NationStates Jolt Archive

Some of them, sometimes. I guess. But for the most part they are like parasites... except not as absolutely testicle-withdrawingly horrifying. I mean, Jesus. It's why I constantly check my own defecation. I mean it'd be strange and disconcerting if I found a fetus there... not that unusual but certainly in the realm of possibility.... while I think I'd just start screaming bloody murder if I say, saw a tapeworm. I'd scream myself blind, and never ever stop.

...now that may be one of the stragest admissions I've seen on here ever.

Some parasites are pretty cool. Check out botflies on youtube.

As for some of the little shits being cool...I like kids. I want kids of my own some day (god help us, not any time soon...last thing Boston needs are little Sarkys running around). I just understand that the relationship between fetus and host is quite parasitic on the physical level. On the emotional level, it is quite different in many cases.

I think this brings up a good point...Is the eating of Eggs abortion for Chickens?

Have you ever eaten an omelette in Cora's?

Oh wow, it's 17 pages already btw, where are my stars?

As far as I can tell, not so much any specific volume of urine, but rather the size of the concept of urine. Which, I'm assuming, is fairly large, given that urine is a fairly universal concept.

I disagree. I think he means the actual volume of urine.

The average adult human's bladder is 500 mL in volume when full and at STP conditions, 298.15 K temperature, and 101,300 Pa of pressure. However, not all humans are adult, and we are not all constantly at maximal bladder distension, dancing around while our teeth hurt and debating how reasonable it is to urinate in the corner of an elevator on the way to job interview if they'll never know.

There are about 6,000,000,000 humans, and since dog and crocodile urine are known to have less cognitive acumen than human piss, we will restrict our calculations to humans. Some of you may argue, with poor spelling, that we should at least include the broader range of our fellow higher primates, but I remind you that this thread is about abortion. Please try to stay on topic.

Now then, since bladders are typically half full (see citation) and we must include children and Cambodians who have small bladders, we simply multiply 250 mL times 6,000,000,000. We thus arrive at 1.5 Billion Liters of urine on earth.

We now include the fact that Poliwanacraca dresses like a whore, but a whore like in the movies, not a whore like like an actual whore.

Framing these facts within the current state of peer reviewed literature in the field of neuroplasticity, we arrive at a brain size of 1,500 cubic meters, expressed as a shiny, warm, salty orb of piss about 40 meters wide representing the organic material expression of Poliwanacraca's mind.

Please note that these calculations are approximate, principally in the fact that they reflect no application of biology or mathematics.

I disagree. I think he means the actual volume of urine.

The average adult human's bladder is 500 mL in volume when full and at STP conditions, 298.15 K temperature, and 101,300 Pa of pressure. However, not all humans are adult, and we are not all constantly at maximal bladder distension, dancing around while our teeth hurt and debating how reasonable it is to urinate in the corner of an elevator on the way to job interview if they'll never know.

There are about 6,000,000,000 humans, and since dog and crocodile urine are known to have less cognitive acumen than human piss, we will restrict our calculations to humans. Some of you may argue, with poor spelling, that we should at least include the broader range of our fellow higher primates, but I remind you that this thread is about abortion. Please try to stay on topic.

Now then, since bladders are typically half full (see citation) and we must include children and Cambodians who have small bladders, we simply multiply 250 mL times 6,000,000,000. We thus arrive at 1.5 Billion Liters of urine on earth.

We now include the fact that Poliwanacraca dresses like a whore, but a whore like in the movies, not a whore like like an actual whore.

Framing these facts within the current state of peer reviewed literature in the field of neuroplasticity, we arrive at a brain size of 1,500 cubic meters, expressed as a shiny, warm, salty orb of piss about 40 meters wide representing the organic material expression of Poliwanacraca's mind.

Please note that these calculations are approximate, principally in the fact that they reflect no application of biology or mathematics.

I was telling NA this earlier, and I'll repeat it here - if I ever found myself in a room with the two of you at once, I do believe I would be dead of laughing inside of half an hour. Seriously, I am in PAIN from the laughter you are causing.

(Not that that's a bad thing... ;) )

We now include the fact that Poliwanacraca dresses like a whore, but a whore like in the movies, not a whore like like an actual whore.

Poli: NSG's resident hooker with a heart of gold.

...now that may be one of the stragest admissions I've seen on here ever.


More people really should do it at least somewhat regularly. I mean it's easy enough to check, and it'd be awfully inconvenient to find out you have some sort of parasite infection by other persons - on your honeymoon, say.


Some parasites are pretty cool. Check out botflies on youtube.

Noooooooooooooo. Bad. Bad. Must think happy thoughts. Happy thoughts. Happy thoughts.
*curls into fetal position, rocking back and forth*

As for some of the little shits being cool...I like kids. I want kids of my own some day (god help us, not any time soon...last thing Boston needs are little Sarkys running around). I just understand that the relationship between fetus and host is quite parasitic on the physical level. On the emotional level, it is quite different in many cases.

Emotionally you can't really have a parasite unless mind-rape is possible as with Spock from Star Trek. One of his Vulcan superpowers is the ability to mind-rape anyone he feels like, including his friend Dr McCoy (who got a pregnancy-like situation where he was sort of crazy, not feeling like himself, speaking in Vulcan, and with a craving for pickles) and that one traitor chick from that one movie. (In that one, the mind-rape happens on screen and is thus all the more disturbing. Leonard Nimoy's performance in that is so profound it casts a new and unpleasant light on 'The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins,' with its nubile young girls dancing, singing, doing drugs and in general behaving exactly like mind-rape-victims with Stockholm Syndrome.)

But I know what you mean.

Poli: NSG's resident hooker with a heart of gold.

So thats what really happened to Goldie....

Poli: NSG's resident hooker with a heart of gold.

I am torn. On the one hand, I am laughing hysterically and tempted to sig this, and on the other, I am worried that exceptionally literal-minded people (and Ayn here can assure you that they exist) will actually believe it and start soliciting me. :p

Emotionally you can't really have a parasite unless mind-rape is possible as with Spock from Star Trek. One of his Vulcan superpowers is the ability to mind-rape anyone he feels like, including his friend Dr McCoy (who got a pregnancy-like situation where he was sort of crazy, not feeling like himself, speaking in Vulcan, and with a craving for pickles) and that one traitor chick from that one movie. (In that one, the mind-rape happens on screen and is thus all the more disturbing. Leonard Nimoy's performance in that is so profound it casts a new and unpleasant light on 'The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins,' with its nubile young girls dancing, singing, doing drugs and in general behaving exactly like mind-rape-victims with Stockholm Syndrome.)

But I know what you mean.

You referenced the original Star Trek, which I respect. You educated me about Vulcans, which I am grateful for.

Is "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins" from that sweet ass Bakshi film back in the day, or is Neil Diamond desperate for a new hit?

I am torn. On the one hand, I am laughing hysterically and tempted to sig this, and on the other, I am worried that exceptionally literal-minded people (and Ayn here can assure you that they exist) will actually believe it and start soliciting me. :p

*quickly hides $100 bill* Nobody would make that assumption.

<.<

>.>

I am torn. On the one hand, I am laughing hysterically and tempted to sig this, and on the other, I am worried that exceptionally literal-minded people (and Ayn here can assure you that they exist) will actually believe it and start soliciting me. :p

How you doin?

you would be my first too...no one has ever siged me before.

And never before has that sounded so dirty.

You referenced the original Star Trek, which I respect. You educated me about Vulcans, which I am grateful for.

Is "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins" from that sweet ass Bakshi film back in the day, or is Neil Diamond desperate for a new hit?

I... have no words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC73PHdQX04). You must simply witness it yourself to gain a true understanding.

Be warned that what is seen or heard cannot be unseen or unheard.

You referenced the original Star Trek, which I respect. You educated me about Vulcans, which I am grateful for.

Is "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins" from that sweet ass Bakshi film back in the day, or is Neil Diamond desperate for a new hit?

You don't know the Ballad of Bilbo Baggins?

Dude, go to YouTube now and find it. Your brain is in need of hilarious breakage. :p

I... have no words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC73PHdQX04). You must simply witness it yourself to gain a true understanding.

Be warned that what is seen or heard cannot be unseen or unheard.

No no no! Don't it will burn your brain! Run while you can! Heed! his warning! RUN!

I often argue in favor of a Women's right to Choose.....

But, a friend of mine posed this question to me, and I have to say, Ive never felt like more of a hypocrite than when I answered that...

He asked If a girl I had sex with ended up pregnant and wanted an abortion, would you want her to abort your son or daughter?...

I have to say, I would have to try and stop her, I just couldnt let that happen to my kid...

I thought this might get a little more exposure here....Cause I actually want to know what you guys think of this...

Trostia and Poli.

You couldn't just have rickrolled me? Sent me a link to vacations in Branson? Two Girls One Cup? Something?

You had to send me that?

...mutter...going to be singing that shit all week...grumble....fuck the both of you...

No no no! Don't it will burn your brain! Run while you can! Heed! his warning! RUN!

You know what you call a pair of women at a table, worried?

Two, late.

Just like your warning.

Actually, it feels good because of things like nerve endings, but you know, whatever. Humans and dolphins are the only animals that fuck for pleasure.

Untrue.

That is like failed businesses getting bailed out by the government. It is a cop-out and doing the very opposite of taking responsibility. No wonder we are in this mess, no one wants to take responsibility anymore - they want all the good and none of the bad.

Babies as punishment? More twisted than even I could imagine.

I thought this might get a little more exposure here....Cause I actually want to know what you guys think of this...

Find a viable womb in which to incubate and from which to deliver said fetus, and you might stand a chance in court.

Find a viable womb in which to incubate and from which to deliver said fetus, and you might stand a chance in court.

I guess I could find a Surrogate....

A 14 year old mother on crack hardly is a suitable mother. The child will come out having three heads and 2,5 legs.

There are some situations where the woman really can't put themselves through 9 months of pregnancy. They can't afford it for one.

It's not murder if it's done within a certain amount of time.

human fertility is excessive. and because life has been extended, among other things, human population is also excessive.

abortion, is, admittedly, among the lest desirable of solutions to this problem. yet due to the extreme severity of it (overpopulation), one that must remain, however otherwise onerous, "on the table".

Trostia and Poli.

You couldn't just have rickrolled me? Sent me a link to vacations in Branson? Two Girls One Cup? Something?

You had to send me that?

...mutter...going to be singing that shit all week...grumble....fuck the both of you...
Coulda been worse, it could have been Shatner singing Mr. Tambourine Man, greater horror man has not yet produced.

Coulda been worse, it could have been Shatner singing Mr. Tambourine Man, greater horror man has not yet produced.

His pained, wretched, maddened scream at the end...that jagged howl of "HEY MR. TAMBOURINE MAN!!!!"

I think that should be Dick Cheney's mandatory ring tone.

A 14 year old mother on crack hardly is a suitable mother. The child will come out having three heads and 2,5 legs.


Thats covered in health issues in OP.

human fertility is excessive. and because life has been extended, among other things, human population is also excessive.


Source?

Why are you so angry?
Because your argument is garbage. It makes me angry to see people throwing garbage around. It also annoys me when people do not answer the questions and arguments that have been presented to them.


(Hint: I'm not angry. That voice that you heard reading my words was provided by your brain, not mine.)

Because your argument is garbage. It makes me angry to see people throwing garbage around. It also annoys me when people do not answer the questions and arguments that have been presented to them.


(Hint: I'm not angry. That voice that you heard reading my words was provided by your brain, not mine.)

This is how u talk when u are chill?

This abortion thread sucks. These are some of the most lame-ass old anti-choice bullshit arguments I've heard in a long time.

"Sluts consented to have a baby when they spread their legs, so there's no way they can change their minds now!!!"

"It's human, so you can't abort it!!!"

"If you want to terminate a glob of cells that's been growing inside you for a week, that must mean you think it's okay to kill old retarded people!!!"

EDIT: Oh, and let's not forget this one:

"There's a baby shortage!!! There's nothing but KIDS out there to be adopted!!! Where are the BABIES??? Bitches are eatin' mah babies!!!"

Seriously? This is the best they can do after all this time with this issue? There are moths flying out of these arguments. I'm going to bed. I expect to see some FRESH anti-choice bullshit in the morning. Got that?

I've known Nova for a while. I suspect(apologies if I'm wrong) that this isn't about the 'sanctity of life' for him. I suspect it's about population demographics.
That would explain that "baby shortage" adoption site he linked to.

Oh u mean "white people are dying"?

No, its about life. For me at least.
Oh, really? Whose life, precisely? See LG, below:

Then why are fetuses in rape victims less valued?

Somebody, please, whoever has her phone number, call Muravyets and wake her up. Please. Tell whatever local college baseball player she's cougaring tonight to dismount and stay hot, do some jumping jacks, work the bag a little, whatever it takes for him not to cool down or cramp up, but somebody call Mur and wake her up so she can read and reply to this. Please.



Emertonia will rejoin us after a short break.
Three days for trolling and flamebaiting, to be precise.
Sorry, Ayn. Kat got to him first. But anyway, what could I possibly have done with that? It would be like fighting a Twinkie.

Babies as punishment? More twisted than even I could imagine.
It is one of the most common arguments of anti-choicers. They make it frequently, and they deny making it even more frequently.

This is how you talk when you are chill?
It's how I talk when I'm ridiculing garbage arguments.

Also, fixed. You couldn't manage to tap out the 'y' and the 'o' even though you spelled out all the other words?

Oh, really? Whose life, precisely? See LG, below:Then why are fetuses in rape victims less valued?True, true. I've never really understood why it's the children that are executed for the crime of the father.

having skipped quickly through this trainwreck of a thread....

and back to the original idea....

do you (NMG) really think that carrying a pregnancy for 9 months and delivering a living healthy child is easy? that is it no .... imposition on a woman's life? that a woman going through that for 9 months finds it easy to give up the child she just delivered? that she didnt risk her life? that she would never think of the child again? that her body would go back to the way it was before?

there is a "baby shortage" not because of abortion but because unmarried women are no longer shamed into giving up their babies. they are no longer pressured into marrying the child's father (or whatever other man might be willing to take "the burden) and making a weak family to please society. women who have babies keep them, love them and raise them. they dont give them away. they dont have to. (yes some few do. as should be their free choice. they arent being forced to be incubators for childless couples)

True, true. I've never really understood why it's the children that are executed for the crime of the father.

