Inside Abortion ( pro-life or pro-choice)

[silkgirl]

For the most part I can say that I am Pro Life
The only circumstance in which I feel that a life should be ended is when another one is at stake. My question for the board is this, if you are pro-choice (or pro-life), what is your reason?

[Sammy56]

I guess I'm more pro-life then pro-abortion. I don't think that abortion should be illegal because I'm pro-choice as well, but I do believe it should be a last option. Adoption is a much better option in my opinion. I think if women were more informed about alternative, it might help lower the abortion rate.

[Cornish Maid]

We recently had a thread on abortion which may be of interest

Welcome to the forum

http://www.armageddononline.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7143

[DontBeAfraid]

Im pro abortion because I dont like babies, and I especially dont like children. But what I really dont like is people!

Oh that and a fetus is not a person.... not that I like people, mind you.

[silkgirl]

i believe that life of an innocent should be protected, considering that there might be something alive in the uterus, something that very much wanted to live. The abortion debate has been consistently phrased as one of baby's rights versus women's rights.

[DontBeAfraid]

A fetus is not a baby.

[Cornish Maid]

A foetus is a unborn or unhatched offspring. In the case of humans, a baby in the making. As you know from evolution these things take time and it's about 9 months until birth.

As soon as the egg and sperm meet the destiny of the union is a human being.

[DontBeAfraid]

No... What is a miscarriage?

What something could be is not what something is.

[Cornish Maid]

A miscarriage occurs when the foetus isn't viable.

An abortion is performed on viable foetuses.

[DontBeAfraid]

As soon as the egg and sperm meet the destiny of the union is a human being.
So you do see how this statement is incorrect.

[Cornish Maid]

OK......correction...........All things being well, and no problems either natural or manmade, a human being will be the result.

[DontBeAfraid]

So you admit that a sperm and an egg do not equal a human.

[D34DGuY]

I am pro choice, so long as its in the first trimester. Just my personal opinion. And a fetus is not a person.

[Cornish Maid]

A foetus is a unborn or unhatched offspring. In the case of humans, a baby in the making. As you know from evolution these things take time and it's about 9 months until birth.

As soon as the egg and sperm meet the destiny of the union is a human being.


Everything has got to start somewhere. You get your genetic material from your mum and dad at the moment of conception, so you start there.

Do you have a problem with that DBA :eek:

[DontBeAfraid]

An entities potential value is not its actual value. Do you have a problem with that CM? Everything works by using what it has/is, Not by what it could be/have. Since we cant see the future its highly inapropriate to make decisions based on potential.

[silkgirl]

in order to make the killing more palatable, the baby is called a "fetus", or "non-viable", or "not yet human", etc. This eases the conscience. But, for those who say the baby isn't 'viable', have you ever seen a sonogram of an abortion? You can see the 'non-viable fetus' retracting from the instruments of death and seeking self preservation. It wants to live. You might wanna check this out >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ScUKhmD7c8
I saw this from youtube, I would guess its worth watching if you are interested in this issue.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

in order to make the killing more palatable, the baby is called a "fetus", or "non-viable", or "not yet human", etc. This eases the conscience

I really don't care what you call the thing, since I don't have a problem with killing people under specific circumstances. (Such as assisted medical suicide, like we saw with the Schiavo case.) But if we're defining "humanity" as action and intelligence, a fetus doesn't qualify. And if we define "humanity" as a genetic construct, then we have to include corpses in that tally. It just seems like a foolish place to draw the line.


You can see the 'non-viable fetus' retracting from the instruments of death and seeking self preservation.

Cows do the same thing. I still eat hamburger.

I'm actually not sure if this is true for a first-trimester fetus, since at that point there are no brain-waves present for the child to react. But even if the fetus does somehow flinch away from the instruments at that time, that doesn't show the thing is intelligent enough to deserve a say in its life.

[Cornish Maid]

An entities potential value is not its actual value. Do you have a problem with that CM? Everything works by using what it has/is, Not by what it could be/have. Since we cant see the future its highly inapropriate to make decisions based on potential.

Growth of the Human Embryo
Week 1-4 After conception, the embryo will begin to "search" for a place to attach to the woman's uterus. When it finds one and plants itself there, the connections between the woman and the embryo will begin to form, including the umbilical cord.

Week 5-8 Chemicals produced by the embryo stop the woman's menstrual cycle. The brain begins to develop, and the heart will begin to beat. Stubs begin to be visible where arms and legs will grow later. All the main organs begin to grow. The embryo's blood type becomes apparent. Embryo is capable of motion, and the eyes begin to form. Most organs have developed or have begun developing. At the end of the 8th week, the embryonic stage is over, and the fetal stage begins.

Yes DBA I do have a problem with that. I can't condone killing an "entity" whose heart is beating and brain has started to develop, and all the other processes beginning.

If you do then thats your problem. :prin:

[Cornish Maid]

This is an interesting article on the start of human life

http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm

[DontBeAfraid]

I make a distiction between "life" and "human life", unlike the authors of the lifebegins.htm website. No cognitive brainwaves equals no human life.... Yes Im saying that texans arent human.

[Cornish Maid]

I take it you approve of abortion whether they have brainwaves or not, so whether they are human is irrelevant. Exterminate all Texans while your'e at it. You and Ning should join forces, you have similar perspectives on death. :trash:

[grendel 13]

just wanted to throw this in to all the pro-lifers, since no one answered the question in a seperate thread on abortion, if some psychotic maniac raped you and you got pregnant from him would you still have that child?

[Cornish Maid]

just wanted to throw this in to all the pro-lifers, since no one answered the question in a seperate thread on abortion, if some psychotic maniac raped you and you got pregnant from him would you still have that child?

Well there aren't all that many, in fact none, psychotic maniac rapists around here.

If it was a war situation and rape was prevelant then apart from getting the knitting needles out one would go full term. Probably be all right as genetics are unpredictable. Psychosis may not be inherited.

[grendel 13]

Well there aren't all that many, in fact none, psychotic maniac rapists around here.

If it was a war situation and rape was prevelant then apart from getting the knitting needles out one would go full term. Probably be all right as genetics are unpredictable. Psychosis may not be inherited.

so you really know that there isn't a single maniac capable of rape where your from? ok, whatever. but you miss the point i'm not talking about the genetic affects or what might be inherited, i'm talking about a women being completely violated in the worst way and having to continue living with that for nine months and than having to decide what to do with that child after birth, adoption or what have you. also from a males point of view, if my wife or girlfriend was in that situation you think i would really want her to be having the child of some sick f*ck who raped her, and i know it's her choice, but i think it would be extremeley difficult for any man to deal with that kind of situation.

p.s. see that's the problem with people who think that you can just slap every situation into the same group. it's like saying all pot smokers should be locked up when there are many people who are benefitting from it, the terminally ill and such. or saying all theives shoulhd have their hands cut off, when some have to steal to feed their children. you can't just assume all people wanting abortions are little girls who arn't being responsible and using it as a form of birth control, there are some legitimate reasons to have an abortion, health of the mother, quality of life for the child and so on. you know what would happen if abortions were outlawed, outlaws would start shoving hangers inside themselves to do it on their own, than you would have the fetus and mother dying, more than likely.

[DontBeAfraid]

Im against killing sentient humans CM. This includes babies(despite my many jokes about killing 3 year olds). When a fetus becomes sentient it should not be terminated. Unfortunately texans never develope brains big enough to be capable of sentient thought.

[Cornish Maid]

so you really know that there isn't a single maniac capable of rape where your from? ok, whatever. but you miss the point i'm not talking about the genetic affects or what might be inherited, i'm talking about a women being completely violated in the worst way and having to continue living with that for nine months and than having to decide what to do with that child after birth, adoption or what have you. also from a males point of view, if my wife or girlfriend was in that situation you think i would really want her to be having the child of some sick f*ck who raped her, and i know it's her choice, but i think it would be extremeley difficult for any man to deal with that kind of situation.

p.s. see that's the problem with people who think that you can just slap every situation into the same group. it's like saying all pot smokers should be locked up when there are many people who are benefitting from it, the terminally ill and such. or saying all theives shoulhd have their hands cut off, when some have to steal to feed their children. you can't just assume all people wanting abortions are little girls who arn't being responsible and using it as a form of birth control, there are some legitimate reasons to have an abortion, health of the mother, quality of life for the child and so on. you know what would happen if abortions were outlawed, outlaws would start shoving hangers inside themselves to do it on their own, than you would have the fetus and mother dying, more than likely.
Do what you think is right in the circumstanses.

Check out your local support group.

It is not easy. :2thumbs:

[DontBeAfraid]

If I was with a chick who got raped and insisted on having the baby she would be a single mother.

[Cornish Maid]

Im against killing sentient humans CM. This includes babies(despite my many jokes about killing 3 year olds). When a fetus becomes sentient it should not be terminated. Unfortunately texans never develope brains big enough to be capable of sentient thought.
Well I'm glad you are against killing sentient beings DBA

Love and God bless :prin:

[DontBeAfraid]

sentient humans.

[Cornish Maid]

Sorry sentient humans. Do you have personal experience of Texas. Just interested. :bubble:

[DontBeAfraid]

Well, liberdave is from texas, our president is from texas, and my grandparents are from texas.....

Ok texans you know Im just playing, its a great state with good people. Just too EFFing hot.

[liberdave]

Just too EFFing hot.

I had to help my buddy move yesterday and it was so damn hot that by the time we drove about 20 miles to where his new place was, some of the furniture in the back of the truck was too hot to pick up with our bare hands. But, it felt OK because the humidity was only about 60%.

[Assassin X]

I'm pro-pizza! Don't throw that extra pizza out, theres dorm people out there starving!

Oh? Babies! In that case theres cannibalist's starving! :nibble: :eek:

Yeah, I'm sick. :crazy:

Really though I am Pro-Choice.

And to answer that question of "If you were raped...etc". Thats a tough one. I would say the mother would just give up the baby for adoption after birth since its her victims baby. Just because you were raped doesn't mean take it our on the babies life. Its not the babies fault. If they didn't want to do that then they should take care of it. If they still don't want to care of it and want an abortion then they are just being stuborrn and thinking about revenge on an innocent life.

[DontBeAfraid]

They should take the morning after pill.... All chicks should. It should be a part of birth control presciptions.

[nrj]

I would say the mother would just give up the baby for adoption after birth since its her victims baby. Just because you were raped doesn't mean take it our on the babies life. Its not the babies fault. It's not a baby, it's a fetus.

And are you actually saying that it's ok that a girl carries a child for nine months, pukes like hell for nine months, feels depressed for nine months, have to live an alternative life style (staying away from alcohol and watch the babies health) and then she has to give birth, wich is EXTREMELY painful, eben though she got raped and don't want the child, because this fetus should live?

What's next? Should every man have sex with a million girls and then somehow inject each one of them with a single sperm cell? I mean, otherwise you would kill millions of potential children, right?

[DontBeAfraid]

nrj has found the light!

[Cornish Maid]

How about compulsory vasectomies for convicted rapists. They wouldn't be able to impregnate again and it might act as a deterrent. :yikes:

[nrj]

Then they could just rape again and there would be no DNA to trace them with.

[DontBeAfraid]

Seems like the wrong conversation to me.

[nrj]

Yep, it is. Abortions shouldn't just be used for rape victims, it should be used for anyone who doesn't want a baby. As long as you do it when it's a fetus it's ok for me.

So, to me, rape victims could even be left out of the debate and I would still have my opinion.

[loganosborne]

Yep, it is. Abortions shouldn't just be used for rape victims, it should be used for anyone who doesn't want a baby. As long as you do it when it's a fetus it's ok for me.
Yep I pretty much agree with that.

[krakatoa]

it is hard for me to talk about Abortion. I never had children, and when it was necessary i took precaution to not have a baby. But, i always knew that if i was pregnant one day, because i want the baby, or not. I would not have an abortion. I would be impossible for me to do that. That does'nt mean that i would not support or be friends with somebody that had or decide to have an abortion. C.

[silkgirl]

have you heard about the next episode of 30 Days on FX? its all about abortion (pro-choice and pro-life). A woman who is pro-choice lives in a group home for pregnant women, operated by people who do not believe in abortion. It looks interesting, and worth watching if you are interested in this issue. I think it will be on Wednesday August 23 at 10PM ET. >> http://www.fxnetworks.com/30days

[Jupiter]

it is hard for me to talk about Abortion. I never had children, and when it was necessary i took precaution to not have a baby. But, i always knew that if i was pregnant one day, because i want the baby, or not. I would not have an abortion. I would be impossible for me to do that. That does'nt mean that i would not support or be friends with somebody that had or decide to have an abortion. C.

You seem to have a sensible attitude.

[Cartesiantheater]

It's not a baby, it's a fetus.

Jesus, you people are weak. I say it's a baby and I'm still pro-choice! (partially) Just admit it. Some human life is expendable. (and yes, it is human life by scientific definition- it has the right amount of chromosomes and it will be capable of mating with a member of the species at some point in its life cycle-consciousness is material- there's nothing magical about it- we have no souls, etc...) It's ok to terminate the life of some humans. There's nothing wrong with people dying, so long as I don't care about them (or, so long as you don't care about them; it's personal). Why do we have to play word games? If it has baby hands, baby entrails, baby eyes, etc., it's a baby. And it's cool to kill it, depending on the situation (although I personally don't much like later term abortions). Besides, we've got a population problem, so somebody's got to die. Plus, their organs are good for research. Let's not be fucking politically correct. That makes me have to choke down bile.

[Cornish Maid]

Well, glad to see someone has some intelligence even if they are a terminator. :toast:

[Nasik]

Jesus, you people are weak.... Besides, we've got a population problem, so somebody's got to die. [/B]


Really? Can we start with you?

