and evil, but it's still her body.

I think people who patently refuse to give blood and who would never donate organs are on morally shaky ground at best. But I don't advocate forcing them to do so.

the main question is , is abortion murder? well to decide that we need to define murder...meh.

I'd say the main question is "Do women have the same rights as men?" If so, they can refuse the use of their bodies to others. It isn't nice and pretty, but it's better than the alternative.

Yeah maybe it [Adoption] can be a good substitute, but there are cases that it can't, do you really expect a woman who as been raped to spend 9 months carrying not only a baby she doesn't want but the baby of the man that destroyed her life, emotionally, psychologically and sometimes physically?

Sure adoption is a possibility, but adoption agencies in some countries are already stretched to breaking point, its emotionally very damaging to a child to be in a care home or in a foster home and moved around every few years. It might not be an excuse for abortion but at the end of the day its a woman's life that is effected as well as the baby's and I don't think any sane woman would just have an abortion without thinking it through in lots of detail!

You may not think abortion is a morally correct thing to do but some people do!, personally I wouldn't want any woman that I got pregnant (which btw would never happen as I'm gay) to have an abortion, but I don't think we should take the woman's right to choice away! It may not be right for some people, it may clash with their beliefs but that doesn't mean it is not right for EVERYONE and clashes with EVERYONE'S beliefs, and as there is still debate about when life actually starts then personally I don't think there is anything wrong in having an abortion if its the right choice for that woman and she has come to that choice on her own accord and a doctor agrees with her that it is legal.

Quite right. Most pregnancies are aborted by the woman's own body without any conscious action being taken by her. If abortion is murder, a very large portion of women are murderers.

Not just murderers, but serial killers, if they're sexually active and have had more than one menstrual cycle.

Sorry, but I can't get behind any movement willing to disregard facts at such an alarming level.

ahhh but women generally don't choose for their bodies to miscarry...they don't say gee I feel like having my body miscarry today...

my bad I forgot about threatening abortions my brain has been baked in the sun all day at the job.

if the womans life is threatened by the fetus its her decisions...and hers only.

if the baby just magically appeared in her body than yes she could just abort it off the bat...but the fact is it didn't...she took an action that she knew (at least we hope) could result in pregnancy...and ending a possible life just for her own comfort for 9 months isn't the right choice IMHO.

sex is not a crime punishable by that...but ending a possible life because you opened your legs isn't the right course of action either...

can you show me a reliable source on that 30% comment?

abortion isn't murder...again unless we define murder...and since I doubt we are going to do that we really don't know whether it is or not. Right now I am not for wholesale banning abortion...but I think there need to be more rules than there are now...

can I also have the source for the fact that fetuses can only feel pain at 20 weeks? and even then...thats late 2nd trimester...so after that I would say ban abortion except when it could kill the mother or something like that if she carried to term.


again , sorry for my incoherency...7 hours of fieldwork does that to you ;)

sex is not a crime punishable by that...but ending a possible life because you opened your legs isn't the right course of action either...


I swear, it's amazing the way so many anti-choicers consistently use that particular charming turn of phrase. While it's quite infuriatingly repulsive, at least it saves me the trouble of wasting my time pretending their arguments don't boil down to "You're a dirty slut and you should be punished with babies!" :rolleyes:

ahhh but women generally don't choose for their bodies to miscarry...they don't say gee I feel like having my body miscarry today...

Uh...that's like saying they don't choose to have wings. Seems to me that many women in history have prayed for miscarriage. There's a powerful scene in the play Quilters that describes exactly that. They "don't choose for their bodies to miscarry" because they can't.

my bad I forgot about life-threatening abortions my brain has been baked in the sun all day at the job.

Fixed. "Threatening abortions" has too much creepy leeway for interpretation in it. :tongue:

if the baby just magically appeared in her body than yes she could just abort it off the bat...but the fact is it didn't...she took an action that she knew (at least we hope) could result in pregnancy...and ending a possible life just for her own comfort for 9 months isn't the right choice IMHO.

Not to be intellectually sadistic, but by that logic, Mary could have chosen to to abort Jesus "off the bat" -- he "just magically appeared in her body." Of course she wouldn't have, but still, y' gotta watch your analogies.

sex is not a crime punishable by that...but ending a possible life because you opened your legs isn't the right course of action either...

A possible life? Isn't that like spending money you have only a possibility of receiving? By the way "because you opened your legs" is really kinda pejorative. You're free to believe what you want about both sex and abortion, but I'm very glad you're not a legislator.

if the baby just magically appeared in her body than yes she could just abort it off the bat...but the fact is it didn't...she took an action that she knew (at least we hope) could result in pregnancy...and ending a possible life just for her own comfort for 9 months isn't the right choice IMHO.

Two things:

1. First of all, describing the changes made to the body by pregnancy as merely a matter of "comfort" is misleading. There are irreversible changes made to the body. Going through pregnancy puts women at greater risk for some disorders later in life. Deciding to carry a pregnancy to term - whether you give the child up for adoption or not - is a decision that will affect you for the rest of your life, not just nine months.

2. As a general rule, I agree that abortion is not the right choice. But that doesn't mean it is mine to make.

sex is not a crime punishable by that...but ending a possible life because you opened your legs isn't the right course of action either...

There are many things people have a right to do that I don't see as the best course of action. Like I said, it isn't my choice to make.

can I also have the source for the fact that fetuses can only feel pain at 20 weeks? and even then...thats late 2nd trimester...so after that I would say ban abortion except when it could kill the mother or something like that if she carried to term.

Actually, I was being conservative with the 20 weeks estimate.

The best and most recent source I can find is this one:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/8/947 which places the beginning of pain sensation at 29-30 weeks.

I thought I remembered a study placing it earlier - closer to 22 weeks, but I can't seem to find it on pubmed.

But the law (in the US generally, anyways) already does what you're talking about. Late-term abortions are generally outlawed except in the cases of medical indication - which means either that the mother is in danger or that the fetus has gross chromosomal or physical defects.

When we talk about late-term abortions, we aren't talking about women who simply don't want to have children. In fact, we're usually talking about women who had all intentions of carrying to term and were already looking forward to having the child, but who are either experiencing health problems that lead their doctors to recommend abortion or who have found that the fetus carries defects that would make life very difficult for it (if it would survive at all). That's a hard enough decision as it is. I'm certainly not going to demonize them.

And, as I said, if we assume that the fetus can feel pain, the least painful abortion procedure (for the fetus) which is also safe for the mother would be intact dilation and extraction. It involves a quick severing of the spinal cord, which would immediately cut off pain perception. It also gives the mother and other family an intact body over which they can grieve.

I think that the right to an abortion should remain, although I would only support it for reasons such as likely complications at birth, or rape.

Women have a right to their bodies, but not to others lives. They should use responsibility.

Its all very easy for us men to say we'll she knew what she was getting herself into when she had sex! I wonder if men had the same sorts of ramifications due to sex they would think twice before having it! I don't think so! We have what 30 seconds tops of a climax after about 15 mins sex and then if we don't want to we never have to think about it again! for a woman its more of a responsibility, they have sex, then up to 9 months pregnant, than then they have to decide what they are going to do, do they raise the child themselves, EVEN if it means her and that child are in huge amounts of poverty, does she give the child she has been carrying inside her for 9 months, the child that has put her body through huge changes and effected her life in almost every way away, or does she abort before the legal time is up!?

Its all very well for us men to get on our moral high ground and say well if she didn't want kids she shouldn't have had sex, it takes two to tango but the same argument cannot be applied to us! we are much freer to be in that child's life or be out of it! or to have a say in the abortion or not, or to have a say in the adoption or not.

Yeah some women might think abortion is wrong but not all of them do! and its not REALLY a man's place to be telling a casual sh*g what to do with her own body and her life!
SHE is the one that has to carry the baby for 9 months, SHE is the one that has to raise the child, SHE is the one that has to choose what to do with it once it is born. If a mother decides to abort the baby before it can really become a person then its not killing a person is it, its killing the potential for a person! last time I checked the potential for a person didn't have quite the same level of importance as the life of someone already alive, ie the mother. In my opinion abortion should be legal until the rights of the child are equal to the rights of the mother! IE until the child CAN survive outside the womb!

This whole idea of its a woman's fault that she got pregnant, that she shouldn't have had sex if she didn't want a child is quite frankly ridiculous! its a mans fault just as much as a womans! or have you not been taught about biology and the birds and the bees?
Again it takes two to tango, its just one has far greater ramifications afterwards.
I wonder if the men arguing that "its a 9 months sentence" that is brought upon themselves would be able to make the same choices a woman makes? or that they would stop having sex if they didn't want a child... somehow I don't think so!

Again it takes two to tango, its just one has far greater ramifications afterwards.
I wonder if the men arguing that "its a 9 months sentence" that is brought upon themselves would be able to make the same choices a woman makes? or that they would stop having sex if they didn't want a child... somehow I don't think so!

I've always held that, if men were able to get pregnant, we'd have had abortion-on-demand a long time ago. LOL

GO queensland Australia,
I wonder if anyone here has actually seen what an abortion looks like (a pool of blood and baby parts)

I wonder if anyone here has actually seen what an abortion looks like (a pool of blood and baby parts)

Have you attended many abortions yourself?

I've seen a liver transplant. It was pretty gross. Lots of blood and the smell of charred flesh. Plus a really big organ to throw out.

