NationStates Jolt Archive

A) Rape and assault are not procedures.
the medical procedures in response to are
B) What makes you think these procedures are not already accompanied by such support?
If they are the law would affirm what is common practice, maybe even add a measure to prevent states from trying to bill the women for it

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?
Allow me to clarify you obviously have the wrong idea.
When you get a procedure done normally you come in a few days before
they do a few blood test, in the case of abortion they actually make sure she is pregnant ( a few crazies and all), and they see how far along the woman is(legal issues and all). This happens a few days before the surgery no? Why not fit in a 20 minute counseling then ? Between all the test i guarantee she is waiting in an exam room.


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?


Not immediately!! do in when she comes in for all the test she has to do before hand as ina few days before hand. you know the blood test, being told to Fast. those don't happen in an over the phone interview.

the mental health people making her more depressed ?
do you have any Idea how insulting you are to psychiatrist you are ??
there job is to prevent that.

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.
Okay, so you guys are honestly going to try to make the argument that restrictions on medical procedures FOR MEDICAL REASONS and the pussyfooting of malpractice-shy individual doctors is evidence of ... what?

That these are equal to restrictions on abortion that force women to bear pregnancies they cannot support?

Or that human beings in general do not have a right to self-determination or control over their bodily integrity?

Okay, so you guys are honestly going to try to make the argument that restrictions on medical procedures FOR MEDICAL REASONS and the pussyfooting of malpractice-shy individual doctors is evidence of ... what?

That these are equal to restrictions on abortion that force women to bear pregnancies they cannot support?

Or that human beings in general do not have a right to self-determination or control over their bodily integrity?

I can't help it if you can't read that I support complete rights to abortion, and keep thinking that I'm trying to say something else.

I can't help it if you can't read that we don't have rights to our bodies, either.

I just can't help it if you can't read.

the medical procedures in response to are If they are the law would affirm what is common practice, maybe even add a measure to prevent states from trying to bill the women for it
Allow me to clarify you obviously have the wrong idea.
When you get a procedure done normally you come in a few days before
they do a few blood test, in the case of abortion they actually make sure she is pregnant ( a few crazies and all), and they see how far along the woman is(legal issues and all). This happens a few days before the surgery no? Why not fit in a 20 minute counseling then ? Between all the test i guarantee she is waiting in an exam room.


Not immediately!! do in when she comes in for all the test she has to do before hand as ina few days before hand. you know the blood test, being told to Fast. those don't happen in an over the phone interview.

the mental health people making her more depressed ?
do you have any Idea how insulting you are to psychiatrist you are ??
there job is to prevent that.
First of all, I never said the mental health people would make her more depressed.

Second, I'm sorry but your idea sounds like nonsense to me -- a whole lot of trouble for no apparent benefit and no improvement on what already exists.

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

So, in other words, there's nothing legally taking control away from your own body. There's a doctor out there willing to perform your vasectomy, you just have to find him. Kind of puts you in the same boat as the women who have to drive hours and hours to the nearest abortion clinic. Poor you.

So, in other words, there's nothing legally taking control away from your own body. There's a doctor out there willing to perform your vasectomy, you just have to find him. Kind of puts you in the same boat as the women who have to drive hours and hours to the nearest abortion clinic. Poor you.

You won't find him. And it's a legal thing - it's called the civil suit.

So, in other words, there's nothing legally taking control away from your own body. There's a doctor out there willing to perform your vasectomy, you just have to find him. Kind of puts you in the same boat as the women who have to drive hours and hours to the nearest abortion clinic. Poor you.

Here's another non-reader with zero reading comprehension who believes somehow that I oppose abortion when I most certainly do not.

Okay, so you guys are honestly going to try to make the argument that restrictions on medical procedures FOR MEDICAL REASONS and the pussyfooting of malpractice-shy individual doctors is evidence of ... what?

That these are equal to restrictions on abortion that force women to bear pregnancies they cannot support?

Or that human beings in general do not have a right to self-determination or control over their bodily integrity?

Pull back your fangs. People always deride hotwife for personal experiences, and I just wanted to throw in that, in this case, his personal experience is by no means unique or even uncommon.

You won't find him. And it's a legal thing - it's called the civil suit.

Could you kindly point out the law that prevents him from performing your vasectomy without your wife's writen permission? You know, if it's legally required like you seem to be claiming.

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

<.<

>.>
Playing with fire... when the missus has handcuffs and a baton.... ;)

Could you kindly point out the law that prevents him from performing your vasectomy without your wife's writen permission? You know, if it's legally required like you seem to be claiming.

Obviously you can't read.

I said it's a civil suit thing.

The wife can sue the shit out of the doctor if he performs it without her permission.

No law required.

Here's another non-reader with zero reading comprehension who believes somehow that I oppose abortion when I most certainly do not.

You're a mind reader now, too? You know what I believe without me saying such? I guess we'll add that to the list of your superpowers, Deep Whispering Wife Kimchi Legs Hot.

You're a mind reader now, too? You know what I believe without me saying such? I guess we'll add that to the list of your superpowers, Deep Whispering Wife Kimchi Legs Hot.

Certainly came across in your post as a major insinuation. No mind reading required.

Obviously you can't read.

I said it's a civil suit thing.

The wife can sue the shit out of the doctor if he performs it without her permission.

No law required.

I can read just fine, thank you. If there's no law saying it's required, then I'm not seeing how it's legally required. If the doctor is merely choosing not to perform the procedure due to fear of civil litigation, that is in absolutely no way the same as saying it is legally required. Being a lawyer, I'd think you'd understand the difference.

I can't help it if you can't read that I support complete rights to abortion, and keep thinking that I'm trying to say something else.

I can't help it if you can't read that we don't have rights to our bodies, either.

I just can't help it if you can't read.
A post that contains nothing but flames = you're trolling. I am not the topic of this thread. Stop talking about me in it. Also, note, I have not talked about YOU at all, only about how ONE of your comments relates to the subject under discussion. YOU have attacked me personally (and bogusly as well). That's more evidence of trolling. If you're done talking about the topic, please don't replace it with me, thanks.

I can read just fine, thank you. If there's no law saying it's required, then I'm not seeing how it's legally required. If the doctor is merely choosing not to perform the procedure due to fear of civil litigation, that is in absolutely no way the same as saying it is legally required. Being a lawyer, I'd think you'd understand the difference.

Not a lawyer.

Maybe you don't understand the threat of a successful civil suit.

It means no doctor will touch you. Much more frightening to the average doctor than a criminal law.

Certainly came across in your post as a major insinuation. No mind reading required.

I cannot help it if you choose to infer meaning in my post where none exists. I was merely deconstructing your absolutely ridiculous assertion that men are similarly limited in control over their reproductive organs just because the one doctor you saw need a note from home.

It means no doctor will touch you.

Oh, really?

So if we can find ONE doctor who is willing to perform vasectomies without a signed permission slip from the patient's wife, will you stop this threadjack?

I cannot help it if you choose to infer meaning in my post where none exists. I was merely deconstructing your absolutely ridiculous assertion that men are similarly limited in control over their reproductive organs just because the one doctor you saw need a note from home.

We are limited in our control over reproductive organs.

Oh, really?

So if we can find ONE doctor who is willing to perform vasectomies without a signed permission slip from the patient's wife, will you stop this threadjack?

Find one in Maryland, specifically Montgomery County.

Not a lawyer.

Maybe you don't understand the threat of a successful civil suit.

It means no doctor will touch you. Much more frightening to the average doctor than a criminal law.

I understand the threat of a successful civil suit. Maybe you don't understand that there is no law requiring your wife's signature, and as such, there is no legal limitation on your control over your own body. Again, just because your doctor asked for the signature does not mean that it was a requirement and it does not mean that that equals law. There is literally no simpler way to put it than this:

Doctor not performing procedure =/= law

I understand the threat of a successful civil suit. Maybe you don't understand that there is no law requiring your wife's signature, and as such, there is no legal limitation on your control over your own body. Again, just because your doctor asked for the signature does not mean that it was a requirement and it does not mean that that equals law. There is literally no simpler way to put it than this:

Doctor not performing procedure =/= law

Doctor not performing procedure == no reproductive freedom

We are limited in our control over reproductive organs.

"We" are not. I know a doctor who will perform vascetomies without signed consent from a spouse. Since we're battling with anecdotes, as you're completely incapable of providing even one relevant law to support your assertion, your entire argument is defeated.

Not a lawyer.

Maybe you don't understand the threat of a successful civil suit.

It means no doctor will touch you. Much more frightening to the average doctor than a criminal law.
You have facts to back this up with right? I mean, seeing as how Sdaeriji and I don't know this, I guess we'd like to see the facts that you learned it from. You must know of some statistics or reports from the AMA or some article from some tort lawyer somewhere that shows that no doctor will perform a vasectomy on a married man without written permission from his wife.

I'm serious. I can understand how a doctor would want to know that a spouse has been informed of what the procedure means, but I still fail to see how the spouse's consent/lack of consent would override the man's right to control his own body. What if the doctor got sued by the man for refusing the procedure? Why wouldn't he be afraid of that?

Find one in Maryland, specifically Montgomery County.
How about one who works in the specific office where your doctor works?

Doctor not performing procedure == no reproductive freedom

Perhaps you could threaten to sue your doctor. That way, in the world of Hot Deep Whispering Kimchi Wife Legs, there would then be a law requiring vascetomies upon request.

Perhaps you could threaten to sue your doctor. That way, in the world of Hot Deep Whispering Kimchi Wife Legs, there would then be a law requiring vascetomies upon request.

Obviously that wouldn't work. Now you're simply being obsequious, especially since I'm not the only one who posted with this experience.

But in your world, men have perfect control over their reproductive freedom...

Obviously that wouldn't work. Now you're simply being obsequious, especially since I'm not the only one who posted with this experience.

But in your world, men have perfect control over their reproductive freedom...
How would it not work? You have a legal right to the procedure, don't you? There is no law requiring the doctor to get your wife's permission, is there? He refuses you the procedure because he wants something you are not legally required to give him, and which is not necessary to the procedure itself. You can bring a complaint against him. Why would that not work?

How would it not work? You have a legal right to the procedure, don't you? There is no law requiring the doctor to get your wife's permission, is there? He refuses you the procedure because he wants something you are not legally required to give him, and which is not necessary to the procedure itself. You can bring a complaint against him. Why would that not work?

Doctors do not have to provide vasectomies. They're perfectly within their rights to refuse service.

It's not a life saving procedure by any means.

Obviously that wouldn't work. Now you're simply being obsequious, especially since I'm not the only one who posted with this experience.

But in your world, men have perfect control over their reproductive freedom...

In the real world, a man can get a vasectomy without any legal restrictions whatsoever. There is literally no law that restricts a man's ability to get a vasectomy. If you weren't married, there would not be any consent form requested. Where's the legal restriction? I'm not seeing it. And, before you do, saying "omg lawsuit" isn't an argument, for reasons that have been fully explained already.

Doctors do not have to provide vasectomies. They're perfectly within their rights to refuse service.

It's not a life saving procedure by any means.
Okay.

But as Sdaeriji pointed out that still does not amount to you losing the right to control your body. All that shows is that you might not be able to force a doctor to do the procedure if he/she doesn't want to, but it does not support your original assertion that no doctor will do the procedure without written spousal permission. All you have to do is keep looking for a doctor who will. One with a good lawyer.

In the real world, a man can get a vasectomy without any legal restrictions whatsoever. There is literally no law that restricts a man's ability to get a vasectomy. If you weren't married, there would not be any consent form requested. Where's the legal restriction? I'm not seeing it. And, before you do, saying "omg lawsuit" isn't an argument, for reasons that have been fully explained already.

As you'll note the other poster was refused because he was too young.

Really, there's a consent form. And the doctor will and can refuse if he thinks there's a risk that a) you'll change your mind later, or b) your wife will sue him.

As you'll note the other poster was refused because he was too young.

Really, there's a consent form. And the doctor will and can refuse if he thinks there's a risk that a) you'll change your mind later, or b) your wife will sue him.

Good for the other poster. None of this equals law.

Okay.

But as Sdaeriji pointed out that still does not amount to you losing the right to control your body. All that shows is that you might not be able to force a doctor to do the procedure if he/she doesn't want to, but it support your original assertion, that no doctor will do the procedure without written spousal permission. All you have to do is keep looking for a doctor who will. One with a good lawyer.

Finding the doctor would be essentially impossible.

Also, try getting a vasectomy without your wife's knowledge or permission.

If you managed it, and she objected, she's free to sue for divorce.

You're telling me that divorce is a no cost thing? Places no restriction on what someone might do?

Good for the other poster. None of this equals law.

Losing in civil court == law.

As you'll note the other poster was refused because he was too young.

Really, there's a consent form. And the doctor will and can refuse if he thinks there's a risk that a) you'll change your mind later, or b) your wife will sue him.
That's a medical reason for refusing to perform a procedure at a certain time. That does not mean he can never get one. It just means the doctor is being responsible to avoid harming his patient. Saying that doctors doing their jobs right is a restriction on your rights is ridiculous.

Losing in civil court == law.

Again, if this is actually the case, and not just more of your made-up bullshit, then you should easily be able to cite at least one law to support your claim.

Again, if this is actually the case, and not just more of your made-up bullshit, then you should easily be able to cite at least one law to support your claim.

You keep asking for a criminal law when I keep saying this is civil law.

Please do learn the difference. The doctor can and will refuse without the wife's permission, out of fear of a lawsuit.

The doctor can and will refuse if they believe you're young (but still an adult) and haven't had the chance to reproduce yet.

You haven't offered one single doctor who would do it without permission.

Finding the doctor would be essentially impossible.
How do you know? Have you looked? When it was suggested that others might, you reduced the sampling area to just one county in Maryland. There is a whole world beyond that, you know, and even some roads that go to that world.

Also, try getting a vasectomy without your wife's knowledge or permission.
Whose permission do single men have to get?

If you managed it, and she objected, she's free to sue for divorce.