[DontBeAfraid]

A fetus is human life; it is not a human. A baby is both human life and a human. A human liver is human life; it is not a human.

[Cartesiantheater]

Really? Can we start with you?
Haha! You are a hypocrite! I don't see you mourning about the thousands of Africans who die from aids. I don't see you complaining about the 18 or so thousand who died in the pakistan earthquake. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/quake.pakistan/) YOU ALSO PUT DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF VALUE ON DIFFERENT HUMAN LIFE! (although, I must admit, your reply WAS funny. I got a chuckle out of it.)

[Cartesiantheater]

A fetus is human life; it is not a human. A baby is both human life and a human. A human liver is human life; it is not a human.

A "fetus" is not an organ, and a baby is not human, if by human we mean something that has the human "soul." Humans can think, feel, and reason. A "baby" can not think, feel, or reason any better than a late term "fetus."

And isn't it interesting that we use the term "it" for both fetuses and babies, but not for toddlers, children, teens and adults? Could there be a reason for this?


Regardless, if a "fetus" is born prematurely, it can surive into adulthood. Therefore, your definition is completely arbitrary. (But of course, all moral definitions are arbitrary)

But why do we need the word? Why don't we just say, "I don't want this offspring to be born by me, so I will terminate it."?

[uki]

depending on the grand scheme of things, a child will be born or it will not... everything has it's place under the sun. nothing we do, say, or believe will change our supreme destiny and mission in the eternity of life. we all have a part to play, wether for honor or dishonor, each has a purpose... be it to live but a few moments or to live a full life or to simply not live at all. our mission is complete when we learn to live by faith in the fact that life will be perfect for each of us when we become aware that life is perfect.

[DontBeAfraid]

Babies have the ability to "think", When a fetus develops this ability it becomes a baby in my argumental opinion. This happens in the womb. A fetus lacks the resources to be able to think, mainly the part of the brain that allows it. So I reiterate that a baby is not a fetus.

My personal opinion is very much that babies are barely people. Until their brain developes enough that they "realize" themselves they are barely more than any other creature with the exception that they have the potential to become people. That is why you call a baby "it" and a toddler by its name. However aborting babies is frowned upon so its best if I argue to abort fetus' before they become babies, before they begin any thoughts.

[Cartesiantheater]

Babies have the ability to "think", When a fetus develops this ability it becomes a baby in my argumental opinion. This happens in the womb. A fetus lacks the resources to be able to think, mainly the part of the brain that allows it. So I reiterate that a baby is not a fetus. Oh, well in that case...


My personal opinion is very much that babies are barely people.
YES! They are barely people. So why do people get more upset over them dying than over grown people in pakistan dying? Why is abortion such a hotspot when more developed "persons" die all the time?

[DontBeAfraid]

So why do people get more upset over them dying than over grown people in pakistan dying? Why is abortion such a hotspot when more developed "persons" die all the time?I dont know. I am anti-baby.

[uki]

I dont know. I am anti-baby.ever had any of your own? I love my two daughters, i love watching them grow. the best is when the 19 month old picks up one of my iron juggling bars and starts exercising or when the 6 year old practices form with the broadsword...

[DontBeAfraid]

Six year olds probably shouldnt play with broadswords.

[uki]

Six year olds probably shouldnt play with broadswords.that all depends on the parents now doesn't it, and why shouldn't they? children learn things easier and much faster than the average adult. in this horrendous day and age i like to know the fact that my daughters are training to open a can of absolute whoop-ass instead of being a victim... there has been a turn around on the whole women are the weaker sex... things are changing and it starts at home... if the parents are scared, fearful, and ignorant little pussies, i'd be willing to say that the child will be one too.

[DontBeAfraid]

Ive been thinking and its not that a six year old might hurt themselves with a broadsword that I think its irresponsible for them to play with one. Its because its a weapon of aggression and a six year old is truly not responsible and mature enough to determine when its right to employ such a weapon... I see it being used to secure her right on the swing set before its used for whatever noble purpose you have envisioned.

It would be hypocritical for me care much about the safety of a child when I encourage children to engage in sports such as skating and biking. I remember hitting my first big jump before entering kindergarten.

[uki]

Ive been thinking and its not that a six year old might hurt themselves with a broadsword that I think its irresponsible for them to play with one. Its because its a weapon of aggression and a six year old is truly not responsible and mature enough to determine when its right to employ such a weapon... I see it being used to secure her right on the swing set before its used for whatever noble purpose you have envisioned.

It would be hypocritical for me care much about the safety of a child when I encourage children to engage in sports such as skating and biking. I remember hitting my first big jump before entering kindergarten.well rest assured she only uses it when dad is supervising and unfortunately for all the would be's she'd might like to hack down... it has no edge as of yet. it is not a weapon of aggression when it is employed for self-defense... well it becomes a weapon of aggression when you have to defend yourself or your loved ones, but then again those who are being aggressive to the point of harm are simply becoming victims of their own aggression by attempting to harm others who may just happen to have a broadsword(amongst other weapons) on hand to defend themselves.

[DontBeAfraid]

Did anybody else see the south park episode where the boys got ninja weapons?

[grendel 13]

hell yeah! that was great! butters got a ninja star in the eye! it was hilarious the way the showed them as big time ninjas, the dr. chaos butters catches the star in the face and than they cut to the regular butters, it's pure comedy!

[Cornish Maid]

At this stage about 52% of abortions take place

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/stage15.html

The rest are aborted any time up until-

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/week24.html

[DontBeAfraid]

That looks about right to me. A reflex is not a thought.

[mickydoolittle]

As soon as the egg and sperm meet the destiny of the union is a human being.
How utterly foolish to believe that viable human life occurs upon “conception”. It's shortsighted and misguided. . .not to mention so incredibly arrogant.

This ignorance is one reason why idiots bomb abortion clinics.

Life doesn't begin upon conception. However, an attempt may be made to argue that life begins 18 days AFTER conception when the embryo is infused with BLOOD. Even then, an EDUCATED and INFORMED individual would be hard pressed to argue such due to the detailed criteria required to meet the defintion of viable life.

Moreover, the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of embryo's frozen in fertility clinics across AMERICA are to be defined as what in your opinion? Perhaps, humans in suspended animation?

Come on, use intelligence in your response or don’t bother posting. :bondage:

[Cornish Maid]

How utterly foolish to believe that viable human life occurs upon “conception”. It's shortsighted and misguided. . .not to mention so incredibly arrogant.

This ignorance is one reason why idiots bomb abortion clinics.

Life doesn't begin upon conception. However, an attempt may be made to argue that life begins 18 days AFTER conception when the embryo is infused with BLOOD. Even then, an EDUCATED and INFORMED individual would be hard pressed to argue such due to the detailed criteria required to meet the defintion of viable life.

Moreover, the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of embryo's frozen in fertility clinics across AMERICA are to be defined as what in your opinion? Perhaps, humans in suspended animation?

Come on, use intelligence in your response or don’t bother posting. :bondage:
Conception is the beginning of human life, the genetic material from the male and female uniting in those two cells.

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/stage1.html

Cells multiply and the end result, if all goes well, is a human being. As you know problems can occur early on in the development and non viable embyios do occur.

http://www.advancedfertility.com/blastocystimages2.htm

Science invented IVF and has to find an acceptable way of dealing with the consequences. Things should be thought through.

Here is an interesting article

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/index.htm

[Cornish Maid]

That looks about right to me. A reflex is not a thought.
I'm sorry, I lost you there, what reflex isn't a thought. :prin:

[DontBeAfraid]

Like when a worm reacts to being hooked. Or like the gag reflex. These are done without thought, they are only boilogical reflexes.

[Cornish Maid]

Like when a worm reacts to being hooked. Or like the gag reflex. These are done without thought, they are only boilogical reflexes.In the context of the thread still confused. Please illuminate.

[DontBeAfraid]

In the mindless organism that we call a fetus, until it developes the necessary brain matter to think, all reflexes are thoughtless. That is to say that retracting from foreign stimuli is a biological reflex and not a deliberate act.

[Cornish Maid]

Alright, I accept the fact that you will go to your grave believing it is acceptable to kill the under developed.

[nrj]

Alright, I accept the fact that you will go to your grave believing it is acceptable to kill the under developed. Yep, because that's what we all do when we have sex: millions of sperms die since only one can enter the womb.

[Cornish Maid]

Yep, because that's what we all do when we have sex: millions of sperms die since only one can enter the womb.

Several million enter the womb but only one fertilizes the egg. I was talking about post fertilization life forms. :dork:

[Demonskates]

Im pro life,im adopted,so i see how easy it would have been for my biological mother to just abort me.Thankfully she chose life for me.Thanks MOM!!! :2thumbs:

[DontBeAfraid]

Alright, I accept the fact that you will go to your grave believing it is acceptable to kill the under developed.Hey, I eat all variety of animals.

[nrj]

Several million enter the womb but only one fertilizes the egg. I was talking about post fertilization life forms. :dork: And the difference is ... what? If you don't think the sperms should live because they haven't fertilized the egg, then you're admitting you don't want these potential life forms alive either.

[Cornish Maid]

Im pro life,im adopted,so i see how easy it would have been for my biological mother to just abort me.Thankfully she chose life for me.Thanks MOM!!! :2thumbs:

I am glad you are around Demonskates. Good for your mom. :toast:

[Cornish Maid]

And the difference is ... what? If you don't think the sperms should live because they haven't fertilized the egg, then you're admitting you don't want these potential life forms alive either.

Sperms will be sperms all their natural life. Fertilized eggs become human beings. You can keep them if you want to. Non ejaculated sperms get reabsorbed into your system. You can't expect a woman to carry 300,000,000 foetuses in one go. The number has got nothing to do with me. Creative forces designed it that way and it does look like men with low sperm counts have more trouble with fertility.

[DontBeAfraid]

Nope, few sperm get to be humans. That is when combined with several other factors. Just like a few eggs get to be humans, when combined with several other factors. A few fertalized eggs get to be humans too, when combined with several other factors.

If you want to pick a place to call it a potential human why not pick the spot that it has the best chance? Or if you dont want to pick that spot how about when it has the capability to process a thought?

If you measure everything by potectial you are going t opay too much for everything. Instead why not measure by their exact value?


edit: demon if you had been aborted you would never have cared.

[Cornish Maid]

Nope, few sperm get to be humans. That is when combined with several other factors. Just like a few eggs get to be humans, when combined with several other factors. A few fertalized eggs get to be humans too, when combined with several other factors.

If you want to pick a place to call it a potential human why not pick the spot that it has the best chance? Or if you dont want to pick that spot how about when it has the capability to process a thought?

If you measure everything by potectial you are going t opay too much for everything. Instead why not measure by their exact value?


edit: demon if you had been aborted you would never have cared.

Who are we to pick spots? What do you mean by measure?

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Who are we to pick spots?

... The people who have to deal with the consequences of that decision?

Seriously, unless you think birth control is wrong, we already pick spots. We prevent an egg from becoming fertilized, so we've already shown some control over the potential lives of our children.

[DontBeAfraid]

What do you mean by measure?In the context of a subjects worth in relation to that which we choose to compare the subject.

For example we can measure fruit by size or monotary value or both.

As it relates to this topic I mean measuring a fetus' life value in relation to a persons life value. You want to use potential to measure its life value and that is irresponsible.

[Cornish Maid]

... The people who have to deal with the consequences of that decision?

Seriously, unless you think birth control is wrong, we already pick spots. We prevent an egg from becoming fertilized, so we've already shown some control over the potential lives of our children.

Preventing fertilization is not the same as irresponsibly or accidentally starting a new life and then killing it.

[Cornish Maid]

In the context of a subjects worth in relation to that which we choose to compare the subject.

For example we can measure fruit by size or monotary value or both.

As it relates to this topic I mean measuring a fetus' life value in relation to a persons life value. You want to use potential to measure its life value and that is irresponsible.

I have to disagree with you there. An embryo already has its personality traits: ie male or female, blue eyes or brown or green, short or tall etc.

I think it is irresponsible not to measure the potential.

[DontBeAfraid]

An embryo has its embryonic traits and only the potential for other traits. A sperm is a life, it also has potential traits. I start and kill millions of them a day.

Potential is nothing until is it realized.

[Cornish Maid]

An embryo has its embryonic traits and only the potential for other traits. A sperm is a life, it also has potential traits. I start and kill millions of them a day.

Potential is nothing until is it realized.

Thanks for sharing that with us DBA, have a nice day.

A sperm on its own will always be a sperm.

All things going well a sperm and an ovum = a person

Kill it and it can't be realized

[DontBeAfraid]

A sperm on its own will always be a sperm.

An embryo on its own will always be an embryo.

All things going well and a sperm could become a person.

Kill it and it cant be realized.

The ladder to becoming a person is a tall one. Break one rung on the ladder and you cant reach the top. Why measure somethings worth from near the bottom of the ladder instead of when it is at the top?

Looking up a flight of stairs is not the same as climbing it.

[Cornish Maid]

It gets to the top by starting at the bottom. You did it yourself.

[nrj]

It gets to the top by starting at the bottom. You did it yourself. Just like a sperm. It found the flight of stairs, started climbing, on the path we started calling it an "embryo", and then it finished.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Preventing fertilization is not the same as irresponsibly or accidentally starting a new life and then killing it.

What's the difference? You've already said you think it's wrong to abort because of the potential of getting a human out of the deal. By that argument, isn't it wrong to keep the sperm and egg separate, thus destroying that potential?


I have to disagree with you there. An embryo already has its personality traits: ie male or female, blue eyes or brown or green, short or tall etc.

I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure an embryo doesn't become male or female until after the first trimester. And you can use gender, eye color and height to describe any mammal.

