March for Life Rally

[ClydeR]

Yesterday was the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that said the constitution grants a right to abort unborn children. When President Bush spoke (http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=26538) to the March for Life Rally yesterday, he pointed out that more than one in five pregnancies in the United States end in abortion.

Imagine what those aborted children could have contributed to the nation. Mike Huckabee recently gave us one way those children could have helped when he addressed (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/huckabee_ADL/2007/11/01/45805.html) the issue of illegal immigration. "Sometimes we talk about why we're importing so many people in our work force," said Huckabee. "It might be for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our work force had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973."

The last time the Supreme Court addressed the abortion issue was last April when it overturned the partial birth abortion law in a 5 to 4 decision. In that case, Justices Scalia and Thomas repeated their belief that there is not constitutional right to abortion. Newly appointed Justices Roberts and Alito were silent on the issue of whether or not there is a constitutional right to abortion. Roe v. Wade will be overturned when a Republican president appoints one more conservative judge to the court. The next president is likely to get the opportunity to appoint at least two judges during his (or her) first four years in office.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

When I was in college we'd answer the phone "Bill and Sean's abortion clinic. You make em we scrape em!"

[Hulkein]

Abortion is a sad thing. I'm glad that they have been declining in recent years.

[Trouble]

Wow, that Huckabee quote is crazy talk.

The reasons we import so many people for our workforce are that many Americans are just too damn lazy, too proud, or too expensive to do the work.

[TheEschaton]

1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion? I'd love to see that number backed up.

[Clove]

1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion? I'd love to see that number backed up.

And made retroactive (for some).

[Some Rogue]

1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion? I'd love to see that number backed up.

I've seen this same number in several articles recently.


Close to half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and 40% of those end in abortion.

and


Guttmacher found that 22.4% of pregnancies (not including those that ended in miscarriage) ended in abortion, down from 30.4% in 1983.


Link to one article (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1705604,00.html?xid=rss-topstories)

The study they cite is this.
http://guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4000608.pdf

[TheWitch]

Well, as a solution how about we mandate castration on men that have fathered children for whom they take no responsibility?

Don't want the law monkin with yer nads?

Then stay outta my uterus.

[Tsa`ah]

Well, as a solution how about we mandate castration on men that have fathered children for whom they take no responsibility?

Don't want the law monkin with yer nads?

Then stay outta my uterus.

That's more than a blanket statement explaining away abortion statistics. Obviously it's the man's fault because he won't take responsibility. One could argue that the women in this scenario aren't taking responsibility either.

One could also argue the women with multiple partners aren't taking responsibility.

Once we get past the finger pointing game we can concentrate on cause and effect. Unfortunately, neither camp gives a crap about cause and effect ... they care about "rights", be it of an expecting woman, or an unborn child.

[Clove]

Well, as a solution how about we mandate castration on men that have fathered children for whom they take no responsibility?

Don't want the law monkin with yer nads?

Then stay outta my uterus.

I'm pretty sure noone wants to be in your uterus.

[TheEschaton]

I'm trying to figure out their methodology here, but something seems off. They say there were 1.2 million abortions last year (a believable number) but only 6.4 million pregnancies throughout the U.S. all of last year. This number seems ridiculously low to me.

It also seems they're extrapolating that 6.4 number from the birthrate, which seems absurd, because that would imply they don't count natural miscarriages in the birthrate, no?

-TheE-

[TheWitch]

No, it wasn't a blanket statement about anything. It was a perspective.

There is one cause: sex.
There is one possible effect of said: conception.

Far, far too many variables are involved in the cause and the effect to attempt to legislate anything based on it.

The effect is 100% on the woman physically and emotionally to deal with.

When that changes, perhaps my mind will.

[Tsa`ah]

No, it wasn't a blanket statement about anything. It was a perspective.

There is one cause: sex.
There is one possible effect of said: conception.

Far, far too many variables are involved in the cause and the effect to attempt to legislate anything based on it.

The effect is 100% on the woman physically and emotionally to deal with.

When that changes, perhaps my mind will.

Wow ... this answer and I didn't even throw bait out there.

Actually, the "variables" ... as you put it ... that have the greatest impact on the decision for abortion are education and income.

The majority of women who get abortions are making less than 30grand a year and haven't finished highschool and or haven't participated in voluntary education.

Women with education and income just don't put themselves in those positions as readily as women without.

Neither side want's to address this, they're more concerned with imposing their beliefs on others ... though I seriously doubt the multitude of white pro-life protesters want anything to do with black babies, they just don't want them aborted ... to hell with the environment they'll be raised in ... that's not their problem.

[Gan]

Imagine what those aborted children could have contributed to the nation. Mike Huckabee recently gave us one way those children could have helped when he addressed (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/huckabee_ADL/2007/11/01/45805.html) the issue of illegal immigration. "Sometimes we talk about why we're importing so many people in our work force," said Huckabee. "It might be for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our work force had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973."

Thats assuming that all those aborted would actually make it to term, survive childhood and adolescence, and actually enter the workforce. Rather large assumptions if you ask me. Not to mention what percentage of those 'million' abortions would wind up on welfare, how would THAT contribute to our nation? Your pocketbook?

Rhetoric at best.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

The effect is 100% on the woman physically and emotionally to deal with.


So you don't think it impacts a man emotionally (which can lead to physicaly) when he gets a woman pregnant?

You must fuck a bunch of losers.

[TheEschaton]

I think she's saying that the consequences of sex, an endeavour where two people put in their effort, only women are left to deal with the consequences, because men can choose to have nothing to do with the baby if they want.

[TheWitch]

Wow ... this answer and I didn't even throw bait out there.

Actually, the "variables" ... as you put it ... that have the greatest impact on the decision for abortion are education and income.

The majority of women who get abortions are making less than 30grand a year and haven't finished highschool and or haven't participated in voluntary education.

Women with education and income just don't put themselves in those positions as readily as women without.

Neither side want's to address this, they're more concerned with imposing their beliefs on others ... though I seriously doubt the multitude of white pro-life protesters want anything to do with black babies, they just don't want them aborted ... to hell with the environment they'll be raised in ... that's not their problem.

90% of statistic are made up on the spot. Just like that one.

The who and the why of it isn't relavant to me, except in the context of that last paragraph, forcing choices or lack thereof based on religious rhetoric and bullshit statistics used to back up faulty logic.

This is about control. Nothing more.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think that's debatable. She's claiming that the consequence only impacts the woman, and I disagree. But then, I believe in consequences and repercussions, as well as responsibility.

[TheWitch]

I think that's debatable. She's claiming that the consequence only impacts the woman, and I disagree. But then, I believe in consequences and repercussions, as well as responsibility.

It potentially only impacts the woman. Again, in the grey area of circumstance, it absolutely can impact the man and goddamn well better.

It 100% only impacts the woman in the physical sense of the effects of the pregnancy and childbirth, and the recovery from those events. I've done it twice, it's a good year of your life dedicated to just the biological aspect.

The psychological effect lasts for the rest of your life, once conception occurs, no matter how it ends.

I don't for a minute assume to say, men are detached from the procreation process once they're done in the sack.

But if you are unable to recognize that the effects of pregnancy and childbirth effect a woman in ways that it is physically impossible for them to effect a man, then I don't know what to say to you. Take off your pants and go look in a mirror. You don't have the right parts. It's really that simple.

If, on the other hand, men did have a biological involvement in the process beyond sending in the scuba team, we would not be having this conversation right now.

[Clove]

90% of statistic are made up on the spot. Just like that one.

90% of the game is half mental.

[Clove]

If, on the other hand, men did have a biological involvement in the process beyond sending in the scuba team, we would not be having this conversation right now.

Because women aren't involved in both sides of the debate

Way to be sexist. Thanks for playing.

[CrystalTears]

It 100% only impacts the woman in the physical sense of the effects of the pregnancy and childbirth, and the recovery from those events. I've done it twice, it's a good year of your life dedicated to just the biological aspect.
Some of that percentage goes to the little tyke in said uterus.

[Tsa`ah]

90% of statistic are made up on the spot. Just like that one.

The who and the why of it isn't relavant to me, except in the context of that last paragraph, forcing choices or lack thereof based on religious rhetoric and bullshit statistics used to back up faulty logic.

