RoeVsWade... 35 years

[duff himself]

I was driving past my church to go to work today and the entire lawn is covered in white crosses. Apparently each one represents a million abortions since the start of roe vs wade. Today is 35 years I hear. Kinda crazy to see that on a simple drive to work. Makes you think about it.

Anyone else see some unusual sights this morning?

[Sophism]

There was a man with no shirt on walking by my apartment building as I went to get my paper. It's below freezing here, so that was unusual.

[NationalKato]

I found a pure gray wolfman hair growing from my eyebrow this morning. It was about four inches long. I plucked it. That was unusual.

[pwnophobia]

There was a man with no shirt on walking by my apartment building as I went to get my paper. It's below freezing here, so that was unusual.

I laughed out loud irl at this comment and I don't know why...

[Hellbug]

"Kentwood Public Schools"
CLOSED


Best thing EVAR.

[antinous165]

I saw a save the whales bumper sticker on a car in the middle of Oklahoma outside a McDonalds. That was yesterday. I still can't stop chuckling.

[Rifter]

AH, that is what those were for... I drove by a catholic church last week, and saw all the little white crosses... I was curious about what they were for... but not really curious enough to look it up. :-) If they make a political statement, they should at LEAST put a note, somewhere, easy to read, while driving by.... what it is. :-)

[Telefrog]

Good news! Freakonomics says those crosses equal a few million crimes less overall.

(Yes, before some smartass points it out, I know the Levitt and Dubner model has been questioned heavily.)

[kid cabelgo]

Good news! Freakonomics says those crosses equal a few million crimes less overall.

(Yes, before some smartass points it out, I know the Levitt and Dubner model has been questioned heavily.)

Haha, I always loved that part of that book. The very mention of the theory sent so many people into a hissy fit when I explained it to them.

[Telefrog]

Haha, I always loved that part of that book. The very mention of the theory sent so many people into a hissy fit when I explained it to them.

Hell, yes! I don't even know if I actually believe it. (Especially now that Levitt admitted he made "small inconsequential" mistakes in his research.) I just know that it's a guaranteed argument starter in conversations.

It combines abortion with crime and a dollop of racial tension. What's not to like?

[Ancalagon]

Hell, yes! I don't even know if I actually believe it. (Especially now that Levitt admitted he made "small inconsequential" mistakes in his research.) I just know that it's a guaranteed argument starter in conversations.

It combines abortion with crime and a dollop of racial tension. What's not to like?

personally I'd love someone to explain to me how hes wrong.

I mean, the examples and correlations he gave were pretty compelling.

very good book that.

[Telefrog]

personally I'd love someone to explain to me how hes wrong.

I mean, the examples and correlations he gave were pretty compelling.

very good book that.

Here's a (to economists) very brief rundown (http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm) of the dispute.

The synopsis is:


The Boston Fed's Mr. Foote says he spotted a missing formula in the programming of Mr. Levitt's original research. He argues the programming oversight made it difficult to pick up other factors that might have influenced crime rates during the 1980s and 1990s, like the crack wave that waxed and waned during that period. He also argues that in producing the research, Mr. Levitt should have counted arrests on a per-capita basis. Instead, he counted overall arrests. After he adjusted for both factors, Mr. Foote says, the abortion effect disappeared.


Levitt replies on his blog:


There was a coding error that led the final table of my paper with John Donohue on legalized abortion to have specifications that did not match what we said we did in the text. (We’re still trying to figure out where we went wrong on this.) This is personally quite embarrassing because I pride myself on being careful with data. Still, that embarrassment aside, when you run the specifications we meant to run, you still find big, negative effects of abortion on arrests (although smaller in magnitude than what we report). The good news is that the story we put forth in the paper is not materially changed by the coding error.

Levitt maintains that the error doesn't change his theory, others say it drastically effects the outcome of the formula.

I really don't know enough higher level statistical analysis to form an opinion either way, but the original theory is still a barrel of fun at parties.

[Dafizman]

I was watching the weather map this morning, and all of a sudden all these clouds appear out of NOWHERE! I figure it's all them aborted babies, coming back to reap their snowy revenge.

[Ancalagon]

but the original theory is still a barrel of fun at parties.

Yeah, although I do support the idea.

Imagine:

"Hey guys, isnt it cool that we sacrifice innocent babies to lower crime?"

[Klade]

I abort more babies before breakfast then most people do all day.

[Telefrog]

Yeah, although I do support the idea.

Imagine:

"Hey guys, isnt it cool that we sacrifice innocent babies to lower crime?"

It really has a simple elegance. I think that's part of the impact.

Less babies born to the poor = less crime. :D

It's so simple, it's a wonder no one thought of pointing it out before.

[gzsfrk]

I'd be interested to know how many of those abortions were performed in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Regardless of people's views on early term abortion, the availability of 3d ultrasounds and other advanced imaging technology has provided a personally staggering perspective on the idea that those little people remain a "choice" at that stage.

Personally, I hold to the position that, since no one can say definitively when life begins, that we should err on the side of caution and consider life to "begin" at conception. It would seem a bit ludicrous to me to set a hard timeline and argue that one day, it's merely a glob of cells, and the next it's a person.

When dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, there is no good outcome--either have the unwanted child or terminate the pregnancy, thus killing it. But all things being equal (adoption options, etc.), I consider carrying the child to term and then giving it up to be the lesser evil.

And for those who want to be "pragmatic" and say that abortion has reduced crime, poverty, drains on public assistance programs--well, (cue Godwin) the Nazis had this fun little concept called "eugenics"... If you're going to use that ends-justifies-the-means rationalization for abortion, then why not likewise apply it to the elderly, infirm, and mentally handicapped? They're certainly drains on the system.

(Cue Irish to come in and jump all over me for this...)

[TrackZero]

It would seem a bit ludicrous to me to set a hard timeline and argue that one day, it's merely a glob of cells, and the next it's a person.


Not for me, as I've said in similar threads before. Until the brains neural network even begins approaching that of a squirrel, it's not a person in my book.

[Telefrog]

And for those who want to be "pragmatic" and say that abortion has reduced crime, poverty, drains on public assistance programs--well, (cue Godwin) the Nazis had this fun little concept called "eugenics"... If you're going to use that ends-justifies-the-means rationalization for abortion, then why not likewise apply it to the elderly, infirm, and mentally handicapped? They're certainly drains on the system.


Just wanted to point out, the difference between a current abortion and your Nazi example would be that current abortions are based on the idea that it's the mother's choice, and that the aborted fetus isn't actually a person yet.

You can argue whether or not it's a person at conception or whatever, but the fact is that the medical consensus is on "nonperson" until certain guidelines are met. Because of that, the guilt associated with terminating the pregnancy isn't similar at all to the Nazi pogroms.

[Ancalagon]

This is making me think of the South Park episode where Kenny's parents try to have another baby, and Kenny buys abortion pills. Popular brands include Baby B Gone and Fetus Flusher. South Park, you crack me up.

Personally I would define a fetus, probably under 3 months, as not self aware.

Look at yourselves - how much do you remember of your early years? How much more aware are you of the outside world than when you were young? I'd say consciousness and awareness are a measure of humanity. The more information your brain receives, the more stimuli it reacts to, and the more human you become. Thus a baby which hasnt even got the means to receive input (eyes, ears etc) isnt really aware of anything.

gzfrsk (sp), I agree with you about never using ends justifies the means thinking. I think to judge whether any act is good or evil you should never look at any other acts that this may influence. Nonetheless, I dont believe abortion is evil, even when considered without regard to crime and the mothers life.

[Schnoogs]

Not for me, as I've said in similar threads before. Until the brains neural network even begins approaching that of a squirrel, it's not a person in my book.

Ignorance for the win

[gzsfrk]

Just wanted to point out, the difference between a current abortion and your Nazi example would be that current abortions are based on the idea that it's the mother's choice, and that the aborted fetus isn't actually a person yet.

I was actually referring to the Levitt/Dubner model being used as a rationalization for abortion; the reference had nothing to do with commenting on a woman's choice.

You can argue whether or not it's a person at conception or whatever, but the fact is that the medical consensus is on "nonperson" until certain guidelines are met.

Just because medical consensus says it's not a person until certain guidelines are met means nothing. After all, it's a moral question, not a scientific one. And again, what does that change? I've heard some people say that it's not a person until the heart beats, or until the nervous system is developed. Why not? Who decides that the magical moment we become a "person" is when we have an operational circulatory system or when we can feel pain? Any such decision is arbitrary and inherently nonsensical.

[gzsfrk]

Not for me, as I've said in similar threads before. Until the brains neural network even begins approaching that of a squirrel, it's not a person in my book.

Why?
messageistooshortmorecharsplz

[Ancalagon]

After all, it's a moral question, not a scientific one.

Frankly I dont see why that should be the case.

We are made of matter, we have bodily systems, one of those systems provides our consciousness and thought. okay I may be an atheist, but surely religious people would agree that a soul needs something to reside in?

So without a brain, no thoughts, no soul = no human.

Just because something may develop into a human doesnt mean it should be classed as such.

[LongStepMantis]

I found a pure gray wolfman hair growing from my eyebrow this morning. It was about four inches long. I plucked it. That was unusual.

I had a similar discovery, only I found a NEON-red hair in my beard...and I'm blonde. I'm talking fluorescent. Now if all of it grew in with random bright colors, I could legally change my name to "Capt. Rainbow Beard"

[mr. murphy]

It's a moral question, not a scientific one.

Who decides that the magical moment we become a "person" is when we have an operational circulatory system or when we can feel pain?

You kind of answered yourself there. It IS a scientific question, because science defines these things. The fact that we don't have a solid scientific definition yet doesn't mean we never will - and when we reach a consensus, it will be anything but arbitrary.

[Heretic Machine]

I honestly don't care where human life begins... fact is, we have too many people as it is, and very few are worth putting up with. People put way too much value in this whole human-life thing, as if more will equal out to better.

[Banacek]

Personally I think two weeks, four pushing it, is more than enough time to decide. After that then you waited too long. I do think that morning after pills should be given out without a prescription. I know if a pharmacist started preaching to me the morning after I might jump over the counter. Then again I'm not allowed to get them anyway, so whatever.

[gzsfrk]

Personally I would define a fetus, probably under 3 months, as not self aware.

My little girl was several months old before she even began to exhibit any notable signs of being self-aware. Prior to that, she was pretty much just a poop factory that we had to care for on every level. So does that mean she lacked humanity up until that point? Would you then hold that until she DID exhibit an awareness of her own existence that we, as her parents, should have the option of changing our minds and "sending her back"? I know this isn't what you're saying, but it IS an extrapolation of what you're saying by basing a person's humanity (and thus moral right to life) on self awareness.

Look at yourselves - how much do you remember of your early years? How much more aware are you of the outside world than when you were young?

I don't remember hardly anything prior to my being 3, maybe 2 years old. And I'm certain I didn't have a grasp of mortality or "existence" until years beyond that. What does that have to do with anything?

I'd say consciousness and awareness are a measure of humanity.

Again, any such "scientific" boundaries that define humanity are ultimately laughable, as they simply set an arbitrary, measurable guideline based on subjective decisions.

[Schnoogs]

I honestly don't care where human life begins... fact is, we have too many people as it is, and very few are worth putting up with. People put way too much value in this whole human-life thing, as if more will equal out to better.

Then execute some prisoners. Solve two problems.

[Banacek]

Then execute some prisoners. Solve two problems.

I'd be shocked if Perigon didn't agree with capital punishment. Shocked!

[LongStepMantis]

I honestly don't care where human life begins... fact is, we have too many people as it is, and very few are worth putting up with. People put way too much value in this whole human-life thing, as if more will equal out to better.

This.
We've done everything in our power, short of becoming immortal, to keep anyone and everyone from dying. Overpopulation will get us before most other things do. Look at places like India, China, Hong Kong, Japan.
in the words of Ned, "*Brrzzt*Thin em out!"

And yea Schnoogs, why people are trying to get convicted murders, rapists, child-molesters, and their like safety from the death penalty,I'll never know. I'm wondering why we don't just shoot them in the face instead of paying to keep them alive on death row for a couple decades.

[Heretic Machine]

Then execute some prisoners. Solve two problems.

I'm pro-death penalty in the case of any violent crime where the guilt of the defendant isn't in question, without significant extenuating circumstances.

[gzsfrk]

You kind of answered yourself there. It IS a scientific question, because science defines these things. The fact that we don't have a solid scientific definition yet doesn't mean we never will - and when we reach a consensus, it will be anything but arbitrary.

Consensus != fact.

And science doesn't just arbitrarily define things--it records what it observes. So yes, perhaps someday if science can "observe" the point at which the human/!human switch gets flipped to ON, then that would clear up a lot of things, wouldn't it? But until then, I choose to err on the side of caution in what I believe is "right". (Again, a non-scientific question.)

[gzsfrk]

I honestly don't care where human life begins... fact is, we have too many people as it is, and very few are worth putting up with. People put way too much value in this whole human-life thing, as if more will equal out to better.

Well then lead the way and kill yourself. Or at the very least, go out and have a vasectomy. STAT!

[Heretic Machine]

Well then lead the way and kill yourself. Or at the very least, go out and have a vasectomy. STAT!

Pretty sure I wouldn't be able to afford a vasectomy (plus, they seem unreliable, at best), but no, I don't plan on having kids. Condoms + Birth control pill = pretty sure I won't have any accidents either.

[mr. murphy]

Consensus != fact.

And science doesn't just arbitrarily define things--it records what it observes. So yes, perhaps someday if science can "observe" the point at which the human/!human switch gets flipped to ON, then that would clear up a lot of things, wouldn't it? But until then, I choose to err on the side of caution in what I believe is "right". (Again, a non-scientific question.)

That's what I was trying to say. Someday, it will. Until then, do what you think is right. But don't go acting like it will never be scientifically defined.

[gzsfrk]

This.
We've done everything in our power, short of becoming immortal, to keep anyone and everyone from dying. Overpopulation will get us before most other things do. Look at places like India, China, Hong Kong, Japan.
in the words of Ned, "*Brrzzt*Thin em out!"

Well, then let me ask this. How do we decide who gets to live and who does not? Do you agree with the Chinese policy of forced abortion? Of having to pay for the right to have "extra" children? It's all well and good to say that we need to "thin the herd", but let's hear some practical advice on how you intend to implement such a solution. Should we assess someone's viability based on statistical factors such as their parents background, economic situation, and combined physiological factors? Once more--the Nazis are reviled today for having exactly such a plan.

I'll agree with you to an extent in that I think our society often goes to far too great lengths to prolong life needlessly. I think that is in no small part attributable to a diminshed prevalence of sincere religious faith in society as a whole. Say what you want about religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, but people who have a strong basis in such faiths tend to have less fear of death than those who believe this life is all they're ever gonna get (and natually so).