You're telling me that divorce is a no cost thing? Places no restriction on what someone might do?
Who said anything about divorce? And what concern would that be of the doctor's? Or are you now dropping the "the doctor won't do it" argument and saying instead that you don't have a right to control your own body because your wife would divorce you if you exercised that right?

You keep asking for a criminal law when I keep saying this is civil law.
Nobody has asked for a criminal law. Show me any case law where there is a cause of action such as you claim.

How do you know? Have you looked? When it was suggested that others might, you reduced the sampling area to just one county in Maryland. There is a whole world beyond that, you know, and even some roads that go to that world.


Yes, I looked when I lived in Maryland.

Whose permission do single men have to get?
The doctor's permission. If they think you're still young (say 21 years old) and haven't had any children yet, they can refuse.


Who said anything about divorce? And what concern would that be of the doctor's? Or are you now dropping the "the doctor won't do it" argument and saying instead that you don't have a right to control your own body because your wife would divorce you if you exercised that right?

It's another (an additional) valid example of not having reproductive freedom.

@Murayets

Mur, I know we've had our disagreements, and its none of my business, but I've noticed you're spending a lot of time on abortion threads. I just have one thing to say to you.



Please don't kill our baby.

Ladies have the right to take control of their bodies. Why take that right away?

Yes, I looked when I lived in Maryland.
And the reason you never tried to find a doctor anywhere else was... what?

The doctor's permission. If they think you're still young (say 21 years old) and haven't had any children yet, they can refuse.
Non-responsive. This has already been addressed and shown not to amount to a restriction on man's right to control his own body. It only means a man will have to look harder to find a doctor who will do what he wants.

It's another (an additional) valid example of not having reproductive freedom.
No, it really, really is not.

@Murayets

Mur, I know we've had our disagreements, and its none of my business, but I've noticed you're spending a lot of time on abortion threads. I just have one thing to say to you.



Please don't kill our baby.
Too late. Sorry.

Mmmm.... sandwich.... *munches*

Finding the doctor would be essentially impossible.

Also, try getting a vasectomy without your wife's knowledge or permission.

If you managed it, and she objected, she's free to sue for divorce.

You're telling me that divorce is a no cost thing? Places no restriction on what someone might do?

No LEGAL restriction? Yes. Or have you forgotten that was what you were arguing?

And once again, what, precisely, does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

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

Under what premise could she sue him for doing an operation you requested on you?

I can't help it if you can't read that we don't have rights to our bodies, either.

You do have rights to your body. But you don't have rights to the doctor's work - at least not in the case of an elective procedure. If you can't find a doctor willing to perform the procedure, you can't get it done. Unless the state is doing something to make doctors unwilling, it isn't a rights issue.

Finding the doctor would be essentially impossible.

Also, try getting a vasectomy without your wife's knowledge or permission.

If you managed it, and she objected, she's free to sue for divorce.

You're telling me that divorce is a no cost thing? Places no restriction on what someone might do?

Right, because one person's right to disassociate from you as a consequence of your decisions is the same as a legal restriction on your right to do it.

Its true, I read it in a Chick Pamphlet.

Obviously you can't read.

I said it's a civil suit thing.

The wife can sue the shit out of the doctor if he performs it without her permission.

Under what legal premise?

Can I sue if my husband gets an MRI without my permission?

Finding the doctor would be essentially impossible.

Also, try getting a vasectomy without your wife's knowledge or permission.

If you managed it, and she objected, she's free to sue for divorce.

You're telling me that divorce is a no cost thing? Places no restriction on what someone might do?

You've gone from the doctor getting sued to your wife deciding to divorce you?

Your wife can decide to divorce you for all sorts of reasons. That does not amount to legal restriction of your rights.

It's another (an additional) valid example of not having reproductive freedom.

...except it isn't. If your wife wouldn't want to be with you anymore because of a vasectomy, that's a choice you'll have to make.

But it is still your choice.

If you managed it, and she objected, she's free to sue for divorce.

You realize, I hope, that someone is, for the most part, free to pursue a divorce, at any time, for any reason, or no reason at all.

They're called "no fault divorces". We've evolved past the need to have to proof that your husband slaps you around before you can get a divorce.

Obviously you can't read.

I said it's a civil suit thing.

The wife can sue the shit out of the doctor if he performs it without her permission.

No law required.

wait, WHAT? Are you arguing that the WIFE can sue the HUSBAND'S doctor for performing a vascectomy on her HUSBAND without HER permission, and win?

No she certainly as fuck can not.

wait, WHAT? Are you arguing that the WIFE can sue the HUSBAND'S doctor for performing a vascectomy on her HUSBAND without HER permission, and win?

No she certainly as fuck can not.

When he first tried that, I ran a few searches on Westlaw looking for anything that would back him.

Its too bad, this would be great for our debate. YOU take his side.

why do people presume to think they can tell other people what to do with there own bodies?

When he first tried that, I ran a few searches on Westlaw looking for anything that would back him.

Its too bad, this would be great for our debate. YOU take his side.

I think Neo Art arguing DK's talking points would be the most horrific abomination known to man, and a hazard to forums everywhere.

I think Neo Art arguing DK's talking points would be the most horrific abomination known to man, and a hazard to forums everywhere.

I couldn't do it. I'd break down under the strain of trying to be that nonsensical

I think Neo Art arguing DK's talking points would be the most horrific abomination known to man, and a hazard to forums everywhere.

Well do YOU know another way to dispel Nyarlathahotep? Because I'm out of ideas!

I couldn't do it. I'd break down under the strain of trying to be that nonsensical
yes but if you could find a way to make it seem reasonable you would be the master.

I couldn't do it. I'd break down under the strain of trying to be that nonsensical

What if he were your client? And you had to accept him as a client, otherwise your wife could sue you under the same theory of liability that would allow a wife to sue a doctor for performing a vasectomy on her husband without spousal consent?

And don't forget its on. Its on like the above mentioned legal premise is wrong.

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?

Well, perhaps women should think about the imposition that a potential pregnancy might have before having sex. It ain't all fun when you have to live with the consequences now, isn't it?

Just before anyone accuses me of hypocrisy, I am also of the view that the father should have to pay their share of the child upkeep costs in a no abortion society. At least some of us have a measure of self-control and don't go to every measure to sow our wild oats.

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.

Which is why I argue my anti-abortion on demand stance from a responsibility point of view. In the case of rape, the woman had no choice, and therefore cannot be forced to take responsibility for the negative actions of another.

or maybe we can assume that women are adults and can deal with the consequences of their actions.

Like keeping the baby. She chose to have sexual intercourse, and the consequence of said action is having the baby.

She chose to have sexual intercourse, and the consequence of said action is having the baby.

Really? So every time one has sex, one has a baby? Are you quite sure you want to argue that?

yes but if you could find a way to make it seem reasonable you would be the master.

I mean, ugh, if I had to make an argument, I guess I'd go for some intentional infliction of emotional distress argument, but it'd be very weak.

Just before anyone accuses me of hypocrisy, I am also of the view that the father should have to pay their share of the child upkeep costs in a no abortion society. At least some of us have a measure of self-control and don't go to every measure to sow our wild oats.

Well, it's very nice that, in exchange for taking away basic fundamental rights from half of the population (but not the other) you're willing to require men to do the same thing that they're already required to do.

Very big of you. How about we take away your right to speak in public, but, in exchange for that, I'll have to pay taxes.

Well, perhaps women should think about the imposition that a potential pregnancy might have before having sex. It ain't all fun when you have to live with the consequences now, isn't it?

Just before anyone accuses me of hypocrisy, I am also of the view that the father should have to pay their share of the child upkeep costs in a no abortion society. At least some of us have a measure of self-control and don't go to every measure to sow our wild oats.


uhhuh

what does that have to do with my post? you dont think that having a baby and giving it away is EASY do you?



Like keeping the baby. She chose to have sexual intercourse, and the consequence of said action is having the baby.

the sometime consequence of having sex is pregnancy. sometimes that pregnancy leads to live birth, sometimes it doesnt.

there is no automatic baby from getting pregnant. that YOU would like to force women to be punished for having sex by having babies doesnt make it the only way to do things.

Like keeping the baby. She chose to have sexual intercourse, and the consequence of said action is having the baby.

No. The consequence of having sexual intercourse is, sometimes, pregnancy.

She is then free to choose whether or not to make a baby. Unless of course you view women as enslaved baby-factories who should only have sex in order to produce babies.

Because the woman has sole authority to control her body, and if she doesnt want something growing inside her, she has the sole right to remove it.


/thread

Slightly presumptuous I feel, and it fails to consider the role, and rights, of the father. Why should his rights be deemed inferior to those of the woman when both had an equal role in conception? Simply put, the above empowers one party above another to an unreasonable degree.

Why should his rights be deemed inferior to those of the woman when both had an equal role in conception?

They shouldn't. Fortunately, they're not.

*whew* crisis averted.

Slightly presumptuous I feel, and it fails to consider the role, and rights, of the father. Why should his rights be deemed inferior to those of the woman when both had an equal role in conception? Simply put, the above empowers one party above another to an unreasonable degree.

now im a man and last time i checked we dont have to go through pregnancy (especially not after being raped or something) so why the hell should i be telling any women what she can and cant do with her own body?

Slightly presumptuous I feel, and it fails to consider the role, and rights, of the father.

What inherent role and rights does the father have in regard to another person's body? Do tell.

Why should his rights be deemed inferior to those of the woman when both had an equal role in conception?

They aren't. And anyway, we are talking about pregnancy, not conception.

Simply put, the above empowers one party above another to an unreasonable degree.

No, it really doesn't. It allows one party authority over their own body, and the other party authority over their own body.

now im a man and last time i checked we dont have to go through pregnancy (especially not after being raped or something) so why the hell should i be telling any women what she can and cant do with her own body?
Right--the male participation in this is to do their thing for 20 minutes or so and leave, or stay for breakfast and leave. Therefore, the men also leave any unanticipated/unwanted results to the woman who, ultimately, has the choice of what to do. Whether he has left an STD or a zygote, she has to decide what to do and get appropriate medical care of her choosing.

Slightly presumptuous I feel, and it fails to consider the role, and rights, of the father. Why should his rights be deemed inferior to those of the woman when both had an equal role in conception?

The man does not have an equal role in pregnancy, which is what abortion is the termination of.

Simply put, the above empowers one party above another to an unreasonable degree.

There's nothing unreasonable about her body being her decision.

Right--the male participation in this is to do their thing for 20 minutes or so and leave, or stay for breakfast and leave. Therefore, the men also leave any unanticipated/unwanted results to the woman who, ultimately, has the choice of what to do. Whether he has left an STD or a zygote, she has to decide what to do and get appropriate medical care of her choosing.
no!

she cannot get an abortion and she cannot get treatment for that STD. to get rid of the clap is to not face the consequences of sex, dammit!

No. The consequence of having sexual intercourse is, sometimes, pregnancy.

She is then free to choose whether or not to make a baby. Unless of course you view women as enslaved baby-factories who should only have sex in order to produce babies.

And Trostia, that is a cop-out. The arguments I have seen so far boil down to this

"We want to make a society where sex has no consequences"

and that is an extension of society in general which desires

"All good and no bad, we want someone else to fix the problems we brought on ourselves"

I don't see women as enslaved baby-factories, but they should recognise that having babies is a likely consequence of having sexual intercourse and that sexual intercourse is not just all about riding a guy.

what does that have to do with my post? you dont think that having a baby and giving it away is EASY do you?

Of course not, but one should be thinking about that, the next time they invite a guy over to play

Well, it's very nice that, in exchange for taking away basic fundamental rights from half of the population (but not the other) you're willing to require men to do the same thing that they're already required to do.

Very big of you. How about we take away your right to speak in public, but, in exchange for that, I'll have to pay taxes.

Basic fundamental rights? You still have the basic fundamental right to say no to sexual intercourse, and that is where I see the line drawn. Also, what about a man's basic fundamental right to preserve his bank balance? Oh no, his bank balance must be destroyed because he decided to have sex, while women can take the easy way out.

Right--the male participation in this is to do their thing for 20 minutes or so and leave, or stay for breakfast and leave. Therefore, the men also leave any unanticipated/unwanted results to the woman who, ultimately, has the choice of what to do. Whether he has left an STD or a zygote, she has to decide what to do and get appropriate medical care of her choosing.

wow, do pro-lifers allways have to take what i say out of context? the man has the right to be angry if he gets an std from a woman, however if she gets pregnant, then she gets to make the decision wether or not to have the baby

Right--the male participation in this is to do their thing for 20 minutes or so and leave, or stay for breakfast and leave. Therefore, the men also leave any unanticipated/unwanted results to the woman who, ultimately, has the choice of what to do. Whether he has left an STD or a zygote, she has to decide what to do and get appropriate medical care of her choosing.

Actually, in California, it's illegal to "knowingly pass on an STD", so if he leaves her with an STD, that's his problem.

I don't see women as enslaved baby-factories, but they should recognise that having babies is a likely consequence of having sexual intercourse and that sexual intercourse is not just all about riding a guy.

No, getting pregnant is a possible consequence of sex. I think you should just repeat that to yourself until they understand the difference.



Basic fundamental rights? You still have the basic fundamental right to say no to sexual intercourse, and that is where I see the line drawn.

Well, fortunately, the supreme court is not obligated to listen to some random misogynistic schmuck on the internet.

Also, what about a man's basic fundamental right to preserve his bank balance? Oh no, his bank balance must be destroyed because he decided to have sex, while women can take the easy way out.

Oh yeah, no, your position isn't based on sexism at all. No, perfectly reasonable and not at all unbelievably tainted with an obvious hatred and resentment of women.

"We want to make a society where sex has no consequences"

Abortions are usually emotionally painful for women who have them. They suffer consequences

Basic fundamental rights? You still have the basic fundamental right to say no to sexual intercourse, and that is where I see the line drawn. Also, what about a man's basic fundamental right to preserve his bank balance? Oh no, his bank balance must be destroyed because he decided to have sex, while women can take the easy way out.

Women have autonomy over their bodies. If a woman impregnates a man then he could get a abortion without her consent and if not she should have to pay child support.

...but they should recognise that having babies is a likely consequence of having sexual intercourse....

