Abortion

[Julius Seeker]

I thought it would be incredibly inappropriate to continue the conversation in the other thread, so I am continuing it here:

Pro-abortion is the one aspect of the Liberal agenda which sickens me. While I don`t feel that abortion should be eliminated completely, I do feel it should be limited based on social and health standards. I do not think that a teenage girl from a well off family should be allowed to kill the fetus to avoid shame; that is what disgusts me. A child should only be approved for abortion if there is certainty that the reason is due to the parent not wanting to bring the child into a bad life situation (such as an impoverished family with no connections for adoption, or genetic reasons); in addition, an abortion such as that should involve the consequence of the sterilization of any involved parents to prevent further accidents (with very specific exceptions, such as health risks which would not necessarilly occur in future pregnancies).

I don`t expect anyone to agree with me, this is just my view.

[Eric]

I thought it would be incredibly inappropriate to continue the conversation in the other thread, so I am continuing it here:

You're learning.

That being said, I'm avoiding this topic like the plague.

[bovine]

if you are allowed to kill animals for sport, you should be able to abort your unborn fleshball in your uterus.

[Fea]

I thought it would be incredibly inappropriate to continue the conversation in the other thread, so I am continuing it here

Thanks. I'm worried enough about something going wrong as it is, without this kind of stuff in that thread.

[Eric]

Thanks. I'm worried enough about something going wrong as it is, without this kind of stuff in that thread.

/soothe

[Tessian]

While I definitely disagree with you... I don't think even I want to touch this one, at least not this early in the morning.

[SineSwiper]

Seeker, I don't think it's really a social status thing. Sure, raising a kid when you're rich is much better than raising one when you're poor, but both are possible.

I think of it more as an age thing. What pisses me off more than anything is these "good-hearted Christians" dooming their teenage daughter by allowing them to get pregnant at 14-16 and not even thinking about an abortion. Worse is when a rape of a 12-year-old is involved, and they STILL don't consider it. Hell, I have an aunt-in-law that brags about having a picture with five generations in it (because the daughter got pregnant at 15), and the other generations weren't that much better.

Granted, getting pregnant was the daughter's fault, but she's still a kid, and still in the process of learning. That's why we don't consider people to be adults until 18. Give her an abortion and let her live a normal life, instead of dooming her to not even get to finish school, go to college, get a job, move out, etc. Parents like that usually end up taking care of the baby most of the time anyway.

That, and we have a population problem as it is, and if these hardcore Christians don't even believe in condom use, much less abortion, where the fuck do they think they are going to get the resources to support these people?

[Lox]

I'm not going to get into this too much cuz this isn't the kind of thing I like debating on the Internet, but I'll just say this. Sine, you are generalizing so much it's silly. I'm sure there are "hardcore Christians" that don't believe in condom use, etc, but you're acting like this is some kind of majority that is responsible for all of the problems of the world. Stop generalizing and pretending this is a legitimate argument!

On top of that your example is dumb. How do parents "allow their 14-16 year old to get pregnant"? Again, I'm sure there are specific cases where parents are negligent and don't raise their kid in a way so that the kid understands the seriousness of being sexually active, but how is this any basis for an argument?

I feel bad for any 14 year old that gets pregnant and has to deal with all of that. I really do. My step-cousin just had a kid at 15 actually. But the fact you can't understand the point of view of someone who considers an unborn fetus as a human life blows my mind. Being a Christian, I've met many other Christians who are very close minded to other points of view, but you are worse than most of them, Sine. Seriously.

[Zeus]

Far too many humans on this Earth anyways. If some have decided that they don't want to bring one in, I say "their life, their choice, it helps out the world anyways"

[Lox]

Far too many humans on this Earth anyways. If some have decided that they don't want to bring one in, I say "their life, their choice, it helps out the world anyways"

Of course you'd say that! Of course you also steal every chance you get. heh

[kali o.]

Fetus = mass of cells, not yet considered a person

The individual HUMAN right to have a say over their own body trumps idiotic 3rd parties who want to impose their subjective morality (usually religious.. in Seekers case, some kinda idiotic inferiority complex based on financial standing apparently).

Ultimately, the biology behind it is no more sinister than wanting a cancer out of your body - it's on the same cognitive level at that point (none).

[Julius Seeker]

Fetus = mass of cells,

You are mistaken, the fetal stage begins after all the major structures have formed.

not yet considered a person

It wasn't long ago when you wouldn't have been considered a person either.

The individual HUMAN right to have a say over their own body trumps idiotic 3rd parties who want to impose their subjective morality (usually religious.. in Seekers case, some kinda idiotic inferiority complex based on financial standing apparently).