[DontBeAfraid]

Luckily its not relavent to this conversation PF as an embryo is not a mammal.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Luckily its not relavent to this conversation PF as an embryo is not a mammal.

Fair enough, but that wasn't the point I was going for. Like I said earlier, I have no moral qualms with eating a hamburger. That's not going to change if you tell me my slab of beef came from Bessie, a smallish heifer with big brown eyes.

[Cornish Maid]

I take it you are pro abortion PF. I suppose you go with the flow and believe its alright until brain waves are detected. Free will, free choice and its your human right.

The sperm carries the X and Y chromosomes determining whether the foetus is male or female

[Cornish Maid]

More information on X and Y chromosomes

http://spot.colorado.edu/~noyesr/TEACHING/4800%20Fall%202002.%20Biology%20and%20Evolution%20 of%20Sex/WhyY.pdf#search=%22X%20and%20Y%20chromosomes%22

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4225769

http://blairgenealogy.com/dna/dna101.html

[DontBeAfraid]

Before I look at those you will have to convince me that a chromosome is equal to a person. Otherwise its in the wrong thread.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

I take it you are pro abortion PF. I suppose you go with the flow and believe its alright until brain waves are detected.

Not necessarily. To be honest, I don't really know what I think about abortion. If, by some chance, I had to choose whether to abort an unplanned pregnancy or not, I'm not sure what I'd do. It's not likely to come up, so I haven't given it much thought.

But, I am pro-choice. The situation here is complicated, and whether you're for or against abortion, it's not quite as easy a choice as most people like to paint it. And there are certainly situations where abortion is, at the very least, the lesser evil.


More information on X and Y chromosomes

How is this relevant to the discussion?

Edit: Great, now I realize where the chromosomes are coming from.

This is the same argument we've had before. Just because something has the potential to reach a point, does not mean that something is already at that point. The embryo may have the ability to form gender-based characteristics in the womb, but until it does so, it can't really be said to have a gender.

[Demonskates]

Nope, few sperm get to be humans. That is when combined with several other factors. Just like a few eggs get to be humans, when combined with several other factors. A few fertalized eggs get to be humans too, when combined with several other factors.

If you want to pick a place to call it a potential human why not pick the spot that it has the best chance? Or if you dont want to pick that spot how about when it has the capability to process a thought?

If you measure everything by potectial you are going t opay too much for everything. Instead why not measure by their exact value?


edit: demon if you had been aborted you would never have cared.
This is true.But seeng as i have life,i aim to keep it. :nudge: Im curious,Moraly,what do you all think of abortion,aside from the sceintific veiw point,of weather somthing has indeed realized its potential or not,all that aside,what is your moral veiw point on abortion.Is it in your heart,right to abort or wrong to abort?When is it acceptable for a potential life to be terminated?

[DontBeAfraid]

But seeng as i have life,i aim to keep it.What... like in a jar in the fridge? Thats just gross.

[Cornish Maid]

[

I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure an embryo doesn't become male or female until after the first trimester. And you can use gender, eye color and height to describe any mammal.[/QUOTE]

The XX embryo is female and the XY embryo is male.

The Y chromosome comes from the sperm initiating a male, or another X a female.

The gender is therefore determined at fertilization

Quote: Is female the default sex?

Biologists have been saying for half a century that female development is a default outcome, that somehow all human or mammalian embryos are initially female and then can have masculinity imposed on them. I don't think that the available data supports this idea. Certainly making an ovary, making a female, doesn't happen spontaneously. I think instead the way embryos initially develop is in a form that are anatomically and microscopically indistinguishable, but neither male or female.

In fact, during the first six weeks of human development there are no anatomic or microscopic distinctions between XX or XY embryos, but instead all the pieces are put in place during those first six or seven weeks of development for that embryo to ultimately develop as either a male or a female. And what follows after the first six or seven weeks is a series of decisions made within the embryo.

For example, the embryo must decide whether its embryonic gonads will develop as testes or ovaries. Once it makes that decision the embryonic gonads secrete hormones that determine the fate of the external genitalia. But the beginnings for both male and female structures are present in all human embryos and so it's really from a sort of a common a single model that female and male development follows.

Both the male pathway and the female pathway are very active and require highly orchestrated, highly integrated sets of events, extremely complicated biochemical cascades that we're only beginning to understand. And truth be known, the prevailing textbook models of how sex differentiation unfolds are extremely biased in favor of the male. So our present textbook understanding of sex differentiation in mammals is really a story of how does a male develop. The story of how a female develops has yet to be written.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

The XX embryo is female and the XY embryo is male.

I'd argue that the XX embryo has the potential to be female, and the XY embryo has the potential to be male. Your own quote backs me up here.


I think instead the way embryos initially develop is in a form that are anatomically and microscopically indistinguishable, but neither male or female. [Emphasis mine]

But it really doesn't matter one way or another. Even if you do decide to define gender at that point (for whatever reason), I don't think that definition changes the decision. I have no problem killing a male or female cow.

[Cornish Maid]

A cow is not a bull

If you cut a bull's bollocks off he is called a bullock or a steer

Not a cow darling

Head em out,move em out Rawhide!!!!!!!!

[DontBeAfraid]

Diversion tactic. Concede that an embryo is not a person.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Alright, then I'd have no trouble killing cattle, whether cow or bull. Do you have a response to my actual point?

[Cornish Maid]

Alright, then I'd have no trouble killing cattle, whether cow or bull. Do you have a response to my actual point?

Neither do we . We killed goats, chickens, pigs, ducks, rabbits, and bullocks,and enjoyed eating them! What was your actual point.

[Demonskates]

What... like in a jar in the fridge? Thats just gross.
I need somthing to give you for your birthday,ill be right back, i need to make a er,"life deposit" in the jar in my fridge. :yikes:

[Cornish Maid]

I need somthing to give you for your birthday,ill be right back, i need to make a er,"life deposit" in the jar in my fridge. :yikes:

Isn't it nice to be alive and put life deposits in the fridge? :2thumbs:

[Philosopher Foelhe]

What was your actual point.

My point was that gender, height and eye color can be used to describe plenty of animals. So why use those traits as proof of humanity? Or as "proof" that it's wrong to kill something?

[Cornish Maid]

My point was that gender, height and eye color can be used to describe plenty of animals. So why use those traits as proof of humanity? Or as "proof" that it's wrong to kill something?
When you have a baby it is clear that the baby is human. They don't do DNA tests just to make sure.

Traits like eye colour are inherited from the parents

Not proof of humanity, just what they are.

[Demonskates]

Isn't it nice to be alive and put life deposits in the fridge? :2thumbs:
God bless America!Dba's birthday present is almost complete.A nice big jar of life potential. :crazy:

[Philosopher Foelhe]

When you have a baby it is clear that the baby is human.

Well, yeah. A baby has the genetic material of a human, and the (somewhat underdeveloped) mind of a human. An embryo has the genetic material of a human, but it does not have the mind of a human. What defines us? Our DNA, or our brains?


Traits like eye colour are inherited from the parents

So?


Not proof of humanity, just what they are.

... Then what was the point of you bringing these traits up in the first place?

[uki]

Isn't it nice to be alive and put life deposits in the fridge? :2thumbs:you wouldn't know the difference if your dead or don't exsist now would you? you are not a living soul until you take you first breath, and something tells me that if you fail to exit the womb for that first gasp of air, you aren't actually a living soul yet now are you? no just a part of the mother's anatomy...

[DogDemon4ver]

First I have one arguement to make a comparison with an unborn baby:
Is it any different of a toodler being in another room is not considered a human?

To answer the first question If a toodler is in another, is she/he not considered a human? It really doesn't matter whether or not the baby is either in the mother womb during the 9 months of pregnancy or a toodler that is outside of a mother's womb. Does it really matter to you? Remember, at the momment of conception between the egg and sperm is the beginning of new life. The "bloob" of tissue actually haves its own individual dna genetics, different from the parents. Remember, this "bloob" of tissue actually could feel pain during the process of any type of abortion. That "bloob" also have a heart beat and brain activity. You tell me this is not a baby, not a human being just a blob of tissue and nothing else.

That baby may just have an importance in life. He/She may have made a difference in the world by being the next doctor to cure a disease or cancer. But, unfortunately, He/She may not have a chance to forfill his/her destiny because the parents decided to an abortion. Think about it.
Remember a picture speaks the truth, and its worth a thousand word.
go to this website if you want to learn more about abortion.

I warn you this website is very graphic WARNING: Abortion is an act of violence that kills a baby. This site graphically depicts that reality.

http://www.abortionno.org/abortion_no.html

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Is it any different of a toodler being in another room is not considered a human?

Yes, it is different. A toddler has a human mind that can grasp concepts and remember events. A first-trimester child has no brain waves.


Remember, at the momment of conception between the egg and sperm is the beginning of new life.

Fair enough, but the question becomes whether every life is sacred. Notice I don't say every human life, because a first-trimester embryo doesn't have the intelligence of a child (or a dog, for that matter). If you aren't a vegetarian, I don't think you can say you are completely opposed to ending life.


Remember, this "bloob" of tissue actually could feel pain during the process of any type of abortion.

I'm curious, again, how this works in first-trimester abortions. Maybe the cells register damage, but the embryo has no brain to register that pain. So it's not exactly the same as hurting a baby.


That baby may just have an importance in life. He/She may have made a difference in the world by being the next doctor to cure a disease or cancer.

Or the baby could be the next Dahmer. *shrug*


I warn you this website is very graphic

Y'know, I have to say, I hate this argument. You're right, abortions are ugly and bloody. Y'know what? So are amputations. But if an infection gets into the bone, don't refuse to get an amputation because of how gross it looks. Hell, birth looks pretty damn ugly and bloody when you get right down to it.

[Sammy56]

He/She may not have a chance to forfill his/her destiny because the parents decided to an abortion. I thought destiny was something unalterable. I don't mean to sound awful, but if you believe in destiny, an abortion could be considered that embryo's destiny.

[loganosborne]

Is it any different of a toodler being in another room is not considered a human?
Yep there is a diffrence a toddler has thoughts. It also can remeber things. It basically has a mind unlike an embryo.

Remember, this "bloob" of tissue actually could feel pain during the process of any type of abortion.
From What I have learnt that is in incorrect. The embryo doesn't have a brain to register the pain.

That baby may just have an importance in life. He/She may have made a difference in the world by being the next doctor to cure a disease or cancer.
He/she could be the next Hitler. I guess we will never know.

He/She may not have a chance to forfill his/her destiny because the parents decided to an abortion.
Maybe he/she's destiny was to get aborted.

[DogDemon4ver]

So then everyone here is just saying its ok to kill a unborn baby, but then its not ok to abuse and slaughter animals. Take that comparison into consideration.

[loganosborne]

So then everyone here is just saying its ok to kill a unborn baby, but then its not ok to abuse and slaughter animals. Take that comparison into consideration.
The fetus does not have brain waves and can not feel pain yet unlike an animal which does have a brain wave and can feel pain.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

What Logan said. Although I should clarify - I didn't say it was necessarily wrong to slaughter an animal (abuse, yes). I only meant to imply that a first-trimester embryo, without a working brain, is even less aware than an animal. So if you think it's okay to kill a cow, why have a problem with killing something even less intelligent?

[DogDemon4ver]

jus so u kno around the 2nd to 3rd week of pregnancy a baby will develop into the nervous system (Brain, spinal cord, hair, and skin). That significies the embyro has brain waves already.

[DontBeAfraid]

A nervous system is not a brain, at least not in the sense that you are using it. Trees have "nervous systems".

Being capable of thought requires quite a brain and a 3 week year old fetus is a long way off of being able to think.

Eating animals = ok, abusing animals = not ok. No more strawmen arguments ok dog?

[DogDemon4ver]

i should clarify what i meant by slaughtering is in the term of how kfc acquires their chickens, etc.
From Peta.com is what I really meant

[DontBeAfraid]

Im not a member of peta. While Im against "abusing" animals, I am a natural omnivore.

A three week old fetus is no more aware than a ten year old tree and even less aware than a bug or a worm.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

i should clarify what i meant by slaughtering is in the term of how kfc acquires their chickens, etc.

Well, that's a separate issue. I'd be happy to discuss animal cruelty in slaughter houses, but basically? Animals should be killed quickly and with as little pain as possible. Ditto abortions.

[uki]

i should clarify what i meant by slaughtering is in the term of how kfc acquires their chickens, etc.
From Peta.com is what I really meanti thought KFC grew their chickens in a lab... i was told that they cannot actually put the word "chicken" on the menu because in a sense they do not use an actual chicken.

[Sammy56]

i thought KFC grew their chickens in a lab... i was told that they cannot actually put the word "chicken" on the menu because in a sense they do not use an actual chicken. No, that's just an urban legend. (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/food/kfc.asp)

[DontBeAfraid]

I heard that if you eat at kfc you gain super chicken powers from the radiation they feed the chickens in the lab.

[uki]

I heard that if you eat at kfc you gain super chicken powers from the radiation they feed the chickens in the lab.in any case, i do not eat a KFC. their foods sucks.

[Cornish Maid]

Im not a member of peta. While Im against "abusing" animals, I am a natural omnivore.

A three week old fetus is no more aware than a ten year old tree and even less aware than a bug or a worm.

