Abortion Ban

[GSLeloo]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Abortion_Rights_Debate

Well that's one state I'll never live in.. not that I'd get an abortion but it's a woman's right to choice. And no exceptions? So if she was raped and is 13 and gets pregnant, she has to have it? Disgusting. Next they'll ban birth control.

[Ebondale]

After that the next step will be government controlled breeding and licensing. >_<

[GSLeloo]

They'd have to.. because without birth control, abortions (once again, not that I entirely agree with them), and perhaps even condoms... we'd be pretty screwed with population control. Don't some religions ban condoms?

[Back]

Does anyone else think this was a pre-planned showdown now that two justices nominated by the Republican party have seats?

[Sean of the Thread]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Abortion_Rights_Debate

Well that's one state I'll never live in.. not that I'd get an abortion but it's a woman's right to choice. And no exceptions? So if she was raped and is 13 and gets pregnant, she has to have it? Disgusting. Next they'll ban birth control.

Women's right to chose by current law but just as it changed before with roe vs wade who is to say it's not going to change again. Such is life (pun intended).

Also don't forget religion... if as you put it she was raped at age 13 and becomes pregnant perhaps that was God's will and decision? I mean who decided for Mary to be "raped" and birth Jesus... ??? What if Mary crammed a coat hanger up her twat when she found out she was preggers.

You guys need a reality check.

[GSLeloo]

That would imply a belief in God and religion. And I don't think religion should have any say in a legal decision. Separation of Church and State and all that jazz. And up until the mid 1800's, Abortion was legal. It was only made illegal when doctors began to gather together so they could force out "bad" practices that people such as midwives were doing.

Also, statistically, countries that ban abortions have more abortions then those that legalize it. Chile and Ireland both banned it and their abortion status is higher then that of the Netherlands.

And even when abortion is banned, most people of wealth have access to it. They can pay a family doctor to perform it or fly somewhere that still allows it. It is the poor people who have to go to the back alleys to get the illegal abortions which then get them killed. Most abortion doctors who were around during the Roe vs Wade case say that they view abortion as saving lives because they saw how many people were killed or maimed a year because of botched abortions.

It doesn't matter if they legalize it or ban it, people will still do it. The point of legalizing it is allowing them to do it in a way that is safe rather than the ways that our parents had to have it done.

[Back]

Your body, your choice. Plain and simple.

[Sean of the Thread]

>>Chile and Ireland both banned it and their abortion status is higher then that of the Netherlands.<<

Did you get that from Latrinstorm??

>>It doesn't matter if they legalize it or ban it, people will still do it.<<

I'd say much much much much fewer would do it if it were banned and your Chile/Ireland/Netherlands statement is such retarded shit that it didn't back up anything but my toilet.

>>And even when abortion is banned, most people of wealth have access to it. They can pay a family doctor to perform it or fly somewhere that still allows it<<

Or goto one of the 49 other states that have a Wal-Mart. (or any other pharmacy)

[Miss X]

Uhm.. I'd like to see the source of your information Leloo. It would likely make interesting reading. I'm not sure on the abortion rate in the Netherlands but I'd bet it's far higher than the number of women who travel out of Ireland for abortions each year.

Example: In 2004, 6217 Irish residents traveled to the UK for an abortion. In that same year 185,415 residents of the UK had abortions here. Now, there are not any reliable statistics that state how many women from Ireland have abortions worldwide, but I'd imagine the majority of them go to the UK.

You're right, in my opinion, that people of wealth will find it far easier to have an abortion. That really isn't the problem though. The problem is that there are hundreds of thousands of women who are being forced to keep babies they don't want. If it's growing inside your body, you do whatever the hell you want with it until such time that it is capable of sustaining life outside of your body.

If I get raped and fall pregnant then you can bet your fucking life I want that thing out of my body ASAP. I'm lucky I live in a country where that would be no problem. It's both legal and free. The most important thing that those of us who support the Pro Choice campaign can do is help fight for the same rights for women worldwide.

[Warriorbird]

So...Xyelin...what exactly does this achieve then? Nothing except rancorous partisan stupidity.

[Tromp]

>>Chile and Ireland both banned it and their abortion status is higher then that of the Netherlands.<<

Did you get that from Latrinstorm??

>>It doesn't matter if they legalize it or ban it, people will still do it.<<

I'd say much much much much fewer would do it if it were banned and your Chile/Ireland/Netherlands statement is such retarded shit that it didn't back up anything but my toilet.

>>And even when abortion is banned, most people of wealth have access to it. They can pay a family doctor to perform it or fly somewhere that still allows it<<

Or goto one of the 49 other states that have a Wal-Mart. (or any other pharmacy)

All this from the man who gave us the handicap drunken pee bj story...

Lets say for argument sake you actually had pushed it further with the above participant and made her prego. In light of your religous fervor, would you step up and be a father to this woman who is bearing your child in the eyes of god? Or just tell her to suck it up and you'll be there to support her or.... ?