Choking to death is a likely consequence of eating bacon sandwiches. Ban the Heimlich maneuver! People eating sandwiches should PAY for their sins.

Crashing is a likely consequence of driving a car. Ban the Jaws of Life. Leave the sinners in the wrecked cars so that they PAY for their sins.

A dirty ass is a likely consequence of taking a dump. Ban toilet paper! People having a shit should PAY for their defecation.



Or are you making a special exception argument, JUST for sex?

I wonder if the people who scream "childbirth is a possible consequence of sex!" would turn away the ambulance that arrived at the scene of their car accident with a "no, thank you for your help, but really, I brought this on myself when I chose to drive this car. I should have realized that getting into an accident was a possible consequence of driving. Thank you anyway though, I appreciate it, but no, really, I will never learn my lesson if you help me."

And Trostia, that is a cop-out. The arguments I have seen so far boil down to this

"We want to make a society where sex has no consequences"

I have seen absolutely no one make this argument. Many of us do, however, think it would be nice to minimize the negative consequences of sex, or in fact of anything, because most of us are decent human beings who see no need for people to suffer unduly.


and that is an extension of society in general which desires

"All good and no bad, we want someone else to fix the problems we brought on ourselves"

....um, sure....

I don't see women as enslaved baby-factories, but they should recognise that having babies is a likely consequence of having sexual intercourse and that sexual intercourse is not just all about riding a guy.

Good. Duly recognized, provided we note that by "likely" you mean "not actually very likely at all, and also entirely preventable." So, now that I, as a representative of femalekind, have acknowledged that sex can sometimes lead to pregnancy, which can sometimes lead to having babies, can I take it you're okay with us having bodily autonomy?


Basic fundamental rights? You still have the basic fundamental right to say no to sexual intercourse, and that is where I see the line drawn. Also, what about a man's basic fundamental right to preserve his bank balance? Oh no, his bank balance must be destroyed because he decided to have sex, while women can take the easy way out.

Ahahahahahahaha, you're hilarious. Abortion is easy and fun, and bodily autonomy is a stupid right while the right to have as much money as you'd like is VITAL!

Can I throw a bunch of mud in this thread and make everyone blink in astonishment?

Abortion is easy and fun,

You know it! I'm having two, tomorrow!

wow, do pro-lifers allways have to take what i say out of context? the man has the right to be angry if he gets an std from a woman, however if she gets pregnant, then she gets to make the decision wether or not to have the baby
No, you get the exact same right as women to decide what you want to do with your body, now that you have an STD or anything else. No one would ever take that right away from you; however, you seem to always want to decide about the medical decisions and bodily functions of women, and take that same right to decide away from them.

No, you get the exact same right as women to decide what you want to do with your body, not that you have an STD or anything else. No one would ever take that right away from you; however, you seem to always want to decide about the medical decisions and bodily functions of women, and take that right away from them.

Psst...I'm pretty sure you two are agreeing with each other; you're just both misreading each other's posts.

And Trostia, that is a cop-out. The arguments I have seen so far boil down to this

"We want to make a society where sex has no consequences"

and that is an extension of society in general which desires

"All good and no bad, we want someone else to fix the problems we brought on ourselves"

Slippery slope much? I never said those things you're "boiling it down" to and being pro-choice does not amount to "no consequences." As reasonable people we can expect negative consequences to have mitigation, cure, prevention, and/or treatments, and where positive consequences have opportunities to benefit us. This includes the ability to abort a fetus rather than be forced to have a child. We have this amazing ability - and if we didn't, women would use the old coathanger method.

I mean really, you'd probably see medical marijuana as "trying to avoid the consequences of terminal and painful diseases" which they brought on themselves by living. Living is consent to getting diseases!

I don't see women as enslaved baby-factories, but they should recognise that having babies is a likely consequence of having sexual intercourse and that sexual intercourse is not just all about riding a guy.


I get it. You see women as sluts who should learn to live with their consequences by carrying to term any time they get pregnant. That'll learn 'em!


Also, what about a man's basic fundamental right to preserve his bank balance? Oh no, his bank balance must be destroyed because he decided to have sex, while women can take the easy way out.

Are you fucking kidding me? So you're saying that abortion is *destroying a man's bank balance* and taking the easy way out for her, economically? But pregnancy and childbirth and raising a child is relatively cheap?

And you're seriously comparing his "right to preserve his bank balance" to a woman's right to choose?

Do you even know what pregnancy is? What's your level of education?

No, you get the exact same right as women to decide what you want to do with your body, now that you have an STD or anything else. No one would ever take that right away from you; however, you seem to always want to decide about the medical decisions and bodily functions of women, and take that same right to decide away from them.

wtf? i think you misunderstood my post, im pro-choice

And Trostia, that is a cop-out. The arguments I have seen so far boil down to this

"We want to make a society where sex has no consequences"

and that is an extension of society in general which desires

"All good and no bad, we want someone else to fix the problems we brought on ourselves"

I don't see women as enslaved baby-factories, but they should recognise that having babies is a likely consequence of having sexual intercourse and that sexual intercourse is not just all about riding a guy.

Thank you for admitting that your position has nothing at all to do with concern for the life of a potential human, and everything to do with making women realize they are shameful, dirty sluts and that sex is a shameful, dirty thing. God forbid the day should ever come when sex isn't automatically accompanied by the specter of a ruined life.

Also, what about a man's basic fundamental right to preserve his bank balance? Oh no, his bank balance must be destroyed because he decided to have sex, while women can take the easy way out.

I don't know what to attack first. Bank account = body? Abortion is financially disastrous to a man? Men don't choose whether or not to have sex? I think I'll ignore them all.

I want to say that he is saying a woman deciding to carry a pregnancy to term and receive child support is financially disastrous to a man, but while that actually makes sense, it doesn't seem to support the rest of the....argument, or whatever.

wtf? i think you misunderstood my post, im pro-choice
If I misunderstood, then I'm sorry. I thought you were saying that men should have a decision about what to do with a zygote, as they participated in creating the zygote. Maybe I got confused with a prior e-mail or different thread, there are quite a few on this topic. Perhpas consolidation is warranted on the abortion and "big bonus/executive compensation" topics?

If I misunderstood, then I'm sorry. I thought you were saying that men should have a decision about what to do with a zygote, as they participated in creating the zygote. Maybe I got confused with a prior e-mail or different thread, there are quite a few on this topic. Perhpas consolidation is warranted on the abortion and "big bonus/executive compensation" topics?

no, i was saying that men shouldnt have a say in a womens decision to have an abortion

Maybe we should just set up drive-through abortion clinics so you can get one every other day, you dirty whores. Get it on your lunch break!

Where's the respect for the life of the unborn? I'm ashamed at the decay of social morality in this forum.

Massive amount of mud incoming. Someone in there said something about "Not allowing someone to enslave someone else for 9 months" several pages back. I agree - we should not be able to enslave someone for 9 months.

However, this got me to thinking, and I crunched some numbers.

I looked up Florida's child support chart, and, while this is no by no means exhaustive as far as what child support comes out to anywhere in the world, the amount the non-custodial parent has to pay is anywhere from 25% to 20% of their income for one child - depending on the non-custodial parent's income.

I will use 20%, as it is the low figure.

Now, the average person works 40 hours per week, and in the US the average number of work weeks in a year is 48. A child must be supported until he is 18 (at least - college is not considered).

40 x 48 x 18 = 34,560 hours of work from birth to 18.

Now, 20% of those hours (on the low side) will go to the custodial parent for that child.

34,560 x 0.2 = 6,912 hours

Since there are 24 hours in a day, that works out to 288 (24 hour) days of work going to this child., or about 9 2/3 months.

The average pregnancy is 266 days.

Massive amount of mud incoming. Someone in there said something about "Not allowing someone to enslave someone else for 9 months" several pages back. I agree - we should not be able to enslave someone for 9 months.

However, this got me to thinking, and I crunched some numbers.

I looked up Florida's child support chart, and, while this is no by no means exhaustive as far as what child support comes out to anywhere in the world, the amount the non-custodial parent has to pay is anywhere from 25% to 20% of their income for one child - depending on the non-custodial parent's income.

I will use 20%, as it is the low figure.

Now, the average person works 40 hours per week, and in the US the average number of work weeks in a year is 48. A child must be supported until he is 18 (at least - college is not considered).

40 x 48 x 18 = 34,560 hours of work from birth to 18.

Now, 20% of those hours (on the low side) will go to the custodial parent.

34,560 x 0.2 = 6,912 hours

Since there are 24 hours in a day, that works out to 288 (24 hour) days of work going to this child., or about 9 2/3 months.

The average pregnancy is 266 days.

This is silly. I think you know that working at a job of your choice in no way violates your bodily autonomy. And, honestly, it's fairly colossally offensive to suggest that they are remotely equivalent.

This is silly. I think you know that working at a job of your choice in no way violates your bodily autonomy. And, honestly, it's fairly colossally offensive to suggest that they are remotely equivalent.

No attempt to be offensive. If you notice - I am, in fact, pro-choice. I am pro-choice for both parents. I'm simply saying that the current system is colossally unfair. One can easily be enslaved by the other, all the while being the "bad guy" for the duration of being enslaved.

Basic fundamental rights? You still have the basic fundamental right to say no to sexual intercourse, and that is where I see the line drawn. Also, what about a man's basic fundamental right to preserve his bank balance? Oh no, his bank balance must be destroyed because he decided to have sex, while women can take the easy way out.

I'm not sure how outlawing abortions would help men in this situation.

No attempt to be offensive. If you notice - I am, in fact, pro-choice. I am pro-choice for both parents. I'm simply saying that the current system is colossally unfair. One can easily be enslaved by the other, all the while being the "bad guy" for the duration of being enslaved.

No, one cannot be enslaved by the other, both because one is not by any reasonable definition "enslaved," and because one has no responsibility to the other, but rather to the child, who still has to eat whether you wanted it or not. The system is perfectly fair. Biology is not, and, frankly, you guys didn't get such a bad deal. Men can have abortions just as soon as they can have PMS.

"We want to make a society where sex has no consequences"

Why is this bad?

but they should recognise that having babies is a likely consequence of having sexual intercourse and that sexual intercourse is not just all about riding a guy.

It could just be about that, however.
Oh no, his bank balance must be destroyed because he decided to have sex, while women can take the easy way out.


And here we get to the crux of the issue for you.

No, one cannot be enslaved by the other, both because one is not by any reasonable definition "enslaved," and because one has no responsibility to the other, but rather to the child, who still has to eat whether you wanted it or not. The system is perfectly fair. Biology is not, and, frankly, you guys didn't get such a bad deal. Men can have abortions just as soon as they can have PMS.

I knew a guy once that I would swear...

That's not the point!

If you have to work for someone for a given number of hours whether you want to or not, for no compensation, is that not enslavement?

I knew a guy once that I would swear...

That's not the point!

If you have to work for someone for a given number of hours whether you want to or not, for no compensation, is that not enslavement?

Isn't that irrelevent, though? The guy in question is working anyway, isn't he? That's what you based all his figures on, to get the 20%?

If I owe money on a loan, and so have to pay interest... I'm still doing my job, I'm just owing someone else some money. The same seems to be true in your example... no?

I knew a guy once that I would swear...

That's not the point!

Heh, except it kinda is. Both parties have the exact same legal rights; the fact that one party has body parts the other one doesn't is not the fault of the "system" in any way, shape, or form. It is unfair. No one disputes that. So is the fact that I have to deal with horrible cramps one day out of every month and you don't. Such is life.


If you have to work for someone for a given number of hours whether you want to or not, for no compensation, is that not enslavement?

But that's not what's happening. Child support does not mean you have to take THIS job and work THIS number of hours. You can take whatever job you like. You can work whatever hours you like. You still have to pay for your child's needs, because that is part of being a parent. By your logic, every parent in the world is "enslaved."

Isn't that irrelevent, though? The guy in question is working anyway, isn't he? That's what you based all his figures on, to get the 20%?

If I owe money on a loan, and so have to pay interest... I'm still doing my job, I'm just owing someone else some money. The same seems to be true in your example... no?

Are you seriously suggesting that now the guy owes the woman money for the privilege of "purchasing" a child he never wanted to "purchase" in the first place, and doesn't get to keep?

That's a fascinating point of view.

Heh, except it kinda is. Both parties have the exact same legal rights; the fact that one party has body parts the other one doesn't is not the fault of the "system" in any way, shape, or form. It is unfair. No one disputes that. So is the fact that I have to deal with horrible cramps one day out of every month and you don't. Such is life.

I'm very sorry you have cramps.

But that's not what's happening. Child support does not mean you have to take THIS job and work THIS number of hours. You can take whatever job you like. You can work whatever hours you like. You still have to pay for your child's needs, because that is part of being a parent. By your logic, every parent in the world is "enslaved."

Perhaps, but some are willingly enslaved and some are unwillingly enslaved. It's the unwilling ones I'm addressing.

Under the system as it currently stands, only women get to be willing slaves. The men (as it stands) are slaves whether they want to be or not. Granted, many are because they choose to be, but many are because they had no choice.

Are you seriously suggesting that now the guy owes the woman money for the privilege of "purchasing" a child he never wanted to "purchase" in the first place, and doesn't get to keep?

The argument goes he "purchased" it by putting his "credit dispenser" into a woman and made a "wireless transmission" into an "investment fund." None of which was secret or fraudulent. Whether he gets to keep it depends on whether the other "shareholder" agrees. He is not the "majority shareholder" so he doesn't get all the "options."

The argument goes he "purchased" it by putting his "credit dispenser" into a woman and made a "wireless transmission" into an "investment fund." None of which was secret or fraudulent. Whether he gets to keep it depends on whether the other "shareholder" agrees. He is not the "majority shareholder" so he doesn't get all the "options."

I don't even know where to begin, but I like you. :p

I don't even know where to begin, but I like you. :p

Thanks but I'm not interested in a "limited liability partnership." :)

Are you seriously suggesting that now the guy owes the woman money.....

No, he owes the CHILD money.

Given that I have pointed this out in about four consecutive posts now, it would be nice if you would stop ignoring it.