Yeah, and when you smash a babies head against a wall death is probably instantaneous, so awareness isn't an issue if you value the sanctity of human life

[shrike]

the real question is not pro life or pro choice
the real question is pro common sense
when abortions were illegal thousands of women ( mostly poor)
had back room abortions and died
anti abortions laws had no affect on this start reality
example : alcohol was once illegal , but the laws were revolked because the state realized you cannot legislate morality.
legal abortions save women's lives.
the rich and the middle class will always have access to abortions no matter what the law. so antil abortions laws would only punish the poor.
a womans body and her health should be between her and her doctor
leave the religion at the church house
and get a little common sense

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Yeah, and when you smash a babies head against a wall death is probably instantaneous, so awareness isn't an issue if you value the sanctity of human life

I think you're misunderstanding what DBA is saying here. No one is saying babies are very aware of their mortality, because they aren't. But, a baby is aware of itself and its surroundings. A first-trimester embryo is not. Killing a baby is putting an end to a being which can think and reason (in a limited fashion). Killing an embryo is putting an end to a bundle of cells with no real intellectual capabilities.

[Cornish Maid]

I think you're misunderstanding what DBA is saying here. No one is saying babies are very aware of their mortality, because they aren't. But, a baby is aware of itself and its surroundings. A first-trimester embryo is not. Killing a baby is putting an end to a being which can think and reason (in a limited fashion). Killing an embryo is putting an end to a bundle of cells with no real intellectual capabilities.

Yes, killing it I think is the expression.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

I never argued with that. Killing, ending, destroying, finishing. Call it whatever the hell you want.

[Cornish Maid]

I never argued with that. Killing, ending, destroying, finishing. Call it whatever the hell you want.

If you want to join the embryo killers here is where

Philosopher Foelhe and friends

All donations gratefully received :burnin:

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Oh, for God's sake. Do you buy hamburger? Then you're paying people to kill cows. Would you shoot a rabid dog if it attacked you? Then you yourself are a killer. The word kill isn't a sign of depravity. And, since I also buy hamburger, and I would also shoot a rabid dog, I have no problem killing something with even less intellectual ability than either of those things.

[Cornish Maid]

So you wouldn't have minded if your mother had aborted you at the embryonic stage.

I know you wouldn't have known anything about it at that stage but you do now don't you baby.

Take a look at the universe. Or at least at our own home galaxy. You are privileged to be alive.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

So you wouldn't have minded if your mother had aborted you at the embryonic stage.

I know you wouldn't have known anything about it at that stage but you do now don't you baby.

Would I have minded when I turned twenty-one if I died as an embryo? What is this, the Twilight Zone?

I'm not afraid to die, if that's what you're asking. I'm not really sure how to respond to this question otherwise.

[Cornish Maid]

I know, the abortion question is difficult isn't it, if you are the embryo. And everybody on Earth was an embryo once.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

I know, the abortion question is difficult isn't it, if you are the embryo.

I'd love to hear an embryo's opinion on abortion. *pause* Oh, THAT'S right. They don't have brains.


And everybody on Earth was an embryo once.

Were we? What defines "us"? I define myself by my mind, so I couldn't really say the embryo was me. Just something that became me.

But that's incidental. Like I said, I'm not afraid to die. Am I glad I made it to this life? Sure, I've always been pretty content. But I've accepted the fact that my number will one day come up, and I will die. If I'd died when I was an infant, I would've accepted that.

[DontBeAfraid]

So you wouldn't have minded if your mother had aborted you at the embryonic stage. Thats a dumb question. You are an idiot cm. edit: as an embryo it would have been quite impossible for me to 'mind' anything.


I know, the abortion question is difficult isn't it, if you are the embryo. And everybody on Earth was an embryo once.I see.... sinse you have nothing new to add to the debate you have started repeating yourself. Well this has already been addressed IN THIS THREAD. idiot.

Bringing "emotion" into debates is where I believe I shine. Prepare yourself for manipulation cm, or apologize for acting childish. The choice is yours.

[Cornish Maid]

I'd love to hear an embryo's opinion on abortion. *pause* Oh, THAT'S right. They don't have brains.



Were we? What defines "us"? I define myself by my mind, so I couldn't really say the embryo was me. Just something that became me.


Well it wasn't anyone else

But that's incidental. Like I said, I'm not afraid to die. Am I glad I made it to this life? Sure, I've always been pretty content. But I've accepted the fact that my number will one day come up, and I will die. If I'd died when I was an infant, I would've accepted that.

Yeah well some embryos don't have any choice in the matter

[DontBeAfraid]

Embryos are not capable of choice. That attribute is reserved for those with FUNCTIONING brains.

[Cornish Maid]

If you had been aborted it would not have been your choice. It would have been your parents

[Philosopher Foelhe]

And we wouldn't care. Because we'd have no functioning brain to use to care.

[Cornish Maid]

And we wouldn't care. Because we'd have no functioning brain to use to care.
No you wouldn't. Thats the tragedy.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

No you wouldn't. Thats the tragedy.

Tragedy how? Because we basically wouldn't exist? We follow that train of thought, we're going to go right back to outlawing birth control. Hell, if it's wrong to let something not exist, you'd basically have to get a girl pregnant every time she ovulated.

Imagine if a girl was a virgin until she turned eighteen. It'd be like mass genocide!

[Cornish Maid]

Thats a dumb question. You are an idiot cm. edit: as an embryo it would have been quite impossible for me to 'mind' anything.

I see.... sinse you have nothing new to add to the debate you have started repeating yourself. Well this has already been addressed IN THIS THREAD. idiot.

Bringing "emotion" into debates is where I believe I shine. Prepare yourself for manipulation cm, or apologize for acting childish. The choice is yours.

Why don't you just fuck off. You have already said you are a baby hater. Get off of this thread Asshole

[Sammy56]

If you had been aborted it would not have been your choice. It would have been your parents Maybe I've just got odd ideas, but when I found out my father pressed for my mother to get an abortion so he wouldn't get caught cheating on his wife, it was shocking, but it didn't change my mind that abortion wasn't evil. Yes, I've enjoyed some parts of life so far and hope for a bright future, but my parents had every right to make that choice. It wouldn't have bothered me because, at that point in time, I didn't have a functioning brain to be bothered with and therefore no choice about the matter.

[Cornish Maid]

Tragedy how? Because we basically wouldn't exist? We follow that train of thought, we're going to go right back to outlawing birth control. Hell, if it's wrong to let something not exist, you'd basically have to get a girl pregnant every time she ovulated.

Imagine if a girl was a virgin until she turned eighteen. It'd be like mass genocide!

Well yes, basicaly because you wouldn't exist


Tragedy in so many people in the west are infertile. At The same time women are aborting viable foetuses

[DontBeAfraid]

I can hate babies all I want and still recognize that we are not talking about babies. Why do you keep talking about babies? a fetus is not a baby so its about as relevant to the debate as everything else you have brought up.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Well yes, basicaly because you wouldn't exist

I also wouldn't exist if my ma hadn't gotten married at age seventeen, but I still speak out against teen marriages whenever I get the chance.

But again, fine. I'd be dead. Shame, but so what?


Tragedy in so many people in the west are infertile. At The same time women are aborting viable foetuses

Y'know what? I'd like to see the foster care system just about empty out. I'd like to see every orphan given a good home. But this is not reality, and advising us to toss more kids into the system - as if they just magically vanish the moment they enter an orphanage - is irresponsible.

[Cornish Maid]

Just because you don't care whether you are dead or alive doesn't mean that goes for everyone.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life000.html

[TheAvatar]

I am afraid that this is one of those topics that will be debated forever, each side is so firmly entrenched in their beliefs, they barely see the other.

[Cornish Maid]

Im pro abortion because I dont like babies, and I especially dont like children. But what I really dont like is people!

Oh that and a fetus is not a person.... not that I like people, mind you.


I think that makes you anti baby

[Cornish Maid]

I can hate babies all I want and still recognize that we are not talking about babies. Why do you keep talking about babies? a fetus is not a baby so its about as relevant to the debate as everything else you have brought up.

Why did you? Baby hater-people hater

Looks like you haven't been clicking on to my links.

[DontBeAfraid]

I dont like babies

I think that makes you anti baby
wow... I see that you can read. Impressive.... for a christian.

Your links are not related to the conversation.

No fetus has ever, in the history of the world, been capable of careing whether it lives or dies CM. Get over it.

A fetus is not a human. Get over it.

Your links are garbage. Go muck yourself.

[Cornish Maid]

wow... I see that you can read. Impressive.... for a christian.

Your links are not related to the conversation.

No fetus has ever, in the history of the world, been capable of careing whether it lives or dies CM. Get over it.

A fetus is not a human. Get over it.

Your links are garbage. Go muck yourself.

Yes I can read and most people can in this neck of the woods.

My links are generaly on foetal developement and one was graphicaly about abortion

A foetus is human get over it.

Seems to be a sore point with you doesn't it DBA

Get over it

[DontBeAfraid]

A fetus is human tissue.... so is snot, so is hair, so is a fingernail, so is the fat that gets sucked out during liposuction(sp); None of them are humans though. What dont you understand about this?

A human is much much more than a fetus.

I see that you are done with the insane argument that a fetus gives a damn one way or the other. Good for you.

[jeffweeder]

wow... I see that you can read. Impressive.... for a christian.

Your links are not related to the conversation.

No fetus has ever, in the history of the world, been capable of careing whether it lives or dies CM. Get over it.

A fetus is not a human. Get over it.

Your links are garbage. Go muck yourself.


Consider this D..ead B ..eat A sshole

Every fetus in the history of the world, unfortuanate to be in this situation, has tried to aviod those pliers, by squirming away.

[DontBeAfraid]

Consider this D..ead B ..eat A ssholeooh, clever. :)


Every fetus in the history of the world, unfortuanate enough to be in this situation, has tried to aviod those pliers, by squirming away.This is untrue, but the issue of squirming has been addressed already. Many reactions can occur without a brain or a thought, think of how plants turn to the sun.

[Cornish Maid]

A fetus is human tissue.... so is snot, so is hair, so is a fingernail, so is the fat that gets sucked out during liposuction(sp); None of them are humans though. What dont you understand about this?

A human is much much more than a fetus.

I see that you are done with the insane argument that a fetus gives a damn one way or the other. Good for you.

You just don't read my links do you?

Well here we go again

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life000.html

[DontBeAfraid]

Why should I read the link when you are regurgitating it here? Your link doesnt further your argument in the slightest. Quit spamming it.

edit: all the bullet points from that link have been addressed. Why should I consider it further?

[jeffweeder]

I missed how this could of been addressed, besides it is a living organism, that has the potetial to become---- if possible,your best freind.

[Cornish Maid]

A fetus is human tissue.... so is snot, so is hair, so is a fingernail, so is the fat that gets sucked out during liposuction(sp); None of them are humans though. What dont you understand about this?

A human is much much more than a fetus.

I see that you are done with the insane argument that a fetus gives a damn one way or the other. Good for you.

Snot and hair doesn't have the ability to become a human being, a foetus does because it is one in the early stages.

[DontBeAfraid]

I see you still wish to measure things by what they could be instead of what they are. Its a good thing you dont work for nasa.

[Havoc Angel]

Well, as some people are using what a embryo *could* be, why not use as an argument what the embryo inevitably *will* be? And that is a dead pile of rotting meat, a corpse. Stop making babies people, because you'll condemn a human being to death. You are not only parents but also murderers by proxy. You should be ashamed.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Just because you don't care whether you are dead or alive doesn't mean that goes for everyone.

No, but it does go for all embryos, which do not have the ability to care. No aborted embryo has ever feared death.


A foetus is human get over it.

Not in my view.


I missed how this could of been addressed, besides it is a living organism, that has the potetial to become---- if possible,your best freind.

Or it could become the next Hitler. There are too many variables to figure out what a person will eventually become, so it's a waste of time arguing from that perspective.

[loganosborne]

I missed how this could of been addressed, besides it is a living organism, that has the potetial to become---- if possible,your best freind.
I said this earlier in the thread. it could become the next Hitler or Stalin and that means that abortion has saved many lives.

Just because you don't care whether you are dead or alive doesn't mean that goes for everyone.
You may care and other people may care doubt the embryo does because it doesn't have a brain to care.

[Cornish Maid]

I said this earlier in the thread. it could become the next Hitler or Stalin and that means that abortion has saved many lives.

You may care and other people may care doubt the embryo does because it doesn't have a brain to care.


Maybe, maybe not, who can tell?

No, and it never will have if it is aborted. Are you glad your mother didn't abort you? You can answer the question because she didn't.

[jeffweeder]

Am i speaking to single people here or not,?,, geesh, how or who has the credentials to decide if this embryo should exist or not.... We are all quite aware how to pro-create. If ,after the act, you want to kill what has become alive, and will no doubt, no matter at what stage( or how old), this living organism, will become a human being.- your offspring.- To call it anything else is a cop out. People who should be able to have children, sometimes cannot. I would be appalled all the more if i was one of these people who yearned for a child, but couldnt have their own, ..and then see these ignoramasses, saying woops ,dont want this to develop into a child....then kill it off....makes me so flipping sick.

[Cornish Maid]

Home > Morality
What Do World Religions Believe About Abortion?
Attitudes towards abortion differ sharply even within denominations. The information here is presented as a general guideline only.



WORLD RELIGIONS ON ABORTION

HINDUISM
Vasu Murti and Mary Krane Derr write in the Fall 1998 issue of the Journal of Feminism and Non-Violence Studies that "Hinduism teaches that abortion, like any other act of violence, thwarts a soul in its progress toward God. Hindu scriptures and tradition have from the earliest of times condemned the practice of abortion, except when the life of the mother is in danger. Hinduism teaches that the fetus is a living, conscious person needing and deserving protection. Hindu scriptures refer to abortion as garha-batta (womb killing) and bhroona hathya (killing the undeveloped soul)."

ISLAM
Islam prohibits abortion except when the mother's life is in danger. Muslims consider a fertilized ovum that is attached to the womb a living being that has the potential of reaching its full formation. A developed fetus is considered a human life and is subject to the laws of inheritance to the extent that if the mother is sentenced to capital punishment, her life should be preserved because she is carrying another human life.