This is about control. Nothing more.

Except that I didn't make them up ... perhaps you're on the defensive about your statement and the best thing you can do is attack my statement as made up?

The thing is, pro-life advocates do all sorts of research and publish said research. Sometimes it's legit and sometimes it's emotionally charged drivel. Most of the time this valid research sort of goes over their heads.

Third Way put out a report, ironically, called the The Demographics of Abortion (http://www.thirdway.org/data/product/file/17/demographics_of_abortion.pdf). Though they make no mention of education, they do go on to say "The average woman who seeks an abortion is 24 years old, unwed, earns a yearly income of about $25,000, and already is a mother".

I like the "made up" argument ... it indicates a person ignorant of the subject who wishes to remain ignorant of the subject.

If you can't be bothered to check numbers and facts yourself, just reply "lalalalalalalalalal" in the future and save everyone the trouble.

[TheWitch]

I didn't say women weren't involved. Of course they are, on both sides.
And if you think sexism isn't a huge part of this, also on both sides, you'd be wrong.

Put the shoe on the other foot, all rhetorical.

If there was a push for reversable, chemical castration as a sentence for men who are found to be deadbeat dads - how far would that get?

Not very. No one would stand for the idea of messing with someones biology like that, would they?

But what is the differene?

[CrystalTears]

Women aren't getting their tubes tied as a sentence for being sucky mothers, are they?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm ok with deadbeat Dads getting castrated. Deadbeat Moms too.

[TheWitch]

Except that I didn't make them up ... perhaps you're on the defensive about your statement and the best thing you can do is attack my statement as made up?

The thing is, pro-life advocates do all sorts of research and publish said research. Sometimes it's legit and sometimes it's emotionally charged drivel. Most of the time this valid research sort of goes over their heads.

Third Way put out a report, ironically, called the The Demographics of Abortion (http://www.thirdway.org/data/product/file/17/demographics_of_abortion.pdf). Though they make no mention of education, they do go on to say "The average woman who seeks an abortion is 24 years old, unwed, earns a yearly income of about $25,000, and already is a mother".

I like the "made up" argument ... it indicates a person ignorant of the subject who wishes to remain ignorant of the subject.

If you can't be bothered to check numbers and facts yourself, just reply "lalalalalalalalalal" in the future and save everyone the trouble.

Are you always this confrontational and paranoid?

Are you Hakwea or some shit?

I

[Clove]

If there was a push for reversable, chemical castration as a sentence for men who are found to be deadbeat dads - how far would that get?

You might have something there. Women compose a slight majority.

[Tsa`ah]

I didn't say women weren't involved. Of course they are, on both sides.
And if you think sexism isn't a huge part of this, also on both sides, you'd be wrong.

Put the shoe on the other foot, all rhetorical.

If there was a push for reversable, chemical castration as a sentence for men who are found to be deadbeat dads - how far would that get?

Not very. No one would stand for the idea of messing with someones biology like that, would they?

But what is the differene?

Or perhaps we can address the real issues such as education and cost of living?

When you attempt to legislate castration for "dead beat dads", you're advocating morality legislation.

We can advocate castration or the female counterpart to it for women all day long ... it doesn't change the facts of abortion, nor does it do anything address the causes.

Women are just as culpable for pregnancy as the men she chooses to sleep with. It's pretty obvious what men are going to "bail" when they hear the words daddy ... they're the men that bailed before the women woke up from their one night stand. What possessed you to think those sort of men are good father material in the first place? And how can you advocate responsibility for that type and give women who chose that type a free pass?

The simple truth is that women want a good fuck as much as guys do at times. This bullshit about them looking for good rolemodels when they chose a person to sleep with is bullshit. They're looking for someone that turns them on, that they're physically attracted to, someone that will get the job done ... and someone who isn't interested in sticking around in the morning.

Now when either party can't be bothered to use contraception, or if the contraception doesn't work ... you're comfortable in blaming the man ... sounds more than sexist ... it sounds retarded.

[Tsa`ah]

Are you always this confrontational and paranoid?

Are you Hakwea or some shit?

I

I'm always this abrasive yes.

Paranoid? How in the hell do you get paranoid from my posts? Is this how you defend your statements .... with baseless accusation?

Confrontational? I didn't accuse you of making anything up ... seems to me you couldn't handle my post, took it as a personal slight .. and slung some poo. And now you want to point out being confrontational?

And no, I no longer play GS ... I haven't in some time.

[Clove]

It's pretty obvious what men are going to "bail" when they hear the words daddy ... they're the men that bailed before the women woke up from their one night stand.

Maybe if they'd bailed when they heard "daddy" there never would have been a pregnancy....


... sounds more than sexist ... it sounds retarded.

Retardly sexist?

[CrystalTears]

Maybe if they'd bailed when they heard "daddy" there never would have been a pregnancy....
I see what you did there.

[TheWitch]

I'm always this abrasive yes.

Paranoid? How in the hell do you get paranoid from my posts? Is this how you defend your statements .... with baseless accusation?

Confrontational? I didn't accuse you of making anything up ... seems to me you couldn't handle my post, took it as a personal slight .. and slung some poo. And now you want to point out being confrontational?

And no, I no longer play GS ... I haven't in some time.

I didn't accuse you of making anything up (goes to paranoia), I'm sure your statistics are quite provable and accurate. And if I wanted to I could find a pile that contradict them nicely, or back them up nicely, depending on whether I want to agree with you or not. Which is what my statement was pertaining to, not your specific statistics. A person can find statistics to back up virtually anything they want to say - that was the point.

This type of thing goes beyond the statistics, as far as my opinions are concerned.

Most of you are putting words in my mouth and making assumptions.

Let me clarify, please, then I'm done here for a day or two again.

It takes two to tango.
Contraception, or the desire for pregnancy as an outcome, are optimal.
Regardless, only one of those two tangoers can become pregnant and contraception has been known to fail.
The un-pregnant one can skip out the door and never look back - after the tango, sometime during the pregnancy, 20 years later.
The pregnant one cannot.
Which doesn't make the pregnant one any less responsible.
In some cases, making the decision to end the pregnancy will be the choice the pregnant one makes.
That choice should be available to her.

[CrystalTears]

Perhaps people who don't want to risk stubbing their big toe should avoid dancing.

Just saying.

[TheWitch]

Perhaps people who don't want to risk stubbing their big toe should avoid dancing.

Just saying.

Not terribly realistic, do you think?

But thank you for playing.

[Katt]

I think it is a really difficult situation.

On one hand, I think if you are mature enough to sex, you should be mature enough to raise a child. However, not everyone thinks like that.

On the other hand you can google baby torture/murder etc and come up with tons of shit parents did/do to their children.

What is better abortion or that? But then goes back to why did they have sex in the first place.

Society just keeps changing. Wasn't that long ago that it was rare you got pregnant before marriage, but you bet your ass the guy would marry you and support you if you did.

Then all of a sudden we got more choices! As a whole we are having to deal with these choices. With those choices comes bad parents who don't teach their children and the cycle continues just getting bigger. Dads aren't teaching their boys to be men and Moms aren't teaching their daughters not to be whores.

Far as who the blame falls on towards gender... Yeah there are a lot of guys that find it really easy to pick up and leave and yes it is a lot easier for them to do so than the woman. However, maybe if some women learned about the kinda guy they were spreading their legs for they might realize hey I better keep them shut this guys just looking for a good time!

Personally I would never get an abortion but then I also plan on being married before I have children. The only time I would consider it is in case of rape etc. Until/if that happens though I really don't know what I would do.

Abortion makes me sick...but I can see/respect some views and why they may decide to get one.

[Gan]

LOL at thinking you have to be mature to have sex.


ROFLFLFLFLFLFLFLFL

[Clove]

The un-pregnant one can skip out the door and never look back - after the tango, sometime during the pregnancy, 20 years later.
The pregnant one cannot.
Which doesn't make the pregnant one any less responsible.
In some cases, making the decision to end the pregnancy will be the choice the pregnant one makes.
That choice should be available to her.

So what you're saying here is, because half of a collaborative can escape the consequences- we should allow the other half to.

What about the fetus?

