Partial Birth Abortion [Archive]

Regicidal Insomniac

28th October 2003, 01:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 01:06 AM
I belive most abortions are performed within the first trimester.
To take Canada as an example...

90% of abortions in Canada are performed during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. About 9% of abortions take place between twelve and twenty weeks of gestation, usually because the pregnancy was not diagnosed earlier, abortion services were not available, or the pregnancy had become unhealthy or unmanageable. About 0.4% of abortions take place after 20 weeks of gestation, usually because the fetus is gravely or fatally impaired, or the woman' s life or health is at risk, or both.
CARAL (http://www.caral.ca/facts/responses.php)

Marxist in Nebraska

28th October 2003, 15:45

RI,

Cool avatar! That is one of the best I have seen on the forum. On a more serious note, thanks for the statistics...

The ban on "partial birth" abortions passed by the Senate was an excuse for the reactionary right to undercut abortion rights. With Republicans in the majority in Congress (and a number of conservative Dems along for the ride), and Dubya squatting in the White House, this is the opportunity to attack abortion. Of course, since most Americans favor abortion rights, right-wing politicians are careful not to face off directly against Roe v. Wade itself. Bush has also tried to establish fetuses as human beings by backing a bill to give prenatal care to immigrant women. These distinctions being made are an attempt to divide support for abortions.

As is mentioned above, the late term procedure is usually due to a threat on the woman's life or a severe defect on the fetus. As the bill does not provide exemptions for these emergencies, I oppose the bill.

Collective

28th October 2003, 17:21

Commonplace in China...according to Tom Clancy! :rolleyes:

mentalbunny

28th October 2003, 19:37

I'm against any restriction fo current abortion rights, it's bad enough in the US where most people don't have access to a safe abortion anyway.

Dr. Rosenpenis

28th October 2003, 19:56

Like some others have said, what conservatives call partial birth abortion, is a procudure normaly used when an undesired development is revealed in the fetus. Women know their pregnant long before the third trimester, so it's rather illogical to assert that women to use "partial birth abortion" as a form of birth control. I mean, why suffer through pregnancy for 6 months or longer just to abort?

Just because the fetus has been in development for a few more weeks, does not constitute it as a human being. It is still fully dependant on its mother. The point of pro-choice is that nobody has the right to tell a woman what she can do with a clump of reproductive cells in her body. So why would the stage of development of this clump of cells change anything?

marxstudent

28th October 2003, 20:17

Oh I see. I thought partial birth abortion was a common practice where people would just decide on the last second they wanted to get rid of the fetus. I believe in the later stages, abortion is murder. If it is because the fetus is going to turn out fucked up or if it is jeopardizing the woman's health, that is understandable.

Even after the delivery of a child, it is still fully dependent its mom.

Dr. Rosenpenis

28th October 2003, 23:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 04:17 PM
I believe in the later stages, abortion is murder.
Why?
What about the choice of the woman?
What would you say if I told you that you couldn't drink because it harmed your liver and your liver had the right to be free from harm?
It's insane.
It's in your body.
It belongs to you.
You may do as you wish to it?
Just because a damn sperm has come in contact with a woman's egg does not mean that she looses her rights to it.

Regicidal Insomniac

28th October 2003, 23:58

Originally posted by Marxist in [email protected] 28 2003, 04:45 PM
RI,

Cool avatar! That is one of the best I have seen on the forum. On a more serious note, thanks for the statistics...
Thanks, comrade. It's a flag of Communist Canada, I made it myself! :D (http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/3387406/)

marxstudent

29th October 2003, 04:17

Yes I understand what you're trying to say but do you also agree with the murder of innocent life then? Like I said, there are circumstances but not when the fetus is healthy and in the later stages.

harely

29th October 2003, 17:30

BuyOurEverything

29th October 2003, 17:55

how can you compare a liver to a human living breathing soul?

Because there's no such thing as a soul, just a mind and in this case it's not developed enough to even be called a mind. We destroy life all the time: we eat meat (cows are much more advanced than fetuses), we run over small animals on the road, we take antibiotics that kill bacteria, why do automatically assume that because a fetus may eventually become a HUMAN, it's more valubal than a fully grown animal of any other species?

Marxist in Nebraska

29th October 2003, 18:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 12:55 PM
We destroy life all the time: we eat meat (cows are much more advanced than fetuses) [...]
We eat pigs... pigs are more intelligent than dogs... just an addition to BOE's sentiment.

Edit: Sorry I can't resist... this is my 666th post, and I am defending abortion in all cases... I just can't help but imagine what fundamentalists would think if they saw my argument and my post count... lol!

Al Creed

29th October 2003, 18:12

Originally posted by Regicidal Insomniac+Oct 29 2003, 12:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Regicidal Insomniac @ Oct 29 2003, 12:58 AM)
Marxist in [email protected] 28 2003, 04:45 PM
RI,

Cool avatar! That is one of the best I have seen on the forum. On a more serious note, thanks for the statistics...
Thanks, comrade. It's a flag of Communist Canada, I made it myself! :D (http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/3387406/) [/b]
I agree, That avatar kicks ass.

I am Pro Choice myself. Whats the sense of bringing a child into this world, if his existence was created by mistake?

And, to play Devil's Advocate, what is everyones opinion on Euthanasia for the terminally ill? Should they be allowed the choice of pysician-assisted suicide?

harely

29th October 2003, 18:33

we run over small animals on the road
do you do this intentionally?

we take antibiotics that kill bacteria
bacteria harms you - like i said if a life is in danger, that's different.

why do automatically assume that because a fetus may eventually become a HUMAN, it's more valubal than a fully grown animal of any other species? actually i think all species are valuble, but in a sense humans are superior beings, yes it's true we meat by killing cows, pigs, and so on but were talking about humans i just don't see how you can compare, so then just because we kill animals, does that then make all killings acceptable to you? to me murder is murder. wether you kill an innocent unborn child or any other person.

BuyOurEverything

29th October 2003, 19:03

actually i think all species are valuble, but in a sense humans are superior beings, yes it's true we meat by killing cows, pigs, and so on but were talking about humans i just don't see how you can compare, so then just because we kill animals, does that then make all killings acceptable to you? to me murder is murder. wether you kill an innocent unborn child or any other person.

What do you base human superiority on? Surely you can't argue that a fetus is more developed than a full grown dolphin, cow or pig.

do you do this intentionally?

If you ran over a person unintentionally it would still be a big deal.

bacteria harms you - like i said if a life is in danger, that's different.

It also kills tons of bacteria that aren't harming you. If there was one guy in a crowd trying to kill you, would you be justified in gassing the whole crowd?

Dr. Rosenpenis

29th October 2003, 20:40

Ok, i don't want to step on anybodies toes here but, how can you compare a liver to a human living breathing soul? just because a fetus hasn't seen daylight doesn't mean its not alive, and just as the mother has a right to choose wether she wants the baby or not...because she has rights...doesn't that mean also that the baby has a right to have a chance at life?

I personally am not pro-choice, but do recognize that if their lives are in danger, something has to be done, to save either one...but if there is no danger, you should have to deal w/ what you've got...if you didn't want a child, then you should have taken measures to avoid that.

The concept of a soul is not a well-established scientific one, and as I far as I am aware, souls do not breathe and neither do fetuses. If abortion is murder, is masturbation murder? Just because the egg has come in contact with a sperm, does not mean that the woman must respect it as a human being, it is not one by any means. It is simply a fertile egg, nothing more. The rights of the egg do not matter. It's inside the woman. Yes, it's her choice, but that does not change the fact that it's in her and that nobody can remove the woman's rights by imposing the rights of a clump of cells.

we run over small animals on the road

do you do this intentionally?

we take antibiotics that kill bacteria

bacteria harms you - like i said if a life is in danger, that's different.

why do automatically assume that because a fetus may eventually become a HUMAN, it's more valubal than a fully grown animal of any other species?
actually i think all species are valuble, but in a sense humans are superior beings, yes it's true we meat by killing cows, pigs, and so on but were talking about humans i just don't see how you can compare, so then just because we kill animals, does that then make all killings acceptable to you? to me murder is murder. wether you kill an innocent unborn child or any other person.