BUDDHISM
Under the first of the five Buddhist precepts--to refrain from taking life, from insects on up the evolutionary ladder--abortion is proscribed. Life is deemed to begin as soon as consciousness arises, and fetuses are seen as having consciousness. The Buddha's rules for his community of monks also forbade anyone from recommending abortion. Some practitioners of Japanese Zen who have had a miscarriage or abortion honor or make an offering to the deity Jizo, the god of lost travelers and children. It is believed that Jizo will steward the child until it is reborn in another incarnation.


BAHA'I
According to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is, "Baha'is believe the soul becomes associated with the body at conception, and the deliberate taking of human life is generally not permitted. Baha'i writings clearly state that abortion merely to prevent the birth of an unwanted child is forbidden. Baha'i institutions do not legislate on the issue of abortion, and it is left to the individuals concerned to decide the best course of action."

JUDAISM
According to Rabbi Raymond A. Zwerin and Rabbi Richard J. Shapiro, writing for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, traditional Jewish law teaches that "the fetus is not considered a full human being, and has no individual rights, but rather, according to many sources, is a part of a woman's body. And just as any person may not voluntarily do harm to his or her body, a woman may not voluntarily abort a fetus. However, just as a portion of the body may be sacrificed to save a person's life, an abortion may be performed for the woman's overall well-being, and an existing life takes precedence over a potential life, if there must be a choice between them."

UNITARIAN- UNIVERSALIST
According to the Unitarian-Universalist Association's official position paper, the church "believes in the right of every woman to safe and affordable abortion services, including federally funded abortion counseling and abortion provision, and has called for governmental protection for abortion providers and women who receive abortions."



CHRISTIANITY
American Baptist
According to a position paper of the American Baptist Churches USA, the denomination "opposes abortion as a means of birth control or a means of eliminating unwanted pregnancies, but differs on when life begins and whether the church should advocate for governmental restrictions on abortion."

Catholic
The Catholic Church teaches that every human being has a right to life from the moment of conception. The church holds that every abortion--the willful killing of a human embryo or fetus--is a grave moral evil. The penalty for procuring an abortion is automatic excommunication. Formally cooperating in an abortion is a grave offense. More-->

Eastern Orthodoxy
The Orthodox Church teaches that abortion is the killing of a child. Grave questions like these are settled by the Holy Spirit's guidance, which is found pre-eminently in Scripture, and other writings and community decisions must be consistent with Scripture. From the earliest years, Christian writings have instructed "Do not murder a child by abortion or kill one who has been born" (The Didache, c. 70-80 C.E.).


Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
According to the ELCA's official position paper, the church "believes abortion ought to be an option only of last resort. The church, in most circumstances, encourages women with unintended pregnancies to continue the pregnancy. The church, however, recognizes that there can be sound reasons for ending a pregnancy through induced abortion."

Latter-Day Saints
According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers elective abortion sinful, though not necessarily murder. A Latter-day Saint cannot have or perform an abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, the life of the mother being endangered, or a severely defective fetus that cannot survive birth.

The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod
According to the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod's official position paper, the denomination "believes abortion is contrary to God's Word and is not a moral option except in the tragic situation when it is necessary to save the life of the mother."

Presbyterian Church (USA)
The Presbyterian Church (USA) says in official teaching that it "acknowledges legitimate diversity of opinion. Abortion can be acceptable under circumstances of rape or incest, physical or mental deformity of the fetus, or threats to the physical or mental well-being of the mother. Oppose its use as a method of birth control. Acknowledge that the state has at least a limited interest in regulating abortion, but believe in safe and affordable access to abortions for those deemed acceptable."
Southern Baptist Convention
According to the Southern Baptist Convention's official statement, "At the moment of conception, a new being enters the universe, a human being, a being created in God's image. This human being deserves our protection, whatever the circumstances of conception."

United Methodist Church
The United Methodist Church writes in its official statement that the denomination "believes in the sanctity of unborn human life and are reluctant to approve abortion. But they are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy."

[Philosopher Foelhe]

No, and it never will have if it is aborted. Are you glad your mother didn't abort you?

Is it possible for you to even come up with a hypothetical with some bearing on the real world? We worry about death now, because we have thoughts and feelings. Which is why it's wrong to kill someone. But an embryo does not have any thoughts, so they don't ever feel upset about being aborted. You're trying to match up two variables that will never, ever be together - fear and embryonic state.


If ,after the act, you want to kill what has become alive, and will no doubt, no matter at what stage( or how old), this living organism, will become a human being.

That's one hell of a slippery slope argument, and a pretty lame one. If we argue that people are defined by brainpower, we can abort at the first-trimester, but not long after that. If we argue that people are defined by potential, it's "murder" to not fuck every woman who's ovulating.


To call it anything else is a cop out.

No, it isn't. I'm a human because I can think. Before, when I was an embryo, that was not me. And it goes both ways - if I get into an accident, and am left in a mindless vegitative state, feel free to pull the plug. Because "I" will have left the building at that point.

[loganosborne]

But an embryo does not have any thoughts, so they don't ever feel upset about being aborted. You're trying to match up two variables that will never, ever be together - fear and embryonic state.
I agree with what Philospher said. By the way Phillospher why do you keep stating that the posts written by Jeff are written by Assassin X?

[Philosopher Foelhe]

By the way Phillospher why do you keep stating that the posts written by Jeff are written by Assassin X?

... Because I'm a halfwit, apparently. Let me go back and edit that. Thanks for pointing it out.

[uki]

apparently all the christians whom believe God gave to them a freewill universe also believe that being pro-choice is not the will of God.

[Cartesiantheater]

I need somthing to give you for your birthday,ill be right back, i need to make a er,"life deposit" in the jar in my fridge. :yikes:
I ashamed that no one posted a LMFAO for this. So, I will do the honors...


BUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!! How is that not hilarious, people?


Anyway, I think maybe I'll re-enter this debate for a post or two.

First- The fetus squirming away IS feeling pain. Pain is not a "person" thing- it is a primitive "thought" that goes back to the beginning of life. So yeah, the fetus does "feel" the pain. Just like grasshoppers will "feel" pain if you start dumping a bunch of chlorine on them. They thrash violently, desperately trying to escape the sensory exploding agony and burning. That's the first purpose of a nervous system.

Second- You secular humanists are under the illusion that "person-hood" is well defined. Who "you" are is NOT a single entity. It just appears that way. "You" are nothing but the dominant memes that have hijacked your brain. But that's all another topic.

Abortion DOES cause pain and death for a creature. Just like me pouring chlorine on a grasshopper, or frying a mouse in restaurant fry grease is causing pain and death for a creature.

However, I do NOT believe that the creature in question is as valuable as a birthed human. Ultimately, whether you believe that "life" starts at conception or at birth, your starting point is still ARBITRARY! None of you are right and none of your are wrong on that particular part of the issue.
But for you lifers, I want to point out to you that wild animals, when faced with the choice of saving themselves or fighting large predators to save their children, will often chose to save themselves. Why? Because evolution is not dictated by the welfare of the INDIVIDUAL, but by the welfare of the GENE. And it is in the gene's best interest to save the organism that has already survived long enough to reproduce again, and so the animal will save herself before her offspring in such situations. The point here is that it is acceptable to make situational value judgements about the sanctity of life. Individuals are not what matters in this dance with entropy we living creatures are in. Individuals are nothing but SURVIVAL MACHINES- and as long as SOMETHING continues survives, we all win! :2thumbs: (although, obviously the object is for YOUR genes to be the victor; but although each individual is competing with every other individual, we are all competing collectively against entropy)

[Cornish Maid]

[QUOTE=Philosopher Foelhe]Is it possible for you to even come up with a hypothetical with some bearing on the real world? We worry about death now, because we have thoughts and feelings. Which is why it's wrong to kill someone. But an embryo does not have any thoughts, so they don't ever feel upset about being aborted. You're trying to match up two variables that will never, ever be together - fear and embryonic state.


My hypothesis on the nature of human life is , human life begins at conception and goes through various stages of development until it dies. In the case of abortion the life is extinguished during the embryonic or fetal stages.

Science and religion are generally agreed on this.

I don't think this matches up two variables, it just stops a human life from evolving.

I was interested in Logans opinion as to whether or not he is glad his mother didn't abort him.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

human life begins at conception and goes through various stages of development until it dies.

I can agree with that, but there is a difference between human life and humanity. Human life could be used to describe your hair - it's growing and alive, it has the DNA of homo sapiens, so, voila, human life. Humanity is, in my opinion, defined by an mentality comprised of logical and ethical study of the world around us. Embryos don't have that.


I was interested in Logans opinion as to whether or not he is glad his mother didn't abort him.

Y'know, it just occured to me. Why are you replacing morality with preference? Why are you saying that something we want to happen must be moral, and something we don't want to happen must be immoral? I'm not particularly looking forward to the end of the world, but according to many Christians, the end is coming. Since I have a negative outlook on the Apocalypse, does that mean God's plan is unethical?

[Cornish Maid]

I can agree with that, but there is a difference between human life and humanity. Human life could be used to describe your hair - it's growing and alive, it has the DNA of homo sapiens, so, voila, human life. Humanity is, in my opinion, defined by an mentality comprised of logical and ethical study of the world around us. Embryos don't have that.


Y'know, it just occured to me. Why are you replacing morality with preference? Why are you saying that something we want to happen must be moral, and something we don't want to happen must be immoral? I'm not particularly looking forward to the end of the world, but according to many Christians, the end is coming. Since I have a negative outlook on the Apocalypse, does that mean God's plan is unethical?


I agree that a hair follicle is alive with human DNA, but hair is actually dead. I see your point. I will redefine in that a human being starts life at conception. I know what your viewpoint is on when you think the point of aborting is acceptable and I beg to differ.


I'm just saying I don't believe in murder.

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. It is His prerogative.

[loganosborne]

I was interested in Logans opinion as to whether or not he is glad his mother didn't abort him.
I might me be glad she didn't but if she had aborted I wouldn't have known that I existed so I don't see how this question matters.

I'm just saying I don't believe in murder.
I don't think abortion is murder.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

I'm just saying I don't believe in murder.

I don't agree with murder either. I just don't think that word applies here.

[Cornish Maid]

I don't agree with murder either. I just don't think that word applies here.

Some of us who think that a human being begins life at conception call it murder.

If a foetus is aborted a week before its due date it is called a termination. If a baby is killed a week after it is born it is called infanticide.

Different names for the same thing.

[jeffweeder]

Here is something to consider-;
While the demand for abortion grows,1 so does the scientific case against the arguments often used to support it. Recent powerful evidence comes from immunology.

Half a century ago, when the amazing mechanism of the human immune system was first being uncovered, Nobel prize-winning biologist Sir Peter Medawar made a significant comment. He declared that the survival of the genetically different child within a mother’s womb contradicted the immunological laws that were thwarting their attempts at tissue transplantation.2 The immune system normally detects any ‘foreign’ tissue in the body and it immediately sets up a defence against it (primarily what is now called the ‘killer T cell’ mechanism).

This caused early experiments in organ transplantation to fail—the recipient’s immune system attacked and rejected the donor’s ‘foreign’ organ tissue.3 So why doesn’t the mother’s womb detect the presence of the ‘foreign’ tissue of the developing embryo and try to attack and reject it?

This research shows very clearly that the baby is not part of the mother’s body.
We now know that it does! And this is the cause of many miscarriages. Recent research has shown that the developing child puts up a very specific defence against the killer T cell attack. And as long as the defence mechanism works properly, the pregnancy will proceed to full term. However, when the defence mechanism fails, miscarriage results.

In a landmark 1998 paper, researchers at the Medical College of Georgia, in Augusta, USA, found that the mammalian embryo (they worked with mice) produces a special enzyme, called indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase, or ‘IDO’, which suppresses the mother’s T cell reaction and allows pregnancy to proceed.2 Follow-up work in humans revealed the same effect, and it was also demonstrated that the IDO was produced on the embryo side of the placental membrane (which separates mother from child) and not on the mother’s side.4 Further work in mice showed that IDO production peaked during the formation of the placenta—the most crucial time for establishing that vital link between mother and child.5 And the most recent work in humans has established beyond doubt that IDO is a specific mechanism at the mother–child interface for preventing the mother’s immune system from rejecting her child.6

Tumour hijacks fetal enzyme
The lead author of the 1998 paper on IDO referred to in the main text, David Munn, has continued his research on IDO’s role elsewhere in the body and found an exactly parallel process to the pregnancy case at work in the body’s tolerance of tumours.1 Just as the embryo produces IDO to protect itself from the mother’s immune system, so rogue tumour cells also use the same trick to stop a person’s immune system from attacking and rejecting the tumour. These insights are helping to find new ways of treating tumours and reducing the rejection rate of surgical transplants.

Reference
Munn, D.H. and Mellor, A.L., IDO and tolerance to tumours, Trends in Molecular Medicine 10(1):15–18, 2004.

But what does this have to do with abortion? Well, a common argument in favour of abortion is that a mother has the right to control what happens to her own body.7 However, this research shows very clearly that the baby is not part of the mother’s body. The baby has a unique genetic makeup—only half its chromosomes come from the mother, the other half come from the father, and each combination of chromosomes is unique. This condition is sufficient to cause the mother’s immune system to identify the baby as ‘foreign’ and it mounts an attack via the killer T cell system. In the mouse experiments, when IDO production was artificially suppressed, the mother's womb rapidly rejected the embryos.2 It is only because the baby is normally well prepared for life in the womb by producing IDO, and suppressing the mother’s T cell reaction, that pregnancy can be healthy and go full term.