Personally I don't think abortion should be illegal. I also don't think access to abortion is a right. I don't hold the sanctity of life inviolate; I support the death penalty in certain circumstances. There simply are times when the destruction is necessary. I do think we need to define as a society when a human being occurs and act accordingly. I don't see any clearer delineation than conception.

[Clove]

Not terribly realistic, do you think?

But thank you for playing.

What's unrealistic about it? You can't say "no-thanks"?

[CrystalTears]

Not terribly realistic, do you think?

But thank you for playing.
It was a bit tongue in cheek, but not entirely.

It goes back to what Tsa`ah was saying about education. When you are made aware that everytime you have sex there is a chance you'll get pregnant, you'll be more careful about your options. Sure there will always be that guy or girl who doesn't care and goes through with it anyway then buckle when it comes down to being responsible, but then back in the day, people knew what it meant to be responsible, whether you "liked" it or not. We live in different times.

Personally I get tired of the female victim role when she is pregnant as though this was totally out of her control. Yes sometimes contraceptives fail, and that's when you man up and admit that you screwed up and live with that result. She could have just said no and kept her legs closed. But that's just me.

[Methais]

Imagine what those aborted children could have contributed to the nation.

Imagine if people like Klaive and Warclaidhm were aborted.


Mike Huckabee recently gave us one way those children could have helped when he addressed the issue of illegal immigration. "Sometimes we talk about why we're importing so many people in our work force," said Huckabee. "It might be for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our work force had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973."

I'm sure it has nothing to do with Mexicans working for dirt cheap.


Well, as a solution how about we mandate castration on men that have fathered children for whom they take no responsibility?

Don't want the law monkin with yer nads?

Then stay outta my uterus.

How about we mandate vagina stapling on women that have mothered children for whom they take no responsibility?

Don't want the law stapling your twat?

Then keep the cocks out of your cunt.

Personally, I think males should be given a vasectomy at birth. Then if they wanna have kids later, get it reversed. I'd even say go the extra mile and make them (and the intended mother) have to pass a "worth a fuck as a parent" test.

Imagine the decline in the black population (and subsequently the crime rates) if this happened.

/waits to be accused of being racist

[TheEschaton]

Well, because sex is an innate desire of human beings?

[Clove]

Personally, I think males should be given a vasectomy at birth. Then if they wanna have kids later, get it reversed. I'd even say go the extra mile and make them have to pass a "worth a fuck as a parent" test.

Or maybe even a "worth a fuck" test. I'm sure there's nothing more irratating than getting pregnant over bad sex.

[Celephais]

What's unrealistic about it? You can't say "no-thanks"?
Skeeter'll tell you the proper answer isn't "no-thanks" it's "Your mouth can't get pregnant".

Besides:
http://www.flashasylum.com/db/files/Comics/pregnant.jpg

[Methais]

Or maybe even a "worth a fuck" test. I'm sure there's nothing more irratating than getting pregnant over bad sex.

Or waking up to this, which really did look "worth a fuck" the night before when you were leaving the bar:
http://hometown.aol.com/rufflife3628127/images/ugly%20girl.jpg

[Clove]

Well, because sex is an innate desire of human beings?

Interesting point. Ever hear of a vow of chastity?

[Gan]

I don't see any clearer delineation than conception.

I'm more of a sustainability guy myself on this argument.

If it can sustain life on its own, its alive. If not, its not.

[CrystalTears]

I'm more of a sustainability guy myself on this argument.

If it can sustain life on its own, its alive. If not, its not.
So a baby born at full term who has to be on life support for another month isn't a life yet until he's off that system?

That's too vague of a slope for me.

[Tsa`ah]

I didn't accuse you of making anything up (goes to paranoia),

Good place to stop ... and I'll quote both posts, the post you were responding to (as it was boxed in your response) and your response.



Originally Posted by Tsa`ah
Wow ... this answer and I didn't even throw bait out there.

Actually, the "variables" ... as you put it ... that have the greatest impact on the decision for abortion are education and income.

The majority of women who get abortions are making less than 30grand a year and haven't finished highschool and or haven't participated in voluntary education.

Women with education and income just don't put themselves in those positions as readily as women without.

Neither side want's to address this, they're more concerned with imposing their beliefs on others ... though I seriously doubt the multitude of white pro-life protesters want anything to do with black babies, they just don't want them aborted ... to hell with the environment they'll be raised in ... that's not their problem.
90% of statistic are made up on the spot. Just like that one.

The who and the why of it isn't relavant to me, except in the context of that last paragraph, forcing choices or lack thereof based on religious rhetoric and bullshit statistics used to back up faulty logic.

This is about control. Nothing more.

Correct me if I'm wrong ... saying 90% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Just like that one ... sounds like you're accusing me of making something up.


I'm sure your statistics are quite provable and accurate. And if I wanted to I could find a pile that contradict them nicely, or back them up nicely, depending on whether I want to agree with you or not.

Yet you didn't do that ... you accused me of making it up ... which leads me to believe you're too lazy to do your own research ... thus it's the lazy way of debate for you ... as you demonstrated.


Which is what my statement was pertaining to, not your specific statistics. A person can find statistics to back up virtually anything they want to say - that was the point.

Oh no ... you're not slinking out of it. You specifically quoted me and made the statement. Had you meant anything else, you would have posted as much. Statistics are a matter of interpretation in many cases, and perhaps this is one of them .... though I didn't quote any specific number, rather an abstract of "most".


This type of thing goes beyond the statistics, as far as my opinions are concerned.

Certainly ... unfortunately for your argument, which is typical of anyone who takes a stand on one side of the fence or another ... it is rooted in the now, and in the self. There's no history behind it, or projection in front of it. As I said, it's typical. It's pathetic. Most of all ... it's self perpetuating.


Most of you are putting words in my mouth and making assumptions.

Actually no ... this is why we use quotes.


Let me clarify, please, then I'm done here for a day or two again.

I'll not touch the rest because once again ... it's advocating responsibility for only one part of the equation.

[TheWitch]

So what you're saying here is, because half of a collaborative can escape the consequences- we should allow the other half to.

What about the fetus?

Personally I don't think abortion should be illegal. I also don't think access to abortion is a right. I don't hold the sanctity of life inviolate; I support the death penalty in certain circumstances. There simply are times when the destruction is necessary. I do think we need to define as a society when a human being occurs and act accordingly. I don't see any clearer delineation than conception.

Ahh, we finally got there too, and just in time before I leave for work.

Biologically, a fetus cannot survive outside the womb until about 22 weeks gestation and that's only with major medical intervention. Even I have a problem with abortions occuring after the mid-point of a pregnancy, though, for that reason.

Many, many people do not agree that life begins at conception.
The potential for life, yes.

And that's where the religious rhetoric tends to take over, and why this becomes so fraught.

It is fraught, and anyone who's had to make this choice themselves, or knows anyone who has faced this choice, knows it is not one easily made. Once made, and carried out, it is never forgotten either.

And why is it so awful to consider allowing both parties to escape the consequences, when one already can by simply walking away? Both enjoyed themselves, presumably - but one should be left to face the music in the aftermath?

[Gan]

So a baby born at full term who has to be on life support for another month isn't a life yet until he's off that system?

That's too vague of a slope for me.

I should have clarified.

Sustainable of life outside the womb.

[Katt]

I think thinking of an idea on how to enforce it is harder than coming up with what to enforce.

Abortion wrong or right? Eh.

I do think we all agree though that there are too many irresponsible people poppin out kids though.

So what do we do with them? Throw them in jail and the kid in an orphanage?

And when they have sex and don't want to go to jail.... they go behind walmart and perform a home made abortion, leave the kid in the dumpster and continue on if they are lucky enough to survive it themselves.

Look at all the weed dealers out there! If abortion was against the law everywhere I wonder if abortion dealers would pop up. Although I am sure there are some out there already.


I guess though if they did break the law....did their own abortions and ended up dying... wouldn't be that different from dying from too much cocaine.

It would be sad to hear about it but just as sad as a drunk driver hitting a car and killing a baby. Perhaps if abortion was illegal in SOME cases it would cut back on the saddness. But if we can't get rid of weed/cocaine etc no way we will be able to stop sex/babies/abortions completely.

[Clove]

Ahh, we finally got there too, and just in time before I leave for work.