Like it has been said before, the "unborn child" is nothing but a woman's egg, just like the one produced every month, except it has been fertilized, this does not constitute it as a child, and it is absolutely no reason to restrict the rights of a woman by imposing the fetuses "rights".

marxstudent

29th October 2003, 23:32

Because there's no such thing as a soul, just a mind and in this case it's not developed enough to even be called a mind. We destroy life all the time: we eat meat (cows are much more advanced than fetuses), we run over small animals on the road, we take antibiotics that kill bacteria, why do automatically assume that because a fetus may eventually become a HUMAN, it's more valubal than a fully grown animal of any other species?

You can't prove that there isn't one either. Or how miracles are really luck or luck are really miracles. All you can is assume and I don't agree w/ your assumptions so we'll squash that. A delivered baby's mind is not fully developed either. As a toddler and a small child his mind isn't fully developed. So it's alright to kill them at those ages too then? Animal life is not as important as human life.

What do you base human superiority on? Surely you can't argue that a fetus is more developed than a full grown dolphin, cow or pig.
A newborn child isn't as developed as a full grown dolphin, cow or pig either. It still grows and it will grow to be more developed than those animals.

If you ran over a person unintentionally it would still be a big deal.
Do you honestly think an animal's life is as, if not more important than a human being's? Yes animals are important in several ways but we are the ones who actually go out and make everything work. Oh yeah... and we have SOULS!

If abortion is murder, is masturbation murder? Just because the egg has come in contact with a sperm, does not mean that the woman must respect it as a human being
First of all, the fetus is right there close to being delivered. It is already in the advanced development stages it's not considered a fertilized egg anymore. If you want to think like that then we're all fertilized eggs. WOW! Not a great excuse..

BuyOurEverything

30th October 2003, 01:18

You can't prove that there isn't one either. Or how miracles are really luck or luck are really miracles. All you can is assume and I don't agree w/ your assumptions so we'll squash that. A delivered baby's mind is not fully developed either. As a toddler and a small child his mind isn't fully developed. So it's alright to kill them at those ages too then? Animal life is not as important as human life.

Yes you can prove we don't have souls but this is not the place for it. I suppose if there's a one in a million chance of something happening and it happens, it's a miracle but the other 999,999 times it doesn't happen are just god's will or something. In other words, miracles don't exist but this isn't the place for that either. You say that you shouldn't destroy a human at any stage of development, so are you against destroying sperm?

A newborn child isn't as developed as a full grown dolphin, cow or pig either. It still grows and it will grow to be more developed than those animals.

The material that sperm and egg cells are made of may eventually become a human too.

Do you honestly think an animal's life is as, if not more important than a human being's? Yes animals are important in several ways but we are the ones who actually go out and make everything work. Oh yeah... and we have SOULS!

No I don't think an animal's life is as important as a human's. Nor do I think a fetuses "life" is. And we do not have souls.

Dr. Rosenpenis

30th October 2003, 02:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 07:32 PM
First of all, the fetus is right there close to being delivered. It is already in the advanced development stages it's not considered a fertilized egg anymore. If you want to think like that then we're all fertilized eggs. WOW! Not a great excuse..
Perhaps I was exagerating by calling it nothing more than a fertile egg, but these are just foolish pedantics, comarde. My point stands that just because the fetus has been in development for a few more weeks doesn't mean that the woman looses her rights to herself. The fetus is not an individual, it is part of the woman. It is not part of you, or any lawmaker. It is part of the woman and nobody can impose its "rights" upon the woman. Are you just completely pro-life, or are you saying that women should only have control of their own bodies for a certain number of weeks after they become pregnant, then the rights of the fetus are more important than those of the woman? Because if you're the latter, then you have missed the entire point of pro-choice, which is to protect the rights of the woman at the cost of the existance of the fetus. How can you tell a woman, "Oh you've had sex? If you're pregnant, you must live with a developing infant inside of you unless you choose to abort it within 6 months of the time you had sex." Observe and you will see that this is simply placing restrictions upon a woman's body just for having sex!! It's absolutely insane!

harely

30th October 2003, 03:09

Okay i guess im not making my self clear enough, i don't have a problem when the egg has not developed, if you know early enough before its developed by all means do what you like, what my problem is, is what this thread is about, when women have an abortion when the fetus is in any way shape or form developed

marxstudent

30th October 2003, 03:15

You say that you shouldn't destroy a human at any stage of development, so are you against destroying sperm?

No I said in the later stages when the fertilized egg actually becomes a fetus.

Because if you're the latter, then you have missed the entire point of pro-choice, which is to protect the rights of the woman at the cost of the existance of the fetus.
I believe in the rights of a woman but not when it becomes murder- when the egg actually develops into a fetus. If a woman is to become pregnant, there is no excuse why she wouldn't get an abortion in the earlier anyway.

The material that sperm and egg cells are made of may eventually become a human too.

my answer is what you said previously.

What do you base human superiority on? Surely you can't argue that a fetus is more developed than a full grown dolphin, cow or pig.

BuyOurEverything

30th October 2003, 03:49

QUOTE
You say that you shouldn't destroy a human at any stage of development, so are you against destroying sperm?

No I said in the later stages when the fertilized egg actually becomes a fetus.

Why is a fetus a human but not a sperm or egg cell?

QUOTE
What do you base human superiority on? Surely you can't argue that a fetus is more developed than a full grown dolphin, cow or pig.

Was there a reason you quoted that and then didn't respond?

marxstudent

30th October 2003, 04:42

We were all fertilized eggs but we grew up and turned out to be who we are now. Just like a fertilized egg isn't considered much until it grows up to be a fetus.

There was a reason why I quoted you. If you look again, I put what you said earlier as an answer to your latter question.

Bornagainlefty

30th October 2003, 11:56

Hate Is Art

30th October 2003, 15:15

i believe abortion is wrong in all cases exept when the womens life is in danger.

If you say you are pro-choice are pro-choice for the fetus as well?

And i dont know if you saw the pictures in the newspaper a while back of a fetus smiling

harely

30th October 2003, 16:46

Why is a fetus a human but not a sperm or egg cell?

That's exactly my view, if a women has a right to choose, i think the unborn child should also have a right to live.

Why is a fetus a human but not a sperm or egg cell?

because alone those two elements are not human once they are combined, that's when, in my opinon things change, becuase then a human is being developed.

I don't understand how you can give a women the right to an abortion and refuse a baby his/her right to life.

The fetus is not an individual, it is part of the woman
So, would your opinon change, lets say for example if women didn't carry babies in their bodies, if we as women for example , had babies like other animals, if babies developed like chicks in eggs, does that mean, that because it's not in the womens body now she doesn't have a right over it? now she can't kill it because it's not in her body. the responsability ends up being the same, she has to take care of a child, and that's what she is trying to avoid. so then do things change?

Dr. Rosenpenis

30th October 2003, 16:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 07:56 AM
At some point during its development, the foetus becomes aware, gradually, of external stimuli. The nervous system and brain has developed to a point where it has become a self contained, living (though obviously not independent) life form, a human being . After this point, abortion is immoral and should not be condoned except in the direst of medical emergencies.

There really is no argument about this in my opinion, the only issue is at what point does the foetus reach that point.
The fetus is never self-contained, all of its systems are entirely dependant on its mother untill it is born. The point is that it's inside the woman. You can't force a woman to live with a child in her just because she became pregnant! The fetus's rights don't matter, it's inside the woman. The stage of development doesn't matter. It's inhumane to to subjugate and enslave a woman to the laws protecting her developing infant! It never seizes to be her own body untill it leaves her. Nobody has any righst to claim the woman's body for her own child!

harely

30th October 2003, 16:50

You can't force a woman to live with a child in her just because she became pregnant!

Actually that's exactly what it means. if she doesn't want to be responsible for a child, she should have been responsible not to get pregnant in the first place.

The fetus's rights don't matter, it's inside the woman.
Like i asked do things change if it wasn't in her body?

Dr. Rosenpenis

30th October 2003, 16:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 12:46 PM
So, would your opinon change, lets say for example if women didn't carry babies in their bodies, if we as women for example , had babies like other animals, if babies developed like chicks in eggs, does that mean, that because it's not in the womens body now she doesn't have a right over it? now she can't kill it because it's not in her body. the responsability ends up being the same, she has to take care of a child, and that's what she is trying to avoid. so then do things change?
No, my oppinions would not change.
The chick has not been yet brought into society and it is the property of the chicken.

harely

30th October 2003, 16:54

The chick has not been yet brought into society and it is the property of the chicken

So now im not sure what you mean, your set on saying that a women has a right to an abortion because its in her body, but a chick is not in the chickens body, so is it your basic idea that until something is born into society it has no rights what so ever, even if it is aware?