This research also highlights the fact that the child’s individuality—its unique genetic makeup—exists from the moment of conception. At conception, the new person's genetic instructions come together for the first time—in a single cell called the zygote. But it is not until day 6 that IDO production kicks in.6 Why day 6? Well, day 6 is a preparation for day 7, when the new embryo first attaches itself to its mother’s womb so that it can draw nutrients from its mother’s bloodstream.8 This is exactly the time when the mother’s killer T cells would normally begin to attack and reject it—if not for the amazing protection already provided by the baby’s IDO production on the previous day. Psalm 139:13 tells us that God ‘did knit me together in my mother’s womb’ and in Isaiah 46:3 God says, ‘You whom I have upheld since you were conceived’. IDO is a marvellous part of God’s system for individually ‘upholding’ us in the womb and we should not violate it, nor indeed the commandment not to take innocent human life, through the proliferation of abortion.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4633

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Some of us who think that a human being begins life at conception call it murder.

And if the mother's life is at risk, does it then become self-defense?

I'm sorry, but I think using murder in this way is inaccurate. Like I said earlier, the word "killing" is fine, because you are killing the embryo. But "murder" is a social construct, and an embryo is not part of society. If you want to argue that killing an embryo is wrong, that's your perogative, but in this sort of argument the word "murder" comes off as a snarl word, adding nothing to the discussion.


a common argument in favour of abortion is that a mother has the right to control what happens to her own body.7 However, this research shows very clearly that the baby is not part of the mother’s body.

Let's get clinical and ugly, shall we? If you wanted to define the relationship between an embryo and its mother, the best word would be "parasitic". The embryo robs the mother of nutrients and makes her physically weaker, without giving anything in exchange. So it's a pretty classic parasite/host relationship.

Now, after the mother goes through this draining process, if she plans to keep the child, she gets the benefits of motherhood as a reward for her suffering. But if the mother doesn't want to keep the kid, she's basically suffering a parasite invasion for no reason. My point is that while the embryo isn't a part of the mother, it does damage her body while she is pregnant. Your research shows this. So, if we argue that a mother has the right to control what happens to her body, we should realize that this includes being able to avoid being the host to a parasite.

Not to be rude, but if people aren't allowed to control what is feeding off of their bodies, we could have animal rights activists arguing with people who are trying to kill their tapeworms.

[jeffweeder]

Now that was ugly. Ive never heard of anyone refer to life as a parasitic tapeworm invasion. I would go as far to say that there is more to it than that. First, in most cases, she invites this possible invasion of foriegn substances, and then, in most cases, she gos at it like an olympic champion, to make sure that -the big bang is as big as it can be. This new life has the right to live, and this particular mother shouldnt have the right ,to then abort this new life that she won the gold medal for in creating.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Ive never heard of anyone refer to life as a parasitic tapeworm invasion.

Well, perhaps the tapeworm thing was going a little far - okay, a lot far - but an embryo does fit the defintion of a parasite.


This new life has the right to live

If life was an inalienable right, we wouldn't have stillborns.


this particular mother shouldnt have the right ,to then abort this new life that she won the gold medal for in creating

Uh, if she didn't want the gold in the first place...

[Cornish Maid]

I'm sorry, but I think using murder in this way is inaccurate. Like I said earlier, the word "killing" is fine, because you are killing the embryo. But "murder" is a social construct, and an embryo is not part of society. If you want to argue that killing an embryo is wrong, that's your perogative, but in this sort of argument the word "murder" comes off as a snarl word, adding nothing to the discussion.



You can call it what you like but the Church calls it murder

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/abortion.aspx

[DontBeAfraid]

lol.... soldiers only kill enemies but doctors "murder" goo. Your religion is a joke.

The state "kills" death row inmates.... And doctors "murder" parasitic beans. Wow, you are off your rocker.

[Cornish Maid]

Abortion.

Eastern Christianity has a long history of opposition to abortion. Its ethical teachings as embodied in canon law and in the penitential books, as well as in more formal ethical instruction, condemn abortion as a form of murder. Because our humanity is a psychosomatic unity and because Orthodox Christians see all of life as a continuous and never ending development of the image and likeness toward theosis and full humanity, the achievement of particular stages of development of the conceptus is not ethically relevant to the question of abortion.

In his second canon, St. Basil specifically rules out the artificial distinction between the "formed" and "unformed" conceptus (The Rudder, pp. 789-790). Thus, any abortion is seen as an evil. Since the physical and the personal aspects of human existence are understood as essential constitutive elements of our humanity, the conceptus - unfulfilled and incomplete as it may be - may not be destroyed under normal circumstances. Eastern Orthodox ethicists reject as unworthy those counterarguments which appeal to economic and social reasons and so hold life to be less valuable than money, pride, or convenience. Armed with modem genetic information, they also reject the argument that an abortion may be justified because a woman is entitled to control her own body. That basic affirmation of self-determination is not rejected; what is rejected is the claim that the conceptus is a part of the mother's tissue. It is not her body; it is the body and life of another human being entrusted to her for care and nurture.

Only in the case in which the life of the mother is endangered by the conceptus is it morally appropriate to consider the possibility of abortion. Yet, even here, the main operative value is the preservation of life. Numerous prudential considerations will be taken into account, though it is likely that the preservation of the mother's life will most often be chosen. In any case, it falls into the class of "involuntary sin" in which the evil of the event is recognized, while the personal guilt is mitigated (Papacostas, pp. 9-13, 83-105).

[DontBeAfraid]

We already know your stance on the subject dingus. And its proper to site your sources.

[Cornish Maid]

We already know your stance on the subject dingus. And its proper to site your sources.


Sorry sweetie, I'll try and remember next time.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8076.asp

[Beatnik Bob]

I'm pro-life under the 14th Amendment. Only when this right infringes on another can the 14th amendment be put aside. So if the pregnancy is threatening the life of the mother, the 14th amendment can be put aside, and the baby exterminated...

[Sammy56]

Interesting argument Bob, but I've got a question. To infringe is to violate. You define that a fetus "violates" the mother only when it threatens her life. However, anyone who puts you through as much pain and hardship as a pregnancy brings would definitally be infringing your rights. Even if you have a normal pregnancy, you get all kinds of nasty symptoms that can make like unpleasent for awhile.

So, my question is, as most pro-life people define fetus' as people, why does what a baby do to a mother in a normal pregnacy not considered infringment when any other person who produced a similar amount of pain would be violating the mothers rights?

[AnotherLostSoul]

i believe that life of an innocent should be protected, considering that there might be something alive in the uterus, something that very much wanted to live. The abortion debate has been consistently phrased as one of baby's rights versus women's rights.


What about the mens rigbts? (father of unborn)

They don't have many rights realy.

If a girl gets pregnant, but father of child doesnt want it, she can still keep the child where the father ends up having to help support it.

if the girl doesn't want it but the father does want the child, the girl still has the right to abort. I think this part should be changed.

Too m,any people want to adopt babys while we have too many children in foster homes who would give anything to have a good home. These foster children are the forgotten children

[Sammy56]

AnotherLostSoul, I can understand why you feel it's not fair to the father in some cases, but you have to take a few things into consideration. First, it's the mother's body, not the fathers, that will face dramatic changes. Second, if something would happen to the couple in the future and they seperate, it is usually the mother who has custody. Now, if that happens, the child might grow up with a mother who doesn't want them and no one should have to endur that.

[Beatnik Bob]

So, my question is, as most pro-life people define fetus' as people, why does what a baby do to a mother in a normal pregnacy not considered infringment when any other person who produced a similar amount of pain would be violating the mothers rights? When a woman has sex with a male (excluding rape, etc.), she undoubtedly knows that there is more to the package than just getting an orgasm. A child is the obvious consequence, and a mother should know this, and the pain that comes along with having a child is also expected, so it is hard to say if a child is really infringing on your rights when it brings pain, because the mother had previously had sex and thus expected such an outcome.

A note worth noting: Life also infringes on your right of life, because without life you cannot die, and death is an infringement. So you really have to stop thinking about these things so hard, because you'll find too many oxymorons.

[DontBeAfraid]

If we make abortions illegal a lot more women are going to be showing up in emergency rooms with boot-to-the-gut related injuries.

And pregnancy is not the expected outcome of most sex bob. Its more like a sexually transmitted infection.... something you are forced to deal with.

[Cartesiantheater]

AnotherLostSoul, I can understand why you feel it's not fair to the father in some cases, but you have to take a few things into consideration. First, it's the mother's body, not the fathers, that will face dramatic changes. Second, if something would happen to the couple in the future and they seperate, it is usually the mother who has custody. Now, if that happens, the child might grow up with a mother who doesn't want them and no one should have to endur that.
Ok, how about this. Because it's the "woman's body" prior to birth, why can't it be the "woman's problem" after birth (legally speaking)? A father can love a child before its birth. Happens all the time. Yet he has no control of whether it (50% his property*- that is half the chromosomes came from him) lives. Therefore, he should not be legally bound to pay child support.

*If his half of the chromosomes are his before conception (which seems quite obvious), then by ejaculating in the woman he is, for all intents and purposes, giving his chromosomes to her as a gift or a loan. Now, in some states in the US, when a gift (or loan) is given with a specific intention in mind (a stated intention usually, I belive), and the intention is not carried out, then the receiver of the gift is liable for damages (a sort of breach of contract). So, while I am thoroughly opposed to making abortion a criminal offense of any kind, I think that in some cases it is reasonable to make abortion a civil offense. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28common_law%29) In addition, although most far lefter-pro-choicers want to ignore it, there are times when the father of the aborted fetus suffers great emotional trauma, even to the degree of severe work-disrupting depression. And if people can be liable for causing this sort of thing in other circumstances, why can't they be here?

What do you guys think?

[oh, one more thing: Do we really believe what we're saying? I've noticed that nearly everyone here is at times calling the woman who aborts the fetus "the mother" and nearly everyone is at times calling the man who impregnated the woman "the father." Mother implies birth, which implies child. (a little bit Fruedian, maybe?). Maybe the explanation for this is that the idea of "pro-choice" is a meme that goes against our genetic programming-like celibacy, for example (or maybe even other memetic programming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetic_programming))-- this in no way implies moral "rightness" by the way; it's just an observation--]

[Beatnik Bob]

I deffine an infection by something external (and I hope you know what I mean by external).
The reason pregnancy isn't external is because of the following:

Sperm is manufactured in the human male testicles, which are a part of the human body and recieve their orders from the brain. And since the average male(after a certain point in time of course, meaning puberty) manufactures sperm at a certain point in his life, it can be concluded that sperm is a human body function which is meant to exist.

Eggs are manufactured in the ovaries of the average female, at a certain time of course, and because the average female (again, after a certain point) manufactures eggs, it can be concluded that the production of eggs from the ovaries is a natural cause, and that the ovaries, the uterus, the fellopian tube (sp) and cervix is suppost to be their, since they are as numerous as a brain in the female part of humanity.

The average males is capable of ejaculating, and it has been determined that sperm has but one use (other than making counter tops sticky), and that use is to travel through the cervix and join with an egg in the fallopian (sp) tube. And as for the egg, it has been decided that it also has but one use, other than making femals pissed off when they are ejected out. And that use is to join with a sperm to create an embryo.

So here we have a human sperm, and a human egg. The relationship is that they are both manufactured in humans, which are the same race, even though they may come in different forms. The human race is extremely compatible with itself. (As a matter of fact humans are so close to eachother we feel free to express ourselves to eachother in the forms of war, communication, sex, and a variety of other things). And since the egg and sperm seem to only have one purpose, that purpose must be what they were made to do. And if the human body specifically created them to do this task, they cannot be a parasite. In fact, the female uterus is designed to hold a child, and the uterus also seems to have no other use than to sustain a child.

Sorry for the lecture DBA, but you were acting stupid, and I had to make it as clear as possible once and for all.




If we make abortions illegal a lot more women are going to be showing up in emergency rooms with boot-to-the-gut related injuries. I am pro life ONLY to a certain extent. therefore I would never choose abortions to be made illegal, though it could certainly be limited slightly.

STOP BEING SUCH A WHITE AND BLACK THINKER! You seem to think in terms of it's either legal or it's illegal, but there is a grey ground that far surpasses both the black and white grounds combined!

[DontBeAfraid]

Lecture disreguarded.

Pregancny is something you dont have when you begin and might have when you finish.... just like herpes. Which also manufactures itself IN a human body.

I dont see how my comment could be seen as a black/white non inclusive arguement. Had you read the rest of my posts in this thread you would have noticed that I make very few references to legality and base my arguments on reality or my perception (the correct perception by the way) of it.

Abortions are limited. After a certain amount of time spent pregnant you can no longer get an abortion. It is set at the current point of fetal developement that we recognize the growing organsism as a person. It should rightly be defined at "higher" brain developement and function and not the potential for such.

[Sammy56]

I deffine an infection by something external (and I hope you know what I mean by external). First, I'm going to assume you meant infringement instead of infection. Using your logic, if I poisoned someone, since the "problem" took place internally, I wasn't infringing on that persons rights. Of course, that is absurd. Besides, thats not a definition of infringement (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringe). No offense, but I can say to kills means to be kind, but that doesn't mean my definition is valid.


Ok, how about this. Because it's the "woman's body" prior to birth, why can't it be the "woman's problem" after birth (legally speaking)? A father can love a child before its birth. Happens all the time. Yet he has no control of whether it (50% his property*- that is half the chromosomes came from him) lives. Therefore, he should not be legally bound to pay child support. It's a complicated problem. When a child is born into a family that is not completely dedicated to raising it, questions arise. My answer would be that, when a woman is pregnant, it is her problem. The male doesn't have to go through all the physical symptoms. However, after the baby is born, it is both parents responsibility because, at that point, the father has his first opportunity to directly care for the child and if he chooses not to, he should pay child support.