In my case, I've instructed my family that should I ever reach a point of being non-responsive and only able to live via machine that they are to pull the plug. Of course, I believe I have something to look forward to on the other side, so I have less incentive to linger here in misery. And what would be the worst case scenario? I'm wrong, slip into oblivion, and am never able to regret my decision to believe. (Apologies for the clumsily re-worded "Pascal's Wager".)

[Heretic Machine]

Well, then let me ask this. How do we decide who gets to live and who does not?

Well, a good start would be to let the parents decide whether they want to raise their kids or not. If not, then they don't need to produce a new person.

[Rifter]

The crux of the abortion argument, is when does a human begin? Does it begin with life, at conception? Does it begin, when the heart starts beating? Does it begin when when the brain stem forms?

What about the soul? When does the soul enter the body? At conception? at Birth? When the body is formed, and really LOOKS like a child? Science can't explain it... and the bible is pretty vauge, as well.

I had an ex GF, who had a son. He was a COMPLETE vegitable. He lived until he was about 12 or so. If you made a noise, he MAY respond. If he was hungry, he would make weird noises... but other than a few things like that, he was completely oblivious to his surroundings. Did he have a "soul"? If he did, what cruel being would entomb a soul to such an existance? Wouldn't it have been better had he been aborted? A lot less pain and suffering on the mother... far less burden for the tax payers...

Quite honestly, I don't have ANY answers to any of this.

I have personal views. I think abortion is a personal right. I don't think we have much right to legislate it... that being said, I DO think that a mother should make up her mind by the 3rd trimester... and barring any health problems, a child should be allowed to be born, if it reaches the beginning of the 3rd trimester. I am also completely against partial birth abortions. But, to me, these are views... there is no answer.

[Banacek]

What about the soul? When does the soul enter the body? At conception? at Birth? When the body is formed, and really LOOKS like a child? Science can't explain it... and the bible is pretty vauge, as well.

The soul issue is going to be a moot point once scientists start cloning humans.

[gzsfrk]

Pretty sure I wouldn't be able to afford a vasectomy (plus, they seem unreliable, at best), but no, I don't plan on having kids. Condoms + Birth control pill = pretty sure I won't have any accidents either.

Yet another candidate for Tycho's (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2006/09/13) "retard rodeo (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=24445723)"...

Reference this handy page (http://www.emedicinehealth.com/vasectomy/page2_em.htm) for success rates of various forms of birth control/contraception. Vasectomy has a success rate of between 99.8% and 99.98% and is far and away the most effective. Condoms, on the other hand, have failure rates between 1-3% (and as high as 33%). Birth control pills have a failure rate of between 0.16 and 3%.

So THAT'S the best rationalization you could come up with for not sterilizing yourself? Please...

EDIT: As for cost, an uninsured procedure costs between $400 and $700 (depending on where you live and the medical facility you choose). With insurance, the cost varies wildly depending on your coverage, but can be less than a $100 copay.

[Heretic Machine]

Yet another candidate for Tycho's (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2006/09/13) retard rodeo (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=24445723)...

Reference this handy page (http://www.emedicinehealth.com/vasectomy/page2_em.htm) for success rates of various forms of birth control/contraception. Vasectomy has a success rate of between 99.8% and 99.98% and is far and away the most effective. Condoms, on the other hand, have failure rates between 1-3% (and as high as 33%). Birth control pills have a failure rate of between 0.16 and 3%.

So THAT'S the best rationalization you could come up with for not sterilizing yourself? Please...

Yeah, well I know 0 people who have had accidents with a combination of birth control and condoms, when used in combination, and I know at least two people who have been screwed by the surgical options (one female, one male). Anyhow, you've already gone down to petty insults, so your puny fundy brain is obviously overheating. You need to get an ice pack on that shit before your head explodes. Don't rush on my account though.

[gzsfrk]

Well, a good start would be to let the parents decide whether they want to raise their kids or not. If not, then they don't need to produce a new person.

Before or shortly after they're born?

[gzsfrk]

Yeah, well I know 0 people who have had accidents with a combination of birth control and condoms, when used in combination, and I know at least two people who have been screwed by the surgical options (one female, one male). Anyhow, you've already gone down to petty insults, so your puny fundy brain is obviously overheating. You need to get an ice pack on that shit before your head explodes. Don't rush on my account though.

Ahh yes... it's always better to make decisions based on anecdotal evidence than statistically sound studies.

Here's hoping your condom doesn't break...

[Telefrog]

Ahh yes... it's always better to make decisions based on anecdotal evidence than statistically sound studies.


Hmmm. That sounds like good advice. Maybe we should let science determine when the "soul" occurs in fetuses instead of letting a religious or moral 'feeling' tell us. :rolleyes:

[Esquilax1138]

I think all males should be sterlized at birth, and if they later want a baby they must pass basic intelligence tests before they get a liscence to start their cloning process. No more abortion, and hopefully lots less kids born to idiots.

Of course we'd need to do this globaly, something like that Children of Men movie perhaps.

[gzsfrk]

Hmmm. That sounds like good advice. Maybe we should let science determine when the "soul" occurs in fetuses instead of letting a religious or moral 'feeling' tell us. :rolleyes:

Are you trying to sound ridiculous?

Just so I'm clear here, you're equating the arbitrary definition of when life begins to a statistical study of the effectiveness of various forms of birth control. Is that correct?

[Rifter]

The soul issue is going to be a moot point once scientists start cloning humans.

Who's to say that they don't get their own soul?

I honestly think that life = soul. At which point the sould enters... a little fuzzy about that. :-)

[Telefrog]

Are you trying to sound ridiculous?

Just so I'm clear here, you're equating the arbitrary definition of when life begins to a statistical study of the effectiveness of various forms of birth control. Is that correct?

Yes. I am trying to sound ridiculous. As are you, apparently.

You argued someone's belief is invalid because of medical consensus.

Didn't you say earlier that science should have no part in the determination of life? Let's get down to the crazy. Is it an abomination to abort a pregnancy? Why isn't it an abomination to ruin God's plan and prevent the pregnancy in the first place? We can go all day on this one.

Why is it okay to accept science in one part of your life, but not another?

[NationalKato]

How do we decide who gets to live and who does not?

Rock, Paper, Scissors. It's the only truly fair way.

[Banacek]

Is it an abomination to abort a pregnancy? Why isn't it an abomination to ruin God's plan and prevent the pregnancy in the first place? We can go all day on this one.

Catholics do believe that preventing pregnancy is a sin, though I believe that rule is firmly derived from the fact that the Catholic Church wants more members. :)

[NationalKato]

Vasectomy has a success rate of between 99.8% and 99.98% and is far and away the most effective.

Cutting your dick off is more effective. Studies show.

[Telefrog]

Catholics do believe that preventing pregnancy is a sin, though I believe that rule is firmly derived from the fact that the Catholic Church wants more members. :)

Which is why I brought that example up. To devout Catholics, birth control is a sin for exactly that reason.

[TrackZero]

Why?
messageistooshortmorecharsplz

Because I don't believe in a soul, and therefore the fetus is nothing more than a low IQ lump of flesh. Until it's brain has enough horsepower to become self-aware, it's no different than any other low IQ mammal in my book.

But write me off as a baby killer, whatever floats peoples boats. It's my viewpoint (or I'm sure someone will consider 'justification'), if you don't agree, that's your call.

[Deadend]

I have trouble coming up with first world countries where abortion is illegal. I think it's a good thing, as if a woman is living near the poverty line, and is pregnant, even if there is an adoption, the cost of everything up that point, from decrease in hours able to work, hospital bills, doctor checkups, are expensive. It could be the thing that pushes someone from scraping by, to FUCKED.

Yeah yeah yeah, she shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place, but guess what... she didn't want to get pregnant, so get off the high horse.

[IrishWhiskey]

I'd be interested to know how many of those abortions were performed in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Regardless of people's views on early term abortion, the availability of 3d ultrasounds and other advanced imaging technology has provided a personally staggering perspective on the idea that those little people remain a "choice" at that stage.

Personally, I hold to the position that, since no one can say definitively when life begins, that we should err on the side of caution and consider life to "begin" at conception. It would seem a bit ludicrous to me to set a hard timeline and argue that one day, it's merely a glob of cells, and the next it's a person.

When dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, there is no good outcome--either have the unwanted child or terminate the pregnancy, thus killing it. But all things being equal (adoption options, etc.), I consider carrying the child to term and then giving it up to be the lesser evil.

And for those who want to be "pragmatic" and say that abortion has reduced crime, poverty, drains on public assistance programs--well, (cue Godwin) the Nazis had this fun little concept called "eugenics"... If you're going to use that ends-justifies-the-means rationalization for abortion, then why not likewise apply it to the elderly, infirm, and mentally handicapped? They're certainly drains on the system.

(Cue Irish to come in and jump all over me for this...)I actually agree with most of it, except for the Godwin'ing, and the "life begins at conception" comment. The fact is, you couldn't possibly call a handful of blastocysts a self-aware human life. And while it may be difficult to determine where precisely we should draw the line, trying to ban the morning-after pill for fear of a slippery slope is just overreaching.

I personally don't approve of abortion, and wouldn't ever want my girlfriend to have one (if God forbid that happened). But I also know that without empirical objective evidence that a clump of cells does constitute a seperate person, I don't have the right to tell other people when they are or aren't allowed to have babies. There's no doubt that most of the anti-abortion opposition is based on personal faith and gut-instinct and then using science where it is convenient to back up the argument, and that just not a good enough reason to strip away some of the most important rights of over half the country, particularly when its being primarily spearheaded by the other half.

[Rifter]

I have trouble coming up with first world countries where abortion is illegal. I think it's a good thing, as if a woman is living near the poverty line, and is pregnant, even if there is an adoption, the cost of everything up that point, from decrease in hours able to work, hospital bills, doctor checkups, are expensive. It could be the thing that pushes someone from scraping by, to FUCKED.

Yeah yeah yeah, she shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place, but guess what... she didn't want to get pregnant, so get off the high horse.

Actually, for adoption, the adopting parents can, and will pay for all the bills. The decreased hours is about the only cost that the mother will have. And I know in some adoptions, the adoptive parents will help there, as well.

I know with my ex, when we put our child up for adoption... she lost maybe 2 weeks of work. That was covered by sick time. I know some women have more problems with birth, though.

[gzsfrk]

Because I don't believe in a soul, and therefore the fetus is nothing more than a low IQ lump of flesh. Until it's brain has enough horsepower to become self-aware, it's no different than any other low IQ mammal in my book.

But again--by that definition, newborn babies (which are little more than low IQ, non-self-aware lumps of flesh) wouldn't qualify for their life to be legally protected. I really doubt that's something you support, but you can see nonetheless that by using the standard for humanity that you're asserting doesn't really fit with what most people (and, I'm assuming, you) would be willing to accept.

But write me off as a baby killer, whatever floats peoples boats. It's my viewpoint (or I'm sure someone will consider 'justification'), if you don't agree, that's your call.

I wouldn't do that. I think very few people who are pro-abortion would likewise advocate the euthanising of either the elderly or of unwanted babies subsequent to their birth.

It's a judgement call. As I noted earlier, it's about choosing the lesser of two evils for most people, as very few actually consider abortion to be a "good" thing. For some people, the advantages of having an abortion and disadvantages of opting to have child that you simply choose to give away outweigh disadvantages of abortion and

And, as is more than clear at this point, to me personally, I find opting to have the child to be the lesser evil. You can opt to find the alternative to be so, but it doesn't make me any less curious about your reasons as to why.

[TrackZero]

But again--by that definition, newborn babies (which are little more than low IQ, non-self-aware lumps of flesh) wouldn't qualify for their life to be legally protected. I really doubt that's something you support, but you can see nonetheless that by using the standard for humanity that you're asserting doesn't really fit with what most people (and, I'm assuming, you) would be willing to accept.

You obviously don't understand how complex a newborn babies brain is, yes, it would be protected. In fact, it'd be protected around the 2nd or 3rd trimester.



I wouldn't do that. I think very few people who are pro-abortion would likewise advocate the euthanising of either the elderly or of unwanted babies subsequent to their birth.

Well thanks for not seeing me as an inhuman monster.

It's a judgement call. As I noted earlier, it's about choosing the lesser of two evils for most people, as very few actually consider abortion to be a "good" thing. For some people, the advantages of having an abortion and disadvantages of opting to have child that you simply choose to give away outweigh disadvantages of abortion and

I don't view it as good or evil. For me, it's not a moral argument, so much as a societal one. If the mother doesn't want the baby (even if it'd be cared for in a loving family, with zero issues, 100% healthy, whatever), then she can get an abortion just fine by me without blinking an eye. It's her choice, so long as it's before things get too far along (like I said, as the brain gets enough hardware). No child should be born to a mom who doesn't want it (unless she's doing it with the direct reason in mind that it's going up for adoption, if we're doing some kind of theoretical future situation where there are no more unwanted pregnancies, but people still want to adopt who can't have their own kids).

And, as is more than clear at this point, to me personally, I find opting to have the child to be the lesser evil. You can opt to find the alternative to be so, but it doesn't make me any less curious about your reasons as to why.

Oh, it's all good. I appreciate a civil conversation on the matter. And I respect your reasons for not agreeing with me.

[[GH-SC]Ryctor]

I totally wanted to post a picture of a coat hanger and a snippit about RVW keeping the hanger industry in business for the last 35 years, but apparently that joke isnt cool .... :P

[IrishWhiskey]

Ryctor;1216419']I totally wanted to post a picture of a coat hanger and a snippit about RVW keeping the hanger industry in business for the last 35 years, but apparently that joke isnt cool .... :PActually it just doesn't make sense. Doesn't RvW protecting legalized abortion reduce coathanger sales?

[Ancalagon]

Yes. I am trying to sound ridiculous. As are you, apparently.

You argued someone's belief is invalid because of medical consensus.

Didn't you say earlier that science should have no part in the determination of life? Let's get down to the crazy. Is it an abomination to abort a pregnancy? Why isn't it an abomination to ruin God's plan and prevent the pregnancy in the first place? We can go all day on this one.

Why is it okay to accept science in one part of your life, but not another?

Actually very true.

If aborting a fetus is evil because it has the potential to become a human, then so is contraception. It too prevents a human life from developing.

Bah, all modern technology is evil anyway, so its in good company.

And I think science and philosophy are perfectly equipped to recommend when to terminate a fetus - they are right more often than religion is.