Dr. Rosenpenis

30th October 2003, 16:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 12:50 PM
Actually that's exactly what it means. if she doesn't want to be responsible for a child, she should have been responsible not to get pregnant in the first place.
That's bullshit!
The developing infant is the mother's responsibility, whether she wants to care for it or kill it. It's hers. The government can never determine what teh woman must maintain living in her body.
Your bird analogy is crap and completely irrelevent.

Dr. Rosenpenis

30th October 2003, 16:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 12:54 PM

The chick has not been yet brought into society and it is the property of the chicken

So now im not sure what you mean, your set on saying that a women has a right to an abortion because its in her body, but a chick is not in the chickens body, so is it your basic idea that until something is born into society it has no rights what so ever, even if it is aware?
Wherher or not fetuses are aware doesn't make a difference. They're not members of society and have no rights. Cows aren't members of society, they're more aware than fetuses, and they don't have any rights, do you have a problem with that?

harely

30th October 2003, 17:05

Okay relax, look im a woman and i disagree with the idea of abortion, i think that the perspective of being pro-choice is idiotic.

my bird analogy, like i said was an example of what if a women didn't carry the baby in her body, does she have a right then to kill it? or is it your idea that nothing has rights until its born into society?

Dr. Rosenpenis

30th October 2003, 17:09

Okay, you think it's wrong. You wouldn't do it. That's fine.
The point is that the government may never restrict a woman from having an operation that affects nobody but herself. The fetus being part of the woman. The government cannot claim a part of the woman for her developing infant.

harely

30th October 2003, 17:17

Wherher or not fetuses are aware doesn't make a difference.

Actually that is exactlly what the difference is, how can you kill something thats not living, you can't kill something that isn't alive, but a fetus can be killed because it is alive and developing.

operation that affects nobody but herself
But it does affect somebody else...it affects the unborn child.

Dr. Rosenpenis

30th October 2003, 17:30

Did I say the futus was not alive?
Obviously It's alive, but it's inside the woman.
The woman has complete jurisdiction over her body while the government has none. Whatever exists within her body has no individual rights. The government cannot say that it's the fetuse's rights live in the woman! That's ridiculous! And that's exactly what you're condoning.

cubist

30th October 2003, 18:04

Invader Zim

30th October 2003, 19:04

Partial birth abortions, are just stupid. No one would seriously consider having one unless it was a case of the mothers life being in danger. I disagree with it on a moral basis anyway, the fetus could be removed from the womb, and survive in many cases, so the argument that the fetus is directly dependant on the body of the mother becomes obsolite.

truthaddict11

30th October 2003, 19:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 02:04 PM

the thought you are even thinking of allowing the right to terminate an existance once it is formed is is horrid,

i think its more horrid that people on the "left" are actually opposed to a women having freedom over her own damn dody. if you dont want an abortion and consider it wrong by your morals then dont have one but dont fuck with laws to make abortion illegal or condemn those who decide to have one.

Invader Zim

30th October 2003, 19:29

Originally posted by truthaddict11+Oct 30 2003, 09:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (truthaddict11 @ Oct 30 2003, 09:23 PM)
[email protected] 30 2003, 02:04 PM

the thought you are even thinking of allowing the right to terminate an existance once it is formed is is horrid,

i think its more horrid that people on the "left" are actually opposed to a women having freedom over her own damn dody. if you dont want an abortion and consider it wrong by your morals then dont have one but dont fuck with laws to make abortion illegal or condemn those who decide to have one. [/b]
I think its more horrid that people on the "left", dont read peoples posts properlly. Go back and read it again, paying careful attention to the "once its formed" part.

mentalbunny

30th October 2003, 20:22

Well quite frankly it's a shame when someone has an abortion, but it's not the end of the world, millions of people die everyday, many of them die of curable illnesses but since they do not have access to clean water etc they cannot be cured, many die in war and violence, many die of old age.

I think the question of abortion is relatively unimportant, let people make their own mistakes, if having an abortion is a "sin" or whatever then whoever has one will suffer the consequences later, if not, well a human didn't come into the world that could have done, which is sad but we have to carry on and put things in perspective.

Even if you ban abortions they are still going to happen, face it. In my opinion it's more important to focus on problems like war, poverty and neo-colonialist imperialism than whether a foetus has a soul.

BuyOurEverything

30th October 2003, 20:33

well thankfully my mother wasn't one of you guys

the thought you are even thinking of allowing the right to terminate an existance once it is formed is is horrid,

why is it that no one believeas in adoption these days it truely is the best option

well thankfully my parents had sex at the exact time that they did otherwise the sperm and the egg that created me would have been destroyed, or "died." Maybe they should make it illegal not to have drunken sex otherwise alot of the people that are alive today would never have existed. I mean, by not having sex with everybody you meet, you could be killing the next Mozart or Marx!

Anyways, since you so stronly oppose terminating existances once they're formed, I assume you're a vegetarian, don't use antibiotics, don't kill any plants and drive really slow in your car to avoid driving over any insects.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

30th October 2003, 21:21

I read quikly through the topic and there is one very important aspect missing, the further life of the child.

Ask yourself how will the life of an unwanted child looks like.
Will he receive as much love, care and attention as a "wanted" children.
Will he be given the same oppurtinities.
How does it impact on the child to know that he has been raised by total strangers.

Some dumped children have the luck to find loving, caring parents and accept their parents andso develop in great indivuduals and members of society.

But most don't have that luck. To start with. Children are taking over charistitics of their parents and if they are obviously missing those, questions start to raise. It especially forms a problem at younger age. This gives the necessary mental problems and lack of confidence (feeling unwanted). Especially because they think that things will go better if they return to their real parents andso seeing their fosterparents as the evildoer who keeps them from returning to their real parents. Strongly distrusting them.

As they grow up they learn to accept their new parents more and more and establish a basis on which they can built up their lives. Both parent and child have been going through a fragile and long proces of trust, respect and most important acceptance of the situation. Resulting in a pretty strong relationship between child and fosterparent. This still isn't such a bad situation, it could have been worse. Much worse.

In the US and some other countries, parentless children are moved from fosterparent to fosterparent due to a missing system to really care for them. This automaticly takes away the chance to built up a basis, which can only be established at long term. Through a very long and fragile proces of trust, respect and acceptance from both sides.

Offcourse there is little chance that the child will accept his new parents as THE parents, if he is moved from place to place .You can't develop a child-parent relationship every 3 months, everytime with complete strangers. Imagine that you get new parents assigned every 3 months. Also the fosterparents have the same problem.

It sounds logicly that the child will only accept his parents if they are 100% commited and treat him as their "own". People can't accept a new child periodicly as their "own". Put there the countless ocassions that these children have been sexually abused, beaten, used as cheap labor and sometimes even murdered. The result is a traumatic youth, which forces them to seek their "new family" in the shape of gangs, army or convertion to religion.

Altough my opinion.

Invader Zim

30th October 2003, 21:44

CCCP I agree with your point, however it seems interesting to me that according to you all unwanted children are male...

Dr. Rosenpenis

30th October 2003, 21:47

*sigh*
You just can't let go of the meaningless pedantics, can you?

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

30th October 2003, 21:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 10:44 PM
CCCP I agree with your point, however it seems interesting to me that according to you all unwanted children are male...
I am purely using "he" to indicate a person. The same things in my short article obviously goes for women too.

But it's a long given fact that women are worth more ;) :lol:

Invader Zim

30th October 2003, 21:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 11:47 PM
*sigh*
You just can't let go of the meaningless pedantics, can you?
Hell NO!

But it's a long given fact that women are worth more

Absolutly.

Regicidal Insomniac

30th October 2003, 22:03

The point here is, no sane woman would ever have an abortion performed at this stage unless her life or health were seriously at risk. Those lobbyed against abortion need to stop looking at it so frivalously as "just another method of birth control"... when an abortion is performed, especially at this stage, it is a serious choice, and and a choice we have to protect.