[Wezas]

Not defending Xyelin, but I don't believe it's religious reasons why he would not ask someone to get an abortion. I think it's just something he's decided.

[Tromp]

well he just mentioned religion in one of his posts on this thread so I figured that i'd toss this up...

[Alfster]

Your body, your choice. Plain and simple.


Fuck that. That means you pay for 18 years.

Should be the man's choice.

(and for certain tards, i'm joking)

[Daniel]

I'm for womans choice, but I don't agree with a woman being able to make a choice that obligates another person for 18 year sof life. If You get preggo and insist on keeping a child despite my objections then you should waive all claims to child support.

I'm not saying if it were ME I wouldn't support the kid but thats only because I don't fuck with trifling bitches who purposefully get pregnant to trap men.

[GSLeloo]

[QUOTE=Xyelin]>>Chile and Ireland both banned it and their abortion status is higher then that of the Netherlands.<<

Did you get that from Latrinstorm??

>>It doesn't matter if they legalize it or ban it, people will still do it.<<

I'd say much much much much fewer would do it if it were banned and your Chile/Ireland/Netherlands statement is such retarded shit that it didn't back up anything but my toilet.



My source is The Ethics of Abortion edited by Robert M Baird and Stuart E Rosenbaum, the 3rd edition published in 2001 by Prometheus Books. You can pick it up online or at your local college bookstore. And I'd say their facts were pretty solid.

[Wezas]

Looks like that book is a summary of essays. Might take some work digging to the bottom of any numbers one of the essay's throw around.

[Skirmisher]

Woot for South Dakota, USA's own mini Taliban.

Lets not bother teaching the babymakers how to read or write either while we're at it. It would just worry their little heads.

[Alfster]

Woot for South Dakota, USA's own mini Taliban.

Lets not bother teaching the babymakers how to read or write either while we're at it. It would just worry their little heads.

They at least need to know how to spell their name for their food stamps/welfare check

[Warriorbird]

And you wonder why Margaret Atwood just invented a device to sign autographs far away by remote control, Skirmisher?

:grins:

[Alfster]

Looks like that book is a summary of essays. Might take some work digging to the bottom of any numbers one of the essay's throw around.

BUT I READ IT IN A BOOK ABOUT ABORTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!



IT JUST HAS TO BE TRUE


(I'M TYPING IN ALL CAPS TO POINT OUT HOW STUPID MY LOGIC IS)

[GSLeloo]

I'd rather trust the facts in a book published by two doctors then what any of us may think up off of the top of our heads (myself included).

[Tromp]

I'd rather trust the facts in a book published by two doctors then what any of us may think up off of the top of our heads (myself included).

Are you sure? Hulkein hasn't posted yet so I think you may be premature.

[Latrinsorm]

Does anyone else think this was a pre-planned showdown now that two justices nominated by the Republican party have seats?Every article I've seen about this so far has specifically said that's the plan.
Also, statistically, countries that ban abortions have more abortions then those that legalize it.I'd like to know a) what "abortion status" means and b) how these folks managed to find out how many people wanted and how many people had abortions (mainly in Chile). Perhaps you could give us the name/author of the essay in question to save time. The reason I ask is the Netherlands and Chile have roughly equal populations and the Netherlands has more than 20 times as many abortions per year of residents alone from the data I've found. The ratio of abortions to live birthes is even more heavily skewed towards the Netherlands. Obviously neither of these are excellent indicators of the pertinent data, but I can't figure out how else the authors would have compared the two countries.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2405698.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-netherlands.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ci.html

It doesn't matter if they legalize it or ban it, people will still do it. This is, by far, the worst argument that could possibly be made for keeping abortion legal. The point you cited about legalizing abortions resulting in less abortions would have been dynamite, were it true. Class inequality is a good observation, but it's sort of putting the cart before the horse.

[Wezas]

I'd rather trust the facts in a book published by two doctors then what any of us may think up off of the top of our heads (myself included).

http://www.neatsolutions.com/images/Books/green%20eggs%20and%20ham%20sml.jpg

[Alfster]

That took me way to long to understand

h8 you wezas

[DeV]

What would happen if every potential for life was fulfilled? We can't even provide sufficiently for all the lives that have already come into the world.

[Alfster]

You're hurting my brain

[DeV]

That makes us even.

[Alfster]

Then I win

[DeV]

Mos def

[Tromp]

Then I win

Umm if yer even how do you win?

Here <cough> here <cough cough> It is having no effect on you what so ever.

[Alfster]

By bringing her down to my trollish level, I win

[DeV]

I came down willingly, dammit. But you still win.

[Drew2]

I'm for womans choice, but I don't agree with a woman being able to make a choice that obligates another person for 18 year sof life. If You get preggo and insist on keeping a child despite my objections then you should waive all claims to child support.