Biologically, a fetus cannot survive outside the womb until about 22 weeks gestation and that's only with major medical intervention. Even I have a problem with abortions occuring after the mid-point of a pregnancy, though, for that reason.

An 8 month baby can't survive without the succur of its parents does that make them less human? What about the severely retarded? What about severely impaired elderly?

A human in different stages of development, or dependency doesn't change its humanity. Don't be an ass.

[Clove]

I should have clarified.

Sustainable of life outside the womb.

It's a slippery slope. A fetus is "sustainable" if you let it develop in the womb naturally (in otherwords as long as you sustain it). That's why I said the clearest delineation (not the only delineation). What happens to the definition when inevitable advancements in science and medicine allow us to sustain life outside the womb at earlier intervals? Do they "suddenly" become human?

Once you got 46 chromosomes, you're in the club.

[Methais]

Both enjoyed themselves, presumably - but one should be left to face the music in the aftermath?

Adoption.


I think thinking of an idea on how to enforce it is harder than coming up with what to enforce.

Abortion wrong or right? Eh.

I do think we all agree though that there are too many irresponsible people poppin out kids though.

So what do we do with them? Throw them in jail and the kid in an orphanage?

And when they have sex and don't want to go to jail.... they go behind walmart and perform a home made abortion, leave the kid in the dumpster and continue on if they are lucky enough to survive it themselves.

Look at all the weed dealers out there! If abortion was against the law everywhere I wonder if abortion dealers would pop up. Although I am sure there are some out there already.


I guess though if they did break the law....did their own abortions and ended up dying... wouldn't be that different from dying from too much cocaine.

It would be sad to hear about it but just as sad as a drunk driver hitting a car and killing a baby. Perhaps if abortion was illegal in SOME cases it would cut back on the saddness. But if we can't get rid of weed/cocaine etc no way we will be able to stop sex/babies/abortions completely.

http://www.lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg

[Gan]

I'm still conflicted on the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the baby. At what point do you hold one over the other?

What if the viability of the fetus endangers the mother's life? Can you abort? Should you?

What if the mother was inseminated against her will? Can you abort? Should you?

At what point in this scenario with the mother being the host are her rights held subordinate? Who has the right to tell her what to do with her body? Who has the right to tell anyone what to do with their own body?

Yes, I know, society does. (for you Latrin)
But based on the majority of society? What if its not a majority opinion?

:thinking:

Talk about a slippery slope.

[CrystalTears]

I understand those points though, so I'm not completely pro-life that I don't see the need for abortion at any given time.

That being said, I still keep in mind that it's not just the body of the mother in question. There IS a life inside of that womb regardless of how much it can survive on its own or not.

The problem has been and probably will continue to be... at what stage of that life is it considered human enough in this society to be protected from the decision of someone else?

[Clove]

It just means the issue remains complicated (even after you define what a human is). And they are tough calls, but I do believe they need to be approached from the perspective that we are engaging in a destructive process.

We tell people what to do with their bodies and we execute people.

Often when a fetus threatens its mother's life, its own life is almost certainly lost. Rape? I could see allowances for that; but you have to ask yourself will aborting/not aborting really make a rape better or worse (assuming infant can be brought to adoption)?

[Lyonis]

90% of the game is half mental.

Best Madden line ever.


Or maybe even a "worth a fuck" test. I'm sure there's nothing more irratating than getting pregnant over bad sex.

You're on a roll :)


I'm still conflicted on the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the baby. At what point do you hold one over the other?

What if the viability of the fetus endangers the mother's life? Can you abort? Should you?

What if the mother was inseminated against her will? Can you abort? Should you?

At what point in this scenario with the mother being the host are her rights held subordinate? Who has the right to tell her what to do with her body? Who has the right to tell anyone what to do with their own body?

Yes, I know, society does. (for you Latrin)
But based on the majority of society? What if its not a majority opinion?

:thinking:

Talk about a slippery slope.

One of the more interesting arguments I've heard regarding abortion involved a hypothetical rape scenario. Imagine you were kidnapped, drugged, and while asleep your body's circulatory system was hooked up to a terminal patient. When you wake up you're informed that if your body does not remain attached to this person that they will die. What moral obligation do you have to stay attached to this person who was put there against your will?

What if it's only a couple of hours? A few weeks? 9 months?

I'm not a huge fan of abortion myself and I hope it's a decision I never have to deal with personally. In the above situation though I wouldn't think it would be right to deny a woman that was raped the chance to terminate her pregnancy.

[ClydeR]

I'm still conflicted on the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the baby. At what point do you hold one over the other?

What if the viability of the fetus endangers the mother's life? Can you abort? Should you?

Life begins at conception. As a separate life, a fetus is entitled to legal protection as much as an adult. The law should not allow termination of the life of a fetus, except when it is necessary to save the life of the mother. That is the same general rule that the law applies to adults. Terminating the life of an adult is a crime, except when it is necessary to save the life of another person.



What if the mother was inseminated against her will? Can you abort? Should you?

A child conceived through non-consensual insemination is not guilty of any crime, nor does the nature of its conception necessarily mean that the continuation of the pregnancy will endanger the life of its mother. There should be no exception for non-consensual insemination.

[CrystalTears]

One of the more interesting arguments I've heard regarding abortion involved a hypothetical rape scenario. Imagine you were kidnapped, drugged, and while asleep your body's circulatory system was hooked up to a terminal patient. When you wake up you're informed that if your body does not remain attached to this person that they will die. What moral obligation do you have to stay attached to this person who was put there against your will?
I don't think it's a fair scenario since you didn't have anything to do with creating that patient's life in the first place.


I'm not a huge fan of abortion myself and I hope it's a decision I never have to deal with personally. In the above situation though I wouldn't think it would be right to deny a woman that was raped the chance to terminate her pregnancy.
It's also not the child's fault that he was the product of a forced sex act.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Abortion should never be a means of birth control. It's irresponsible.

[Methais]

Abortion should never be a means of birth control. It's irresponsible.

You're right. A flight of stairs is much quicker.

[Lyonis]

The problem has been and probably will continue to be... at what stage of that life is it considered human enough in this society to be protected from the decision of someone else?

I used to think the problem lied here as well, but that's what makes the discussion so interesting because whether or not the fetus is human is just scratching the surface.

In one of my philosophy classes we read something that brought up an great point about the abortion debate. He/She said that just because something is human is doesn't necessarily follow that you shouldn't kill it. Self defense is the obvious example here and ties in well with abortion and a pregnancy, if carried to term, that would take the mother's life. On the other hand just because something is not human it doesn't necessarily follow that you should do what you want with it. Unless your last name is Vick you'll probably agree with the last statement.

Such a sick, sad, beautifully interesting can of worms.

[TheWitch]

Abortion should never be a means of birth control. It's irresponsible.

One of the more reasonable statements made in this thread.

The problem being, you take away access from people that abuse that access, you potentially take it away from people who don't.

Life begins at conception, if your religious beliefs say it does.
Science doesn't really agree.

Church and state.

As a Catholic, you can believe whatever you want and practice those beliefs in any way you see fit. Or a Lutheran. Or a Jew. etc etc etc.

As an American, personal and religious freedom is a beautiful thing.
Until it becomes warped into the freedom to shove religious beliefs down the throats of your fellow Americans and demand they be made law.

Choice goes both ways. You don't agree with abortion as an option to an unwanted pregnancy, then do not make that choice. But do please get off your high horse in thinking you have the right to make that choice for someone else, or worse yet, take away their ability to make that choice.

[Clove]

Life begins at conception, if your religious beliefs say it does.
Science doesn't really agree.


It doesn't? When does science say?

[Lyonis]

I don't think it's a fair scenario since you didn't have anything to do with creating that patient's life in the first place.







One of the more interesting arguments I've heard regarding abortion involved a hypothetical rape scenario.

I really hope you're not insinuating that a woman who was genuinely raped had "anything to do with creating" that situation :)

It is a very specific scenario that really isn't relevant regarding other abortion situations. Unless of course you are wanting to challenge the zealot view that abortion is never permissible, in which case it performs nicely.

[ClydeR]

Choice goes both ways. You don't agree with abortion as an option to an unwanted pregnancy, then do not make that choice. But do please get off your high horse in thinking you have the right to make that choice for someone else, or worse yet, take away their ability to make that choice.