Are you seriously suggesting that now the guy owes the woman money

I don't think you know how child support works.

Given that I have pointed this out in about four consecutive posts now, it would be nice if you would stop ignoring it.

Oh, fine. He owes the child money. The child who never should have existed and whom had he any say wouldn't, and so wouldn't be paying him or her money. This is the clincher again - he has no say as to where his money goes. The mother does.

Ergo, she has more freedom than he does following the same action.

Under the system as it currently stands, only women get to be willing slaves. The men (as it stands) are slaves whether they want to be or not. Granted, many are because they choose to be, but many are because they had no choice.

What, they were raped?

If not, I suggest you knock off the hyperbole.

Oh, fine. He owes the child money. The child who never should have existed and whom had he any say wouldn't, and so wouldn't be paying him or her money. This is the clincher again - he has no say as to where his money goes. The mother does.

Ergo, she has more freedom than he does following the same action.

Once again, was he raped? If not, he seemed to make the willing choice to have his body participate in the reproductive function, same as the woman did.

The fact that the woman's involvement in the reproductive function lasts significantly longer (9 months as opposed to a few seconds) is a matter of biology. Fact remains, he had a say, he willingly chose to involve his body in the reproductive function.

At any point up until his role in the reproductive cycle was complete, he had the choice to opt out. He could have chosen, at any time, to cease his involvement in the activity, up until his role in it was complete.

What, they were raped?

If not, I suggest you knock off the hyperbole.

No, I would say precious few men are raped, and even fewer of those wind up paying child support.

But, if you're going to say that the "choice" occurs when the sex occurs, and cannot occur later, you should apply it evenly. I don't like that position.

Oh, fine. He owes the child money. The child who never should have existed and whom had he any say wouldn't, and so wouldn't be paying him or her money. This is the clincher again - he has no say as to where his money goes. The mother does.

Ergo, she has more freedom than he does following the same action.

The problem here, I think, which many have pointed out, is that you are trying to tie together two fundamentally unconnected issues. It's easy to do this, because children are the logical consequence of birth, but the issue of bodily integrity and the issue of support for a living child bear no resemblance to each other. It is unfortunate, as Poli said, that biology is unfair; but denying children support will not change biology.

Maybe we should just set up drive-through abortion clinics so you can get one every other day, you dirty whores. Get it on your lunch break!

Where's the respect for the life of the unborn? I'm ashamed at the decay of social morality in this forum.

Hmm... *considers franchise names*

Humpty Dumpty's

Jack-Out-Of-The-Box

Papa Stop

Roto-Cooter (contribution from a buddy)

Ixnae The Idkae

Scrambled Egg Emporium.

:D

No, I would say precious few men are raped, and even fewer of those wind up paying child support.

But, if you're going to say that the "choice" occurs when the sex occurs, and cannot occur later, you should apply it evenly.

I don't say the choice occurs when sex occurs. I say the choice occurs at every single second along the individual's participation in the reproductive cycle. The man is free to stop his involvement in that cycle at any point, until his role in it is complete. The woman is free to stop her involvement in that cycle at any point, until her role in that is complete.

The rights are the same. The man can choose not to take part. The woman can chose not to take part. It so happens as a matter of biology that the woman's role in the process lasts longer, thus giving her longer time to consider it, but oh well. The fact remains, both choose to participate, or not participate, in the reproductive cycle, up to the extent that they are involved in it.

Are you seriously suggesting that now the guy owes the woman money for the privilege of "purchasing" a child he never wanted to "purchase" in the first place, and doesn't get to keep?


No.

Oh, fine. He owes the child money. The child who never should have existed and whom had he any say wouldn't, and so wouldn't be paying him or her money. This is the clincher again - he has no say as to where his money goes. The mother does.

Ergo, she has more freedom than he does following the same action.

The fact that you equate the two bolded phrases scares the crap out of me.

And again, we as a society frown on letting children starve regardless of whether you wanted them. Both parties have the exact same rights to bodily autonomy and the exact same responsibilities to provide for the child. Again, yes, it's horribly unfair that women get to be pregnant and thus decide how their bodies participate in pregnancy and men don't, and as soon as you pass the law requiring men to bleed out of their genitals one week in four, I will be deeply concerned about this injustice.

I don't say the choice occurs when sex occurs. I say the choice occurs at every single second along the individual's participation in the reproductive cycle. The man is free to stop his involvement in that cycle at any point, until his role in it is complete. The woman is free to stop her involvement in that cycle at any point, until her role in that is complete.

The rights are the same. The man can choose not to take part. The woman can chose not to take part. It so happens as a matter of biology that the woman's role in the process lasts longer, thus giving her longer time to consider it, but oh well. The fact remains, both choose to participate, or not participate, in the reproductive cycle, up to the extent that they are involved in it.

/\This/\

Well, perhaps women should think about the imposition that a potential pregnancy might have before having sex. It ain't all fun when you have to live with the consequences now, isn't it?
Good thing then that we have abortion as a back-up in case the contraception fails, huh?

Just before anyone accuses me of hypocrisy, I am also of the view that the father should have to pay their share of the child upkeep costs in a no abortion society. At least some of us have a measure of self-control and don't go to every measure to sow our wild oats.
Others of us exercise our self control by using contraception, and if it fails, making the hard decision of whether to abort the pregnancy or not.

Which is why I argue my anti-abortion on demand stance from a responsibility point of view. In the case of rape, the woman had no choice, and therefore cannot be forced to take responsibility for the negative actions of another.
So you admit, then, that you have no interest whatsoever in "saving babies"? Then your interest in restricting abortion is...what? Controlling the lives of women?

Like keeping the baby. She chose to have sexual intercourse, and the consequence of said action is having the baby.
And choosing to abort the pregnancy is one option for how to manage that eventuality.

Do you ever get tired of running in this circle of yours?

I don't say the choice occurs when sex occurs. I say the choice occurs at every single second along the individual's participation in the reproductive cycle. The man is free to stop his involvement in that cycle at any point, until his role in it is complete. The woman is free to stop her involvement in that cycle at any point, until her role in that is complete.

The rights are the same. The man can choose not to take part. The woman can chose not to take part. It so happens as a matter of biology that the woman's role in the process lasts longer, thus giving her longer time to consider it, but oh well. The fact remains, both choose to participate, or not participate, in the reproductive cycle, up to the extent that they are involved in it.

Very well put my friend (or enemy, depending on how irritating you find me at the moment). I see your reasoning.

I mean, ugh, if I had to make an argument, I guess I'd go for some intentional infliction of emotional distress argument, but it'd be very weak.
Sow's ear ----> silk purse ??? Maybe not.

The fact that you equate the two bolded phrases scares the crap out of me.

Sorry I'm so scary. It's the black suit.

And again, we as a society frown on letting children starve regardless of whether you wanted them. Both parties have the exact same rights to bodily autonomy and the exact same responsibilities to provide for the child. Again, yes, it's horribly unfair that women get to be pregnant and thus decide how their bodies participate in pregnancy and men don't, and as soon as you pass the law requiring men to bleed out of their genitals one week in four, I will be deeply concerned about this injustice.

I'm sorry nature has been so mean to you.

Slightly presumptuous I feel, and it fails to consider the role, and rights, of the father. Why should his rights be deemed inferior to those of the woman when both had an equal role in conception? Simply put, the above empowers one party above another to an unreasonable degree.
They're not. He has all the rights he has ever had. Those rights do not include the right to control what happens to someone else's body, but then they never did, so he's fine.

So you admit, then, that you have no interest whatsoever in "saving babies"? Then your interest in restricting abortion is...what? Controlling the lives of women?

Of every single person who has posited the argument of "people should take responsibility for their actions, having a child was the consequence of sex" I ask one, simple question.

If you got into a car accident, would you refuse medical aid, on the grounds that getting into that accident was a consequence of your choice to be in a moving car?

Not a single one of them has ever answered. Not one.

no, i was saying that men shouldnt have a say in a womens decision to have an abortion
Must of missed the "nt"--I DO have bad eyes so I apologize again.

Must of missed the "nt"--I DO have bad eyes so I apologize again.

thats ok

An active topic. Wow. (about twenty pages just today.) Some people have asked me questions directly so ill try to answer those here.

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?

Sadly the laws dont exist for that. And by no means am I in a position to decide what would be fair or reasonable punishment for such an act.

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

(I was way off the first time. So im redoing my response. Sorry for my mistake.) Honeslty I dont think we should. That is an act that has happened for centuries.

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.

1. You are correct I have not. And to my knowledge no one has. But that doesnt change the fact you are killing a life. And before anyone bothers asking I dont care what science says about at which point its a child. They are the same group of people who used to say being fat was healthy.

2. I have worked with kids for the last 10 years. Ageing from infants to high school. Now days its not uncommon for kids in 4th and 5th grade to know about sex and what it is. And with the way teenagers talk they for sure know about what is at stake. Though where I live sex education is taught at the 5th grade level. And alot of people learn about it from older siblings and parents that tell them about it earlier. Also if you have any stats to the contrary please post them. I would like to see not only the stats but the sources.

3. And what is a Fetus? : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind ; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth There is your answer. Straigt from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Fetus
Call it what you will but I believe that a fetus, embryo or any other names you come up for it. It is still a human being and a child.

Also I think you should loook at the definition of a child. (by way of Merriam-webster.com
1 a: an unborn or recently born person. b dialect : a female infant
2 a: a young person especially between infancy and youth b: a childlike or childish person c: a person not yet of age

And Trostia, that is a cop-out. The arguments I have seen so far boil down to this

"We want to make a society where sex has no consequences"

and that is an extension of society in general which desires

"All good and no bad, we want someone else to fix the problems we brought on ourselves"
Strawman. That is not the gist of the arguments so far. I challenge you to show me anyone saying anything like that.

I don't see women as enslaved baby-factories, but they should recognise that having babies is a likely consequence of having sexual intercourse and that sexual intercourse is not just all about riding a guy.
Having a baby is a potential outcome of having sex -- I'm different from you in that I don't see parenthood as a consequence for irresponsible behavior, but rather as a good thing that responsible people choose to do. However, it is not the only possible outcome, and a person who does not wish to do it can use contraception and, if that fails, have an abortion if necessary.

How are you going to dig yourself out of the hole of reality on this one? Reality says that baby is a rather low percentage outcome and one easily prevented. Always has been. How are you going to get past that to make baby = consequence of sex?

Of course not, but one should be thinking about that, the next time they invite a guy over to play



Basic fundamental rights? You still have the basic fundamental right to say no to sexual intercourse, and that is where I see the line drawn. Also, what about a man's basic fundamental right to preserve his bank balance? Oh no, his bank balance must be destroyed because he decided to have sex, while women can take the easy way out.
And this last paragraph, of course is just all over the BS map.

It should be obvious by now that where YOU draw the line is not where the majority of people draw it, so you're going to have to do better than "that's where I see the line drawn" to make an argument of that. Also, are you saying that no human being has a right to control their own bodies -- so that men can be used physically against their will, and so can -- gasp! -- fetuses? Or are you just saying that women do not have that right? Think before you speak. Oh, and no, one person's bank account is not more important than another person's bodily integrity and control. You're just going too have to learn to cope with that. And finally, if according to you, abortion is "the easy way out" (which it isn't, but anyway), then guess what? It's the easy way out for men and their bank accounts, too, because it means no baby to support.

So, that's every sentence of your statement, dead. Care to try again?

Call it what you will but I believe that a fetus, embryo or any other names you come up for it. It is still a human being and a child.

"Call it what you will, but I believe a dog, canine, puppy or any other names you call it is still an amphibian."

This is why we use different words for things. To tell the difference between them.

Are you that dense? A miscarriage is not a voluntary action like you stated.

Which is amusing as he clearly used the word "involuntary".


1. You are correct I have not. And to my knowledge no one has. But that doesnt change the fact you are killing a life.

You ever take an antibiotic?

And before anyone bothers asking I dont care what science says about at which point its a child.

No, I suspect you don't. That'd require you to actually listen with people who disagree with you.

Call it what you will but I believe that a fetus, embryo or any other names you come up for it. It is still a human being and a child.

You don't realize the difference between a fetus and an embryo? No wonder you don't care what scientists say. Science appears way too complicated for you.

Also I think you should loook at the definition of a child. (by way of Merriam-webster.com
1 a: an unborn or recently born person. b dialect : a female infant
2 a: a young person especially between infancy and youth b: a childlike or childish person c: a person not yet of age
And the fact that a dictionary defines child as "unborn" makes a fetus a human being...how?

Oh, fine. He owes the child money. The child who never should have existed and whom had he any say wouldn't, and so wouldn't be paying him or her money. This is the clincher again - he has no say as to where his money goes. The mother does.

Ergo, she has more freedom than he does following the same action.
You know, there is an entire thread for this. Someone made it. Why don't you go take your "let's make abortion and other things that women do be about ME!! -- I mean, men, yeah, MEN!!" thing over there?

Are you that dense? A miscarriage is not a voluntary action like you stated. In most cases (there are some cases whey a miscarriage is the result of something the parent has done) a miscarriage is a natural acurance. Not something that you do jokeing around. It has always happened and always will. Also I ask that you stay on topic. This is about abortion not a miscarriage. They are two different things.

No, but I suspect you are that dense. Read involuntary manslaughter again.

"Call it what you will, but I believe a dog, canine, puppy or any other names you call it is still an amphibian."

This is why we use different words for things. To tell the difference between them.

Thats not even a good comparison. Even if you say a fetus isnt a baby then I would think that a fetus turns into a baby in your view. A dog, canine or puppy never turn into an amphibian.

Also Fetus or baby. All it really is is a name in the human lifecycle.

Thats not even a good comparison. Even if you say a fetus isnt a baby then I would think that a fetus turns into a baby in your view. A dog, canine or puppy never turn into an amphibian.

Also Fetus or baby. All it really is is a name in the human lifecycle.

Fetus, baby, adult, corpse. It's all the same!

Sorry got antsy and didnt see Neo Art's post.

Which is amusing as he clearly used the word "involuntary".
Then a simple missread on my part.