Explain how your position is not idiotic or a subjective belief in comparison to the others.

Ultimately, the biology behind it is no more sinister than wanting a cancer out of your body - it's on the same cognitive level at that point (none).

A very poor argument, comparing the destruction of a developing human being to the destruction of cancer; and ironic coming from a Jewish person. Speaking of poor arguments: "The Jews are a Cancer on the breast of Germany"

Look that quote up.

[Zeus]

Far too many humans on this Earth anyways. If some have decided that they don't want to bring one in, I say "their life, their choice, it helps out the world anyways"

Of course you'd say that! Of course you also steal every chance you get. heh

How the my quasi-theft got into this argument is beyond me..... :-)

Seek, you're telling me you would rather have a child brought into this world to a parent who does not want it against their will? What about rape babies? If a rich 15 year-old girl is raped she should be forced to keep the baby? Even if you say "no, put it up for adoption", should that girl be forced to go through the trauma of childbirth (yes, it's a trauma)?

Should her family be forced to pay for rearing a child because some dipshit motherless fuckstick (rapists are amongst the lowers form of human being to me) forced himself upon their daughter? That's not even taking into consideration the ridicule and ostracization of being pregnant at that age either.

AND you want to sterilize her? That's sheer insanity, you're punishing the girl for being a victim of rape because, you know, it was her fault (regardless of how slutty a girl dresses, it ain't her fault; she just increased the risks). Sorry, man, that argument don't even pass the smell test, you're gonna have to do better than that. FYI, personal attacks like you did to Kali won't help any retort you might have.

At the end of the day, I have yet to hear a single anti-abortion argument that doesn't stem from one person/group/religion trying to impose their will onto others. Never. Every single argument that side has is based on forcing others to do what you want. That's something I cannot fundamentally believe in. I don't exactly condone abortion, I think it's used waaaay to liberally nowadays, but by default I have to fall into the pro-abortion category simply based on the sheer lack of any non-imposing arguments the anti side employs.

[Blotus]

Abortions for all!

Boooo!

Very well, no abortions for anybody!

Boooo!

[Tessian]

how the hell am I siding with Zeus on this?

There are many factors to put into play here, but really any anti-abortion arguments I've heard all stem from religious beliefs and that just destroys the whole foundation. If abortion wasn't such a taboo even today we wouldn't have nearly the problems we have now. How many friends, coworkers, etc do you know that turned into pretty shitty human beings? What percentage of them do you believe were raised in a home that did not want them, could not handle them, or was unprepared to support them? You'd find it's the majority of cases. It's ridiculous that we as a society will force a woman into a life of destitute, poverty, whatever because one night she made a mistake or had poor judgment.

The adoption idea is even stupider-- have you SEEN the number of kids up for adoption? It's just like cats; everyone wants to get the cute new baby but no one gives a shit about the older ones. And since obviously you can't put them to sleep like a cat, they grow up in the system and are given almost no opportunity or support at a decent life then dumped out once they turn 18.

It's beyond retarded to even make the claim that once a woman conceives she loses the right to make decisions on her own body. You would instead destroy her life, her families, and the child all because every life is sacred? Give me a fucking break. "Instead of letting a woman make her own decisions and avoid having a mistake ruin her life and many others-- let's force her to keep it and ruin her life, the kid's, the dad's, and burden everyone involved. Do you think that kid will THANK YOU in 18 years? No.


And for the record-- yes, a fetus shares all the similar characteristics of a parasite. Cancer may be a stretch, but it's definitely a parasite. It siphons nutrients from the host and grows. The strain carrying a child puts on a woman is enormous, and unless that woman is prepared/capable physically and mentally it's very dangerous for both parties involved.

If you deny the right to abortion then you are saying that women are below men, that YOU know better what is right for them than they do. That's sickening. YOU nor ANYONE can decide for ANY person what is best for them when it comes to what goes on inside their own body.

[Zeus]

how the hell am I siding with Zeus on this?

It has nothing to do with movies?

[SineSwiper]

I'm not going to get into this too much cuz this isn't the kind of thing I like debating on the Internet, but I'll just say this. Sine, you are generalizing so much it's silly. I'm sure there are "hardcore Christians" that don't believe in condom use, etc, but you're acting like this is some kind of majority that is responsible for all of the problems of the world. Stop generalizing and pretending this is a legitimate argument!

Yeah, well, many of them are in power. You can blame these kind of people both increasing the population around the world and the spread of AIDS because they think that preaching abstinence should replace education on condom use.

On top of that your example is dumb. How do parents "allow their 14-16 year old to get pregnant"? Again, I'm sure there are specific cases where parents are negligent and don't raise their kid in a way so that the kid understands the seriousness of being sexually active, but how is this any basis for an argument?

Maybe I should rephrase that to "allow their 14-16 year old to keep the fetus". Even if you're not talking about abortion, at least talk about adoption. Abortions are easier emotionally, but many families don't even consider either. It really makes me sick that parents are capable of such a punishment to their own daughters.

I feel bad for any 14 year old that gets pregnant and has to deal with all of that. I really do. My step-cousin just had a kid at 15 actually. But the fact you can't understand the point of view of someone who considers an unborn fetus as a human life blows my mind. Being a Christian, I've met many other Christians who are very close minded to other points of view, but you are worse than most of them, Sine. Seriously.

I understand WHY people believe that, but it's totally unfounded. They believe it because they look at ultrasounds and it looks like a person. People want to personify anything that they find, especially if that thing is going to actually BE a person later on.

However, I'm with Kali on this one. It's just a collection of cells. I know there's some grey areas with third trimester (which I share), but at what point do you say that it's too late and it's a "person"? How many cells? Two? Four? Sixteen? Two thousand? Does it have to be a certain length? How many weeks? This is something that pro-lifers don't really understand or define. Conversations and compromises can't move forward if we can't even get a definition of terms.

The way I see it is that a fetus is a parasite until it is born and moving on its own. A fetus doesn't breathe. A fetus doesn't eat or drink. A fetus isn't a person, until it can survive outside the womb on its own.

[kali o.]

I know I am just silly for replying to Seeker, but...

You are mistaken, the fetal stage begins after all the major structures have formed.

Nice attempt trying to play with words and distract foucs, but mass of cells is a perfectly valid (and accurate) description of the term 'fetus' in the context of a science-lite discussion of abortion. Keep up those intro Human Bio rebuttals, and we can get into the multitude reasons why I'm 99% sure you don't hold a doctorate in anything and your medical school stories are about as likely as you NOT sticking your pecker into the various crevices of every Nintendo system ever made. Try me.

It wasn't long ago when you wouldn't have been considered a person either.

What the fuck are you talking about? Another jew shot I guess?

Explain how your position is not idiotic or a subjective belief in comparison to the others.

I don't need to, since my viewpoint and position stands on a principle of individual subjectivity - seems counterproductive to argue against it's very nature.

Further, I don't feel the particular need to argue, for or against, any issue indepth with you...it's an excercise in futility. My time isn't especially valuable but it is important enough to not debate with the kind of child whose stance on abortions boils down to "should be illegal so rich chicks parents can't avoid shame".

You are a fucking idiot...there is no nice/clever/witty way to put that, so there it is.

A very poor argument, comparing the destruction of a developing human being to the destruction of cancer; and ironic coming from a Jewish person. Speaking of poor arguments: "The Jews are a Cancer on the breast of Germany"

a) I'm not Jewish, never have been (either religious or blood). Some of my family is.

b) Your silly focus on jews lately, while I'm sure is some misguided attempt to piss off the people you think are jewish, actually probably speaks largely about your views IRL. Probably lowers people's already low estimation of you (no worries, you can't squeeze any lower in my eye's, turd).

Peace.

[SineSwiper]

I know I am just silly for replying to Seeker, but...

Yes, I know. Why are you doing it? You are breaking one of the founding tenants that this Shrine is built upon: Do not argue with Seeker.

[Lox]

The way I see it is that a fetus is a parasite until it is born and moving on its own. A fetus doesn't breathe. A fetus doesn't eat or drink. A fetus isn't a person, until it can survive outside the womb on its own.

This is why I'm going to try to stay out of this thread from this point on. I just cannot fathom how anyone could seriously consider a fetus a parasite, whether the simplistic description of a fetus technically meets the definition or not. I think to make it fit the description, you have over-simplify what a human fetus is. The fact that it is going to be a self-sustaining person counts for a lot more to me, I guess.

So, have fun with the debate. I'll check in to see the Kali/Seeker battle.

[RentCavalier]

I'm sorta with Lox. Fetuses, while symbiotic in nature, are seperate creatures with seperate DNA strands. I may not agree with pro-lifers, but I can agree that abortion IS killing something, whether it's a person or no, it is certainly a seperate organism.

My basic stand on abortion is that I don't measure life by it's length, I measure life by what the person living it does with it. A person can die at twenty but still have led a full life if they dedicated themselves to accomplishing something, or died being true to themselves.

It's all a matter of perspective, but it all boils down to the nature of choice, and why we make choices. Pro-lifers want to say "who gives you the right to choose to kill something because it is inconvieniant", while pro-choice people adamantly stand by the "the power for a woman to choose is her divine/moral/ethical imperative, and nobody should take that away."

The debate is interesting because, ultimately, it's not a very good debate--pro-choice people are upset because they feel pro-life people want to take away their rights, wheras pro-life people are upset because they feel the government is full of evil, baby-hating people who like to ram coat-hangers into women's cooters.

In a good debate, each side would represent an opposing viewpoint that mirrors the other side's argument. In this case, however, you get both sides fighting for seperate issues, and coming to a head when they both feel they shouldn't have to compromise. This is because both sides are, more or less, correct--similarly, however, and especially in recent times, both sides are also equally wrong. They are wrong for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is that they are wrong about just what they are actually fighting for and they are wrong about what they feel needs to be done about it.

Pro-life people are obnoxious, yes, but pro-choice people are also pretty much assholes too. Both sides are ignoring a basic fact in the matter, and that is that, ultimately, it is the choice of the woman who is having the abortion and no one else's. Most moderate pro-lifers would even agree to that fact. I think, personally, we could silence the whole debate if we just made it a little harder for people, in general, to have abortions. Make it a slightly more rigorous process. In this day and age, we feel as though we can streamline everything, and that if everything is convieniant, then everything is better for it. But that's a way of thinking that cannot possibly be applied to every situation. With more and more people being able to have casual sex, and with the general mood of society being accepting of casual sex, then the risks of pregnancy are just going to get higher.

We need to accept that, with the risk of pregnancy being higher and higher, we cannot just simply make it an easy process for women to terminate their children. That's going to cause a lot of real bad problems real quick, both ethically and socially. So, really, there are two solutions that really aren't being addressed properly: One is, as I said, the need to make it more difficult to get abortions. I mean, it is harder to become a naturalized citizen then it is to kill your baby. That's about three kinds of fucked up. Two, we need to research and develop better contraceptives. I think, since the condom has become so popular, people have become complacent about the need to make sex safer. If we, as a society, want to continue having casual sex, we need to develop a 100% condom--or, at the very least, develop a contraceptive that has about the smallest margin of error possible. I mean, if we can break down the atom, we should be able to easily develop something to prevent sperm from entering an egg.

Hell, we could do it within a decade, or even sooner, if we really tried.

That's my two cents, right there.

[bovine]

Abortions for all!

Boooo!

Very well, no abortions for anybody!

Boooo!

Abortions for some, miniature american flags for others!

YAY!

Also, I love how it's a bunch of men talking about this as though we have any right to tell women what they can and can't do.

[Lox]

Abortions for all!

Boooo!

Very well, no abortions for anybody!

Boooo!

Abortions for some, tiny american flags for others!

YAY!

Dangit! I meant to finish that quote and got caught up in my other response. Boo!

[Eric]

This is why I'm going to try to stay out of this thread from this point on. I just cannot fathom how anyone could seriously consider a fetus a parasite

It's so totally a parasite, it leaches off your life energies and must FEED. FEEEEEED, in fact it continues to do this until 18 years after it's born and you kick the lovable parasite out of your house.

[Tessian]

Also, I love how it's a bunch of men talking about this as though we have any right to tell women what they can and can't do.

I feel the same way, really... men don't have the authority to decide this which is why I argue it's up to the woman. Otherwise it's men deciding they know what's better for women than women.

[SineSwiper]

I feel the same way, really... men don't have the authority to decide this which is why I argue it's up to the woman. Otherwise it's men deciding they know what's better for women than women.

Don't knock the need for men to be involved in these conversations. Part of the reason why these situations happen is that hormones during pregnancy inject a sense of protection for the baby. That sort of "mind control" is dangerous when you're talking about abortions or giving up the baby to adoption.

It takes two to make a baby, and it really should take two to give up one.

[Julius Seeker]

I know I am just silly for replying to Seeker, but...

You are mistaken, the fetal stage begins after all the major structures have formed.

Nice attempt trying to play with words and distract foucs, but mass of cells is a perfectly valid (and accurate) description of the term 'fetus' in the context of a science-lite discussion of abortion.

A biological fact is not a play on words; there is a specific definition for fetus, and you are not describing it. If you are going to argue a fetus as a mass of cells, and you consider your argument valid and accurate, then your argument is weak to the point of irrelevance; as all life forms can be described as a mass of cells.

Keep up those intro Human Bio rebuttals, and we can get into the multitude reasons why I'm 99% sure you don't hold a doctorate in anything and your medical school stories are about as likely as you NOT sticking your pecker into the various crevices of every Nintendo system ever made. Try me.

Your personal speculations on topics unrelated to the argument are completely irrelevant. Just "trolling".

It wasn't long ago when you wouldn't have been considered a person either.

What the fuck are you talking about? Another jew shot I guess?[/quote]

Are you <a>not Jewish then?</a> Regardless, the purpose of the example was to show how the definition of what constitutes a human being has changed over the years. Something which you have conveniently ignored.

Explain how your position is not idiotic or a subjective belief in comparison to the others.

I don't need to, since my viewpoint and position stands on a principle of individual subjectivity - seems counterproductive to argue against it's very nature.

The viewpoint which I am questioning is your viewpoint on abortion and how you feel it is not subjective and therefore trumps the subjective opinions of anti-abortion third parties.

Further, I don't feel the particular need to argue, for or against, any issue indepth with you...it's an excercise in futility.

Well, perhaps if you didn't lack the necessary knowledge to argue effectively, you would do better. Your arguments have been incredibly weak so far.

My time isn't especially valuable but it is important enough to not debate with the kind of child whose stance on abortions boils down to "should be illegal so rich chicks parents can't avoid shame".

That's (while an inaccurate take on it) my personal viewpoint, I am not trying to argue it and I don't expect anyone here to agree with it.

Rather, what I am arguing is about how your viewpoint has a very poor foundation to support it.

You are a fucking idiot...there is no nice/clever/witty way to put that, so there it is.

Right back at you.

A very poor argument, comparing the destruction of a developing human being to the destruction of cancer; and ironic coming from a Jewish person. Speaking of poor arguments: "The Jews are a Cancer on the breast of Germany"

a) I'm not Jewish, never have been (either religious or blood). Some of my family is.

b) Your silly focus on jews lately, while I'm sure is some misguided attempt to piss off the people you think are jewish, actually probably speaks largely about your views IRL. Probably lowers people's already low estimation of you (no worries, you can't squeeze any lower in my eye's, turd).

Peace.

My focus is not on Jewish people, it is on the weakness of your argument. What is relevant in what I have written is that the arguments you are using to support your position are incredibly weak, your comparisons are not accurate. Similar inaccurate comparisons have been used to justify the killing or poor treatment of all sorts of different humans throughout the world through history.

Your other speculations are unrelated to the argument and are therefore irrelevant.[/i]

[Julius Seeker]

The real question here is why do the pro-abortionists here feel that the right of a female to not undergo a natural process trumps the right of a dependent developing human being whose very life depends on the completion of that process?

Using arguments like "fetuses are like parasites or cancer" aren't really valid (as that can be applied to anything with the right language)..... Really, unless you are also willing to agree with Eric =P

[Zeus]

The real question here is why do the pro-abortionists here feel that the right of a female to not undergo a natural process trumps the right of a dependent developing human being whose very life depends on the completion of that process?

Go up and look at my post as well as some of the others for reasons why abortion is sometimes required.

Sorry to make you actually read the replies to your post.....

EDIT: Seraph makes a helluva point below too. After that post, I think the score is now:

Logic - 8,794,567
Religion - 0

Seems like a comeback is highly unlikely at this point ;-)

[Shellie]

When I was pregnant, it was looking like the pregnancy was making me very sick. They had me in the hospital monitoring my blood pressure because it could shoot up to like stroke level if there was a certain problem with the baby. They tried doing amnio's and if they had found this certain chromosome problem, I would have had to consider terminating (aka aborting) the pregnancy because the baby would not survive and it was dangerous to my health. If abortions are made illegal, my health could have been in jeopardy because of a fetus that wouldn't survive anyway. The baby ended up passing on it's own.

I am pro-choice, but I don't think I could ever have an abortion. However, I have had a good life where even if I couldn't afford to have a kid myself, I have family that would support me. A lot of people don't have that. So unless I was in the shoes of someone considering an abortion I can't make that choice for someone else. That isn't even taking into consideration later pregnancy abortions due to health reasons like what I could have faced.

I do recognize there are a lot of people who have abortions out of selfishness, and that's something they will have to live with the rest of their lives. But to deny every woman the right to have an abortion is not where we should be. There will be women who find places that will do it illegally and end up with infections or die from the procedure.

Anyway, thought I would add my 2c since I AM a woman.

[RentCavalier]

My post was ignored....

[kali o.]

yap, yap, blah...

The truly sad thing here Seeker, is in that little twisted confused head of yours, you ACTUALLY believe you made a relevant point and are genuinely surprised I didn't make the so-called logical connection from your vague nazi-esque jew quips to the debate on abortion...

There is nothing to debate with you, you are intellectually retarded, as you prove again and again.

As for everyone else (and the larger discussion at hand), the abortion debate, like so many others, is specifically marred by countless subjective viewpoints, beliefs and non-facts. Religion, an inherent 'awww' slant to anything related to "babies", (non)classification of fetus as human life, social norms/implications and, indeed, the ingrained natural bias to place human life on an artificial pedestal over other life.

When you get down to it and STRIP away every non-fact and 'feeling' out of the equation, what you are ultimately left with is debate not all that dissimilar from the topic of euthanasia. One person's right of choice over their own life and body versus the right of others to make that choice for you.

In fact, they are so similar that one could start an intelligent discussion about why one is legal and the other is not (which I think would ultimately tie into the fairly significant success achieved by womens movements in modern society and the rampant social marginalization seniors are subjected to in our society).

[Lox]

My post was ignored....

I read it, but I'm outta here, mister!

[Shellie]

My post was ignored....

I agree with just about everything you said

[kali o.]

My post was ignored....

No, I read it. I just didn't feel like dissecting it when Seeker proved such a tempting target. But I'll reply to your post (the parts that matter at least):

My basic stand on abortion is that I don't measure life by it's length, I measure life by what the person living it does with it. A person can die at twenty but still have led a full life if they dedicated themselves to accomplishing something, or died being true to themselves.

Sounds like a 'what if' stance to me, which is about as useful and relevant as using last weeks lotto's numbers to predict next week's. Flowery and deep sounding, but ultimately entirely vacuous. If this is your philosophical outlook on "life", it's all good - you don't appear to be trying to pass it off as an argument for or against abortion anyway.

*snipped a bunch of "both sides are stupid" comments*
Both sides are ignoring a basic fact in the matter, and that is that, ultimately, it is the choice of the woman who is having the abortion and no one else's.

I agree with you partially here. I do happen to think that the male, in some situations, should have a say in the matter (I won't expand, I'm sure you can think of many examples where this might be applicable).

I think, personally, we could silence the whole debate if we just made it a little harder for people, in general, to have abortions. Make it a slightly more rigorous process. In this day and age, we feel as though we can streamline everything, and that if everything is convieniant, then everything is better for it. But that's a way of thinking that cannot possibly be applied to every situation. With more and more people being able to have casual sex, and with the general mood of society being accepting of casual sex, then the risks of pregnancy are just going to get higher.

We need to accept that, with the risk of pregnancy being higher and higher, we cannot just simply make it an easy process for women to terminate their children. That's going to cause a lot of real bad problems real quick, both ethically and socially. So, really, there are two solutions that really aren't being addressed properly: One is, as I said, the need to make it more difficult to get abortions. I mean, it is harder to become a naturalized citizen then it is to kill your baby. That's about three kinds of fucked up. Two, we need to research and develop better contraceptives. I think, since the condom has become so popular, people have become complacent about the need to make sex safer. If we, as a society, want to continue having casual sex, we need to develop a 100% condom--or, at the very least, develop a contraceptive that has about the smallest margin of error possible. I mean, if we can break down the atom, we should be able to easily develop something to prevent sperm from entering an egg.

Couldn't disagree more, on your flimsy arguments ("both ethically and socially"...</END>) and your assertion it would end the debate. Proposed solutions I've read in this thread (better contraceptives, making the abortion process more inconvenient and cumbersome, etc) do absolutely nothing for what lies at the very core of the debate - whose choice is it? That doesn't go away no matter how much you dilute the issue.

Further, your solutions (especially the "make abortions harder to get") are flawed unto themselves. Abortions used to be extremely difficult - rather than making the obstacle a back alley, you'd stick up a wall of bureaucracy. Neither do more than marginalize and endanger women that want to end an unwanted pregnancy (for whatever multitude of reasons).

You stated before, your stance is "it's the women's choice". That's your stance...and I happen to agree with it. Everything else you wrote just mucks up and confuses the argument (and I think, confuses yourself...if the way you seemed to drift between pro-life/pro-choice verbiage is any indication).

"Oh, sure, it's the women's choice..but let's make it as difficult as possible so that hopefully she decides it's just easier to have the kid."

/sigh

[Chris]

honestly....I think I agree with this. it definitely explains a lot of my feelings on the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

I love the internets sometimes

[Chris]

The real question here is why do the pro-abortionists here feel that the right of a female to not undergo a natural process trumps the right of a dependent developing human being whose very life depends on the completion of that process?