MysteriousTexn69

30th October 2003, 23:09

partial deaths at the moment of birth and having a death occur is no-ones fault it simply is the way of life. even with our technology we can't stop every death from occuring no matter how much we try. i'd love for every life to live in our world but it is the way evolution/god (whatever you believe in i'm not here to offend beliefs) meant it to be. abortion wrong or right occurs and partial abortions, what are they exactly? answer that for me and i'll respond.

Dr. Rosenpenis

30th October 2003, 23:16

Originally posted by Regicidal [email protected] 30 2003, 06:03 PM
The point here is, no sane woman would ever have an abortion performed at this stage unless her life or health were seriously at risk. Those lobbyed against abortion need to stop looking at it so frivalously as "just another method of birth control"... when an abortion is performed, especially at this stage, it is a serious choice, and and a choice we have to protect.
I agree with you excepty the part about sanity. Women shouldn't be intimidated from making such decisions by prejudicial and ignorant opinions about their sanity.

Dr. Rosenpenis

30th October 2003, 23:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 07:09 PM
...and partial abortions, what are they exactly? answer that for me and i'll respond.
It's when the fetus is killed and removed before its ready.
It's an abortion after the third trimester of a woman's pregnancy has begun.

Jesus Christ

30th October 2003, 23:25

of course the woman should decide a little earlier whether to have an abortion or not
but i am fully pro-choice and if the woman feels that she isnt ready, then she isnt ready

marxstudent

31st October 2003, 01:11

At some point during its development, the foetus becomes aware, gradually, of external stimuli. The nervous system and brain has developed to a point where it has become a self contained, living (though obviously not independent) life form, a human being . After this point, abortion is immoral and should not be condoned except in the direst of medical emergencies.

There really is no argument about this in my opinion, the only issue is at what point does the foetus reach that point.
Exactly.

I personally do not prefer for a woman to have an abortion but I believe it is better for this soon to be fetus to not be eventually born, rather than eventually be delivered and not be loved. That's pretty sad. Yes, I know there are parents who would be willing to adopt a child but it's still not the same.

Cows aren't members of society, they're more aware than fetuses
Fetuses are actual beings though and they grow to become superior over cows.

The point here is, no sane woman would ever have an abortion performed at this stage unless her life or health were seriously at risk. Those lobbyed against abortion need to stop looking at it so frivalously as "just another method of birth control"... when an abortion is performed, especially at this stage, it is a serious choice, and and a choice we have to protect.
Agreed, Insomniac.

of course the woman should decide a little earlier whether to have an abortion or not
but i am fully pro-choice and if the woman feels that she isnt ready, then she isnt ready
I understand how you feel, but it's still murder and I don't agree with murder- especially of an innocent life.

Dr. Rosenpenis

31st October 2003, 01:49

I understand how you feel, but it's still murder and I don't agree with murder- especially of an innocent life.

But caliming a woman's body for her own developing infant against her will is okay?
Like I said, the fetus is not a member of society, it does not have the rights we have, it may be subject to the will of its mother, because it's inside the mother! How can you say that the mother doesn't have a right to determine what is living in her?!

truthaddict11

31st October 2003, 04:04

Originally posted by Enigma+Oct 30 2003, 03:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Oct 30 2003, 03:29 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 09:23 PM

[email protected] 30 2003, 02:04 PM

the thought you are even thinking of allowing the right to terminate an existance once it is formed is is horrid,

i think its more horrid that people on the "left" are actually opposed to a women having freedom over her own damn dody. if you dont want an abortion and consider it wrong by your morals then dont have one but dont fuck with laws to make abortion illegal or condemn those who decide to have one.
I think its more horrid that people on the "left", dont read peoples posts properlly. Go back and read it again, paying careful attention to the "once its formed" part. [/b]
define "once its formed" the user gave no definition on this.

marxstudent

31st October 2003, 04:23

But caliming a woman's body for her own developing infant against her will is okay?

Why didn't she get an abortion earlier when it was just a fertilized egg?

A fetus already has life. A newborn baby doesn't have status in society either. Are we to kill them too if we feel like we don't want to raise them?

dopediana

31st October 2003, 04:56

a fetus can not exist unless by artificial means if severed from the mother. therefore it is not its own separate entity. potential for life. but not yet.

mentalbunny

31st October 2003, 11:41

marxstudent, In most cases where a woman has a partial birth abortion it is because either the mother's life is in danger or the foetus is damaged in some way, this isn't about not wanting a kid, it's about avoiding physical suffering of mother and child, as has been said several times in this thread.

CCCP, yes, you're right to bring the child's life after birth into consideration, thank you for that.

To everyone who has suggested adoption as a feasible alternative, look at the state of adoption services, they're a total mess, really beaurocratic and it's very hard to adopt, not only do you have to be allowed to in the first place but then you have social services butting in every five minutes making sure you're not hurting the kid and that alone can put off any potential adoptive parents. Or social services ignore you totally, which is fine with responsible adults but it also means that children suffer abuse and sometimes are even killed.

Invader Zim

31st October 2003, 12:58

Originally posted by truthaddict11+Oct 31 2003, 06:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (truthaddict11 @ Oct 31 2003, 06:04 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 09:23 PM

[email protected] 30 2003, 02:04 PM

the thought you are even thinking of allowing the right to terminate an existance once it is formed is is horrid,

i think its more horrid that people on the "left" are actually opposed to a women having freedom over her own damn dody. if you dont want an abortion and consider it wrong by your morals then dont have one but dont fuck with laws to make abortion illegal or condemn those who decide to have one.
I think its more horrid that people on the "left", dont read peoples posts properlly. Go back and read it again, paying careful attention to the "once its formed" part.
define "once its formed" the user gave no definition on this. [/b]
I assume that the poster, has no actual issue with abortion, because they do not consider the fetus to be developed, but consider that when the pregnancy has reached this stage, then the fetus is formed, to an extent which changes their policy.

Where as your quote attacked anit-abortion in general, from what I read the individual did not have a problem with abortion in general. So your comment was "preaching to the chior" so to speek.

Then again I could be wrong, if so I am sorry.

Dr. Rosenpenis

31st October 2003, 15:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 12:23 AM
Why didn't she get an abortion earlier when it was just a fertilized egg?

A fetus already has life. A newborn baby doesn't have status in society either. Are we to kill them too if we feel like we don't want to raise them?
It doesn't matter why she's getting an abortion, it's in her body and she can do whatever she wants to it! Babys are not physicaly dependant.

Hate Is Art

31st October 2003, 16:18

victorcommie that is probably one of the most moronic posts ive read in a while.

Of course it matters why? is she is just using it as birth control cos she got drunk and didnt use contraception? does she have a right to kill a potential life because she didnt use contraception?

and to anyone who says they are pro-choice are you pro-choice for the baby as well or just the mother?

if you view the fetus as just a collection of cells then surely we are too so its ok to kill us off if we arent needed?

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

31st October 2003, 16:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 12:41 PM

CCCP, yes, you're right to bring the child's life after birth into consideration, thank you for that.

Thanks but it's Non-Sectarian Bastard! now :)

BuyOurEverything

31st October 2003, 16:49

Of course it matters why? is she is just using it as birth control cos she got drunk and didnt use contraception? does she have a right to kill a potential life because she didnt use contraception?

First of all, would you support an abortion if she did use contraception and it didn't work? If you answered no then your whole argument is invalid and if you answered yes then explain how the "life" is more valuble if she didn't use contraception than if she did.

Also, since you used the term 'potential' life please explain to me how a sperm is not a potential life and therefor not worth saving.

Dr. Rosenpenis

31st October 2003, 16:51

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 31 2003, 12:18 PM
victorcommie that is probably one of the most moronic posts ive read in a while.

Of course it matters why? is she is just using it as birth control cos she got drunk and didnt use contraception? does she have a right to kill a potential life because she didnt use contraception?

and to anyone who says they are pro-choice are you pro-choice for the baby as well or just the mother?

if you view the fetus as just a collection of cells then surely we are too so its ok to kill us off if we arent needed?
No, it doesn't matter. She can do whatever she wants to her own body. The fetus is part of her body. Nobody can claim her body for the fetus. The fetus is not entitled to the woman's womb just because she had sex. That is chauvinism. The choice of the woman to determine what is living in her is what we're trying to protect. What the fetus may become is irrelevent. The point is that the woman must have control over what exists within her body. The fetus is not just a collection of cells. Once it enters the third trimester is ceizes to be simply a fertle egg, and is now a fetus, but that changes nothing. Humans are independent beings, fetuses are not. What is living inside of a woman has no individual rights. This mentality to protect the unborn I believe derives from the notion that a woman's offspring is the property of the father. This is an outdated notion. What exists in a woman can't be protected at the expense of the woman. Because something is alive in a woman, does not mean that the woman must be subjugated to its needs.