You ever take an antibiotic?
I dont know about you but when it comes to survival ill kill anything I need to in order to survive. Takeing antibiotics kills germs that can harm me. Aborting a baby isnt the same thing. (in the majority of cases.)

So if your going to use comparisons. Please keep them relevant.

No, I suspect you don't. That'd require you to actually listen with people who disagree with you.

Not all of science disagrees with me. Also if you go off science there is an element of error there as its proven that science changes as time goes on. Given we can realistically only go off the information at the time.

You don't realize the difference between a fetus and an embryo? No wonder you don't care what scientists say. Science appears way too complicated for you

Actually its one of my better subjects. The main thing, that i see at least, is nothing but a classification of the human cycle. And given the purpose of this topic the first part of the Human Life cycle. Take note that both Embryo and Fetus are on there.

And the fact that a dictionary defines child as "unborn" makes a fetus a human being...how?

Apparently I need to further outline my line of thought on this one. First please reread 1a. And please let me take the liberty of putting out there. "an unborn person or recently born person." The first use of the word person is usually dropped in an instance like the one above. So even its not included in the deffinition the word is still there. (If you dont believe me take it you an english professor.)
----------------------------------------------------
There I think I got them all so for. I wont lie, im actually rather enjoying this discussion. To many people around where I live get all bound up discussing things like this.

Crap missed one.

Fetus, baby, adult, corpse. It's all the same!

Um. not really. They are all stages of the human life cycle. (exept corpse. That is what we call the body after it hits the death part.)

1. You are correct I have not. And to my knowledge no one has.
Your knowledge on this as well as many other related things falls short. In fact, images of human embryos and fetuses at every stage of development from fertilization through birth are commonly available and have been for many, many years. Your argument is based on ignorance, and ignorance is not persuasive. Rather, it motivates me to dismiss you as a crank.

But that doesnt change the fact you are killing a life.
Did you breathe today? If so, then you also killed millions of "lives." Did you eat today? More killing. Did you walk around and touch things? You're a one-person bloodbath.

And before anyone bothers asking I dont care what science says about at which point its a child. They are the same group of people who used to say being fat was healthy.
Ah, so your ignorance is deliberate. Knowing that there is information out there, but that it contradicts what you want to hear, you choose to ignore it. That decides it for me. You're a crank and nothing you say needs to be taken into consideration.

Well done. I like it when my enemies discredit themselves for me.

No, but I suspect you are that dense. Read involuntary manslaughter again.

I know what involuntary manslaughter is. Please read http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=582327&page=42 again. I changed my response.

And again im sorry, I got alittle caught up in the topic and my brain ran wild on me. My original reply wasnt even relative to your comment.

I like it when my enemies discredit themselves for me.Please, let my enemies be this ridiculous. :D (Talking about hte person you were responding to.)

I dont know about you but when it comes to survival ill kill anything I need to in order to survive. Takeing antibiotics kills germs that can harm me. Aborting a baby isnt the same thing. (in the majority of cases.)

So if your going to use comparisons. Please keep them relevant.

If your standard is "can harm you" then pregnancy most definitely is the same thing. There is absolutely no ambiguity about the fact that pregnancy can harm you.


Not all of science disagrees with me.

True, geology seems pretty indifferent.

Also if you go off science there is an element of error there as its proven that science changes as time goes on. Given we can realistically only go off the information at the time.

The information at the present time suggests that much of what you have argued is inaccurate.


Actually its one of my better subjects. The main thing, that i see at least, is nothing but a classification of the human cycle. And given the purpose of this topic the first part of the Human Life cycle. Take note that both Embryo and Fetus are on there.

...and take note that they are distinct stages which are, in fact, not interchangeable with later ones like "infant" and "adolescent."

Crap missed one.



Um. not really. They are all stages of the human life cycle. (exept corpse. That is what we call the body after it hits the death part.)
But if I have to treat a 1-week-old glob of cells as a human being, why don't I have to treat a dead body as a human being? They are both collections of human cells, and in the corpse, many of those cells will still be living long after the body becomes what is called "dead." So they are both collections of living human cells. If that is all it takes for one to be a person with rights, why doesn't that apply to the other, which is functionally the same?

In addition, if you are going to argue potentiality, i.e. that an embryo has the potential to become a functioning person, and therefore we should treat it as if it already a functioning person, then logically, since a functioning person has the potential to become a corpse, then all people should be treated as if they are already dead. It only stands to reason -- if we are going to act as if we are today what we might be tomorrow, then...can I have your stuff?

Crap missed one.



Um. not really. They are all stages of the human life cycle. (exept corpse. That is what we call the body after it hits the death part.)

Yes, "child" is one stage of the human life cycle, "adult" is another. For example, children cannot legally consent to sex, therefore a 50 year old man having sex with a 10 year old is child rape. Should we eliminate these distinctions because hey, they're both just stages of the human life cycle, just words?

/me rolls his eyes.

Okay. Muravyets. On the first response. If they have been available. Then that is my error.

As to your second response. The question isnt wheather killing microrganisams is wrong. That is called the food chain is and always will be a fact of life that we can do nothing about. Killing a fetus/embryo/baby is a choice. One that some people feel they need to make.

And your third comment. What does science really have to do with it? From my point of view nothing. Though there are those who use science in an attempt to classify at what point a fertalized egg becomes a human child. I guess they feel the need to do this as a way to make what they are doing alright. Also the main reason im disregarding science on an issue that is not a scientific issue but an ethical one is because science changes every day.

Well my thoughts are out there. And since I havnt flat out stated it. Yes Im very against abortion. Though I do also believe that its the womens choice. If I do get married some day and she chooses to get an abortion. Then I wont stop her. Ill let her know of my feelings for sure, but its her choice ultimatly.

And yes, I believe abortion is an ethical issue, not a scientific one. I believe it is murder. And yes I do belive that those who perform an abortion should be arrested and charged accordingly.

Agree with me or disagree with me. Makes no big difference. Ive heard both sides rather frequently. Even the "what if a women was raped, should she be forced to keep it?" And if you care. Yes. Does the women deserve what happened to her. Hell no. Does the child deserve to have their life taken from them for it. Hell no. And my cousin agrees with me on this. She was raped and as michigan law stated at the time she could abort. She decided to keep it on the basis that abortion is wrong.

Also a few of you need to get out and experience life with how much your sitting and babysitting this forum.

/me motions for the flame to begin.

And your third comment. What does science really have to do with it? From my point of view nothing. Though there are those who use science in an attempt to classify at what point a fertalized egg becomes a human child. I guess they feel the need to do this as a way to make what they are doing alright. Also the main reason im disregarding science on an issue that is not a scientific issue but an ethical one is because science changes every day.

Science doesn't just magically up and "change." Theories emerge, are verified, falsified or just looked into and "science" continues. It also seems a fairly important factor in this whole argument unless you are claiming that anything that removes a fertilized egg is thus ethically unacceptable. At that point you need to provide a rational explanation of why you hold such a belief, this rationale should then be examined and applied to extremes to see if the logic holds and perhaps then it can be determined whether you're approaching this ethical dilemma in a way that is respectable or one that is nonsense. This is simply called proper reasoning.

Though I do also believe that its the womens choice.

And yes I do belive that those who perform an abortion should be arrested and charged accordingly.

Um, these two sentences completely contradict each other.

/me rolls his eyes.

Yes, your own reasoning when applied to its logical conclusion does look ridiculous.

Also a few of you need to get out and experience life with how much your sitting and babysitting this forum.

/me motions for the flame to begin.

I've experienced more life than you have, that's for sure. And the irony of you using this forum to flame people, for using this forum, is not lost on me.

/me rolls his eyes.

Okay. Muravyets. On the first response. If they have been available. Then that is my error.
An error that a person interested in this topic should not have made. If you are interested in it enough to say that women should be held criminally liable for killing a person if they abort their pregnancies, you should at the very least know WHO it is you say we are killing. The fact that you never bothered to look into that speaks volumes -- especially about your level of actual interest in the lives of children.

As to your second response. The question isnt wheather killing microrganisams is wrong. That is called the food chain is and always will be a fact of life that we can do nothing about. Killing a fetus/embryo/baby is a choice. One that some people feel they need to make.
Eating meat, wearing leather shoes, and buying products that are made via the abuse and even death of other people and other creatures -- such as burning oil at prices determined by war or buying manufactured items that grossly pollute the environment or use slave or sweatshop labor -- are also choices. Do you do any of those things?

Understand this: No matter what you say, you are still wrong about abortion, but if you answer the above question "no" then you are not also a hypocrite. But if you believe that you have the right to choose to destroy lives for your own convenience or betterment, but you condemn others for, according to you, doing the same (only it's not really the same), then you are a hypocrite.

I'm asking you if you are an honest enemy of mine or a hypocritical one?

And your third comment. What does science really have to do with it? From my point of view nothing.
That much is obvious.

Though there are those who use science in an attempt to classify at what point a fertalized egg becomes a human child. I guess they feel the need to do this as a way to make what they are doing alright.
Or they could just be interested in facts. A lot of people who oppose abortion don't feel the need to reject science and make up rules of their own to try to make reality conform to, the way you do.

Also the main reason im disregarding science on an issue that is not a scientific issue but an ethical one is because science changes every day.
No, actually, it does not change every day, but of course, since you have no idea what science actually knows about human gestational development even though you purport to know something about this topic, I guess it's not surprising that you don't know much else about what science does, either.

As for your ethical dilemma, I'll wait for your answer as to whether you are hypocrite before going further into that.

And your third comment. What does science really have to do with it? From my point of view nothing. Though there are those who use science in an attempt to classify at what point a fertalized egg becomes a human child. I guess they feel the need to do this as a way to make what they are doing alright. Also the main reason im disregarding science on an issue that is not a scientific issue but an ethical one is because science changes every day.

Whereas ethics are a static concept that should not benefit from knowledge gleaned by rigorous and systematic examination of the world (there's a word for that, can't remember it)?

This explains why you say that abortion is "murder", but you wouldn't stop it because its the woman's choice, but you would want it punished criminally.

Yes, you're definitely a wealth of life experience, and by avoiding internet forums, you won't be accosted by things like science.

Well my thoughts are out there. And since I havnt flat out stated it. Yes Im very against abortion. Though I do also believe that its the womens choice. If I do get married some day and she chooses to get an abortion. Then I wont stop her. Ill let her know of my feelings for sure, but its her choice ultimatly.

And yes, I believe abortion is an ethical issue, not a scientific one. I believe it is murder. And yes I do belive that those who perform an abortion should be arrested and charged accordingly.
As Poliwanacraca pointed out, the bolded statements contradict each other. Also, if you, believing that abortion is murder, would take no action to stop a woman in your life from getting an abortion, then you are just as guilty of "murder" as she is.

Good thing for you that abortion is actually not murder, eh?

Agree with me or disagree with me. Makes no big difference. Ive heard both sides rather frequently. Even the "what if a women was raped, should she be forced to keep it?" And if you care. Yes. Does the women deserve what happened to her. Hell no. Does the child deserve to have their life taken from them for it. Hell no. And my cousin agrees with me on this. She was raped and as michigan law stated at the time she could abort. She decided to keep it on the basis that abortion is wrong.
As I said to another poster here, personal anecdotes serve as illustrations of points, but not as proof or support of assertions. Your cousin's point of view is noted but not of interest.

Also a few of you need to get out and experience life with how much your sitting and babysitting this forum.

/me motions for the flame to begin.
I have a lap top. I can be on NSG while I do other things as well.

The answer to much of this is solid sex education, if you want to lower abortion rates then provide solid sex education while still providing a safe environment for those who have an unwanted pregnancy because history shows that people will secure an abortion one way or another, whether that's the man punching the wife in the stomach, a back alley doctor or gin and a hot bath, all potentially damaging both to the mother and the foetus where an attempt is unsuccessful.

Alas, those who want to stop abortion also want to shut sex education out of schools, it's completely ridiculous really, the real aim is to stop everyone from having sex unless it's between a man married to his faithful wife.

The answer to much of this is solid sex education, if you want to lower abortion rates then provide solid sex education while still providing a safe environment for those who have an unwanted pregnancy because history shows that people will secure an abortion one way or another, whether that's the man punching the wife in the stomach, a back alley doctor or gin and a hot bath, all potentially damaging both to the mother and the foetus where an attempt is unsuccessful.

Alas, those who want to stop abortion also want to shut sex education out of schools, it's completely ridiculous really, the real aim is to stop everyone from having sex unless it's between a man married to his faithful wife.

I'm afraid you've already been refuted successfully by Kay-Gee.

"Solid" can mean a state of matter, a concept of chemistry, a subset of science, which evidently doesn't apply here because it "changes every day".

Similarly, "Sex" is a concept studied in biology, yet another subset of science.

I don't have to explain to you why "Education" is simply too close a concept to science. In some countries, they overlap.

Sorry.

I'm afraid you've already been refuted successfully by Kay-Gee.

"Solid" can mean a state of matter, a concept of chemistry, a subset of science, which evidently doesn't apply here because it "changes every day".

Similarly, "Sex" is a concept studied in biology, yet another subset of science.

I don't have to explain to you why "Education" is simply too close a concept to science. In some countries, they overlap.

Sorry.

Oh well, I tried, won't do that again,

*returns to spammy, irrelevant comments*

Oh well, I tried, won't do that again,

*returns to spammy, irrelevant comments*

No, no, by all means, continue to make comments.

Just stop using any reference to science, or any ethics that are different than what may come before or after them. Otherwise, Kay Gee already has you.

I don't have to explain to you why "Education" is simply too close a concept to science. In some countries, they overlap.

One of these days, I am actually going to injure myself laughing at one of your perfectly-timed little throwaway zingers, and then I am going to hire Neo Art and sue you for a million dollars in compensation for my injuries.

So, y'know....keep doing what you're doing, because I could use a million dollars.

Make meaningful arguments.

There is no such thing as a meaningful argument in regards to abortion, or really most if not all medical ethics. It's all gibberish.

One of these days, I am actually going to injure myself laughing at one of your perfectly-timed little throwaway zingers, and then I am going to hire Neo Art and sue you for a million dollars in compensation for my injuries.