]I've noticed that nearly everyone here is at times calling the woman who aborts the fetus "the mother" and nearly everyone is at times calling the man who impregnated the woman "the father." Mother implies birth, which implies child. (a little bit Fruedian, maybe?). Maybe the explanation for this is that the idea of "pro-choice" is a meme that goes against our genetic programming Well, what else do you want us to call them? I mean, using mother and father makes it easy for everyone to understand who we are refereing to. I don't think is has anything to do with our genetic programming. However, if you want me to call them something different, I will.

Edit: God, I just can't get names right today...

[Beatnik Bob]

Pregancny is something you dont have when you begin and might have when you finish.... just like herpes. Which also manufactures itself IN a human body.
You are missing a key word that tillts the balance.
Herpes manufactures ITSELF in the body, it is not manufactured.

Sperm on the other hand is manufactured, and is created from orders from the brain. Sperm belongs, it is created, and is not a parasite that infiltrates the body and creates itself. The same goes for eggs manufactured in the ovaries.


Had you read the rest of my posts in this thread you would have noticed that I make very few references to legality and base my arguments on reality or my perception (the correct perception by the way) of it.
I did indeed read your posts, but I wish to point out a rather oxymoron. If my lecture is disregaurded, and my lecture was in post format, then doesn't it give me the right to disregard all YOUR other posts?

[DontBeAfraid]

If the male is going to be forced to pay child support he should be able to demand an abortion. If the lady refuses an abortion then the male should not be forced to pay child support.

You may disregaurd my posts if you dont address me or my arguments. If you wish to address my arguments then its prudent that you know what they are.

sper and eggs are produced in their respective bodies yes.... what does that have to do with pregnancy being like herpes? The fetus is just like herpes.... only its easier to get rid of.

[Beatnik Bob]

First, I'm going to assume you meant infringement instead of infection. Actually, I meant infection. I was countering DBA in another splinter argument, that has little to do with the semi-argument you and I are having.

[Cartesiantheater]

It's a complicated problem. When a child is born into a family that is not completely dedicated to raising it, questions arise. My answer would be that, when a woman is pregnant, it is her problem. The male doesn't have to go through all the physical symptoms. However, after the baby is born, it is both parents responsibility because, at that point, the father has his first opportunity to directly care for the child and if he chooses not to, he should pay child support.
But why should he be FORCED to care for the child ("suffer the symptoms") when the mother is not FORCED to suffer the symptoms? And besides, the male DOES suffer EMOTIONAL symptoms during a pregnancy, and especially after pregnancy in the case of abortion. What about the point I brought up about some men being thrown into debilitating depression from their offspring is aborted without their consent? What say you here?

I should also say that this whole child support thing goes completely against the male reproductive strategy. Men don't naturally take care of kids, yet the law is forcing them to. (the male reproductive strategy is to have as many offspring as possible, hoping that some will survive, with minimal effort put into the survival of each individual- it's a game of numbers and odds with males). ( as an another aside, the institution of marriage also goes completely against the male reproductive strategy- and it plays perfectly for the female reproductive strategy- so if anyone ever thought that marriage was the Patriarchy's way of controlling women, know this: Women are the ones who are victorious with marriage, and therefore, women are in control of the most important aspect of human life and survival...hehe...)

[Cartesiantheater]

If the male is going to be forced to pay child support he should be able to demand an abortion. If the lady refuses an abortion then the male should not be forced to pay child support.

That seems pretty damn fair to me.

[loganosborne]

When a child is born into a family that is not completely dedicated to raising it, questions arise. My answer would be that, when a woman is pregnant, it is her problem. The male doesn't have to go through all the physical symptoms. However, after the baby is born, it is both parents responsibility because, at that point, the father has his first opportunity to directly care for the child and if he chooses not to, he should pay child support.
Why should the father have to pay child support? He may have not wanted baby and asked the mother if she would have an abortion and she said no. Then surely it is up to the mother to bring up the baby alone.

[Cornish Maid]

Why should the father have to pay child support? He may have not wanted baby and asked the mother if she would have an abortion and she said no. Then surely it is up to the mother to bring up the baby alone.
If a bloke doesn't want a baby and pay child support what's he doing getting someone pregnant? It's irresponsible isn't it?

[Cornish Maid]

But why should he be FORCED to care for the child ("suffer the symptoms") when the mother is not FORCED to suffer the symptoms? And besides, the male DOES suffer EMOTIONAL symptoms during a pregnancy, and especially after pregnancy in the case of abortion. What about the point I brought up about some men being thrown into debilitating depression from their offspring is aborted without their consent? What say you here?

I should also say that this whole child support thing goes completely against the male reproductive strategy. Men don't naturally take care of kids, yet the law is forcing them to. (the male reproductive strategy is to have as many offspring as possible, hoping that some will survive, with minimal effort put into the survival of each individual- it's a game of numbers and odds with males). ( as an another aside, the institution of marriage also goes completely against the male reproductive strategy- and it plays perfectly for the female reproductive strategy- so if anyone ever thought that marriage was the Patriarchy's way of controlling women, know this: Women are the ones who are victorious with marriage, and therefore, women are in control of the most important aspect of human life and survival...hehe...)
If you want to play it like an animal with the brainpower of an animal then go ahead.

If you want to realise your humanity and love and nurture your offspring then that is better.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

If a bloke doesn't want a baby and pay child support what's he doing getting someone pregnant?

If two people have sex, and the lady gets pregnant, the couple still has options. Even if they don't agree with abortion, they can always put the kid up for adoption once it's born. The woman does go through more discomfort because of the pregnancy, so it makes sense for her choice during the pregnancy to come first, but if the man is expected to take on responsibilities for the kid, he should also have a say in what happens.


If you want to play it like an animal and the brainpower of an animal then go ahead. If you want to realise your humanity and love and nurture your offspring then that is better.

You forgot to call abortionists commie mutant bastards.

[Cornish Maid]

If two people have sex, and the lady gets pregnant, the couple still has options. Even if they don't agree with abortion, they can always put the kid up for adoption once it's born. The woman does go through more discomfort because of the pregnancy, so it makes sense for her choice during the pregnancy to come first, but if the man is expected to take on responsibilities for the kid, he should also have a say in what happens.



You forgot to call abortionists commie mutant bastards.
Funny how it's always refered to as having sex, these days rather than making love.

I'm not American and commie mutant bastards does not naturaly spring to mind.

[Sammy56]

Why should the father have to pay child support? He may have not wanted baby and asked the mother if she would have an abortion and she said no. Then surely it is up to the mother to bring up the baby alone. Well, I can see Cornish Maid's point of view to. The guy did have sex with her and he should be responsible for the consequnces. However, this just really is a complicated situation. The father should have a say and that might not always happen. It difficult to balance out the rights of the parents so that they all feel good no matter what the situation.

[Cartesiantheater]

If you want to play it like an animal with the brainpower of an animal then go ahead.

If you want to realise your humanity and love and nurture your offspring then that is better. That second part I wrote about reproductive strategies was just me rambling, but since you brought it up, I guess I should be more accurate in my description of it. With humans, there is not the same level of extremes here as in some other creatures. But you have to ask the question: Is the tendency for women to spend more time raising the offspring merely a world-wide cultural phenomenon, or is there a biological reason as well? But that wasn't even the issue that was important to me. The next one is.




Well, I can see Cornish Maid's point of view to. The guy did have sex with her and he should be responsible for the consequnces.
Luckily for your argument's sake, you followed this response with a disclaimer. Otherwise, I'd be inclined to call you a hypocrite, saying, "The girl did have sex with him, and she should be responsible for the consequences." i.e. having the baby. (BTW I think that your quote above IN ADDITION to my response is more reflective of Cornish Maid's point of view, as an aside, but anyway...) However, since you said this:


However, this just really is a complicated situation. The father should have a say and that might not always happen. It difficult to balance out the rights of the parents so that they all feel good no matter what the situation. I am not permitted to go even near that far. But I will ask you, if I may, do you personally think it is morally wrong that even though a man may want an abortion, he still has to pay child support if the woman has the child? And, if the woman has more power over the fate of the child (actually, she has TOTAL AND ABSOLUTE control of the child's fate), should she also have more responsibility for the child?

If you would be kind enough to even answer these questions, would you also be kind enough to explain why or to offer any ideas you might have about this particular moral dilemma? Thanks. (p.s. I don't want you to feel like I'm completely against you- I was kind of getting that vibe- but really this issue is fraught with difficulties, and I believe this is simply because true equality among men and women is inherently impossible due to biological constraints- I personally believe that we will NEVER completely remove the chains of our physical natures without altering them {go genetic engineering!}) Anyway...

[loganosborne]

If a bloke doesn't want a baby and pay child support what's he doing getting someone pregnant? It's irresponsible isn't it?
Sometimes it is but sometimes it isnt. Sometimes the man does you protection but it doesn't always way work to no fault of the man.

but if the man is expected to take on responsibilities for the kid, he should also have a say in what happens.
This were I think it does get complex. Heres my opnion though, if the father tells the mother I dont want to have the baby and the mother has it even though the father doesn't. Then the father shouldn't have to do anything for the baby as he has made it clear there that he doesn't want anything to do with the baby.

Funny how it's always refered to as having sex, these days rather than making love.
What diffrence does that make towards this argument? having sex, making love it's the same thing.

But I will ask you, if I may, do you personally think it is morally wrong that even though a man may want an abortion, he still has to pay child support if the woman has the child?
I know you are asking Sammy but I will put my opnion in the subject. I strongly feel that if the father wants the abortion. He should not have to pay child support as by saying he wants an abortion he is saying he wants nothing to do with the child.

[Loridori4]

[QUOTE=grendel 13]
it's like saying all pot smokers should be locked up when there are many people who are benefitting from it,

Yeah like ole Willien Nelson and crew. They benefit from it. And his music sucks when he's sober!
Ok.....srry, off topic.
Abortion. Had two at 18 and 19. Was it the right choice? Debateable. Was I offered alternatives, assistance? No. Was I irresponsible? First time, not really, jus naive. He said he was sterile, I believed him. Second time, YES, I was higher than a kite and told the guy I could get pregnant. I did.
Outcome? I still wonder were they a girl or boy? Will I meet them in heaven? Will they ask me why i killed them? I still feel guilty. They don't warn you about that.

So.....pro-life or pro-abortion? I think it should be a last resort. I wish I had known more options then.

I can only say whats right for me, not for everyone else. :pimp:

[Cartesiantheater]

[COLOR=Gray]I still feel guilty. They don't warn you about that.

That's because "they" are the bloodless man-hating Nazi feminists that I can't stand (Can't stand any extremists, but this group is one of the few that really get on my nerves). Have you ever watched a state of the art prescription drug commercial?
Did you ever notice how they bombard you with all this positiveness, and then at the very end, in a small voice with the words all run together, they spout off about fifteen dangerous side effects? They are being deceptive because they want you to ignore the negative consequences and buy their product.
Similarly, the abortion Nazi's go on and on about your rights, and about how abortion is a viable birth control mechanism, but then they conveniently ignore the real human emotions associated with it. Why? Because they want your support and votes so that they can gain and maintain power, and in order to do that, they have to LIE to you, because you are reasonable and they are not. (seems to be the trend in all political issues...the honest, reasonable people never win, which I assume is becuase the masses are easily manipulated, rather than because they are extreme in their views,or because those in power {for the US, the Democrats and Republicans} have rigged the game so that only one of the two extremes will win...)

As to why many people who have had an abortion feel guilty, while others do not- this is perplexing... If you know (by that I mean, are completely aware of it with no emotional blocks to it) that impregnation leads to procreation, I would predict that you would have some inhibitions to getting an abortion, simply because eons of natural selection has instilled in our species the compulsion to spread genetic material at every reasonably safe opportunity. In order to not feel guilty about it, you'd have to be infected with a meme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memes) strong enough to overcome your gene's compulsion (similar to how the meme of celibacy is strong enough to overcome the genetic compulsion to have sex).

[Sammy56]

I strongly feel that if the father wants the abortion. He should not have to pay child support as by saying he wants an abortion he is saying he wants nothing to do with the child. I'd have to say no because I was born into this situation. My mother got pregnant, my father begged her to get an abortion. When my mother choose to keep me, I think he should have been forced to pay child support (he didn't for other reasons). To me that is like saying that, back before they had abortions, it would have been okay to neglect a child just because the parents didn't want it. My father knew the risks of having unprotected sex and he choose to do it anyway.

Personally, I think abortions should be a last option. Anyone wishing to have an abortion should be thoroughly informed about alternatives. But, to me, when it comes down to it, it's the woman's body and therefore it is the woman's choice.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Funny how it's always refered to as having sex, these days rather than making love.

I'm not talking about making love. You don't have to have a connection between two souls before you have a quick screw, and you don't have to care about your partner as a human being to get knocked up.


I'm not American and commie mutant bastards does not naturaly spring to mind.

You missed my point. Your response to CartesianTheater's post lacked substance; it was basically just rhapsodizing about how people who agree with you are good and decent and pure, and people who don't are mindless animals. Not much different from calling your opponent a commie just to distract from his points.


What diffrence does that make towards this argument? having sex, making love it's the same thing.

I actually consider "making love" as a certain type of sex, which is more personal than, say, a one night stand. But then I'm too damn romantic for my own good, so take that as you will.

[Cartesiantheater]

My father knew the risks of having unprotected sex and he choose to do it anyway.