I'm not saying if it were ME I wouldn't support the kid but thats only because I don't fuck with trifling bitches who purposefully get pregnant to trap men.
Your choice was not keeping it in your pants and/or not using a condom.

[Some Rogue]

Your choice was not keeping it in your pants and/or not using a condom.

Using that logic, the woman's choice was to say no.

[Daniel]

Using that logic, the woman's choice was to say no.

Exactly. Condoms have been known to fail\break and things happen. The woman is just as liable as the male and both should have the same choice in what happens after shit does happen.

[Sean of the Thread]

Yeah maybe a lil pre cum dripped off her chin into a turkey baster into her vag... you never know.

[Daniel]

Or maybe she put a hole in the condom. I've had that happen to personal friends of mine.

[Wezas]

Or maybe she put a hole in the condom. I've had that happen to personal friends of mine.

If it's found to be sabatage (holes in condom she put there, that woman who took post BJ man juice and used it to get pregnant) I think the man should have the option to not pay any support, unless of course he's in love with the lying bitch.

[Daniel]

How do you prove something like that?

[Wezas]

How do you prove something like that?

Well, that woman who used the condom chowder to knock herself up was one circumstance. I assume it woulld be difficult to prove unless there's a confession.

[DeV]

Or maybe she put a hole in the condom. I've had that happen to personal friends of mine.A woman I went to school with did exactly this. Her husband didn't want any more children, they already have one, and she became pregnant with twins as a result of her sabotaging the condom. Of course he had no idea she purposely put holes in the condom and more than likely he will never know. She was estatic at being pregnant. Fucked up shit like this happens all the time.

[Wezas]

http://www.movieactors.com/characters/Freezes-Characters/parenthood569.jpeg

Make sure to check the Diaphragm by pouring water into it checking for holes.

[Jorddyn]

Exactly. Condoms have been known to fail\break and things happen. The woman is just as liable as the male and both should have the same choice in what happens after shit does happen.

The man and the woman each get a vote.

It's just that the woman gets to be the tie breaker.

Jorddyn

[CrystalTears]

So basically the woman gets two votes. I guess I'm the only one that sees a flaw in that logic.

[Wezas]

So basically the woman gets two votes. I guess I'm the only one that sees a flaw in that logic.

The woman doesn't get "two votes", her vote just has more weight because it's her body that will undergo the physical pain from her choice.

[Sean of the Thread]

They are all sluts but yo mama. (and daughters)

[Kranar]

The statement that the man and woman each get a vote but the woman's vote is a tie-breaker is a clever way of saying that the issue of an abortion can not be resolved by both parties having a say.

Ultimately either it's the man's decision that will be what determines what happens, or the woman's decision.

Personally I think abortion has nothing to do with what a man or woman wants, I think the issue of abortion should be resolved based on more fundamental principles.

Perhaps that fundamental principle is that a woman does indeed have a right not take to birth a developing life form, the woman should not have to be obligated to nurture an unborn life form against her will. Or perhaps the principle is that human life is sacred regardless of what stage of development it's in and that humans who are capable of doing so, have a responsibility to take care of those who can not, regardless of whether we want to or not.

That's the debate that will live on for all eternity perhaps. Whether it's legal or not won't change whether it's right or not. Personally I don't think abortion should be banned or illegal. But I do think that if given two societies, one in which people actively get abortions at will, and the other one where people only get abortions under incredibly rare circumstances, that the latter is indicative of a society that far better values and appreciates life.

Banning abortions doesn't change peoples attitudes towards it, it doesn't fix anything really. Instead I think it would be best if people recognized abortion as an extreme case and not something that's done just as a matter of convenience or because a woman doesn't want to care for a baby, but should only be done because a woman can not possibly care for a baby.

But of course, until that day comes, if a woman wants an abortion, it's not something that courts can have much control over.

[Jorddyn]

So basically the woman gets two votes. I guess I'm the only one that sees a flaw in that logic.

It's not perfect, but let's look at the situations.

A. Man and woman both want child = Have baby
B. Man and woman both want termination of pregnancy = Have abortion
C. Man wants child, woman wants termination = ?
D. Woman wants child, man wants termination = ?

How do you handle C and D without severely stepping on the rights of the woman? Do you say whoever wants to have the baby wins? Or is it whoever wants termination wins?

Other things to consider - What if the father is alcoholic and abusive? What if the woman's health is at risk? What if the baby will be handicapped? And, really, when it comes down to it, what if the woman really really really doesn't want to carry a baby? What if the mom is a crack addict and doesn't want the baby, but the father does, so the state forces her to carry the baby, but she continues to smoke crack?

Jorddyn, honestly curious

[Latrinsorm]

What if the mom is a crack addict and doesn't want the baby, but the father does, so the state forces her to carry the baby, but she continues to smoke crack?This sorta reminds me of the people who get upset at the Catholic church because they forbid condoms even for rapists, as if rape was somehow supported by the Catholic church.