So, y'know....keep doing what you're doing, because I could use a million dollars.

I am what lawyers call "judgment proof by dearth of assailable assets", what women refer to as "deadbeat motorcycle jockey".

If you want the million, just ask Neo Art for half his Illuminati check for the month.

But if I have to treat a 1-week-old glob of cells as a human being, why don't I have to treat a dead body as a human being? They are both collections of human cells, and in the corpse, many of those cells will still be living long after the body becomes what is called "dead." So they are both collections of living human cells. If that is all it takes for one to be a person with rights, why doesn't that apply to the other, which is functionally the same?

You know what really pisses me off?

None of the anti-abortion lobbyists seem to care that fetuses, children and even some adolescents are denied the rights to vote, drink liquor and have sex with corpses that should be afforded every potential person.

Agree with me or disagree with me.

Okay, I'll disagree.

Even the "what if a women was raped, should she be forced to keep it?" And if you care. Yes. Does the women deserve what happened to her. Hell no. Does the child deserve to have their life taken from them for it. Hell no.

No, the "child" deserves to be raised by a traumatized single woman who doesn't want it.

And my cousin agrees with me on this. She was raped and as michigan law stated at the time she could abort. She decided to keep it on the basis that abortion is wrong.

And I support your cousin's decision to do that. It does not give anyone the right to take my decision away from me.

Also a few of you need to get out and experience life with how much your sitting and babysitting this forum.

Considering that I actually possess a uterus and the ability to become pregnant, I'd say I have quite a bit more experience in this particular area than you do.

You know what really pisses me off?

None of the anti-abortion lobbyists seem to care that fetuses, children and even some adolescents are denied the rights to vote, drink liquor and have sex with corpses that should be afforded every potential person.

More evidence that they don't really care about "life." :D

Considering that I actually possess a uterus

pics or it didn't happen.

1. You are correct I have not. And to my knowledge no one has. But that doesnt change the fact you are killing a life. And before anyone bothers asking I dont care what science says about at which point its a child. They are the same group of people who used to say being fat was healthy.

2. I have worked with kids for the last 10 years. Ageing from infants to high school. Now days its not uncommon for kids in 4th and 5th grade to know about sex and what it is. And with the way teenagers talk they for sure know about what is at stake. Though where I live sex education is taught at the 5th grade level. And alot of people learn about it from older siblings and parents that tell them about it earlier. Also if you have any stats to the contrary please post them. I would like to see not only the stats but the sources.

3. And what is a Fetus? : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind ; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth There is your answer. Straigt from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Fetus
Call it what you will but I believe that a fetus, embryo or any other names you come up for it. It is still a human being and a child.

Also I think you should loook at the definition of a child. (by way of Merriam-webster.com
1 a: an unborn or recently born person. b dialect : a female infant
2 a: a young person especially between infancy and youth b: a childlike or childish person c: a person not yet of age
1)lol yep . . .exactly the same people . . .cause scientists never change (and of course people have seen embryos . . .come on man! A high powered light microscope can easily see an embryo or even a fertilized or unfertilized ovum.)

2)fine! make me google it lol! "http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/National-Survey-of-Adolescents-and-Young-Adults.pdf" read up if you think its worth your time. The point being not everyonr involved in sexual activity even in a developed country like the states knows what the consequences could be despite your personal findings.

3)Lol name I come up with for it? Yep made those up right on the spot. . .now everyone who uses them must pay me 10cents per usages (all figures USD) MUHAHAHAH! My question all along has been why you think that. I understand that you do but why?

4)lol Miriam Webster dictionary. The last say in medical ethics and science in general. (especially the online version)

/me rolls his eyes.

Okay. Muravyets. On the first response. If they have been available. Then that is my error.

As to your second response. The question isnt wheather killing microrganisams is wrong. That is called the food chain is and always will be a fact of life that we can do nothing about. Killing a fetus/embryo/baby is a choice. One that some people feel they need to make.

And your third comment. What does science really have to do with it? From my point of view nothing. Though there are those who use science in an attempt to classify at what point a fertalized egg becomes a human child. I guess they feel the need to do this as a way to make what they are doing alright. Also the main reason im disregarding science on an issue that is not a scientific issue but an ethical one is because science changes every day.
lol science changes every day but ethics is entirely continuous. Also completely objective right? (also you have failed to provide any sort of ethical argument here. and no, "I believe that fertilized eggs are humans and that killing them is murder!" is not an ethical argument)

By the war you choose to eat foods that contain living cells. You also choose to take medications etc. That kill. Those are choices you feel you need to make.

Here's a test for you. Which of these two is human?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=60929&stc=1&d=1233814609

Here's a test for you. Which of these two is human?


The one in pants!

Well my thoughts are out there. And since I havnt flat out stated it. Yes Im very against abortion. Though I do also believe that its the womens choice. If I do get married some day and she chooses to get an abortion. Then I wont stop her. Ill let her know of my feelings for sure, but its her choice ultimatly.

And yes, I believe abortion is an ethical issue, not a scientific one. I believe it is murder. And yes I do belive that those who perform an abortion should be arrested and charged accordingly.

Agree with me or disagree with me. Makes no big difference. Ive heard both sides rather frequently. Even the "what if a women was raped, should she be forced to keep it?" And if you care. Yes. Does the women deserve what happened to her. Hell no. Does the child deserve to have their life taken from them for it. Hell no. And my cousin agrees with me on this. She was raped and as michigan law stated at the time she could abort. She decided to keep it on the basis that abortion is wrong.

Also a few of you need to get out and experience life with how much your sitting and babysitting this forum.

/me motions for the flame to begin.

wait...

you think that its OK for a woman to get an abortion but that the doctor should be charged with murder?

why wouldnt the woman be charged with murder too the same as anyone who contracts to have another person killed?

Slightly presumptuous I feel, and it fails to consider the role, and rights, of the father. Why should his rights be deemed inferior to those of the woman when both had an equal role in conception? Simply put, the above empowers one party above another to an unreasonable degree.

It is unreasonable to leave control of one's body to oneself?

Tell me, what would a reasonable level of control over the body of someone you happened to have sex with be?

It is unreasonable to leave control of one's body to oneself?

Tell me, what would a reasonable level of control over the body of someone you happened to have sex with be?

100 percent control, seventy-five percent of the time. Every time.

No attempt to be offensive. If you notice - I am, in fact, pro-choice. I am pro-choice for both parents. I'm simply saying that the current system is colossally unfair. One can easily be enslaved by the other, all the while being the "bad guy" for the duration of being enslaved.

If child support were "enslavement" (which it isn't), it would be the child who the parent was a slave to, not the other parent.

That said, I have never understood those who see finances and bodily integrity as equivalent.

In response to what the punishment for abortion should be:

Sadly the laws dont exist for that. And by no means am I in a position to decide what would be fair or reasonable punishment for such an act.

In response to whether or not a woman who miscarries might be held responsible for involuntary manslaughter:

(I was way off the first time. So im redoing my response. Sorry for my mistake.) Honeslty I dont think we should. That is an act that has happened for centuries.

And:


Call it what you will but I believe that a fetus, embryo or any other names you come up for it. It is still a human being and a child.

If the last quote is true, why would you treat it differently - by law - than you would treat a born child?

Thank you for admitting that your position has nothing at all to do with concern for the life of a potential human, and everything to do with making women realize they are shameful, dirty sluts and that sex is a shameful, dirty thing. God forbid the day should ever come when sex isn't automatically accompanied by the specter of a ruined life.

I don't know what to attack first. Bank account = body? Abortion is financially disastrous to a man? Men don't choose whether or not to have sex? I think I'll ignore them all.

There seems to be a slight bit of hypocrisy coming out from the pro-abortion on demand people. On one hand, they are saying that a woman shouldn't bear the consequences of having sexual intercourse, while on the other, they are saying that a man should bear the consequences of having sexual intercourse.

Now I see it - it is all about screwing men over.

There seems to be a slight bit of hypocrisy coming out from the pro-abortion on demand people. On one hand, they are saying that a woman shouldn't bear the consequences of having sexual intercourse, while on the other, they are saying that a man should bear the consequences of having sexual intercourse.

No one said that.

Now I see it - it is all about screwing men over.

We get it. Some woman hurt you (or maybe you cant get a girlfriend), and so that means all women are evil sluts out to get men. Thats how you became such a misogynist. Hear ya loud and clear.

There seems to be a slight bit of hypocrisy coming out from the pro-abortion on demand people. On one hand, they are saying that a woman shouldn't bear the consequences of having sexual intercourse, while on the other, they are saying that a man should bear the consequences of having sexual intercourse.

Now I see it - it is all about screwing men over.

You mentioned the argument that women should be allowed to avoid consequences for sexual intercourse.

Why do the same people that argue women SHOULD bear responsibility... TEND to be the same people fussing about MEN having to bear responsibility?

You mentioned the argument that women should be allowed to avoid consequences for sexual intercourse.

Why do the same people that argue women SHOULD bear responsibility... TEND to be the same people fussing about MEN having to bear responsibility?

Because women are dirty sluts. Men are just poor, innocent moral human beings who got duped into ejaculating into the woman.

There seems to be a slight bit of hypocrisy coming out from the pro-abortion on demand people. On one hand, they are saying that a woman shouldn't bear the consequences of having sexual intercourse, while on the other, they are saying that a man should bear the consequences of having sexual intercourse.

No one is saying any such thing. Both men and women should bear any consequences of having intercourse. The difference is that, thanks to biology, those consequences are not equivalent. In the woman's case, she can get pregnant. Men cannot.

If a pregnancy occurs, the woman has to deal with that consequence. There are many ways she can deal with it, but she has to deal with it nonetheless. The man may or may not have to deal with it, depending on the situation. He might just skip town and never hear from her again. She, on the other hand, doesn't have that option.

So, when it comes right down to it, who is unfairly burdened again?

Now I see it - it is all about screwing men over.

Yes, poor men. We'll screw them over by not giving them domain over the bodies of women.

There seems to be a slight bit of hypocrisy coming out from the pro-abortion on demand people. On one hand, they are saying that a woman shouldn't bear the consequences of having sexual intercourse, while on the other, they are saying that a man should bear the consequences of having sexual intercourse.

Now I see it - it is all about screwing men over.
This is your code, right? This message indicates that you acknowledge that your argument has failed and you concede the debate, right?

Yes, poor men. We'll screw them over by not giving them domain over the bodies of women.

Life is so rough when you're male. I mean, people won't even let you keep women as your personal baby-making slaves! How is that fair, huh?

Life is so rough when you're male. I mean, people won't even let you keep women as your personal . . . slaves! How is that fair, huh?

oh :(

oh :(

That's a different sort of slavery, dear. It's still allowed. ;)

That's a different sort of slavery, dear. It's still allowed. ;)

yay! :)

http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html

Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.

Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.

http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html

Point or a transparent appeal to emotion?

I suspect the later.

Point or a transparent appeal to emotion?

I suspect the later.

The point is that even if abortion is completely legal, you're going to get situations like this.

The point is that even if abortion is completely legal, you're going to get situations like this.

what, people breaking the law?

Yes, shockingly, that happens now and then.

what, people breaking the law?

Yes, shockingly, that happens now and then.

And where do we draw the line, or should we? I'm sure there are some women who think that, if the intent is to abort, it doesn't matter if they're born alive - the intent is to kill.

And where do we draw the line, or should we? I'm sure there are some women who think that, if the intent is to abort, it doesn't matter if they're born alive - the intent is to kill.

I"m sure there are some men who think that too, what's your point? Besides, the line has been clearly drawn. once a child is fully birthed, doctors are obligated to give it medical treatment unless such efforts would be futile.

For other lines see the Partial Birth Abortion Ban

I"m sure there are some men who think that too, what's your point? Besides, the line has been clearly drawn. once a child is fully birthed, doctors are obligated to give it medical treatment unless such efforts would be futile.

For other lines see the Partial Birth Abortion Ban

I foresee a future where the line is drawn outside after birth.

I foresee a future where the line is drawn outside after birth.

Depending on your culture, and place in history, that 'future' has been variously called 'the past' or 'other places, right now'.

If the story was in South America, it probably wouldn't even be a story, because the girl would have taken the it home and left it outside over night.

Then, when it was found dead in the morning, it's an 'act of god', who must have 'wanted' to 'take the little one home'.

I foresee a future where the line is drawn outside after birth.
You foresee a future full of stuff you made up out of nothing? Well, good for you. The rest of the world needs to debate your fantasies...why?

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.

Ok, I'm a conservative racist Islamophobic bigot. Does that make you happy? What kinda answer would make you happy?

Also note that what I had said in the post you quoted is not how I'd put things NOW. When was that? More than a year ago? People change a lot when they first leave their parents home and start living away (for the most part) which I did 2 years ago and I'd say I changed a lot last year.

Anyhow, back to topic....

I foresee a future where the line is drawn outside after birth.

Frank Herbert foresaw a future where words could be channeled to shatter bones, set fires, suffocate an enemy or burst his organs.

So, no more free speech. The future is just too dangerous to respect people's freedom in the present!

And where do we draw the line, or should we? I'm sure there are some women who think that, if the intent is to abort, it doesn't matter if they're born alive - the intent is to kill.

I share your concern about the many women out there who get pregnant, bring the baby to full term, and and then kill it after birth, and I agree we should base public policy on that scenario and ignore how the law-abiding behave..

Similarly, I am concerned about high school shootings, and I agree we should base gun control on that scenario rather than how the law-abiding behave...

Oh, wait...

Frank Herbert foresaw a future where words could be channeled to shatter bones, set fires, suffocate an enemy or burst his organs.

So, no more free speech. The future is just too dangerous to respect people's freedom in the present!

He also foresaw holy war over a precious resource in the desert... which puts his 'future' at least one step ahead of Hotwife's ramblings.

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.

My whole point with this whole thread was that abortions could be reduced. Muravyet and you said that the things I said were already being done, perhaps, but I think that the number of abortions can be reduced:

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6342/abortionvn8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/abortionvn8.jpg/1/w540.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img9/abortionvn8.jpg/1/)
http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2007/10/17/13/Chang-Guttmacher_Institute_abortion_report.source.prod_affiliate.91.pdf


% pregnancies ending in abortion in Ocenia is 15%, 16% in Europe and 21% in N America. These are countries with similar level of development so I dont see why N American level cant be reduced to 15%. There were 6.4 million pregnancies in 2004 in only US so 6% decrease would mean 384,000 people.