Using arguments like "fetuses are like parasites or cancer" aren't really valid (as that can be applied to anything with the right language)..... Really, unless you are also willing to agree with Eric =P

see that pisses me off....you don't have to be pro-abortion to be pro-choice....I'm not a religio-nut yet I do think abortion is wrong....I do....but it isn't something comi ng out of my cooter....so honestly....I'm not exactly justified in pressing my opinion on someone....if a friend asks me about whether they should get an abortion or not....I'll say no every time...unless there is a chance having the baby could kill them...then I'll say you need to decide which life is more important....but I'm not ging to sit there and tell people that they should have the option....

oh and I love titties

[Tessian]

Does anyone NOT think that the abortion itself is not a deterrent?? I think some of you imagine it like having a physical and while I can't give first hand experience obviously, I did have a friend go through it and it is NOT fun. It is a very traumatic experience that should not be thought of lightly. Making it more inconvenient will not help; the act itself is its own deterrent.

[Zeus]

Does anyone NOT think that the abortion itself is not a deterrent?? I think some of you imagine it like having a physical and while I can't give first hand experience obviously, I did have a friend go through it and it is NOT fun. It is a very traumatic experience that should not be thought of lightly. Making it more inconvenient will not help; the act itself is its own deterrent.

It should be, yes. And there are tons of risks. But my wife's a nurse in a doctor's office and she sees so many young kids who haven't bothered to use proper protection 'cause they know that abortion is a final option just in case. It should NEVER be thought of as a form of birth control but it is by many, that's the sad part.

Kali, I do agree with your point about it being close to euthanasia. I feel that should be the choice of the person as well

[Shellie]

I went with a girl a long time ago to get an abortion. She was the daughter of one of my mom's friends. They had counselors that she had to talk to before the procedure. That was after walking through a line of protesters. She was like 16, her and her mom had NO money..lived in Eastern Kentucky (REAL redneck kentucky), they could barely take care of themselves let alone a child. I think it cost like 350 bucks. I dont know where she got the money.

So, if things still work like they did back then..late 90's maybe? They do have to talk to a counselor about their decision.

It was kinda weird though..they took a group of girls all at once...almost like an assembly line. Of course I didnt go back with her, but it was weird.

[Tessian]

Does anyone NOT think that the abortion itself is not a deterrent?? I think some of you imagine it like having a physical and while I can't give first hand experience obviously, I did have a friend go through it and it is NOT fun. It is a very traumatic experience that should not be thought of lightly. Making it more inconvenient will not help; the act itself is its own deterrent.

It should be, yes. And there are tons of risks. But my wife's a nurse in a doctor's office and she sees so many young kids who haven't bothered to use proper protection 'cause they know that abortion is a final option just in case. It should NEVER be thought of as a form of birth control but it is by many, that's the sad part.

Kali, I do agree with your point about it being close to euthanasia. I feel that should be the choice of the person as well

I doubt after the first time they ever thought that again.

[Zeus]

Does anyone NOT think that the abortion itself is not a deterrent?? I think some of you imagine it like having a physical and while I can't give first hand experience obviously, I did have a friend go through it and it is NOT fun. It is a very traumatic experience that should not be thought of lightly. Making it more inconvenient will not help; the act itself is its own deterrent.

It should be, yes. And there are tons of risks. But my wife's a nurse in a doctor's office and she sees so many young kids who haven't bothered to use proper protection 'cause they know that abortion is a final option just in case. It should NEVER be thought of as a form of birth control but it is by many, that's the sad part.

Kali, I do agree with your point about it being close to euthanasia. I feel that should be the choice of the person as well

I doubt after the first time they ever thought that again.

Hopefully not, but there shouldn't even be a first time in the circumstances I mentioned.

[Julius Seeker]

The truly sad thing here Seeker, is in that little twisted confused head of yours, you ACTUALLY believe you made a relevant point and are genuinely surprised I didn't make the so-called logical connection from your vague nazi-esque jew quips to the debate on abortion...

There is nothing to debate with you, you are intellectually retarded, as you prove again and again.

What I proved is that your previous post is filled with weak arguments, inconsistencies, attempting to change focus, and an insistence on injecting your "argument" with childish irrelevance. Your response to losing the argument is really nothing more than a childish temper tantrum; not something I wouldn't expect from you.

When you get down to it and STRIP away every non-fact and 'feeling' out of the equation, what you are ultimately left with is debate not all that dissimilar from the topic of euthanasia. One person's right of choice over their own life and body versus the right of others to make that choice for you.

In fact, they are so similar that one could start an intelligent discussion about why one is legal and the other is not

If by intelligent discussion you mean irrelevant discussion, then I would agree. With all of the factual information intact, it is quite apparent that they are certainly not the same beyond the topic of a rights issue. Really, you have only succeeded in forming another very weak attempt at argument.