31st October 2003, 16:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 12:49 PM

Also, since you used the term 'potential' life please explain to me how a sperm is not a potential life and therefor not worth saving.
Very true. If that's the case, then every time you release it's genocide.

BuyOurEverything

31st October 2003, 17:32

Very true. If that's the case, then every time you release it's genocide.

Yes and even if you're having sex without birth control, it's negligent homicide for killing those other couple million sperm that didn't come into contact with the egg.

cubist

31st October 2003, 20:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 09:33 PM

well thankfully my mother wasn't one of you guys

the thought you are even thinking of allowing the right to terminate an existance once it is formed is is horrid,

why is it that no one believeas in adoption these days it truely is the best option

well thankfully my parents had sex at the exact time that they did otherwise the sperm and the egg that created me would have been destroyed, or "died." Maybe they should make it illegal not to have drunken sex otherwise alot of the people that are alive today would never have existed. I mean, by not having sex with everybody you meet, you could be killing the next Mozart or Marx!

Anyways, since you so stronly oppose terminating existances once they're formed, I assume you're a vegetarian, don't use antibiotics, don't kill any plants and drive really slow in your car to avoid driving over any insects.
actually i hate all abortion, but a raped woman should be allowed the right to do as she pleases, but she would have it killed before it has formed not leave it for months as far as i see no other excuse is acceptable,

the reason for this is my mother was 15 when she had me adopted she made a concious responsible decision for the wealthfare of her child why can't others do it

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

31st October 2003, 20:53

What do you think of eusthanisia?

BuyOurEverything

31st October 2003, 21:08

QUOTE (BuyOurEverything @ Oct 30 2003, 09:33 PM)
QUOTE
well thankfully my mother wasn't one of you guys

the thought you are even thinking of allowing the right to terminate an existance once it is formed is is horrid,

why is it that no one believeas in adoption these days it truely is the best option

well thankfully my parents had sex at the exact time that they did otherwise the sperm and the egg that created me would have been destroyed, or "died." Maybe they should make it illegal not to have drunken sex otherwise alot of the people that are alive today would never have existed. I mean, by not having sex with everybody you meet, you could be killing the next Mozart or Marx!

Anyways, since you so stronly oppose terminating existances once they're formed, I assume you're a vegetarian, don't use antibiotics, don't kill any plants and drive really slow in your car to avoid driving over any insects.

actually i hate all abortion, but a raped woman should be allowed the right to do as she pleases, but she would have it killed before it has formed not leave it for months as far as i see no other excuse is acceptable,

the reason for this is my mother was 15 when she had me adopted she made a concious responsible decision for the wealthfare of her child why can't others do it

Why is is that you quoted me and then didn't adress any of my arguements?

but she would have it killed before it has formed not leave it for months as far as i see no other excuse is acceptable

If you admit that it's not formed yet, how is it killing it? And if it's murder like you say, why would allow a woman that's been raped to do it. Would you allow a woman to kill her 6 year old son if he was the product of her being raped?

Dr. Rosenpenis

31st October 2003, 21:58

But do you respect the desire of other women to be left with teh option of doing as they wish top their own bodies, cephas?

marxstudent

31st October 2003, 22:37

marxstudent, In most cases where a woman has a partial birth abortion it is because either the mother's life is in danger or the foetus is damaged in some way, this isn't about not wanting a kid, it's about avoiding physical suffering of mother and child, as has been said several times in this thread.

Yes I understand this and if you will notice, I have agreed as well. I am arguing when someone says woman should be able to go through partial birth abortion just because she, for whatever reason, did not get an abortion in the earlier stage when it was just a fertilized egg.

It doesn't matter why she's getting an abortion
I agree it doesn't matter why she's getting an abortion. I'm asking why does she have to wait so long to get one? If she really wanted to get rid of it, she would have done it earlier. She is already not accepting responsibility for a to-be child and she gets a chance to free herself from this liability. Why would she AGAIN not accept the responsibility of getting an abortion when it is not murder yet?

Yes and even if you're having sex without birth control, it's negligent homicide for killing those other couple million sperm that didn't come into contact with the egg.
No it's not because the sperm and the egg did not come into contact and was not given months and months to develop to actual life.

BuyOurEverything

31st October 2003, 23:49

No it's not because the sperm and the egg did not come into contact and was not given months and months to develop to actual life.

Actually, that was more directed at cephas but since you responded, how do you determine when a group of cells become human? Is it just an arbitrary point?

marxstudent

1st November 2003, 00:07

BuyOurEverything

1st November 2003, 00:13

At some point

Exactly, you don't know.

here really is no argument about this in my opinion, the only issue is at what point does the foetus reach that point.

So you've told me that it's an issue. That still doesn't answer the question.

marxstudent

1st November 2003, 01:09

First of all, let me say the quote stated by me earlier was someone elses- I just liked his answer and used it.

You agreed at some point. Then you're agreeing that at some point when the fertilized egg has become a fetus.

Also, no one's commented on my question... Why would a woman not get an abortion right away but suffer and wait until way later?

Dr. Rosenpenis

1st November 2003, 02:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 09:09 PM
Why would a woman not get an abortion right away but suffer and wait until way later?
I don't understand either. But it doesn't matter why the woman is choosing to have an abortion. It should still be legal, because just because the third trimester has begun, doesn't mean that the woman looses rights to her body. Just beacause it's now a fetus, doesn't mean the woman's body can be claimed for it.

You guys keep on questioning a woman's motive to have an abortion, but it doesn't matter. In the case of abortion, the woman doesn't have to explain herself to anyone, it's her own fucking body!

marxstudent

1st November 2003, 03:46

I don't understand either. But it doesn't matter why the woman is choosing to have an abortion. It should still be legal, because just because the third trimester has begun, doesn't mean that the woman looses rights to her body. Just beacause it's now a fetus, doesn't mean the woman's body can be claimed for it.

You guys keep on questioning a woman's motive to have an abortion, but it doesn't matter. In the case of abortion, the woman doesn't have to explain herself to anyone, it's her own fucking body!

I totally understand what you mean but I believe that if a woman really wanted to get an abortion, she would do it in the earlier stages because later on, the egg becomes a fetus. fetus=living being. I don't know about everyone else, but I do not question the woman's motive to have an abortion as long as it is not murder. Having abortion in the later stages w/out any real excuse, I believe, is murder.

BuyOurEverything

1st November 2003, 05:59

First of all, let me say the quote stated by me earlier was someone elses- I just liked his answer and used it.

OK

You agreed at some point. Then you're agreeing that at some point when the fertilized egg has become a fetus.

I didn't agree to anything. Sorry if you interpereted it like that.

Also, no one's commented on my question... Why would a woman not get an abortion right away but suffer and wait until way later?

Who the fuck cares? It's none of anyone's buisness. I still don't think you answered my question. At what point does a clump of cells become a life?

marxstudent

1st November 2003, 07:15

Yes I guess I did interpret it like that, cause you said "ya."

Who the fuck cares? It's none of anyone's buisness. I still don't think you answered my question. At what point does a clump of cells become a life?

Well I care and it's completely relevant. I believe I, as well as a couple of others, have answered your question already- when a fertilized egg develops into a fetus. It is practically like a newborn baby. Your question is so radical. Yes we all have been these fertilized eggs. At that time, we were not quite living. As time passed, we developed into a being with life. As time passed. As time passes, a fertilized egg becomes this and if you kill it, then it is murder. There is no excuse to not get an abortion earlier anyways if the woman does not want her child.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

1st November 2003, 12:25

A fetus isn't alive. Untill the moment that it's inside the woman's body. The fetus stays dependant on the body of the mother. It still forms a part of the woman's body. It's not alive, it's a potential for life. There is a big difference between life and potential for life.