"If it's morally wrong to kill anyone, then it's morally wrong to kill anyone. Period." -George Carlin

True, true. I've never really understood why it's the children that are executed for the crime of the father.
It isn't. It's an embryo aborted if a woman chooses not to be pregnant.

The problem with the "rape exception" that many anti-choicers float is that it undermines their claim that the "unborn" are "innocents" with a "right to life." Evidently, their "right to life" evaporates like the morning mist if it turns out the woman cannot be painted as morally guilty for having had sex. Since she did not willingly get raped, then she's not at fault and may be allowed to opt out of being an incubator for someone else. But if she willingly had sex, then she is not allowed to opt out.

And that kind of calculation does what to the value of the unborn's life? It brings it down to zero.

EDIT: Of course, if you are one of those who does not offer a "rape exception" and who would force rape victims to bear the children of their attackers, then at least you're not a hypocrite on that particular point. You won't get any quarter from me, but at least you'd be honest about being everything I despise.

Are you?

That would explain that "baby shortage" adoption site he linked to.


He corrected that statement. Is that what you are reduced to?

3) If birth control fails, give it up for adoption, there seems to be a baby shortage:


The baby shortage is usually a shortage of perfectly healthy white babies. Additionally, there are tonnes of kids in foster care who could be adopted, but people want to start from scratch. How about advocating that foster children are adopted off before suggesting that everyone starts making more unwanted babies.

It isn't. It's an embryo aborted if a woman chooses not to be pregnant.

The problem with the "rape exception" that many anti-choicers float is that it undermines their claim that the "unborn" are "innocents" with a "right to life." Evidently, their "right to life" evaporates like the morning mist if it turns out the woman cannot be painted as morally guilty for having had sex. Since she did not willingly get raped, then she's not at fault and may be allowed to opt out of being an incubator for someone else. But if she willingly had sex, then she is not allowed to opt out.

And that kind of calculation does what to the value of the unborn's life? It brings it down to zero.

Again, typical, American bicategorical rant (pro choice - anti choice / pro life - anti life).

I'm not an anti-choicer, read the thread better.

He corrected that statement. Is that what you are reduced to?
I am still waiting for you to account for who it was you were actually quoting in your OP.

I am still waiting for you to compare their little blurb about a "baby shortage" to CASA's lengthy outline of statistical information about both babies and children in the foster care and adoption systems and account for the discrepancies between your source and mine.

Posting weak claims by unaccredited people who won't even tell us who they are and refusing to back up the arguments you base on those claims while talking down to those who ask you to -- is that what you are reduced to?

The baby shortage is usually a shortage of perfectly healthy white babies. Additionally, there are tonnes of kids in foster care who could be adopted, but people want to start from scratch. How about advocating that foster children are adopted off before suggesting that everyone starts making more unwanted babies.

Yeah but how many people want babies only? They arent gonna reduce the overall rate.

Again, typical, American bicategorical rant (pro choice - anti choice / pro life - anti life).

I'm not an anti-choicer, read the thread better.
Ad Hominem -- when you can't counter the substance of an argument, try to disqualify it by attacking the person who presented it. Ad Hominem = Fail.

Misrepresentation of Argument -- when you can't counter the substance of an argument, try to make it look as it is about something you can defeat or dismiss. Misrepresentation of Argument = Fail.

I will take the point as conceded. The rape exception is evidence that anti-choicers do not really care about seeing to it that the unborn get born. Thanks. *updates scoreboard*

I am still waiting for you to account for who it was you were actually quoting in your OP.

I am still waiting for you to compare their little blurb about a "baby shortage" to CASA's lengthy outline of statistical information about both babies and children in the foster care and adoption systems and account for the discrepancies between your source and mine.

Posting weak claims by unaccredited people who won't even tell us who they are and refusing to back up the arguments you base on those claims while talking down to those who ask you to -- is that what you are reduced to?

Well, if you want an intelligent discussion calm down. Because when u are angry, u are misunderstanding me and giving me responses which are rants irrelevant to my positions.

And drop the US-Centricism, its decreasing the effiency of our debate since you insist on placing me in one of two categories, pro choice or pro life.

It was explained here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14474643&postcount=99

No not the current state of affairs. There should be a time restriction. More research is needed about the functions of a fetus, about when they feel pain, etc.

Also, psychological consultation before abortion could be made mandatory so that people can realize the consequences of their actions. Eg: some people are making ignorant statements like "fetus is a parasite". And they can discuss their options, like giving it up for adoption. Of course better sex education is another option. Many people seem to regret it too.


Study from Norway finds difficulties two years later; Abortion's Lingering Psychological After-Effects Documented.

A Norwegian study that compared the psychological reactions of women who had miscarriages to women who'd had abortions found that the women having abortions had significantly more avoidance issues two years after the event than women having miscarriages.
...

http://www.articlearchives.com/reports-reviews-sections/interviews/253642-1.html

So there should be a more orderly and more humane process, with the eventual decision (within time limit) up to women.

Ad Hominem -- when you can't counter the substance of an argument, try to disqualify it by attacking the person who presented it. Ad Hominem = Fail.

Misrepresentation of Argument -- when you can't counter the substance of an argument, try to make it look as it is about something you can defeat or dismiss. Misrepresentation of Argument = Fail.

I will take the point as conceded. The rape exception is evidence that anti-choicers do not really care about seeing to it that the unborn get born. Thanks. *updates scoreboard*

It wasnt an ad hominem. Its my observation of your culture which we get exposed to a lot cause of tv, etc...

And it was an attempt to make u realize u misunderstood me.

Edit: About rape, I already explained it, it's too traumatic for the person. And it should be redundant cause morning after pill should be the standard police response and everyone should report it to the police.

*pulls out the fire hose and hooks it to the hydrant*

Ok, I'm ready.

no, no you're supposed to fire up the popcorn maker and melt some butter - we're going to have a lot of customers...

no, no you're supposed to fire up the popcorn maker and melt some butter - we're going to have a lot of customers...

But... launching popcorn and hot butter through a firehose on to unsuspecting victims sounds painful as opposed to the fun of just using a water/mud combination.

Yeah but how many people want babies only? They arent gonna reduce the overall rate.
She mentioned something about women not being forced to be incubators for childless couples. This supposed baby shortage -- which again, simply does not exist, unless you are talking only about healthy white babies -- has no relevance to the abortion question whatsoever. If people can't find the perfect little pale angel of their dreams in all the bargain bins of brown and squishy rejects, that's just tough for them, isn't it?

Abortion is for ending a pregnancy. Adoption requires a pregnancy to be carried to term. Adoption is not a substitute for abortion. Therefore, the availability of adoption does not render abortion redundant.

But... launching popcorn and hot butter through a firehose on to unsuspecting victims sounds painful as opposed to the fun of just using a water/mud combination.

You could give out the popcorn and just launch the butter if you carefully monitor the temperature.

You could give out the popcorn and just launch the butter if you carefully monitor the temperature.
Cool butter pats don't hurt too bad, and they stick real good.

You could give out the popcorn and just launch the butter if you carefully monitor the temperature.

Hmm.... *adds this to his LG notes file*

Yeah but how many people want babies only? They arent gonna reduce the overall rate.
Most people only want babies. Healthy babies at that. How healthy do you think a baby is going to be if its mother drank a lot while not knowing she was pregnant?

Well, if you want an intelligent discussion calm down. Because when u are angry, u are misunderstanding me and giving me responses which are rants irrelevant to my positions.

And drop the US-Centricism, its decreasing the effiency of our debate since you insist on placing me in one of two categories, pro choice or pro life.

It was explained here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14474643&postcount=99

No not the current state of affairs. There should be a time restriction. More research is needed about the functions of a fetus, about when they feel pain, etc.

Also, psychological consultation before abortion could be made mandatory so that people can realize the consequences of their actions. Eg: some people are making ignorant statements like "fetus is a parasite". And they can discuss their options, like giving it up for adoption. Of course better sex education is another option. Many people seem to regret it too.


http://www.articlearchives.com/reports-reviews-sections/interviews/253642-1.html

So there should be a more orderly and more humane process, with the eventual decision (within time limit) up to women.
All of these points have already been addressed and debunked by other posters. Are you now going to criticize me for not duplicating the work of other people?

You are wrong about all of this, for all the reasons that have already been pointed out to you. I refer you back to your own thread.

People already put time limits on elective abortion. In most countries there are laws limiting when they can be done, and even in countries where there are not, people just limit it anyway. Evidence: The 100% lack of late term elective abortion in Canada. So there you go, there's one element of your "should be" world -- abortions are not being performed willy-nilly just whenever.

Plenty of research has been done about fetal development. You have already been pointed to that research. You ignored it, just as you have ignored most other arguments that debunk you, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists. You want to know when a fetus MIGHT start feeling pain? How about this for a rule of thumb: It would be sometime after they develop a brain and central nervous system. That would be AFTER the time the VAST majority of elective abortions are performed. So there you go, there's another element of your "should be" world -- abortions are performed in a manner that is humane to the embryo.

As for psychological effects on women, please, give me a break. There is no evidence whatsoever that abortion is MORE psychologically damaging to women than pregnancy is, or than never getting pregnant is, or than having tons of kids is, or than having just one or a few kids is. Any major life decision is going to have the potential for psychological harm to the person who makes the decision and has to live with the outcome. Abortion is always accompanied by some negative feelings because, although it is a necessary thing in many cases, it is never a good or happy thing. But that does not make it more psychologically damaging than other tough choices in a person's life.

Also, the fact that you are bringing up that red herring in the first place undermines your claim that you are only looking at alternatives that supposedly render abortion "redundant." The fact that abortion is a difficult decision has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is necessary or not. But it does have something to do with a pejorative attitude towards abortion, which undermines your claim not to be anti-choice.

EDIT: By the way, claiming that I only make the arguments I do because I'm an American engaging in "typical" "US-centric" "rants" is an ad hominem attack. A failing one.

Most people only want babies. Healthy babies at that. How healthy do you think a baby is going to be if its mother drank a lot while not knowing she was pregnant?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3317/3216773777_63a48c51bc.jpg?v=0

Most people only want babies. Healthy babies at that. How healthy do you think a baby is going to be if its mother drank a lot while not knowing she was pregnant?

Again, that is covered in health issues in OP. Plus during a psychological consultion, the shrink can explain effects of alcohol on pregnancy and can recommend an abortion.

And because most people only want babies, and there seems to be a baby shortage, reduction of abortion shouldnt affect the number of overall kids in foster care.

Again, that is covered in health issues in OP. Plus during a psychological consultion, the shrink can explain effects of alcohol on pregnancy and can recommend an abortion.

And because most people only want babies, and there seems to be a baby shortage, reduction of abortion shouldnt affect the number of overall kids in foster care.
Or people can learn to suck it up and adopt existing children who need a home instead of expecting someone else to give up 9 months of her life to plunk the perfect child at their doorstep.

Again, that is covered in health issues in OP. Plus during a psychological consultion, the shrink can explain effects of alcohol on pregnancy and can recommend an abortion.

And because most people only want babies, and there seems to be a baby shortage, reduction of abortion shouldnt affect the number of overall kids in foster care.
Right, because none of those kids started out as babies, went into the system and never got adopted out. It just doesn't happen that there are thousands of babies not getting adopted in the world. No sooner do they show up in the system, than they get snatched right up by childless couples. Hence the "shortage." :rolleyes: You don't get it, do you? The existence of such high numbers of children in public systems is evidence that a lot of babies are not getting adopted. So what does that tell us about your "shortage"?

Or people can learn to suck it up and adopt existing children who need a home instead of expecting someone else to give up 9 months of her life to plunk the perfect child at their doorstep.

That might be something Christ would do! :eek:

That might be something Christ would do! :eek:
If only he could have. Better him than us.

As for psychological effects on women, please, give me a break. There is no evidence whatsoever that abortion is MORE psychologically damaging to women than pregnancy is, or than never getting pregnant is, or than having tons of kids is, or than having just one or a few kids is. Any major life decision is going to have the potential for psychological harm to the person who makes the decision and has to live with the outcome. Abortion is always accompanied by some negative feelings because, although it is a necessary thing in many cases, it is never a good or happy thing. But that does not make it more psychologically damaging than other tough choices in a person's life.


If anything having a child then giving it up would be worse. Abandonment stuff +Post Partum Depression would be one hell of an ugly mix. Then there's all the potential health issues with pregnancy and having a child (for mother and child).

So women have the right to cut off penises that are inside them?

Yes.

If anything having a child then giving it up would be worse. Abandonment stuff +Post Partum Depression would be one hell of an ugly mix. Then there's all the potential health issues with pregnancy and having a child (for mother and child).
Good point. That's another peeve I have with anti-choicers -- their notion that women can just go through a pregnancy, give birth, and then hand off the baby and never give it another thought. It is insulting as well as unrealistic. An additional peeve is their airy assumption that pregnancy is easy and safe.

If only he could have. Better him than us.

That's a subtle reference to the fact that as George Carlin remarked, many of our most devout Christians wonder 'What Would Jesus Do'? They don't want to know so they can do it, they want to know so they can tell other people to do it.

Yes.

Which makes it very important to choose your partners carefully. ;)

That's a subtle reference to the fact that as George Carlin remarked, many of our most devout Christians wonder 'What Would Jesus Do'? They don't want to know so they can do it, they want to know so they can tell other people to do it.
I miss George. :(

Good point. That's another peeve I have with anti-choicers -- their notion that women can just go through a pregnancy, give birth, and then hand off the baby and never give it another thought. It is insulting as well as unrealistic. An additional peeve is their airy assumption that pregnancy is easy and safe.

Gah soooo true. Its one of the issues I have with this one "back to the earth" person I know. She wants to have children but wants nothing to do with hospitals cause "people have been having children without help forever" . . .those were her exact words . . . .

All of these points have already been addressed and debunked by other posters. Are you now going to criticize me for not duplicating the work of other people?


Wtf, go read the thread, most of your compatriots (which compromised the majority of respondants) gave similar rants like yours. This thread was not and is not about the abortion debate in USA. Do not friggin assume. It was about abortion in general.