That being said, I consider abortion unethical for the most part, but I understand why so many people dont see anything wrong with it since they also see nothing wrong with eating highly evolved mammals, which are usually slaughtered in an inhumane way.

That rant being said, I of course, dont support abortion to be banned (just some restrictions) since u cant force people to have babies, people may do abortions illegaly which could be unhealthy and some forced people may treat the baby badly (eg: drinking alcohol during pregnancy).

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.

Do not assume.

That being said, I consider abortion unethical for the most part, but I understand why so many people dont see anything wrong with it since they also see nothing wrong with eating highly evolved mammals, which are usually slaughtered in an inhumane way.

Yeah whoever heard of a vegetarian pro-choicer? :rolleyes:

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!)

I explained it already too. And it is either an ignorant statement or just dickery.

"People who are on welfare are parasites" is also either an ignorant statement or just dickery altho "that's not really a particularly ignorant statement" either.

My whole point with this whole thread was that abortions could be reduced. Muravyet and you said that the things I said were already being done, perhaps, but I think that the number of abortions can be reduced:

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6342/abortionvn8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/abortionvn8.jpg/1/w540.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img9/abortionvn8.jpg/1/)
http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2007/10/17/13/Chang-Guttmacher_Institute_abortion_report.source.prod_affiliate.91.pdf


% pregnancies ending in abortion in Ocenia is 15%, 16% in Europe and 21% in N America. These are countries with similar level of development so I dont see why N American level cant be reduced to 15%. There were 6.4 million pregnancies in 2004 in only US so 6% decrease would mean 384,000 people.

That being said, I consider abortion unethical for the most part, but I understand why so many people dont see anything wrong with it since they also see nothing wrong with eating highly evolved mammals, which are usually slaughtered in an inhumane way.

That rant being said, I of course, dont support abortion to be banned (just some restrictions) since u cant force people to have babies, people may do abortions illegaly which could be unhealthy and some forced people may treat the baby badly (eg: drinking alcohol).

So abortion and not-being-vegetarian are somehow equal now?

Which one are you trivialising? Or... which one are you being disproportionately hysterical about?

Are you saying it's bad to drink alcohol if you have children? Or it's bad for babies to drink alcohol? One of those is prety obviou, the other fairly ridiculous.

You are right about one thing, though - abortion isn't going to be stopped by someone trying to overturn the 'right' to abort. Abortion wasn't suddenly invented in the 20th century, and it certainly wouldn't go away if the law changed.

What might be worth figuring into your calculations, though - is WHY there is a discrepency between - say - European abortion rates, and US abortion rates. It seems to me that the MAIN difference, is that Europe, in general, is very progressive with access to, and information about, contraception. And the better the precautions, the less 'problems' you have to 'fix'.

Do not assume.

But he can and did predicate.

So abortion and not-being-vegetarian are somehow equal now?


Dont assume. Wheres the word "equal" in that response?


Are you saying it's bad to drink alcohol if you have children? Or it's bad for babies to drink alcohol? One of those is prety obviou, the other fairly ridiculous.


Do not assume. But fixed anyway.


You are right about one thing, though - abortion isn't going to be stopped by someone trying to overturn the 'right' to abort. Abortion wasn't suddenly invented in the 20th century, and it certainly wouldn't go away if the law changed.

What might be worth figuring into your calculations, though - is WHY there is a discrepency between - say - European abortion rates, and US abortion rates. It seems to me that the MAIN difference, is that Europe, in general, is very progressive with access to, and information about, contraception. And the better the precautions, the less 'problems' you have to 'fix'.

Theres also a discrepency between N. Europe and; Australia and New Zealand. But you are also right:


...
Perhaps the most important factors affecting the abortion rate are the strength of motivation to have a small family and control the timing of births, and the extent of effective use of contraceptives. Although it is the policy of most countries to encourage contraceptive use, not all have provided support or allocated the necessary resources to family planning services.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2504499.html

Dont assume. Wheres the word "equal" in that response?


It's not an assumption.

You said: "I consider abortion unethical for the most part, but I understand why so many people dont see anything wrong with it since they also see nothing wrong with eating highly evolved mammals, which are usually slaughtered in an inhumane way."

It's that little "since" that suggests it. i.e. SINCE you are not vegetarian, you ALSO think abortion is okay.

It's not an assumption.

You said: "I consider abortion unethical for the most part, but I understand why so many people dont see anything wrong with it since they also see nothing wrong with eating highly evolved mammals, which are usually slaughtered in an inhumane way."

It's that little "since" that suggests it. i.e. SINCE you are not vegetarian, you ALSO think abortion is okay.

They are somewhat comparable. Why does "since" necessitate equality?

My whole point with this whole thread was that abortions could be reduced. Muravyet and you said that the things I said were already being done, perhaps, but I think that the number of abortions can be reduced:

*snip*


% pregnancies ending in abortion in Ocenia is 15%, 16% in Europe and 21% in N America. These are countries with similar level of development so I dont see why N American level cant be reduced to 15%. There were 6.4 million pregnancies in 2004 in only US so 6% decrease would mean 384,000 people.

That being said, I consider abortion unethical for the most part, but I understand why so many people dont see anything wrong with it since they also see nothing wrong with eating highly evolved mammals, which are usually slaughtered in an inhumane way.

That rant being said, I of course, dont support abortion to be banned (just some restrictions) since u cant force people to have babies, people may do abortions illegaly which could be unhealthy and some forced people may treat the baby badly (eg: drinking alcohol during pregnancy).

Before I say anything else, let me admit that I have not read anything in this thread but the first and last few pages. And I have no intention of doing so. If this makes my comments redundant or inapposite, so be it.

1. What exactly is the relevance of the percentage of pregnancies ending in termination? Why does this matter?

2. Given that the vast, vast majority of abortion in North America occur in the very early stages of the pregnancy when the unborn lacks even an ethical semblacne to an "highly evolved animal," your rant seems rather hollow.

3. Exactly what restrictions on abortion do you support? The devil is in those details.

They are somewhat comparable. Why does "since" necessitate equality?

Try replacing the terms.

"That being said, I consider rape unethical for the most part, but I understand why so many people dont see anything wrong with it since they also see nothing wrong with eating vegetables."

See the problem?

They are somewhat comparable. Why does "since" necessitate equality?

I took him not to mean the absolute equality necessitated in formal mathematical proofs, but rather that you considered them sufficiently alike for you to relate one to the other in the way you did.

By saying they are "somewhat comparable", line of reasoning that one is parallel to the other in that way, its still a fairly distorted comparison.

Before I say anything else, let me admit that I have not read anything in this thread but the first and last few pages. And I have no intention of doing so. If this makes my comments redundant or inapposite, so be it.

1. What exactly is the relevance of the percentage of pregnancies ending in termination? Why does this matter?

2. Given that the vast, vast majority of abortion in North America occur in the very early stages of the pregnancy when the unborn lacks even an ethical semblacne to an "highly evolved animal," your rant seems rather hollow.

3. Exactly what restrictions on abortion do you support? The devil is in those details.

1. If you believe abortion is unethical, surely u're gonna prefer less of that, right? Even if u disagree with the former statement, u should acknowledge the 2nd statement is a logical extension of 1st.

2. Beginnings of Neocortex, which signifies a degree of high evolution, is present even at 5-8 gestational weeks
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/5/1858

3. Time restrictions, primarily.

Try replacing the terms.

"That being said, I consider rape unethical for the most part, but I understand why so many people dont see anything wrong with it since they also see nothing wrong with eating vegetables."

See the problem?

I took him not to mean the absolute equality necessitated in formal mathematical proofs, but rather that you considered them sufficiently alike for you to relate one to the other in the way you did.

By saying they are "somewhat comparable", line of reasoning that one is parallel to the other in that way, its still a fairly distorted comparison.

Both of you didnt understand my line of thinking, which is surprising, cause I thought it was obvious.

Eating animals and abortion and murder. All of them end life. They are somewhat comparable but of course not equal. Murder is far worse, obviously.

Rape has no such connection, with respect to ending life, altho it fucks the quality of life, messing up the victims.

My initial CP neurons are radially organized and mostly CR-negative, therefore I am.

1. If you believe abortion is unethical, surely u're gonna prefer less of that, right? Even if u disagree with the former statement, u should acknowledge the 2nd statement is a logical extension of 1st.

2. Beginnings of Neocortex, which signifies a degree of high evolution, is present even at 5-8 gestational weeks
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/5/1858

3. Time restrictions, primarily.

1. Begs the question, doesn't it?

2. I will admit I am unqualified to evaluate the science you cite, but there is a clear difference between "beginnings of" and "existence of."

Further, I am not sure why degree of evolution is ethically relevant. Plants evolve too. You no doubt eat "highly evolved" plants.

Regardless, in the U.S., some 60% of abortions occur in the first 8 weeks and 90% within the first 13 weeks.

3. What time restrictions, exactly? (And you do realize that the U.S. has time restrictions already?)

Both of you didnt understand my line of thinking, which is surprising, cause I thought it was obvious.

Eating animals and abortion and murder. All of them end life. They are somewhat comparable but of course not equal. Murder is far worse, obviously.


Well, if your line of thinking is illustrated by what you said here:


That being said, I consider abortion unethical for the most part, but I understand why so many people dont see anything wrong with it since they also see nothing wrong with eating highly evolved mammals, which are usually slaughtered in an inhumane way.

...then you were drawing a link between the two that doesn't really survive the differences.

Both of you didnt understand my line of thinking, which is surprising, cause I thought it was obvious.

Eating animals and abortion and murder. All of them end life. They are somewhat comparable but of course not equal. Murder is far worse, obviously.

Rape has no such connection, with respect to ending life, altho it fucks the quality of life, messing up the victims.

Eating plants also "ends life." Is vegetarianism not also comparable to murder?

1. Begs the question, doesn't it?

2. I will admit I am unqualified to evaluate the science you cite, but there is a clear difference between "beginnings of" and "existence of."

Further, I am not sure why degree of evolution is ethically relevant. Plants evolve too. You no doubt eat "highly evolved" plants.

Regardless, in the U.S., some 60% of abortions occur in the first 8 weeks and 90% within the first 13 weeks.

3. What time restrictions, exactly? (And you do realize that the U.S. has time restrictions already?)

Highly evolved plants? Seriously? Its plants first, then animals eating plants and then animals eating animals.

Eating plants also "ends life." Is vegetarianism not also comparable to murder?

Yes. But the comparison is much weaker there than eating cows, IMO.

Highly evolved plants? Seriously? Its plants first, then animals eating plants and then animals eating animals.

Perhaps you have a different meaning for the word "evolve" than the one I am using.

You appear to equate being evolved with one's place on the food chain. How is that ethically relevant?

Perhaps you have a different meaning for the word "evolve" than the one I am using.

You appear to equate being evolved with one's place on the food chain. How is that ethically relevant?

Umm, it is also relevant to evolution. If sheep had evolved before plants, they would have died since there were no plants to eat.

Umm, it is also relevant to evolution. If sheep had evolved before plants, they would have died since there were no plants to eat.

Non-responsive. How is it ethically relevant?

Umm, it is also relevant to evolution. If sheep had evolved before plants, they would have died since there were no plants to eat.

I just stabbed myself in the face.

Highly evolved plants? Seriously? Its plants first, then animals eating plants and then animals eating animals.

Many species of plants have continued to evolve long after autotrophs took on the role of food for heterotrophs, including fairly complex subsystems, reproductive methods, and in some cases, even the ability to grow without soil.

The nutritional hierarchy is certainly one mode of taxonomy, but does not speak in an absolute sense to the comparative complexity of its rankings.

I just stabbed myself in the face.

*calls 911*

Umm, it is also relevant to evolution. If sheep had evolved before plants, they would have died since there were no plants to eat.

I...I just...you...its...I'm going to go do something else.

Non-responsive. How is it ethically relevant?

I'm sorry I keep assuming that the answer is obvious. You do realize that u get more sophisticated as u evolve more, right? Compare humans to dogs to birds to fish to trees.

Also, another relevant issue is pain. Pain receptors are found in more evolved life forms, ie: def mammals and birds and theres a debate if fish actually can feel pain.

The connection between pain/suffering and ethics should be obvious.

Many species of plants have continued to evolve long after autotrophs took on the role of food for heterotrophs, including fairly complex subsystems, reproductive methods, and in some cases, even the ability to grow without soil.

The nutritional hierarchy is certainly one mode of taxonomy, but does not speak in an absolute sense to the comparative complexity of its rankings.

I was talking about inter species evolution rather than intra species. We humans are still evolving yet there were humans (homo sapiens sapiens) 100,000 ago as well altho they werent exactly as we are now.

I explained it already too. And it is either an ignorant statement or just dickery.

"People who are on welfare are parasites" is also either an ignorant statement or just dickery altho "that's not really a particularly ignorant statement" either.

People on welfare are physically dependent on other organisms for their very existence, and cause physical harm to those other organisms through their dependence? Really? Or is that actually just an insanely stupid comparison?

Once again, an embryo is exactly like the biological definition of a parasite, except that it belongs to the same species as the host. Which, again, is something I'm pretty sure all of us are aware of. So tell me, without mind-boggling silly comparisons, how exactly saying that the embryo is essentially a parasite is ignorant. Please. I'll be waiting.

I just stabbed myself in the face.

This was also pretty much my response. Good lord, where does one even begin?

I was talking about inter species evolution rather than intra species. We humans are still evolving yet there were humans (homo sapiens sapiens) 100,000 ago as well altho they werent exactly as we are now.

Yes, my phrase "comparative complexity of its rankings" was also meant to include an ordinal comparison of species.

The point was, since plants didn't stop evolving because they became a food source for something else, they continued to develop, and so their comparison in complexity to other crown eukaryotes is not made disfavorable solely by their place in the food chain.