Some people's religion requires "female circumcision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision)" of young girls. That doesn't mean the law has to allow it, even when the child professes to want it. The majority is free to override the moral and religious beliefs of the minority when it is for an important reason. Saving the life of children is important.

[CrystalTears]

I really hope you're not insinuating that a woman who was genuinely raped had "anything to do with creating" that situation :)

It is a very specific scenario that really isn't relevant regarding other abortion situations. Unless of course you are wanting to challenge the zealot view that abortion is never permissible, in which case it performs nicely.
You're not really saying that she had physically nothing to do with that child, are you? Her egg is the second part that created that child. How much more involved do you want her to get?

Just because she didn't approve of the act doesn't mean she had nothing to do with it.

[Warriorbird]

Time to sentence people to pregnancy and insure they're too stupid to use birth control because of "abstinence education!"

I want a March for Death.

The biggest irony in the whole abortion debate is the sheer number of pro-life people who are pro death penalty and pro war.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think you are trying to hard to link my thoughts about abortion to religion, and very frankly, I'm not a religious person. That isn't why I think the way I think.

In fact, I have degrees in zoology and chemistry, and some of the courses I took included embryology and physiology. I simply think abortion is a poor choice and method for birth control. I also think the man should have some say in it.

You are stuck on the my body my choice argument, where I think it was your body up until the part where you spread your legs and let someone procreate inside of it. Then your responsibility just increased, as did the partners, and it should be a joint decision carefully thought through.

[Clove]

Oooo free will and causation!

[Katt]

You're not really saying that she had physically nothing to do with that child, are you? Her egg is the second part that created that child. How much more involved do you want her to get?

Just because she didn't approve of the act doesn't mean she had nothing to do with it.

I think he is saying she probably didn't have a choice. I am a little confused though. The old saying, "What... was someone holding a gun to your head?" In this case, could be very likely.

[Clove]

I want a March for Death.

The biggest irony in the whole abortion debate is the sheer number of pro-life people who are pro death penalty and pro war.

Unless of course you consider the number of pro-choice and anti-death penalty supporters. Dispose of as many as you like prior to delivery; once they're here, can't touch 'em with a 40 foot cattle-prod.

[CrystalTears]

I know she didn't have a choice, but it's still a part of her. The patient has NO physical or emotional attachment to said person. A child in the womb does. I don't think that's the same thing at all.

[Stanley Burrell]

Abortion is a sad thing. I'm glad that they have been declining in recent years.

Me too, I need more gas station clerks who'll fix the meters for me.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

War, Death Penalty and Abortion are three different things. Warriorbird just likes to make all encompassing statements to try and insult those who's opinions differ from his.

As Clove stated in an equally broad statement, you can say the same for the pro-choice, anti-war, anti-capital punishment people.

[Clove]

In fact, I have degrees in zoology and chemistry, and some of the courses I took included embryology and physiology.

Ooo. You know Science then. Witch says "Science doesn't agree". What does Science have to say about the definition of what comprises a human being?

[Some Rogue]

The biggest irony in the whole abortion debate is the sheer number of pro-life people who are pro death penalty and pro war.

I don't think it's all that ironic. It's the whole innocent life vs. a guilty one.

[Warriorbird]

I believe in abortion, the death penalty, physician assisted suicide, and the use of deadly force in certain cases (like Afghanistan, or hell, Pakistan).

Culture of death, baby.

[Clove]

As Clove stated in an equally broad statement, you can say the same for the pro-choice, anti-war, anti-capital punishment people.

That's right! I can be just as ignorant as Warriorbird- hey... wait... what?

[Warriorbird]

I agree that you can. I regularly get annoyed at anti death penalty types.

So...what's your take on collateral damage body counts in war then, Some Rogue?

[Katt]

I think you are trying to hard to link my thoughts about abortion to religion, and very frankly, I'm not a religious person. That isn't why I think the way I think.

In fact, I have degrees in zoology and chemistry, and some of the courses I took included embryology and physiology. I simply think abortion is a poor choice and method for birth control. I also think the man should have some say in it.

You are stuck on the my body my choice argument, where I think it was your body up until the part where you spread your legs and let someone procreate inside of it. Then your responsibility just increased, as did the partners, and it should be a joint decision carefully thought through.



I fully agree with you on the fact that a man should have a say in it as well. My friend Ryan had to pay his girl not to have an abortion. Blake is about 3 years old now, the mother is off doing meth and has no desire to see the child. Yet I've seen children with two parents who are a lot less happy then his kid. I also had shitty parents hell I havent talked to my dad in years but I love my life now. I would go through that shit again in a heart beat to get where I am today. I am glad I wasn't aborted. :love:

As for religion... if we are going to get into that aspect with abortions then we shouldn't just make exceptions for that. If women get a choice to abort then men should get a choice to have more than one wife right?

Religion plays no part in how I view abortions.

I think women should have a choice to a point... but abortion has started to become a form of birth control like already stated and that needs to stop.

[CrystalTears]

Well here's a shocker for you. I was brought up Catholic. My whole family is pro-life. Up until I met the man I am now married to, I was pro-choice. The older I got, and the more I wanted to have a child in my life someday, the more preservation of life meant to me. It had nothing to do with how I was brought up, and more with the thought that if something should happen to my unborn child by some unforseen presence, I wouldn't be able to do anything about it apparently because according to society, it's not a life. Well to me it is. It is the second the doctor tells me "you're pregnant".

At this point in my life, I'm pro-life and anti-death penalty. I'm not completely pro-war as I don't think it's necessary to have a war for every dispute, but I'll stand by them when deemed necessary.

[Warriorbird]

So...meth addicts should be allowed to freely have children, Katt? It's sort of funny that there's this "evil welfare mothers" vs "every woman must have their child!" continuum in the legislate morality types.

I think the world's likely a better place for not having many of the "innocent lives" that don't occur because of abortion.

[Gan]

Life begins at conception.
Source please.



A child conceived through non-consensual insemination is not guilty of any crime, nor does the nature of its conception necessarily mean that the continuation of the pregnancy will endanger the life of its mother. There should be no exception for non-consensual insemination.
I bet if you were a woman you would think differently. (And no that doesnt make me a woman either!)
Ergo, you're full of shit on this one too.

[Gan]

Abortion should never be a means of birth control. It's irresponsible.


You're right. A flight of stairs is much quicker.

ROFL

Winner.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Ooo. You know Science then. Witch says "Science doesn't agree". What does Science have to say about the definition of what comprises a human being?

Obviously it varies ;p Some people say babies are parasites that prey upon their host (the mother) by burrowing into the uterine wall and leaching resourches to survive. You could argue right there that abortion is ok, it's a parasite!

I don't remember reading in the Bible that life begins at contraception though. Maybe I missed that chapter. I personally believe life begins when an egg is fertilized, so I guess that's REALLY early in the whole development cycle. I mean when you look at a fertilized egg under a microscope and you see it developing, how can it not be life?

Anyway, I haven't used my degrees for shit, so it's not like I'm current. Not only that, but trying to define life is akin to defining love. Everyone is gonna have a different answer.

MY arguement is over the "science fixes everything" solution so many people use today. I like responsability, it's a key theme in my opinions.

[Warriorbird]

So...basically...every sperm is sacred?

As a conservative do you really want all these people totally unsuited to children to have them?

Products of incest, rape, the worst sort of poverty...people who are totally unsuited for parenthood...people who could otherwise be good taxpayers if they made it through college....people who will enter bankruptcy due to the costs of carrying the child to term...even if they're going to adopt it out...

[Clove]

Science doesn't say anything on the subject; and scientists disagree. Invoking "religion vs. science" is just a stupid way of saying "I'm not religious so my opinion is scientific." in this debate.

[Katt]

So...meth addicts should be allowed to freely have children, Katt? It's sort of funny that there's this "evil welfare mothers" vs "every woman must have their child!" continuum in the legislate morality types.

I think the world's likely a better place for not having many of the "innocent lives" that don't occur because of abortion.


Hmmm... I didn't say if meth addicts should or shouldn't. But fact is they do. I was saying the men should have a say in it. If someone like my friend Ryan is willing to raise the baby and give it a good life then why should the baby be aborted? I mean we have reasons like, "OMG I am scared of the pain! I don't want to have a kid!"