But again--by that definition, newborn babies (which are little more than low IQ, non-self-aware lumps of flesh) wouldn't qualify for their life to be legally protected. I really doubt that's something you support, but you can see nonetheless that by using the standard for humanity that you're asserting doesn't really fit with what most people (and, I'm assuming, you) would be willing to accept.

You are confusing an embryo with a baby. A baby has most of its nervous system, including sense orgasn. Embryos/fetuses whatever dont have any of that for quite a while. So there is a difference between the two. Of course, there is a point in a fetuses development at which it does acquire the organs needed to be considered, er, self aware.

[[GH-SC]Ryctor]

Actually it just doesn't make sense. Doesn't RvW protecting legalized abortion reduce coathanger sales?

You'd think that...but ....well...ya i guess. Stop trashing my idea of wanting to be offensive plz. :(

[GreenIce]

That's what I was trying to say. Someday, it will. Until then, do what you think is right. But don't go acting like it will never be scientifically defined.

This is blinder faith than any religion could ask for. What could possibly be found or how could our perceptions be changed so much that one day there will be a definitive answer as to what specific development in an unborn child causes it to be considered human. It is not as if we have a much gray area on how we develop. Save for the discovery of a soul which can quantified it will be a decision reached on an arbitrary number of parameters that will change with technology.

Lets take the case we define a child in the womb to be 'alive' when and only when they can develop outside the mother. This date will be pushed back continually as technology develops. If we were to say a child is not born until they can support themselves in their development than one is not human until they are independent. If not until such a time that one can at least develop without the aid of machines or such, then what do we consider someone who has suffered a grievous injury and is in the ICU? Do they cease to be a human once they need the aid of a respirator as they recover? Or what about one born with asthma or some other easily treatable condition, but one that requires treatment no less? Are they not considered to be human?

The only real division that I can ever see, is to say that life begins at conception. Never before nor after is there such a radical change of state and conditions that would lend itself so well to being definitive. The questions are then what is the value of human life and when it is right to kill.

[gzsfrk]

I actually agree with most of it

<suffers and then recovers from mild heart attack>

The fact is, you couldn't possibly call a handful of blastocysts a self-aware human life.

See several other comments in this thread as to why "self-awareness" doesn't work as a definition of when it's OK to terminate a pregnancy. (Or kill a child after pregnancy.)

And for the record, I'm not certain that life "begins" at conception. But as I said in my first post in this thread, I think that's where it's (currently) safe to set the standard so as to err on the side of caution.

And while it may be difficult to determine where precisely we should draw the line, trying to ban the morning-after pill for fear of a slippery slope is just overreaching.

While I still feel it's wrong, I am much less passionate about my RU-486 than I am when it comes to other surgical, later term abortions. Specifically, I would feel more pity for someone who opted to use RU-486. But for a woman who opts to receive and a doctor who performs an elective 3rd term abortion (PBA or otherwise), I hold the utmost disgust and disdain for them as human beings.

I personally don't approve of abortion, and wouldn't ever want my girlfriend to have one (if God forbid that happened).

Glad to hear you seem to share some of my convictions on the issue. But based on the rest of your post, you're still quite obviously Pro-Choice. And that's OK... fine to disagree.

But I also know that without empirical objective evidence that a clump of cells does constitute a seperate person,

Actually, given that abortion is terminating a potential life, I maintain that the burden of proof is on the pro-abortion side to prove that the foetus they're destroying ISN'T a life.

I don't have the right to tell other people when they are or aren't allowed to have babies.

In any situation or just very early term? I ask because this statement could be interpreted that you would support partial birth abortion (or "intact dilation and extraction", as proponents prefer to call it) being returned as a legal procedure.

There's no doubt that most of the anti-abortion opposition is based on personal faith and gut-instinct and then using science where it is convenient to back up the argument...

There's a reason why opposition AND support of abortion is based on gut instinct and faith (or the lack thereof). Since science has yet to definitively and objectively state when and why life begins at a specific point, we have no other basis upon which to make our decision. Is that a bad thing? Does it invalidate either side?

and that just not a good enough reason to strip away some of the most important rights of over half the country, particularly when its being primarily spearheaded by the other half.

Well, our society is largely based on the majority setting what is and is not to be for the population as a whole, albeit in a very slow, trickle-down mechanism that is highly subject to corruption. Popular elections lead to legislators submitting legislation which can often be stalled indefinitely before being accepted/rejected before repeating the process in the other federal chamber before being either being accepted/rejected/ignored at the executive level. And all of those levels are, regrettably, susceptible to financial or other influence from various interest groups. Not exactly a model of efficient repression, but laws can and do frequently pass which a slight minority (or sometimes even slight majority) oppose.

Of course, back to what you were saying, the same scenario could be applied to another big dispute during which one half of the country chose to deny the other half of the country their choice of how to live based on the first half's objection to the second half's classification and treatment of a group that couldn't defend nor represent themselves. Circa. 1861-1865. That comparison is a bit shoehorned, but the similiarities between the fight over abortion and the fight over slavery can be quite striking. (Or not, if you're as predisposed to not see them as I am predisposed TO see them.)

[Ancalagon]

Actually, given that abortion is terminating a potential life, I maintain that the burden of proof is on the pro-abortion side to prove that the foetus they're destroying ISN'T a life.

I'm waiting for you to tell me why contraception isnt also considered murder.

[gzsfrk]

You are confusing an embryo with a baby. A baby has most of its nervous system, including sense orgasn. Embryos/fetuses whatever dont have any of that for quite a while. So there is a difference between the two. Of course, there is a point in a fetuses development at which it does acquire the organs needed to be considered, er, self aware.

Actually, YOU'RE confusing self-awareness with physiological development. Self-awareness has nothing to do with nervous system or organ count. It's the ability for someone (or something) to be aware of its own existence. And that doesn't typically happen until quite some time after birth (possibly not even for years). That's why I believe that particular measure for when a foetus is or is not a human/person and thus abortable to be ridiculous.

[IrishWhiskey]

The only real division that I can ever see, is to say that life begins at conception. Never before nor after is there such a radical change of state and conditions that would lend itself so well to being definitive. The questions are then what is the value of human life and when it is right to kill.Okay. Also I propose we define any killing, even accidental ones, as first degree murder, and shoplifting as grand larceny. They might not be true and many people might suffer unjustly, but at least it prevents difficult slippery slope decisions.

Seriously, it would be extremely difficult to define a cluster of undeveloped cells as a human life, and in that case you are proposing seriously infringing on the rights of over half the people in the country just for the sake of convenience. And that's ignoring all the practical factors like exceptions for rape and health, back-alley abortions, etc, etc.

[gzsfrk]

I'm waiting for you to tell me why contraception isnt also considered murder.

I've already mentioned that I consider conception to be the safety point in defining when life begins. That's a standard I'm comfortable with. Since this entire discussion is about subjectively defining when "life" begins and when it is or is not OK to destroy it, and why we do or do not support those positions, I don't see why that's a problem.

And, as someone else pointed out early in the thread, the Catholic church does look down on contraception, presumably because they've set their "safety point" farther back than I choose to.

[pomeroy]

I'm pro-death penalty in the case of any violent crime where the guilt of the defendant isn't in question, without significant extenuating circumstances.

Even if it was just a barfight?

FUCK.

[gzsfrk]

Seriously, it would be extremely difficult to define a cluster of undeveloped cells as a human life

Actually, I would consider that less difficult than to set an exact "cutoff" point at which the cluster of cells becomes a human. Cell count? Organ count?

The entire issue is murky. That's why black/white arguments don't typically work when discussing abortions. I've acknowledged that I'm not certain when life "begins". I'll state again that I feel like conception is just the safest point at which to define it. (Although some Catholics will argue that I'm too late, and the pro-choice/pro-abortion side will argue that I'm too early.)

See? It's subjective. All we can do is state and support our positions, and then let the mechanism of majority trickle its way down to policy, hopefully keeping an open mind along the way.

[Telefrog]

I've already mentioned that I consider conception to be the safety point in defining when life begins. That's a standard I'm comfortable with. Since this entire discussion is about subjectively defining when "life" begins and when it is or is not OK to destroy it, and why we do or do not support those positions, I don't see why that's a problem.

And, as someone else pointed out early in the thread, the Catholic church does look down on contraception, presumably because they've set their "safety point" farther back than I choose to.

Fair enough. I choose to put my safety point even further down the road. Somewhere near where the law has said it's okay.

[NSFW]

I'm pro choice only because I literally think that women should have the choice of what to do. I think life starts when the baby is born. Scientifically I'm not sure when. But our society counts our years from birth, not conception and that seems to work just fine for everything but this issue. I agree with the bible though, life starts from birth.

[gzsfrk]

You obviously don't understand how complex a newborn babies brain is, yes, it would be protected. In fact, it'd be protected around the 2nd or 3rd trimester.


So is that to say that you agree with the European model of legal abortion on demand up to the 12th week, and only for serious medical risk thereafter?

Also, for those that don't know, I thought I should point out that current law in America doesn't forbid abortion on demand for any reason up to the end of the third trimester. The only restrictions currently in place on abortion at the national level are that the Partial Birth Abortion procedure was made illegal to perform.

[gzsfrk]

Fair enough. I choose to put my safety point even further down the road. Somewhere near where the law has said it's okay.

See my last post. Current law in America says it's legal to have an abortion at any point up until birth. The only restriction thus far is on methodology (PBA's can no longer be performed legally). I would hope that's not what you were intending to say, but if so--I respect your right to think that, but question your humanity.

[IrishWhiskey]

And, as someone else pointed out early in the thread, the Catholic church does look down on contraception, presumably because they've set their "safety point" farther back than I choose to.Actually the Catholic Church 'did' forbid contraception, and now only a few of the hardcore Vatican old-guard really oppose it. The same way pre-marital sex or any sex for pleasure rather than procreation was forbidden. The same way that the Galileo and Darwin were get branded as heretics. Your trying to make an objective argument about forbidding women from not carrying fetus's to term, and yet appealing to standards not based on reason, and done for the sake on convenience. It might be convenient for you as a man, but I suspect a fair few women might not be happy with your reasoning.

Its not a black and white issue, but instead of doing as you suggest, and letting people decide for themselves, you are proposing making an extreme decision to be forced on others. 'Mechanism of the majority' is not sufficient by itself in determining when to strip people of their rights. Particularly when its not a majority, but simply a majority of those politicians within a state or district, which is the goal of those opposing RvW. Roe v Wade doesn't require abortions to be legal, it just makes it a federal issue. The majority is prevailing in keeping it safe and legal, but the minority seeks to undermine that.

[Ancalagon]

Actually, YOU'RE confusing self-awareness with physiological development. Self-awareness has nothing to do with nervous system or organ count. It's the ability for someone (or something) to be aware of its own existence. And that doesn't typically happen until quite some time after birth (possibly not even for years). That's why I believe that particular measure for when a foetus is or is not a human/person and thus abortable to be ridiculous.

Um no. I can interract with a baby, on a sufficient level for me to be convinced that it is aware of me and its own needs. Seeing as we arent sure what self awareness is, requiring anything more is silly. Requiring anything less is perhaps dangerous. Besides, I have known babies with personality at that age. They have preferences, some of which are illogical. Saying that it takes years to develop self awareness is just silly - if you have trouble believing that we can define an arbitrary point in gestation as the self awareness point, it would be even more stupid to attempt to define one in childhood, seeing as during childhood a baby already possesses all of its senses.

And if you say physiological differences lead to self awareness, how is that you only consider babies at about 2 years old (or whatever your date may be) to be self aware? I'd say that human beings go through the most changes in the womb (well, they become human anyway).

I've already mentioned that I consider conception to be the safety point in defining when life begins. That's a standard I'm comfortable with.

I'm sorry, we dont make laws to suit individuals. I dont think you are sufficiently qualified in biology to tell me why you feel that way.

[gzsfrk]

I agree with the bible though, life starts from birth.

??? Must be reading a different Bible than me.

For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
-Psalms 139:13

[IrishWhiskey]

See my last post. Current law in America says it's legal to have an abortion at any point up until birth. The only restriction thus far is on methodology (PBA's can no longer be performed legally). I would hope that's not what you were intending to say, but if so--I respect your right to think that, but question your humanity.Not true.

Roe v. Wade (1973) divided pregnancy into trimesters (periods of about 13 weeks).
First trimester: Roe v. Wade said that states could not restrict abortion in any way.
Second trimester: Roe v. Wade said states could restrict how abortions are done (licensed medical facility, licensed physician) but that restrictions can’t place an undue burden on the woman’s private choice to have an abortion.
Third trimester: Roe v. Wade said that states could restrict abortion, but that any restriction must be accompanied by an exception for the health of the mother.

Every state currently has laws restricting third trimester abortions. The health exception means they can still be performed, but its definately not true when you say that "The only restriction thus far is on methodology"

[gzsfrk]

Actually the Catholic Church 'did' forbid contraception, and now only a few of the hardcore Vatican old-guard really oppose it. The same way pre-marital sex or any sex for pleasure rather than procreation was forbidden. The same way that the Galileo and Darwin were get branded as heretics. Your trying to make an objective argument about forbidding women from not carrying fetus's to term, and yet appealing to standards not based on reason, and done for the sake on convenience. It might be convenient for you as a man, but I suspect a fair few women might not be happy with your reasoning.

I wasn't using the Catholic church's position as a support to my own argument. I provided that position as a contrast to my own subjective position on the topic of what is and is not OK with regard to reproductive health. As was quite clear in my post, the official Catholic stance is in opposition to my own. I'm not at all sure why you felt the need to try and portray it that way.

[gzsfrk]

Not true.

Roe v. Wade (1973) divided pregnancy into trimesters (periods of about 13 weeks).
First trimester: Roe v. Wade said that states could not restrict abortion in any way.
Second trimester: Roe v. Wade said states could restrict how abortions are done (licensed medical facility, licensed physician) but that restrictions can’t place an undue burden on the woman’s private choice to have an abortion.
Third trimester: Roe v. Wade said that states could restrict abortion, but that any restriction must be accompanied by an exception for the health of the mother.

Every state currently has laws restricting third trimester abortions. The health exception means they can still be performed, but its definately not true when you say that "The only restriction thus far is on methodology"

You'll note in the post I referenced that I specifically stated that there are no restrictions at the "national level".

[Telefrog]

Not true.

Roe v. Wade (1973) divided pregnancy into trimesters (periods of about 13 weeks).
First trimester: Roe v. Wade said that states could not restrict abortion in any way.
Second trimester: Roe v. Wade said states could restrict how abortions are done (licensed medical facility, licensed physician) but that restrictions can’t place an undue burden on the woman’s private choice to have an abortion.
Third trimester: Roe v. Wade said that states could restrict abortion, but that any restriction must be accompanied by an exception for the health of the mother.