You are wrong about all of this, for all the reasons that have already been pointed out to you. I refer you back to your own thread.

People already put time limits on elective abortion. In most countries there are laws limiting when they can be done


Yeah but what should that limit be? 8 weeks?

"8 weeks: condition at start of fetal stage

The risk of miscarriage decreases sharply at the beginning of the fetal stage.[11] At this point, all major structures, including hands, feet, head, brain, and other organs are present, but they will continue to grow, develop, and become more functional.[12]"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/USAbortionbyGestationalAgeChart2002.png



, and even in countries where there are not, people just limit it anyway. Evidence: The 100% lack of late term elective abortion in Canada. So there you go, there's one element of your "should be" world -- abortions are not being performed willy-nilly just whenever.


" * Canada: During the year 2003, 6.5% of induced abortions were performed between 13 to 16 weeks, 2.2% between 17 to 20 weeks, and 0.8% over 20 weeks. This sample included procedures carried out in hospitals and clinics.[7]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion


Plenty of research has been done about fetal development. You have already been pointed to that research. You ignored it, just as you have ignored most other arguments that debunk you, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists. You want to know when a fetus MIGHT start feeling pain? How about this for a rule of thumb: It would be sometime after they develop a brain and central nervous system. That would be AFTER the time the VAST majority of elective abortions are performed. So there you go, there's another element of your "should be" world -- abortions are performed in a manner that is humane to the embryo.

As for psychological effects on women, please, give me a break. There is no evidence whatsoever that abortion is MORE psychologically damaging to women than pregnancy is, or than never getting pregnant is, or than having tons of kids is, or than having just one or a few kids is. Any major life decision is going to have the potential for psychological harm to the person who makes the decision and has to live with the outcome. Abortion is always accompanied by some negative feelings because, although it is a necessary thing in many cases, it is never a good or happy thing. But that does not make it more psychologically damaging than other tough choices in a person's life....


Again, dont friggin assume:


Psychological Effects of Abortion

Women who have undergone induced abortion are more likely to experience mental health problems. These problems can range from mild depression to severe anxiety disorders. In a 2006 study conducted in New Zealand it was found that “in all comparisons, those becoming pregnant and seeking abortions had significantly higher rates of disorder than the not pregnant group and, with the exception of anxiety disorder, significantly higher rates of disorder than the pregnant no abortion group.”1 Researchers concluded that “exposure to abortion is a traumatic life event which increases longer-term susceptibility to common mental disorders.” 2

http://www.abortionincanada.ca/health/psycological_effects.html

If anything having a child then giving it up would be worse. Abandonment stuff +Post Partum Depression would be one hell of an ugly mix. Then there's all the potential health issues with pregnancy and having a child (for mother and child).

Unless Mom is a meth head.

http://i44.tinypic.com/10pulfm.jpg

Unless Mom is a meth head.

Could you please not use IMG tags for links like that? Not every funny pick is charming. Thanks.

Again, dont friggin assume:


http://www.abortionincanada.ca/health/psycological_effects.html

Check the article's source on that one lol Its a study done on "Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health.” for the "journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry"

and i quote "Don't friggin assume"

Gah soooo true. Its one of the issues I have with this one "back to the earth" person I know. She wants to have children but wants nothing to do with hospitals cause "people have been having children without help forever" . . .those were her exact words . . . .
scary.

maybe you should dig up statistics on miscarriage, maternal death/complications, and infant mortalilty from the time before modern medicine.

if that doesnt scare her smart ..... well it wont but she will probably give in and go to the doctor for prenatal care anyway.

Could you please not use IMG tags for links like that? Not every funny pick is charming. Thanks.

It's from a public service announcement - a government-funded anti-meth program.

scary.

maybe you should dig up statistics on miscarriage, maternal death/complications, and infant mortalilty from the time before modern medicine.

if that doesnt scare her smart ..... well it wont but she will probably give in and go to the doctor for prenatal care anyway.

Yah did that . . .still trying to convince her but getting no-where.

Gah soooo true. Its one of the issues I have with this one "back to the earth" person I know. She wants to have children but wants nothing to do with hospitals cause "people have been having children without help forever" . . .those were her exact words . . . .

Can't you even talk her into a midwife?

Yah did that . . .still trying to convince her but getting no-where.
i wouldnt worry about it.

when dreams become reality everything changes. she will want to do the best by her baby. it wont be abstract anymore.

Check the article's source on that one lol Its a study done on "Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health.” for the "journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry"

and i quote "Don't friggin assume"

And? You mean older women dont regret? Responses of younger women are atypical?

Is "journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry" unreliable?

i wouldnt worry about it.

when dreams become reality everything changes. she will want to do the best by her baby. it wont be abstract anymore.

Pretty much what I'm thinking. If things don't change for here by that point I'll make more of it but for now . .. yah I'll leave it

And? You mean older women dont regret? Responses of younger women are atypical?

Is "journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry" unreliable?
no I mean they quoted something making it seem as if it applied to all women but they quoted it from an article specifically about children. It may be that abortions are significantly more traumatizing in children or it may not but the fact that they quoted it in that fashion makes their information suspect in my view.

(Example:
Saying “exposure to abortion is a traumatic life event which increases longer-term susceptibility to common mental disorders in Children.” (Source:journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry) would be more than valid but they left that out in an attempt to make it seem as though it applied to everyone.
)

And? You mean older women dont regret? Responses of younger women are atypical?

Is "journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry" unreliable?
or maybe we can assume that women are adults and can deal with the consequences of their actions.

Wtf, go read the thread, most of your compatriots (which compromised the majority of respondants) gave similar rants like yours. This thread was not and is not about the abortion debate in USA. Do not friggin assume. It was about abortion in general.
And what logical fallacy is this? Some weird twist of No True Scotsman -- all data on abortion is okay in a "general abortion" thread, unless it comes from the US, because the US isn't part of the general world? Something like that?

Yeah but what should that limit be? 8 weeks?

"8 weeks: condition at start of fetal stage

The risk of miscarriage decreases sharply at the beginning of the fetal stage.[11] At this point, all major structures, including hands, feet, head, brain, and other organs are present, but they will continue to grow, develop, and become more functional.[12]"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/USAbortionbyGestationalAgeChart2002.png


" * Canada: During the year 2003, 6.5% of induced abortions were performed between 13 to 16 weeks, 2.2% between 17 to 20 weeks, and 0.8% over 20 weeks. This sample included procedures carried out in hospitals and clinics.[7]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion
Thank you for backing up everything I said. It's nice to be agreed with.

Again, dont friggin assume:


http://www.abortionincanada.ca/health/psycological_effects.html
Yeah, cute. Go look up who compiled that data. LifeCanada is an anti-abortin organization with an inherent bias against abortion. Here is their home site:

http://www.lifecanada.org/

And their mission statement:

To promote the sanctity of all human life from fertilization to natural death through public education. To advocate for the preborn, the disabled, the infirm and the elderly who are all uniquely created by God.

Biased sources do not help you look unbiased. Quoting anti-abortion activists does not help you look like you're not anti-choice.

Do you have any evidence compiled by people who do not have a vested interest in a certain conclusion?

It's from a public service announcement - a government-funded anti-meth program.
Nevertheless, I would appreciate if you would not use IMG tags for it.

And what logical fallacy is this? Some weird twist of No True Scotsman -- all data on abortion is okay in a "general abortion" thread, unless it comes from the US, because the US isn't part of the general world? Something like that?


Thank you for backing up everything I said. It's nice to be agreed with.


Yeah, cute. Go look up who compiled that data. LifeCanada is an anti-abortin organization with an inherent bias against abortion. Here is their home site:

http://www.lifecanada.org/

And their mission statement:



Biased sources do not help you look unbiased. Quoting anti-abortion activists does not help you look like you're not anti-choice.

Do you have any evidence compiled by people who do not have a vested interest in a certain conclusion?
Even more pointedly, A close look at the things this article sources makes it seem like their bending the Data quite a bit to make it fit as they want.

no I mean they quoted something making it seem as if it applied to all women but they quoted it from an article specifically about children. It may be that abortions are significantly more traumatizing in children or it may not but the fact that they quoted it in that fashion makes their information suspect in my view.

(Example:
Saying “exposure to abortion is a traumatic life event which increases longer-term susceptibility to common mental disorders in Children.” (Source:journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry) would be more than valid but they left that out in an attempt to make it seem as though it applied to everyone.
)

What? Its not about children just because its in a journal of child psychology and psychiatry:

"Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16405636

Yah did that . . .still trying to convince her but getting no-where.

You should look up "Obstetric myths and research realities" by Henci Goer, if you want a summary of the latest in scientific findings about childbirth.

Even more pointedly, A close look at the things this article sources makes it seem like their bending the Data quite a bit to make it fit as they want.
Absolutely.

Unless Mom is a meth head.
It's from a public service announcement - a government-funded anti-meth program.

Are you joking?

And what logical fallacy is this? Some weird twist of No True Scotsman -- all data on abortion is okay in a "general abortion" thread, unless it comes from the US, because the US isn't part of the general world? Something like that?


Pro choice - Pro life is usually an American classification. You had assumed I was anti choice.


Yeah, cute. Go look up who compiled that data. LifeCanada is an anti-abortin organization with an inherent bias against abortion. Here is their home site:

http://www.lifecanada.org/

And their mission statement:



Biased sources do not help you look unbiased. Quoting anti-abortion activists does not help you look like you're not anti-choice.

Do you have any evidence compiled by people who do not have a vested interest in a certain conclusion?

Can you not read bibliography?

1 Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Ridder EM. “Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2006; 47(1): 21.

First of all dont think I'm a "US Xtian right/conservative", etc, I'm def not. Actually I'm not even American. I'm pretty liberal, study social sciences in university, vegetarian, anti-death penalty, etc (u get the idea :p)


..

Edit 2: I'm NOT a Xtian, Muslim or Jew.

You seem to be going out of your way to prove how liberal you are, by neglecting to mention your views on immigrants, on Non-Whites, on Muslims in Europe. You need not be religious, to be bigoted against religions. You need not be American to be ethnocentric and xenophobic. In other words you may not be 'conservative,' but the whole "she should just go through with the pregnancy and give it up for adoption" argument sounds suspiciously like a right-wing, anti-choice argument to me.

Are you joking?

No, and neither is the advertisement (public service message).

Would you want a meth head to keep her baby?

Would you want to adopt the baby of a meth head?

Even if abortion were somehow redundant, which I doubt, women should still have the right to them.

What? Its not about children just because its in a journal of child psychology and psychiatry:

"Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16405636
Do you have a problem understanding what real data is, or do you just have an addiction to fresh-picked cherries?

That link is such a brief summation of an obviously much larger study that it gives no context at all. It does not define the parameters of what constitutes mental problems. It does not put the findings into a broader context. We're supposed to read the whole paper to get those. Do better. Not every single paragraph that contains both the words "abortion" and "depression" is going to support your argument.

I'm also still waiting for your explanation of how abortion being a hard and unpleasant decision has any relevance to whether it is "redundant" or "necessary" or whatever it is you want this thread to be about.

No, and neither is the advertisement (public service message).

Would you want a meth head to keep her baby?

Would you want to adopt the baby of a meth head?

No to the first question and maybe to the second. Me and my wife are hoping to adopt later in life and we are still discussing whether we feel we can handle a baby that might have problems - such as being born from a meth head. What I wish, though, is that the government stop trying to be as clever as a teenager when it comes to their anti drug ads.

What? Its not about children just because its in a journal of child psychology and psychiatry:

"Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16405636
lol "Christchurch Health and Development Study, Christchurch School of Medicine & Health Sciences" I have to look into this school . . .

actually looks fairly legit from what I can see. I'm impressed (with the school that is not this paper )


right more to the point. they used a very small sample size with no mention as too how they had chosen this sample. They also Slanted their findings fairly heavily in the conclusion. My conclusion: This source is biased

Pro choice - Pro life is usually an American classification.
Weren't you saying something about assumption being bad?

And trying to disqualify an argument only because it comes from an American is an ad hominem attack. Squirm all you like, you're hooked.

You had assumed I was anti choice.
Anything I think of you is based solely on the content of this thread. I have no familiarity with your posting history on this issue, nor do I make any claim to. The words you have posted in this thread do nothing but repeat classic anti-choice arguments. Since your arguments are anti-choice, that's how I characterize them. I really don't care if you don't like that.

Can you not read bibliography?

1 Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Ridder EM. “Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2006; 47(1): 21.
Yes, I can and did. I also read the rest of the page and several other pages, and concluded that your source were cherrypicking from their sources in order to manufacture an argument in support of their anti-abortion agenda.

You seem to be going out of your way to prove how liberal you are, by neglecting to mention your views on immigrants, on Non-Whites, on Muslims in Europe. You need not be religious, to be bigoted against religions. You need not be American to be ethnocentric and xenophobic. In other words you may not be 'conservative,' but the whole "she should just go through with the pregnancy and give it up for adoption" argument sounds suspiciously like a right-wing, anti-choice argument to me.

Views on non-whites? Again u are confusing me with someone. Views on immigrants? My views on immigrants are for them to get out if they dont like the fundamentals of the host country. I was just telling an American to get out of Sweden if s/he doesnt like it. That has nothing to do with their race. And yeah I think muslim countries are backward. But I also think US is backward as well. Canada seems backward in gender equality too.

Do you have a problem understanding what real data is, or do you just have an addiction to fresh-picked cherries?

That link is such a brief summation of an obviously much larger study that it gives no context at all. It does not define the parameters of what constitutes mental problems. It does not put the findings into a broader context. We're supposed to read the whole paper to get those. Do better. Not every single paragraph that contains both the words "abortion" and "depression" is going to support your argument.

I'm also still waiting for your explanation of how abortion being a hard and unpleasant decision has any relevance to whether it is "redundant" or "necessary" or whatever it is you want this thread to be about.

I've got access to it through my University. It's ridiculous. . . . http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118727161/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Weren't you saying something about assumption being bad?

And trying to disqualify an argument only because it comes from an American is an ad hominem attack. Squirm all you like, you're hooked.


Anything I think of you is based solely on the content of this thread. I have no familiarity with your posting history on this issue, nor do I make any claim to. The words you have posted in this thread do nothing but repeat classic anti-choice arguments. Since your arguments are anti-choice, that's how I characterize them. I really don't care if you don't like that.