I also was kind of touching on the fact that it isn't always the men who are the scum bags that don't want the children.

Like I stated before, I don't agree with abortions except for a few situations. I also respect SOME decisions to have abortions.

I just hate people who will think for five minutes and then will go out and have one. It shouldn't be taken lightly. Both creators of the child should sit down (if possible) and discuss all possiblities first.

[Warriorbird]

I think those people are most often the result of people in this debate dehumanizing the people who get abortions like they feel the people who get abortions are dehumanizing zygotes.

I know three women who've gotten abortions. I don't think a single one took it lightly. I find it somewhat presumptuous when people say that.

And if someone's the type of person to take it lightly...do you really think they'd be a great parent to begin with?

I believe that abortion reduces crime and raises the quality of life for the rest of us.

[CrystalTears]

So...basically...every sperm is sacred?
You never fail to show up with this mantra.

[Warriorbird]

He said that life occurs as soon as an egg is fertilized.

Every time a woman menstruates...clearly a chance at new life has been lost. Masturbation and oral sex should be great crimes in this paradigm.

I mean...seriously... I find the idea insane.

How soon do we have the Supreme Court ban the pill after they overturn Roe v. Wade?

[Jazuela]

Clyde wrote:
Life begins at conception. As a separate life, a fetus is entitled to legal protection as much as an adult.

Then the fetus can move OUT of her body, get a job, and hire himself a lawyer.

You realize that yeast are bio-organisms, right? And if you have a yeast infection, then you have life growing inside you. What right do you have to destroy that life? The same can be said for any growing organism within the body - including cancer, a bunion on your foot, an ingrown hair, etc. etc.

"It was conceived therefore it is a separate life with rights" is the most ridiculous arguement for anti-abortion that I've ever heard. I'm more inclined to be sympathetic to the "Jesus weeps whenever a fetus is killed" arguement.

All that said, the "pro-life movement" will earn my respect when they all adopt unwanted children. Until then, they are more than welcome to continue to spawn however they like, and they are equally welcome to keep their opinions of the choices of others to themselves.

[Clove]

So...basically...every sperm is sacred?


A sperm cell without its complimentary haploid... remains a sperm cell. About as sacred as your skin cells. Don't be doofy.

[Gan]

It doesn't? When does science say?

Thats the crux of the debate. Even science doesnt agree on viability.

Even as science advances, the viability period is moving from 24 weeks (current accepted point by some medicine associations) with those advancements.


*Note, I used the term sustainability earlier when I meant to say viability.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

He said that life occurs as soon as an egg is fertilized.

Every time a woman menstruates...clearly a chance at new life has been lost. Masturbation and oral sex should be great crimes in this paradigm.

I mean...seriously... I find the idea insane.

How soon do we have the Supreme Court ban the pill after they overturn Roe v. Wade?

You didn't comprehend what I wrote.

Also, read Freakonomics, great book. Pay particular attention to the chapter on legalized abortion and crime impact. I'm not saying it's correct, but it's an AWESOME read and pretty neat theory.

[Katt]

I think those people are most often the result of people in this debate dehumanizing the people who get abortions like they feel the people who get abortions are dehumanizing zygotes.

I know three women who've gotten abortions. I don't think a single one took it lightly. I find it somewhat presumptuous when people say that.

And if someone's the type of person to take it lightly...do you really think they'd be a great parent to begin with?


Yay! You don't know any girls who are selfish whores! Doesn't mean they aren't out there. I mean for shizzle dude, there are like nooooooooooo girls out there that regret having an abortion because they were too young or just too damn scared to ask family...or even the babies father for help.

When you were little did you ever do something bad, try and cover it up then when mommy/daddy finds out he/she really isn't all that mad and you are sitting there like wtf why didn't I just go to her in the first place? Why did I fuck up even more?

Many guys have kids out there and don't know you see the whores on Jerry Springer bragging about how they didn't tell the dad all the time! :rofl: I just think if it takes two to tango then two should decide what to do when the dance is over.

[Clove]

Clyde wrote:

Then the fetus can move OUT of her body, get a job, and hire himself a lawyer.

You realize that yeast are bio-organisms, right?

Tell that to a three year olds. "Move out, get a job, hire a lawyer then you can have human rights"

You're a yeast infection and we allow you human rights.

[TheEschaton]

The irony of the whole debate is that the religious types didn't think life started until the baby started kicking in the womb, until the early-to-mid 1900s.

In the whole abortion debate, I'm wholeheartedly ambivalent. To me, the distinction lies on what it means to be "human", and I think that requires interaction with the world around you. I'm actually much more comfortable with the Church's definition when it said life started at the "quickening", ie kicking in the womb, and drawing a line there. As I've said before, viability is moot, because soon, anything will be viable from day 1.

As a Catholic, saying the soul is encapsulated from day 1 is insulting to the idea of what it means to have a soul. A random cluster of cells has a soul? Bull.

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

One of my favorite books, SHM.

I'm relatively pro male in the whole scheme of things, Katt. I believe that if you're paying child support you deserve at least joint custody.

If you don't like Jerry Springer types... you should be pro abortion.

[CrystalTears]

Thats the crux of the debate. Even science doesnt agree on viability.

Even as science advances, the viability period is moving from 24 weeks (current accepted point by some medicine associations) with those advancements.


*Note, I used the term sustainability earlier when I meant to say viability.
Personally I believe science not agreeing about when life begins is because viability and/or sustainability is put into the equation. I also personally believe that once a cell has all the cellular properties of a human being, it's a human being.

I'm not even touching Jazuela's retardation of comparing a fetus to a yeast infection. Fucking hell.

[Warriorbird]

We have people saying zygotes are human. Equally retarded.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I call kids Germ Donkeys. Fucking carriers.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

We have people saying zygotes are human. Equally retarded.

Ok, when does life begin then?

How do you define it?

[Clove]

We have people saying zygotes are human. Equally retarded.

Find a better place to draw the line.

[Warriorbird]

When it can survive outside the mother I consider it viable. I accept that viability comes sooner and sooner with scientific advances.

Given the amount of concern that exists for these poor kids you'd think that pro-life people would care more about urban poverty.

[TheWitch]

Clove, is everyone who disagrees with you "retarded", "an ass" and "too stupid to make an argument"? Or am I singled out for this honor.

The process of life begins at conception, sure. Until those two cells have been at the dividing and specialization process for about 14 weeks, the mass is barely recognizable.

Supahobbit, I wasn't attributing the religious thinking to you, I probably should have divided that line from the rest. The rest was a generalized opinion based on several previous posts.

Your morality, OP, is wonderful, for you. Why do you feel it so necessary to shove it down everyone elses throat?

Defending "no abortion under any circumsances" completely disregards the health, both physical and mental, of one human being over another. Why is ball of cells so much more important that the host carrying it, a host that did not want it? No, it's faultless - but it would not exist at all if not for the commission of a felony. The host female should just deal with that? Talk about tunnel vision.

[Clove]

When it can survive outside the mother I consider it viable. I accept that viability comes sooner and sooner with scientific advances.

So what's not human today, might be a human tomorrow. And you say I'm retarded.

[Warriorbird]

So... should people who take the morning after pill be sent up on murder charges?

Yes. This is me calling you retarded.

[Clove]

Clove, is everyone who disagrees with you "retarded", "an ass" and "too stupid to make an argument"? Or am I singled out for this honor.

You're special.

You're welcome to disagree. The authoritative (and at times sexist) tone of your opinions is what makes you an ass. Although I never called you too stupid to make an argument.

[Some Rogue]

You never fail to show up with this mantra.


I know three women....


And this one!

:D

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

When it can survive outside the mother I consider it viable. I accept that viability comes sooner and sooner with scientific advances.

Given the amount of concern that exists for these poor kids you'd think that pro-life people would care more about urban poverty.

So a 20 week abortion is ok with you? 30 weeks? 15? Stop changing the subject.

[Warriorbird]

Whatever the current line is. I'm not a doctor. I'm glad that Republicans will soon be able to celebrate the resurgence of back alley abortions. They'll really have won the moral high ground then.

[TheWitch]

You're special.

You're welcome to disagree. The authoritative (and at times sexist) tone of your opinions is what makes you an ass. Although I never called you too stupid to make an argument.


Excellent.