Every state currently has laws restricting third trimester abortions. The health exception means they can still be performed, but its definately not true when you say that "The only restriction thus far is on methodology"

Thanks, Irish. I was going to point out how wrong his assertion was, but you beat me to it.

gzsfrk - As I said, I support the legal choice of a woman to terminate an unwanted or unsafe pregnancy within the bounds of the law. I see no problems with the way the trimesters are defined and separated, but then again, I'm completely non-religious.

[gzsfrk]

I'm sorry, we dont make laws to suit individuals. I dont think you are sufficiently qualified in biology to tell me why you feel that way.

First, I've made no mention of creating or changing laws to suit my individual preferences. I more or less support the "majority rules" system of democracy that we have in place here in the US (minus the corruption). If the majority ever happens to agree with me on this topic and the laws are changed to reflect that, then I will be very pleased. If it does not, then I'll continue to suck it up. It's that simple.

Secondly, I don't think I need to have a doctorate in biology to answer what remains a philosophical and moral question.

[IrishWhiskey]

As was quite clear in my post, the official Catholic stance is in opposition to my own. I'm not at all sure why you felt the need to try and portray it that way.It seemed to me that you were using the Church's arbitrary starting point as a justification for why you have also have an arbitrary (if different) starting point not backed up by any hard evidence.

You'll note in the post I referenced that I specifically stated that there are no restrictions at the "national level".The one I read said:See my last post. Current law in America says it's legal to have an abortion at any point up until birth. The only restriction thus far is on methodology (PBA's can no longer be performed legally). I would hope that's not what you were intending to say, but if so--I respect your right to think that, but question your humanity.The statement about "current law in America" is just wrong, and even keeping in mind a previous post mentioning "national level", its still extremely misleading. Its also a statement I've heard from anti-abortion groups before, again without giving proper context.

Secondly, I don't think I need to have a doctorate in biology to answer what remains a philosophical and moral question.I think that sort of cuts to the crux of the issue. You feel comfortable making a personal philosophical decision that would take away rights from many other people, without having to objectively justify it (yes, I know your opinion is not law, but for the sake of argument). I think that if you are going to accuse someone of murdering a human life, you want to be sure it was just that.

[gzsfrk]

I think that sort of cuts to the crux of the issue. You feel comfortable making a personal philosophical decision that would take away rights from many other people, without having to objectively justify it (yes, I know your opinion is not law, but for the sake of argument). I think that if you are going to accuse someone of murdering a human life, you want to be sure it was just that.

Or, to word it differently, I feel comfortable making a personal philosophical decision that REINSTATES the rights (specifically to life) to many people.

I think that if you're going to advocate for the continued legality of killing a "mass of cells" that you would want to be sure that it was just that, and not a human life.

It goes both ways.

EDITED: Added an additional thought.

[IrishWhiskey]

Or, to word it differently, I feel comfortable making a personal philosophical decision that REINSTATES the rights (specifically to life) to many people. It goes both ways.Understood. I don't disagree with that. But I do think the decision is important enough that you need evidence and any sort of objective reasoning, not just creating an arbitrary standard for the sake of simplicity.

[gzsfrk]

Understood. I don't disagree with that. But I do think the decision is important enough that you need evidence and any sort of objective reasoning, not just creating an arbitrary standard for the sake of simplicity.

Well, to be honest, I don't think it's fair to insinuate that either of us has arrived at our positions devoid of at least a fair understanding of the "facts"--biological, legal, and otherwise. It's possible for two people to be knowledgeable regarding the same pool of information and arrive at two completely different conclusions.

To imply that I'm simply an uninformed zealot is a bit insulting.

[IrishWhiskey]

Well, to be honest, I don't think it's fair to insinuate that either of us has arrived at our positions devoid of at least a fair understanding of the "facts"--biological, legal, and otherwise. It's possible for two people to be knowledgeable regarding the same pool of information and arrive at two completely different conclusions.

To imply that I'm simply an uninformed zealot is a bit insulting.Its not what I'm suggesting. If I had said "the facts say my opinion is right and yours is wrong" I'd understand that interpretation, but I'm making a very different argument


The entire issue is murky. That's why black/white arguments don't typically work when discussing abortions. I've acknowledged that I'm not certain when life "begins". I'll state again that I feel like conception is just the safest point at which to define it. (Although some Catholics will argue that I'm too late, and the pro-choice/pro-abortion side will argue that I'm too early.)

See? It's subjective.Thats the problem. My personal opinion is to disapprove of abortion (except under certain circumstances) and approve of the morning-after pill and contraception. I know I can't emperically justify that, so my reasoning is that people need to make up their own minds. I would like if everyone agreed with me, but I don't think its right to force women to give up their own decisionmaking without an objective standard and supporting facts.

Your argument (or at least it sounded that way to me) suggests that although we can't know for sure, we should make the decision for other people anyway. Thats what I morally object to.

[gzsfrk]

Your argument (or at least it sounded that way to me) suggests that although we can't know for sure, we should make the decision for other people anyway. Thats what I morally object to.

Actually, my position is that there is a need to defend the lives of those that cannot defend themselves. Since my marker for the beginning of "life" is at conception, that forces me, when it comes to the issue of abortion, to choose between either accepting the loss of life or denying a woman the ability to choose to end her pregnancy based solely on preference. It's a no win situation.

And as I've stated in earlier posts in this thread, for me, the lesser evil is to save a life at the expense of denying the woman's choice. It's by no means about just restricting choice just for the sake of being a zealous dick.

[IrishWhiskey]

Also, an interesting and relevant story: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080122/us_time/whyhaveabortionratesfallen)

Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court legalized abortion in the U.S., abortion rates are at their lowest level in three decades - which gives both sides in the culture wars something to celebrate and plenty to fight over, while the rest of us try to figure out what happened.

The problem is that no one can prove what complex chemistry of cause and effect, culture and calculation, explains the falling rates - and for people who have devoted their lives to this issue, there's no glory in achieving one's ends if the means are anathema. Pro-choice groups credit comprehensive sex education and access to contraception, strategies that social conservatives often resist. Pro-lifers credit campaigns to tighten laws controlling access to abortion and to warn women about abortion's risks - which the other side deplores.

Meanwhile the vast majority of Americans watch from the sidelines and long for cease-fire, because the good news about falling abortion rates only illuminates the bad news underneath: Close to half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and 40% of those end in abortion. The U.S. still has one of the highest teen-pregnancy rates in the developed world - nearly twice as high as England and Canada, eight times as high as the Netherlands and Japan - and in December, the Centers for Disease Control reported that the teen birth rate rose for the first time in 15 years. Likewise, the U.S. abortion rates are disproportionately high: Rates in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands are less than half that in the U.S. - fewer than 10 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44.

With the two sides pulling in opposite directions, it's hard to see how progress comes. Groups like Planned Parenthood have fought hard to expand access to contraception, such as Plan B, the "morning after pill," which was finally approved for over-the-counter use in 2006. And they have fought for comprehensive sex education, which includes information about contraception as well as abstinence. A Guttmacher study in 2006 found that roughly "14% of the decline in teen pregnancy between 1995 and 2002 was due to teens' delaying sex or having sex less often, while 86% was due to an increase in sexually experienced teens' contraceptive use." Fewer unwanted pregnancies, pro-choice groups argue, is the key to fewer abortions: In fact, the abortion rate among teenagers has been falling most sharply.Its interesting for a few reasons. One is that despite our high abortion rate, it has gone down since Roe v Wade, just as it has in other countries that legalized abortion. Another is that countries that don't restrict abortions nearly as much as we do have a far lower abortion rate. And finally, time and time again, contraception and education is proven to be the most effective way of preventing unwanted pregnancies.

In my mind this repudiates the strategy of the many right-wing groups opposing abortion, which is to make access harder for women, cut hospitals funding for providing it, and push abstinence and oppose sex-ed. Whereas making it safe, legal and rare through sex-ed, contraception and the morning-after pill will help reduce the number of abortions. Along with improving our adoption system (which regardless of the abortion debate is in dire need of repair).

[gzsfrk]

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20021223_05_mistake.gif
<giant linked wall o' text>

In my mind this repudiates the strategy of the many right-wing groups opposing abortion, which is to make access harder for women, cut hospitals funding for providing it, and push abstinence and oppose sex-ed. Whereas making it safe, legal and rare through sex-ed, contraception and the morning-after pill will help reduce the number of abortions. Along with improving our adoption system (which regardless of the abortion debate is in dire need of repair).

I was waiting for you to drop your obligatory right-wing bash, Irish. Thanks for not disappointing. :)

[Alexious]

Quite honestly, I don't have ANY answers to any of this.
There's an easy answer. Sterilize everyone at birth. Then make them apply to have their reproductive rights reinstated. Simple really.

Doesn't it bother anyone else that you need a license to drive a car but any idiot can reproduce?

[IrishWhiskey]

Doesn't it bother anyone else that you need a license to drive a car but any idiot can reproduce?Put it another way: Do you really want the sort of people working at the DMV deciding who can or can't reproduce?

[Banacek]

There's an easy answer. Sterilize everyone at birth. Then make them apply to have their reproductive rights reinstated. Simple really.

Doesn't it bother anyone else that you need a license to drive a car but any idiot can reproduce?

Someone is a fan of 1984.

[Arnold Darkshner]

A compost bin is a great place to store a baby when you're finished with them (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/fa1420df1f)

[Rifter]

There's an easy answer. Sterilize everyone at birth. Then make them apply to have their reproductive rights reinstated. Simple really.

Doesn't it bother anyone else that you need a license to drive a car but any idiot can reproduce?

Hey, just as long as I am in charge of handing out the license... and my family likewise, is in charge, I am good with this. Otherwise... no.

[Yung Ugly]

I tend to take the view that I don't agree with it in most cases, but I don't think that a woman should be told by the government that she has to have a baby. There are a lot of things that I don't agree with that the government makes completely legal, and there are a lot of things that are illegal that I think the govt. f'd up on. I just think that a woman's body his hers to do what she wants with and not the governments.

[Rifter]

I think that sort of cuts to the crux of the issue. You feel comfortable making a personal philosophical decision that would take away rights from many other people, without having to objectively justify it (yes, I know your opinion is not law, but for the sake of argument). I think that if you are going to accuse someone of murdering a human life, you want to be sure it was just that.

The real CRUX of this issue, has always been, and will always be, truely a philosophical debate. No matter WHAT you want think, this debate IS entirely philosophical.

We can debate back and forth, all we want, but the fact of the matter, is that a baby's LIFE begins at conception. PERIOD. I can toss ALL kinds of links at you, talking about how to see if an item is living, or not... and why the virus is still such a pain in our ass, from an "is it life" perspective.

The crux of the abortion issue, isn't when LIFE begins... but as to when a PERSON'S life begins. I contend, from a religious background, that it begins when the soul enters the body.

Now, I have NO idea when this actually occurs. If we could build a soul-o-meter, and could test if a child has a soul or not... I would say a baby couldn't be aborted after the soul was in place. Once again, I don't know when that occurs. What makes me feel the least squeemish about the whole thing, is to say abortion is ok up through the 2nd trimester. I honestly believe it is ok for quality of life issues as well... somewhat beyond that. Though, partial birth abortions, I still say is bad. VERY bad.

I am willing to put limitations on abortions, but I believe that it should be a CHOICE. It is between the mother, the father, and their own god, or personal belief system.

[gzsfrk]

I am willing to put limitations on abortions, but I believe that it should be a CHOICE. It is between the mother, the father, and their own god, or personal belief system.

Philosophically and morally speaking, I don't think a mother should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy for the exact same reason that I don't think a mother should be able to terminate their child's life after they are born. In both cases you're denying the mother a choice, and almost everyone is fine with denying her a choice in the latter case.

Thus, I don't think it really works to build it up as strictly being legal or not based on denying a woman her "choice". Quite a few women who suffer from post-partem depression or other serious mental ailments have killed their newborn babies, and have been held legally accountable for it. That's not to say that every woman who has an abortion should be criminally prosecuted, but it does establish that the law currently DOES restrict a woman's choice by prosecuting her if she exercises the choice to end her baby's life AFTER birth as opposed to before.

[Terran]

Babies should not have to pay with their lives for their parents' mistakes...

[Rifter]

Philosophically and morally speaking, I don't think a mother should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy for the exact same reason that I don't think a mother should be able to terminate their child's life after they are born.

That is why I started that post with the statement that abortion is a philisophical/moral argument. I don't think that it will EVER be a scientific argument... at least, past medical reasons where the mother's life is in danger.

Quite honestly, I believe that aborting a child, that is really unwanted... is more merciful than allowing them to be born, and treated as a mistake.

[Disgustipated]

Pretty sure I wouldn't be able to afford a vasectomy (plus, they seem unreliable, at best), but no, I don't plan on having kids. Condoms + Birth control pill = pretty sure I won't have any accidents either.

And the whole fact that you'd like to have sex with someone in a fursuit. That might, you know, keep the pregnancy rate down... considering it might just be an animal.

Do you see what I'm trying to say? FURRY?

[Terran]

Quite honestly, I believe that aborting a child, that is really unwanted... is more merciful than allowing them to be born, and treated as a mistake.

Apparently you have never met anyone who was adopted, since I'm pretty sure the vast majority are glad to be alive.

[OrangePulp]

That is why I started that post with the statement that abortion is a philisophical/moral argument. I don't think that it will EVER be a scientific argument... at least, past medical reasons where the mother's life is in danger.

Quite honestly, I believe that aborting a child, that is really unwanted... is more merciful than allowing them to be born, and treated as a mistake.

Maybe not a scientific argument to you personally, but to some people (like me) it is. As I see it, the science precludes the morality. The clump of cells starting at conception isn't automatically a human being, and thus logically there is a point between then and birth where it transitions from one state to the other. Whether the current cutoff point, so to speak, is correct (third trimester for the most part?), I really don't know; I don't have sufficient background to be the judge of that. But, personally, I don't see much of a difference between an early abortion, and contraception.

[Alexious]

Quite honestly, I believe that aborting a child, that is really unwanted... is more merciful than allowing them to be born, and treated as a mistake.
Right... see that's where my solution works. There would literally be zero unwanted pregnancies.

I mean people want to bring up 1984 and how incompetent the government is and how badly they would screw up choosing who could have a baby.

For the sake of argument though, let's say we had a scientifically accurate way to calculate the number of babies the planet could add each year. Then, let's say we had a fair system for doling out that number to people who wanted them.

Doesn't my solution work? It stops unwanted pregnancies and also stops overpopulation.

[Rifter]

Apparently you have never met anyone who was adopted, since I'm pretty sure the vast majority are glad to be alive.