GO queensland Australia,
I wonder if anyone here has actually seen what an abortion looks like (a pool of blood and baby parts)

Personally, I wonder if anyone here has ever seen what open-heart surgery looks like - a big gaping bloody hole in someone's chest with, like, gooey organs and stuff sticking out! It's totally gross. Let's ban it!

Most of the times, fetuses are aborted when they are not much more than a big clump of cells. You won't recognize any so-called baby parts, trust me.

GO queensland Australia,
I wonder if anyone here has actually seen what an abortion looks like (a pool of blood and baby parts)

Sounds like a kind of appeal to emotion to me.

It's gross and upsetting, therefore it must be bad. BAN IT!

You know - the general consensus seems to be that taking a dump is pretty unattractive, too. Ban it?

Yeah some women might think abortion is wrong but not all of them do! and its not REALLY a man's place to be telling a casual sh*g what to do with her own body and her life!
SHE is the one that has to carry the baby for 9 months, SHE is the one that has to raise the child, SHE is the one that has to choose what to do with it once it is born. If a mother decides to abort the baby before it can really become a person then its not killing a person is it, its killing the potential for a person! last time I checked the potential for a person didn't have quite the same level of importance as the life of someone already alive, ie the mother. In my opinion abortion should be legal until the rights of the child are equal to the rights of the mother! IE until the child CAN survive outside the womb!

This whole idea of its a woman's fault that she got pregnant, that she shouldn't have had sex if she didn't want a child is quite frankly ridiculous! its a mans fault just as much as a womans! or have you not been taught about biology and the birds and the bees?
Again it takes two to tango, its just one has far greater ramifications afterwards.
I wonder if the men arguing that "its a 9 months sentence" that is brought upon themselves would be able to make the same choices a woman makes? or that they would stop having sex if they didn't want a child... somehow I don't think so!

She does not have the right to determine life or death She does not have the right to take life.

abortion is more than just removing a fetus, it has after affects, besides the risk of a mistake in the way an abortion is carried out, or the chance that it destroys the the rest of the ovaries, there is the fact that abortions put women in more risk of breast cancer.
That's right I said breast cancer, during pregnancy the body prepares for the birth, mammary blands grow to produce milk. assuming the pregancy is cut short by abortion, that leaves the breasts with extra cells, the cells either die or mutate, leading to cancer.

as for the girl not being responsible for the pregnancy, that makes about as much sense as the nazis not responsible for auschwitz. sure they didn't want it but they let it happen

ahhh but women generally don't choose for their bodies to miscarry...they don't say gee I feel like having my body miscarry today...


But, if they could, you'd be okay with it?

Basically - your argument seems to be that abortion is wrong, because it's not a voluntary body process.


if the womans life is threatened by the fetus its her decisions...and hers only.


That's mighty big of you.


if the baby just magically appeared in her body than yes she could just abort it off the bat...but the fact is it didn't...she took an action that she knew (at least we hope) could result in pregnancy...and ending a possible life just for her own comfort for 9 months isn't the right choice IMHO.


Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy.

Driving a car is not consenting to being involved in a wreck.

Eating a bacon sandwich is not consenting to choking to death.

Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy.


sex is not a crime


This sentence should have stopped here.


...punishable by that...


Punishable? A baby is a punishment?

Think about that. Think about that un-aborted foetus, getting to six years of age, and someone explaining that it exists as a 'punishment' to it's parent(s).


...but ending a possible life


Possibility. We do not base laws or rights on possibility. Potential is not a good argument.

Charles Manson could possibly have not killed people - but we treat him according to what he did, not what he might have done.

My 2 year old has the potential to learn to drive a car. I don't think he should be given the 'right' to drive, based on that potential.

Eventually - I assume - I'll die. But, I sure as hell don't want to be cremated early, just because of my potential.

Our lives are full of rights and situations that are decided by what we ARE, not what me might be, one day.

Potential to be 'a human being', is not a good enough reason to give the 'rights' accorded to one.

abortion isn't murder...


On this, you are right.

She does not have the right to determine life or death She does not have the right to take life.


On the other hand, she does have the right to govern her own uterus. And - if someone is trespassing in it....


abortion is more than just removing a fetus...

No. It's removing a foetus. That's what it is. The fact that the foetus isn't in it's comfy-warm incubator anymore, while bad luck for the little jellybaby, is just an unfortunate side-effect.

So you're saying that we should solve overpopulation the old-fashioned way, Mangaka? I guess war and genocide are clean and family friendly ways to do that. No taking of lives there, right? God Himself approves of it, the Bible says so.

abortion is more than just removing a fetus, it has after affects, besides the risk of a mistake in the way an abortion is carried out, or the chance that it destroys the the rest of the ovaries, there is the fact that abortions put women in more risk of breast cancer.
That's right I said breast cancer, during pregnancy the body prepares for the birth, mammary blands grow to produce milk. assuming the pregancy is cut short by abortion, that leaves the breasts with extra cells, the cells either die or mutate, leading to cancer.

Wrong! http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/tpirhorns.wav

as for the girl not being responsible for the pregnancy, that makes about as much sense as the nazis not responsible for auschwitz. sure they didn't want it but they let it happen

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/GodwinsLaw_CatPoster.jpg

She does not have the right to determine life or death She does not have the right to take life.

Untrue. Women have the same right to self-defense and bodily autonomy men do. If someone tries to use your body against your will, you are absolutely entitled to stop them from doing so.

abortion is more than just removing a fetus, it has after affects, besides the risk of a mistake in the way an abortion is carried out, or the chance that it destroys the the rest of the ovaries, there is the fact that abortions put women in more risk of breast cancer.

Not according to, you know, actual research. See here, for example: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp

Furthermore, hey, you know something that indisputably carries a whole lot of risks of medical complications and permanent bodily harm? I'll give you a hint - it starts with a P and rhymes with "schmegnancy."

as for the girl not being responsible for the pregnancy, that makes about as much sense as the nazis not responsible for auschwitz. sure they didn't want it but they let it happen

.....there are no words.

Actually, wait, there are some: How the hell is deliberately and knowingly building a concentration camp, forcing people into it, and killing them ANYTHING like having sex? How is the former something the Nazis "didn't want"? How is the relationship between sex and pregnancy anything at all like the relationship between deciding to put a bunch of innocent people in a death camp and putting said innocent people in the death camp? How did this analogy make any sense at all in your brain?

How the hell is deliberately and knowingly building a concentration camp, forcing people into it, and killing them ANYTHING like having sex?

Hey, some people have some pretty kinky ideas.

If this is what Mangaka likes, it's not our place to judge.

Potential to be 'a human being', is not a good enough reason to give the 'rights' accorded to one.

.

The question is then, when does it stop being 'potential' and become an entity with rights?

The trouble I find with lots of these arguments. is that when you follow them through logically you end up with quite uncomfortable conclusions, e.g.

1) Being born does not magically transform you into a fully-fledged human being, you are just outside the womb. The longer you remain alive the further along you become (barring disability perhaps), but it's all shades of grey. Unless you draw an arbitrary line in the sand, you can justify 'aborting' after birth with this logic

2) When a baby can survive outside the womb, you should not abort. Well, no baby can survive on its own outside the womb after birth, it is still 100% dependent on its mother or at least an adult. They may not be physically attached, but unless they are cared for they will die. Logically you are permitted to 'abort' after birth if this is your criterion.

I don't intend to be flippant, I'm just saying that whatever line we draw is pretty arbitrary and emotively based, because the logical arguments would extend after birth, which is a line most wouldn't cross.

Unless you draw an arbitrary line in the sand, you can justify 'aborting' after birth with this logic

And if you don't draw a line in the sand, menstruation becomes as bad as shooting a baby in the face. Sadly, nature wasn't nice enough to give us perfectly clear-cut delineations between "non-person" and "person," which is why abortion laws tend to err on the safe side and disallow abortion outside of medical necessity well before any reasonable qualification for personhood occurs.

2) When a baby can survive outside the womb, you should not abort. Well, no baby can survive on its own outside the womb after birth, it is still 100% dependent on its mother or at least an adult. They may not be physically attached, but unless they are cared for they will die. Logically you are permitted to 'abort' after birth if this is your criterion.

Except you added the "on its own," which wasn't in the original statement. "Outside the womb" and "on its own" are rather different things.

The question is then, when does it stop being 'potential' and become an entity with rights?

It doesn't matter. No one has the right to use my body against my will. Period.

Hey, some people have some pretty kinky ideas.

If this is what Mangaka likes, it's not our place to judge.

And I thought my tastes were weird... :tongue:

Furthermore, hey, you know something that indisputably carries a whole lot of risks of medical complications and permanent bodily harm? I'll give you a hint - it starts with a P and rhymes with "schmegnancy."


Pabortionegnancy?

The question is then, when does it stop being 'potential' and become an entity with rights?

The trouble I find with lots of these arguments. is that when you follow them through logically you end up with quite uncomfortable conclusions, e.g.

1) Being born does not magically transform you into a fully-fledged human being, you are just outside the womb. The longer you remain alive the further along you become (barring disability perhaps), but it's all shades of grey. Unless you draw an arbitrary line in the sand, you can justify 'aborting' after birth with this logic

2) When a baby can survive outside the womb, you should not abort. Well, no baby can survive on its own outside the womb after birth, it is still 100% dependent on its mother or at least an adult. They may not be physically attached, but unless they are cared for they will die. Logically you are permitted to 'abort' after birth if this is your criterion.