Ok what is anti choice?


Yes, I can and did. I also read the rest of the page and several other pages, and concluded that your source were cherrypicking from their sources in order to manufacture an argument in support of their anti-abortion agenda.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which abortion has harmful consequences for mental health remains controversial. We aimed to examine the linkages between having an abortion and mental health outcomes over the interval from age 15-25 years. METHODS: Data were gathered as part of the Christchurch Health and Development Study, a 25-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of New Zealand children. Information was obtained on: a) the history of pregnancy/abortion for female participants over the interval from 15-25 years; b) measures of DSM-IV mental disorders and suicidal behaviour over the intervals 15-18, 18-21 and 21-25 years; and c) childhood, family and related confounding factors. RESULTS: Forty-one percent of women had become pregnant on at least one occasion prior to age 25, with 14.6% having an abortion. Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16405636

No to the first question and maybe to the second. Me and my wife are hoping to adopt later in life and we are still discussing whether we feel we can handle a baby that might have problems - such as being born from a meth head. What I wish, though, is that the government stop trying to be as clever as a teenager when it comes to their anti drug ads.
This ^^. Thank you.

lol "Christchurch Health and Development Study, Christchurch School of Medicine & Health Sciences" I have to look into this school . . .

actually looks fairly legit from what I can see. I'm impressed (with the school that is not this paper )


right more to the point. they used a very small sample size with no mention as too how they had chosen this sample. They also Slanted their findings fairly heavily in the conclusion. My conclusion: This source is biased

You read the whole journal article in 10 min? Yeah right.

This ^^. Thank you.

Having met more than a few meth heads, I find the ad to be no exaggeration.

I think it would be kinder to shoot people dead who test positive for meth use.

Youre above these pitiful pro-life arguements. Dont lower yourself.

Those labels are ridiculous. I don't think I know a single person who actually likes the thought of an abortion happening. I would certainly hope life is chosen, but in this issue the choice to go to a doctor for the procedure is the compromise.

Having met more than a few meth heads, I find the ad to be no exaggeration.


Hey guys, Hotwife is requiring us to take him at his word, we all know what that means!
Those labels are ridiculous. I don't think I know a single person who actually likes the thought of an abortion happening. I would certainly hope life is chosen, but in this issue the choice to go to a doctor for the procedure is the compromise.

What are you on about?

Ok what is anti choice?
Don't you think you should have found that out before starting an abortion thread?


BACKGROUND: The extent to which abortion has harmful consequences for mental health remains controversial. We aimed to examine the linkages between having an abortion and mental health outcomes over the interval from age 15-25 years. METHODS: Data were gathered as part of the Christchurch Health and Development Study, a 25-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of New Zealand children. Information was obtained on: a) the history of pregnancy/abortion for female participants over the interval from 15-25 years; b) measures of DSM-IV mental disorders and suicidal behaviour over the intervals 15-18, 18-21 and 21-25 years; and c) childhood, family and related confounding factors. RESULTS: Forty-one percent of women had become pregnant on at least one occasion prior to age 25, with 14.6% having an abortion. Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16405636
Copying and pasting your link doesn't change anything.

Views on non-whites? Again u are confusing me with someone.

No, I'm well aware of who you are and what you've posted on this site before.

Views on immigrants? My views on immigrants are for them to get out if they dont like the fundamentals of the host country. I was just telling an American to get out of Sweden if s/he doesnt like it. That has nothing to do with their race. And yeah I think muslim countries are backward. But I also think US is backward as well. Canada seems backward in gender equality too.

Yeah, but you're fine with Europe, right? I mean as long as it doesn't have too many Muslims, or Mosques right?

Anyway, the point is you're not as "liberal" as you claim to be, and it shows not only in your views but in the way you argue. Don't friggin assume people forget.

Hey guys, Hotwife is requiring us to take him at his word, we all know what that means!

You're welcome to take some meth yourself and find out.

Or you can meet me in DC, and I'll introduce you to some meth heads.

Having met more than a few meth heads, I find the ad to be no exaggeration.

I think it would be kinder to shoot people dead who test positive for meth use.
Your opinion of meth heads is neither interesting nor the point. But I can see that it is pointless to ask you to show any taste or consideration for others. Never mind.

You read the whole journal article in 10 min? Yeah right.

speed reading is a beautiful skill. more importantly this is writtent as a lab. Makes it a little easier to skim read. Especially If you've had to read em alot before. There also very good at indexing and I went straight to population size and makeup as thats a large source of human error in any statistical study and sure enough . . . .

No, I'm well aware of who you are and what you've posted on this site before.



Yeah, but you're fine with Europe, right? I mean as long as it doesn't have too many Muslims, or Mosques right?

Anyway, the point is you're not as "liberal" as you claim to be, and it shows not only in your views but in the way you argue. Don't friggin assume people forget.

Oh of course I'm fine with Europe. They are white after all, not brown/black muslims. :rolleyes:

Don't you think you should have found that out before starting an abortion thread?


I asked your definition.

Those labels are ridiculous. I don't think I know a single person who actually likes the thought of an abortion happening. I would certainly hope life is chosen, but in this issue the choice to go to a doctor for the procedure is the compromise.

What are you on about?
If I read it right, I think he means that the labels are ridiculous because nobody is "anti-life", for instance. People would always "choose" life, but sometimes you can't have that choice, so you do what you have to do. In some cases, that means abortion.

If I read it right, I think he means that the labels are ridiculous because nobody is "anti-life", for instance. People would always "choose" life, but sometimes you can't have that choice, so you do what you have to do. In some cases, that means abortion.

Then why did he quote me? I couldnt tell if I was being attacked or not.

Ok what is anti choice?



BACKGROUND: The extent to which abortion has harmful consequences for mental health remains controversial. We aimed to examine the linkages between having an abortion and mental health outcomes over the interval from age 15-25 years. METHODS: Data were gathered as part of the Christchurch Health and Development Study, a 25-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of New Zealand children. Information was obtained on: a) the history of pregnancy/abortion for female participants over the interval from 15-25 years; b) measures of DSM-IV mental disorders and suicidal behaviour over the intervals 15-18, 18-21 and 21-25 years; and c) childhood, family and related confounding factors. RESULTS: Forty-one percent of women had become pregnant on at least one occasion prior to age 25, with 14.6% having an abortion. Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16405636
even if we accept this assertion that abortion can cause psychological complications, what is your POINT?

so what if it does?

even if we accept this assertion that abortion can cause psychological complications, what is your POINT?

so what if it does?

The point is mandatory psychological counselling b4 abortion may be a good idea, as I said twice b4.

Then why did he quote me? I couldnt tell if I was being attacked or not.

You always assume that you're being attacked, even when you're not. It's very amusing to watch.

You always assume that you're being attacked, even when you're not. It's very amusing to watch.

No I dont, but hey, you know.

The point is mandatory psychological counselling b4 abortion may be a good idea, as I said twice b4.

Cause that wouldn't be an issue for Anyone getting an abortion . . . . Making the resource available is a great Idea. Forcing them to do so to gain access to an essential (for some) service is practically inhumane. . . I'm actually kinda disgusted that you'd think that was a good idea.

EDIT: Of course, if you are one of those who does not offer a "rape exception" and who would force rape victims to bear the children of their attackers, then at least you're not a hypocrite on that particular point. You won't get any quarter from me, but at least you'd be honest about being everything I despise.

Are you?To an extend. For various reasons, I'm not particularly in favour of forcing women to bear their undesired children*, but I'm definitely finding the idea of murdering the fetus to avoid nine months - or 20 years, if the child stays with the mother - of trouble repugnant.

Incidentally, it's not just the children of their attackers. It's also their own children.

I've got access to it through my University. It's ridiculous. . . . http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118727161/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
For some reason it thinks I don't have cookies enabled. :(

Thanks for finding it, but the fact that NMG did not link to the full paper is pretty good evidence, in my opinion, that he does not really know what the paper is about either, and that he only linked to that because it mentions abortion and mental health problems together and it comes from a medical academic source.

No I dont, but hey, you know.

Yes, you do.

Cause that wouldn't be an issue for Anyone getting an abortion . . . . Making the resource available is a great Idea. Forcing them to do so to gain access to an essential (for some) service is practically inhumane. . . I'm actually kinda disgusted that you'd think that was a good idea.

I didnt mean therapy.

The point is mandatory psychological counselling b4 abortion may be a good idea, as I said twice b4.
to get treated before you have any psychological problems?

or to deny an abortion to someone who gives the wrong answers the day before she is scheduled for an abortion?

or are you OK with adding a warning into the wait that is already mandated in many places?

Oh of course I'm fine with Europe. They are white after all, not brown/black muslims. :rolleyes:

Well, you did say that you liked Europe ("where you come from") but would be distressed if there were any more Muslims and mosques there.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12270333&postcount=150

I do hope, when I'm old, if I go to Europe, I wouldnt find it with mosques everywhere and most of the women in veils and Arabic being the second language, if not first, and the liberal custums such as topless women in the park, gays kissing in streets replaced with a more conservative/subdued culture. It'd take away the charm for me even if muslims abide by democratic principles. Canada is already a multi-cultural, immigration society and it should be but I'd feel like as if something inside me was missing, if Europe underwent such a drastic change, which it could be, given the massive influx of muslims into the continent. You may not like where you come from but I do.

Yes yes, very liberal, just like your attitude on abortion.

Yes, you do.

Excellen arguement, I am now convinced!

To an extend. For various reasons, I'm not particularly in favour of forcing women to bear their undesired children*, but I'm definitely finding the idea of murdering the fetus to avoid nine months - or 20 years, if the child stays with the mother - of trouble repugnant.

Incidentally, it's not just the children of their attackers. It's also their own children.
Ahhh murder . . .such a loaded term. You know by that definition you murder everything you eat. Every time you breath you "murder" thousands of organisms. In fact your body is right, at this moment, "murdering" various pathogens.
More importantly you have got to be kidding . . .you think that 9 months carrying the rapists child for a rape victim is just trouble? That's as bad a torture as I can think of.

I asked your definition.
Fine then:

1) Anti-Choice = the opinion that women should not be allowed to choose for themselves whether to carry or abort a pregnancy.

2) Anti-Choicer = one who espouses an anti-choice opinion.

3) ANTI-CHOICE ARGUMENT = one of a set of arguments typically cited by anti-choicers as justifications for why abortion should be severely restricted or banned, thus rendering it impossible for women to make choices about it.

Definition Number 3 is the one that applies to your posts in this thread.

I didnt mean therapy.

you said counseling . . .either way my point stands.

The point is mandatory psychological counselling b4 abortion may be a good idea, as I said twice b4.
Over 40% of American women will obtain at least one abortion during their lifetime. That's a lot of counseling sessions. How will you pay for these counselors?

What qualifications will they be required to have?

What exactly will they be required to "counsel" women about? Who will decide the standards? Who will oversee the process to ensure compliance?

Where will it be provided?

What about women who have to travel long distances to find a clinic or hospital that will provide an abortion for them? Will you provide them with funds for their extra travel expenses? What about women who have to travel far enough that they must stay overnight somewhere? Will you provide them with housing free of charge? Where? For how long?

The majority of women who obtain abortions already have at least one child. Will you provide childcare for these kids while Mom gets her mandated counseling?

For that matter, childbirth has been conclusively linked to far more serious psychological problems than abortion, and we have known about this for many, many years. Why are you so interested in forcing women to go through counseling before abortion, yet you seem fine with those same women going through childbirth without any counseling?

I'll be sure to hold my breath while I wait for your answers. :D

Then why did he quote me? I couldnt tell if I was being attacked or not.
Oh, I think he'd fixed that by the time I saw it. ?? Never mind.

Well, you did say that you liked Europe ("where you come from") but would be distressed if there were any more Muslims and mosques there.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12270333&postcount=150



Yes yes, very liberal, just like your attitude on abortion.

I'd be distressed with a major cultural change there. You'd welcome it?

To an extend. For various reasons, I'm not particularly in favour of forcing women to bear their undesired children*, but I'm definitely finding the idea of murdering the fetus to avoid nine months - or 20 years, if the child stays with the mother - of trouble repugnant.

Incidentally, it's not just the children of their attackers. It's also their own children.
maybe you need to think more about how terrible it might be to carry and care for unwanted children.

For some reason it thinks I don't have cookies enabled. :(

Thanks for finding it, but the fact that NMG did not link to the full paper is pretty good evidence, in my opinion, that he does not really know what the paper is about either, and that he only linked to that because it mentions abortion and mental health problems together and it comes from a medical academic source.

Yah thats what I got from it but I figured i'd skim it before i said anything and lo and behold lol.

To an extend. For various reasons, I'm not particularly in favour of forcing women to bear their undesired children*, but I'm definitely finding the idea of murdering the fetus to avoid nine months - or 20 years, if the child stays with the mother - of trouble repugnant.

Incidentally, it's not just the children of their attackers. It's also their own children.
It's also their own bodies, which they have the absolute right to control.

It's also their own bodies, which they have the absolute right to control.

Agreed

to get treated before you have any psychological problems?

or to deny an abortion to someone who gives the wrong answers the day before she is scheduled for an abortion?

or are you OK with adding a warning into the wait that is already mandated in many places?

If they can have a waiting period on my purchase of fire arms then they can have one for abortion. they(the hospital) could also be required in this time frame to check adoption agencies if they find someone wanting the child they could offer her that as an option.
Of course no one should be denied an abortion, If an Abortion would cause mental issues I doubt pregnancy and child birth would fair any better. Just a simply evaluation to estimate if there will be any need to provide post op mental services.

And of course a waiver on anyone near the cut off point for when an abortion ceases to be legal.

Over 40% of American women will obtain at least one abortion during their lifetime. That's a lot of counseling sessions. How will you pay for these counselors?

What qualifications will they be required to have?

What exactly will they be required to "counsel" women about? Who will decide the standards? Who will oversee the process to ensure compliance?

Where will it be provided?

What about women who have to travel long distances to find a clinic or hospital that will provide an abortion for them? Will you provide them with funds for their extra travel expenses? What about women who have to travel far enough that they must stay overnight somewhere? Will you provide them with housing free of charge? Where? For how long?