Actually, I had a child, and my ex wife and I put him up for adoption. So, you would actually, be COMPLETLEY wrong. Oh yea, my first GF was also adopted. So, if you want to make any more knee-jerk comments, feel free.

I am for freedom of choice... I can't say I am really for using the choice. Given the "choice" I chose adoption.

I am a bit different than most people. I am very conservative, as most people in here can attest to... but I beleive in Choice. This hit home, when I got my girlfriend pregnant. We opted for adoption, and honestly, I think adoption is a WONDERFUL thing, and should be used, instead of abortion. Even though I believe choice, I still DO have problems with some procedures, and believe there SHOULD be limits. Finally I really do view this whole thing, as being between the mother, the father, and their beliefs. Which, is why I believe in choice.

Maybe not a scientific argument to you personally, but to some people (like me) it is. As I see it, the science precludes the morality. The clump of cells starting at conception isn't automatically a human being, and thus logically there is a point between then and birth where it transitions from one state to the other.

Thank you for proving my point. Scientifically, we don't have that point. Science really can't point to a PLACE IN TIME. Jeeze, this can still be a moral/philosophical debate, but come on people, put some thought and logic into it.


For the sake of argument though, let's say we had a scientifically accurate way to calculate the number of babies the planet could add each year. Then, let's say we had a fair system for doling out that number to people who wanted them.

Doesn't my solution work? It stops unwanted pregnancies and also stops overpopulation.
Taking away our ability to make mistakes, and learn from them, I believe, is inherently wrong. If we outgrow our planet, we will find others to colonize. We will make the moon habitable. What pushes us, as a species, to get better, is adversity. Take that away, and we are nothing.

[cp#]

Babies should not have to pay with their lives for their parents' mistakes...

Abortion is legal /thread

[MacD]

I saw a temple of some kind of large-scale cult. They worship an invisible man in the sky who was supposed to have written some book. No-one has heard of this dude in two thousand years, but supposedly he does appear on tortillas every so often. Guess his power has diminished a bit.

Also, his worshippers seem to find nothing wrong about washing living cells off their bodies and killing those cells which can be used to create life, or sending thousands to die in war, but have a strange compulsion to save other cells, or by inaction to have those cells turn into zygotes.
But as soon as the unwanted zygote has matured and been born, these same people couldn't care less about what happens to it. I think that's strange...if you must have these things be kept to term, you should accept the consequences and be held responsible for it's health and education afterwards.

Their dude is supposed to be omnipotent, too. So either he sees all the evil in the world and can't act against it, or he can't see it; in both cases he is not omnipotent.
Or he does see it and just chooses not to act against it, in which case he's an arsehole. Of course, against that the cult members then have the excuse that the guy is following a plan which is unknowable to us.

Yeah, right.

So, anyway, I drove by this building which belongs to this cult which causes suffering and bigotry and harbours child molesters, and it got me wondering...

Not @Rifter per se, as I haven't read this thread: it always surprised me to no end that religious people, of all people, then tun to science to get us out of the jams religion can get us in.

[Neosho]

Actually, it's really easy to define life:

Does it exist on it's own without the mother's body to support it?

Y/N

If yes, then it is a person and you may not kill it. If no, it is effectively a parasite. :)

This puts out most 3rd trimester abortions, as most infants are capable of surviving with the appropriate medical care outside of the womb at that point. Besides that, it's completely dependent on another being for it's complete and utter support, as in, no matter what you do once you take it out of the mother, it dies. A baby can be taken out, fed, and develop into an adult. A fetus cannot.

I don't believe that the bible or the church should dictate the actions of everyone else. There's a reason for the seperation of church and state...the church is like a corporation and only has it's own interests in mind. If you don't believe in abortion, then that's fine, it's your choice to not have one. But you shouldn't be inflicting your personal religious views on other people.

[Terran]

So, if you want to make any more knee-jerk comments, feel free.

Excuse me...were you not the one who said, and I quote,

aborting a child, that is really unwanted... is more merciful than allowing them to be born, and treated as a mistake.

Knee-jerk comment? To wonder if you have a bit of a clue of the difference between ABORTION and ADOPTION as choices?

Seriously...how you can say abortion is better than being "unwanted" is just ridiculous. :rolleyes: If you're looking for an excuse to justify abortion, "unwanted" is a damn weak one.

Abortion is legal /thread

Laws change.

/of ending thread! :D

[AntB]

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n30/shadowyinzer/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

[Rifter]

Knee-jerk comment? To wonder if you have a bit of a clue of the difference between ABORTION and ADOPTION as choices?


I think I pointed out, that I have a VERY good grasp of the difference. I had also mentioned it earlier in the thread.


Seriously...how you can say abortion is better than being "unwanted" is just ridiculous. :rolleyes: If you're looking for an excuse to justify abortion, "unwanted" is a damn weak one.

As I stated before, I believe in choice. I would PREFER to see adoption, and in MY LIFE I have chosen adoption. Quite honestly, yes, I do think a child born to this world, to an unloving parent, could be worse, than not being born at all. That is where we have a moral difference. It is as simple as that. You seem to look at me as an animal because I look at it more coldly logical.

[Terran]

You seem to look at me as an animal because I look at it more coldly logical.

What? :confused:

Not at all. I look at you, and others like you, as justifying killing babies, whether participating directly or not. That's what abortion does, regardless of what anyone else says about "choice" or anything else.

Dead babies. That's it. Is it a tough choice? Sure. Still a dead baby.

[Neosho]

What? :confused:

Not at all. I look at you, and others like you, as justifying killing babies, whether participating directly or not. That's what abortion does, regardless of what anyone else says about "choice" or anything else.

Dead babies. That's it. Is it a tough choice? Sure. Still a dead baby.

It's not a baby till it can live on it's own.

[Terran]

It's not a baby till it can live on it's own.

Justification/rationalization.

Extend your logic out to its rational conclusion. Anyone who cannot live on his/her own should just be put down. They're not human life...they're sub-human.

Say whatever you want. Abortion kills a baby. That much is crystal clear. You have an abortion, you are killing a baby.

[Rifter]

Dead babies. That's it. Is it a tough choice? Sure. Still a dead baby.

I tend to look at them as an unviable fetus. But, it really is semantics. Mine is biologically backed.

When you start attaching yourself to it, as being a baby... you do loose perspective.

You would never get an abortion... I respect that... what I DON'T respect, is you trying to tell me how to live my life. I completely believe this is a choice between those involved. Anyone not involved needs to butt out.

[Neosho]

Justification/rationalization.

Extend your logic out to its rational conclusion. Anyone who cannot live on his/her own should just be put down. They're not human life...they're sub-human.

Say whatever you want. Abortion kills a baby. That much is crystal clear. You have an abortion, you are killing a baby.

If they can't live on their own, they're putting themselves down! :rolleyes: I'm not talking about food, i'm not talking about waste management, or water. I'm talking about: It sits in a room for 10 minutes completely on it's own. Does it live or die?

You have no justification for your opinion, no basis at all. Your religious backround or your personal beliefs believe that human life starts at conception, and that's fine. I don't believe the same thing, and i don't believe that you should have the right to tell other people what to do with internal parasites based off of your beliefs.

As it is, i reduce it to a common denominator as well...does it live on it's own? If it doesn't, if it can't survive for 10 minutes on it's own, i don't think it's a human. This only applies to pre term babies, once you've been shot out of the old vagina, that's a different matter. There is no "extend to rational conclusion", as this doesn't apply to humans, only to pre birth parasites.

[Terran]

...what I DON'T respect, is you trying to tell me how to live my life. I completely believe this is a choice between those involved. Anyone not involved needs to butt out.

...i don't believe that you should have the right to tell other people what to do with internal parasites based off of your beliefs.

Society revolves around people telling others how to live. The only variation is in where we draw the lines.

Abortion rights is a hot topic because those who want abortion to be available don't want to answer for their sexual conduct, nor be saddled with the consequences of what is normally (though not always) intentional behavior (sex). It's also a hot topic because it ends in the death of a baby. You (or anyone else) can call it whatever you like, but it's life...and it ends.

So attempting to overcharge the topic with talk of "respect" and "choice" and "butt[ing] out" or "internal parasites" obfuscates the fact that society draws lines around personal behavior all over the place. You both just happen not to want a line drawn that encroaches upon this behavior.

I do. Abortion kills babies. I don't think they should pay for the mistakes of their biological parents with their lives.

[Rifter]

Abortion rights is a hot topic because those who want abortion to be available don't want to answer for their sexual conduct, nor be saddled with the consequences of what is normally (though not always) intentional behavior (sex). It's also a hot topic because it ends in the death of a baby. You (or anyone else) can call it whatever you like, but it's life...and it ends.
You are 100% wrong. I honestly believe, that most people that are pro choice, see it JUST as that... a personal choice. They do NOT want you or anyone else getting in the way. If it was someone close to me, that had this occur, I would beg them to put the child up for adoption. It is FAR better. It also keeps them from "being saddled" with a child. You, like everyone I have EVER make the argument as adamantly as you do, fails to truely understand the other side. There is a HUGE difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion. Don't get me wrong, I do believe there are pro-abortion people out tehre... and they bother me.


I do. Abortion kills babies. I don't think they should pay for the mistakes of their biological parents with their lives.
Tell you what, why don't you take care of the darling little one, when it is born. You give these mothers say... $500 a month, to help them make it... buy formula, buy diapers, pay for babysitters. You WANT THEM to keep these children, why not help them out? Do you even volunteer your time to homes for single mothers? Help them out? Make their lives easier?

Have you seen people that have had kids too early... and have struggled throughout life because of a mistake? Have you seen their children struggle as well, dealing with parents that never fully matured, emotionally? Not only does that parent suffer, but so does the child, and many times, so does society, as they are supplementing the parent through welfare, the parent never reaches their full income potential...and unfortuantely, these behaviors go from generation to generation, so it is difficult to break the cycle.

[Neosho]

Society revolves around people telling others how to live. The only variation is in where we draw the lines.

Abortion rights is a hot topic because those who want abortion to be available don't want to answer for their sexual conduct, nor be saddled with the consequences of what is normally (though not always) intentional behavior (sex). It's also a hot topic because it ends in the death of a baby. You (or anyone else) can call it whatever you like, but it's life...and it ends.

So attempting to overcharge the topic with talk of "respect" and "choice" and "butt[ing] out" or "internal parasites" obfuscates the fact that society draws lines around personal behavior all over the place. You both just happen not to want a line drawn that encroaches upon this behavior.

I do. Abortion kills babies. I don't think they should pay for the mistakes of their biological parents with their lives.

No, abortion doesn't kill babies. Babies need to be born to be babies.

a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk

It kills fetuses. There are terms for these things, use them correctly or you come off like a blind fundie. People resorting to emotional arguements are pretty much ignored by anyone intelligent in any real debate. Either way, fetuses are not babies, and babies are not killed by abortions. You can argue all you want about fetuses being human or not, but scientifically, they are simply not human. The word fetus was developed for just this reason.

So yeah, abortion kills fetuses. I don't think that fetuses are human, you disagree, and that's that. In the same way that the next of kin or those with the power of attourney can remove someone from life support, a mother should be able to remove an unwanted fetus, before it is capable of survival outside of the womb.

Now, personally, i think that 3rd trimester abortions should be verbotten. But that's not my choice to make. It is a choice between a woman and the thing inside her. Should she want to cut it off, she can.

[Terran]

You are 100% wrong...There is a HUGE difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion.

Really?

Pro-choice = dead baby.
Pro-abortion = dead baby.

The end result is the same. The difference is in the amount of salve slathered on one's conscience.

Tell you what, why don't you take care of the darling little one, when it is born....<etc., etc.>

Hyperbolize much? There are more individuals seeking infants for adoption than there are babies to be adopted.

Have you seen people that have had kids too early... and have struggled throughout life because of a mistake?

Give the child up for adoption.

If someone within the family is interested/able, have them raise the child.

Drop the child off under the myriad laws that allow the legal drop-off of unwanted infants in the care of the authorities.

One does not have to go from: Step one, "I'm PREGNANT;" to "Step two, "abortion." There are other options.

Either way, fetuses are not babies, and babies are not killed by abortions. You can argue all you want about fetuses being human or not, but scientifically, they are simply not human.

Really now? Science has determined the exact moment when a "fetus" becomes human? I'm interested...a premature birth, then, is NOT human? A baby killed in an assault on his/her pregnant mother is NOT human? A child unnaturally pulled from its dying mother in a Caesarean is not human?

I'm glad science has answered that question! :rolleyes: So science says that life evolved from simple organisms to complex organisms, and allows you to decide for yourself when life is of value or not?

If a child that cannot live independently can be killed, why not the elderly? The infirm? The mentally handicapped?

[Neosho]

One does not have to go from: Step one, "I'm PREGNANT;" to "Step two, "abortion." There are other options.

What if the mother is incapable of caring for herself to a reasonable degree during the pregenacy? What if she's addicted to drugs? What if she's a rape victim? What if she doesn't have the money to fund the child's diapers, clothes, food, and medical care? :rolleyes:

I wouldn't expect you to see this much beyond the "zomg dead babies" view though.

[Drinking_Buddy]

Thank god I wear condoms.

[Terran]

I wouldn't expect you to see this much beyond the "zomg dead babies" view though.

This is retarded. If you want to abort anything, you should abort the thinking that makes you post like this.

There are numerous programs to assist pregnant mothers in every area of the country. They're easier to find than abortion clinics, I know that for sure. If you can find an abortion clinic, you can get assistance.

[IrishWhiskey]

Thank god I wear condoms.Only 99.9% effective man. And thats if it hasn't been accidentally punctured. Make sure she's on the pill too.

[AntB]

Thank god I wear condoms.

But remember, if your condom rips, that means god wants you to have a baby, and it doesn't matter if it will fuck up your and your future child's life, god and fundies demand it.

[Banacek]

Only 99.9% effective man. And thats if it hasn't been accidentally punctured. Make sure she's on the pill too.

For safe measure push her down a flight of stairs as well.

[IrishWhiskey]

This is retarded. If you want to abort anything, you should abort the thinking that makes you post like this.I'd be careful before starting the personal attacks, given the simplistic and wrong points of view contained in your own posts.

Pro-choice = dead baby.
Pro-abortion = dead baby.

The end result is the same. The difference is in the amount of salve slathered on one's conscience. Again, until its born, its a fetus. You can argue that a fetus = a human life, but don't play fast and loose with important distinctions. Pro-choice means you aren't arrogant enough to tell other people that your unsubstantiated beliefs are fact, and they have to live their lives by them. Pro-abortion means you like abortions.