This was also pretty much my response. Good lord, where does one even begin?

Gotta admire someone who can cause mass face-stabbings from a keyboard, though.

I'm sorry I keep assuming that the answer is obvious. You do realize that u get more sophisticated as u evolve more, right? Compare humans to dogs to birds to fish to trees.

Also, another relevant issue is pain. Pain receptors are found in more evolved life forms, ie: def mammals and birds and theres a debate if fish actually can feel pain.

The connection between pain/suffering and ethics should be obvious.

Not only can plants 'feel' pain, they can actually transmit signals to other plants. You are apparently confusing lack of mobility for lack of sensitivity.

You DO realise we didn't evolve from dogs or trees, right?

Not only can plants 'feel' pain, they can actually transmit signals to other plants. You are apparently confusing lack of mobility for lack of sensitivity.

You DO realise we didn't evolve from dogs or trees, right?

No shit, Sherlock.

Not only can plants 'feel' pain, they can actually transmit signals to other plants. You are apparently confusing lack of mobility for lack of sensitivity.


What???

"The presence of pain in an animal, or another human for that matter, cannot be known for sure, but it can be inferred through physical and behavioral reactions.[32] Specialists currently believe that all vertebrates can feel pain, and that certain invertebrates, like the octopus, might too.[33][34] As for other animals, plants, or other entities, their ability to feel physical pain is at present a question beyond scientific reach, since no mechanism is known by which they could have such a feeling. In particular, there are no known nociceptors in groups such as plants, fungi, and most insects,[35] except for instance in fruit flies.[36]

Veterinary medicine uses, for actual or potential animal pain, the same analgesics and anesthetics as used in humans.[37]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain

Yes, my phrase "comparative complexity of its rankings" was also meant to include an ordinal comparison of species.

The point was, since plants didn't stop evolving because they became a food source for something else, they continued to develop, and so their comparison in complexity to other crown eukaryotes is not made disfavorable solely by their place in the food chain.

I havent taken any biology, just psych.

Neocortical mantle representing highest form of evolution, then other hominds, other primates, other mammals, etc...

I'm sorry I keep assuming that the answer is obvious. You do realize that u get more sophisticated as u evolve more, right?

This is actually completely incorrect. Evolution can lead to an increase in sophistication. It can also lead to a decrease, if that makes the species better suited to its environment.

The most evolved species on the planet are bacterial.

People on welfare are physically dependent on other organisms for their very existence, and cause physical harm to those other organisms through their dependence? Really? Or is that actually just an insanely stupid comparison?

Once again, an embryo is exactly like the biological definition of a parasite, except that it belongs to the same species as the host. Which, again, is something I'm pretty sure all of us are aware of. So tell me, without mind-boggling silly comparisons, how exactly saying that the embryo is essentially a parasite is ignorant. Please. I'll be waiting.

But in many cases they are not independent to survive, they need welfare checks for food and shelter, right?

Oh I guess you know that some people also argued that jews were also parasited and they were also so convinced they were right too.

I havent taken any biology, just psych.

Clearly.

Neocortical mantle representing highest form of evolution, then other hominds, other primates, other mammals, etc...

Perhaps you are confusing evolution with awareness or sapience?

I havent taken any biology, just psych.

Neocortical mantle representing highest form of evolution, then other hominds, other primates, other mammals, etc...

Such a taxonomy would be the proclivity of the cognitive sciences. In a broader biological sense, it is not the most inclusive or meaningful model of complexity.

Clearly.

Perhaps you are confusing evolution with awareness or sapience?

What would you know, Demp? You're one of those people that reads peer-reivewed literature on the subject, and then further pollutes your biased beliefs with years of formal education tempered with rigorous research experience.

What a crock, that.

I havent taken any biology, just psych.

We noticed.

Seriously, it would probably serve you better to stop trying to use biology in your arguments when you fairly obviously haven't even learned the basics. It makes discussing things with you hard, because the only sensible reply to your last several posts is pretty much, "....that's all completely wrong."

Further, I would suggest that this is even more reason you need to drop the "saying an embryo is comparable to a parasite is ignorant!" argument, since you've just outright admitted you're far more ignorant on the subject than anyone who's mentioned parasitism.

But in many cases they are not independent to survive, they need welfare checks for food and shelter, right?

Oh I guess you know that some people also argued that jews were also parasited and they were also so convinced they were right too.

Which is why, as Poliwanacraca pointed out, that comparison and the definition it speaks to is not particularly sound (referring to welfare recipients)

We noticed.

Seriously, it would probably serve you better to stop trying to use biology in your arguments when you fairly obviously haven't even learned the basics. It makes discussing things with you hard, because the only sensible reply to your last several posts is pretty much, "....that's all completely wrong."

Further, I would suggest that this is even more reason you need to drop the "saying an embryo is comparable to a parasite is ignorant!" argument, since you've just outright admitted you're far more ignorant on the subject than anyone who's mentioned parasitism.

Oh please dont be an ass. Also it is highly illogical. Certainly u dont need a PhD in philosophy to say murder is wrong.

I maintain that "saying an embryo is comparable to a parasite is ignorant!". Again, go to list of parasites, human children arent there.

But in many cases they are not independent to survive, they need welfare checks for food and shelter, right?

That does not meet any of the criteria I just mentioned.

C'mon, dude, you cannot have THIS much trouble with basic reading comprehension.

Oh I guess you know that some people also argued that jews were also parasited and they were also so convinced they were right too.

Some people have argued some very, very stupid things over the years. Thank you for providing yet another example of a stupid argument.

Again, either answer the question I asked or concede that you are wrong on this point, please.

Which is why, as Poliwanacraca pointed out, that comparison and the definition it speaks to is not particularly sound.

Really?

Again, if the basis for comparison is dependency, u have to admit it does make some sense to call people on welfare parasites, the host being tax payers since many of them do need those welfare checks to survive.

Oh please dont be an ass. Also it is highly illogical. Certainly u dont need a PhD in philosophy to say murder is wrong.

Ah, the signature NMG comparison. So, saying that one should make a rudimentary examination of biology to credibly employ its sometimes esoterically defined terms is apparently somehow comparable to saying you must have a doctorate in philosophy to say murder is wrong.

Yes. Totally. I know Poliwanacraca, and that's exactly what she meant. She also likes a blue martini in the morning.


I maintain that "saying an embryo is comparable to a parasite is ignorant!". Again, go to list of parasites, human children arent there.

Ah, yes, embryo=human children. Same thing...if you haven't taken biology.

Oh please dont be an ass. Also it is highly illogical. Certainly u dont need a PhD in philosophy to say murder is wrong.

Ah, yes. Everyone's an expert, and you somehow magically know as much about biology as the ACTUAL BIOLOGIST in this thread despite never having so much as cracked a biology textbook....and I'm being an ass.

I maintain that "saying an embryo is comparable to a parasite is ignorant!". Again, go to list of parasites, human children arent there.

I gathered that you maintain that. For the seventh or eighth time, I am suggesting you either back up that statement with actual facts or drop it. I have repeatedly told you the one, single, solitary difference between an embryo and a parasite. I have also told you the definition of a parasite. If you are so sure I am "ignorant," it should not be at all hard for you to tell me precisely which of those things I am "ignorant" about.

That does not meet any of the criteria I just mentioned.

C'mon, dude, you cannot have THIS much trouble with basic reading comprehension.


Again dont be an ass. And I am not using the criteria you mentioned. What makes you think I should? It's not the exact biological criteria. If it was, human fetuses would be in the list! It is just your subjective interpretation of an approximation to it. And as I said, if u set the criteria to dependency, another approximation to the exact biological criteria, the comparison makes some sense.


Some people have argued some very, very stupid things over the years. Thank you for providing yet another example of a stupid argument.

Again, either answer the question I asked or concede that you are wrong on this point, please.

Yeah, they were also misusing the term parasite.

Really?

Again, if the basis for comparison is dependency, u have to admit it does make some sense to call people on welfare parasites, the host being tax payers since many of them do need those welfare checks to survive.

She may have meant biological dependency, a profoundly differing state from economic dependency.

But then, I only had two semesters of economics. Perhaps the role of welfare payments in oligohydramnios is explained later.

So abortion and not-being-vegetarian are somehow equal now?

They are somewhat comparable. Why does "since" necessitate equality?
Obviously, because everyone knows that pro-choicers eat babies. That's why we like abortion and clamor for more ! more ! more !

In addition to being cannibals -- or rather, comparable to cannibals who kill babies for the same reason we kill animals -- because we just love to kill and eat highly evolved creatures -- we are also comparable to murderers and anti-semites, according to NMG.

Tell us, NMG are there any other major crimes or reprehensible behaviors you would like to say pro-choicers are comparable to just because we believe a woman should have the right to control how her body gets used?

And don't forget while you are insulting and defaming pro-choicers to keep insisting that you are one yourself. Because that makes it okay, and we all really believe you.

Obviously, because everyone knows that pro-choicers eat babies. That's why we like abortion and clamor for more ! more ! more !

In addition to being cannibals -- or rather, comparable to cannibals who kill babies for the same reason we kill animals -- because we just love to kill and eat highly evolved creatures -- we are also comparable to murderers and anti-semites.

May I remind you that I recently begged you not to kill our baby, which you in fact did proceed to eat with rasberry vinagrette mustard and that really great rye bread we got from Intangelon (and proceeded to wash down with the last bottle of that ginger beer from the hippy co-op, yet further disregard for human life)?

She may have meant biological dependency, a profoundly differing state from economic dependency.

But then, I only had two semesters of economics. Perhaps the role of welfare payments in oligohydramnios is explained later.

How is dying from starvation not biological?

Again dont be an ass. And I am not using the criteria you mentioned. What makes you think I should?

The fact that that's the actual definition of the word? I mean, if you want to define "parasite" as "something that is blue and made of cheese," yes, an embryo is not really anything like a parasite.

It's not the exact biological criteria.

Um, yes, actually, it is.

Just your subjective interpretation of an approximation to it.

No, actually, it's not.

And as I said, if u set the criteria to dependency, another approximation to the exact biological criteria, the comparison makes some sense.

At this point, you are not ONLY contradicting your initial argument ("saying an embryo is comparable to a parasite is ignorant," in case you forgot), but also outright arguing that it is reasonable to make up your own definitions for words. Do you realize how silly this sounds?

No shit, Sherlock.

Here's what you said: "You do realize that u get more sophisticated as u evolve more, right? Compare humans to dogs to birds to fish to trees"


Okay - comparing them. Relevence? Unless we're evolved FROM THEM your 'get more sophisticated as you evolve" assertion is an orphan.


What???

"The presence of pain in an animal, or another human for that matter, cannot be known for sure, but it can be inferred through physical and behavioral reactions.[32] Specialists currently believe that all vertebrates can feel pain, and that certain invertebrates, like the octopus, might too.[33][34] As for other animals, plants, or other entities, their ability to feel physical pain is at present a question beyond scientific reach, since no mechanism is known by which they could have such a feeling. In particular, there are no known nociceptors in groups such as plants, fungi, and most insects,[35] except for instance in fruit flies.[36]

Veterinary medicine uses, for actual or potential animal pain, the same analgesics and anesthetics as used in humans.[37]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain

Plants shy away from damage. They will also shy away from concentrations of heat. Now - you can say these are purely physical reactions - chemical, hormonal, whatever - something to do with cells-repairing... whatever. But the fact is - what's the DIFFERENCE between that and our own sense of pain? The method of transmission? Can you show that they are qualitatively different?

The idea that 'pain' can only exist in the same mechanisms we 'enjoy' is a rationalisation.

As for communicating: "According to an article by Jeanne McDermott in the December 1984 issue of Smithsonian Magazine, researchers have found that trees can actively defend themselves against these serious insect attacks, even to the point of communicating a warning to other trees in the vicinity."

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF7/762.html


It's anthropocentric hubris to believe that plants can't speak or be hurt.

She may have meant biological dependency, a profoundly differing state from economic dependency.

But then, I only had two semesters of economics. Perhaps the role of welfare payments in oligohydramnios is explained later.

Yeah, you get to that in the advanced courses. You know, the ones NMG also hasn't taken, along with the very very very basic courses. :p

Again dont be an ass. And I am not using the criteria you mentioned. What makes you think I should? It's not the exact biological criteria. If it was, human fetuses would be in the list!

Of course. Biological organisms are defined by an exhaustive list. To know what something is, you look it up on the list that we're all taught, that includes all members of that class.

Man, that unit on insects just dragged ass...


It is just your subjective interpretation of an approximation to it. And as I said, if u set the criteria to dependency, another approximation to the exact biological criteria, the comparison makes some sense.

Which comparison? The comparison to welfare recipients?

I havent taken any biology, just psych.

It all becomes so clear.

The fact that that's the actual definition of the word? I mean, if you want to define "parasite" as "something that is blue and made of cheese," yes, an embryo is not really anything like a parasite.



Um, yes, actually, it is.



No, actually, it's not.


Ok, if it is the actual definition, then why arent human fetuses on the list of parasites?



At this point, you are not ONLY contradicting your initial argument ("saying an embryo is comparable to a parasite is ignorant," in case you forgot), but also outright arguing that it is reasonable to make up your own definitions for words. Do you realize how silly this sounds?

Ummm, your comparison does also make some sense but it is also ignorant. Can you not think of any ignorant comparisons that makes at least some sense?

Obviously, because everyone knows that pro-choicers eat babies. That's why we like abortion and clamor for more ! more ! more !

In addition to being cannibals -- or rather, comparable to cannibals who kill babies for the same reason we kill animals -- because we just love to kill and eat highly evolved creatures -- we are also comparable to murderers and anti-semites, according to NMG.

Tell us, NMG are there any other major crimes or reprehensible behaviors you would like to say pro-choicers are comparable to just because we believe a woman should have the right to control how her body gets used?

And don't forget while you are insulting and defaming pro-choicers to keep insisting that you are one yourself. Because that makes it okay, and we all really believe you.

I think the best part is that it is, in NMG's universe, entirely reasonable to compare pro-choicers to murderers, Nazis, and cannibals, but terribly ignorant to compare embryos to parasites.