Dr. Rosenpenis

1st November 2003, 16:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 03:15 AM
Well I care and it's completely relevant. I believe I, as well as a couple of others, have answered your question already- when a fertilized egg develops into a fetus. It is practically like a newborn baby. Your question is so radical. Yes we all have been these fertilized eggs. At that time, we were not quite living. As time passed, we developed into a being with life. As time passed. As time passes, a fertilized egg becomes this and if you kill it, then it is murder. There is no excuse to not get an abortion earlier anyways if the woman does not want her child.
Why should a woman have to answer to you before making a completely personal decision?
As long as the fetus is inside the woman, he is subject to any actions the woman wishes to take upon it.
Nobody should be able to restrict the rights of a woman in function of protecting an unborn fetus inside the woman!
That's like claiming the body of a woman for her own fetus!
Why can't you respect the fact that the fetus can't have any individual rights, since it is not an individual?
Why should the woman be subject to the needs of the fetus?
No, she shouldn't!
Stop trying to protect a fucking fetus that is living inside the woman whose righst you're violating by imposing the damn fetuse's "rights"!
If the woman wants to get an abortion earlier she will, but if she doesn't, it's not your place to be a damn moralist when it comes to a matter affecting purely her own body!

BuyOurEverything

1st November 2003, 17:43

Yes I guess I did interpret it like that, cause you said "ya."

I asked when you thought a fetus became a life and quoted youas saying "at some point." I said ya as in 'ya exactly, you don't have an answer.' I'll edit it to prevent further confusion.

Well I care and it's completely relevant. I believe I, as well as a couple of others, have answered your question already- when a fertilized egg develops into a fetus. It is practically like a newborn baby. Your question is so radical. Yes we all have been these fertilized eggs. At that time, we were not quite living. As time passed, we developed into a being with life. As time passed. As time passes, a fertilized egg becomes this and if you kill it, then it is murder. There is no excuse to not get an abortion earlier anyways if the woman does not want her child.

But how do you tell when this point comes? Why do you support abortion at one stage but not another?

cubist

5th November 2003, 20:59

If you admit that it's not formed yet, how is it killing it? And if it's murder like you say, why would allow a woman that's been raped to do it. Would you allow a woman to kill her 6 year old son if he was the product of her being raped?

no i wouldn't that is stupid but to make a woman bare a child that was unlawfullyunwillfully conceeded is just fucking rude

BuyOurEverything

5th November 2003, 22:04

no i wouldn't that is stupid but to make a woman bare a child that was unlawfullyunwillfully conceeded is just fucking rude

So is it murder or isn't it? You can't have it both ways.

marxstudent

6th November 2003, 00:05

Again, like I said, there is no excuse for a woman to do it earlier when it is just a fertilized egg. A fetus has life. I think I'm going to stop here because all of us are just saying the same thing over and over. Y'all had some real good points though so thanks. ;)

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th November 2003, 00:41

The woman doesn't need to excuse herself to anybody.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

6th November 2003, 12:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 01:05 AM
Again, like I said, there is no excuse for a woman to do it earlier when it is just a fertilized egg. A fetus has life. I think I'm going to stop here because all of us are just saying the same thing over and over. Y'all had some real good points though so thanks. ;)
I'm stopping too. But I say it once again. :)

A fetus is completly dependant on the body of the woman, therefor it's not alive.

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th November 2003, 16:25

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Nov 6 2003, 07:14 AM
A fetus is completly dependant on the body of the woman, therefor it's not alive.
Sorry to dissagree with you, comarde, but it [/b]is[/b] alive. It's not an individual, however, and therefore it will be subject to the actions of its host.

cubist

6th November 2003, 20:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 11:04 PM

no i wouldn't that is stupid but to make a woman bare a child that was unlawfullyunwillfully conceeded is just fucking rude

So is it murder or isn't it? You can't have it both ways.
look wether it is or isn't you would be an asshole not to allow a raped woman to have an abortion

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th November 2003, 02:35

cephas, BOE is the pro-choice side :)

Tiki Man

7th November 2003, 03:15

My thoughts:

People do crazy shit every day. It's better to help them out with a real clinic than to have some woman die during a clotheshanger abortion. My grandmother died like that when my father was very young. If some woman wants an abortion, she will get one. Abortion clinics can not hurt.

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th November 2003, 03:19

agreed, tiki man

cubist

7th November 2003, 19:54

fair enough, i just thought it what i said was quite straightforward

BuyOurEverything

7th November 2003, 20:28

fair enough, i just thought it what i said was quite straightforward

Not really. You say it's murder but it would being cruel not to let her do it yet you didn't elaborate on that. You can't truly believe that childbirth is worse than "murder" even if she was raped. My point was your views are contradictory and make no fucking sense.

cubist

7th November 2003, 20:55

no i don't think child birth is worse than murder, but i would allow a raped woman to have an abortion!

i am pro personal rights and if a woman is raped she shouldn't be forced to even carry the mark of rape REMINDING HER EVERYDAY for 9 months that is inhumane far more than killing an embryo , now a woman who gets herself up the duff should live with it.

My mum was 15 years old when she had me she was 14 when i was concieved she lived with it why can't the rest of them,

truth is IF YOU DON'T WANT IT HAVE IT ADOPTED, but you shouldn't make someone who didn't make the decision bare the child if she chooses not to

Soviet power supreme

7th November 2003, 21:21

no i don't think child birth is worse than murder, but i would allow a raped woman to have an abortion!

Now why would you?
Why bastard fetus should have lesser right than normal fetus?

Well quite frankly it's a shame when someone has an abortion, but it's not the end of the world, millions of people die everyday, many of them die of curable illnesses but since they do not have access to clean water etc they cannot be cured, many die in war and violence, many die of old age.

Well i think this is stupid argument.The world would go on too if the mother dies.

This sperm thing and criminalising masturbation is stupid.Millions of sperms go waste in sex act because only one can fertilise the egg.Is that killing?Should we pick them up and put in storage?

Victor you are saying that no one can determine the decission but what about the father?It is his sperm inside the mother's body.

Tiki Man

7th November 2003, 21:35

Victor you are saying that no one can determine the decission but what about the father?It is his sperm inside the mother's body.

Actually, once something is removed from your body I beleive it is no longer yours. I remember reading something about scientists making money from a person's DNA or something like that. I think he was able to sue because they did not tell him their intent to profit from his sample. Something like that.

Soviet power supreme

7th November 2003, 21:51

So if liver is removed from my body it doesn't belong to me anymore?

Tiki Man

7th November 2003, 21:55

Yes, I guess, but taking your liver without your permission could be considered a crime. It would probably be returned if retreived because it was wrongfully taken.

But if you give a blood sample, or give semen with your consent, and it is used under your agreed terms, I suppose you have no rights of it.

You cannot ask for it back, unless it was stolen. Darn, I confused myself. Find an expert.

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th November 2003, 00:07

I think Tiki Man makes a solid argument.
No, the father has no rights to the fetus.
The body of the woman is neither property of the father or the fetus.
It is stricly of the woman.
The fetus may be subject to any decisions made by its mother.
Not the other way around.
The mother should not be subject to the needs of the child.

Cephas, the you cannot tell a woman what can and what can't be in her. It's not your business. You can't claim the body of a woman for a fetus. Just because an egg has come in contact with a sperm, does not mean that it is now under the government's protection. It's not an individual and will be subject the actions of its mother. It's absolutely inhumane to restrict the righst of a woman for simply having sex! And she does not need to explain herself to anyone or excuse her actions, it's a purely personal decision.

So answer me this: Why do you want to force a woman to live with her pregnancy? Has she done something wrong? Is an embryo or a fetus more important? Does the woman loose her individuality and suddenly become bound to her embryo when she has sex?

cubist

8th November 2003, 10:54

Why bastard fetus should have lesser right than normal fetus? WTF i never mentioded lesser right fetus rights???

So answer me this: Why do you want to force a woman to live with her pregnancy? Has she done something wrong? Is an embryo or a fetus more important? Does the woman loose her individuality and suddenly become bound to her embryo when she has sex?

YES, she knew what she was doing, she knew the risks why the fuck shouoldn't she live with her child that she created, it may have been absent minded fun that went tits up, but a man who accidently kills someone still takes the rap for it so why shouldn't someone who accidently creates something live with it

Soviet power supreme

8th November 2003, 12:03

This came from communist.

The chick has not been yet brought into society and it is the property of the chicken.

But what about if we broaden the perspective.

Not far in future there will be 9-10 billion people.That is too much and the world can't stand that much.Shouldn't we allow abortions because we need planned society.

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th November 2003, 14:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 05:54 AM
Why bastard fetus should have lesser right than normal fetus? WTF i never mentioded lesser right fetus rights???

So answer me this: Why do you want to force a woman to live with her pregnancy? Has she done something wrong? Is an embryo or a fetus more important? Does the woman loose her individuality and suddenly become bound to her embryo when she has sex?

YES, she knew what she was doing, she knew the risks why the fuck shouoldn't she live with her child that she created, it may have been absent minded fun that went tits up, but a man who accidently kills someone still takes the rap for it so why shouldn't someone who accidently creates something live with it
It's not a child. It's a damn embryo and after a few months, it's a fetus. It's not independant. It's not an individual. It sounds to me like you're not protecting the rights of the fetus, but rather subjecting the mother to the bondage of forcefuly tending to the needs of a clump of cells.

So what that she knew what she was doing? Does that matter? Just because you went swimming in a lake you knew was infested with leeches, does that mean that you must allow the leech to live on you?

The mother must be given the right to determine what exists in her. Just because she had sex doesn'r mean she should loose that right!

You can't claim the body of a woman for her own fetus.

No matter what she did.

You're analogy is full of shit!

It makes no sense!

You still have not explained to me why a woman should be forced to live with her fetus?

The fact that she created it has nothing to do with it.

I created a shit last night, am I not allowed to flush it?

You're a mysoginist and a chauvinist.

Soviet power supreme

8th November 2003, 15:16

I created a shit last night, am I not allowed to flush it?

No if we think like you.

It is not in your body anymore.

Child is not in her body after she gives birth.Why she can't beat her own child?

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th November 2003, 15:19

Okay, bad analogy.

:lol:

Sorry

mentalbunny

8th November 2003, 15:45

This is all about personal morality or whatever you want to call it.

Personally I'm up for people acting on their own beliefs but letting others do so too (ie people who want abortions should be able to have them in a safe environment, nobody should be forced either to have one or not to have one). I don't think it's for the state to interfere, I don't think the State's purpose is to look after your moral state.

And you may argue that it's about life and death but a lot of people clearly don't see it that way, the embryo is not an independent individual.

[email protected]

8th November 2003, 18:39

This topic is preety hectic,but I like the way Victor thinks. A mother and foetus relationship is in actual facts a parasitic relationship. The foetus lives in the mother's body and as Victor has made clear she can do everything and anything she likes with or to it,because of the simple fact that it is in her body and she therefore has ownership rights to it.No one should interefere between the owner and the owned,just like with the mother and foetus situation.She has a right to act in a way,that she deems is best for her,why should she sacrifice herself only because she is hosting a foetus in her body. In certain situations,I mean she might have thought that she wanted or maybe could afford the baby and then suddenly circumstances change and now she has to abort the foetus,in this case it is definitely irrelevant whether or not she knew what she was doing.No one actually has any right to annex the body of the woman for the sake of the foetus.

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th November 2003, 19:39

Absolutely right, Dlxko001! I didn't immediately say that I see it like a parasitic relationship for fear of being attacked, but that's just what it is! I guess I somewhat gave it away with my leech analogy, eh?
But thank you anyway, comrade, perhaps you'll stick around? :)

cubist

11th November 2003, 14:27

victor,

you call me a chauvinist becuase i believe women should bare the child and have it adopted,

fair enough i don't agree but it is an argument that involves far too much personal values to debate like this,

i see that abortion is an option, a good option if contraception didn't exist, but i fail to see why once the baby is formed inside the whomb why the mother shouldn't bare it. maybe abit of a rightwing atitude but sorry there is a personal issue you here i hope you see that,

the way i see it is you should be more carefull having sex if you don't want the eventual outcome. accidents happen yeah great, i was an accident but i was adopted!

Dr. Rosenpenis

11th November 2003, 16:01

Who are you to say what women should do?
Who are you to impiose inexistant consequences to sex?

Soviet power supreme

11th November 2003, 18:43

When human has rights?After the birth?

What has happened after birth?

Human is still part of woman's body.So Woman can kill her anytime she wants.

You can argue that human are more rational than fetuses , but it is still part of woman.

BuyOurEverything

11th November 2003, 19:38

no i don't think child birth is worse than murder, but i would allow a raped woman to have an abortion!

That doesn't even make sense. As I'm sure I've said before, would you let a raped woman shoot her 6 year old? You say that a fetus is human so how can you ever support abortion, even if the woman would die or be seriously injured or the baby would be severely brain damaged?

now a woman who gets herself up the duff should live with it.

Of course, cause the slut deserves it. The man who got her pregnant though is cool to go off and do whatever for the rest of his life and never help either of them.

My mum was 15 years old when she had me she was 14 when i was concieved she lived with it why can't the rest of them

That's great, and you know what? My mom doesn't eat pork so pig meat should be illegal.

When human has rights?After the birth?

What has happened after birth?

So what happened at conception? Two cells combined?

you call me a chauvinist becuase i believe women should bare the child and have it adopted,

fair enough i don't agree but it is an argument that involves far too much personal values to debate like this,

If you can't defend your personal values with facts and rational arguments, then your values are not valid.

Dr. Rosenpenis

11th November 2003, 21:32

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 11 2003, 01:43 PM
When human has rights?After the birth?

What has happened after birth?

Human is still part of woman's body.So Woman can kill her anytime she wants.

You can argue that human are more rational than fetuses , but it is still part of woman.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/negative8.jpg

Soviet power supreme

12th November 2003, 20:28

Was my English that bad. :huh:

I meant that human is piece of womans body.

You Victor will always be a piece of your mother and she can kill you anytime she wants.

BuyOurEverything

12th November 2003, 20:35

You... will always be a piece of your mother and she can kill you anytime she wants.

Um, no, we're seperate entities from our mothers. I fmy mom died, I wouldn't die too.

Tiki Man

12th November 2003, 20:58

Yep, once that cord is severed...

Why wouldn't the father be allowed to kill it? His sperm's chromosomes were spread through them....

Andrei Kuznetsov

12th November 2003, 21:12

Fetuses are as much unborn children as we are pre-dead corpses. <_<

Women are not incubators. Fetuses are not children. We cannot allow this disgusting attack on the rights of women to happen; we must organize and resist.

Dr. Rosenpenis

13th November 2003, 01:23

Absolutely, Andrei!

Tiki man, I thought we had been through this before.
The child is not in the man.
The child is not dependant on the man.
The man has no room to determine what may exist within a woman's body.

cubist

14th November 2003, 14:28

RedFW

14th November 2003, 15:57

Women who seek late term abortions do so because either their health is at risk or they have been informed the fetus will have a medical condition that will cause it potential suffering. There is no evidence that women whimsically change their minds in the seventh month of pregnancy and phone their clinician up to book an abortion.

The very fact that there is no medical exception for women, in my view, is not accidental and proves the point. The women whose lives depend upon a late term abortion or women who want to prevent giving birth to a child and watching it live in pain are prevented from having a safe, legal abortion whilst the pro-life movement can claim to be preventing impetuous, irrational women in the last trimester of pregnancy from 'murdering their babies'. But simply passing a law that would limit late-term abortion would be redundant, that is why there is no medical exception.

Make the law extremely vague so that is could cover any number of procedures possibly at various stages in the pregnancy, provide no medical exception and slap 'partial-birth abortion' on it and the result is two-fold: Prevent as many women as possible, for whatever reason, from having access to abortion and in the process demonize all women who choose abortion.

And really, why does concern for the 'unborn child' magically stop when women give birth? The same people, particularly in the US, who are working toward a complete ban of abortion always seem to be the first to cut medical care, food provision and financial assistance to mothers with children.

I think it is slightly ridiculous to insist that a man be allowed to have any authority over a woman's decision to have an abortion. Giving the woman the right to make that decision should not, and IME most 'feminist' arguments for it are not based upon the fetus being 'half her'. The fetus is dependent upon the woman's body, not the man's when developing.

And whilst it is becoming more acceptable for fathers to be primary care-givers, the number of mothers who are primary care givers, indeed the number of single mothers and mothers where there is no involvement from a 'biological' father is far greater.

But really, I think it has already been argued, at least in several other threads about abortion is that what it all comes down to is women (and children) as the property of men. A woman carrying a fetus with half your chromosomes doesn't and shouldn't give you the right to either terminate the pregnancy or force her to continue it. Her body does not become your property simply because it is impregnated with half your chromosomes. If you don't want your partner to have an abortion then you should seek to conceive with a woman who shares your view or ensure you don't conceive at all.

Dr. Rosenpenis

14th November 2003, 16:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 09:28 AM
victor tiki has a point during the time in which the fetus is incubated is the man allowed to ask for the abortion it is actually half him after all? if abortion is allowed surely the man has a right too or are you just a feminist
No, it's not half him. The child is inside teh woman. How do you suppose it will be worked out if the man has equal say in deciding whether or not the fetus lives? There are 2 people involved, then. One says yes, one says no. What do you do? The man cannot determine what can exist in the woman. That's ridiculous. Why can teh man claim the woman's body for "his" child?

And yes, i am a femenist. Is there a problem with that?

Tiki Man

15th November 2003, 06:31

Nothing wrong with defending a woman's rights, I just want to point out that the chromosomes carried in that fetus partly belonged to the sperm. Also I would like to point out legal responsibilities of being a father for the child, so he should have a say into the abortion, should he not?

I remember a movie and a woman faked miscarriages by abortion and then she finally told him... Hardly related at all, but it's strange to remember such a scene from a movie for so long.

BuyOurEverything

15th November 2003, 06:41

Nothing wrong with defending a woman's rights, I just want to point out that the chromosomes carried in that fetus partly belonged to the sperm. Also I would like to point out legal responsibilities of being a father for the child, so he should have a say into the abortion, should he not?

Of course he should not. It is not a child, it has no needs outside those that the mother provides and has no rights because it's not human and is part of the mother. The fact that it contains his chromosomes is irrelevant.

EneME

15th November 2003, 08:01

Personally, I'm pro-choice and believe in a woman's right to choose to do whatever she wants with her body. Eventhough "pro-life" advocates try to put a stamp on abortion as "murdering" a wanted being. It is not, most don't think about what kind of life that being is going to have in this world. Just because it BREATHES doesn't mean it is wanted, and most ppl know what kind of horrible adoption/foster care system we have in the USA especially. These unwanted kids are brought into a world and very likely to suffer unfortunatly through molestation, neglect, phys. and sex. abuse...personally I wouldn't wish that on a child. They will of course grow up to be adults, and who knows what kind of adults they will be, it is known that abuse/neglect have created most of the worlds violent criminals. Of course a woman should think of these things when she has sex, but its UP TO HER just like its a crack-heads option to smoke crack. A fetus is dependent on a mother therefore, it is up to her to grow a healthy baby or to terminate it for her own reasons. If she were to be forced to do so, she still has the option to grow an UNhealthy baby depending on what kind of environment the mother predisposes the fetus to. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is something that DOES happen, and I don't know about you, but if a child is going to live suffering daily (b/c of birth defects or the system) I would rather terminate it on behalf of the fetus. Morality is at play here, but the state has no purpose on deciding what is morally right and what is morally wrong, are we going to go back to times where women would die cuz of unhealthy abortions? It is a womans right to decide what will become of her fertilized egg because she created it and she will continue to create it inside of HER...

Mr Mojo Risin

15th November 2003, 08:40

an easy argument: If the baby is already going to be born, just let the little bastard come out and let him be adopted.

Respect for life AND a woman. A better result for the baby, the same result for mom.

DUH!!

EneME

15th November 2003, 09:15

*shakes head* sounds so simple.... step into the shoes of a scared 15 year old girl, a date rape victim, or an adopted child who never finds a home who goes from foster care house to group homes and never really feels loved or wanted? How will that child be a functioning member of society? It is up to her what happens with her body and that piece of her...

Dr. Rosenpenis

15th November 2003, 15:01

Originally posted by Mr Mojo Risin'@Nov 15 2003, 03:40 AM
an easy argument: If the baby is already going to be born, just let the little bastard come out and let him be adopted.

Respect for life AND a woman. A better result for the baby, the same result for mom.

DUH!!
I would do the same, but I'm not the woman in question. It's not my business. I'm not going to judge her for making a purely personal decision. I'm not going to infringe on her rights. She does not ahve to excuse herself to me or anyone.

RedFW

15th November 2003, 18:37

A friend e-mailed me this article, which I think is relevant to this thread:

A picture's worth 1,000 hateful words

By HEATHER MALLICK
UPDATED AT 8:42 AM EST Saturday, Nov. 15, 2003

There can be few things that more eloquently express the male hatred and fear of women than the recent Associated Press photo of Junior Bush signing into law a ban on late-term abortions while surrounded by six grinning middle-aged Talibanic white men in suits. There isn't a woman in sight. Any all-male or all-female gathering of humans spells trouble. This would be your classic case.

These men are clapping because they have just signed a law bullying the saddest, most frightened women in the United States -- the tiny group of pregnant women who have just seen their past-20-week ultrasound and been told things like, "Ma'am, it doesn't have a head."

Until these men had it their way, most women in these straits would have tried to obtain a late-term abortion, the accurate description of what these men prefer to call a "partial-birth" abortion. The fetus may have any of a number of conditions: spina bifida, lacking a skull, etc. Late-term abortions are performed in Canada, but are, and have always been, very rare. Now, in the United States, these men say the deformed fetus must be carried to term without considering the mother's health. She may have wanted to do this anyway. The men dwell lovingly on upsetting phrases such as "skull-crushing." But the main point is not the medical technique used for the abortion, it is that she no longer has any say in the matter. Even 12-year-old rape victims who didn't realize they were pregnant would have to go through with it. It rivals female circumcision for cruelty and pointless misery.

It still isn't easy for a Canadian woman to get an abortion, but at least she has a chance, and her health comes first. I feel chewed up with sorrow for American women.

All these men in the photo are applauding, none more enthusiastically than Republican Senator Rick Santorum, a father of six, whose claim to fame is saying that if Americans allowed homosexuality, they would have to allow bigamy, incest, adultery and "anything." By "anything," he means sex with furniture or raccoons. What he wants mandated is missionary-position sex with the lifelong spouse lifting her nightshirt for yearly planting. I don't think men or women want sex like that tonight. Given the choice, I'd rather have my wisdom teeth reinserted. I kept them just in case.

Let's meet the guys in the photo. From left, we see House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Likes: semi-automatic weapons, death penalty. Dislikes: patients' bill of rights); Senator Orrin Hatch (Likes: death penalty, writing 300 songs about love. Dislikes: flag-burning, gays who complain of being fired for gaiety); Representative James Sensenbrenner (Likes: faster death penalties, faster gun purchasing. Dislikes: alternative fuels); Rick Santorum (we've already met); Representative James Oberstar (Likes: death penalty, old people paying for own medication. Dislikes: World Trade Organization, smut); Senator Mike DeWine (Likes: death penalty, big school classes. Dislikes: trigger locks on guns).

Weird how these men are pro-life right up to the point of birth, when they suddenly become rigidly pro-death.

Globe and Mail article (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20031115/MALLICK15/TPColumnists/)

DRAGOON

19th February 2004, 22:00

Okay relax, look im a woman and i disagree with the idea of abortion, i think that the perspective of being pro-choice is idiotic.

being a woman is no excuse for not believing women should be able to have control over their own body

DRAGOON

19th February 2004, 22:03

victor tiki has a point during the time in which the fetus is incubated is the man allowed to ask for the abortion it is actually half him after all? if abortion is allowed surely the man has a right too or are you just a feminist
um a baby is not half of the father and half of the mother, it is an independent organism.

a fetus is not half the fathr, half the mother, it is a part of the body of the woman, ad has not developed into an independent organism.

think 'body part'

Fidel Castro

19th February 2004, 23:43

She was a girl from Birmingham
She just has an abortion
She was a case of insanity
Her name was Pauline she lived in a tree.

She was a no-one who killed her baby
She sent her letters from the country
She was an animal
SHE WAS A BLOODY DISGRACE!

Body, I'm not an animal
Mommy, I'm not an animal

Dragged on a table in a factory
Illigitamate place to be
In a packet in the lavatory
Die a little baby, SCREAMING!

Screaming fucking bloody mess
Not an animal, it's an abortion!

Body, I'm not an animal
Mommy, I'm not an abortion!

Fuck this and Fuck that
Fuck it all and fuck that fucking brat!
She don't want a baby that looks like that
I don't want a baby that looks like that!

Body, I'm not an animal
Mommy, I'm not an animal

(Bodies, by the Sex Pistols)