Hyperbolize much? There are more individuals seeking infants for adoption than there are babies to be adopted.
Which is why there are over a hundred thousands kids in the US alone awaiting adoption, many of which will never find a permanent home.

I'm glad science has answered that question! :rolleyes: So science says that life evolved from simple organisms to complex organisms, and allows you to decide for yourself when life is of value or not?

If a child that cannot live independently can be killed, why not the elderly? The infirm? The mentally handicapped?Damn you science! First you lie to us about evolution, then you try telling us to become Nazi's! What next you Godless heathens!

Godwin'ing doesn't help your case and you are the one stating for a fact whether a life has value or not. The fact that you aren't using science doesn't make you more correct.

[Terran]

But remember, if your condom rips, that means god wants you to have a baby, and it doesn't matter if it will fuck up your and your future child's life, god and fundies demand it.

That's right. Because, of course, God REALLY exists and deserves the blame once you've fucked your girl and gotten her pregnant.

He didn't exist, however, when you were getting it on with her.

And, as we all know, when one is pregnant there are only two possible options: Abortion, or your own life effectively ends. Nothing in the middle! Nope!

[Zabyx]

That's right. Because, of course, God REALLY exists and deserves the blame once you've fucked your girl and gotten her pregnant.

He didn't exist, however, when you were getting it on with her.

And, as we all know, when one is pregnant there are only two possible options: Abortion, or your own life effectively ends. Nothing in the middle! Nope!

I don't get it. Are you religious? No?

[Terran]

I'd be careful before starting the personal attacks, given the simplistic and wrong points of view contained in your own posts.

How about reading the posts? I pointed out the obvious and made no attacks except to point out the rude and stupid comments of others.

Again, until its born, its a fetus. You can argue that a fetus = a human life, but don't play fast and loost with important distinctions.

Semantics for the soul, to salve the wounded conscience.

Which is why there are over a hundred thousands kids waiting adoption, many of which will never find a permanent home.

Again, the demand for INFANTS far exceeds the number available. Until supply exceeds demand with INFANTS there's no problem with placing them. Or, are you arguing that pregnancies end in the birth of teenagers who can't be placed? :rolleyes:

you are the one stating for a fact whether a life has value or not. The fact that you aren't using science doesn't make you more correct.

Yes, I am. Life does have value. Intrinsically.

Many of you fight harder for the rights of animals than you do for the tens of millions of babies aborted and killed every year. Frankly, that's a disgustingly hypocritical stance. I hope you can live with that on your conscience.

Save the environment!
Save the animals!
Fuck the damn babies, man! It's a CHOICE!!!

I don't get it. Are you religious? No?

I yam what I yam.

I like spinach.

[Zabyx]

It's ironic that you talk about fetuses as humans, but also talk about babies using the term supply and demand...

[Terran]

It's ironic that you talk about fetuses as humans, but also talk about babies using the term supply and demand...

Economics is an interest of mine, and if you're going to ask that people carry an unwanted child to term, you certainly have to persuade them of the economics of it (that it doesn't have to "ruin" them financially).

Demand for the babies exceeds what supply there is available.

State, federal, and private agencies are focused on helping you, if you simply seek it out. Contact the local hospital, police, school, religious institution, or any similar agency and ask for referrals/help economically.

[IrishWhiskey]

I yam what I yam.
Which would be a radical reactionary operating from kneejerk assumptions and not willing to question your beliefs. And saying you only insulted "rude and stupid" people isn't a particularly good defense. Especially when you define that as anyone disagreeing with you.
Yes, I am. Life does have value. Intrinsically.You can't cut out that person's appendix! It has life! MURDERER!

Oh, wait, maybe the distinction between an unformed cluster of cells and a human life does matter.Many of you fight harder for the rights of animals than you do for the tens of millions of babies aborted and killed every year. Frankly, that's a disgustingly hypocritical stance. I hope you can live with that on your conscience.

Save the environment!
Save the animals!
Fuck the damn babies, man! It's a CHOICE!!!Yup, we're all PETA lovin, baby-killin hippies. For crying out loud.

[Zabyx]

Economics is an interest of mine, and if you're going to ask that people carry an unwanted child to term, you certainly have to persuade them of the economics of it (that it doesn't have to "ruin" them financially).

Demand for the babies exceeds what supply there is available.

State, federal, and private agencies are focused on helping you, if you simply seek it out. Contact the local hospital, police, school, religious institution, or any similar agency and ask for referrals/help economically.

If there is such a demand, then why is there such a need for foster homes? To pay parents? There is a demand for babies, yes. But not children. But what do you think the children once were? Unwanted babies.

[Terran]

...saying you only insulted "rude and stupid" people isn't a particularly good defense. Especially when you define that as anyone disagreeing with you.

Funny how you can't read worth a shit.

I said, "the rude and stupid comments of others." Now, if you're going to go all SEMANTIC on me about the use of the word baby for "fetus" you DAMN well better get your shit straight if you want to come back in my face with that kind of bullshit. I never said "rude and stupid PEOPLE" nor did I define that as "anyone disagreeing with" me.

You seriously need to grow up...or take reading lessons.

Yup, we're all PETA lovin, baby-killin hippies. For crying out loud.

Hyperbolize much?

Would you support the right of a pet owner to abort the babies inside of his/her pet? Would it be acceptable to you for a consumer to drive any type of car they wish, no matter the pollution that results? Do you believe companies should have the right to log indiscriminately on land they own?

I'm sure many like you, if not yourself, are much more concerned about the environment than babies. If you fight for environmental causes, but not for the lives of tens of millions of babies, then I'm correct.

[IrishWhiskey]

Funny how you can't read worth a shit.

I said, "the rude and stupid comments of others." Now, if you're going to go all SEMANTIC on me about the use of the word baby for "fetus" you DAMN well better get your shit straight if you want to come back in my face with that kind of bullshit. I never said "rude and stupid PEOPLE" nor did I define that as "anyone disagreeing with" me.

You seriously need to grow up...or take reading lessons.No I'm sorry. You're right. Clearly you aren't being rude at all.

And attacking people for stupid posts is completely different from attacking people as stupid. Its not at all a semantic distinction. Unlike say, the difference between fetus and baby, which is definately a semantic distinction. One that we should never question now that the all-knowing Terran has decreed it so.

Hyperbolize much?
Many of you fight harder for the rights of animals than you do for the tens of millions of babies aborted and killed every year. Frankly, that's a disgustingly hypocritical stance. I hope you can live with that on your conscience.

Save the environment!
Save the animals!
Fuck the damn babies, man! It's a CHOICE!!!
I'll let the non-crazy people be the judge of that.

Would you support the right of a pet owner to abort the babies inside of his/her pet? Would it be acceptable to you for a consumer to drive any type of car they wish, no matter the pollution that results? Do you believe companies should have the right to log indiscriminately on land they own?

I'm sure many like you, if not your, are much more concerned about the environment than babies. If you fight for environmental causes, but not for the lives of tens of millions of babies, then I'm correct....Yeah. If anyone cares about any issue, but doesn't agree with you that a blastocyst equals a human life, then they consider chicken nuggets more important than babies. Oh, and want to kill the mentally retarded and elderly. Makes perfect sense.

[Zabyx]

What's with you and the phrase hyperbolize much? You're the one talking about how some floating, currently mindless fetus that happens to look somewhat like a baby should have the rights. Can it talk? No. Can it feel pain? No. So you go all out and drop out the BABY KILLER defense, yet diss him for exaggerating?

[Banacek]

Hyperbolize much?

Um, he was responding to your exaggeration. You can't exaggerate then accuse someone of exaggeration when they respond to your initial statement. Unless you are an idiot. Then you can do whatever you want.

[Zabyx]

Um, he was responding to your exaggeration. You can't exaggerate then accuse someone of exaggeration when they respond to your initial statement. Unless you are an idiot. Then you can do whatever you want.

Exactly... He's raising the illiterate flag a lot. Now, Terran, I'm not going to go as far as lrn2read... But maybe you should get your eyes checked.

[Terran]

No I'm sorry. You're right. Clearly you aren't being rude at all.

Clearly, you didn't read mischaracterize what I said. :rolleyes:

Makes perfect sense.

If you care more for trees and dogs than you do for millions of babies, you have a problem of priorities.

Can it feel pain? No.

You don't know your science.

Or, your particular "branch" of science is wilted.

Unless you are an idiot. Then you can do whatever you want.

Leading by example? :D

Truly, it just doesn't matter how you excuse/rationalize/justify it; abortion is the end of a life. It's the death of a baby. If you feel better calling it a fetus, call it a <insert nonsensical phrase here.> It's the death of a living being, with its own genetic code, its own biological will to live, and its own opportunity at a full life.

[cp#]

Terran is a bigger joke than abortion debate. Who are you really?

[IrishWhiskey]

If you care more for trees and dogs than you do for millions of babies, you have a problem of priorities.Although I'm sure this is a waste of time, I'll give it a shot anyway:

Can you prove in any objective way that a fetus at an early stage of development is a human life, as opposed to a collection of non-self aware cells? If not, then why are you viciously attacking people for disagreeing with you on something you can't justify?

[harle]

My college had little crosses in the lawn representing the number of abortions everyday. No one seemed to care.

[Banacek]

Although I'm sure this is a waste of time, I'll give it a shot anyway:

Can you prove in any objective way that a fetus at an early stage of development is a human life, as opposed to a collection of non-self aware cells? If not, then why are you viciously attacking people for disagreeing with you on something you can't justify?

It has a soul!

Just taking a guess at his response.

[Terran]

Can you prove in any objective way that a fetus at an early stage of development is a human life, as opposed to a collection of non-self aware cells?

Does human life require self-awareness? Isn't life...LIFE?

I suppose coma victims should be executed...or the severely mentally retarded?

How much awareness is enough to preserve life?

My college had little crosses in the lawn representing the number of abortions everyday. No one seemed to care.

Not enough people do. It's on the order of 3,000+ a day in the US alone. It's truly tragic.

I'm done. Continue with your love-in on the topic of how incredibly tolerant and open-minded you are in allowing abortion. You're my heroes.

[Banacek]

Oh good, he's gone. What a douche.

[IrishWhiskey]

Can you prove in any objective way that a fetus at an early stage of development is a human life, as opposed to a collection of non-self aware cells? If not, then why are you viciously attacking people for disagreeing with you on something you can't justify?Does human life require self-awareness? Isn't life...LIFE?
I suppose coma victims should be executed...or the severely mentally retarded?
How much awareness is enough to preserve life?

Not enough people do. It's on the order of 3,000+ a day in the US alone. It's truly tragic.

I'm done. Continue with your love-in on the topic of how incredibly tolerant and open-minded you are in allowing abortion. You're my heroes.So the answer is.... No. You can't provide any justification at all. At least short of considering a removed pancreas or appendix the same as a murder victim. And instead of acknowledging that, you chose to insult people and leave the thread in a huff. Figured.

[Terran]

So the answer is.... No. You can't provide any justification at all. And of acknowledging that, you chose to insult people and leave the thread in a huff. Figured.

Oh please...sanctimony comes free and easy to you, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

You can't provide any justification for treating an unborn baby any differently than a comatose patient...or a severely retarded person. In other words, you've arbitrarily drawn a line without awareness of the illogical parameters of your position.

If unborn life can be ended because it's not "self-aware" then there are many people currently living who, lacking similar self-awareness, hopefully have someone who will keep them away from you and those who think like you do.

Oh good, he's gone. What a douche.

I love you too! Hug a tree for me, would you? Save a whale. Win prizes! :D

[harle]

Not enough people do. It's on the order of 3,000+ a day in the US alone. It's truly tragic.

I'm done. Continue with your love-in on the topic of how incredibly tolerant and open-minded you are in allowing abortion. You're my heroes.I always like this quote:

"Perhaps you think that the crucial difference between a fly and a human blastocyst is to be found in the latter's potential to become a fully developed human being. But almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering. Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings. This is a fact. The argument from a cell's potential gets you absolutely nowhere."

[Neosho]

I could have never anticipated that baiting Terran a bit would go so well...that he'd go so nutso on everyone.

In the end, he has a religious view on things, one not based in facts or anything but his assumption (and it's just that, an assumption) that human life begins at conception. That's fine, i'm a-ok with other people and other beliefs. I may find it silly and poke fun at it, because of it's absurdity, but in the end, he's obviously free to hold any belief he wants, and i will defend his right to say his piece.

However, that ends when people want to pass laws regarding the choice of a woman to perform medically sound operations or to take legal perscription pills. You're free to hold your beliefs, you're protected by freedom of speech and i will stand up for your right to say whatever you want to say, no matter what. But i will not stand for your right to inflict your views on other people under the basis of ignorance and misguided religious fervor.

I'm not pro abortion, really. I think that people should plan better, i think that they should use contraception, education, and should they become needed, abortion. I believe that these things should be freely available without the concent of parents, should the need be there. With education, the need for abortions other unhappy things should be avoided, and kids can have all the sex they want. They've been doing it since the dawn of time, and they'll continue to do it. People stick their heads in the sand over this, and that causes far more damage than sitting down and having a couple of awkward conversations about sex.

Give your kids the tools to make good, informed decisions, and most of them will. There will be mistakes, there will be accidents, and there are relatively painless options for avoiding these mistakes. I wouldn't wish a kid on a 17 year old, and i wouldn't wish a kid that risky of an environment. Children grow best when they're in a nurturing, mature environment, where parents can be parents and not be struggling with their own development at the same time.

[Terran]

In the end, he has a religious view on things

False assumption. I have a logical view on things. If abortion is allowed because unborn babies cannot live independently, and are supposedly not self-aware, then a whole class of people are logically up for extermination as well.

You, and others in here, are illogically drawing crazy-ass crooked lines all over the place. I have a very logical stance. All human life should be valued. Even the terribly sick, mentally retarded, handicapped, and dependent.

[Neosho]

You can't provide any justification for treating an unborn baby any differently than a comatose patient...or a severely retarded person. In other words, you've arbitrarily drawn a line without awareness of the illogical parameters of your position.


Uhh, yes you can, as long as you're capable of simple distinctions:

One is an independent human being, kept alive through life support or their own natural, bodily function.

The other is an internal parasite, with no ability to function on it's own, outside of the mother's womb.

That's a pretty big distinction.

To simplify it even farther: At one point, the coma victim was a functioning human being, capable of moving, walking, talking (maybe incomprehensibly) and living on it's own. A fetus is never capable of any of those things. In fact, it's utterly incapable of existing outside of a human host, rendering it: Not human.