If I'm not an authority on my own opinion, I'm not sure who else would be.

Are there some statistics out there on my opinion you'd like to quote, Tah'sa?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Whatever the current line is. I'm not a doctor.

And yet you clearly say a zygote is not alive. Is it at 4 weeks? I mean, you are very clearly saying people are retarded for saying one is, I'm curious of why that is the case.

[Warriorbird]

If it could survive at four weeks I'd call it life.

If artificial wombs existed...I'd suggest all you pro-life people fund millions of them. For the most part I doubt pro-life people give a damn though. It's just religious zealotry and something to divide people with.

I think abortion is much less costly than the societal damage/cost that'd occur if all of those children were brought to term.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Interesting viewpoint.

I'm pro-choice by the way. Always have been.

Edit to add this: I am not married to my thoughts that a fertilized egg is alive. I've seen one under microscope, and yes, it's an "unidentifiable mass". But you know what it is, and you see it splitting and growing. To me, that's life. I respect your viewpoint, and don't think you are retarded for it either. It's just one of those things I think people will never agree on.

[Gan]

Also, read Freakonomics, great book. Pay particular attention to the chapter on legalized abortion and crime impact. I'm not saying it's correct, but it's an AWESOME read and pretty neat theory.

Excellent book. And yes, that chapter was very thought provoking.

[Gan]

If it could survive at four weeks I'd call it life.

If artificial wombs existed...I'd suggest all you pro-life people fund millions of them. For the most part I doubt pro-life people give a damn though. It's just religious zealotry and something to divide people with.

I think abortion is much less costly than the societal damage/cost that'd occur if all of those children were brought to term.

OMG I'm in agreement with WB.

:wtf:

[Warriorbird]

It happens. Sort of crazy.

[Clove]

Interesting viewpoint.

I'm pro-choice by the way. Always have been.

Edit to add this: I am not married to my thoughts that a fertilized egg is alive. I've seen one under microscope, and yes, it's an "unidentifiable mass".

Sure but you wouldn't call someone with a severely disfiguring disease inhuman. "It doesn't look human, so it isn't human" isn't really much of a delineation.

[Clove]

If it could survive at four weeks I'd call it life.

If artificial wombs existed...I'd suggest all you pro-life people fund millions of them. For the most part I doubt pro-life people give a damn though. It's just religious zealotry and something to divide people with.

I think abortion is much less costly than the societal damage/cost that'd occur if all of those children were brought to term.

Which is of course what would happen if abortion were more restricted. It's not possible that behavior might change.

[Warriorbird]

Oh gosh! We can ban abortion and end poverty! I never knew!

;)

[TheEschaton]

If it can "survive" outside the womb? What's the standard of this? I would peg it as "survive with extraordinary medical intervention." If you don't qualify this, with artificial wombs you've made the line 0 weeks.

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

If there was some way to ensure that such a thing was provided for every expectant mother...I'd make the line 0 weeks. It'd raise interesting issues with birth control.

[CrystalTears]

It'd raise interesting issues with birth control.
Why? Birth control intercepts with the ability of the egg to get fertilized in the first place.

[Clove]

If there was some way to ensure that such a thing was provided for every expectant mother...I'd make the line 0 weeks. It'd raise interesting issues with birth control.

But then all those babies would be born to poor mothers.

[Warriorbird]

Yep! And then people could see the actual consequences. I'm sure all the children would be adopted. None of them would ever be hideous burdens on society. None of them would be criminals. Overpopulation would never harm us!

People would just stop having sex unless they wanted a baby.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Yep! And then people could see the actual consequences. I'm sure all the children would be adopted. None of them would ever be hideous burdens on society. None of them would be criminals.

None of them would invent, pioneer or create something new either!

[Clove]

Oh gosh! We can ban abortion and end poverty! I never knew!

;)

We could fill a book with what you don't know.

[Warriorbird]

High birth rates are great. I mean...look at Africa!

;)

I suppose one would want to evoke China and India as great successes. I'd hope one would think a bit before that.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by SHM
None of them would invent, pioneer or create something new either!

You like to gamble a lot don't you.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

High birth rates are great. I mean...look at Africa!

;)

What does this have to do with abortion?

[Warriorbird]

No abortions and the birth rate would likely rise.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

No abortions and the birth rate would likely rise.

So you are saying abortion is a good birth control?

[Warriorbird]

People keep saying it is birth control. I'm arguing from this standpoint. I'm not so sure that that is actually true however.

[CrystalTears]

You like to gamble a lot don't you.
No different than assuming that all those children now born would be a burden on society.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
So you are saying abortion is a good birth control?

I'm not sure I'd say it's good birth control (i'd assume the pill, condoms, etc. are much more pleasant) but as crude as it is I'd say it's good population control.

[Warriorbird]

I disagree, CT. If someone does not want to have a child they're more likely to be a burden.

You've got this "unwanted children are great!" assumption in that statement.

[CrystalTears]

I disagree, CT. If someone does not want to have a child they're more likely to be a burden.
There is no way to know that for sure. Lots of people who were determined to have an abortion who ultimately didn't have one cared and loved their children and weren't a burden to them.


You've got this "unwanted children are great!" assumption in that statement. You've got this "aborted children are automatically trash children" assumption in that statement.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by CrystalTears
No different than assuming that all those children now born would be a burden on society.

I'd say it's much safer bet to gamble on the side of caution than to gamble on the side of hope. Maybe it's just the pessimist in me.

[Warriorbird]

Well... since Hillary will most likely lose and Roe v. Wade will be overturned we'll be able to see what wonderful things banning abortion does for the country, CT.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Well... since Hillary will most likely lose and Roe v. Wade will be overturned we'll be able to see what wonderful things banning abortion does for the country, CT.

ROFL. I doubt very much that will be overturned.

[CrystalTears]

And see the thing is, I don't want abortion banned. I don't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned and I seriously don't see it happening regardless of who becomes president.

I'd like to see a bit more restrictions put on them though. Some more testing, more planning, more eduction, so on and so forth. That's my dream. I don't think it needs to be an all or nothing situation.

[Clove]

Well... since Hillary will most likely lose and Roe v. Wade will be overturned we'll be able to see what wonderful things banning abortion does for the country, CT.

Because the country was shit before Roe v. Wade.

[Gan]

So you are saying abortion is a good birth control?

Birth control? No

Population control? Ask China.

[Warriorbird]

Woo hoo, the crack epidemic! What a great time in America.

:)

Oh... and the strain that the "baby boomers" will put on institutions? Absolutely great too. Prison overcrowding? Wonderful.

People don't get the exponential nature of it all.

[Gan]

Because the country was shit before Roe v. Wade.

Some of the coathanger stories I've heard would curl your toes.

That being said. Now that there's pharmaceutical methods, the instance of back alley coathanger episodes would be less.

[Warriorbird]

I think you're probably right. We'll be able to have a "War on RU486!"

I'm sure the DEA will love it.

[Clove]

Some of the coathanger stories I've heard would curl your toes.

That being said. Now that there's pharmaceutical methods, the instance of back alley coathanger episodes would be less.

You think people don't have coat hanger abortions now?

Besides, unwanted baby gone, unwanted mother gone. Population problem solved.

[Gan]

You think people don't have coat hanger abortions now?

Besides, unwanted baby gone, unwanted mother gone. Population problem solved.

LOL

So Darwin of you. ;)

[ClydeR]

If it could survive at four weeks I'd call it life.

By that definition, tape worms aren't alive.

A better approach for the pro-abortion groups would be to admit that a fertilized egg is alive. After all, it is performing a lot of sophisticated functions, all ordered for the purpose of maturing into the most sophisticated form of life on this planet. Admit that a fertilized egg is alive, but then say that it isn't sophisticated enough to merit protection.

[Warriorbird]

Why? How would that benefit them?

Edit:

You also just made a great argument for "fetus as parasite" theory.

[Stanley Burrell]

For starters - It's sad your mother wasn't aware of coat hangers, ClydeR.

However, maybe you sell me discount gas as one of those grizzled BP clerks, so I'll reserve judgement.

Everytime I nosebleed, it's mass murder. Those poor red blood cells. Don't get me started on platelets. Unbearable suffering.