Otherwise, what Kranar said, with an added clause stating that it's harder to get something done if it's illegal than if it's legal (which I think we can all agree on).

[Warriorbird]

This is, by far, the worst argument that could possibly be made for keeping abortion legal. The point you cited about legalizing abortions resulting in less abortions would have been dynamite, were it true. Class inequality is a good observation, but it's sort of putting the cart before the horse.

And you'll of course exclude overpopulation, pressures on the governmental/economic system, and the effects of unwantedness. Because your basis for your beliefs is religious.

[CrystalTears]

I hate myself right now for replying in the first place. However since the damage is done, may as well do it again.


How do you handle C and D without severely stepping on the rights of the woman? Do you say whoever wants to have the baby wins? Or is it whoever wants termination wins?

Neither, and it bothers me how people want it to be as black and white as abortion itself, and it shouldn't be that way. Abortion is too complex of a problem to be such.

I'm all for leaving abortion legal, however I'd like there to be more restrictions so that it's more of a rare occurance, than a standard procedure that anyone can have at any age with no parental consent (the latter being a HUGE peeve of mine).


Other things to consider - What if the father is alcoholic and abusive? What if the woman's health is at risk? What if the baby will be handicapped? And, really, when it comes down to it, what if the woman really really really doesn't want to carry a baby? What if the mom is a crack addict and doesn't want the baby, but the father does, so the state forces her to carry the baby, but she continues to smoke crack?

And if the parents are that much into an abusive nature, you really think they're going to allow it for any of those situations? You really think they're going to make a crack whore mother have a child, and if so, not tremendously monitor what she does.

Again you can't answer anything so black and white. There are WAY too many variables to consider, and that's my main issue with abortion is that it's either easily attainable or banned, and there needs to be a reasonable middle ground.

[Warriorbird]

This sorta reminds me of the people who get upset at the Catholic church because they forbid condoms even for rapists, as if rape was somehow supported by the Catholic church.

It has been. Historically certainly, but it has been.

[Jorddyn]

There are WAY too many variables to consider, and that's my main issue with abortion is that it's either easily attainable or banned, and there needs to be a reasonable middle ground.

Honestly, I think we can throw out my situation of a woman being forced to have an abortion by a man who doesn't want the baby. I cannot see this happening.

This really only leaves when the man wants a child and the woman does not. And yes, in the end, I think it should come down to what the mother wants. And the entire reason is that I agree that abortion isn't black and white. There are so so many variables, and I'd much rather have the decision made by someone in the middle of the situation than a judge who sees 20 cases a day.

Jorddyn

[StrayRogue]

Fucking retarded. That is all.

[Ravenstorm]

This really only leaves when the man wants a child and the woman does not. And yes, in the end, I think it should come down to what the mother wants.
Jorddyn

You're obviously some radical feminist who doesn't know her place.

‘‘They might resent it at first . . . (but) that is the natural position for a man: to lead your family to Christ.”
(http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=129057)

Abortion? You shouldn't even have birth control!

[Kranar]

<< And yes, in the end, I think it should come down to what the mother wants. >>

Why should it be what the mother wants? That's what has never been explained.

People usually just support abortion for the sake of abortion and you hear arguments that basically just beg the question "My body, my choice." "I don't want it, I don't have to have it." But all those statements do is basically say "Abortions are alright because abortions are alright."

Why does a mother have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? What is the connection between wants and desires, and life? Is the choice between life and death just a matter of desire and wants?

Forget about law and legal jumbo... just looking at it the issue logically, what entitles a mother to decide that because she doesn't want a baby to be born, that the baby has no right to live?

When answering this question, try and remain consistent. I mean if abortion is good because of overpopulation or because of unwantedness... that's not an argument in favour of abortion, that's an argument in favour of death period. I just want to know why it is a mother decides whether or not a baby lives or dies.

[CrystalTears]

I just want to point out that my views about abortion are not religion-based, since I'm not very religious in the first place. Just my personal views. That is all.

[Hulkein]

<< And yes, in the end, I think it should come down to what the mother wants. >>

Why should it be what the mother wants? That's what has never been explained.

People usually just support abortion for the sake of abortion and you hear arguments that basically just beg the question "My body, my choice." "I don't want it, I don't have to have it." But all those statements do is basically say "Abortions are alright because abortions are alright."

Why does a mother have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? What is the connection between wants and desires, and life? Is the choice between life and death just a matter of desire and wants?

Forget about law and legal jumbo... just looking at it the issue logically, what entitles a mother to decide that because she doesn't want a baby to be born, that the baby has no right to live?

When answering this question, try and remain consistent. I mean if abortion is good because of overpopulation or because of unwantedness... that's not an argument in favour of abortion, that's an argument in favour of death period. I just want to know why it is a mother decides whether or not a baby lives or dies.