[IrishWhiskey]

Oh please...sanctimony comes free and easy to you, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

You can't provide any justification for treating an unborn baby any differently than a comatose patient...or a severely retarded person. In other words, you've arbitrarily drawn a line without awareness of the illogical parameters of your position.Sure I can. They are out of the womb. And to provide an answer to your example, if they have the mental functioning of Terry Schiavo or a fetus, then it isn't murder to pull the plug. When you equate early fetal development (including before any neural pathways exist at all) to mental retardation, you are equating vastly different things.

My position isn't to say what is human life and isn't. I acknowledge that I don't know for sure when it comes to fetal development. As such without a clear answer, I think people need to be able to choose. You don't. You are confident you have the answer, and insult and attack people for not agreeing with you, without trying to provide any sort of reasoning for your conclusions. That's just... yeah.

[Neosho]

False assumption. I have a logical view on things. If abortion is allowed because unborn babies cannot live independently, and are supposedly not self-aware, then a whole class of people are logically up for extermination as well.

You, and others in here, are illogically drawing crazy-ass crooked lines all over the place. I have a very logical stance. All human life should be valued. Even the terribly sick, mentally retarded, handicapped, and dependent.

:o :o :o

Oh man, that's the best laugh i've had all day. Right, you're "logical" when you assume that a collection of cells with no ability to live outside of a human body is exactly the same as a coma patient. :confused:

The mind boggles. As irish says, i don't know the answer, but i'll err on the side of the living, breathing human being to make up their own mind, rather than some strange idea of a "potential" human being, that's utterly incapable of living on it's own.

[Terran]

One is an independent human being, kept alive through life support or their own natural, bodily function.

The other is an internal parasite, with no ability to function on it's own, outside of the mother's womb.

One is a parasite, consuming finite resources that could be used elsewhere.

The other is a parasite, consuming finite resources that could be used elsewhere.

That's right...distinctions are important.

The mind boggles.

Give it time to sink in. You'll get it! I'm a big believer in people's potential!

[Neosho]

One is a parasite, consuming finite resources that could be used elsewhere.

The other is a parasite, consuming finite resources that could be used elsewhere.

That's right...distinctions are important.



Give it time to sink in. You'll get it! I'm a big believer in people's potential!

Are you seriously attempting to argue this? Because i can respond, and will should you need me to, but i fail to see how someone could be so utterly inane.

[IrishWhiskey]

Are you seriously attempting to argue this? Because i can respond, and will should you need me to, but i fail to see how someone could be so utterly inane.Until he even acknowledges whether he can provide an objective argument for why early fetal development is the same as a human life and not simply living tissue, then he's not even trying to engage in an argument, just flaming and...

... wait a minute.... Johan? Is that you?

[MacD]

Again, the demand for INFANTS far exceeds the number available. Until supply exceeds demand with INFANTS there's no problem with placing them. Or, are you arguing that pregnancies end in the birth of teenagers who can't be placed? :rolleyes:

Kids as an economic demand/suply problem.

Fuck you, man. You really are sick.

And, no, he's arguing that hundreds of thousands of kids can't be placed, the origin of said kid has nothing to do with it. And kids who can't be placed have a shit life in what those kids themselves call 'the system'.
Even worse, many of those kids who are placed have shit lives filled with abuse, 'families' who use them for the cash they get from the system....even freakin' Annie says: "it's a hard life".

Adoption can be an answer. It can also be a fate worse than death.

But isn't the question: "why do we allow so many kids to be born when we know that the 'unwanted' their suffering could have never happened?". The answer is that the catholic church doesn't allow condoms or sex-ed.
Shit, sex-ed cuts off abortion anyway, but then you get idiots who spout the scientifically disproven 'but it promotes sex!'.

So what is it? You want less abortion? Sex-ed. You want adoption? That means you need unwanted babies. You want your cake and eat it too...but the cake is a LIE!

[Neosho]

Until he even acknowledges whether he can provide an objective argument for why early fetal development is the same as a human life and not simply living tissue, then he's not even trying to engage in an argument, just flaming and...

... wait a minute.... Johan? Is that you?

I think that he's simply been a little too influenced by someone close to him who has very strong views on abortion. Just because someone's not religious doesn't mean they won't "buy the hype", so to speak.

I understand where he's coming from. You have the concept of "conception == life" ground into you from the time you're 1 or 3 or whatever, and it's hard to change. It's even harder to realize how arrogant it is to assume that your views are right when you have absolutely no rational basis behind them.

I absolutely believe that there is a point where fetuses do develop into babies. I do NOT believe that it is ok to abort after that point. I do believe that most people who have abortions, should they be correctly educated, will make a choice that is good for them given the correct education. If you removed the stigma of teen pregnancy, of the societal anger that's brought down on young mothers, then i think that a lot of girls would make better choices, be it giving the kid up for adoption or aborting very early in the pregnancy, before there's even the slightest chance that the fetus develops into anything that could remotely be considered a human being.

[Johan]

Kids as an economic demand/suply problem.

Fuck you, man. You really are sick.

Screw you. Kids are not a supply/demand problem, you fool. PLACING kids is a supply/demand problem.

Do people around here know how to read? Seriously...is this a "special" place? :confused:

And, no, he's arguing that hundreds of thousands of kids can't be placed, the origin of said kid has nothing to do with it.

OLDER kids are difficult to place. Infants are EASY to place.

And kids who can't be placed have a shit life in what those kids themselves call 'the system'.

And I'm sure, if you polled them, they'd all vote for "please, abort me NOW!" as their choice. :rolleyes:

Even worse, many of those kids who are placed have shit lives filled with abuse, 'families' who use them for the cash they get from the system....even freakin' Annie says: "it's a hard life".

Absolutely, but the issue of placing older children is different from the issue of adopted/foster children who are abused, which is different from abortion and the adoption of infants.

Unless, you know, you just like to vomit out all your thoughts at once and play with the pretty letters all in a jumble.

Adoption can be an answer. It can also be a fate worse than death.

OMG...you have GOT to be kidding.

Take a poll. Two choices. Adoption, or death.

I think I can accurately predict the overwhelming winner.

The answer is that the catholic church doesn't allow condoms or sex-ed.

Well, that's stupid. Yes.

We agree? Wow!

So what is it? You want less abortion? Sex-ed.

Okay!

You want adoption? That means you need unwanted babies.

Huh? What?

There are millions of unwanted babies every year...the ones that are aborted. If even half of those abortions could be stopped, that would be amazing. There are plenty of people who want to adopt infants...there aren't plenty who want to adopt older children, because of the various issues involved.

[Johan]

... wait a minute.... Johan? Is that you?

I am Johan. Me.

[Deadend]

A good chunk of those wanting to adopt a kid, want the kid to look similar to the parents, so they prefer same race. And it's not all in proportion.

Abortions should be an option, I am not going to budge on this. I think adoption is great, as do many people who work at abortion clinics, but know what? It's her choice, not some one in another state, or anyone. It's the decision of the woman who will have to live with the consequences of her decision. Yeah, I am rabidly pro-choice, but I don't feel abortions are the best option, but they need to exist. As even made illegal, abortions will still be done, except using coat hangers and god knows what.

As it's not like abortions were a new idea in the 1970's. But back then, only richer people could afford to have abortions done by professionals by traveling overseas.

I also think morning after pills should be much easier to come by, and not up to some pharmacist to withhold sales of. It's bad enough that sometimes minors are denied purchasing condoms, (which is batshit stupid insane)

[IrishWhiskey]

I am Johan. Me.I don't know... I'm still suspicious. You're noticeably absent from an abortion thread all day, and the second someone calls you out on your alt, you reappear and the alt disappears. Hmmm....

[NSFW]

This is funny!! :D I support abortion because i believe in not fucking peoples lives up one person at a time. Like it or not, if a person is to be born to a couple (or mother) who is considering abortion then that is not the ideal situation to have that baby born. It will be born into a fucked up situation. NOT a loving, nurturing situation. It will be a fucked up situation. Not a happy sparkly childhood.

Based on what I believe the whole adoption system in the USA is fucked up. I believe this based on my unique experiences with adopted kids. They may be social enough, but there is probably a screw loose somewhere. The choice is there for the baby to have a good life. You might think: "How can the life be good if there can be no life via abortion?" Well if that baby is born into that situation that doesn't want them then their life will be worse than death. Do you know how it feels to grow up emotionally unsatisfied and unloved, unwanted? It sucks and some would say they would rather not have been born at all.

[Johan]

I don't know... I'm still suspicious. You're noticeably absent from an abortion thread all day, and the second someone calls you out on your alt, you reappear and the alt disappears. Hmmm....

I got confused logging in, dammit! I screwed up and logged in as Johan when I wanted to log in as whoevertheotherdudeis!

Dammit! :D

I'll say two things about this...I am pretty predictable (big surprise) in what I post...AND, you are actually pretty observant, to your credit.

Well played, good sir! You win a cookie, but I'm a mean bastard, so I ate it myself.

[MacD]

Screw you. Kids are not a supply/demand problem, you fool. PLACING kids is a supply/demand problem.

Same difference. And again, thinking in those terms is sick. Using the suply/demand equations isn't, but putting it in those terms is. There is a difference between those two.

OLDER kids are difficult to place. Infants are EASY to place.

And older kids just spontaniously appear?

And I'm sure, if you polled them, they'd all vote for "please, abort me NOW!" as their choice. :rolleyes:

Wish it were that simple. Once they grow, you're stuck with them. Worse, they're stuck with themselves, living in a world where they know they aren't wanted. Ever wonder why suicide and drug abuse is so high amongst orphans and unplaced adoptees?
Hell, I bet you never even considered that.

Try working with them. See that pain.

Absolutely, but the issue of placing older children is different from the issue of adopted/foster children who are abused, which is different from abortion and the adoption of infants.

No. The issue is where do they all come from: unwanted pregnancies.

OMG...you have GOT to be kidding.

Take a poll. Two choices. Adoption, or death.

I think I can accurately predict the overwhelming winner.

You mentioned this before, and you're so stunningly out of the loop. For one, there won't be an overwhelming winner. That in itself is shocking enough.



Huh? What?

There are millions of unwanted babies every year...the ones that are aborted. If even half of those abortions could be stopped, that would be amazing. There are plenty of people who want to adopt infants...there aren't plenty who want to adopt older children, because of the various issues involved.

Oyh, man...so many things. First, see about what I said about wanting kids for adoption? Secondly, why the hell would it be amazing if half the abortions could be stopped? Why is that amazing in and of itself? It ain't, except for the reasdon you state, to which I say:
a) what, only the cute and culdy ones?
b) adopt a starving Ruandan. Oh, wait...
c) So how is it that older children aren't adopted? Ah, many of them WERE infants, but were never adopted. Yeah, you little sanctimonious shit, that's what happens in the real world. Go volunteer, find out for yourself.

Seriously, Johan. I give you shit here, but the fact is that you don't have a clue. Go find out for yourself. Have 'fun' in Calcutta. Or probably even New Orleans, for that matter.

[jwbxx]

There was a man with no shirt on walking by my apartment building as I went to get my paper. It's below freezing here, so that was unusual.

I wonder if that dude was on meth or tweak?

[Johan]

Try working with them. See that pain....the fact is that you don't have a clue. Go find out for yourself.

I worked for five years as a counselor in a residential setting for kids of all ages who had suffered abuse that would make your hair stand on end...some of whom were so messed up they tried to beat the hell out of us, in fact (I have a few scars. :().

Kids that would chew their mouths up and spit blood; rip their arms until they were scab-ridden, bloody pools; shit in their pants uncontrollably and hide the leftovers; growl and groan as if possessed...and on and on.

I've seen it. I speak from solid experience. The world is a horrible place, and perhaps in the whole scheme of things there are some who would be better off having never lived than having gone through what they've endured; I don't think we have the right or ability to make that call, however. The right to choice is exercised (for most, except in cases of rape, where I believe the choice is the woman's) PRIOR to sex.

Life is valuable, regardless.

Edit: I'll also add that people here are pretty nasty to newcomers and those they disagree with. Damn! :D

[mister_slim]

I think that you should be able to get an abortion up to the point the embryo's brain is more complex than the smartest thing you're willing to kill and eat. Basically, vegans can't use contraceptives, and if you'll eat monkey you can abort up to about college age.

[SuicideKing]

You know I think I just realized how similar the positions people take on abortion and manmade global warming are. The main difference, is I believe abortion is murder, and manmade global warming highly suspect as a viable scientific model.

But think about it... On the one hand, essentially what the pro-lifers are saying is that quite simply, no one knows the exact moment at which a fetus becomes a whole person, entitled to all the rights accorded to the individual within our society, that being the case, we should err on the side of caution, and avoid abortions.

The pro-abortion people say that that's silly, why should they be inconvenienced by the off-chance of them aborting what might be a human being? Better to say that since no one knows, it isn't one, and risk committing murder.

Global warming wise, the alarmists say that the simple possibility that it might be manmade should induce the government to force people to take certain measures to reduce their "footprint," when it is pointed out to them that the science is very shaky, they argue why not err on the side of caution and take the measures that would cripple the economy and lifestyles of the world's population "just in case."

I think we're a lot closer to having a definitive answer regarding manmade global warming than we are regarding when human life starts. In the mean time, Roe v. Wade was simply bad law, pure and simple. And in the past 35 years, major steps have been made in repealing it.

In 1992, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, did away with Roe's trimester framework, choosing instead to focus on protecting viable fetuses. The Casey Court went even further and held that states could limit pre-viability abortions so long as the limitations do not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to decide to abort.

That ruling made it okay for states to require that written, informed consent about the abortion procedure be given to a woman seeking abortion. It allowed states to put in place a mandatory 24-hour waiting period for non-emergency abortions and to narrowly define "emergency." The Court's opinion also noted that requiring that a minor receive parental consent is not an "undue burden." And when abortion advocates wanted to prevent abortion clinics from keeping records and reporting information on their procedures, it allowed such activities where they were "reasonably directed to the preservation of maternal health."

Just this past year, the Court handed down Gonzales v. Carhart, upholding the federal partial-birth abortion ban. In a slap to the district court, Justice Kennedy wrote that lower courts were too quick to ignore the state's interest in protecting unborn children, a central premise of the Casey ruling.

I think it's clear rabidly pro-abortion people can't be made to change their minds, which is why when Roe V. Wade eventually gets overturned, there will be much crying about the patriarchy abusing women's right to do whatever they feel like with "their" body. Abortion will probably end up becoming something regulated or outlawed at the state level, something I can live with. Till then, let the flaming continue.

[Neosho]

But think about on the one hand, essentially what the pro-lifers are saying is that quite simply, no one knows the exact moment at which a fetus becomes a whole person, entitled to all the rights accorded to the individual within our society, that being the case, we should err on the side of caution, and avoid abortions.