[Tessian]

What I proved is that your previous post is filled with weak arguments, inconsistencies, attempting to change focus, and an insistence on injecting your "argument" with childish irrelevance. Your response to losing the argument is really nothing more than a childish temper tantrum; not something I wouldn't expect from you.

No. You did no such thing; you are wrong. I still wonder if you are purely trolling for your own amusement or if you truly believe the above delusions.

[Julius Seeker]

What I proved is that your previous post is filled with weak arguments, inconsistencies, attempting to change focus, and an insistence on injecting your "argument" with childish irrelevance. Your response to losing the argument is really nothing more than a childish temper tantrum; not something I wouldn't expect from you.

No. You did no such thing; you are wrong. I still wonder if you are purely trolling for your own amusement or if you truly believe the above delusions.

By stating that, you are agreeing:

A) That the biological definition of the fetal stage (a developing organism from the point when the major structures have formed) is incorrect and that a more accurate definition is a simple mass of cells.

B ) That statements in regards to videogame systems and other completely unrelated insults and vulgarity are valid points of an argument on abortion. That speculative statements like "I'm sure is some misguided attempt to piss off the people you think are jewish, actually probably speaks largely about your views IRL." are relevent to the argument on abortion.

C) You agree that a a baby before birth is not human (ignoring biological fact), and that it can never be questioned while at the same time denying all historical evidence that the definition of what consitutes a human has changed many times throughout history; including very recent times.

D) That equalizing ridding a deadly disease such as cancer and the destroying the life of a developing child is a good argument; and ignoring the fact that the argument has been used before to destroy life.

[kali o.]

No. You did no such thing; you are wrong. I still wonder if you are purely trolling for your own amusement or if you truly believe the above delusions.

Don't bother, he's clueless and will continue to be. You could point out the break in logic in his statements like you would a toddler and he'll still miss it.

Truth is, I don't usually mind Seeker being a retard, except lately it seems his rebuttals are little more than vacuous and uninteresting ramblings of someone who is more interested in appearing clever than actually successfully doing so...

If he's not interested in Trolling (is "uR a jew" really all you have left) and completely failing in logical written debate/discussion, what else is left?

2008 Seeker is fucking boooooooring.

/shrug

[Flip]

No. You did no such thing; you are wrong. I still wonder if you are purely trolling for your own amusement or if you truly believe the above delusions.

Don't bother, he's clueless and will continue to be. You could point out the break in logic in his statements like you would a toddler and he'll still miss it.

Truth is, I don't usually mind Seeker being a retard, except lately it seems his rebuttals are little more than vacuous and uninteresting ramblings of someone who is more interested in appearing clever than actually successfully doing so...

If he's not interesting in Trolling (is "uR a jew" really all you have left) and completely failing in logical written debate/discussion, what else is left?

2008 Seeker is fucking boooooooring.

/shrug

You can boil every Seeker counter point to, "thats not relevant" and "thats a weak point" when really we all know its smack on target. How do you argue with a man with his eyes closed that he isnt blind? You dont, you just shake your head, walk away, and let him believe anything he wants to in his warped mind.

[Blotus]

You can boil every Seeker counter point to, "thats not relevant" and "thats a weak point" when really we all know its smack on target. How do you argue with a man with his eyes closed that he isnt blind? You dont, you just shake your head, walk away, and let him believe anything he wants to in his warped mind.

Sounds like Jew talk to me.

[kali o.]

Though I meant what I said, I notice I'm pretty pissy lately for some reason. I must miss Nev.

[Julius Seeker]

No. You did no such thing; you are wrong. I still wonder if you are purely trolling for your own amusement or if you truly believe the above delusions.

Don't bother, he's clueless and will continue to be. You could point out the break in logic in his statements like you would a toddler and he'll still miss it.

I could easily apply this statement to you. Your arguments are FILLED with broken logic:

1. To start: "Fetus = mass of cells"

So what is the definition of a mass of cells?

2. You then dismissed a much more accurate definition as a "play on words" that distracts focus.

So a far more accurate distracts focus?

3. You speak of distracting focus, even after equating the destruction of a human being to the destruction of a cancerous tumor.

And I suppose you feel that the demonization of the reproductive cycle by a comparison to deadly disease in order to justify the destruction of the prior isn't distracting?

4. and you backed your concluding statement up with the statement: "it's on the same cognitive level at that point (none)". Which I am sure you accept as fact, despite <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/9nq ... >extensive studies</a> which prove otherwise and <a href="http://www.revolutionhealth.com/forums/ ... 21">common knowledge</a> of the situation, do you not?