Yeah, I never really understood the 'look how crowded teh Earth is!' argument... Great, it is crowded, so let's kill...babies? Why would we do that? 'It's the mothers choice!' Great, but why? 'Becuz!' :banghead:

[Tea & Strumpets]

This sorta reminds me of the people who get upset at the Catholic church because they forbid condoms even for rapists, as if rape was somehow supported by the Catholic church.


LOL. I highly doubt the Catholic church has a specific "no condoms for rapists" policy. I can just imagine that discussion.

Person: Is it okay if I use condoms?
Priest: No.
Person: Well what if I'm raping the woman?
Priest: You raise a good point, let me ask the Pope.
<5 minutes later>
Priest: Nope, just checked, not even if you are a rapist.

[Some Rogue]

Forget about law and legal jumbo... just looking at it the issue logically, what entitles a mother to decide that because she doesn't want a baby to be born, that the baby has no right to live?

When answering this question, try and remain consistent. I mean if abortion is good because of overpopulation or because of unwantedness... that's not an argument in favour of abortion, that's an argument in favour of death period. I just want to know why it is a mother decides whether or not a baby lives or dies.

Another question that always comes to mind that is sort of touched on by what you wrote, why is that if a someone murders a pregnant woman, he is considered a double murderer? On the other hand, if the mother destroys the fetus, hey no problem, it's not a life, just a mass of tissue.

[Jorddyn]

<< And yes, in the end, I think it should come down to what the mother wants. >>

Why should it be what the mother wants? That's what has never been explained.

Actually, it has been explained. It's just that you don't necessarily agree.


People usually just support abortion for the sake of abortion and you hear arguments that basically just beg the question "My body, my choice." "I don't want it, I don't have to have it." But all those statements do is basically say "Abortions are alright because abortions are alright."

No, they don't say that. They say that abortions should be at the discretion of the mother because the responsibility of carrying the pregnancy to term is on the mother. She is the one who has to host, in her body, for nine months, that which will become a baby. It seems logical to me that the decision should belong to her rather than the person whose only responsibility in bringing the pregnancy to term ended at ejaculation, or some judge who knows only the facts on paper before him.


Why does a mother have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? What is the connection between wants and desires, and life? Is the choice between life and death just a matter of desire and wants?

You're making leaps from an unwanted pregnancy to a living child.


Forget about law and legal jumbo... just looking at it the issue logically, what entitles a mother to decide that because she doesn't want a baby to be born, that the baby has no right to live?

It is her body that has to host the pregnancy.
You're still making leaps from pregnancy to living child.


When answering this question, try and remain consistent. I mean if abortion is good because of overpopulation or because of unwantedness... that's not an argument in favour of abortion, that's an argument in favour of death period. I just want to know why it is a mother decides whether or not a baby lives or dies.

It is not about killing babies. It is about a woman's choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

I hope that was consistant enough.

Jorddyn

[StrayRogue]

Yeah, I never really understood the 'look how crowded teh Earth is!' argument... Great, it is crowded, so let's kill...babies? Why would we do that? 'It's the mothers choice!' Great, but why? 'Becuz!' :banghead:

Aborting a foetus isn't killing a baby.

I'm personally glad of the change. It'll put a larger strain on an already failing economy, and only furthers America's status as a laughing stock in regards to human rights.

[Kranar]

So the argument is that a fetus is not alive?

I mean I know that a lot of people who are against abortion are against it for religious purposes rather than scientific purposes... but scientifically, a fetus is a human being, and a fetus is also alive. There is a period of time when yes, scientifically the embryo is not a human being, that time being between the creation of the zygote and when the zygote multiplies... and during that time an abortion isn't neccessary to terminate the pregnancy. But after that point in time, by all scientific standards, the embryo is a human being.

There's no leap from pregnancy to living child, unless you think that science is incorrect, in which case I'd have to ask on what grounds you stand on in making the claim that the embryo is not a human being. In some abortions, particularly late-term abortions, the embryo isn't even killed instantly and will even resist death as best as it can. Obviously in early stages the embryo can not "fight back" and resist death because it's helpless, but just because it's helpless doesn't mean it's not human.

<< They say that abortions should be at the discretion of the mother because the responsibility of carrying the pregnancy to term is on the mother. >>

That's the point I'm making, it's a responsibility, it's not a choice, it's a responsibility. Just like it's the responsibility of a parent to take care of their child, it's not something you just decide for whatever reason not to do because it's not convenient or because you don't want to or like it or some other complicated reason... as a parent you have a responsibility, as someone who is pregnant, you also have a responsibility.

Like I said, I'm not for making abortions illegal, I think it would be wrong to do so actually. But I do think people should re-evaluate their perspective on abortions. For the past 30 years people just regarded it as something you do when you don't feel like having a baby and it's only recently that I think an increasing number of people are taking a step back and saying... hmm... maybe we as a society need to show more discretion over what we consider a choice, and what we consider a neccessity.

[Skirmisher]

Hey...Stray try to keep your USA bashing to a minimum in threads that really have no call for it, okay?

Thanks in advance for your cooporation.

[Daniel]

Stray is just upset because of his poor oral hygene.

[Skirmisher]

Lets do try to stay on topic people.

Pretty please?

I don't want to have to pull posts.

Thanks!

[Jazuela]

Kranar asks:

Originally Posted by Kranar
Forget about law and legal jumbo... just looking at it the issue logically, what entitles a mother to decide that because she doesn't want a baby to be born, that the baby has no right to live?

When answering this question, try and remain consistent. I mean if abortion is good because of overpopulation or because of unwantedness... that's not an argument in favour of abortion, that's an argument in favour of death period. I just want to know why it is a mother decides whether or not a baby lives or dies.

I think the question is more a matter of (science + law) vs. (religion + law).

The science side says "it is NOT a baby until a certain time period within the womb. Until then, it is unviable, a non-person, and not entitled to human rights." The religion side says, "it IS a baby, from the moment of conception, because God allowed sperm and egg to unite in the divine miracle given to those blessed with fertility."

My body, my choice, as long as it's still a fetus and not a baby. Once the fetus has the *capacity* to seperate from the womb and survive, then in my eyes that's when it's a baby. I say capacity because I acknowledge that some babies are born unable to breathe on their own, or need feeding tubes for the first few months. That doesn't make them a fetus though. Do you see the difference?

[Kranar]

<< The science side says "it is NOT a baby until a certain time period within the womb. Until then, it is unviable, a non-person, and not entitled to human rights." >>

The law says that it isn't entitled to human rights, and that's fine and not really what I care to debate. Science doesn't give or deny rights to people nor does it concern itself with those issues.

As far as science saying it isn't a human being... that's just plain wrong and not a single scientist, whether pro-choice or pro-life, ever claimed otherwise.

[Jorddyn]

So the argument is that a fetus is not alive?


The argument is that a fetus is not a baby.

Jorddyn

[Bobmuhthol]

<<The argument is that a fetus is not a baby.>>

What an awesome game of semantics, then.

[GSLeloo]

LOL. I highly doubt the Catholic church has a specific "no condoms for rapists" policy. I can just imagine that discussion.

Person: Is it okay if I use condoms?
Priest: No.
Person: Well what if I'm raping the woman?
Priest: You raise a good point, let me ask the Pope.
<5 minutes later>
Priest: Nope, just checked, not even if you are a rapist.

Maybe not but they do have a policy that you can't donate money for AIDS relief in Africa if you're going to teach them about condoms.. or give condoms out. So I wouldn't really put it past them.

[DeV]

I don't think anyone can argue that the fetus isn't alive. Sperm and egg cells are alive well before conception.

[Hulkein]

Kranar asks:


I think the question is more a matter of (science + law) vs. (religion + law).

The science side says "it is NOT a baby until a certain time period within the womb. Until then, it is unviable, a non-person, and not entitled to human rights."

Actually, science doesn't say that at all, that's what the law attempts to dictate. Science says that a fetus is a human being in the earliest stage of life.

Infants are 'unviable' too, they are still alive, just like the fetus is.

[GSLeloo]

I think it is considered a baby once the cells began to specialize. Before that it's just a mass of T cells which have yet to choose what they want to be. But that whole partial birth abortion thing... yeah that's a no-no. That chapter made me very uncomfortable.

[Kranar]

Well if the great majority of people are in support of the pro-choice movement because of a question of science, I certainly can live with that and think that's actually a good stance to be in.

Certainly I myself would not be against abortions at all if scientifically it was proven that human life does not begin until birth, but based on what I've read, and on what every single scientist I've heard discuss this issue has said, including those who are pro-life, human life begins much sooner than many who are pro-choice are willing to believe.

Perhaps as awareness of this issue from a scientific perspective increases, the issue will become less of a controversy because right now I still find that most people are against abortion because of religion, or in favour of abortion because they don't regard pregnancy as a responsibility. I think neither of those justifications suffice or illustrate even a remote understanding of the issue at hand.

[Latrinsorm]

And you'll of course exclude overpopulation, pressures on the governmental/economic system, and the effects of unwantedness.We should make laws based on what's Right. We can't make perfect laws, but to not even aim for the Good is irrational to the point of absurdity. Once we figure out what the Right thing to do is, then we can see how much to take overpopulation, class equality, et al into account. If we end up deciding abortion is Right, there's no point in trying to figure out the effects delegalizing abortion would have on overpopulation. It's entirely possible that making abortion illegal is practically speaking nightmarish and unfeasible. That being said, "we shouldn't do this, but we have to" is a far, far cry from "we should do this". The parallel in American history is obvious.
LOL. I highly doubt the Catholic church has a specific "no condoms for rapists" policy.I've actually had someone bring it up to me as a point against the Catholic church in the past (that the Catholic church doesn't tell rapists to use condoms). One of the fun parts about being a Catholic was experiencing the unbelievably ridiculous attacks, but I've still got WB to keep me on my toes. Conversely, one of the sad parts about being a Catholic was seeing people *believe* these ridiculous attacks.

[DeV]

Considering some of the unbelievably ridiculous creeds the Catholic church has a history of representing and spreading I am not surprised that people would use equally ridiculous reasoning to make a point against.

e.g. "Condoms don't prevent AIDS."

[Back]

Well if the great majority of people are in support of the pro-choice movement because of a question of science, I certainly can live with that and think that's actually a good stance to be in.

Certainly I myself would not be against abortions at all if scientifically it was proven that human life does not begin until birth, but based on what I've read, and on what every single scientist I've heard discuss this issue has said, including those who are pro-life, human life begins much sooner than many who are pro-choice are willing to believe.

Perhaps as awareness of this issue from a scientific perspective increases, the issue will become less of a controversy because right now I still find that most people are against abortion because of religion, or in favour of abortion because they don't regard pregnancy as a responsibility. I think neither of those justifications suffice or illustrate even a remote understanding of the issue at hand.

Well stated. I agree fully that science should be the guiding factor in this and all things.

[Jazuela]

Actually, science doesn't say that at all, that's what the law attempts to dictate. Science says that a fetus is a human being in the earliest stage of life.

Infants are 'unviable' too, they are still alive, just like the fetus is.

Infants aren't unviable. They're already born, and they've already proven that they are capable of seperating from the womb without dying *as a result of that seperation.* They've proven it, because, y'know, they're infants. If the entity (fetus, whatever term you want to give it) is *incapable* of seperating from the womb without dying *as a direct result of that seperation* then it is unviable, and not a *person.*

That doesn't mean it isn't a human fetus. It is a human fetus. But it is not a person. People have rights, people have responsibilities. Unviable fetuses shouldn't have either, because they are not people.

[Latrinsorm]

But it is not a person.You're welcome to define person any way you like, of course, but don't try to gussy it up as what science says. Personhood is a philosophical term.

[Hulkein]

Is Jazuela serious?

An infant is as viable without its mother as a fetus is.....

[Rowi]

i remember in high school, mind you this was 1989 my senior year, in health class we watched a movie on abortion, it was called "The Silent Scream" I dunno, when that metal went into the uterus the baby backed all the way the opp direction...........this happened with 20 outta 20 different people, that to me looked like it was trying to survive, that movie makes me look at it a little different I guess, not to take away from some womans rights or not. But I look at it like this.

I dont know you, why should I give a rat fuck what you do, now if it happens to me, shouldnt i be able to have a say in this? just cause a woman carries the baby to term, cant i take this said baby and raise em on my own? we both fucked each other, shouldnt we both have a say? but i guess ill let myself outta this one, i am kinda, well.........I mean I have four kids! i couldnt imagine being without one!

But then again the world is full of fuckers that shoulda been aborted!

[Miss X]

I agree with Jaz on this. A fetus, up to a certain number of weeks, will die if it is removed from the uterus. There is no question about it, it will die. However, there comes a time where a fetus (or baby, or person) is capable of sustaining life outside of its mothers uterus. At this point, aborting said fetus or killing said baby becomes murder.

You may well argue that a new born baby cannot be kept alive without its mother, but this is simply not true. I mean sure, if its left naked in a public toilet for days then it's going to die. However, it CAN exist without it's mother, with the care of others. A 15 week old fetus has absolutely no chance of being able to do this. There is the distinction.

I can certainly appreciate Kranar's stance on the abortion debate but it's a womens rights issue for me. Pro choice or no choice, those are the options for women and as a women I can tell you right now, that if I fell pregnant tomorrow, I'd be thanking my lucky stars that I live in a country where I have a choice.

[Warriorbird]

We should make laws based on what's Right.

And you of course are the sole purveyor of what is "Right." including forcing people to have children that are unwanted and keeping people who love each other from the joys and security of marriage. Yeah, that's about the standpoint many people have. Makes me weep for our country.

Most of your allies in this also see no problem with killing people because they don't fit into society...making their attempt to make even more of them even more ironic. They also have no problem with killing thousands of civilians.

When Jesus said, "Love your enemies." I really don't think he meant kill them...but, then again, you're also the purveyor of all Christianity.

[Tsa`ah]

First and foremost, abortion IS NOT AN ISSUE. It never has been an issue, it never was an issue, and it never will be an issue. It's a social distraction used for political gain.

The issue is two fold, education and personal responsibility. Both of which are severely lacking in this society.

Abortion should not be a form of birth control. Abortion should only be an option in the case of rape, severe defects of the unborn child, or risk to the mother. Abortion should not be an option for "oops, I forgot my pill" or "It's ok if I pull out in time" or other shit like that.

Both parties take the risk of pregnancy when they decide to have sex. You can accept those risks, or you can avoid them via abstinence or voluntary sterilization. "Oops" is not, nor should ever be, an excuse to abort.

The only area of abortion/birth control that becomes an issue is the question of when does human life begin. In my opinion, it's when organs start to develop ... which is about the same time the cell mass finally splits to form the fetus and placenta.


You may well argue that a new born baby cannot be kept alive without its mother, but this is simply not true. I mean sure, if its left naked in a public toilet for days then it's going to die. However, it CAN exist without it's mother, with the care of others. A 15 week old fetus has absolutely no chance of being able to do this. There is the distinction.

And with that I'd have to disagree. At 15 weeks an unborn child can display neuro activity. But let's forget about that. The particular stance that a fetus isn't a human has always baffled me. Because it can't sustain life on it's own (breathing, circulation, digestion, etc ... ) it somehow isn't human. Yet we could scrape out the zygote in the early stages mitosis, slap it in a petri dish ... and by your definitions of "human", it is. We can reverse that as well. By your definitions, a person on total life support isn't human either.

As I said, there are only two real issues. Responsibility on personal level, and education on a complete social level. Set religion aside, because if you don't believe in contraception ... you don't believe in premarital sex and likely recreational sex anyway ... you have no place in this debate ... go masturbate. Educate the parents in order for them to teach their children about sex and responsibility. Educate the children because it's pretty obvious we have a vicious cycle of ignorance and absenteeism. And above all, make people responsible for their own actions.

If you don't want children, make sure your birth control is effective and properly used ... or don't have sex. It's rather simple.

[Latrinsorm]

And you of course are the sole purveyor of what is "Right."This is why I stopped responding to you before, and why I'm going to do so again. There's no point in discussing anything with you if you refuse to read what I post that obviously contradicts what you say. Freud must be laughing his Viennese buttocks off somewhere at your capacity for repression/suppression.

[Warriorbird]

You talking about repression/suppression is fucking hilarious, Latrin. Do you even believe in non procreative sex?

Your sanctimonious declaration of "Right" is just as bad. You say I speak in black and whites? Come jump on the boat with me. Saying that we have to found laws based on what is "Right" is about the single most nebulous difficult to define principle you have ever espoused. It isn't saying anything, really. Saying that we have to found laws based on the most good for the largest portion of society is only slightly less vague. I believe that someone having an unwanted child is tantamount to a crime but I certainly wouldn't base laws around it... because it is something difficult, nigh ridiculous to legislate. Legislating based solely around your heavily Christian ideal of "Rightness" is just as ridiculous. You may speak for the majority (though not if Bush's current poll numbers are accurate) but you do not speak for the entire country. Forgive me correcting your screed occassionally.

I'll have a real discussion with you when you do something other than toss out platitudes... when you actually give a damn about something other than your religion in examining the real world. You can go on and on about adoption or "life potential" but the truth is you don't give a fuck about the women in this situation except in your goal towards forcing them to live your way of life. Shockingly enough, not everyone is a privileged religious conservative. Sometimes people actually have difficulty in their lives that clinging blindly to your distorted view of Christianity won't fix.

[Caiylania]

My stance

partial birth abortion should be illegal

abortian after a period where the child can live on its own should be illegal. You are already pushing it out; might as well push it out alive and let an adoptive family have it.

abortion after first trimester should be based other factors such as the woman's health, childs health. IE if the mom is in danger - or the baby will be severely impaired. etc.

first trimester no restrictions. Illegalizing this just makes room for scum bags to do unsafe abortions. Rape and molestation victims being the ones most people think of as understandable abortions. Im not saying I would but hopefully that is one decision i will never have to make... cant imagine. Teens who are not educated- plenty of families still shelter their kids way to much (both boys and girls) and they get into this stuff truly thinking things like the first time or pulling out prevent it.

Do agree parents should be told unless the girl can prove she would be in danger or such if they knew.

Whether I agree with it or not I would rather a woman go somewhere safe to have one than a back alley. same reason i would support legalizing minor drugs like marijuana. Would rather a kid get it from a store than dealing with drug dealers.

[Latrinsorm]

The child is still part of [the man]Does it not follow that men should be consulted when the life of their child is at stake?

[Hulkein]

I must admit I laughed at the hypocrisy in Leloo's stance in the other child support thread (Roe v. Wade For Men) compared with her stance here.

[Sean of the Thread]

I must admit I laughed at the hypocrisy in Leloo's stance in the other child support thread (Roe v. Wade For Men) compared with her stance here.

She is famous for it.