The pro-abortion people say that that's silly, why should they be inconvenienced by the off-chance of them aborting what might be a human being? Better to say that since no one knows, it isn't one, and risk committing murder.

I'd say that a small cluster of cells are not human.

http://www.epigee.org/fetal.html

By the images here, i'd say that abortion after about 3 months is pushing it. And honestly, 3 months is enough time for a woman to know what's up, as long as she's been educated correctly.

I'd also hardly call having a child "inconveniencing"...it's a big decision and one that shouldn't be undertaken lightly. If someone is not ready for a child, they shouldn't have one. Given the choice between someone having a child now, when they're not ready for it, and having one in the future when they are, I'd say to allow her to abort now and bring a child into the world when the situation is right. irth control is failable, and having a backup is nice, but abortion should not be used as birth control (obviously).

Do you call a mother a murderer for miscarrying? What if she took natural herbs to induce miscarriage?

Furthermore, if abortion is made illegal, what is the punishment for it? What consequences would you weigh upon the mother? What about situations of medical need, such as ectopic pregnancies, or situations of rape or incest? What about cases where the mother is addicted to drugs and the child is somehow non-viable?

I have known a number of people who have had abortions, and it's not something anyone has ever taken lightly. It's a big fucking deal to get an abortion, and regardless of what the mother chooses it will weigh on her for the rest of her life. The idea that an abortion is some sort of fucked up form of birth control is absurd and idiotic, so please don't even start down that path.

It's also worth noting that abortions will occur regardless of legality.

[SuicideKing]

If someone is not ready for a child, they shouldn't have one. Birth control is failable, and having a backup is nice.

Abstinence is 100% child-proof....;)

If she induces miscarriage, I'd put that on par with an abortion, if the pregnancy is miscarried through no fault of the mother, than it's simply tragic, such as someone tripping and falling into the road only to get hit by a car.

All the other issues need addressing, but I wouldn't say that them simply being complicated is enough to not bother at all. The whole point of it becoming a state issue is that it then becomes a matter up to that state's population.

The punishment for an abortion should probably track along with the punishment for some form of homicide. Situations of medical need should be examined on a case-by-case basis, rape or incest I'm not sure about. If it's incest without rape, no special consideration would be given, in the case of rape, incestual or otherwise, I'm not sure how it should be handled. (I'm a code monkey, not a legal expert :p) I lean towards suck it up and put the kid up for adoption.

The idea that an abortion is some sort of fucked up form of birth control is absurd and idiotic, so please don't even start down that path.

Don't know where I said that.

[Alexious]

http://plus.maths.org/issue37/editorial/boring.jpg

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~fxshen/valenti-boring.jpg

[Neosho]

Abstinence is 100% child-proof....;)

If she induces miscarriage, I'd put that on par with an abortion, if the pregnancy is miscarried through no fault of the mother, than it's simply tragic, such as someone tripping and falling into the road only to get hit by a car.

All the other issues need addressing, but I wouldn't say that them simply being complicated is enough to not bother at all. The whole point of it becoming a state issue is that it then becomes a matter up to that state's population.

The punishment for an abortion should probably track along with the punishment for some form of homicide. Situations of medical need should be examined on a case-by-case basis, rape or incest I'm not sure about. If it's incest without rape, no special consideration would be given, in the case of rape, incestual or otherwise, I'm not sure how it should be handled. (I'm a code monkey, not a legal expert :p) I lean towards suck it up and put the kid up for adoption.



Don't know where I said that.

Well, yeah, but expecting kids to not have sex is like expecting the sun not to shine. It's a basic biological instinct, puberty hits, kids will have sex. That doesn't mean they need to be unsafe about it, or get pregnant, in the same way that not everyone who smokes a little pot or does a little drinking becomes addicted.

Either way, there's too many potential issues for people to simply ban it straight out, not to mention that the lack of legitimate medical care would mean that people are either leaving the country to get them or doing the backalley thing, none of which are good. Furthermore, if you're going to legislate it, it needs to be processed QUICKLY, as in within a week. A week in this case can be the difference between some indistinct cells and a viable fetus. Given the lack of ability of the government to resolve anything quickly, i'd say that it's a good idea to leave things slightly less regulated and in favor of quick abortions when needed.

Actually, i predict if abortion got banned, women would start using herbal solutions to it like they did in ye olden times. There are combinations of herbs that can induce miscarriages...how are you going to regulate that?

It's nice to say that people should suck it up and put a kid up for adoption when they're raped, but i'd hardly call that realistic nor humane for the mother..."Here, you've been a victim of a violent, horrible crime, have a reminder every day for the next 9 months, and also you're going to have to give birth to a kid you never wanted, oh yeah and you'll have to deal with the financial burden, morning sickness, medical costs, etc. etc. etc. Good luck!". Fuck, if that were the situation i'd push myself down a set of stairs. :(

As i said before: I'm really not pro-abortion much past the first trimester, now that i do a little more research on it. Prior to the first trimester, you're looking at something that can't really be a human. After that the line gets quite a bit more blurry. I think banning it is flat out wrong.

[TrackZero]

It's nice to say that people should suck it up and put a kid up for adoption when they're raped, but i'd hardly call that realistic nor humane for the mother..."Here, you've been a victim of a violent, horrible crime, have a reminder every day for the next 9 months, and also you're going to have to give birth to a kid you never wanted, oh yeah and you'll have to deal with the financial burden, morning sickness, medical costs, etc. etc. etc. Good luck!". Fuck, if that were the situation i'd push myself down a set of stairs. :(

Not to mention that said rapist would be propagating his DNA, breeding more kids with the possibility of having the same mental traits. Fun city.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Since there's no way I'm reading the whole thread:

I've never liked Roe V. Wade as a decision, as, at it's core, it makes the judgment of whether the fetus is a child or not, which I don't think they really had the power to make. Should have been a state issue.

[TrackZero]

So is that to say that you agree with the European model of legal abortion on demand up to the 12th week, and only for serious medical risk thereafter?

Also, for those that don't know, I thought I should point out that current law in America doesn't forbid abortion on demand for any reason up to the end of the third trimester. The only restrictions currently in place on abortion at the national level are that the Partial Birth Abortion procedure was made illegal to perform.

I would be for lowering the amount of time before an abortion can be done, yes. As someone mentioned earlier, 3 months should be more than enough time for a woman to make up her mind and know what's going on.

[IrishWhiskey]

Abstinence is 100% child-proof....;)

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/tdomf/18102/1194111351144.jpg


Actually 'abstinence' is incredibly ineffective, because pretty much everyone eventually has sex. The failure rates of abstinence programs have been strongly and indisputably proven as failures at reducing teen pregnancies over and over again, even by the White Houses own reports which they originally intended to validate their abstinence program.

The punishment for an abortion should probably track along with the punishment for some form of homicide. Situations of medical need should be examined on a case-by-case basis, rape or incest I'm not sure about. If it's incest without rape, no special consideration would be given, in the case of rape, incestual or otherwise, I'm not sure how it should be handled. (I'm a code monkey, not a legal expert :p) I lean towards suck it up and put the kid up for adoption.Isn't it funny how its always guys and not women who say "Suck it up, rape victims!"

[Rifter]

I would be for lowering the amount of time before an abortion can be done, yes. As someone mentioned earlier, 3 months should be more than enough time for a woman to make up her mind and know what's going on.

Quite honestly, 3 months, IMO is not enough time. Figure conception occurs just after period. Then, the baby gestates for a month. Woman misses period. Waits another month... or doesn't notice until the 2nd one is missed. So, 2 months to figure out that they ARE pregnant... and 1 month to make a decision? I still think 2nd trimester should be the limit.

[Rifter]

Uhh, yes you can, as long as you're capable of simple distinctions:

One is an independent human being, kept alive through life support or their own natural, bodily function.

The other is an internal parasite, with no ability to function on it's own, outside of the mother's womb.


That is actually not true. Our basic INSTINCT, and all creatures insticnts are to procreate. So, calling a baby a parasite is pretty short sighted. In all honesty, most women's bodies become far healthier and robust while they are carrying a child. It is more a symbiotic relationship, than parasitic.

And, I have to agree with Terran... TECHNICALLY, life begins at conception.

I am also a little more cold-hearted... I do not see a problem with aborting a severely retarded fetus. Of course, I was around one for a while, and there wasn't anything there, showing life... if there was a soul trapped in that body, it was torchured every day, it was alive.

[Neosho]

Quite honestly, 3 months, IMO is not enough time. Figure conception occurs just after period. Then, the baby gestates for a month. Woman misses period. Waits another month... or doesn't notice until the 2nd one is missed. So, 2 months to figure out that they ARE pregnant... and 1 month to make a decision? I still think 2nd trimester should be the limit.

Eh, i think that the concept of abortion is one that should have been thought about and discussed before sex takes place. It is a possibility, even with all the condoms and birth control in the world. Also, i don't know a single woman who wouldn't notice that she missed her period. :confused:

[Neosho]

That is actually not true. Our basic INSTINCT, and all creatures insticnts are to procreate. So, calling a baby a parasite is pretty short sighted. In all honesty, most women's bodies become far healthier and robust while they are carrying a child. It is more a symbiotic relationship, than parasitic.

And, I have to agree with Terran... TECHNICALLY, life begins at conception.

I am also a little more cold-hearted... I do not see a problem with aborting a severely retarded fetus. Of course, I was around one for a while, and there wasn't anything there, showing life... if there was a soul trapped in that body, it was torchured every day, it was alive.

Ahh, whatever, i'll do the double post bullshit.

I wouldn't say that most women become more robust while they're pregant. Morning sickness, lack of energy, etc. doesn't exactly indicate a stunning display of health. The fetus is a creature that drains nutrients, blood, etc. and ejects it's waste into the mother's blood while giving nothing back.

Life may begin at conception. Human life doesn't begin at conception. A fetus isn't a human. It's not capable of proveable thinking, problem solving, self awareness, passing a turing test, anything. At some point in the womb that fetus does become a human, but there is a point where it has a tail. I wouldn't call it human at that point.

[Rifter]

Ahh, whatever, i'll do the double post bullshit.

I wouldn't say that most women become more robust while they're pregant. Morning sickness, lack of energy, etc. doesn't exactly indicate a stunning display of health. The fetus is a creature that drains nutrients, blood, etc. and ejects it's waste into the mother's blood while giving nothing back.
Most of the women I have been around... if not all, do better. They have heightened senses... They actually have MORE blood flow... and in general are healthier. Morning sickness, generally is an annoyance. And, I don't know of any women that had it for the entire term of their pregnancy. The mother's body goes through these changes, to protect the baby inside... so while the baby, inherently doesn't give anything... the fact that they are there, makes the woman healthier. I know with my ex-wife, she generally had MORE energy... up until fairly close to the birth.


Life may begin at conception. Human life doesn't begin at conception. A fetus isn't a human. It's not capable of proveable thinking, problem solving, self awareness, passing a turing test, anything. At some point in the womb that fetus does become a human, but there is a point where it has a tail. I wouldn't call it human at that point.
Life begins at conception... sentience, does not. The fetus is always human. Genetics tells us that. You are right, it may not LOOK human, but it is, 100%. Man, you REALLY need to get some further biology training here. :-) Your arguments, I get... but I have to really read, to understand what you are saying. You have some of the facts down... but not quite enough, to fully express your idea.

So, you are saying that thought is what distinguishes us, from... well anything? You ever see "provable thinking, or problem solving skills" in a newborn? By taking your "logic" to the extreme... you would be advocating killing babies up until what, 6 months, 1 year?

[Johan]

Life begins at conception... sentience, does not. The fetus is always human. Genetics tells us that. You are right, it may not LOOK human, but it is, 100%.

It's not human until it can hold a job, talk, write, and shit in a toilet. Oh, and vote for a democrat.

[Rifter]

It's not human until it can hold a job, talk, write, and shit in a toilet. Oh, and vote for a democrat.

The sad part, with this... I think I have defended BOTH sides of the argument in this thread. It seems that this entire argument is based on feelings. Even then, you need to have SOME reason to back up your arguments.

[Neosho]

Most of the women I have been around... if not all, do better. They have heightened senses... They actually have MORE blood flow... and in general are healthier. Morning sickness, generally is an annoyance. And, I don't know of any women that had it for the entire term of their pregnancy. The mother's body goes through these changes, to protect the baby inside... so while the baby, inherently doesn't give anything... the fact that they are there, makes the woman healthier. I know with my ex-wife, she generally had MORE energy... up until fairly close to the birth.

That just hasn't been the experience in my family, is all. I'm not sure on the actual medical facts of the matter. All i'm aware of is that my siblings were pretty hard on my mom.


Life begins at conception... sentience, does not. The fetus is always human. Genetics tells us that. You are right, it may not LOOK human, but it is, 100%. Man, you REALLY need to get some further biology training here. :-) Your arguments, I get... but I have to really read, to understand what you are saying. You have some of the facts down... but not quite enough, to fully express your idea.

So, you are saying that thought is what distinguishes us, from... well anything? You ever see "provable thinking, or problem solving skills" in a newborn? By taking your "logic" to the extreme... you would be advocating killing babies up until what, 6 months, 1 year?

Ok, cellular life begins at conception. I don't consider the murder of cells the death of a human being. Jainist monks may have a different take on this, personally, i don't consider abortion to be killing a human baby until it moves to the point where it is identifiable as a human child. There are a lot of ways you can justify this, but imo up until about 12 weeks in it's pretty hard to look at a fetus and say "yes, that is a human being". After that point, they start to develop recognizable limbs, etc. etc.

Basically, in the end, the way i would do things is like so: If there is brain activity, it's living. If there is no brain activity, then it's effectively a non-sentient parasite and can be aborted. A normal, aware, sexually active female will notice 2 missed periods in a row, and while abortion is a difficult decision to make, 4 weeks is enough time to figure things out. Furthermore, as i mentioned before, sexually active women should already have thought of this, discussed this with their partners or what have you.

Also, i'm kinda whacked out on dayquil, sorry if i'm a little incoherent.

[Beelzebud]

I am for abortion rights because I think all medical procedures should be a private matter between the patient and the doctor.

[Neosho]

I am for abortion rights because I think all medical procedures should be a private matter between the patient and the doctor.

Hey you! Settle down over there with your clear logic and such! :mad:

[IrishWhiskey]

I am for abortion rights because I think all medical procedures should be a private matter between the patient and the doctor.Pro-choice people would agree with that, however anti-abortion ones will just claim that the fetus should have a doctor and rights as well.

[Neosho]

Pro-choice people would agree with that, however anti-abortion ones will just claim that the fetus should have a doctor and rights as well.

It does, the doc is trying to get it out of it's fleshy prison! :p