I'm pretty sure there's potential for life in a lot-of-fucking already living cells. Give'em a lipid bilayer knockout, ninja some of their glycoproteins, anucleate and ultimately differentiate tissue cultures within a nano-fucking-second to become plastic enough to pose as stem cells (concurrently, then, stem cell embryos after fertilization.)

Who cares about Hitler when people get nosebleeds and jerk off. Let's start going after the real criminals.

(I think there was a recent science article about skin cells being differentiated into stem cells. And I'm like, "No fucking shit." Add that to the Christian-Conservative "WE ARE MASS MURDERERS" tally.)

[Savageheart]

I have a y chromosome therefor what ever I say is questionably irrelevant when it comes to matters of the vagoo...

I am going to start a bit off topic for a moment but I swear there's a point.

I went to a catholic school... (one that adhered to and exceeded educational standards, including evolution believe it or not)

Sex education involved STD videos, guilt, and the contraceptives we were told about were abstinence, the calendar method, the two finger fertility test (which was backed up the whole STD video for abstinence) and more guilt/abstinence.

We were also impressed upon the fact that condoms were essentially unreliable as they break often, are designed poorly, and do not protect well against STDs.

Now, I generally question everything an authority figure tries to tell me, I've been a skeptic since birth (I'm told I tried to crawl back in after getting a good look at my father, in retrospect I should have). That being said, I added it up myself in short order and didn't grow up a sexually cripple or naive.

However, I did watch several of my peers (boys and girls) actually believe that horseshit for a good 4-6 years before going to college, realizing everything they'd ever learned was a lie and completely whored it up in a quasi-Christian rebellion that could have been a scene from kids, while others remained religiously devout sexual recluses (for at least another year or two, in the end the hot ones all surrender their V Card).

In that time, there were 4 abortions (to be fair 3 of them were not friends but simply people I'd graduated with), and a host of 'Dr it hurts when I do this' conversations. Two of the girls were at the 'chastity' ceremony my school hosted every year. Kids are stupid, they think they are both infallible and invulnerable, when they are actually ignorant and vulnerable. Proper sex education would have helped avoid this, and proper sex education is not in abstinence based programs, instead they are based upon the belief that obsfucation and deception will protect our children from evils they are too young to understand.

It is my personal belief that forced ignorance is a greater sin than teaching our children proper contraceptive methods, and it represents a much much large danger. Currently, public schools can only receive federal funding for Abstinence based programs for sex education. As long as that is the case, and schools are not allowed to pass out condoms, dental dams, astroglide, and tubesocks we are going to have a pregnancy problem. Honestly, even if we pull a 180 and start doing it right we'll still probably have problems for the next several generations.

Now... noting the above, Abortion will never be an issue for wealthy and middle class individuals. Even if Roe v. Wade was struck down tomorrow all this does is put the power to decide in the state's hands. It does not make abortion illegal unilaterally to my knowledge.

However, 57% of women who seek an abortion have incomes that are below twice the federal poverty level. This number is deceptive since 56% of abortions occur by females 20-29 and 19% from those under 20 thats a combined 75% of abortions which are coming from babies havin babies. Flush these numbers against the fact that 67% of abortions are Single women who've never married and another 16% are seperated widowed or divorced.

This does not seem like a sample of people I want parenting our nations youth... These people are both unfit and unfinished, this is a sample of our population which is still in school, or still beginning to establish themselves as an independent human being. Abstinence has never been a realistic possibility, we were wired to fuck as often as we can get away with it (by we I mean men, women have that silly emotional attachment to their vagoo)... Its a sad fact, a hard-on is louder than a choir of angels.

Finally, the fun one... Nearly half of all abortions are performed in countries that have banned the procedure.

• 97% of all abortions occur outside the United States.
• Of the 46 million abortions that are performed each year, 20 million (44%) occur in countries where the procedure is illegal.

If it is illegal, it will not stop women from getting them that desire them. What it will do is raise the mortality rate of women who cannot afford the proper care in the procedure.

Sources were obtained largely from a single document which references CDC abortion reports 2000-2003. Therefor the statistical accuracy to date probably has an EOM as I believe abortion and teen pregnancy rates in the country have actually risen dramatically in response to abstinence and faith based programs for sexual education being the only federally endorsed programs.

I believe in a woman's right too chose for herself and a mans right to say I want a DNA test.
I believe religion has no place in Government
I believe this isn't an issue you cannot forcibly prohibit, but only legally obstruct
I believe the above will only greatly impact the less fortunate
I believe I can fly

http://www.thirdway.org/data/product/file/17/demographics_of_abortion.pdf
(Its a really interesting read)

[Stanley Burrell]

However, 57% of women who seek an abortion have incomes that are below twice the federal poverty level. This number is deceptive since 56% of abortions occur by females 20-29 and 19% from those under 20 thats a combined 75% of abortions which are coming from babies havin babies. Flush these numbers against the fact that 67% of abortions are Single women who've never married and another 16% are seperated widowed or divorced.

You know, It's a real shame the public schoolers weren't indoctrinated into parochial school X in order to become immune to teh HIV.

Good thing that 100% of statistics are only a twelfth of a percent made up.

[Stanley Burrell]

I think you're probably right. We'll be able to have a "War on RU486!"

I'm sure the DEA will love it.

That was unilaterally veto'd first term.

Of course, that can't be true, since Bush's only real vetoes appeared in latent presidency. As every correct-no-matter-what media agency reported. Dur.

[Savageheart]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're kind of a moron aren't you Stanley?

I cited my source, which in turn is cited. The rest of the parochial school hoopla is drivel and need not be addressed.

[Stanley Burrell]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're kind of a moron aren't you Stanley?

I cited my source, which in turn is cited. The rest of the parochial school hoopla is drivel and need not be addressed.

Far from it.

I just know more than you ever possibly could. And it's quite unfortunate (for me.)

[Savageheart]

At least you're feeling stalwart.

[Stanley Burrell]

I'm not! But Strong Sad is!

Where have you been? The internet, people! Use it.

[Lyonis]

I know she didn't have a choice, but it's still a part of her. The patient has NO physical or emotional attachment to said person. A child in the womb does. I don't think that's the same thing at all.

Great point, except that…




One of the more interesting arguments I've heard regarding abortion involved a hypothetical rape scenario. Imagine you were kidnapped, drugged, and while asleep your body's circulatory system was hooked up to a terminal patient. When you wake up you're informed that if your body does not remain attached to this person that they will die. What moral obligation do you have to stay attached to this person who was put there against your will?


I covered it already.




Just because she didn't approve of the act doesn't mean she had nothing to do with it.

Yeah, it does.


You're not really saying that she had physically nothing to do with that child, are you? Her egg is the second part that created that child. How much more involved do you want her to get?


I’d like her to consent to the sex act before I hold her responsible for the repercussions.

[Tsa`ah]

A sperm cell without its complimentary haploid... remains a sperm cell. About as sacred as your skin cells. Don't be doofy.

Well, less sacred since any given cell in your body contains more, and complete, genetic material in comparison.

The whole argument of life beginning needs to be narrowed down. Certainly ovum and sperm are "alive" ... and certainly a zygote is alive ... just as alive as any other cell or cell cluster in your body.

Where does sentient life begin? Anyone would be hard pressed to argue that a zygote is sentient.

By definition, sentient life begins with neuro activity. Of course that leaves the door open for the argument that a zygote growing into a sentient being.

All in all, I find these arguments distracting and absolutely counter productive to the abortion debate.

[Tsa`ah]

There is no way to know that for sure. Lots of people who were determined to have an abortion who ultimately didn't have one cared and loved their children and weren't a burden to them.

You've got this "aborted children are automatically trash children" assumption in that statement.

Unfortunately, the general population of couples looking for babies to adopt aren't looking for black (unless it's an African baby and they're rich) or Hispanic babies. They're not looking for defective babies, or drug addicted babies.

As I mentioned in another thread, most of these children will be born into the system. The chances they'll be adopted are slim to non-existent. This not only represents a substantial increase in the overall tax burden, but it also represents children born with pretty much zero chance of not becoming a casualty of socioeconomic disparities.

Who will take care of all of these unaborted children no one wants? Certainly the religious right and the pro-life zealots won't have a thing to do with them.

It's a one sided argument with ... no exit strategy ... and it's far from a plausible solution.