The majority of women who obtain abortions already have at least one child. Will you provide childcare for these kids while Mom gets her mandated counseling?

For that matter, childbirth has been conclusively linked to far more serious psychological problems than abortion, and we have known about this for many, many years. Why are you so interested in forcing women to go through counseling before abortion, yet you seem fine with those same women going through childbirth without any counseling?

I'll be sure to hold my breath while I wait for your answers. :D

The counselling could be about:

1) starting from basics: what is abortion
2) Fetal development
3) Alternatives to abortion
4) General support suggestions (ie: support after abortion if one chooses that or support after adoption)

The idea is to inform people so they wouldnt think stuff like "fetuses are parasites" b4 adoption.

I'd be distressed with a major cultural change there. You'd welcome it?

You seemed to be distressed about the Muslims specifically.

Fine then:

1) Anti-Choice = the opinion that women should not be allowed to choose for themselves whether to carry or abort a pregnancy.

2) Anti-Choicer = one who espouses an anti-choice opinion.

3) ANTI-CHOICE ARGUMENT = one of a set of arguments typically cited by anti-choicers as justifications for why abortion should be severely restricted or banned, thus rendering it impossible for women to make choices about it.

Definition Number 3 is the one that applies to your posts in this thread.

Ok. Time limits for abortion is severe restriction?

You seemed to be distressed about the Muslims specifically.

Religious people in general. I'd be distressed with 1,000,000 Rick Warrens (oh he is blond too) moving to Sweden.

If they can have a waiting period on my purchase of fire arms then they can have one for abortion. they(the hospital) could also be required in this time frame to check adoption agencies if they find someone wanting the child they could offer her that as an option.
Of course no one should be denied an abortion, If an Abortion would cause mental issues I doubt pregnancy and child birth would fair any better. Just a simply evaluation to estimate if there will be any need to provide post op mental services.

And of course a waiver on anyone near the cut off point for when an abortion ceases to be legal.

Or just have the resources available to those who wish to make use of them? I mean you have to consult an MD anyway so there's a certain amount of screening there anyway and I don't think that anyone should be denied access to a medical service until they pass some sort of psychological screening . . .that just seems wrong to me.

If they can have a waiting period on my purchase of fire arms then they can have one for abortion. they(the hospital) could also be required in this time frame to check adoption agencies if they find someone wanting the child they could offer her that as an option.
Of course no one should be denied an abortion, If an Abortion would cause mental issues I doubt pregnancy and child birth would fair any better. Just a simply evaluation to estimate if there will be any need to provide post op mental services.

And of course a waiver on anyone near the cut off point for when an abortion ceases to be legal.

Consider that the right to keep and bear arms is not only specifically enumerated in writing in the Constitution, the Supreme Court recently ruled that it most certainly is an individual right.

By comparison, while SCOTUS views abortion as a right, it is in no way specifically enumerated in writing in the Constitution.

I don't believe there should be any restrictions on abortion - certainly no counseling. And I believe there should be no restrictions on firearms ownership - anything less is an outright violation of the Constitution.

If SCOTUS says we have the right - to abortion or individual bearing of arms - then people need to lay off trying to restrict either one - the attempt to restrict the activity is unconstitutional.

The OP is vegetarian and studies social sciences in college. What does that have to do with one's religious or political views?

to get treated before you have any psychological problems?

or to deny an abortion to someone who gives the wrong answers the day before she is scheduled for an abortion?

or are you OK with adding a warning into the wait that is already mandated in many places?

"Treated"? Psychological counselling =/= psychiatric therapy.

If they can have a waiting period on my purchase of fire arms then they can have one for abortion. they(the hospital) could also be required in this time frame to check adoption agencies if they find someone wanting the child they could offer her that as an option.
Of course no one should be denied an abortion, If an Abortion would cause mental issues I doubt pregnancy and child birth would fair any better. Just a simply evaluation to estimate if there will be any need to provide post op mental services.

And of course a waiver on anyone near the cut off point for when an abortion ceases to be legal.
so even though she is going to get the abortion anyway you think a woman should be forced to jump through hoops to make YOU feel better?

you think she just woke up one day and thought "i think ill kill my baby" and wandered off to find an abortion clinic?

women think before they get any medical procedure. they think long and hard before they decide they need to abort.

if you want to advocate adding in something about possible psychological complications to the long list of other possible problems that have to be discussed before an abortion is performed (as is done for any medical procedure) then FINE. but to mandate things that will cause abortions to be done later isnt a good thing. its not good for the woman and its not good for the fetus.

To an extend. For various reasons, I'm not particularly in favour of forcing women to bear their undesired children*, but I'm definitely finding the idea of murdering the fetus to avoid nine months - or 20 years, if the child stays with the mother - of trouble repugnant.


"Nine months of trouble." Giggle.

Tell you what. I'll be fine with you calling pregnancy and childbirth "nine months of trouble," if you'll agree to support a law that mandates the immediate execution of the biological father any time a woman dies in childbirth.

Hell, I'll be content with a law that simply requires a biological father to undergo an episiotomy any time the biological mother has one.

The counselling could be about:

1) starting from basics: what is abortion
2) Fetal development
3) Alternatives to abortion
4) General support suggestions (ie: support after abortion if one chooses that or support after adoption)

The idea is to inform people so they wouldnt think stuff like "fetuses are parasites" b4 adoption.
(your basically just asking for informed consent to the procedure which is law anyway (i think? not sure how that applies on abortion)) and you could do most of this more easily through general eduction (and I'm sure they do)

Religious people in general. I'd be distressed with 1,000,000 Rick Warrens (oh he is blond too) moving to Sweden.

The fact that you might be bigoted against all religions (strangely you have no problems with current levels of Christianity in Europe, but those backward Muslims gets to you) doesn't really address the point that being bigoted against a religion (to the point where their very existence, regardless of actions, is cause for distress) is pretty much the opposite of liberalism.

"Treated"? Psychological counselling =/= psychiatric therapy.
yeah the questions are there to get at what you meant. i was throwing out what i saw as the possible things you might mean.

id like it clarified.

The counselling could be about:

1) starting from basics: what is abortion
2) Fetal development
3) Alternatives to abortion
4) General support suggestions (ie: support after abortion if one chooses that or support after adoption)

The idea is to inform people so they wouldnt think stuff like "fetuses are parasites" b4 adoption.
Seriously, all sarcasm aside, do you actually think women who are getting abortions DON'T ALREADY KNOW THIS SHIT?!

I worked at a PP clinic for a while, and we had all that information provided IN THE WAITING ROOM. Like, women who came in for a pap smear would see it.

Not to mention that you're actually suggesting that women seek abortions without knowing what an abortion is. Do you actually think women are that stupid?

Do you really believe that women seek abortions without knowing what they're doing? Do you think they just randomly decide to get an abortion without must thought involved?

Have you ever, like, met a woman? Or talked to one as if she's an actual person?

All of what you are talking about is ALREADY a part of all legal abortion protocols. Doctors already have to explain what the procedure or drug is going to do. They already explain the alternatives. They don't offer a full course on embryology, but frankly I don't see why the fuck they should, any more than a cardiologist should be required to explain the development of cardiac muscle to somebody who's having a bypass.

I strongly suggest you take the time to learn about what actually goes on in the real world. You don't seem to have the slightest idea how reproductive health care works, so it's really silly for you to be spouting off on how official policies should be handled.

"Nine months of trouble." Giggle.

Tell you what. I'll be fine with you calling pregnancy and childbirth "nine months of trouble," if you'll agree to support a law that mandates the immediate execution of the biological father any time a woman dies in childbirth.

Hell, I'll be content with a law that simply requires a biological father to undergo an episiotomy any time the biological mother has one.
the part that really freaked me about his postis that he's seriously suggesting that carrying a rape baby for 9 months is just "9 months of trouble". I mean that would be purely awful . . .

(your basically just asking for informed consent to the procedure which is law anyway (i think? not sure how that applies on abortion)) and you could do most of this more easily through general eduction (and I'm sure they do)

You forget some of what u learn thru general education. And I dont think informed consent covers fetal development.

People should know that there is a brain in 8 weeks and then make an informed decision and not one based on stuff like fetus is parasites, etc...

Seriously, all sarcasm aside, do you actually think women who are getting abortions DON'T ALREADY KNOW THIS SHIT?!

I worked at a PP clinic for a while, and we had all that information provided IN THE WAITING ROOM. Like, women who came in for a pap smear would see it.

Not to mention that you're actually suggesting that women seek abortions without knowing what an abortion is. Do you actually think women are that stupid?

Do you really believe that women seek abortions without knowing what they're doing? Do you think they just randomly decide to get an abortion without must thought involved?

Have you ever, like, met a woman? Or talked to one as if she's an actual person?
This . . .bottle, your my hero

You forget some of what u learn thru general education. And I dont think informed consent covers fetal development.

People should know that there is a brain in 8 weeks and then make an informed decision and not one based on stuff like fetus is parasites, etc...

technically a fetus acts in parasitic fashions and at eight weeks brain is stretching it a little . . .what it actually has (if I remeber right) is closer to a notochord.

Ahhh murder . . .such a loaded term. You know by that definition you murder everything you eat. Every time you breath you "murder" thousands of organisms. In fact your body is right, at this moment, "murdering" various pathogens.Mhm. You may have a point there. Considering this, I presume that you'll support me in advocating that killing any- and everyone in your path should be perfectly legal and - more importantly - socially acceptable?maybe you need to think more about how terrible it might be to carry and care for unwanted children.Maybe I have, and I merely find that murder - or, if you prefer, non-consensual suicide - is plainly worse?It's also their own bodies, which they have the absolute right to control.I agree completely. Now, about the child's body...

Seriously, all sarcasm aside, do you actually think women who are getting abortions DON'T ALREADY KNOW THIS SHIT?!

I worked at a PP clinic for a while, and we had all that information provided IN THE WAITING ROOM. Like, women who came in for a pap smear would see it.

Not to mention that you're actually suggesting that women seek abortions without knowing what an abortion is. Do you actually think women are that stupid?

Do you really believe that women seek abortions without knowing what they're doing? Do you think they just randomly decide to get an abortion without must thought involved?

Have you ever, like, met a woman? Or talked to one as if she's an actual person?

All of what you are talking about is ALREADY a part of all legal abortion protocols. Doctors already have to explain what the procedure or drug is going to do. They already explain the alternatives. They don't offer a full course on embryology, but frankly I don't see why the fuck they should, any more than a cardiologist should be required to explain the development of cardiac muscle to somebody who's having a bypass.

I strongly suggest you take the time to learn about what actually goes on in the real world. You don't seem to have the slightest idea how reproductive health care works, so it's really silly for you to be spouting off on how official policies should be handled.

Umm, yeah, this is why I'm writing this on an internet forum and its not something serious.

I haven talked with a women who went thru abortion about abortion. I've rarely discussed it actually.

I know this is not going to go well.

But people always say that abortion is okay. The women has a right to choose. I disagree with the first one and completely agree with the second one. Abortion is nothing short of killing a child. No matter how you put it thats what it is. And given medical advances over the last few decades there is little danger to the mother anymore. (yes it does stille exists. just not as greatly as it once did.)

Does the mother have the right to choose? For god's sake yes. She makes that choice every time she has sex. (I dare you to find someone who is haveing sex and doesnt know about pregnancy.) So for those of you who are saying a mother has a right to choose to abort the baby here is my thought. So its okay for someone to kill a child because they arnt ready for a child and are to irresponsible to not have sex.

This whole abortion crap is sad. To many people think that if they have sex and get pregnat they can abort. Sex is meant as a way to procriate and further our species. So dont be surprised when you get a child. And dont harm that child because your to immature to realize/understand this.

And if a child has a birth defect. Or any other variables with pregnacy. The baby should not be terminated. It should be given the chance at a life regardless of what science says because we all they have have been wrong before.

Mhm. You may have a point there. Considering this, I presume that you'll support me in advocating that killing any- and everyone in your path should be perfectly legal and - more importantly - socially acceptable?Maybe I have, and I merely find that murder - or, if you prefer, non-consensual suicide - is plainly worse?I agree completely. Now, about the child's body...
few people love the idea of abortion. they just prefer that it be the decision of the woman involved in consultation with her doctor.

Umm, yeah, this is why I'm writing this on an internet forum and its not something serious.

I haven talked with a women who went thru abortion about abortion. I've rarely discussed it actually.
Want to?

Go ahead, ask me anything.

I know this is not going to go well.

But people always say that abortion is okay. The women has a right to choose. I disagree with the first one and completely agree with the second one. Abortion is nothing short of killing a child. No matter how you put it thats what it is. And given medical advances over the last few decades there is little danger to the mother anymore. (yes it does stille exists. just not as greatly as it once did.)

Does the mother have the right to choose? For god's sake yes. She makes that choice every time she has sex. (I dare you to find someone who is haveing sex and doesnt know about pregnancy.) So for those of you who are saying a mother has a right to choose to abort the baby here is my thought. So its okay for someone to kill a child because they arnt ready for a child and are to irresponsible to not have sex.

This whole abortion crap is sad. To many people think that if they have sex and get pregnat they can abort. Sex is meant as a way to procriate and further our species. So dont be surprised when you get a child. And dont harm that child because your to immature to realize/understand this.

And if a child has a birth defect. Or any other variables with pregnacy. The baby should not be terminated. It should be given the chance at a life regardless of what science says because we all they have have been wrong before.

So how much time should she do?

If you think abortion is killing a child, then how much time should a woman do for killing her child?

Mhm. You may have a point there. Considering this, I presume that you'll support me in advocating that killing any- and everyone in your path should be perfectly legal and - more importantly - socially acceptable?


Maybe I have, and I merely find that murder - or, if you prefer, non-consensual suicide - is plainly worse?


I agree completely. Now, about the child's body...

1) I don't support the killing of humans. An embryo is, by definition, not human. You like eating meat? My point was that you've got to draw a line somewhere and there's a really easy one for abortions.

2)Again with the murder . . . Have you actually thought about this? At worst your killing a potential child and then every time a woman menstruated or a guy *cough* they'd be guilty of exactly the same thing.


3)What Child? you mean the thing that probably looks more like a fish than anything else for most of the pregnancy (at least the part during which it is currently legal to abort a pregnancy)?

I know this is not going to go well.

But people always say that abortion is okay. The women has a right to choose. I disagree with the first one and completely agree with the second one. Abortion is nothing short of killing a child. No matter how you put it thats what it is. And given medical advances over the last few decades there is little danger to the mother anymore. (yes it does stille exists. just not as greatly as it once did.)

Does the mother have the right to choose? For god's sake yes. She makes that choice every time she has sex. (I dare you to find someone who is haveing sex and doesnt know about pregnancy.) So for those of you who are saying a mother has a right to choose to abort the baby here is my thought. So its okay for someone to kill a child because they arnt ready for a child and are to irresponsible to not have sex.

This whole abortion crap is sad. To many people think that if they have sex and get pregnat they can abort. Sex is meant as a way to procriate and further our species. So dont be surprised when you get a child. And dont harm that child because your to immature to realize/understand this.

And if a child has a birth defect. Or any other variables with pregnacy. The baby should not be terminated. It should be given the chance at a life regardless of what science says because we all they have have been wrong before.

So, if a woman miscarries, do we charge her with involuntary manslaughter?

Want to?

Go ahead, ask me anything.

Ok, have u went thru abortion and are u offended by this thread and what I have written so far?

Ok. Time limits for abortion is severe restriction?
You mean the time limits that already exist, the way you've already been told, more than once?

The point is mandatory psychological counselling b4 abortion may be a good idea, as I said twice b4.

You should study your Canadian history.

The last law to discuss abortion in Canada was Trudeau's Omnibus bill, which legalised it, but made it mandatory for the woman to receive a counselling session with doctors beforehand.

The law was struck down as unconstitutional in 1988 by the Supreme Court of Canada.

So, we can say that we honestly tried that and was found to rob women of their rights.

I know this is not going to go well.

But people always say that abortion is okay. The women has a right to choose. I disagree with the first one and completely agree with the second one. Abortion is nothing short of killing a child. No matter how you put it thats what it is. And given medical advances over the last few decades there is little danger to the mother anymore. (yes it does stille exists. just not as greatly as it once did.)

Does the mother have the right to choose? For god's sake yes. She makes that choice every time she has sex. (I dare you to find someone who is haveing sex and doesnt know about pregnancy.) So for those of you who are saying a mother has a right to choose to abort the baby here is my thought. So its okay for someone to kill a child because they arnt ready for a child and are to irresponsible to not have sex.

This whole abortion crap is sad. To many people think that if they have sex and get pregnat they can abort. Sex is meant as a way to procriate and further our species. So dont be surprised when you get a child. And dont harm that child because your to immature to realize/understand this.

And if a child has a birth defect. Or any other variables with pregnacy. The baby should not be terminated. It should be given the chance at a life regardless of what science says because we all they have have been wrong before.
1)Really? Have you ever seen an embryo at say . . .1 week? Whats that? No? cause at that point its for all intents and purposes a bunch of stem cells? huh . . .

2)You really want me to start pulling stats. on twelev year olds having sex who have no idea of what the consequences might be?

3)Its . . .not . . .a . .. child. . . its a fetus.

4)And again . . .ok I'm not gonna pull up all the child defects that will definitly kill within a year and that year will be awful (trisomy-20) is one example and genetic testing for those things is ridiculously close to being always right.

So, if a woman miscarries, do we charge her with involuntary manslaughter?

Technically speaking, most women will miscarry several times in their life, and never know it. We would have to examine every used tampon and sanitary pad with a microscope to make sure that we didn't miss any fertilized embryos that failed to attach to the uterine walls.

Of course, that would create jobs....

But you already see how ridiculous the idea is...

The fact that you might be bigoted against all religions (strangely you have no problems with current levels of Christianity in Europe, but those backward Muslims gets to you) doesn't really address the point that being bigoted against a religion (to the point where their very existence, regardless of actions, is cause for distress) is pretty much the opposite of liberalism.

I'm sorry if thats how u interpreted my opinion. I have no problem with their very existence. Existence of any religion for that matter.

You mean the time limits that already exist, the way you've already been told, more than once?

We dont have one:

"Illegal abortion

An abortion is legal in Canada. But they may not be available in certain provinces or non-urban areas. Contact your closest Planned Parenthood or other family planning clinic for more information about abortion options in your area.

An abortion performed without professional medical care (illegally) has a much greater risk of complications than one performed legally with good medical care."
http://www.healthlinkbc.ca/kbase/topic/special/tw1040/sec2.htm

"Abortion in Canada is not limited by the law. While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion. Regulations and accessibility varies between provinces."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

Mhm. You may have a point there. Considering this, I presume that you'll support me in advocating that killing any- and everyone in your path should be perfectly legal and - more importantly - socially acceptable?Maybe I have, and I merely find that murder - or, if you prefer, non-consensual suicide - is plainly worse?I agree completely. Now, about the child's body...
The child's body is the child's problem. Even if we want to grant personhood to embryos (which I do not, but for the sake of the current point...), no person in this world has the right to use my body for their purposes against my will. If little Junior needs a place to gestate, but I am not willing to open up my uterus for the purpose, then it sucks to be little Junior. Better luck to him on his next incarnation.

Ok, have u went thru abortion and are u offended by this thread and what I have written so far?
I self-induced a miscarriage, or "do-it-yourself" abortion (which, for the record, is not a good idea and I do not recommend it to anybody), and no I'm not offended by your thread or what you've written.

Frankly, as a woman and as a feminist, I have heard everything in this thread a million times before, so it's kinda hard for me to get offended by any of it.

Umm, yeah, this is why I'm writing this on an internet forum and its not something serious.

I haven talked with a women who went thru abortion about abortion. I've rarely discussed it actually.
It shows. It especially shows in that everything you dream of as things that should exist actually already do exist -- and you don't know that.

So, if a woman miscarries, do we charge her with involuntary manslaughter?Last I checked, just because traffic accidents happen doesn't mean we legalise intentionally driving all over pedestrians.1) I don't support the killing of humans. An embryo is, by definition, not human.Wha...? Does its DNA suddenly get recombined after birth?2)Again with the murder . . . Have you actually thought about this? At worst your killing a potential child and then every time a woman menstruated or a guy *cough* they'd be guilty of exactly the same thing.Oh, hey, the same, utterly-retarded-yet-endlessly-repeated argument again! Unfertilised. Rings a bell?
Once again, equating, say, misscarriage with abortion is like equating a child accidentally falling down the stairs and breaking its neck to intentionally throwing it down and breaking its neck. If you think the two are equivalent, I suggest professional help.

I'm sorry if thats how u interpreted my opinion. I have no problem with their very existence. Existence of any religion for that matter.

Oh! As long as they don't immigrate to Europe, and just stay in their own backwards countries, you have no problem with Muslims. Okay then.

But that's not very "liberal," and I am thinking you just claimed to be "a liberal" in your OP so people would be initially more open to you rather than as a true summation of your politics, which are about as liberal as Geert Wilders.

The child's body is the child's problem. Even if we want to grant personhood to embryos (which I do not, but for the sake of the current point...), no person in this world has the right to use my body for their purposes against my will. If little Junior needs a place to gestate, but I am not willing to open up my uterus for the purpose, then it sucks to be little Junior. Better luck to him on his next incarnation.But, logically, doesn't the same apply to children post-birth? They're certainly not capable of living without adult assistance - though, admittedly, it doesn't necessarily have to be the mother's -, so if nobody cares, just leave them to rot?

Last I checked, just because traffic accidents happen doesn't mean we legalise intentionally driving all over pedestrians.

Last you checked? Do you check often? If the pregnant woman is not aware of her pregnancy, and engages in behavior that terminates the pregnancy, if we define the unborn as a legal person, then how is that not recklessness? If we define intentional abortion as murder, than reckless or otherwise criminally negligent accidental abortions would qualify for lesser charges.

We dont have one:

"Illegal abortion

An abortion is legal in Canada. But they may not be available in certain provinces or non-urban areas. Contact your closest Planned Parenthood or other family planning clinic for more information about abortion options in your area.

An abortion performed without professional medical care (illegally) has a much greater risk of complications than one performed legally with good medical care."
http://www.healthlinkbc.ca/kbase/topic/special/tw1040/sec2.htm

"Abortion in Canada is not limited by the law. While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion. Regulations and accessibility varies between provinces."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada
You don't read, do you? I already said that, where no laws place time restrictions, people do it themselves anyway. I even cited Canada as an example of that. Canada's laws have often been addressed in this forum, and there is ZERO evidence that ELECTIVE late term abortions occur in Canada, DESPITE the lack of a law saying that they are illegal. NON-ELECTIVE late term abortions are ones that are deemed medically necessary, and they would not be subject to a time restriction anyway.

I self-induced a miscarriage, or "do-it-yourself" abortion (which, for the record, is not a good idea and I do not recommend it to anybody), and no I'm not offended by your thread or what you've written.

Frankly, as a woman and as a feminist, I have heard everything in this thread a million times before, so it's kinda hard for me to get offended by any of it.

Some people sounded pissed off tho and I wondered why. Anyhow, enough attention on this subject for now.

Go ahead, ask me anything.

I'm going to break from my usual sarcastic, snide, hit&run bedside manner to be serious for a moment.

I do have a few questions:

How many weeks were you at the time?

Exactly how is the procedure done (does it require surgery or is it non-invasive - etc. I really don't know the details)?

Were there any hormonal swings right afterwards?

How did your significant other feel about this (if you had one at the time), and did you take his opinion into account?

I may have more, depending on the answers to these.

Consider that the right to keep and bear arms is not only specifically enumerated in writing in the Constitution, the Supreme Court recently ruled that it most certainly is an individual right.

By comparison, while SCOTUS views abortion as a right, it is in no way specifically enumerated in writing in the Constitution.

I don't believe there should be any restrictions on abortion - certainly no counseling. And I believe there should be no restrictions on firearms ownership - anything less is an outright violation of the Constitution.

If SCOTUS says we have the right - to abortion or individual bearing of arms - then people need to lay off trying to restrict either one - the attempt to restrict the activity is unconstitutional.
I don't like guns but I pretty much agree with your arguments here. Although, I think a few choice restrictions wouldn't be out of order or unconstitutional.

Some people sounded pissed off tho and I wondered why. Anyhow, enough attention on this subject for now.
Really?

You wonder why?

Do you want me to explain why for you?

Last I checked, just because traffic accidents happen doesn't mean we legalise intentionally driving all over pedestrians.

Wha...? Does its DNA suddenly get recombined after birth?

Oh, hey, the same, utterly-retarded-yet-endlessly-repeated argument again! Unfertilised. Rings a bell?
Once again, equating, say, misscarriage with abortion is like equating a child accidentally falling down the stairs and breaking its neck to intentionally throwing it down and breaking its neck. If you think the two are equivalent, I suggest professional help.
1)lol um but if you accidentally run into a pedestrian you get charged.

2)Nope so DNA= Human life to you? Cause that's just ridiculous. That means every time you shed a skin cell you just killed someone. (full set of DNA right there)

3) Human parthenogenesis mean anything to you? There's a potential (very very very low potential) Child in every single haploid cell in your body.

Really?

You wonder why?

Do you want me to explain why for you?

Breath bottle! He's not worth it! lmao

I don't like guns but I pretty much agree with your arguments here. Although, I think a few choice restrictions wouldn't be out of order or unconstitutional.

People, despite SCOTUS rulings, keep trying to restrict abortion (and gun rights, and a few other things). It's as though no one understands what the courts have said.

Any attempt to restrict is most certainly out of order, and unconstitutional. It's an attempt to invalidate a right by ignoring the court.

Really?

You wonder why?

Do you want me to explain why for you?

Yea, I'd like to hear it from u if u want to explain.

But, logically, doesn't the same apply to children post-birth? They're certainly not capable of living without adult assistance - though, admittedly, it doesn't necessarily have to be the mother's -, so if nobody cares, just leave them to rot?

no. They are capable of living without adult assistance. They can, technically feed themselves, breath for themselves and move (slightly) maybe not for long but they can.

Yea, I'd like to hear it from u if u want to explain.

**closes hatch to bomb shelter**

Okay, I'm going to try and actually answer the question that was asked:

No abortion is not redundant. The baby shortage is being easily addressed by people adopting babies from other countries where birth control of any kind is not available or illegal. ALSO people need to start adopting older children. There are tons of kids under the age of 5 (which is basically the age where most people's memories really start) in the US who need adopting. And even more over the age of 5 who would make wonderful sons and daughters. Having a baby is great and all but somewhat overrated. Having a child is not.

Basically abortion will never become redundant unless you come up with a free, 100% effective and mandatory form of birth control. And we all know the success they've been having with abstinance, so even then you'll have people who will refuse free birth control, who will not be able to be policed, and will still be stubborn enough to insist on an abortion. So... hope that helps!

Last you checked? Do you check often? If the pregnant woman is not aware of her pregnancy, and engages in behavior that terminates the pregnancy, if we define the unborn as a legal person, then how is that not recklessness? If we define intentional abortion as murder, than reckless or otherwise criminally negligent accidental abortions would qualify for lesser charges.
they would at least have to be criminally investigated. just because she SAYS she didnt do anything wrong doesnt mean she didnt.

**closes hatch to bomb shelter**

**let me in!!!!! LET ME IN! oh no . . .please no.**

lol

**let me in!!!!! LET ME IN! oh no . . .please no.**

lol

here, get in quick before she blows...

here, get in quick before she blows...

*thanks!*

1)lol um but if you accidentally run into a pedestrian you get charged.And acquitted, if you're not at fault.2)Nope so DNA= Human life to you? Cause that's just ridiculous. That means every time you shed a skin cell you just killed someone. (full set of DNA right there)-_- Yes, because I haven't spelled out the difference between 'Intentional' and 'Accidental' already. Because the difference between fertilised ovums and skin cells shouldn't be obvious and taken for granted even if not explicitly mentioned...

No, you just have to play retard. 'tis kinda pointless, innit?3) Human parthenogenesis mean anything to you? There's a potential (very very very low potential) Child in every single haploid cell in your body.So what? Yes, the very moment the cells are (Artificially, since it doesn't occur naturally) caused to form embryos, I'd consider them human. As long as they're not (Effectively counting as 'Unfertilised'), they're not. It's not difficult to understand.

Well. Maybe for you. But...no. They are capable of living without adult assistance. They can, technically feed themselves, breath for themselves and move (slightly) maybe not for long but they can. Yeah... That's about it. It's pointless. Since you're clearly trolling... Lets just forget about it.

But, logically, doesn't the same apply to children post-birth? They're certainly not capable of living without adult assistance - though, admittedly, it doesn't necessarily have to be the mother's -, so if nobody cares, just leave them to rot?
No, logically, none of that follows for the very reason you yourself point out: It doesn't necessarily have to be the mother who raises a child. But it does have to be the mother who carries a pregnancy.

If you acknowledge that women have the right to control their own bodies, then you must allow the choice of abortion, because there is no other means by which they could exercise that control if they do not wish to be pregnant.

I'm going to break from my usual sarcastic, snide, hit&run bedside manner to be serious for a moment.

I do have a few questions:

How many weeks were you at the time?

Exactly how is the procedure done (does it require surgery or is it non-invasive - etc. I really don't know the details)?

Were there any hormonal swings right afterwards?

How did your significant other feel about this (if you had one at the time), and did you take his opinion into account?

I may have more, depending on the answers to these.
I was maybe 4-5 weeks in. I didn't stick anything up inside myself, I went for the drug approach.

I dunno about "hormonal swings," but I felt lousy for a few days. The physical process was like a really heavy and crampy period. Though, to be fair, I'm a gal who has such light periods normally that I'm probably a wimp about these things.

I mentioned to my SO that I might be preggers. He knew me and my feelings about pregnancy, and assumed I would most likely seek abortion if it turned out I was pregnant, so he asked if I needed help. I told him I didn't want to talk about it, so we didn't. To be honest, his opinion would not have changed my mind about aborting the pregnancy either way, though it might have changed my mind about dating him. :P

Really?

You wonder why?

Do you want me to explain why for you?
Might be worthwhile to say why anyway; I see no need in asking.

And acquitted, if you're not at fault.-_- Yes, because I haven't spelled out the difference between 'Intentional' and 'Accidental' already. Because the difference between fertilised ovums and skin cells shouldn't be obvious and taken for granted even if not explicitly mentioned...

No, you just have to play retard. 'tis kinda pointless, innit?So what? Yes, the very moment the cells are (Artificially, since it doesn't occur naturally) caused to form embryos, I'd consider them human. As long as they're not (Effectively counting as 'Unfertilised'), they're not. It's not difficult to understand.

Well. Maybe for you. But...Yeah... That's about it. It's pointless. Since you're clearly trolling... Lets just forget about it.

1) How would you determine fault? (in a miscarriage) For example is a woman at fault if she accidentally falls down a flight of stairs and miscarries? No? what if she intentionally falls down the stairs . . .oh and how do you tell?

2) lol and I'm an idiot huh . . .so can you tell me what the difference is between a single fertilized Ovum and a single cell of spinal fluid is? And I'm trying to point out the absurdity of the idea that a fertilized ovum is somehow similar to a full human being. A skin (or any other diploid cell) has the same complete set of DNA and "features of life". An unfertilized ovum has the same potential for life (and just because human Parthenogenesis has not occurred naturally to the best of our knowledge does, in no way mean "it doesn't happen).

3)Why at that point then? What is it about a fertilized cell that, for you, makes all the difference?

4)I wasn't trolling I was . . .again . . .pointing out the complete absurdity of your claim.

Yea, I'd like to hear it from u if u want to explain.

For pro-choice people, this is a debate over the most fundamental human right there is: the right to ownership of one's own body.

For those who want to criminalize abortion, this is a debate over the very definition of human life.

Either way, there are some MASSIVE and important issues tied up with this, and it's absolutely no surprise that people get emotional talking about them.

Also, please remember that about one in every three women (world wide) will have at least one abortion in her lifetime. Do you know at least three women? Realize that when you talk about this subject with a woman, there's a good chance that the person you're talking to has HAD an abortion, so all your speculations and theoretical notions are all-too-real for her.

I dunno about "hormonal swings," but I felt lousy for a few days. The physical process was like a really heavy and crampy period. Though, to be fair, I'm a gal who has such light periods normally that I'm probably a wimp about these things.

Ok thanks. Question - if they had another person who was willing to take the embryo off your hands, and said they could remove it and place it in someone else to grow and live, would you have done that in lieu of the drug approach?

I mentioned to my SO that I might be preggers. He knew me and my feelings about pregnancy, and assumed I would most likely seek abortion if it turned out I was pregnant, so he asked if I needed help. I told him I didn't want to talk about it, so we didn't. To be honest, his opinion would not have changed my mind about aborting the pregnancy either way, though it might have changed my mind about dating him. :P

This is the only problem I have with the whole abortion issue as it currently stands. The father gets 0% say in the whole thing.

Heh, and sorry to disappoint y'all, it seems you're hankering to see me bite somebody's head off and wash it down with a guzzle of their arterial blood. Perhaps another time. :D

Heh, and sorry to disappoint y'all, it seems you're hankering to see me bite somebody's head off and wash it down with a guzzle of their arterial blood. Perhaps another time. :D

dammit!

Ok thanks. Question - if they had another person who was willing to take the embryo off your hands, and said they could remove it and place it in someone else to grow and live, would you have done that in lieu of the drug approach?



This is the only problem I have with the whole abortion issue as it currently stands. The father gets 0% say in the whole thing.
Well, as soon as he starts carrying a percentage of the pregnancy, then he can carry that much of the authority over it, too.

Heh, and sorry to disappoint y'all, it seems you're hankering to see me bite somebody's head off and wash it down with a guzzle of their arterial blood. Perhaps another time. :D

awwwwww . . .but I got the popcorn ready and everything! . . . .oh well . . .*Gives popcorn to bottle*
Later all

Well, as soon as he starts carrying a percentage of the pregnancy, then he can carry that much of the authority over it, too.

Yeah, pity we only get to carry anything after the actual birth.

Ok thanks. Question - if they had another person who was willing to take the embryo off your hands, and said they could remove it and place it in someone else to grow and live, would you have done that in lieu of the drug approach?

If, in theory, an embryo could be removed from my body without any additional medical risk to me, and if it would remain viable enough to be implanted in another person's body to be carried to term, would I go along with that?

It would depend on the situation, I guess. In that particular situation, no, I wouldn't have done something like that.

However, I would love for it to be possible to do that kind of transfer in the future. Like, if a man and woman could take turns carrying their pregnancy, that would be fantastic. That way they could take turns having a "night off" from being pregnant, or they could choose who would carry to term based on who was in the best position to do so. (Like, what if the guy has a really flexible schedule and the gal does not? Or what if she has medical complications but he doesn't? It might be better for him to carry the pregnancy, from a practical standpoint.)


This is the only problem I have with the whole abortion issue as it currently stands. The father gets 0% say in the whole thing.
The father has precisely the same rights as the mother: the right to decide how his own body will participate in reproduction. Neither party has any right to decide how another person's body will participate in reproduction.

Believe me, I agree that it's unfair that women are the only ones whose bodies can build babies. If I could wave a wand and make it fair, I absolutely would do so. But the reality is that a woman's body gets pregnant. A woman's body contributes all the raw materials, all the energy, and all the machinery for making a baby. The woman's body does 100% of the work, so the owner of that body gets to decide how (and if) it will participate in the process.

Yeah, pity we only get to carry anything after the actual birth.
Different issue for a different thread.

For pro-choice people, this is a debate over the most fundamental human right there is: the right to ownership of one's own body.

For those who want to criminalize abortion, this is a debate over the very definition of human life.

Either way, there are some MASSIVE and important issues tied up with this, and it's absolutely no surprise that people get emotional talking about them.

Also, please remember that about one in every three women (world wide) will have at least one abortion in her lifetime. Do you know at least three women? Realize that when you talk about this subject with a woman, there's a good chance that the person you're talking to has HAD an abortion, so all your speculations and theoretical notions are all-too-real for her.
Well said. It may be irrational that people react emotionally to this issue, but people should at least try to be more understanding towards why people react the way they do.

Different issue for a different thread.

I suppose.

But I've wondered - if a woman gets to choose whether or not she wants to carry on with a pregnancy..

then let's ask if the man should get a choice as well.

Let's say the woman decides that although accidental, she wants to keep the baby and take it to term.

The man, on the other hand, says no. He also doesn't want to be on the hook for child support.

Obviously, in the area of choice, the woman has more choice than the man.

Shouldn't the man be able to opt out of the entire thing as well?

I suppose.

But I've wondered - if a woman gets to choose whether or not she wants to carry on with a pregnancy..

then let's ask if the man should get a choice as well.

Let's say the woman decides that although accidental, she wants to keep the baby and take it to term.

The man, on the other hand, says no. He also doesn't want to be on the hook for child support.

Obviously, in the area of choice, the woman has more choice than the man.

Shouldn't the man be able to opt out of the entire thing as well?
Tell you what:

Ensure that women everywhere have not only the right to abortion whenever they want it, but also the ability to access safe, affordable abortion services, and then we'll debate your ideas.

If, in theory, an embryo could be removed from my body without any additional medical risk to me, and if it would remain viable enough to be implanted in another person's body to be carried to term, would I go along with that?

It would depend on the situation, I guess. In that particular situation, no, I wouldn't have done something like that.

Ok, thanks. I posed earlier a possibility that, in the future, those who are anti-abortion could take the embryos from those who wish to have abortions. I just wanted to see if everyone who wished to have abortions would be open to this option were it viable. Now I know.

However, I would love for it to be possible to do that kind of transfer in the future. Like, if a man and woman could take turns carrying their pregnancy, that would be fantastic. That way they could take turns having a "night off" from being pregnant, or they could choose who would carry to term based on who was in the best position to do so. (Like, what if the guy has a really flexible schedule and the gal does not? Or what if she has medical complications but he doesn't? It might be better for him to carry the pregnancy, from a practical standpoint.)

I remember reading an article that states, from a medical standpoint, there's no reason why a man couldn't carry a child once the inner workings were set up to accommodate it. However, due to the potential risk to both the child and the parent, it's unethical to try. Pity.

The father has precisely the same rights as the mother: the right to decide how his own body will participate in reproduction. Neither party has any right to decide how another person's body will participate in reproduction.

Believe me, I agree that it's unfair that women are the only ones whose bodies can build babies. If I could wave a wand and make it fair, I absolutely would do so. But the reality is that a woman's body gets pregnant. A woman's body contributes all the raw materials, all the energy, and all the machinery for making a baby. The woman's body does 100% of the work, so the owner of that body gets to decide how (and if) it will participate in the process.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't argue abortion because it's a pointless exercise. No one is going to change their minds on the subject. I just wanted to take this opportunity to ask you some questions. Thanks for indulging me. Adieu.

I suppose.

But I've wondered - if a woman gets to choose whether or not she wants to carry on with a pregnancy..

then let's ask if the man should get a choice as well.

Let's say the woman decides that although accidental, she wants to keep the baby and take it to term.

The man, on the other hand, says no. He also doesn't want to be on the hook for child support.

Obviously, in the area of choice, the woman has more choice than the man.

Shouldn't the man be able to opt out of the entire thing as well?
Good, you've just composed the OP of your separate thread on this separate issue. Go launch it! I'm sure it will be great. It's a hot topic that usually gets plenty of response. Good luck.

Ok, thanks. I posed earlier a possibility that, in the future, those who are anti-abortion could take the embryos from those who wish to have abortions. I just wanted to see if everyone who wished to have abortions would be open to this option were it viable. Now I know.



I remember reading an article that states, from a medical standpoint, there's no reason why a man couldn't carry a child once the inner workings were set up to accommodate it. However, due to the potential risk to both the child and the parent, it's unethical to try. Pity.



I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't argue abortion because it's a pointless exercise. No one is going to change their minds on the subject. I just wanted to take this opportunity to ask you some questions. Thanks for indulging me. Adieu.
Good questions and thankee for the civility of discussion. :D

Trostia and Poli.

You couldn't just have rickrolled me? Sent me a link to vacations in Branson? Two Girls One Cup? Something?

You had to send me that?

...mutter...going to be singing that shit all week...grumble....fuck the both of you...

*sings along*

Bilbo! (Bilbo!) Bilbo Baggins! Only three feet tall!
Bilbo! (Bilbo!) Bilbo Baggins! The greatest little hobbit of them all!

:D

*sings along*

Bilbo! (Bilbo!) Bilbo Baggins! Only three feet tall!
Bilbo! (Bilbo!) Bilbo Baggins! The greatest little hobbit of them all!

:D
Silence!!! Evil creature!!!! :D

True, true. I've never really understood why it's the children that are executed for the crime of the father.

....really? You've really never understood why it isn't terribly nice to force a rape victim to bear her attacker's child? Because, see, that sort of sounds to me like saying, "I've never understood why people don't like being punched repeated in the face!" or "I've never understood why people would prefer I not run over their pets with my car!"

Trostia and Poli.

You couldn't just have rickrolled me? Sent me a link to vacations in Branson? Two Girls One Cup? Something?

You had to send me that?

...mutter...going to be singing that shit all week...grumble....fuck the both of you...

I could have linked to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xbfFAYTN-g) but I didn't want to be cruel.

....really? You've really never understood why it isn't terribly nice to force a rape victim to bear her attacker's child? Because, see, that sort of sounds to me like saying, "I've never understood why people don't like being punched repeated in the face!" or "I've never understood why people would prefer I not run over their pets with my car!"
To be fair, a striking number of anti-choicers really do seem to sincerely avoid thinking about the feelings and health of the female human beings who would be forced to carry these unwanted pregnancies. So it's quite understandable that he'd never have considered why a rape survivor might not want to be forced to endure pregnancy, too.

To be fair, a striking number of anti-choicers really do seem to sincerely avoid thinking about the feelings and health of the female human beings who would be forced to carry these unwanted pregnancies. So it's quite understandable that he'd never have considered why a rape survivor might not want to be forced to endure pregnancy, too.

well, in fairness, I think it's similar for the "OK, abortion in case of rape" people.

See, if you believed, truly believed that a fetus was a person, then there shoudl be NO rationale for what is, essentially, murder. I don't think people TRULY believe that, but those people who actually hold a consistantly "pro life" standpoint, to the extent of no abortions, no death penalty, no wars except in self defense, while I might not agree with their position, I can at least respect their consistancy.

The people who are so willing to concede their "viewpoints" with a "ok, it's ok to murder someone if someone else got raped" basically suggests to me that they never ACTUALLY believed it human life, for who would toss aside innocent human life in such a compromise? It reveals their motivations, in the end, to not be about perserving life, but simply control.

To be fair, a striking number of anti-choicers really do seem to sincerely avoid thinking about the feelings and health of the female human beings who would be forced to carry these unwanted pregnancies. So it's quite understandable that he'd never have considered why a rape survivor might not want to be forced to endure pregnancy, too.
Well, at least they're being consistent. o.o

Really though, I think the very issue of the rape exception is proof that the "if you don't want kids don't have sex" mentality is too simplistic, and granting a rape exception is simply a convenient way of getting around it instead of addressing the fundamentally flawed mentality.

EDIT: Besides, I've heard that even having the rape exception in the first place could encourage some women to go make false rape accusations that they otherwise wouldn't make so that they can get the exception. Now wouldn't it be better to be more understanding towards other reasons why woman get abortions, rather than try to fight it and create even worse problems?

Eg: some people are making ignorant statements like "fetus is a parasite".

This has been addressed repeatedly. It is more than a little ridiculous to keep ignoring people's explanations of why that's not really a particularly ignorant statement and simultaneously keep using it as an example of women's supposed "ignorance." (Hint: most women are, in fact, aware that the embryo is a member of the same species as they are!)

To be fair, a striking number of anti-choicers really do seem to sincerely avoid thinking about the feelings and health of the female human beings who would be forced to carry these unwanted pregnancies. So it's quite understandable that he'd never have considered why a rape survivor might not want to be forced to endure pregnancy, too.

It just hurts my brain. I can at least comprehend "Okay, I get that making a rape victim bear her attacker's child to term is a really really horrible burden to put on her, but I still think abortion is worse," but I don't even know where to begin with "So what's the big deal about bearing your attacker's child, anyway? Pssh, stupid selfish rape victims."

The mother has the right to remove it from their body whenever they want,

Even when it actually could survive and is alive, say at 24 weeks for example?

Even when it actually could survive and is alive, say at 24 weeks for example?

sure. Now, if it could survive, the doctors should do everything they can to KEEP it alive, but it's still her body, and it's her choice what goes, and stays, in there.

well, in fairness, I think it's similar for the "OK, abortion in case of rape" people.

See, if you believed, truly believed that a fetus was a person, then there shoudl be NO rationale for what is, essentially, murder. I don't think people TRULY believe that, but those people who actually hold a consistantly "pro life" standpoint, to the extent of no abortions, no death penalty, no wars except in self defense, while I might not agree with their position, I can at least respect their consistancy.

The people who are so willing to concede their "viewpoints" with a "ok, it's ok to murder someone if someone else got raped" basically suggests to me that they never ACTUALLY believed it human life, for who would toss aside innocent human life in such a compromise? It reveals their motivations, in the end, to not be about perserving life, but simply control.
This too.

This is also why I am still waiting for an answer to my question of how much time she should do.

If abortion = killing a baby, then how much prison time should a woman do for killing her baby thusly?

Oddly, "pro-life" people typically respond that DOCTORS should do time if they perform abortions, but women shouldn't do time for getting abortions. I'm fascinated by this stance that hiring a hitman to kill your child is not a prison-worthy offense.

Even when it actually could survive and is alive, say at 24 weeks for example?

Yes, even then.

Now, the state might regulate how she may do so, but the fact remains that the woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy in some manner at any point. For an elective procedure, they might restrict it to induced birth or C-section.

Of course, this doesn't really happen. Women who are carrying pregnancies to term don't just up and decide in the middle of the third trimester that they actually really don't want to and are gonna go have an abortion now. The women who do have such late abortions do so for medical reasons.

Even when it actually could survive and is alive, say at 24 weeks for example?
Do you honestly believe that women would just up and decide to have an abortion at 24 weeks for no particular reason if it were legal to do so?

This too.

This is also why I am still waiting for an answer to my question of how much time she should do.

If abortion = killing a baby, then how much prison time should a woman do for killing her baby thusly?

Oddly, "pro-life" people typically respond that DOCTORS should do time if they perform abortions, but women shouldn't do time for getting abortions. I'm fascinated by this stance that hiring a hitman to kill your child is not a prison-worthy offense.

Silly Bottle, you forget that women are all ignorant and helpless. That's why we need to mandate that they all be informed of helpful things like "what an abortion is" before getting one, because women have the approximate IQ of sheep.

Of course, on the other hand, they're also dirty sluts who should have known better than to have sex. Dirty, slutty mentally deficient sheep, that's what we are. Duh. *nod*

Dirty, slutty mentally deficient sheep, that's what we are.

That's hot....

That's hot....

You know, as soon as I typed that sentence, I thought, "Now watch, NA will probably come in here and say that that's hot." I am not kidding. :p

You know, as soon as I typed that sentence, I thought, "Now watch, NA will probably come in here and say that that's hot." I am not kidding. :p

you know me too well m'dear

That's hot....

If you're Welsh.

Consider that the right to keep and bear arms is not only specifically enumerated in writing in the Constitution, the Supreme Court recently ruled that it most certainly is an individual right.

By comparison, while SCOTUS views abortion as a right, it is in no way specifically enumerated in writing in the Constitution.

I don't believe there should be any restrictions on abortion - certainly no counseling. And I believe there should be no restrictions on firearms ownership - anything less is an outright violation of the Constitution.

If SCOTUS says we have the right - to abortion or individual bearing of arms - then people need to lay off trying to restrict either one - the attempt to restrict the activity is unconstitutional.


The waiting period and the background check are not a restriction on fire arms. They are a procedure. As much as I am suspicious of the federal government I don't think they want to deny me my right to bear arms they just want a procedure ensure it is done safely.

The same with abortion lets make it a procedure. day one you come in answer the standard medical questions, under go test to see how far pregnant you are and so on. Adding a counselor to evaluate the woman's mental health doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to the first day.
At the same time the hospital does a check to see if there is a match of a person in the local area wanting the child. If there is just inform her of the option of signing a contract with the would be adoptive parents.

Its not about restricting or delaying an abortion, its about ensuring the woman has the proper medical services, and has a choice with full knwoledge.

The waiting period and the background check are not a restriction on fire arms. They are a procedure. As much as I am suspicious of the federal government I don't think they want to deny me my right to bear arms they just want a procedure ensure it is done safely.

The same with abortion lets make it a procedure. day one you come in answer the standard medical questions, under go test to see how far pregnant you are and so on. Adding a counselor to evaluate the woman's mental health doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to the first day.
At the same time the hospital does a check to see if there is a match of a person in the local area wanting the child. If there is just inform her of the option of signing a contract with the would be adoptive parents.

Its not about restricting or delaying an abortion, its about ensuring the woman has the proper medical services, and has a choice with full knwoledge.

I don't buy that.

The only reason legislators suggest these restrictions is to make an end-run around SCOTUS and deprive people of their rights.

This too.

This is also why I am still waiting for an answer to my question of how much time she should do.

If abortion = killing a baby, then how much prison time should a woman do for killing her baby thusly?

Oddly, "pro-life" people typically respond that DOCTORS should do time if they perform abortions, but women shouldn't do time for getting abortions. I'm fascinated by this stance that hiring a hitman to kill your child is not a prison-worthy offense.
Just toss that on the pile of dropped arguments. There are certain questions that echo with the silence of anti-choicers.

The waiting period and the background check are not a restriction on fire arms. They are a procedure. As much as I am suspicious of the federal government I don't think they want to deny me my right to bear arms they just want a procedure ensure it is done safely.

The same with abortion lets make it a procedure. day one you come in answer the standard medical questions, under go test to see how far pregnant you are and so on. Adding a counselor to evaluate the woman's mental health doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to the first day.
At the same time the hospital does a check to see if there is a match of a person in the local area wanting the child. If there is just inform her of the option of signing a contract with the would be adoptive parents.

Its not about restricting or delaying an abortion, its about ensuring the woman has the proper medical services, and has a choice with full knwoledge.
What other medical procedures are you going to force women to get a psyche evaluation before they can access care?

In what other areas of life are you going to force women to get a psyche evaluation before you allow them to exercise control over their own bodies?

How much counseling does a woman need to prove she has gone through before you will acknowledge her right not to let her body be used by someone else against her will?

Under what circumstances will you force men to go through psychological counseling before you will allow them access to medical care or the right to determine their own fates and maintain their own bodily integrity?

I don't buy that.

The only reason legislators suggest these restrictions is to make an end-run around SCOTUS and deprive people of their rights.

they are procedures not restrictions. To my knowledge (which is limited) it is very rare you go in and get an abortion the same day you ask for one. So this wouldn't add anytime to a woman's schedule. As far as I am concerned the counseling can come post op it just makes more sense pre op sense she is there, and she is not medicated/recovering. Its about protecting women who at the moment may be in a particularly vulnerable frame of mind.

And the try and find an adoption match would all be on the caregiver the woman at that point would just be making a choice.

Under what circumstances will you force men to go through psychological counseling before you will allow them access to medical care or the right to determine their own fates and maintain their own bodily integrity?


When I went to a urologist to get my vasectomy, I had to get written permission from my current wife before he would schedule the operation.

So I don't have control over my own body, either.

sure. Now, if it could survive, the doctors should do everything they can to KEEP it alive, but it's still her body, and it's her choice what goes, and stays, in there.

There's also a safety balance to be struck. Pregnancy and abortions both carry risks, but generally speaking, the risks of abortions are far less than the risks of pregnancy up to a certain point. After a certain point, unless a specific complication magnifies the risk, pregnancy becomes the safer option. That's another reason beyond the viability of the fetus that late term abortions are so terribly rare.

When I went to a urologist to get my vasectomy, I had to get written permission from my current wife before he would schedule the operation.

So I don't have control over my own body, either.

(a) How long ago was this? I know a woman who had to get her husband's permission before a tubal ligation, but that was a generation ago.

(b) If it is true, it shouldn't be.

(a) How long ago was this? I know a woman who had to get her husband's permission before a tubal ligation, but that was a generation ago.

(b) If it is true, it shouldn't be.

Three years ago in Maryland.

What other medical procedures are you going to force women to get a psyche evaluation before they can access care?
you can do it after the procedure.
but other procedures id recommend psych treatment would be rape, assault, STD testing (especially if being tested for HIV.), plastic surgery, almost all elective surgeries, and many more. These are not just for women but both genders.


In what other areas of life are you going to force women to get a psyche evaluation before you allow them to exercise control over their own bodies?
if its not related to pregnancy I would say in all the same areras that I would require for men.

How much counseling does a woman need to prove she has gone through before you will acknowledge her right not to let her body be used by someone else against her will?

20-30 minutes tops done while she is waiting for the doctor to come in and talk to her anyways (after the nurse has done the initial test).

Under what circumstances will you force men to go through psychological counseling before you will allow them access to medical care or the right to determine their own fates and maintain their own bodily integrity?

With the exception of pregnancy related ones all of them. and it doesn't have to be before the only reason it would likely be done before is because it makes sense and is economical for a scheduled surgery to do that sort of stuff before.

When I went to a urologist to get my vasectomy, I had to get written permission from my current wife before he would schedule the operation.

So I don't have control over my own body, either.
Anecdotes are proof because one person's experience in one instance accounts for everyone's experience in every instance, and for the law too! Woohoo!

What? It doesn't? Never mind.

Until the child can survive on its own it is just a parasite. Everyone has a right to not support a parasite. You don't see people decrying people who kill their tapeworms.

Anecdotes are proof because one person's experience in one instance accounts for everyone's experience in every instance, and for the law too! Woohoo!

What? It doesn't? Never mind.

Sure. In your mind it's impossible for anyone to have had any experience.

you can do it after the procedure. but other procedures id recommend psych treatment would be rape, assault, STD testing (especially if being tested for HIV.), plastic surgery, almost all elective surgeries, and many more. These are not just for women but both genders.
A) Rape and assault are not procedures.

B) What makes you think these procedures are not already accompanied by such support?

if its not related to pregnancy I would say in all the same areras that I would require for men.

20-30 minutes tops done while she is waiting for the doctor to come in and talk to her anyways (after the nurse has done the initial test).

With the exception of pregnancy related ones all of them. and it doesn't have to be before the only reason it would likely be done before is because it makes sense and is economical for a scheduled surgery to do that sort of stuff before.
You're kidding, right? Do you have any idea what the procedure for prepping for surgery is? Do you think that, 20 minutes before going in, the patient is just sitting idle and is available to undergo "counseling" before starting the procedure?

And what the fuck kind of "quickie" bullshit "counseling" are you talking about? 20-30 minutes immediately before undergoing a procedure that they've already discussed with their doctors in the earlier planning stages, of listening to someone harangue them about how depressed and crazy it might make them later? You call that counseling?

Your idea is not only insulting to women -- and to any adult human being -- it is also laughably unrealistic.

Sure. In your mind it's impossible for anyone to have had any experience.
And in your mind it's apparently possible for you to have other people's experiences, seeing as how you think you know what goes on in my mind. Go troll somebody else for a change, will you?

And in your mind it's apparently possible for you to have other people's experiences, seeing as how you think you know what goes on in my mind. Go troll somebody else for a change, will you?

You were answering about my personal experience.

When I went to a urologist to get my vasectomy, I had to get written permission from my current wife before he would schedule the operation.

So I don't have control over my own body, either.

And if your wife had refused to sign the consent form, what then?

You were answering about my personal experience.
No...I was commenting on the fact that one person's personal experience does not tell us what the general situation is for the whole world. Did I say your experience was false? No, I didn't. Did I say your experience was anything other than what you reported? No, I didn't. Did I make any comment about how you felt or what you thought because of your experience? No, I didn't. What I did was say that ancedotes are not proof because they don't apply to the general situation.

And if your wife had refused to sign the consent form, what then?

No operation. Apparently, more a fear of being sued by the wife than any actual law on the books.

Actually, I can back this sort of thing up. You can't get any medical procedure just because you want to.

When I was 21, I went in to get a vasectomy, and the doctor refused to do it "because I was too young". Never mind legal age and whatnot.