I don't intend to be flippant, I'm just saying that whatever line we draw is pretty arbitrary and emotively based, because the logical arguments would extend after birth, which is a line most wouldn't cross.

The Old Testament tradition would suggest that one becomes an entity in our own right, at the point at which we first breathe. (The 'breath of life', as detailed in Genesis).

Egyptians argued for a later point - which I suspect was to do with high infant mortality - whereby one wasn't considered an entity in one's own right until the age of majority.

The idea that 'most wouldn't cross' that line, is a fairly modern invention.

My personal belief is based on the medical evidence - a foetus has coherent brain function at some time after the 20th week, and coherent brain function sounds (to me) like a nice, non-arbitrary point at which to consider a foetus an entity in it's own right.

(Of course - even AFTER 20 weeks, I don't believe that it should be accorded rights that actually TRUMP the mother's own sovereignty).

And I thought my tastes were weird... :tongue:

Your tastes are weird. That's why we like you. :)

GO queensland Australia,
I wonder if anyone here has actually seen what an abortion looks like (a pool of blood and baby parts)

Yes. It was significantly more pleasant than many of the operations I've had.

And if you don't draw a line in the sand, menstruation becomes as bad as shooting a baby in the face. Sadly, nature wasn't nice enough to give us perfectly clear-cut delineations between "non-person" and "person," which is why abortion laws tend to err on the safe side and disallow abortion outside of medical necessity well before any reasonable qualification for personhood occurs.



Except you added the "on its own," which wasn't in the original statement. "Outside the womb" and "on its own" are rather different things.

On your first point yes, I agree, I was just pointing out that you can argue endlessly about where it should be because it ends up being a judgement call.

On your second, from the perspective of likelihood of survival, that it is 100% dependent on something outside itself to survive, whether it is in the womb or outside the womb. Do you think it differs?

Yeah, I'm totally for a woman's right to choose. Nobody has a right to say what a woman can and cannot do with their body. It is, you know, theirs.
Regardless of whether or not I feel abortion is moral (and nine times out of ten, I do), it is still a womans choice.








Well, anarchy is "you're allowed to assfuck anyone you want, but the same can happen to you"

Unregulated free-market capitalism = the rich assfuck the rest of us

Socialism = You'll be assfucked on a schedule, but we'll give you a reacharound

Democracy = if we all vote to assfuck you, well...

Anarchosyndicalism = we each take it in turn to be in "the barrel"...

I almost peed myself laughing when I read this.

I'll trust those who voted "good" understood the question to mean "are abortion rights good?" Abortion itself is a recourse for someone who unintentionaly got pregnant, or who is in danger from the pregnancy/unable to support a child.

You could argue abortion rights are good. I'd probably agree with you. But abortion itself is, at best, a "nessissary evil."

I disagree, the less of you humans there are around, the easier it will be for my kindred to crush your pathetic species...but I've said too much...

It doesn't matter. No one has the right to use my body against my will. Period.

Why shouldn't it matter? Fair enough, if you have the opinion that the foetus has no rights, then you are absolutely justified in doing what you want to get rid of it.

But if it did, for whatever line-in-the-sand reason you choose to draw, then you have to judge which set of rights are to be upheld in contrast to the other. One set of rights is ultimately ignored, which is why the issue is so divisive. I don't think you can say it doesn't matter.

Why shouldn't it matter? Fair enough, if you have the opinion that the foetus has no rights, then you are absolutely justified in doing what you want to get rid of it.

But if it did, for whatever line-in-the-sand reason you choose to draw, then you have to judge which set of rights are to be upheld in contrast to the other. One set of rights is ultimately ignored, which is why the issue is so divisive. I don't think you can say it doesn't matter.

Which other legal precedent can we use? Where is the other law that says I must let you use my body? Where is another medical procedure where it is mandated that I lose sovereignty?

Why shouldn't it matter? Fair enough, if you have the opinion that the foetus has no rights, then you are absolutely justified in doing what you want to get rid of it.

But if it did, for whatever line-in-the-sand reason you choose to draw, then you have to judge which set of rights are to be upheld in contrast to the other. One set of rights is ultimately ignored, which is why the issue is so divisive. I don't think you can say it doesn't matter.

I need a kidney. Give me yours. Now.

Which other legal precedent can we use? Where is the other law that says I must let you use my body? Where is another medical procedure where it is mandated that I lose sovereignty?

Easy. "Failure to Render Aid" law.

In many states, if someone is in danger of death or grievious bodily injury, and you are in the position to assist them (including using your body, muscles, hands, whatever) without appreciable risk to yourself, and you do NOT aid them, you can be deemed civilly liable or even criminally negligent.

Thus, there is precedent for the premise that we are legally COMPELLED to preserve one another's lives, including the use of our physical forms.

I just made that up.

Abortion is morally neutral to me. I chose the option "good" only to mean that it is appropriate that people should have absolute rights over their own bodies.

Easy. "Failure to Render Aid" law.

In many states, if someone is in danger of death or grievious bodily injury, and you are in the position to assist them (including using your body, muscles, hands, whatever) without appreciable risk to yourself, and you do NOT aid them, you can be deemed civilly liable or even criminally negligent.

Thus, there is precedent for the premise that we are legally COMPELLED to preserve one another's lives, including the use of our physical forms.

I just made that up.

I was really angry reading this.

Til I read the end

I find it interesting that the people most in favor of banning abortions are the least in favor of comprehensive sex education, free condoms for teenagers, the morning-after pill, paid maternity leave, financial assistance and educational opportunities for single mothers, comprehensive healthcare for everyone and free daycare?

Don't you find that interesting?

Well, sure. The first stone paves the way to the path of sin, you know. The only way to make sure no one has premarital sex is to avoid ever saying anything about it. They'll never figure out on their own.

No offence meant: it's just something I thought useful for everyone.
The biggest surprise to me was seeing that abortion in Germany has an "illegal but unenforced" status... looks like an italian-like sort of stance. ;)

I found that strange too. Maybe it's too much hassle to go through all the proceedings of getting rid of the law, and instead they ignore it. Like speed limits. :p

Everyone knows that if abortion were ever universally legalized that God would be furious in wrath and throw down burning meteors to the earth, he would turn the rivers to blood, snakes would crawl out of the ground etc etc.

I think the flood of reality TV shows could be interpreted as divine punishment. :(

I believe Ruffy asked for an opinion, not a live show involving fellatio being performed on Karl Marx.

Now there's an image that's going to linger. :(

I seriously doubt any women uses abortion as birth control, I fear your just going off some stereotype, not reality. The hassle of going through with it compared with using a condom is not comparable.

While this is MOSTLY true, sadly, there are actually women who have abortions but use no contraceptives. My mother used to work for Planned Parenthood and encountered a woman who did not use condoms because her husband was against them for religious reasons (Catholic), so she went and got abortions behind his back. She'd had 11 of them.

What blows your little rant out of the water is that they promote abstinence.

So it is easy to say no they don't support contraceptives (hardly a rule more like a recommendation) but they would say no to sex at all.

Now who's naive?

I don't hold them in particularly high regard. Fortunately, I'm unlikely to ever need one.

I doubt I'll ever need one/ Not my decision.

It's based on personal opinion and personal liberty.

I find it interesting that the people most in favor of banning abortions are the least in favor of comprehensive sex education, free condoms for teenagers, the morning-after pill, paid maternity leave, financial assistance and educational opportunities for single mothers, comprehensive healthcare for everyone and free daycare?

Don't you find that interesting?

way too serious dude. Where was the pie??

But in a place like America, there are tons of money, and with a little bit of digging, you can find extensive financial help for yourself and the child. The help can range from religious groups to the government, and several people out there are generous enough to give a few hundred dollars here and there to help.

Yes, there's a ton of money in the U.S.--most of it belonging to about 3% of society. Do you really believe that anyone who's willing to do "a little bit of digging" can somehow find the financial resources to raise a child for 18 years? If so, why on earth is anyone in the U.S. homeless? It must be even easier to "dig up" enough money to support just yourself.

For adoption, the gold standard is the "healthy white baby".

From Russia.

People just need to get over the fact that their houses are not as valuable as they used to be, and get over the fact that at least THEY HAVE A HOUSE.

Really? Everyone in the U.S. has a house? News to me. I must live in a special, secret part of the U.S. where "homelessness" still exists.


But the point of the matter is, we still have the STRONGEST economy on earth, there is no excuse that people can't get their hands on money.

Educated, middle-class people with no disabilities, health issues or overwhelming financial burdens? Maybe. How about the rest of the country?

I'm not sure where exactly all this abound wealth you keep mentioning is hiding in the "strongest economy on earth". You do realize that the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate and the most children living in poverty of any developed nation, yes?

How the hell is deliberately and knowingly building a concentration camp, forcing people into it, and killing them ANYTHING like having sex?

Ask Max Mosley.

For adoption, the gold standard is the "healthy white baby".

Any other type of baby, especially one with health issues such as fetal alcohol syndrome, or fetal exposure to meth or crack, are unlikely to be adopted.

That second part is quite true and a shame, however, there has been a significant increase of adoption of overseas children from less developed countries in Asia and Africa rather than fellow citizens especially white children, at least in Australia.

Because obviously Roman Catholics are banned from running chemists/owning shops and as such their personal refusal to have anything to do with contraception can't affect non-Catholics.

Oh, wait...

Oh wait, do you mean the man at my local chemist who is the pharmacist, owns and runs the business, who does sell contraceptives.

Gee I better let the Church know (despite the fact that he is high standing member within the church community) so they can excommunicate him :rolleyes:

Even if it what you are trying to imply is true, just because one shop or a number of shops don't, people can still source contraceptives from elsewhere, not that it matters because as I say they still sell them.

That's a good question. And I've never heard an answer that made sense to me, despite knowing more than one Catholic who, for some reason, had a bigger problem with contraceptives than with premarital sex.

I even know one guy who urged his wife to have her tubes tied/a hysterectomy because, even though a vasectomy is a much less invasive surgery, he could do it. He was Catholic. She wasn't. So it was apparently OK for her to use a diaphragm, be on the pill, have elective sterilization surgery while sleeping with him, but not ok for him to use a condom or get a vasectomy.

Look I understand what you are saying, but it isn't strictly the canon of the Church. I know some Catholics who refuse to eat pork on Friday's and they say they won't because they are Catholic, now the Church dropped the ridiculous suggestion decades ago and yet these people still say that this is the way.

Me personally I don't care if people use contraceptives or not, I don't care if people have premarital sex or not, but wait Blouman aren't you Catholic? Yes, yes I am but what has that got to do with anything. Hell, I went to a Catholic school and we were taught about sex and yes us boys had to practice putting on condoms on cucumbers and we discussed all sorts of means of contraceptives and where we could get them and the different success rates of each one. I remember one day the Bishop of the diocese walked into our class to see how we all were (it was a bit embarrassing having the bishop walk in while we are placing condoms on fruit) did he go into a rant about it? No, he talked to us about what the church's position was, that is no sex before marriage etc, but he also said that if we were to have sex then the best way to stop us bringing hardship on to ourselves (i.e. STD's pregnancies) was to use contraceptives, hardly what people would expect from a bishop but there you go hey.

But my point is that many Catholics have different reasons for what they do and many might even use their faith as the reason because either they have heard something about it which isn't true or misunderstood what was being said or just simply make up something on the spot. This guy may used his faith based on some old canon or he may have misunderstood or because he is afraid of getting the snippity snip (I mean what guy wouldn't be) he will use it as an excuse.

<snip>

While this is MOSTLY true, sadly, there are actually women who have abortions but use no contraceptives. My mother used to work for Planned Parenthood and encountered a woman who did not use condoms because her husband was against them for religious reasons (Catholic), so she went and got abortions behind his back. She'd had 11 of them.

<snip>
When I hear stories like this, I wonder if that woman would do that if her husband would consent to using condoms, or if the only reason she gets secret abortions is because she does not feel free to enforce condom use in the relationship nor free to leave the relationship.

The anti-choice stereotype of the mythical Woman Who Uses Abortion As Birth Control is always meant to imply that women choose abortion because it is somehow imagined to be easy and because they are unfeeling (physically as well as emotionally) baby-murdering whores. Anti-choicers NEVER make mention of women stuck in situations where they are denied the power to control their reproductive lives.

Yet women's health experts the world over see this every day, particularly in third world countries in Africa and parts of Asia, as well as individual cases in Europe and North America (I don't know about South America), where women are restricted by either law or social custom from enforcing contraceptive use within their marriages and also face severe lack of either or both of medical care for their pregnancies and enough food to feed all the children they would otherwise be forced to have.

The woman in your story may not have been facing the threats of violence that women in parts of Africa might face for trying to enforce condom use with her man, but she may have been dealing with the social and psychological pressure of a social group that demanded that she conform to the expectations of the group (i.e. the man does not use a condom and the woman doesn't say squat about it), and possibly even a tradition of women doing just what she did rather than buck the system. I suggest this because my grandmother and great-aunts talked about similar situations in their youth, among their Catholic Italian immigrant communities, and because it was a primary motivation for the movements that advanced women's rights and legal supports for contraception, sex education, and community clinics in US cities.

Abortion is murder plain and simple. Saying its just a fetus and not really a human is just not true, it is merely a developing human being. That is like saying a 5 year old is not as human as a 25 year old.

As a 25 year old who teaches 5 year olds, I can say that they are not as human. They also don't live in my body.

Abortions are the most fun you can have while pregnant.

"An abortion party is like a baby shower, only the mother can drink."

How could stopping the life of ANYTHING be "good"

Stopping the life of the bacteria making me sick is good. Well, you know, not for the bacteria, but there aren't a lot of groups up in arms over antibiotics. Except the Christian Scientists, I suppose. Bacteria-lovers.

3. uh...no third trimester abortions period...and partial birth is just sick...
4. make abortion more humane...a lot of our methods are macabre and inflict necessary pain (sidenot, at what time period can an unborn baby feel pain?)

3. As many others have said, third term abortions are very rare and usually only arise when a life is in danger. There aren't many women who get pregnant, go along for 8 months planning to have a baby, and then suddenly change their minds. Not to mention that MOST abortion rights advocates agree that fetus gains "personhood" when it is viable to live outside the womb, which precedes the third trimester.

The term "partial birth abortion" is an inaccurate and inflammatory phrase created by the religious right to stir up just such an emotion. I suggest you read about the actual process from a non-biased source.

4. In what way are modern surgeries inhumane? How would you like doctors to remove things from inside of people, with a little tiny cradle?

I swear, it's amazing the way so many anti-choicers consistently use that particular charming turn of phrase. While it's quite infuriatingly repulsive, at least it saves me the trouble of wasting my time pretending their arguments don't boil down to "You're a dirty slut and you should be punished with babies!" :rolleyes:

And why would they want dirty sluts like us raising children, anyway?

GO queensland Australia,
I wonder if anyone here has actually seen what an abortion looks like (a pool of blood and baby parts)

I wonder if you have ever read anything about abortion that didn't come from an email. You do realize that a normal woman's period looks like a "pool of blood and egg parts", right?

I wonder if you have ever read anything about abortion that didn't come from an email. You do realize that a normal woman's period looks like a "pool of blood and egg parts", right?

Thus the devil's curse, the entire female anatomy is pretty much considered a sin.

Very few strong role models in the Bible, mostly they're Jezebel's and Delilah's.

Thus the devil's curse, the entire female anatomy is pretty much considered a sin.

Very few strong role models in the Bible, mostly they're Jezebel's and Delilah's.
Funny, but several of the stronger women in the Bible either ended up or were initially famous for killing men. Interesting.

Thus the devil's curse, the entire female anatomy is pretty much considered a sin.

Very few strong role models in the Bible, mostly they're Jezebel's and Delilah's.

What about Judith? Esther? You would have trouble arguing the last one with Jews after all she gave them the right to get drunk during Purim.

I wonder if you have ever read anything about abortion that didn't come from an email. You do realize that a normal woman's period looks like a "pool of blood and egg parts", right?

Periods are gross and bloody. Therefore, we should ban them. All women must be pregnant constantly. *nod*

That second part is quite true and a shame, however, there has been a significant increase of adoption of overseas children from less developed countries in Asia and Africa rather than fellow citizens especially white children, at least in Australia.

Only because the regulations are looser.

Yet women's health experts the world over see this every day, particularly in third world countries in Africa and parts of Asia, as well as individual cases in Europe and North America (I don't know about South America), where women are restricted by either law or social custom from enforcing contraceptive use within their marriages and also face severe lack of either or both of medical care for their pregnancies and enough food to feed all the children they would otherwise be forced to have.

IIRC, the woman in question and her husband were Latino and Catholic, and already had several children. If she felt compelled to get 11 abortions rather than use birth control, I have to imagine she felt she either could not demand it (her husband, her social group and her religion would not support her) or that she risked losing too much (her marriage, children, stability) to make the demand. It's hard to imagine that she freely chose to have 11 abortions just for the hell of it. It's certainly sad to me that she didn't feel she had power to assert her own wishes and make decisions about her body, but I think most reasonable people would agree that this woman, and the world, would not have been better served if she'd given birth to 11 more children.

Only because the regulations are looser.

Yeah probably

Periods are gross and bloody. Therefore, we should ban them. All women must be pregnant constantly. *nod*

I was with you until the last bit. :( Can we be constantly, like, 6 weeks pregnant? That wouldn't be too much of an inconvenience.

What about Judith? Esther? You would have trouble arguing the last one with Jews after all she gave them the right to get drunk during Purim.

Judith is pretty typical it seems, seduce and betray, that's what women do if you don't control them right.

Like so many of these things, women are generally blamed for the weakness of men.

Sure there's a couple of strong characters, not a lot though.

Judith is pretty typical it seems, seduce and betray, that's what women do if you don't control them right.

Like so many of these things, women are generally blamed for the weakness of men.

Sure there's a couple of strong characters, not a lot though.

I'm not saying there isn't but there are some a bit like history of a lot of different areas a lot more male important figures than females, don't blame the Jews because their history is similar to others around the world.

Look at say England a lot more male 'heroes' (I use the term loosely) than females I can really only name Boadicea (Did I spell that right?) and Elizabeth I ( I am sure there are some others but no where near the amount of men) where as I could easily name a dozen male 'heroes' same with most other races around the world.

Look, I think we all agree that the choice to abort or not is a very serious one. While I believe that it is not a "real" option for the issue of unwanted pregnancies, it is still a viable option in terms of current medical science.

My real beef in the end comes from women (or their partners) who may choose not to use contraception during sex (or using the counting days method for those who say contraceptives aren't good), and then decide that an abortion is fine and within their rights should a pregnancy arise.

And yes, I certainly support any method to make men as a whole more accountable for their actions. If that means mandatory alimony (or is it child-support?) payments, then all the better.

Look, if you could assure me that all women who go (have gone, and will go) for abortions are responsible and have given the issue lots of thought, and have done as much as they could to avoid the occurrence of this issue, then it's fine with me. Question is, can you?

Hmm, not really coherent today...

Look, I think we all agree that the choice to abort or not is a very serious one. While I believe that it is not a "real" option for the issue of unwanted pregnancies, it is still a viable option in terms of current medical science.

My real beef in the end comes from women (or their partners) who may choose not to use contraception during sex (or using the counting days method for those who say contraceptives aren't good), and then decide that an abortion is fine and within their rights should a pregnancy arise.

And yes, I certainly support any method to make men as a whole more accountable for their actions. If that means mandatory alimony payments, then all the better.

Look, if you could assure me that all women who go (have gone, and will go) for abortions are responsible and have given the issue lots of thought, and have done as much as they could to avoid the occurrence of this issue, then it's fine with me. Question is, can you?

Hmm, not really coherent today...

Of course I can't assure you that all women are responsible and think things through. Women are human beings, which necessarily means some of them are morons. That said, I'm pretty convinced that the overwhelming majority of people do not put themselves through major medical procedures on a whim.

I'm not saying there isn't but there are some a bit like history of a lot of different areas a lot more male important figures than females, don't blame the Jews because their history is similar to others around the world.

Look at say England a lot more male 'heroes' (I use the term loosely) than females I can really only name Boadicea (Did I spell that right?) and Elizabeth I ( I am sure there are some others but no where near the amount of men) where as I could easily name a dozen male 'heroes' same with most other races around the world.

Utterly agree. Yet the history of England doesn't really have much to say on present day ethical issues, no one decries abortion because Elizabeth 1st made some vague statement. The Bible, however, is used as a source of ethical behaviour.

However, that nearly all cultures have pretty much treated women as chattel is not in dispute. That periods are considered unclean is also pretty common everywhere.

Of course I can't assure you that all women are responsible and think things through. Women are human beings, which necessarily means some of them are morons. That said, I'm pretty convinced that the overwhelming majority of people do not put themselves through major medical procedures on a whim.

Indeed, anyone who breaks a leg due to irresponsible behaviour should either keep the broken leg or give it up for adoption.

No treatment for you!

Utterly agree. Yet the history of England doesn't really have much to say on present day ethical issues, no one decries abortion because Elizabeth 1st made some vague statement. The Bible, however, is used as a source of ethical behaviour.

However, that nearly all cultures have pretty much treated women as chattel is not in dispute. That periods are considered unclean is also pretty common everywhere.

Well some sections of the Bible is used as a form of ethical behaviour yes I agree with you. However, other publications and documents are also used as a form of ethical behaviour as well such as Marx and Engels, Smith, Republic (yes people can use the arguments in that book to support their own views) many others as well.

Of course I can't assure you that all women are responsible and think things through. Women are human beings, which necessarily means some of them are morons. That said, I'm pretty convinced that the overwhelming majority of people do not put themselves through major medical procedures on a whim.

In all honesty, I hope that this will remain true down the years. Of course, all those "slippery slope" problems that we like to state and that you'd love to rebuff once and for all will now arise.

Although I concede that they're really as likely to occur in our lifetimes as some of the scenarios that you reverse on us if women had no abortion rights (like the possibility of solving dropping world population levels by raping women till they get pregnant; not that there's no historical precedent, but AFAIK those occurred during wartime, when it was more for humiliation than anything else).

In my case, all I can say is I'll sit and hope for the best, but don't blame me that I also expect the worst, since humanity has shown itself to be capable of regularly meeting such expectations.

Fair enough?

In all honesty, I hope that this will remain true down the years. Of course, all those "slippery slope" problems that we like to state and that you'd love to rebuff once and for all will now arise.

Although I concede that they're really as likely to occur in our lifetimes as some of the scenarios that you reverse on us if women had no abortion rights (like the possibility of solving dropping world population levels by raping women till they get pregnant; not that there's no historical precedent, but AFAIK those occurred during wartime, when it was more for humiliation than anything else).

In my case, all I can say is I'll sit and hope for the best, but don't blame me that I also expect the worst, since humanity has shown itself to be capable of regularly meeting such expectations.

Fair enough?

Fair enough, but I do want to point out that I don't see any need to "hope for the best" here. I'm not suggesting that women are all great and perfect beings, or even mostly great and perfect beings. I'm suggesting that they are mostly sane, and therefore there's no rational reason to worry that any significant proportion of them ever think, "Hey, I know what I want to do today - undergo an unpleasant, humiliating, and socially stigmatized surgical procedure! Whee, fun!"

Also, despite your inclusion of me in your collective "you," I have never argued nor ever heard anyone else argue that banning abortion will lead to anyone solving nonexistent dropping population levels through rape sprees. I am honestly quite baffled as to how this strange hypothetical would have anything to do with the abortion debate at all.

(And by the way, wartime rape of women is sadly not particularly "historical." It's still a depressingly commonplace feature of war today.)

Well some sections of the Bible is used as a form of ethical behaviour yes I agree with you. However, other publications and documents are also used as a form of ethical behaviour as well such as Marx and Engels, Smith, Republic (yes people can use the arguments in that book to support their own views) many others as well.

Indeed, Marx's chapter - Fraulein die dirtisch whorenspatze sind - was typical of the male mind.

Indeed, Marx's chapter - Fraulein die dirtisch whorenspatze sind - was typical of the male mind.

Got anything meaningful to say or crap? Who was saying anything about the male mind I am talking about how people may use other publications to promote and influence their ideas and behaviour.

Got anything meaningful to say or crap? Who was saying anything about the male mind I am talking about how people may use other publications to promote and influence their ideas and behaviour.

I was just making a joke dude - mostly commenting on the fact that the people you'd mentioned didn't, as far as I can remember, have much to say on keeping women in their place, if anything quite the opposite.

Marx felt that when class oppression was overcome, gender oppression would vanish as well.

Abortion is clouded by religious or traditional views on women, religion and tradition are often highly intertwined, many traditional practices are religious in conception.

I wasn't quite sure where you were going so I just added my comment - mostly I'm going for 007 Licensed to Post under my name right now :)

Fair enough, but I do want to point out that I don't see any need to "hope for the best" here. I'm not suggesting that women are all great and perfect beings, or even mostly great and perfect beings. I'm suggesting that they are mostly sane, and therefore there's no rational reason to worry that any significant proportion of them ever think, "Hey, I know what I want to do today - undergo an unpleasant, humiliating, and socially stigmatized surgical procedure! Whee, fun!"

Also, despite your inclusion of me in your collective "you," I have never argued nor ever heard anyone else argue that banning abortion will lead to anyone solving nonexistent dropping population levels through rape sprees. I am honestly quite baffled as to how this strange hypothetical would have anything to do with the abortion debate at all.

(And by the way, wartime rape of women is sadly not particularly "historical." It's still a depressingly commonplace feature of war today.)

Ok, I apologize for your inclusion (I've argued with far too many people who support abortion rights whole-heartedly who actually DID bring up such issues, like it or not).

And yeah, wartime crimes is another totally depressing case, especially when you consider that the target of humiliation in such cases is actually not the women raped, but oddly enough the countrymen of said violated women. Sheesh.

But about your first point, when a procedure/drug/*I'm not sure, maybe some new treatment?* comes out which minimizes the pain/discomfort/risks of abortion (and I guess it will come out eventually) who's to say that sufficiently large number of immature pregnant women won't be so bothered about abortion any longer?

Therefore, as I posted earlier, I'll hope for the best, that it doesn't come out as bad as it can.

I was just making a joke dude - mostly commenting on the fact that the people you'd mentioned didn't, as far as I can remember, have much to say on keeping women in their place, if anything quite the opposite.



Abortion is clouded by religious or traditional views on women, religion and tradition are often highly intertwined, many traditional practices are religious in conception.

I wasn't quite sure where you were going so I just added my comment - mostly I'm going for 007 Licensed to Post under my name right now :)

Sorry mate I took a gamble on what you were saying and it seems that I lost. What you might say however, is what Marx was saying you could if you wanted to use it a support for your own ideas, which is what some people do with some parts of the Bible.

So am I and I have a long way to go :)

But about your first point, when a procedure/drug/*I'm not sure, maybe some new treatment?* comes out which minimizes the pain/discomfort/risks of abortion (and I guess it will come out eventually) who's to say that sufficiently large number of immature pregnant women won't be so bothered about abortion any longer?



They already have a drug that does this. It's called RU-486. Hasn't created a sudden rush of abortions.

And I think that you should refrain from blanket statements regarding the maturity level of women who seek abortions. A significant number of women have already taken precautionary measures to prevent pregnancy, and are now in a situation where they need to take further steps. That suggests a high level of maturity to me.

Quite right. Most pregnancies are aborted by the woman's own body without any conscious action being taken by her. If abortion is murder, a very large portion of women are murderers.

Oh, they are. They are! They all murdered my heart, those sadistic women! Now I'm bitter and hateful!

abortion should be allowed to anyone. Seeing on how this is a free country we should be able to make the decision depending on if both parents agree, if you cannot afford a child or you made a mistake it should not be the countries decision.

My real beef in the end comes from women (or their partners) who may choose not to use contraception during sex (or using the counting days method for those who say contraceptives aren't good), and then decide that an abortion is fine and within their rights should a pregnancy arise.

To argue from a slightly more radical position:

While I personally find the decision of whether or not to have an abortion (hypothetically--never been in that position) to be a difficult one to make, with many medical and moral implications, I don't think such an attitude is necessary in order to have the "right" to receive one.

Your contention that abortion should only be "allowed" if all other precautions are taken and fail denies women an inherent right to make decisions about their bodies. Your personal repugnance, and mine, for the procedure being used in lieu of contraception does not in any way alter the fact that women as free human beings must have the right to their bodies defended and protected.

Quite a few anti-abortionists speak of the sanctity of life, be it unborn or happily crawling around on God's green earth. I'm wondering how many of those pious souls are also vegetarians and against the death penalty. All life is sacred, right? Right?

Quite a few anti-abortionists speak of the sanctity of life, be it unborn or happily crawling around on God's green earth. I'm wondering how many of those pious souls are also vegetarians and against the death penalty. All life is sacred, right? Right?

Vegetarians and vegans kill baby-veggies (young, tender carrots... young, tender lettuce...) and veggie-foeti (aka fruits and seeds), and eat their corpses. So much for sanctity of all life.

Vegetarians and vegans kill baby-veggies (young, tender carrots... young, tender lettuce...) and veggie-foeti (aka fruits and seeds), and eat their corpses. So much for sanctity of all life.

*cough* pesticides *cough*

*cough* pesticides *cough*

You're lucky my religious beliefs compel me to eschew abortion, you bulbous red nosed baggy panted fuck, or your little clown bastard child that you planted in my wife's womb would already be in a dumpster, right next to the wire hanger and somebody's half-eaten gas station hot dog.

I expect day care checks, and if you think I'm paying for this little illegitimate dipshits clown college tuition, guess again. You better start sending me checks, or else hope DeVry has a clown program.

You cock.

You're lucky my religious beliefs compel me to eschew abortion, you bulbous red nosed baggy panted fuck, or your little clown bastard child that you planted in my wife's womb would already be in a dumpster, right next to the wire hanger and somebody's half-eaten gas station hot dog.

I expect day care checks, and if you think I'm paying for this little illegitimate dipshits clown college tuition, guess again. You better start sending me checks, or else hope DeVry has a clown program.

You cock.

Any clown could have knocked up your wife. I already explained about her sexual proclivities. If the little tyke starts playing in mud or kicking you in the groin, let me know. I'll gladly take a paternity test. Along with my own three, I'll be fulfilling biblical prophesy. :)

actually i have heard from a lot of prolifers who think its despicable how some of us just focus on unborn and not on darfur and such...as for the death penalty I think we both know there is a large difference between and unborn baby and a premeditated murderer...though I don't exactly know my position on the death penalty yet...


well so it comes down to the difference between aniamls, vegetables and humans....and on those counts we are never going to agree...(while we probably will agree that vegetables are not on par with humans.) but as a Christian I believe there are differences between humans and animals...and most of you probably don't...and neither of us will convince the other on that count.
it does hurt to have a kid. something that i’ll never experience, but does that make it right to destroy a living organism? you said hunting was cruel. ok, i can understand that, but how can you make that difference between one living organism and another?

the emotional and physical pain of having an abortion lasts far far longer that the pain of childbirth. and effect so many more areas of life. in the end, the anguish of having an abortion far outweighs the pain of carrying and giving birth to a child.

i don’t have enough time right now, but i have dug out my research, and will try to post the studies and what groups they were done by, tonight if at all possible.

ok, here is the stuff i said i’d try to get up it’s about the effects on a woman after an abortion:

elevated risk of death, including high risk of suicide (Southern Medical Journal): after abortion, women have an elevated risk of death from all causes, which persists for at least 8 years.

65% experienced multiple symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (Medical Science Monitor).

significantly higher risk of anxiety and clinical depression (Brittish Medical Journal, Medical Science Monitor, and Journal of Anxiety Disorders)

Higher risk of substance abuse/increased substance abuse/increased smoking and drug abuse during subsequent pregnancies (American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, British Journal of Health Psychology, American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse)

160% more likely to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment (Canadian Medical Association Journal)

Nearly twice as likely to be treated for sleep disorders, which are often trauma-related (Sleep)


just a little food for the thought while I have to leave...

That's nice. However, I'm pretty certain those symptoms were already present before they were knocked up.

Fun fact. All of those appear if the woman gives birth. And they're often much worse.

Abortion is murder - flat out wrong. How could anyone murder and innocent unborn baby and live with themselves? How do you answer to God?
"Gee, God! It was just more convenient to murder this child."

while we probably will agree that vegetables are not on par with humans
On the "being aware of self" scale, yes. On the "being alive", no. Eukaryotes and prokaryotes are all living beings. We might discuss viruses.


elevated risk of death, including high risk of suicide (Southern Medical Journal): after abortion, women have an elevated risk of death from all causes, which persists for at least 8 years.


this merely means that women who had an abortion should be given more post-abortion aid, expecially on the psychological side.

Abortion is murder - flat out wrong. How could anyone murder and innocent unborn baby and live with themselves?
Like this:
1.I don't want the responsibility of raising a child: I'm not ready for it, or I don't have the resources for it, so better not to give birth.
2.There is a big difference between an embryo (here in italy the abortion on request is restricted to the embryo phase) and a baby (that would be a human being capable of living without resorting to a parasitic bond with another human being).
3.Personal freedom: every human being has a fundamental right to dispose of his/her body, or parts of it, without having to answer to no other human being. Women aren't babymaking machines, you know. Women are full-fledged human beings, enjoying full personal rights.

How do you answer to God?
People don't answer to entities they don't think as existant.
Believing in a "god", or not believing in a "god", or what this "god" wants, is something the State, the laws and social morality should not care about, as those are strictly personal choices.
States can allow abortion... not enforce abortion. So it's a matter of personal choice, again. Who are you to judge woman who's decided not to carry a pregnacy? Judge not, lest thee be judged thyself.

How do you feel about abortion? Would you get one/let your fuckbuddy get one?

As a man, my view is that I doubt I will ever be pregnant. And as much as I'd l like to think that any decision about umplanned pregnancies would be discussed, realistically I think the pregnant woman will always have the final say (short of threats, intimidation, manipulation etc.)

Are your views based on science or religion?

Science.

I believe in both freedom of religious expression without descrimination and complete separation of the church and state; indeed I do not believe the first can be achieved without the second.

I find it too strange to consider that a religion that worships an almighty and benevolent being would struggle to operate without the co-operation and aid of elected representatives.

Should it be available for everyone?

That's a strange way of asking about abortions availability. Presumably when something is decriminalised or de-stigmatised it applies to all cases, unless certain cases are specifically identified.

I think it should be legalised in the majority of cases, assuming the persons concerned have confidential crisis pregnancy councilling.

Abortion is murder - flat out wrong. How could anyone murder and innocent unborn baby and live with themselves? How do you answer to God?
"Gee, God! It was just more convenient to murder this child."

As all-knowing and all-powerful, and as something created in his image, doesn't that mean


he already knows the reasons? (all knowing)
he could have intervened but did not? ( all powerful, why is irrelevant speculation, see all knowing)
he planned it? (created in his image, through Him all things come to pass)

Incidentally, might I remind you "judge not, lest ye be judged."

Oh, they are. They are! They all murdered my heart, those sadistic women! Now I'm bitter and hateful!

There there. Its OK. We've all been there. We know. We understand.

Now there's an image that's going to linger. :(

Sorry, some things have to be said.

If Ruffy knew it was an option, he probably would have asked. :p

You're right there.

If you do need to get an abortion, when you get back from the clinic will you tell NSG about your experience?
Yep.

I did have an interesting experience while purchasing an at-home pregnancy test yesterday: the cashier asked me for ID. I've used that particular CVS many times before, and never been asked to show ID at the register.

At the time I just reflexively handed over my ID, since I figured it might have to do with checking to make sure I wasn't using a stolen credit card or something, but as I walked out I realized it was kind of odd.

ahhh but women generally don't choose for their bodies to miscarry...they don't say gee I feel like having my body miscarry today...

If I could, I would.


my bad I forgot about threatening abortions my brain has been baked in the sun all day at the job.

if the womans life is threatened by the fetus its her decisions...and hers only.

if the baby just magically appeared in her body than yes she could just abort it off the bat...but the fact is it didn't...she took an action that she knew (at least we hope) could result in pregnancy...and ending a possible life just for her own comfort for 9 months isn't the right choice IMHO.

I engaged in sexual intercourse with my partner, knowing that there was a small chance I would become pregnant. To minimize that chance, I used the Pill and my partner used condoms. I think my actions make it quite clear that I viewed (and still view) pregnancy as a BAD THING in my case, and that I do not wish to be pregnant.

For anybody to suggest that I have somehow consented to pregnancy at this point is pathetic. You are literally saying that "no means yes" in my case.

If I invite you over to my house for dinner, but then you decide that you're moving in and you're never going to leave, do you actually think it will work for you to tell the police that I consented to have you stay in my home indefinitely when I extended the dinner invitation?

Ok some people just want to fuck each other and thats cool:hail: but if you fuck and have a baby and your still in high school you dont want to drop out and start a family that soon.

actually i have heard from a lot of prolifers who think its despicable how some of us just focus on unborn and not on darfur and such...as for the death penalty I think we both know there is a large difference between and unborn baby and a premeditated murder.

AAARGH! People just don't get it. There is no middle ground here, abortion is either right or wrong. If it is human, then abortion is murder. Not only murder, but domestic violence, and the greatest travesty in the history of the free world.

If it isn't, then whatever.

GO queensland Australia,
I wonder if anyone here has actually seen what an abortion looks like (a pool of blood and baby parts)
I've seen several different abortions, and none of them involved a pool of blood or baby parts.

One of my friends had a medical abortion (using the "abortion pill") last year. There was blood, of course, but there weren't any baby parts because the "baby" was too tiny to see. She had cramps and what basically amounted to a heavy period. There was no pool of blood because we own maxi pads and a toilet and are familiar with dealing with personal hygiene.

I was also present as an assistant during a late term abortion once. The pregnancy was being terminated because the fetus was so critically malformed that it was basically dying inside the woman's body. It was probably not going to survive to birth, and would definitely not survive after birth. My role during the procedure was to explain to the patient what was going on, and to provide her with attention and comfort.

It was most definitely an unpleasant experience for all involved. Late-term abortions aren't elective. Nobody has them for fun. They are performed for medical reasons, which almost always means that the woman in question WANTED to be pregnant and she's really fucking sad about losing her pregnancy.

Whenever I hear people bitch about "partial birth abortion," and whenever I see those sick fuck abortion protesters holding up pictures of late-term abortions, it makes me want to punch things. Women who endure late term abortions aren't doing so for "fun" or "convenience." It is twisted and deeply fucked up to claim that women are running around getting third-trimester abortions on a whim, or that women somehow find it more convenient to endure an extremely painful, invasive procedure instead of using contraception.

actually i have heard from a lot of prolifers who think its despicable how some of us just focus on unborn and not on darfur and such...as for the death penalty I think we both know there is a large difference between and unborn baby and a premeditated murderer...though I don't exactly know my position on the death penalty yet...

There is indeed a large difference between an embryo and a murderer - one of them is an actual person with rights, and one of them is a clump of cells that might eventually become a person with rights.

well so it comes down to the difference between aniamls, vegetables and humans....and on those counts we are never going to agree...(while we probably will agree that vegetables are not on par with humans.) but as a Christian I believe there are differences between humans and animals...and most of you probably don't...and neither of us will convince the other on that count.
it does hurt to have a kid. something that i’ll never experience, but does that make it right to destroy a living organism? you said hunting was cruel. ok, i can understand that, but how can you make that difference between one living organism and another?

Buh? You just....directly contradicted yourself from one paragraph to the next. You freely acknowledge that you make a distinction between one living organism and another, and that it's okay to destroy living organisms.

the emotional and physical pain of having an abortion lasts far far longer that the pain of childbirth.

...no, it doesn't. Childbirth is quite definitely more physically painful than abortions, and plenty of people go through one or the other without any emotional pain.

and effect so many more areas of life.

Hahahahahaha, yeah, not having a kid totally changes your life more than having a kid! Also, not having your legs cut off totally affects you more than having them cut off. Yup.

in the end, the anguish of having an abortion far outweighs the pain of carrying and giving birth to a child.

Completely unsupported assertions are fun! I'll play too:

"In the end, the anguish of eating broccoli far outweighs the pain of being named Bob."

"In the end, the anguish of singing the Song That Never Ends far outweighs the pain of getting a bad haircut."

"In the end, the anguish of eating black jellybeans far outweighs the pain of buying toilet paper."

i don’t have enough time right now, but i have dug out my research, and will try to post the studies and what groups they were done by, tonight if at all possible.

ok, here is the stuff i said i’d try to get up it’s about the effects on a woman after an abortion:

*snipped list*

....which should all be evidence that people don't get abortions for fun, but because it's really important to them, no?

Furthermore, why don't you look up the effects of pregnancy for comparison?

I love abortion

Abortion is murder - flat out wrong. How could anyone murder and innocent unborn baby and live with themselves? How do you answer to God?
"Gee, God! It was just more convenient to murder this child."

How would I answer? Job 3:16 and Job 42:7. In the former, Job states that the fetus is not a person. In the latter, God states that Job's statement was correct.

Completely unsupported assertions are fun! I'll play too:

"In the end, the anguish of eating broccoli far outweighs the pain of being named Bob."

"In the end, the anguish of singing the Song That Never Ends far outweighs the pain of getting a bad haircut."

"In the end, the anguish of eating black jellybeans far outweighs the pain of buying toilet paper."
Totally sigged!

Look, I think we all agree that the choice to abort or not is a very serious one. While I believe that it is not a "real" option for the issue of unwanted pregnancies, it is still a viable option in terms of current medical science.

My real beef in the end comes from women (or their partners) who may choose not to use contraception during sex (or using the counting days method for those who say contraceptives aren't good), and then decide that an abortion is fine and within their rights should a pregnancy arise.
Then you have no real beef, because the two or three women a year who might do that don't really constitute a need for a movement to limit the legal rights of more than half the human population.

Just once, I would love to see anti-choicers actually present some numbers to back up their airy and completely specious claims about women who get abortions because they think they're easy. Just once, attempt to prove to me that this actually occurs and is a problem that needs intervention.

And yes, I certainly support any method to make men as a whole more accountable for their actions. If that means mandatory alimony (or is it child-support?) payments, then all the better.
Not necessary. Society has abortion.

Look, if you could assure me that all women who go (have gone, and will go) for abortions are responsible and have given the issue lots of thought, and have done as much as they could to avoid the occurrence of this issue, then it's fine with me. Question is, can you?
And who are you that anyone needs to justify to you their choices about what to do or not do with their own bodies?

That's another thing I just adore about some people -- this utterly baseless assumption that their opinions should matter.

Hmm, not really coherent today...
All too coherent, I think.

Abortion is murder - flat out wrong. How could anyone murder and innocent unborn baby and live with themselves? How do you answer to God?
"Gee, God! It was just more convenient to murder this child."
Which god?

None of the ones I follow would have anything to say about it.

If I could, I would.

<snip>
Can you imagine how the world would be different if pregnancy could be controlled the way we control large muscle movement? If a woman got pregnant and within, say, the first two weeks, could just will it to abort? How many social problems might never have happened if we could do that?

Can you imagine how the world would be different if pregnancy could be controlled the way we control large muscle movement? If a woman got pregnant and within, say, the first two weeks, could just will it to abort? How many social problems might never have happened if we could do that?
I once read a sci fi book in which scientists discovered a drug that would allow people to live forever, without ever getting sick or aging.

There were two catches: 1) 50% of the people who take the drug die within 48 hours. Those who survive are immortal and basically immune to most injuries or disease. 2) Women who take the drug become unable to carry a pregnancy to term.

In the book, a major breakthrough happens when one woman manages to conceive and carry a pregnancy after she's received the drug. It turns out she's a long-time practitioner of a form of meditation which has direct physiological impact. Just like some yogis can consciously alter their blood pressure, she figures out a way for women to learn to control whether or not their bodies carry a pregnancy by suppressing some of the alterations that the drug had induced in her body.

In the book this was a relatively minor point, basically existing to simply remove the problem of an infertile-yet-eternal population.

I always thought it should have been a whole book in and of itself. Imagine how the world would change if no pregnancy could ever occur without a woman's direct conscious consent, and if at any point she withdrew her consent then the pregnancy would simply terminate. Imagine how the structure of power in the world would be altered.

I once read a sci fi book in which scientists discovered a drug that would allow people to live forever, without ever getting sick or aging.

There were two catches: 1) 50% of the people who take the drug die within 48 hours. Those who survive are immortal and basically immune to most injuries or disease. 2) Women who take the drug become unable to carry a pregnancy to term.

In the book, a major breakthrough happens when one woman manages to conceive and carry a pregnancy after she's received the drug. It turns out she's a long-time practitioner of a form of meditation which has direct physiological impact. Just like some yogis can consciously alter their blood pressure, she figures out a way for women to learn to control whether or not their bodies carry a pregnancy by suppressing some of the alterations that the drug had induced in her body.

In the book this was a relatively minor point, basically existing to simply remove the problem of an infertile-yet-eternal population.

I always thought it should have been a whole book in and of itself. Imagine how the world would change if no pregnancy could ever occur without a woman's direct conscious consent, and if at any point she withdrew her consent then the pregnancy would simply terminate. Imagine how the structure of power in the world would be altered.

Interesting. What was the name of this book? I wonder if anyone's written anything on the subject (not related to the book, necessarily, but on the topic of being able to control pregnancy as an act of will).

Interesting. What was the name of this book? I wonder if anyone's written anything on the subject (not related to the book, necessarily, but on the topic of being able to control pregnancy as an act of will).

Couldn't the Bene Geserit (probably spelled wrong) do that in the Dune series?

I don't know of any books specifically about it, though. It would be interesting.

Couldn't the Bene Geserit (probably spelled wrong) do that in the Dune series?

I don't know of any books specifically about it, though. It would be interesting.

The Bene Gesserit were able to manipulate their own biochemistry at a cellular level, and could thus do everything from neutralize poisons to control the sex of a baby should they become pregnant (which they could consciously choose to do or not do after sex.)

And this is as deep as I go in an abortion thread ;)

I don't like it, I think only if the woman is in danger.

On topic: I support a woman's right to abortion. It's her body, nobody else has a right to it.

people seem to easily forget that there are two bodies in the womb :eek:

I've seen several different abortions, and none of them involved a pool of blood or baby parts.

One of my friends had a medical abortion (using the "abortion pill") last year. There was blood, of course, but there weren't any baby parts because the "baby" was too tiny to see. She had cramps and what basically amounted to a heavy period. There was no pool of blood because we own maxi pads and a toilet and are familiar with dealing with personal hygiene.

I was also present as an assistant during a late term abortion once. The pregnancy was being terminated because the fetus was so critically malformed that it was basically dying inside the woman's body. It was probably not going to survive to birth, and would definitely not survive after birth. My role during the procedure was to explain to the patient what was going on, and to provide her with attention and comfort.

It was most definitely an unpleasant experience for all involved. Late-term abortions aren't elective. Nobody has them for fun. They are performed for medical reasons, which almost always means that the woman in question WANTED to be pregnant and she's really fucking sad about losing her pregnancy.

Whenever I hear people bitch about "partial birth abortion," and whenever I see those sick fuck abortion protesters holding up pictures of late-term abortions, it makes me want to punch things. Women who endure late term abortions aren't doing so for "fun" or "convenience." It is twisted and deeply fucked up to claim that women are running around getting third-trimester abortions on a whim, or that women somehow find it more convenient to endure an extremely painful, invasive procedure instead of using contraception.

I'm sorry I overestimated what I thought I knew.

people seem to easily forget that there are two bodies in the womb :eek:

One of which is using the other. Guess which.

people seem to easily forget that there are two bodies in the womb :eek:

Only if it's twins.

One of which is using the other. Guess which.

I dunno. I really wouldn't consider the potential mother to be "in the womb." Thus, barring twins or the like, there's only one thing in the womb. And whether or not it is a human being, a legal person, or just a clumb of cells with no rights, abortion still has to be legal.

It's the funny thing about this debate.

I dunno. I really wouldn't consider the potential mother to be "in the womb." Thus, barring twins or the like, there's only one thing in the womb. And whether or not it is a human being, a legal person, or just a clumb of cells with no rights, abortion still has to be legal.

It's the funny thing about this debate.

Nuh Uh! Placentas are People Too!

Afterbirth is Murder shift+one

ha... etc

Good name. Crap post.

Nuh Uh! Placentas are People Too!


Placentas are Tom Cruise's favorite Soilent Green.

So, I was just talking to my friend about how she had gotten an abortion 7 months ago, and she feels that it was the right thing to do.
I'm very glad she's okay with her decision. I've seen many people regret having one (or keeping the kid).

How do you feel about abortion?
Should be legal until the fetus is viable. At that point, I'd rather see an early child birth with a few caveats.

Would you get one/let your fuckbuddy get one?

If I got my fuckbuddy pregnant, I'd demand they kept it. Think of all the money that could be made selling the rights to my story! "Woman gets man [or other woman] pregnant."

In all seriousness, I will never get one thanks to Dan Savage. I read The Kid and cried at the stories about gay couples struggle to adopt, and I decided I couldn't in good concience have an abortion when there's really great parents-to-be out there that have a hard time adopting.

Are your views based on science or religion?
My decision is influenced by religion insofar as religious assholes are generally the ones not giving babies to gay men and women.

Should it be available for everyone?
Yes.

This is a stupid poll. Abortion isn't good if you're pro-choice or pro-life. It should be "Should people be allowed to have an abortion?"

Abortion is neutral. While I don't personally think abortion should be used as birth control, I'm not going to get after someone who has one.

I've seen several different abortions, and none of them involved a pool of blood or baby parts.

One of my friends had a medical abortion (using the "abortion pill") last year. There was blood, of course, but there weren't any baby parts because the "baby" was too tiny to see. She had cramps and what basically amounted to a heavy period. There was no pool of blood because we own maxi pads and a toilet and are familiar with dealing with personal hygiene.

I was also present as an assistant during a late term abortion once. The pregnancy was being terminated because the fetus was so critically malformed that it was basically dying inside the woman's body. It was probably not going to survive to birth, and would definitely not survive after birth. My role during the procedure was to explain to the patient what was going on, and to provide her with attention and comfort.

It was most definitely an unpleasant experience for all involved. Late-term abortions aren't elective. Nobody has them for fun. They are performed for medical reasons, which almost always means that the woman in question WANTED to be pregnant and she's really fucking sad about losing her pregnancy.

Whenever I hear people bitch about "partial birth abortion," and whenever I see those sick fuck abortion protesters holding up pictures of late-term abortions, it makes me want to punch things. Women who endure late term abortions aren't doing so for "fun" or "convenience." It is twisted and deeply fucked up to claim that women are running around getting third-trimester abortions on a whim, or that women somehow find it more convenient to endure an extremely painful, invasive procedure instead of using contraception.

Totally with you on how upsetting it is when fanatical bastards spout bullshit about late term abortions. The only people getting late term abortions are women who were trying to have a child and instead got a terrible stroke of luck making an abortion a dire medical necessity. Anybody who isn't either uninformed, a willful idiot or a despicable liar knows that women who have 3rd trimester abortions are usually feeling devastated over it. They just wanted to be mothers but something went terribly wrong for them.

people seem to easily forget that there are two bodies in the womb :eek:

Only if there are twins. It is entirely up to a woman whether or not anybody gets to use her uterus (not to mention just about all her other internal organs during the early stages of pregnancy, when elective abortions, rather than those of medical necessity, occur).

Abortion is neither good in the view of moral nor medicine. It's the right to abortion that we should be talking about.

Totally with you on how upsetting it is when fanatical bastards spout bullshit about late term abortions. The only people getting late term abortions are women who were trying to have a child and instead got a terrible stroke of luck making an abortion a dire medical necessity. Anybody who isn't either uninformed, a willful idiot or a despicable liar knows that women who have 3rd trimester abortions are usually feeling devastated over it. They just wanted to be mothers but something went terribly wrong for them.

Yeah, but it's fantastic thin-end-of-the-wedge politic. It's got the word 'abortion' in it, see? So you can use it for precedence, later.

I personally find it to be an evil practice, but I am not going to force laws upon people to be moral.

I personally find it to be an evil practice, but I am not going to force laws upon people to be moral.

No, you're just going to make judgments about what is moral.

If we outlaw abortion, where am I going to get my delicious crispy foetus dumplings?

If we outlaw abortion, where am I going to get my delicious crispy foetus dumplings?
The same place where you get Hot Gay Marriage Chow Mein and Embryonic Stem Cell Research Crackers.

The same place where you get Hot Gay Marriage Chow Mein and Embryonic Stem Cell Research Crackers.

Wal-Mart?

Completely unsupported assertions are fun! I'll play too:
....which should all be evidence that people don't get abortions for fun, but because it's really important to them, no?

Furthermore, why don't you look up the effects of pregnancy for comparison?
and yet i gave you some of the effects of abortion...while you just say look it up...and no one has given me citations for the 30% of pregnancies are natural miscarriages...so lets just all jump on the unsupported assertions bandwagon...at least I supplied some evidence...all I have seen in any of your posts if cynicism and...well...unsupported assertions.

I am correct 100% of the time 50% of the time. The other 50% is just a blur.

and yet i gave you some of the effects of abortion...while you just say look it up...and no one has given me citations for the 30% of pregnancies are natural miscarriages...so lets just all jump on the unsupported assertions bandwagon...at least I supplied some evidence...all I have seen in any of your posts if cynicism and...well...unsupported assertions.

Sorry, I assumed you were aware of basic facts about pregnancy. Have a couple of extremely obvious links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#Prevalence

http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/index.htm

and yet i gave you some of the effects of abortion...while you just say look it up...and no one has given me citations for the 30% of pregnancies are natural miscarriages...so lets just all jump on the unsupported assertions bandwagon...at least I supplied some evidence...all I have seen in any of your posts if cynicism and...well...unsupported assertions.

About one in four pregnancies result in miscarriage. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2176898.stm)

American Pregnancy Association: (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/miscarriage.html)
10-25% of all medically recognized pregnancies result in miscarriage
More than 50% of all pregnancies may end in chemical pregnancy (when a fertilized egg fails shortly after implantation)

Some risks of pregnancy:

Morning sickness
High blood pressure
Heartburn
Miscarriage
Depression
Constipation
Diabetes

Some risks of labor and delivery: (http://www.webmd.com)

Breech birth
Pre-term labor
Prolonged labor (failure to progress)
Premature rupture of membranes
Umbilical cord prolapse
Umbilical cord compression
Amniotic fluid embolism
Pre-eclampsia (this nearly killed my mother at my birth)
Postpartum hemorrhage

The only time I would ever support an abortion is if the mother's life was in danger. Yes, I have religious views on abortion, but also scientific views. I believe life beings at conception.

Only my opinion.

The only time I would ever support an abortion is if the mother's life was in danger. Yes, I have religious views on abortion, but also scientific views. I believe life beings at conception.

Only my opinion.

Here's the thing, though.

I have only scientific views on abortion - no religious ones - and I disagree.

Your 'belief' doesn't sound very scientific, to be honest. There is 'life' in the foetus, but there is 'life' in the sperm and ova. It sounds like you are superimposing your religious inclinations over the data.

Here's the thing, though.

I have only scientific views on abortion - no religious ones - and I disagree.

Your 'belief' doesn't sound very scientific, to be honest. There is 'life' in the foetus, but there is 'life' in the sperm and ova. It sounds like you are superimposing your religious inclinations over the data.

But that's irrelevant either way. Even if the embryo/fetus were alive and fully human (and afforded rights guaranteed to human beings) abortion would still have to be legal, regardless of the moral whims of religious folks.
It's the wonderful thing about this debate.