So you are saying that men should be held to a higher standard than women when it comes to sexual responsibility? (Because, as the argument has been made by our pro-life friends, women also know the risks of unprotected sex before they do it)



{But then, maybe your argument is much more centered on the welfare of the child. In which case, I think dear old daddy Government should fit the bill. It's not fair that men should be forced to face the consequences of irresponsibility while women should not- although you may disagree}

[Cartesiantheater]

I'm not talking about making love. You don't have to have a connection between two souls before you have a quick screw, and you don't have to care about your partner as a human being to get knocked up.

I actually consider "making love" as a certain type of sex, which is more personal than, say, a one night stand. But then I'm too damn romantic for my own good, so take that as you will.
Well, at least no one is calling it fucking, right?! :crazy:

[loganosborne]

But, to me, when it comes down to it, it's the woman's body and therefore it is the woman's choice.
I agree it is the woman's choice to have the baby. But if the father he wants an abortion and doesn't want to have the baby. Then I don't think the father should have to pay child as he has clearly stated by saying that he doesn't want to be a part of the child's life.

I actually consider "making love" as a certain type of sex, which is more personal than, say, a one night stand.
I know that. I was trying to say it doesn't matter what type of sex it is. Accidents still happen like unexpected pregnancy.

[Sammy56]

Then I don't think the father should have to pay child as he has clearly stated by saying that he doesn't want to be a part of the child's life. Honestly, I can see where you're coming from. But, unfortunately, one of the consequences of having sex is getting the woman pregnant. That is your child and I feel that if the mother choose to have it, then the father has to take some responsibility. He doesn't necessarily have to be part of the child's life, but it's hard to raise a kid on one income so I do not feel child support is to much to ask.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Well, at least no one is calling it fucking, right?!

I almost did, but I seem to remember Cornish Maid asking me not to swear once. Or possibly it was someone else entirely. Eh, I dunno.


He doesn't necessarily have to be part of the child's life, but it's hard to raise a kid on one income so I do not feel child support is to much to ask.

Well... I don't know about this. I can see your point, but it does seem like the guy is almost being held at gunpoint for a momentary indiscresion. A man in this position apparently has no recourse, since he can't decide what to do about the pregnancy, but he does have to foot the bill if the woman decides to keep the kid. And I think it's a little irresponsible to keep a child if you can't afford to take care of it - definately more irresponsible than going out and getting laid one night.

I'm not gonna pretend this question has an easy answer, but it doesn't seem fair for the guy to be forced to take equal part of the fiscal responsibility if he doesn't get a say in the decision-making process.

[loganosborne]

That is your child and I feel that if the mother choose to have it, then the father has to take some responsibility.
I have to disagree. When the father says I want to have the child aborted and mother says I don't and she doesn't one of the consequences is that she is going to have no support raising the child.

[Cornish Maid]

I have to disagree. When the father says I want to have the child aborted and mother says I don't and she doesn't one of the consequences is that she is going to have no support raising the child.
In the UK women have support with state benefits which really aren't too bad.

If the father wants nothing to do with the child, the child will probably turn round when he/she is older and want to contact the father.

If the father then wants nothing to do with his own flesh and blood, the person has not missed very much.

[nrj]

I'd have to say no because I was born into this situation. My mother got pregnant, my father begged her to get an abortion. When my mother choose to keep me, I think he should have been forced to pay child support (he didn't for other reasons). To me that is like saying that, back before they had abortions, it would have been okay to neglect a child just because the parents didn't want it. You mean like adoptions? What's wrong with that?
My father knew the risks of having unprotected sex and he choose to do it anyway. I try to avoid getting personal in an internet debate, but this time, I have to. You see, Sammy, I was born in exactly the same way. My mom and dad worked at "the band" at Volvo back in the 80:s, and got around the same salary as swedes who live on welfare. They met, went to the movies, started having sex, had some more sex, mommy forgot the pill ... bang, I was on the way.

Befor mom worked at Volvo, she was a professional ice skater. She traveled around the world and got many, fun friends and between the seasons she lived in Gothenburg and generally recieved money from her parents, but this time, she wanted her own job. And my dad had just left a very small town up north, where work was hard to find, and tried his luck in Gothenburg, since we have lot's of industry. But working at Volvo was not something he planned to do all his life.

So, when I came, I complicated stuff. They were in their early twenties then, and they decided that their work was enough to pay the bills. But they both recieved some major draw backs. Dad had struggled with his grades to get a very good engineering job and now he was forced to give up that dream (although, ten years later, he became a salesman for IBM:s Northern Europe region). And mom wanted to skate, but she gave that up to and started her own company. But she still recieves a salary comparable to social welfare.

And they hate me, and sometimes beat me, for that. I sometimes wish mom had made the abortion, or that dad had left, because they were fooling themselves. They didn't want a child at all.


Personally, I think abortions should be a last option. Anyone wishing to have an abortion should be thoroughly informed about alternatives. But, to me, when it comes down to it, it's the woman's body and therefore it is the woman's choice. Agree on every point, but still, the dad should be able to walk away from it all.

[Cornish Maid]

But why should he be FORCED to care for the child ("suffer the symptoms") when the mother is not FORCED to suffer the symptoms? And besides, the male DOES suffer EMOTIONAL symptoms during a pregnancy, and especially after pregnancy in the case of abortion. What about the point I brought up about some men being thrown into debilitating depression from their offspring is aborted without their consent? What say you here?

I should also say that this whole child support thing goes completely against the male reproductive strategy. Men don't naturally take care of kids, yet the law is forcing them to. (the male reproductive strategy is to have as many offspring as possible, hoping that some will survive, with minimal effort put into the survival of each individual- it's a game of numbers and odds with males). ( as an another aside, the institution of marriage also goes completely against the male reproductive strategy- and it plays perfectly for the female reproductive strategy- so if anyone ever thought that marriage was the Patriarchy's way of controlling women, know this: Women are the ones who are victorious with marriage, and therefore, women are in control of the most important aspect of human life and survival...hehe...)
Are you a father? If not I don't think you are qualified to speak of what a father feels for his children in terms of care.

Do you think there are better ways of rearing children than marriage?

Communes? A society of single parents? Females rule the world and decide men are obsolete? What do you think?

[Sammy56]

And they hate me, and sometimes beat me, for that. I sometimes wish mom had made the abortion, or that dad had left, because they were fooling themselves. They didn't want a child at all. I usually don't get personal either and my situation is very close to yours. My mother blames me for my father leaving her because he didn't want another child. In reality, he didn't want to get caught cheating on his wife. Sometimes, I also wish my mother had the abortion. It would have made everyone else happier.

The problem with abortion is that it is so complex and there doesn't seem to be one answer that works for every situation. You've got a mother, who body is being effected and a father who may or may not want the child. Outside interests also play a huge role. When their intersts conflict, what are you suppossed to do? I'm really not sure.

[Cornish Maid]

Both your parents were not ideal but there whose are.

You are both alive to live your lives independently from your parents, and you have them to thank for that.

Move on and enjoy.

[nrj]

Both your parents were not ideal but there whose are. And there are those who aren't, and that's something I've experienced.


You are both alive to live your lives independently from your parents, and you have them to thank for that. I've not turned 18 yet, so the ONLY experience I've had from my parents are really bad, and the only good experience I've ever had is from my friends and those I really love. I owe shit to a man who attacks his own son with a bottle of chlorine, and I owe fuck to a mother who tried to talk me out of a relationship with my girlfriend. Fuck them both.


Move on and enjoy. So, basically, your argument against that my parent should've abortioned me, is that I can move on and enjoy?

[Cartesiantheater]

Are you a father? If not I don't think you are qualified to speak of what a father feels for his children in terms of care.

Do you think there are better ways of rearing children than marriage?

Communes? A society of single parents? Females rule the world and decide men are obsolete? What do you think?
I think that you completely and entirely missed my point. The second paragraph was NOT about morals, it was more about biological anthropology. Strickly Acedemic.



The first part, this whole issue about the inherent sexual inequality when it comes to abortion, is an entirely different matter. My point on that issue is that the father can fall in love with the child before it is born, yet he has no say in whether it lives or dies. Thus, I was saying that a suitible comprimise must be reached.- the father should not be FORCED to pay child support. That's the closest thing I can think of that will make things a little more fair.

[Cartesiantheater]

...so I do not feel child support is to much to ask.
Well, let's say a guy makes $300 a week. His child support is around, say, $180 a week (my brother has to pay child support, and it's about 65% of his income). So, how much is that in 18 years? $155,520! That's a lot to pay for a moment of weakness, while the woman can get away with nothing but a hospital bill if she chooses.

HOWEVER! I was thinking about one inherent legal problem if men were allowed to not pay child support if they wanted an abortion. How could we stop EVERY man from claiming that he wanted an abortion? NO ONE would ever pay child support. It makes you wonder, is today's system the best system there could be?

[DontBeAfraid]

simple CT.... Noterized(sp) documentation of the father asking for an abortion before its too late to get one. Then if the guy loses his copy or doesnt get one he has to pay child support.

On the flip side the woman needs some form of proof that she informed the father of the pregnancy while there was still to to decide on whether or not to get an abortion. Without this proof no child support should be paid.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

On the flip side the woman needs some form of proof that she informed the father of the pregnancy while there was still to to decide on whether or not to get an abortion. Without this proof no child support should be paid.

The problem here is that if the father has a problem with abortion, but doesn't want to pay child support, he can just refuse to sign the form. I can't really think of any reliable way to prove the father is aware of the impending birth that doesn't involve the father himself signing.

Of course, why set the deadline at abortion? I'll admit I think adoption is treated too flippantly during some of these discussions, but it is still an option. If the mother can prove she contacted the father before the birth, you might get a bit more leeway here. Plus that might be easier to prove.

[DontBeAfraid]

Well, we have camera phones and certified mail.... The notice can be served just like any other legal notification.... No signature required.

[Cornish Maid]

[QUOTE=Cartesiantheater]I think that you completely and entirely missed my point. The second paragraph was NOT about morals, it was more about biological anthropology. Strickly Acedemic.



I know what you are saying. The natural order of sexuality is like the cats and dogs.

I was just interested to hear what you thought was the best way of child rearing in a human context.

[Cartesiantheater]

I know what you are saying. The natural order of sexuality is like the cats and dogs.

I was just interested to hear what you thought was the best way of child rearing in a human context.
Oh, well in that case, here goes.

Basically, I believe that the child would have the best statistical chances of being well balanced if raised in a more traditional family- getting parenting from a male mind and a female mind. HOWEVER, since neuroscience and psychology have shown that the "amount" of "male-mindedness" and "female-mindedness" varies from one extreme all the way to the other in male AND female minds, I believe a traditional family only increases the chances of having a more balanced rearing slightly (of course, it varies from case to case).
Without a doubt, though, (usually)two parental figures are better than one, for obvious reasons- finances, amount of "quality time" available, and all that jazz.

[Einstein700]

about 6 years ago I was pro-abortion but now I am a father I am much more against it. In a way you are throwing away responsibility and are ending someones life without even giving them a chance where they are completely defenseless, and you may not even realise how important that child could of been to you. My son means EVERYTHING to me and I would gladly give my own life for him, not the other way around, as that really is selfish. I can understand why there are organizations against it, and i find it really sad that women put themselves through it when they see it as an 'inconvenience' to their life, because its probably the best thing that could ever happen to them.

[nrj]

about 6 years ago I was pro-abortion but now I am a father I am much more against it. In a way you are throwing away responsibility and are ending someones life without even giving them a chance where they are completely defenseless, and you may not even realise how important that child could of been to you. My son means EVERYTHING to me and I would gladly give my own life for him, not the other way around, as that really is selfish. I can understand why there are organizations against it, and i find it really sad that women put themselves through it when they see it as an 'inconvenience' to their life, because its probably the best thing that could ever happen to them. My parents didn't throw away the responsebility, and look at me now. Living a fucking hell, just because they choose "the moral choice". I sometimes feel I could make myself "unborn", and everybody would be happy, but it's done allready so there's nothing to do about it.

I wasn't the best thing to have ever happened to my parents. They suddenly got it much harder to pay the bills, we had to move to the poorer suburbs and they take out on me, to make it worse.

[Einstein700]

My parents didn't throw away the responsebility, and look at me now. Living a fucking hell, just because they choose "the moral choice". I sometimes feel I could make myself "unborn", and everybody would be happy, but it's done allready so there's nothing to do about it.

I wasn't the best thing to have ever happened to my parents. They suddenly got it much harder to pay the bills, we had to move to the poorer suburbs and they take out on me, to make it worse.

Its certainly not your fault, they are being rather immature blaming it on you. You should not feel responsible for their problems and its not your responsibility to fix that. If your old enough try and get yourself into a job too, even if its just something simple, maybe it will make them realise how badly they are behaving.

[mickydoolittle]

My parents didn't throw away the responsebility, and look at me now. Living a fucking hell, just because they choose "the moral choice". I sometimes feel I could make myself "unborn", and everybody would be happy, but it's done allready so there's nothing to do about it.

I wasn't the best thing to have ever happened to my parents. They suddenly got it much harder to pay the bills, we had to move to the poorer suburbs and they take out on me, to make it worse.
Well your first problem is thinking that your happiness lies in the opinion of others concerning yourself...if you stop giving a fuq about what others think of you, the happier you'll be in life.

Try it if you disagree.

Furthermore, if you have parents who blame you--you being the product of their sexual congress, thus THEIR creation, then you need to distance yourself as much as possible and as soon as possible from such ridiculous irrational behavior before you 'catch' their idiocy and lack of accountability.

Oh yeah...you'll never please your parents...never.

Alternately, you could be mis-interpreting their intentions & actions towards you. As such, you would do well to remember that not everything is about you. Therefore, you should move on in life, melodramatic narcissistic troublemaker. :bondage: