Abortion [Archive]

Invader Zim

5th December 2003, 22:44

Originally posted by Rastafari+Nov 30 2003, 09:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rastafari @ Nov 30 2003, 09:58 PM)
Soviet power [email protected] 30 2003, 05:50 PM
Again I didn't say that I'm fully conservative.Not even close. Just few thoughts.

Like banning drugs and banning abortions.
Pro-Life => Anti-woman, and I challenge anyone to prove the contrary

When you ban all drugs, do you know what'll happen to the economy? [/b]
Well I can never resist a challenge, I am of course pro choice, but all this-anti women stuff is crap, Just because a person believes in preserving the existance of a fetus, does not mean that they dislike women, it just means that they are unhappy with the idea of destroying potential. As for proof, you can not prove anything, in a philosophical argument such as this. I can equily say to you to prove it is that pro life is anti woman.

pretty misogynic if you ask me

Hardly, chauvinistic perhaps, but I dont think that what he said constitutes as a hatred of Women. In fact I would say your on pretty dodgy ground with chauvinistic as well.

the tobacco and alcohol industries alone employ millions of employees probally say the same about other drugs too

They also promote third world slave labour, early death and a general decrease in quality of life, a thourghly capitalistic vice IMO.

Anti-child because it's a murder.

You can not murder what is not alive.

It shouldn't mean anything!!! It means too much as it is. The only way it should matter for shit is if the two are married. Then, barely.

Well in danger of sounding "misogynic", it takes two to tango, of course the lady should make the final decision, but the man's view should be taken into account.

Abortion is about choice, not about murder or childrens rights or mens rights. It is about womyn, their bodies, and their right to choose.

As nice as it would be for that to be true... its not, what you are describing is very nieve, IMO. Their are so many that disagree it very much becomes about "murder or childrens rights or mens rights" as you can not just dicount these completely ligitimate opinions.

There are many people who are "pro-life" but yet support the bombing of clinics, the killing of abortion providers, and even the death penalty. So explain to me how this in any way is pro-life.

You cannot characterise the opinions of an entire group, by the actions of an extream minority of that group. its the same as saying, some animal rights protesters bomb animal testing facilities. All animal rights activists are terrorists. Sorry but it wont cut.

From this thread you cant really see, but I am actually pro choice. But some of the pro chioce arguments are illogical.

Soviet power supreme

5th December 2003, 23:07

Would you consider a law that let women get their apendixes removed without their boyfriend's consent anti-man?

Don't be a fool.Fetus is part of a man, appendix is not.

it's pro-child because it won't force women into having kids they can't afford and starving their kids that are already alive. Or having kids they don't want and neglecting them.

Ever heard a thing called adoption?

You can not murder what is not alive.
Fetus isn't alive?How does it last for 9 months?

Invader Zim

5th December 2003, 23:12

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 6 2003, 12:07 AM

Would you consider a law that let women get their apendixes removed without their boyfriend's consent anti-man?

Don't be a fool.Fetus is part of a man, appendix is not.

it's pro-child because it won't force women into having kids they can't afford and starving their kids that are already alive. Or having kids they don't want and neglecting them.

Ever heard a thing called adoption?

You can not murder what is not alive.
Fetus isn't alive?How does it last for 9 months?
Fetus isn't alive?How does it last for 9 months?

A Tuma can last years, and is that alive, or is it mearly part of a person?

This simple test of life is, to remove the fetus, if it can survive it is alive, if it cant it is a group of complex cells.

Soul Rebel

5th December 2003, 23:13

You obviously missed where i said "many" anti-choicers. I did not say all supported these certain things. See, "many" is the key word in my sentence. Im referring only to a select few not all. Many does not mean all.

How is it naive to think that it is choice? Thats what it is. There is no child involved. You have to be realistic about this. Just because a religious group believes that a soul starts at conception doesnt mean its true. Its a matter of interpretation, which is why some religious groups do support abortion. We can not have laws being built on religious interpretation, even though it does happen. Laws and religious beliefs should not interfer with a womans choice as to what she does with her body and her life. Its her body, nobody elses. Therefore nobody besides the woman can say what she does with her body.

and no it has nothing to do with mens rights. they can walk away at any time during the pregnancy, which happens all the time, while the woman cannot. they can walk away before or after the baby is born. just because he donated sperm doesnt mean he has any right to the baby or the womans body.

If anything, its anti-choice arguments that are illogical- some basing it on religious beliefs and others on ignorance (such as avoiding the economic aspect of abortion, that womyn would die at larger amounts without abortion, that childbirth is more dangerous than abortion and could kill both mother and fetus, that adoption is the best choice when its not, etc.)

by the way, you contradicted yourself- you tell me that i cant avoid that it is about childrens rights, when you yourself say you cant murder what isnt alive. that makes no sense.

Soul Rebel

5th December 2003, 23:19

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 6 2003, 12:07 AM

Would you consider a law that let women get their apendixes removed without their boyfriend's consent anti-man?

Don't be a fool.Fetus is part of a man, appendix is not.

it's pro-child because it won't force women into having kids they can't afford and starving their kids that are already alive. Or having kids they don't want and neglecting them.

Ever heard a thing called adoption?

You can not murder what is not alive.
Fetus isn't alive?How does it last for 9 months?
adoption is not a reasonable solution. there are already too many children in this unreliable system. so many children end up stuck in there and never get out. they end up suffering because of it. how would you feel growing up knowing that nobody wanted to you? thats great- lets give birth to children so they can growup to feel unwanted, unloved, and worthless. thats a great way to live.

Soviet power supreme

5th December 2003, 23:33

adoption is not a reasonable solution. there are already too many children in this unreliable system. so many children end up stuck in there and never get out. they end up suffering because of it. how would you feel growing up knowing that nobody wanted to you? thats great- lets give birth to children so they can growup to feel unwanted, unloved, and worthless. thats a great way to live.

Says you.Are you gonna decide what is good life?Are you gonna decide for them that they don't wanna live?

Invader Zim

5th December 2003, 23:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 12:13 AM
You obviously missed where i said "many" anti-choicers. I did not say all supported these certain things. See, "many" is the key word in my sentence. Im referring only to a select few not all. Many does not mean all.

How is it naive to think that it is choice? Thats what it is. There is no child involved. You have to be realistic about this. Just because a religious group believes that a soul starts at conception doesnt mean its true. Its a matter of interpretation, which is why some religious groups do support abortion. We can not have laws being built on religious interpretation, even though it does happen. Laws and religious beliefs should not interfer with a womans choice as to what she does with her body and her life. Its her body, nobody elses. Therefore nobody besides the woman can say what she does with her body.

and no it has nothing to do with mens rights. they can walk away at any time during the pregnancy, which happens all the time, while the woman cannot. they can walk away before or after the baby is born. just because he donated sperm doesnt mean he has any right to the baby or the womans body.

If anything, its anti-choice arguments that are illogical- some basing it on religious beliefs and others on ignorance (such as avoiding the economic aspect of abortion, that womyn would die at larger amounts without abortion, that childbirth is more dangerous than abortion and could kill both mother and fetus, that adoption is the best choice when its not, etc.)

by the way, you contradicted yourself- you tell me that i cant avoid that it is about childrens rights, when you yourself say you cant murder what isnt alive. that makes no sense.
You obviously missed where i said "many" anti-choicers. I did not say all supported these certain things. See, "many" is the key word in my sentence. Im referring only to a select few not all. Many does not mean all.

I didn't miss it, but I misinterprited your point. I though that you were characterising the pro-life movment with the actions of these "many" people. My bad.

How is it naive to think that it is choice?

Its naive to dismiss the arguments of the pro lifers, and saying its all choise or not.

Thats what it is.

In your opinion and thats the whole reason why its naive, as you are simply dismissing the arguments of the pro lifers in a very black and white way, in a very grey situation... I hope i'm making sense to you, because this is shockingly hard to convey...

There is no child involved.

But when does a child become a child rather than a fetus?

You have to be realistic about this.

I'm being practical.

Just because a religious group believes that a soul starts at conception doesnt mean its true.

Religion is rubbish, and I never denied it, but you still cannot dictate your opinion to them whether they believe in the soul or the tooth fairy.

Laws and religious beliefs should not interfer with a womans choice as to what she does with her body and her life.

true, but as she is pregnant it becomes a whole new discussion. If you beat a and cause her fetus to miscarrie, is that murder or GBH? You see what I mean about black and white? As much as you would like to dismiss the fetus as being an inanimate object until the point its born, you cant. Dispite what I was saying about life and tuma's before, a lot of people disagree with me, with perfectly valid arguments, who am I to tell them I am right they are wrong.

Therefore nobody besides the woman can say what she does with her body.

Again you look in black and white mode, you believe this but millions of others dont, and a fetus is the product of a man, and is still potential for life, it become more than just a case of "the woman can say what she does with her body."

and no it has nothing to do with mens rights.

You tell that to the millions of men who disagree, and see what they have to say.

they can walk away at any time during the pregnancy,

Your right they can, but you cannot judge all men by the actions of the selfish few.

they can walk away before or after the baby is born.

After the birth so can the mother, its called adoption, and their is such a thing as single farthers as well you know.

just because he donated sperm doesnt mean he has any right to the baby or the womans body.

An accessory to the crime always gets punished for the full crime... yet they are not entitled to an equil share, rather singlar isn't it.

If anything, its anti-choice arguments that are illogical

Of course they are the majority of them are made by ignorant men who will never be pregnant.

you tell me that i cant avoid that it is about childrens rights,

No I told you that you cant dismiss that opinion, i never said i aheared to it, you just presumed I did, because I pointed it out, wrong i'm afraid.

The underlying point of my post is you cant just dismiss these arguments, as the pro lifers cant just dismiss yours, as niether of you are wrong or right, its all just opinion.

Soul Rebel

5th December 2003, 23:58

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 6 2003, 12:33 AM

adoption is not a reasonable solution. there are already too many children in this unreliable system. so many children end up stuck in there and never get out. they end up suffering because of it. how would you feel growing up knowing that nobody wanted to you? thats great- lets give birth to children so they can growup to feel unwanted, unloved, and worthless. thats a great way to live.

Says you.Are you gonna decide what is good life?Are you gonna decide for them that they don't wanna live?
wow, how ignorant can you be. i cant believe you would deny that is a horrible way to live. that is so sad.

Soul Rebel

6th December 2003, 00:20

Originally posted by Enigma+Dec 6 2003, 12:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Dec 6 2003, 12:55 AM)
[email protected] 6 2003, 12:13 AM
You obviously missed where i said "many" anti-choicers. I did not say all supported these certain things. See, "many" is the key word in my sentence. Im referring only to a select few not all. Many does not mean all.

How is it naive to think that it is choice? Thats what it is. There is no child involved. You have to be realistic about this. Just because a religious group believes that a soul starts at conception doesnt mean its true. Its a matter of interpretation, which is why some religious groups do support abortion. We can not have laws being built on religious interpretation, even though it does happen. Laws and religious beliefs should not interfer with a womans choice as to what she does with her body and her life. Its her body, nobody elses. Therefore nobody besides the woman can say what she does with her body.

and no it has nothing to do with mens rights. they can walk away at any time during the pregnancy, which happens all the time, while the woman cannot. they can walk away before or after the baby is born. just because he donated sperm doesnt mean he has any right to the baby or the womans body.

If anything, its anti-choice arguments that are illogical- some basing it on religious beliefs and others on ignorance (such as avoiding the economic aspect of abortion, that womyn would die at larger amounts without abortion, that childbirth is more dangerous than abortion and could kill both mother and fetus, that adoption is the best choice when its not, etc.)

by the way, you contradicted yourself- you tell me that i cant avoid that it is about childrens rights, when you yourself say you cant murder what isnt alive. that makes no sense.
You obviously missed where i said "many" anti-choicers. I did not say all supported these certain things. See, "many" is the key word in my sentence. Im referring only to a select few not all. Many does not mean all.

I didn't miss it, but I misinterprited your point. I though that you were characterising the pro-life movment with the actions of these "many" people. My bad.

How is it naive to think that it is choice?

Its naive to dismiss the arguments of the pro lifers, and saying its all choise or not.

Thats what it is.

In your opinion and thats the whole reason why its naive, as you are simply dismissing the arguments of the pro lifers in a very black and white way, in a very grey situation... I hope i'm making sense to you, because this is shockingly hard to convey...

There is no child involved.

But when does a child become a child rather than a fetus?

You have to be realistic about this.

I'm being practical.

Just because a religious group believes that a soul starts at conception doesnt mean its true.

Religion is rubbish, and I never denied it, but you still cannot dictate your opinion to them whether they believe in the soul or the tooth fairy.

Laws and religious beliefs should not interfer with a womans choice as to what she does with her body and her life.

true, but as she is pregnant it becomes a whole new discussion. If you beat a and cause her fetus to miscarrie, is that murder or GBH? You see what I mean about black and white? As much as you would like to dismiss the fetus as being an inanimate object until the point its born, you cant. Dispite what I was saying about life and tuma's before, a lot of people disagree with me, with perfectly valid arguments, who am I to tell them I am right they are wrong.

Therefore nobody besides the woman can say what she does with her body.

Again you look in black and white mode, you believe this but millions of others dont, and a fetus is the product of a man, and is still potential for life, it become more than just a case of "the woman can say what she does with her body."

and no it has nothing to do with mens rights.

You tell that to the millions of men who disagree, and see what they have to say.

they can walk away at any time during the pregnancy,

Your right they can, but you cannot judge all men by the actions of the selfish few.

they can walk away before or after the baby is born.

After the birth so can the mother, its called adoption, and their is such a thing as single farthers as well you know.

just because he donated sperm doesnt mean he has any right to the baby or the womans body.

An accessory to the crime always gets punished for the full crime... yet they are not entitled to an equil share, rather singlar isn't it.

If anything, its anti-choice arguments that are illogical

Of course they are the majority of them are made by ignorant men who will never be pregnant.

you tell me that i cant avoid that it is about childrens rights,

No I told you that you cant dismiss that opinion, i never said i aheared to it, you just presumed I did, because I pointed it out, wrong i'm afraid.

The underlying point of my post is you cant just dismiss these arguments, as the pro lifers cant just dismiss yours, as niether of you are wrong or right, its all just opinion. [/b]
its cool :)

see, the thing is that i dont dismiss their arguments. i do listen to them, just as i would hope people would listen to my arguments about animal rights for example. i just dont like the whole religion argument- i dont find it a valid point, but i do listen to it.

actually, the anti-choice arguement is naive for reasons i already mentioned: they tend to forget that such things as economic stability, education, etc. which all contribute to the decision making process in abortion. people tend to forget that its more than just one choice and one issue- its a variety of issues, which i think most pro-choice arguments do cover.

a fetus becomes a child when it is out of the mother and can survive on its own (not needing the mothers body for survival).

there is a difference between abortion and then killing the fetus of the mother. in abortion, the mother decided to terminate the pregnancy. however, if someone else kills the womans fetus without her consent or desire for this is a different scenerio. its a very tough call- to categorize it as murder or not, but i do believe someone should be punished if they kill the womans fetus without her consent (or does anything to her body without her consent).

the fetus is the product of the woman and man, not man. however, it is the woman that supports this fetus throughout the nine months, not the man. so therefore the mother should have the choice.

i never denied that a mother can walk away, but the reality is that more men walk away. its undeniable.

and i know there are single fathers, but once again, there are many, many more single mothers. and almost all of them live in poverty- check the stats. this is another reason why abortion needs to be an option- affordability.

Soviet power supreme

6th December 2003, 13:09

wow, how ignorant can you be. i cant believe you would deny that is a horrible way to live. that is so sad.

Horrible?I cant believe you choose death instead life no matter how poor the family would be.

adoption is not a reasonable solution. there are already too many children in this unreliable system. so many children end up stuck in there and never get out. they end up suffering because of it. how would you feel growing up knowing that nobody wanted to you? thats great- lets give birth to children so they can growup to feel unwanted, unloved, and worthless. thats a great way to live.

How would i feel?I would feel alive.I doubt that children in poor families wishes that they would have been aborted.

and i know there are single fathers, but once again, there are many, many more single mothers. and almost all of them live in poverty- check the stats. this is another reason why abortion needs to be an option- affordability.

Yes africans live in poverty.Lets waste em and stop their suffering.

But seriously how can you put money first and then child?

a fetus becomes a child when it is out of the mother and can survive on its own (not needing the mothers body for survival).

You say that fetus is part of woman's body.After birth it is still part of woman's body but it isn't inside her anymore.So what stops her killing it after birth?Why should child have any rights if fetus haven't got any?

Soul Rebel

6th December 2003, 16:50

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 6 2003, 02:09 PM

wow, how ignorant can you be. i cant believe you would deny that is a horrible way to live. that is so sad.

Horrible?I cant believe you choose death instead life no matter how poor the family would be.

adoption is not a reasonable solution. there are already too many children in this unreliable system. so many children end up stuck in there and never get out. they end up suffering because of it. how would you feel growing up knowing that nobody wanted to you? thats great- lets give birth to children so they can growup to feel unwanted, unloved, and worthless. thats a great way to live.

How would i feel?I would feel alive.I doubt that children in poor families wishes that they would have been aborted.

and i know there are single fathers, but once again, there are many, many more single mothers. and almost all of them live in poverty- check the stats. this is another reason why abortion needs to be an option- affordability.

Yes africans live in poverty.Lets waste em and stop their suffering.

But seriously how can you put money first and then child?

a fetus becomes a child when it is out of the mother and can survive on its own (not needing the mothers body for survival).

You say that fetus is part of woman's body.After birth it is still part of woman's body but it isn't inside her anymore.So what stops her killing it after birth?Why should child have any rights if fetus haven't got any?
You took what i said completely out of context.

I am not choosing death over life. However, you have to understand that living a life deprived of love, understanding, the feeling of being wanted, family, and other joys in life it does feel as though you are dead or want to be dead. I have friends who have been through foster care and adoption and its not fun. They felt uncared for as children. Also, you need to care that a lot of children suffer the affects of racism when in these institutions. Minorities are often the ones left behind until they are eighteen. Theres a lot more involved in adoption then you think.

Have you ever talked to kids raised in poor families? So many of them miss out on their childhood because they have to be sitters while parents are out, many drop out of school to help support the family, they go without many things that other children do get to enjoy, etc. Do you know what this is like for poor children? It sucks because they know whats going on- they see it. You have to give them more credit- they are not ignorant to their situation. They dont exactly feel good about it. I mean ive seen this at the shelters where i volunteered, at parties we through for poverty striken children, at clothing drives for families, etc.

Also, you cannot say that many poor mothers dont wish to abort. I am not saying that they do wish too either. But you need to understand that many cannot afford contraceptives or abortion and so end up having the child.

I never once even hinted that we should get rid of the poor so there is no need for the africa example. Also, if you want to touch on that subject than explain to me the high rates of infanticide that take place in the Third World. You dont know what its like for these mothers to watch their children suffer from starvation, lack of education, lack of shelter, diseases,etc. As a solution many mothers kill their infants. Why should they have to put their children through unnecessary suffering (which is due because of the First World)?

Before you put words in my mouth you better understand what my argument is first. There is no need for you to make up whatever you want out of my argument. I never ever hinted that i put money before people. If that was the case i would not be a communist, i would be a capitalist. What i specifically said was that you anti-choicers need to take economics into consideration when dealing with the abortion issue. It is very much an issue that you tend to ignore. This does not in any way translate into "money before people."

Once out of the body- it is an individual, so therefore it does deserve rights. It no longer depends on the womans body, so therefore it is not longer part of her body. And just because its out of her body it doesnt stop her from killing it (im not saying its right, but it doesnt stop). Like i said- infanticide (which also happens in the us) is common. Always has been and will always be common.

Soviet power supreme

6th December 2003, 17:36

I have friends who have been through foster care and adoption and its not fun. They felt uncared for as children. Also, you need to care that a lot of children suffer the affects of racism when in these institutions. Minorities are often the ones left behind until they are eighteen. Theres a lot more involved in adoption then you think.

Ask your friends that if they had the power would they have aborted themselves?

Why these money which goes to abortion clinics couldn't be used to build better shelters?

Hampton

6th December 2003, 18:28

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 6 2003, 01:36 PM
Why these money which goes to abortion clinics couldn't be used to build better shelters?
If you get the abortion you don't need the shelter.

Soviet power supreme

6th December 2003, 19:46

If you get the abortion you don't need the shelter.

Damn I'm stunned by your clever argument.

Yes damn those orphans.Lets take their shelters.They dont produce anything but they live on our expence.

BuyOurEverything

6th December 2003, 23:48

Yes damn those orphans.Lets take their shelters.They dont produce anything but they live on our expence.

What the fuck are you talking about? Aborted fetuses don't need places to live.

The fact is, there are not enough people willing to adopt as it is. If you stop abortion, it will be far far worse.

Why these money which goes to abortion clinics couldn't be used to build better shelters?

Shelters for whom? There's far better places we get the money to build shelters from than taking it away from abortion clinics.

Soul Rebel

7th December 2003, 00:52

Soviet P.S- i think you are out of your mind. Your arguments are making no sense whatsoever. You take everything we say completely out of context.

What hampton was trying to say was that many people would not have to be in a shelter had they the opportunity to avoid pregnancy or having a child. Im not sure if you know how much it costs to have a child, during and after pregnancy. It can wipe you out financially- leaving you with little to nothing. He said nothing about taking money from orphans.

And also im really sorry to inform you that hardly any money goes into abortion clinics. Places such as Planned Parenthood have lost tons of funding (thanks to gvrnmnts) because they offer abortion- they basically survive on the donations of the public.

hazard

7th December 2003, 03:33

senorache:

I must ask, in reference to your claim that adopted children feel "unwanted and unloved", how much of this can be attributed to the prochoice campaign? there are some that believe in order to furthur this movement, adopted children and people should be even more excessively shunned from society to force this belief on others. I really don't know why else you would make such claims as you did. I know a few adopted people and they feel neither unwanted or unloved. an attitude such as yours is rather disgusting in reference to these people. and to think you raise such a point in order to defend an already questionable practice.

so, abortion should remain legal because adopted children are "unwanted and unloved"? thats absolutely disgusting.

Guest1

7th December 2003, 03:55

hazard, your post reaks of conspiracy theory. you're trying to paint pro-choicers as evil people who would go out of their way to make people feel bad or something. that's rediculous.

I think if you read senorache's post, she was actually talking about the children up for adoptiuon who don't get adopted. the reality is, that's alot of them. the system is so over-burdened, that they just can't get all of them adopted.

Hampton

7th December 2003, 04:00

Children in foster care often struggle with the following issues:
-blaming themselves and feeling guilty about removal from their birth parents
-wishing to return to birth parents even if they were abused by them
-feeling unwanted if awaiting adoption for a long time
-feeling helpless about multiple changes in foster parents over time
-having mixed emotions about attaching to foster parents
-feeling insecure and uncertain about their future
-reluctantly acknowledging positive feelings for foster parents

Reimbursement rates for foster parents are lower in most states than the true costs of providing routine care for the child. Important challenges for foster parents include:
-recognizing the limits of their emotional attachment to the child
-understanding mixed feelings toward the child's birth parents
-recognizing their difficulties in letting the child return to birth parents
-dealing with the complex needs (emotional, physical, etc.) of children in their care
-working with sponsoring social agencies
-finding needed support services in the community
-dealing with the child's emotions and behavior following visits with birth parents

I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that some adopted kids may have a feeling of not being where they really belong, whether it be because of the first set or reasons or because the parents who adopted them, if it's the first, second, or third time that they change foster parents. I don't think knowing one or two adopted kids can cover the entire spectrum of kids waiting for someone to take them in, which is what you're attempting to do. I have two cousins who are adopted who don't feel unwanted or unloved but I'm sure not every child is that lucky and that there are some parents who underestimate what adoptions entails and some of the stresses that comes with it.

And blaming it on the "pro-choice campaign" is horse feathers, misleading, and irresponsible to what the goals and aims of those who are pro choice.

Link (http://www.aacap.org/publications/factsfam/64.htm)

hazard

7th December 2003, 05:26

let me put it this way

I've heard of pro-choicers go so far as to refer to adopted children as botched abortions

this sort of sickening display of disgust cannot be tolerated

I may have misread senoraches intention, but this mindset is horrible and sickening and is out there

RedCeltic

7th December 2003, 05:27

Anti-choice legislation is nothing more than an attempt to install male dominance over a woman that they would not otherwise be able to control. Anthropologically speaking, we do not simply see this in the modern age of western society, but in the tribal societies that are more male dominated than egalitarian. Among some tribal societies in Africa for example, it is common for the male to be in charge of a child's initiation, which is considered to be a “second birth.” This allows the male to gain more control over an aspect of social life that is normally in egalitarian tribal society, controlled by the female.

I make the argument, as Frederick Engels does in “Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the state"… that the egalitarian society is that which is most natural, the first form of society, and therefore the form of society we naturally must turn to.

If this is true, and Engels is correct in his assumptions than for us to turn forwards to a more egalitarian society, childbirth must thus be an empowerment of the female sex and not a burden. Simply depositing your seed inside of a woman does not mean you have shared the burden of childbirth. The choice of bringing a pregnancy to full term, delivering it, than asked to give up something that came out of your body… or going through the unpleasant, and equally emotionally hard process of an abortion.. Should be left up to the individual that the choice ultimately affects.

In my opinion, one simply can not truly be a Marxist and support such a form of male domination as reproductive rights restrictions.

hazard

7th December 2003, 06:53

redceltic:

some of your claims fit into some of the other arguments I ahve been raising as of late

specifically, in reference to immature sex

you assume that men serve no role in the reproductive process other than depositing their seed. a uniquely immature perspective reserved for people who participate in immature sex. to understand the male capacity as a wrapper for genes is far more sexist than the belief that women should not be solely responsible for the life or death of the product of sex. that product is a baby.

obviously this species must evolve somewhat if it is to drop these ridiculous and outdated gender based stances, especially in reference to this issue.

RedCeltic

7th December 2003, 07:02

I did not say that the male has biological role in reproduction, but rather the process of birthing a child.

hazard

7th December 2003, 07:06

I know

thats why I pointed out that before a child can be birthed, it must be conceived

and only under an immature understanding of sex can that which preceedes birth be given a lesser role

RedCeltic

7th December 2003, 07:10

um... no sorry.. your sperm swim up the birth cannal not you.. ;)

hazard

7th December 2003, 07:11

literally, chicken and egg

or, sperm and ovum

unless we're talking about artifical insemination, which we aren't, I gotta decide whetehr or not Im gonna be providing my seed for such a process. no?

RedCeltic

7th December 2003, 07:19

Decide? Come on now! We both know there are plenty of guys who will "Decide" to provide to anyone willing enough, easy enough, drunk enough, or can get a couple of friends to hold her down... eh?

hazard

7th December 2003, 07:25

whats that "eh" supposed to mean? I know what it infers and I am inferiated, I mean, infuriated by it.

once more, the male component of the birthing process must be treated more maturely, more accurately and much more credibly than that

as a male I am ashamed of not only my sex, but the way in which people view my sex's penchant to have sex with anything. I refuse to have sex with just anybody, for any reason, at any place and at anytime. any sensible males would follow suit.

RedCeltic

7th December 2003, 07:40

Well, that's quite noble of you. However the fact remains that many men don't feel that way, which was my point there. Of course, economics is also a factor in many cases... in a different economic position I a quite sure that many women who otherwise would have an abortion, may be quite happy to raise a child. Anti-abortion laws don't really solve anything... they aren't going to stop abortion from happening, nor are they going to help the mother raise the child and provide for it. Doing away with the need for abortion by changing the economic situation is truly the only way I see to reducing it... but that requires an end to the capitalist system.

hazard

7th December 2003, 07:48

despite the fact that I think that the vast majority of men are a bunch of beer drinking, football watching morons, I should stick up for 'em. just a little.

as stupid, predictable and easily satisified as they are, they, and I say they only because I consider myself to be a bit more sensible than these types, they should at least be allowed the option to be held accountable for the process of reproduction. part of the probem is this portrayal of males as, in reference to sex, having a "fuck and forget" attitude. some females try and accomadate this factor by repeating the process on males susceptible to emotional abuse. this only worsens the effect that these sensless male slobs have in terms of their attitude towards family and child rearing. rather than forcing men into becomeing more sexually accountable, the answer, much like abortion, is to hold them LESS acountable than ever before and reverse the WORSE components of sex on a gender based bi-polar axis. this form of unpopular feminism cannot and should not be tolerated.

just as men should wise up, women should too. this has everything to do with sexual immaturity which, in turn, has everything to do with abortion.

truthaddict11

7th December 2003, 09:45

hazard, you are aware that there are married couples that have abortions right?

apathy maybe

7th December 2003, 10:25

I think all the arguments have been covered either here or in another thread but,

Why I oppose abortions, (just to let you know I am currently a 18 year old male).
1) I think that life starts at conception. (Main argument, the ol' you can kill anyone.)
The argument that foetuses can't survive out side the womb is valid, except new borns and many handicapped people can't survive without help. Are you proposing that we should kill off handicapped people who's careers don't anymore (care that is)? or mothers who don't want a 3 week old child?

2) Adoption, yup this is a good idea. What we should do is educate people on the benefits of adoption rather then having a child, (not having to go through pregnancy etc for one). Especially people from developing countries.

3) Contraception. The men can use condoms, and the women diaphragms. They may not work all the time, but if you do want something that'll work all the time, get you tubes tied or cut. And if it doesn't work, hell you took the chance of having sex, refer to 1 and 2. (I know that sentence is probably sexist etc but the main argument is number one. Same reason I am opposed to the death sentence, a life a life. One life shouldn't be taken for another.)

RedCeltic

7th December 2003, 16:26

[
1) I think that life starts at conception.

Than taking anti-biotics is murder? No I don't think so. That is compleately theoreticly and emotionaly based and has no basis of reality in it.

2) Adoption, yup this is a good idea.

Senorache covered this nicely... please read her quote.

adoption is not a reasonable solution. there are already too many children in this unreliable system. so many children end up stuck in there and never get out. they end up suffering because of it. how would you feel growing up knowing that nobody wanted to you? thats great- lets give birth to children so they can growup to feel unwanted, unloved, and worthless. thats a great way to live.

3) Contraception. The men can use condoms, and the women diaphragms.

And how do you propose ensuring everyone uses contraception? Random checks into people's bedrooms? Are women supposed to know ahead of time if she is going to be raped and take the pill? Again, not based in reality.

Whenever you people decide to come down to earth, your in for a rude awakening.

Alejandro C

7th December 2003, 19:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 11:26 AM
[
1) I think that life starts at conception.

Than taking anti-biotics is murder? No I don't think so. That is compleately theoreticly and emotionaly based and has no basis of reality in it.

I think we are talking about human life. which does START at conception. whether or not a week old bunch of cells is alive or not is obviously debateable but neither side will win. what is undeniable is that the group of cells WILL become a baby. the main argument of abortion as i see it is whether or not you believe abortion is stopping life before it starts. those who believe that a fertilized egg is 'alive' will be against abortions. others believe that the fertilized egg only become 'alive' later when it becomes a fetus.
regarless of which way you believe you at least have to agree that human life starts with conception. the process is set in motion. if nothing happens to interfere a baby will be produced. in that way you can see abortion as the stopping of human life, the interupption of a natural process with the intent of preventing a child to come into the world.
when you look at it this way its hard to decide if abortions are right or wrong. simply saying that it is murder is an oversimplification, because it is obviously more complex than that. however saying that its a women's body she can do whatever she wants with it is equally idiotic because it is an equal oversimplification.
I happen to believe that a fertilized egg is alive or becomes alive within a short time (days). i disagree with abortion because i think the ending or the interruption of the natural process of birth is not murder but something similarly sinister. i would encourage all of you to think about it like that. to those of you who agree with me that abortion is wrong, we have to understand that it is only undeniably wrong in a perfect world. abortions must remain legal as long as there are poor people in the world. poor women must be left with that difficult choice and we should all embrace and support them.

as red celtic said if you really wish to fight against abortions you must fight against capitalism and the economic conditions that can make abortion a horrible neccestiy. dont fight the women, fight the system.

Misodoctakleidist

7th December 2003, 19:51

Originally posted by Alejandro [email protected] 7 2003, 08:17 PM
I think we are talking about human life. which does START at conception.
no it doesn't, it's not debatable either, a week old group of cells is not a human life. The reason ending a life is a terrible thing is because that life had consciousness, it knew it existed and ejoyed existing, this is why killing bacteria is acceptable, they aren't aware they exist. A fetus only becomes aware of it's existance at a certain stage of developement (im not sure exactly how long it takes but i believe its what abortion laws are based on). Killing an undeveloped feutus is no different from killing bacteria is removing a tuma, the argument that it had the potential to become a life is invalid as any group of cells has the potential to become a life.

JokingClown

7th December 2003, 19:55

Anti-child because it's a murder.
You can not murder what is not alive.
#1: prove its not alive. Also, suppose it isnt alive. If it is not touched, and you let it develop naturally until it is born, it will be born (under normal circumstances). So if you "kill it" then you are blocking its path to becoming a unique human being, which it WILL become if given a chance.

Well in danger of sounding "misogynic", it takes two to tango, of course the lady should make the final decision, but the man's view should be taken into account.
I agree with this statement.

There are many people who are "pro-life" but yet support the bombing of clinics, the killing of abortion providers, and even the death penalty. So explain to me how this in any way is pro-life.
Ill explain to you their thinking (not necessarily mine). They believe the people who have and give abortions are murderers. they have had their chance to live a fruitful life where they do not kill anyone, but instead they choose to kill innocent babies. In the minds of the pro-life activists these people are committing murder, and deserve death. also if they are not killed, more babies will die, therefore they are saving lives.

Alejandro C

7th December 2003, 20:00

you misunderstood the statement because i'm guesseing you stopped reading my post after that first sentence. what that sentence means is that life is set in motion at conception. the process to life has BEGUN, thats why life STARTS at conception. I did not say the cells are 'alive' at conception i clearly said that could never be proven and is only a matter of opinion.

as to you saying "the argument that it had the potential to become a life is invalid as any group of cells has the potential to become a life. "

you must have magic cells. if you cut off a piece of your finger is a whole new person going to grow from it. you asexually reproduce... incredible.

Soviet power supreme

7th December 2003, 20:32

My arguments make no sense?

You dont even argue.You would just cut the foster shelter's funding and yet you dont give any reason for that.You only say that they cost so much.

I didnt mean that foster shelters would run only abortion clinics' money.

Soul Rebel

7th December 2003, 23:17

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 7 2003, 09:32 PM
My arguments make no sense?

You dont even argue.You would just cut the foster shelter's funding and yet you dont give any reason for that.You only say that they cost so much.

I didnt mean that foster shelters would run only abortion clinics' money.
How did i not argue? Have you been completely skipping over my posts? If you dont find an argument in there than i dont know what to tell you...

Where did i say to cut foster care funding? Like i said: STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY FUCKING MOUTH. I never said anything like that. You are just making shit up.

And if anyone here is not giving arguments that would be you. I saw nowhere in your posts what should be done with money- you just said "give it to shelters." Yeah, thats a really easy concept, now try explaining what exactly the money should be covering. All i said was that hardly any money goes into abortion clinics, considering that funding got cut.

CYM- thank you for clarifying what i meant: children who never get adopted may feel unwanted:) I did not say children who are adopted or all children who are not adopted.

Anarchist Freedom

7th December 2003, 23:29

Let's used Socrates dialectical method. We can't get divided on a discussion, because we are all striving for the same thing: what is right.

Let the guy say why he thinks abortion is wrong, let him give his argument and then we can discuss it .

exactly

also

i was hearing a speech against abortion and then he started screaming and shit and then he singled me out and called me a dirty communist 8'(

he also said people who support abortion should be shot then i stood up and said people who dont dont support abortion should be shot.

he mistaked pro-choice with pro life

"im a very pro choice person"

me: so then you support abortion ???

him:NO!

me: well that is pro choice my friend

him: no it isnt( the whole class disagreeing)

me: obviously you dont know your material you religous zealot

:che:

Soviet power supreme

8th December 2003, 08:02

If you get the abortion you don't need the shelter.

Aborted fetuses don't need places to live.

Yeah im sorry Senorache it wasn't you who made these arguments.

The point is that these lads are more willingly end life than put children in orphan houses.

Why cant we build more and better orphan houses?
Why cant we make more and better birth control devices?

now try explaining what exactly the money should be covering.

Better nurses or whatever those workers are in there.Better places and houses.More and better toys.etc,etc.

Of course we cant only put childrens in these places.We must also start making more and better birth controls.But for now who already are in embroy or those who have already born should be put in these places.

Soul Rebel

8th December 2003, 22:35

Its cool SPS.

Ok. Heres the real problem though: we do have enough contraceptives, its making them available (economically and in the physical sense) that is the problem. You have to understand that many people do not have the ability to get contraceptives. The reasons for this vary- age, money, distance, embarassment, etc. It nice and dandy to say that everyone should use contraceptives (not just to avoid pregnancy, but STDs) but the reality is that only certain people have access to them. We cannot assume that everyone has a choice in using them. Also, education is the problem. Many, many people, especially teens, are not educated about contraceptives. We live in a country (the US) that teaches abstinence (which is a deadly move in the severe HIV/AIDS epidemic), not what contraceptives are out there and how to use them. So when the time comes many people dont know what to do. How can you if you have never been taught? As a result they end up having unprotected sex, risking getting pregnant or contracting an STD.

Soviet power supreme

8th December 2003, 23:19

Yes I forgot the education.We must fund the education also heavily.

Age.Well these should be given to all ages and if they are too crippled then somebody could bring them to them.

Money.Yes we should give these for free.Not a pretty good chance in capitalism. :(

Distance.I dont think that this is problem except poor countries now.

Embarassment.Well education would solve this.

Western countries must start to give poor countries contraceptives for free.Think about it.Not far in future population will grow to 9-10 billion and most of them would live in poor countries while western countries' populations are then decreasing.

It can be done like you said there are enough these contraceptives.The problem is that goverments dont these things.They could do what I have said but they are not going to do it.

You have to understand too that I dont mean this happen now.I doubt that these kind of reforms could happen under Bush's administraion or Blair's or Chirac's etc,etc,etc.

Alejandro C

9th December 2003, 04:51

there was a tragedy today in my city. a young teenage pregants woman was taken from her home and murdered, her body left on the bank of the lake where i go to row. the media, with its twisted sense of a story, focused on this being the first time someone could be charged in this state for neo-natal murder. i've been thinking about that and at first i didn't think they could be tried for murder because roe v. wade dictates that a fetus (or an unborn baby up to a certain point) cannot be murdered. then i remembered some things said on this tread about taking away the womans choice and forcing death (or destruction of cells) to the baby.
i wondered what people on both sides of the abortion issue think. i think the fact of the baby should be ignored and who ever is sick enough to do that to a pregnant woman should be killed. focusing on the fetus is just one more way my very conservative state (nebraska) can force their views on abortion. politics sicken me

RedCeltic

9th December 2003, 14:20

Hmmm... well it is clearly "forced abortion." What one realy should consider is what the intent of his murder of the woman was, and the level of knowlege about the pregnancy. If he intended to kill her because she was pregnant, than perhaps there is a case. Otherwise it doesn't seem logical to me.

If murdering a pregnant woman is a double homoside... than is a miscarrage manslaughter? :unsure:

Alejandro C

9th December 2003, 19:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 09:20 AM
Hmmm... well it is clearly "forced abortion." What one realy should consider is what the intent of his murder of the woman was, and the level of knowlege about the pregnancy. If he intended to kill her because she was pregnant, than perhaps there is a case. Otherwise it doesn't seem logical to me.

If murdering a pregnant woman is a double homoside... than is a miscarrage manslaughter? :unsure:
I dont know why intent should matter. for instance if someone was trying to kill someone by blowing up their car, but had no idea that there was another person in the car with them, it would still be a double murder.

also the police have no one in custody just yet so theres no reason jumping to the conclusion that it was a man that killed her.

hazard

10th December 2003, 05:34

the case is an interesting one but by no means a precedent

I've heard of many cases where family members of a deceased pregnant woman seek to press charges against the murder of the unborn as well

this displays the hypocrisy of the law, which clearly has a loophole based upon gender and desire

IF the woman WANTED to give birth, the fetus is treated as a human as long as the crown, or the state, can prove this. this shows how shortsighted the law truly is. it ignores, as usual, the fathers wants and desires as well as whether or not there LITERRALLY and ACTUALLY is a defintion to the status of fetal life. so its human if its wanted, and "something else" if it isn't? sickening rhetoric.

of course, this all comes down to the BILLION DOLLAR BOURGEOIS BABY BUTCHER INDUSTRY. sex oversold so pregnant teens can flock to aborion clinics, where profit is made off of the procedure and furthur profit is made from taking the tiny pieces of baby and using them for ILLEGAL research. legal only because of THE FUCKING IDIOTIC, SHIFTING definition of fetal life.

wake up people. this is not a womans right issue, but a HUMAN RIGHTS issue.

Soul Rebel

10th December 2003, 22:16

Hazard i dont know where the hell you get your info or ideas but they are completely out of line.

abortion is not, never has been, or will ever be a billion dollar industry. that is the stupidest thing i have heard. there is basically no money involved- it is not done for profit.

as for teens flocking to abortion clinics- last time i checked many teens and older womyn did not have accessable abortion clinics. many have to cross state lines in order to get an abortion. and many are also afraid to go because of anti-choicers who block and threaten womyn entering abortion clinics. you make it sound like a field trip- a bunch of girls deciding to get together to go have some fun.

and this is a womans issue because womyn have the babies!!! how hard is it for you to understand that???!!!! you do not have the babies, bush does not have them, no men have them- womyn have them, provide for them while in pregnancy, etc. therefore it is a womans issue. its her body and her decision, which leads into human rights because it affects every aspect of a womans life. and i do recall that woman happen to be human, therefore making it a humans right issue.

i find it shameful that anyone who is against abortion calls themselves a leftist. as a leftist you should be supporting a womans right to choose what she can do with her body, not fighting to take it away. by fighting to take this power away from a woman you are taking a step back in fighting all forms of injustice.

redstar2000

11th December 2003, 00:23

In the United Kingdom...

Women are being denied access to safe and effective methods of abortion, says the Family Planning Association.

It says the current law is too inflexible, and the NHS has failed to make abortion services a priority.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/health/3302933.stm

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

hazard

11th December 2003, 03:47

billion dollar industry?

lets walk through this

abortion FOR profit alone is a multi million dollar a year industry that hovers anywhere between three and five HUNDRED million dollars. thats just the cost of the doctor and the hospital and the drugs and the recovery (both physical and psychological).

then you got all the profit being generated from the resale of the tiny pieces of baby. you see, they used to just toss this stuff into the dumpsters around back so that local colleges could grab the parts and conduct ILLEGAL research on them. now, all the pieces of the babies are sold, probably BY THE FUCKING POUND to drug companies and research firms. who, in turn, use the baby parts to conduct research ILLEGAL to conduct on humans, but LEGAL to conduct on embryonic human life because there is a legal loophole on the status of such life. this process, the resale of baby parts and the research and manufacturing of drugs/medicines in conjunction with the profit genereated from the process works WELL OVER BILLIONS OF DOLLARS every year.

you, senora and abortion supporters, are so hung up on the "gender issue" that you cannot see anything else. this about human rights, plain and simple. gender should not have anyhing to do with this, at all.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

11th December 2003, 08:34

It is not a human rights issue, because fetuses aren't human. the only humans involved in the process are womyn. Therefore it is a concern for womyn and not for men.
So what if fetuses are sold to medical carver-uppers?
Material otherwise gone to waste is now conducting research. I think that's admirable.

hazard

11th December 2003, 08:39

and I think you are revolting

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

11th December 2003, 09:27

I cannot believe this!

Now scientific research is 'revolting'!

Put down your science books and pick up the bible! :o

Praise the Lord! :(

Soviet power supreme

11th December 2003, 18:02

So lets agree that it is a womans decision.How can women then demand that fathers should raise or support the child?

Fetus is no concern to father but child is?

It is not a human rights issue, because fetuses aren't human.

Yes they are humans but they arent completely developed.

If you dont want give any rights to fetus then why are you giving rights to humans?

Material otherwise gone to waste is now conducting research. I think that's admirable.

Okay lets butn you so we get energy.You are nothing but a beast who uses the world's resource.

Come on where is your humanity?

Invader Zim

11th December 2003, 18:49

I do not have the figures in front of me but I remember reading that abortion is a multi million pound industry, for the UK. In that it costs not generates millions of pounds. To say that abortion is for profit is idiotic.

In the United Kingdom...

Women are being denied access to safe and effective methods of abortion, says the Family Planning Association.

It says the current law is too inflexible, and the NHS has failed to make abortion services a priority.

Hmm thats interesting, I thought we had a more or less completely open system, I will read up on this some more.

this displays the hypocrisy of the law, which clearly has a loophole based upon gender and desire

I'm with you on that, it is rather... odd.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

11th December 2003, 19:23

So lets agree that it is a womans decision.How can women then demand that fathers should raise or support the child?

Fetus is no concern to father but child is?

I always thought that the mothers were favoured in custody cases.

Yes they are humans but they arent completely developed.

If you dont want give any rights to fetus then why are you giving rights to humans?

You cannot sensibly give the right to life to a non-human organism.

The right to a painless death certainly.

Also how far do you wish it to extend the right to life? for eggs? Sperms?

Okay lets butn you so we get energy.You are nothing but a beast who uses the world's resource.

Come on where is your humanity?

I can make a contribution to humanity. an aborted fetus cannot.

hazard

12th December 2003, 03:46

enigma:

in a country with healthcare abortion also has a profit, which falls under the second component of the profit producing aspect of the billion dollar bourgeois baby butcher industry

this second component is most properly known as stem cell research, and although supposedly still illegal in most countries, illegal research is being conducted under many guises

noXion:

scientific research conducting illegally upon the brutal disposal of humans in development is one of the most revolting things I could ever think of. your stance is equally revolting, especially in the way you make a bad shift in language.

my premise is that it is immoral to process and resell human body parts for the profit motive.

you shift this into stating something to the effect that human body parts are "material" and profit is "preventative of waste" ( very communist of you, very human too )

your final shift is that ALL science is revolting in my persepective

VERY BAD REASONING, which is typical to the abortion defence

Guest1

12th December 2003, 06:08

the fact that profit is being made off it is a result of capitalism, not abortion.

I support stem-cell research, there's so much to be learned about horrible diseases.

Or is it inhuman to study dead body parts to save cancer patients? <_<

hazard

12th December 2003, 06:22

this is what I mean

the abortion supporters MUST argue that a fetus isn't human

but it somehow IS human enough to be used for research in lieu of humans?

the law is worded craftily enough to allow, specifically for, the use of this process as a capital creating tool

clearly my problem is with capitalism, and its horrible and brutal exploitation of humans in all of its phases

Guest1

12th December 2003, 07:41

you're frothing at the mouth.

it's not whether it's human or not. your hair is human. it's whether it's alive or not.

do you eat eggs? do you consider someone who eats them, a chicken murderer? last I checked, except for extreme vegans, no one thinks of eating eggs as being the same thing as eating chickens.

you're the one twisting definitions to suit your argument.

rumsfeld would be proud.

hazard

12th December 2003, 07:43

similarly, nobody considers a woman on her period in the process of having an abortion

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

12th December 2003, 09:03

you shift this into stating something to the effect that human body parts are "material" and profit is "preventative of waste" ( very communist of you, very human too )

My statements were based on material reality; body parts (including aborted fetuses) simply thrown away to rot do no good- surely they are more useful if they are studied.
What are you basing your statements on?

your final shift is that ALL science is revolting in my persepective

VERY BAD REASONING, which is typical to the abortion defence

Well the people who consider fetuses as somehow 'sacred' tend to be the same bible-thumping
morons who value scripture above science.
If you're not a godsucker, what are you basing your morality on?
Waste of material is 'immoral' to communists.

Rastafari

12th December 2003, 11:41

furthur profit is made from taking the tiny pieces of baby and using them for ILLEGAL research.

I can name at least 10 people I know personally whose lives could be prolonged and made much more livable by stem-cell research. When Jenna Bush is driving drunk and becomes paralyzed, Bush will make this legal, because it will then affect him like it affects me and so many people I know. But, of course, you've never lived with someone who was chronically disabled. It's hard, you know? To hope every day all the time that there is something you can do to improve their quality of life, which is torturous as it is. When technology actually does come out that could repair that persons ability to have any semblance of muscular control, or any hope of improving, it is banned simply for the reason of selfish politics.

I'm not sure that you understand stem cell research to begin with, my friend. They don't use peices of baby. They use unfertalized cells that aren't developed and would be allowed to die anyway. There are thousands of these things sitting in cold storage, remnants from America's desire to overpopulate the world, and they are not being used to help those that could need them.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

12th December 2003, 22:47

I think abortion is OK, but I feel the father should have some say in the matter. I would be DAMNED if ANYONE is going to harm my child, regardless of who it is. If a woman wants to have an abortion, fine, but make sure the father doesn't want his child first. If a woman wanted to abort my baby, then I don't care if I have to sit right there with the woman for 9 months to make sure she doesn't hurt my baby, its my child too, and I should have rights to it. You might say its the women's child, but it the woman decides to go through with having a child, guess who is stuck paying the child support? Women can have their children even if the fathers want it aborted, so why should the woman be able to kill the father's child even if the father wants to keep it?

Invader Zim

13th December 2003, 10:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 04:46 AM
enigma:

in a country with healthcare abortion also has a profit, which falls under the second component of the profit producing aspect of the billion dollar bourgeois baby butcher industry

this second component is most properly known as stem cell research, and although supposedly still illegal in most countries, illegal research is being conducted under many guises
The NHS in the UK is a non-profit organisation funded by the government. It is in no way a profitable organisation. And abortion costs a small fortune to the NHS every year.

Soviet power supreme

13th December 2003, 12:32

QUOTE
So lets agree that it is a womans decision.How can women then demand that fathers should raise or support the child?

Fetus is no concern to father but child is?

I always thought that the mothers were favoured in custody cases.

Was my english so bad that you misunderstood me so badly.

I meant that when my mother have given me birth then why should my father raise me?Im part of my mothers body not him.If he wouldnt raise me then he swould have to pay child support money.

Damn it is hard to think that I am part of my mothers body and she can kill me anytime she want.

Also how far do you wish it to extend the right to life? for eggs? Sperms?

When egg and sperm is combined.Sperm and egg is nothing without each other.Human has 46 cromosomes half from man and half from woman.Human cannot have only 23 cromosomes so therefore sperm or egg cannot be a human.

Soviet power supreme

13th December 2003, 13:03

so why should the woman be able to kill the father's child even if the father wants to keep it?

Because these guys here talks only that it is part of woman and she can do everything that she likes to do with it.

guess who is stuck paying the child support?

If it is part of woman's body, Man shouldnt pay a dime if he dont want to.

My statements were based on material reality; body parts (including aborted fetuses) simply thrown away to rot do no good- surely they are more useful if they are studied.

Of course if we keep abortions then the aborted fetuses should put in research.But they shouldnt be aborted.

RedFW

13th December 2003, 21:30

I think most, if not all, of the arguments made have been addressed in previous threads on abortion, so I am not going to particpate in this one; however, a friend e-mailed me a link to this game, which I think is relevant.

Too Bad (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/toobad/toobadform.html)

truthaddict11

13th December 2003, 23:30

nice to see you back Keli

Soul Rebel

14th December 2003, 00:15

Men pay child support because womyn end up taking care of the children and it is extremely hard to go to work when you are a single mother. The income of a single mother does not cover the needs of both mother and child. This is why it is single mothers who have the highest rates of poverty. It is not for any other reason.

truthaddict11

14th December 2003, 10:04

im considering suing my father to pay for backed child support and my college because he never payed a single dime and is required to pay for my college.

RedFW

14th December 2003, 11:04

On second thought, I would like to point out that this is a perfect example, as if we needed more, of the creation and dissemination of myths that work demonize women and abortion providers whilst simultaneously giving the appearance of a higher social consciousness to the anit-choice movement in an effort to ultimately ban abortion.

then you got all the profit being generated from the resale of the tiny pieces of baby. you see, they used to just toss this stuff into the dumpsters around back so that local colleges could grab the parts and conduct ILLEGAL research on them. now, all the pieces of the babies are sold, probably BY THE FUCKING POUND to drug companies and research firms. who, in turn, use the baby parts to conduct research ILLEGAL to conduct on humans, but LEGAL to conduct on embryonic human life because there is a legal loophole on the status of such life. this process, the resale of baby parts and the research and manufacturing of drugs/medicines in conjunction with the profit genereated from the process works WELL OVER BILLIONS OF DOLLARS every year.

This post contains so much crap in it, I am unsure where to begin.

I suppose the first question to ask is who is selling the fetal tissue?

From a Planned Parenthood factsheet entitled 'Donating Fetal Tissue for Medical Treatment and Research (Prochoiceamerica.org has better publications on this but their website appears to be down):

Federal and state laws have been specifically written to ensure that her choice to donate tissue from her abortion to medical research is made in an informed and ethical manner. First, she is legally required to give her written consent to have an abortion. Only after she has consented to have an abortion can she provide the necessary written consent to donate the fetal tissue. She cannot be paid for the donation. She cannot know or designate the recipient (USCA, 1988; USCA, 1993).

So, the woman donates the fetal tissue, no profit has yet been generated.

There are three primary sources of embryonic cells and fetal tissue in the U.S.: hospitals, abortion clinics, and private physicians (obstetricians and gynecologists). All must obtain written consent from women to conduct research on the tissue from abortions or miscarriages for the purposes of education, research or the advancement of medical science (King et al., 1995). They then distribute the tissue to researchers who are located in a variety of settings, including academic institutions, commercial companies, and institutions outside the U.S. (Vawter et al., 1990).

Researchers customarily obtain embryonic cells and fetal tissue through private arrangements with individual, nearby obstetricians. Due to its fragile nature, the tissue must be immediately transported by researchers to their laboratories or some other location where it can be safely stored and kept from deteriorating (Vawter, 1999).

While solid organs are obtained and distributed through the national Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, there is no formal, organized, national network for procuring and distributing embryonic and fetal tissue. Organizations interact directly with private laboratories or pharmaceutical companies that perform medical research with embryonic and fetal tissue. They are often reimbursed for evaluation, preservation, storage and transportation of the tissue. (USCA, 1988; USCA, 1997)...There are two principal federal laws and numerous state laws that apply to the use of embryonic cells and fetal tissue for medical transplantation and research.

The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA), adopted by Congress in 1984, provides for donations of organs and tissues for research or transplantation. NOTA was amended in 1988 to include fetal organs and tissues under the definition of "human organs" (USCA, 1988).

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993 specifically authorizes federal support for research on the transplantation of human fetal tissue for therapeutic purposes, whether the tissue is obtained after a spontaneous or induced abortion or a stillbirth. Congress passed this act after President Clinton's executive order lifting the ban on federal funding for fetal tissue research that was put in place during the Reagan administration. The act requires a woman to consent — in writing — to the abortion before the option of tissue donation is discussed. It prohibits her from knowing or restricting the identity of the recipient. It requires that she be informed of her physician's interest, if any, in the research to be conducted with the tissue. It also prohibits the alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy, if such alteration is made solely for the purpose of obtaining the tissue. Penalties for violating this law include a fine or up to 10 years in prison, or both. Both NOTA and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 prohibit the sale of human organs and tissues for research or transplantation. Both do permit, however, "reasonable payments" associated with the removal, transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, and storage of the tissue (USCA, 1988; USCA, 1993).

All 50 states and the District of Columbia have adopted some form of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA), which gives people the right to control the disposition of their bodily remains after death. The act allows individuals to give their consent — in writing — for their entire body or parts of their body to be used for research, education, therapy, or transplantation. It is generally interpreted to permit the donation of embryonic and fetal tissues and organs, although some states have provisions that specifically exclude embryos and fetuses (Vawter et al., 1990).

There is no 'resale' of fetal tissue ('baby parts' if your argument is weak and you are seeking to engender emotive reactionary support) because the woman never sold it in the first place but donated it. And the money given to abortion providers and organisations obtaining fetal tissue donated doesn't amount to the billions of dollars in profit you claimed because costs 'for evaluation, preservation, storage and transportation of the tissue'are involved. There may indeed be some profit made. But I doubt it is even close the figures you have presented firstly because you didn't provide a source for this nonsense and secondly because if abortion providers were making such a healthy profit, so many clinics that once relied on the goverment for most of their funding would not be closing down; they would be popping up all over the country, which isn't happening. In fact, the opposite is true. They are closing down.

I would also like to draw everyone's attention to the claim that abortion providers leave 'baby parts' in dumpsters. The material I have posted above explains that fetal tissue must be kept from deteriorating if it is to be used for research. But of course the question could be raised what happens when a woman does not donate fetal tissue? Abortion providers follow the same guidlines as hospitals (some providers are hospitals) when disposing of aborted fetuses as they would disposing of anything else used in a medical procedure. Nothing used in or removed during a medical procedure is chucked out with regular household waste whatever the medical procedure is. Especially when blood and body fluids are involved because there is a potential risk of infection if anyone unprotected goes through it. As far as I am aware, it is incinerated.

Factsheet (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/facts/fetaltis_010600.html)

@[email protected]@

14th December 2003, 15:38

Perhaps, we should initiate a movement: Let the American soldiers go home crosses the Christmas day?

hazard

15th December 2003, 04:10

whats wrong with you idiots?

you're so caught up in "newspeak" you don't even realize what you're fucking doing

ever hear of the "tower of babbel"? probably not since you're all a bunch of godless heathens, but I'll get to that later.

so baby pieces are "fetal tissue", women are "womyn", inducing miscarriage is "abortion" and so on

tell you what

keep rephrasing words and I'll keep phrasing them properly

Invader Zim

15th December 2003, 10:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 11:04 AM
im considering suing my father to pay for backed child support and my college because he never payed a single dime and is required to pay for my college.
I wouldn't balme you, my bastrad father has Never paid a single penny towards my upbringing. I may go and pay him a visit for the first time in 14 years when I'm 18 in April.

RedFW

15th December 2003, 13:43

so baby pieces are "fetal tissue", women are "womyn", inducing miscarriage is "abortion" and so on

tell you what

keep rephrasing words and I'll keep phrasing them properly

Actually, the phrasing I used is correct and is the same used by the American College of Obstericians and Gynecologists and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The anti-choice movement has a history of inventing emotive terms to gain support and still continues to do so even though these are disregarded by the medical community.

So, tell you what, you keep posting shit and I will keep pointing out how misinformed you are.
When you get tired of that, you can begin to address the points made.

Rastafari

15th December 2003, 14:56

still waiting for a response you self-centered fucks.

any women here in support of anti-choice? Didn't think so

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

15th December 2003, 19:31

Hey, I'm just a fence sitter here. I don't take the extreme on either side. While although I think abortion should be legal, I just think the father should have a say in the matter. A woman has no right to kill the father's child if the father wants custody. I don't even care if the woman doesn't pay child support (which would be fair, since the father has to). The important thing is that child has a father, one who will love and raise that child, and a woman who wants an abortion has no more of a right to get in the way of that, then a man has the right to force a woman to get an abortion.

15th December 2003, 19:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 03:31 PM
The important thing is that child has a father, one who will love and raise that child, and a woman who wants an abortion has no more of a right to get in the way of that, then a man has the right to force a woman to get an abortion.
It is the woman's body. She will have to carry if for 9 months, take leave from work, change her lifestyle (What she eats, wears, does).

Therefore it is her decision in the end.

el_profe

15th December 2003, 20:43

Originally posted by Enigma+Dec 15 2003, 11:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Dec 15 2003, 11:53 AM)
[email protected] 14 2003, 11:04 AM
im considering suing my father to pay for backed child support and my college because he never payed a single dime and is required to pay for my college.
I wouldn't balme you, my bastrad father has Never paid a single penny towards my upbringing. I may go and pay him a visit for the first time in 14 years when I'm 18 in April. [/b]
what if your mom's would of had an abortion because they knew your fathers wouldnt of paid a dime for child support? after all it is very hard for a single woman to raise a child on her own.

el_profe

15th December 2003, 21:06

Abortion is just another way we are diminishing if not eliminating personal responsablity. We see this in the suing of tobaco companies where people now that cigs. are bad for them yet they still smoke , get cancer and sue the cig. company. Or when idiots sue McDonalds because they are fcking overweight.
Here in this case for whatever the reason is both the man and the woman are responsible for the fetus. Thanks to tech. they have the easy way out and they decide to kill the fetus. I saw/heard/read somewhere that a fetus can start feeling pain after the 4th month, if that is not an indication that its not alive then i dont know what is, the fetus alos need nutrients from the mother if it wasnt living then it wouldnt need that. Also HOW IS IT THAT BABIES CAN BE BORN AT 8 and 7 months, if they where not a living creature then it would be born dead.
Even with all this I think abortion should be legal just before the 1st month so women that get raped etc. still have an option to do something about it . I can never figure out why women wait so long to get an abortion if they find out naturally that they are pregnant in the 1st 2 weeks at least. Yet they wait till sometime the 6th month of pregnancy or even more to get an abortion. Have any of you seen fetus being killed, they react to whatever is trying to kill them by trying to get away, which obviously doesnt succed. I really cant believe how people can support this. and label any anti-abortion as "anti-women" or the usual "right wing christian" this has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with life.

truthaddict11

15th December 2003, 23:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 04:43 PM

what if your mom's would of had an abortion because they knew your fathers wouldnt of paid a dime for child support? after all it is very hard for a single woman to raise a child on her own. .
obviously there is no such thing as a "crystal ball" and our mothers did chose to have us so your question is pretty invalid.

and many women dont find out they are pregnant until after a month, and abortions in the last trimester are not a regular procedure. it is mainly performed to save the life of the mother or to make sure that the fetus does not go through several hours of suffering due to some birth defects.The right to chose is very important for womens rights and for thier health. As it is the women who has to carry around a fetus for 9 months not the man.

And as for suing Tobacco companies those lawyers collected most of the money from those multi billion dollar cases. and cases of people suing McDonalds, Nabisco, Coca-Cola have all been thrown out of courts.

el_profe

16th December 2003, 00:33

Originally posted by truthaddict11+Dec 16 2003, 12:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (truthaddict11 @ Dec 16 2003, 12:40 AM)
[email protected] 15 2003, 04:43 PM

what if your mom's would of had an abortion because they knew your fathers wouldnt of paid a dime for child support? after all it is very hard for a single woman to raise a child on her own. .
obviously there is no such thing as a "crystal ball" and our mothers did chose to have us so your question is pretty invalid.

and many women dont find out they are pregnant until after a month, and abortions in the last trimester are not a regular procedure. it is mainly performed to save the life of the mother or to make sure that the fetus does not go through several hours of suffering due to some birth defects.The right to chose is very important for womens rights and for thier health. As it is the women who has to carry around a fetus for 9 months not the man.

And as for suing Tobacco companies those lawyers collected most of the money from those multi billion dollar cases. and cases of people suing McDonalds, Nabisco, Coca-Cola have all been thrown out of courts. [/b]
I know those cases were thrown out, i was just making a point of how pathetic those accusations were. Dont you think the man also has a say in the decision, i mean it is his kid also?

hazard

16th December 2003, 03:15

oh yeah, I forgot to mention anti-choice

in the world of anti-choice, the world of "newspeak", opposittes are taken to hold literal referential value in terms of their negative connotations. positives are double negated. equal terms are mentioned in triplets so as their truth functionality can be taken as such.

people, even after I accuse you of becoming part of the process you continue in doing so. anti-choice is the worst of them all. does pro-life not already infer that it is anti-choice? one of the worst rhetorical devices I have ever seen utilized. pay attention now as the ProLife camapaign REFUSES to call their opposite group anti-life. why? because it SOUNDS STUPID.

it really displays the weakness of defending abortion. low level tactics of deceit and verb misappropriation to disguise the horrible truth. if you people stopped switching terms in use so as to confuse the issue, you'd realize VERY QUICKLY that defending abortion is impossible. there is no defence. especially if you are in opposition to capitalism, which you should be if you are communists. sometimes I don't think you people actually think, and when it comes to abortion, you never do.

BuyOurEverything

16th December 2003, 03:30

pay attention now as the ProLife camapaign REFUSES to call their opposite group anti-life. why? because it SOUNDS STUPID.

That's just a blatant lie. Plenty of anti-abortionist call us "anti-lifers."

it really displays the weakness of defending abortion.

Our weakness? You're the one rambling on about Orwell while the rest of us are discussing facts.

hazard

16th December 2003, 03:36

first response. I don't and I don't know anybody who does and if anybody does they do so to counter the ridiculous rhetoric YOUR camp began

second response. but you are the ones who are tossing around foolish verb switches like this one. I have to comment on it because the defence of abortion is not paper thin - it is wafer thin

truthaddict11

16th December 2003, 03:37

actually hazard i have heard anti-choice groups call pro-choice groups anti-life, as well as several other terms. and anti-choice is a very good way of desribing these groups as thier mission is to deny the ability for a women to have control over her own body and if they chose to have children or not. it is very foolish of you to call defending choice impossible and people who defend choice as not being communists or against capitalism, the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margret Sanger, herself was an anarchist and was comrades with Emma Goldman. Part of being a communist/anarchist is allowing choice, i cant see any other option then that.

and el_profe no i dont think that a man should have a decision in a womens pregnancy, he can offer his opinion but the final decision should be in the womens hands alone.

truthaddict11

16th December 2003, 03:46

here is a search i did on the "American Life League" on anti-life

link (http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=anti-life&sp-a=sp0611bd00&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-d=custom&sp-date-range=-1&sp-start-month=0&sp-start-day=0&sp-start-year=&sp-end-month=0&sp-end-day=0&sp-end-year=&sp-f=iso-8859-1)

you can clearly see the "pro-life" use of "anti-life"

hazard

16th December 2003, 03:50

as far as anti-choice goes, since you INSIST on making this a gender based issue,
its the males of the species that are denied FAR MORE MANY choices on this topic. strangely, your camp assumes MALES should be denied this exact same choice. your switch from a positive construction to a negative cosntruction of the same idea really shows not your own short sightedness, but your own stupidity in understanding that this is not a gender based issue, like all of you seem to simply assume MUST be the case. it is a HUMAN based issue that includes ALL HUMANS.

truthaddict11

16th December 2003, 04:09

tell me why the fuck you think a man should decide if a women should go on with a pregnancy? does he carry it? does he get pregnant. get it through your thick skull MEN CANT GET PREGNANT!
Choice is very much a gender issue.

hazard

16th December 2003, 04:20

so in other words, men have NO CHOICES when it comes to reproductive rights. that is, in comparison, to women being denied access to ONE CHOICE regarding reproduction.

see my point?

ALL choices versues ONE choice

hardly seems fair

truthaddict11

16th December 2003, 04:32

tell me what choices you think men should have in reproduction especially when dealing with a pregnancy? and how should that factor in with a final decision?

el_profe

16th December 2003, 05:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 05:09 AM
tell me why the fuck you think a man should decide if a women should go on with a pregnancy? does he carry it? does he get pregnant. get it through your thick skull MEN CANT GET PREGNANT!
Choice is very much a gender issue.
no but he created half of what is in there.

el_profe

16th December 2003, 05:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 05:32 AM
tell me what choices you think men should have in reproduction especially when dealing with a pregnancy? and how should that factor in with a final decision?
SHIT, I bet your dad left you, or some guy dumpted you and fcking left you traumatized cause youre definetly a feminist probably a fcking lesbian who just hates men. men should have choices in reproduciton because they are 50% of the equation, listen no one forced the girl to fuck, she wanted to fuck, ends up pregnant and now want a doctor to solve her mistake?..... If a girl doesnt want to get pregnant use the fckng pill or be sure the man uses protectin or have her uterus removed. THIS IS WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT, WHAT HAPPENED TO PERSONAL RESPONSABILTY???????
We live in the victim era and its like a virus spreading all over where people blame others for their mistakes.

hazard

16th December 2003, 05:39

im not going to go crazy here and say something about gender equality to the effect that it should be a 50/50 decision. maybe 60/40.

besides the offensive language being used, profe raises some realistic arguments.

there are plenty of birth control CHOICES available. the sponge. the pill. condomes. foams. hysterechtimies. and the list goes on for a while. theres the freedom of choice.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

16th December 2003, 08:30

there are plenty of birth control CHOICES available. the sponge. the pill. condomes. foams. hysterechtimies. and the list goes on for a while. theres the freedom of choice.

They're not all fool-proof or practical.
When are you going to get it in your head that men have practically nothing to do with pregnancy?
that restricting a woman's choice to have an abortion is tyranny?

There's no such thing as anything 'sacred'

GET THAT INTO YOUR HEAD

El Profe:

SHIT, I bet your dad left you, or some guy dumpted you and fcking left you traumatized cause youre definetly a feminist probably a fcking lesbian who just hates men. men should have choices in reproduciton because they are 50% of the equation, listen no one forced the girl to fuck, she wanted to fuck, ends up pregnant and now want a doctor to solve her mistake?..... If a girl doesnt want to get pregnant use the fckng pill or be sure the man uses protectin or have her uterus removed. THIS IS WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT, WHAT HAPPENED TO PERSONAL RESPONSABILTY???????
We live in the victim era and its like a virus spreading all over where people blame others for their mistakes.

This is typical misogynist bullshit.
These 'stupid sluts' should pay for being women, in your eyes.
And being a 'fcking lesbian' who 'hates men' is the greatest crime of all in this patriarchal society.
I get the feeling you don't like male 'superiority' being challenged eh?

RedFW

16th December 2003, 08:42

Hazard, I thought you would have changed your tactics since the last time we had a discussion on abortion. But nothing seems to have changed much; you still ignore points which clearly dismiss your claims about abortion and post lies and bullshit hoping someone less informed than you, as if that were possible, will believe the crap you come up with. See Here (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6284&hl=abortion&st=0) Pages 1-3 of the thread are most interesting and coincide neatly with Hazard's last absence from the board.

I have already explained that the terms I use regarding abortion are the same used by probably the two biggest bodies of obstericians and gynecologists in the world; groups whose members have experience and knowledge of the facets of pregnancy.

if you people stopped switching terms in use so as to confuse the issue, you'd realize VERY QUICKLY that defending abortion is impossible. there is no defence. especially if you are in opposition to capitalism, which you should be if you are communists. sometimes I don't think you people actually think, and when it comes to abortion, you never do.

There is no confusion. The terms I used regarding abortion are accepted by the medical community; whereas those initiated by the anti-choice movement are not. And someone else in the thread has already provided an example of the anti-choice organisations using the term 'anti-lifers', so that really didn't take you very far, did it? You insist that communism and abortion are antithetical to one another, yet the argument you have used in this thread and in the others has been completely debunked; there is no billion dollar business as you claimed, no 'baby parts' in dumpsters out back. You can remain in denial of your own ignorance on the subject, I really don't care either way, but please don't insult the intelligence of the rest of this board by pretending you have posted something other than pure lies and fantasy on your part.

hazard

16th December 2003, 08:43

holy god almighty

"men have practically nothing to do with gettig women pregnant"

I did not just read this

somebody did not actually just write this

let me double check

yes I did just read this and somebody else did just write this

now tell me if this is in anyway an insult, but the pro-choice movement brings people to a conclusion like this and you wonder why I codemn it simply for the fact that it is void of any logical and practical reasons

such statements as this, I mean, jesus christ, what in the fuck? I still can't believe it. what the fuck? what in the name of fuck? holy fuck. un fucking real

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

16th December 2003, 08:50

Have trouble understanding it?

then read it again

"Men have practically nothing to do with pregnancy"

This is what I did not say:
"men have practically nothing to do with gettig women pregnant"

Which means men do not carry the baby, have morning sickness, suffer backache, and give birth.

Capiche?

hazard

16th December 2003, 08:59

actually, I think some of the best stuff took place on page 4, but thats where I make you look like the idiot you are pretending not to be

on a non inflamatory note, why is it that even the most reasonable members on this board stop making sense on this issue?

look at the arguments you present in favour of abortion and then look at the arguments you present in favour of commnism. tell me if you don't see a difference

hazard

16th December 2003, 09:02

oh, now I see

so men have nothing to do with pregnancy, but they're needed for it to happen

thats like saying gas has nothing to do witth a car

thats like saying cheese has nothing to do with cheesburgers

thats like saying wings have nothing to do with an airplane

glad you cleared that one up

now where was I...

oh yeah. what in the name of fuck? holy fuck almighty. etc

RedFW

16th December 2003, 09:08

actually, I think some of the best stuff took place on page 4, but thats where I make you look like the idiot you are pretending not to be

I don't know what is more pathetic- whether you really believe that or whether you think the rest of the board members, regardless of their views on abortion, are stupid enough to believe that anything you have posted in either thread is anything other than lies and bullshit.

Let me know when , if ever, you are ready use facts to back up your claims about abortion. Anything else is just a waste of time, Hazard.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

16th December 2003, 10:38

Regardless who is carrying the child, the man has just as much right to the child as the woman. Therefore, the father should have just as much right in saying if an abortion is right. If a woman wants an abortion, the least that the woman can do is to explain to the man that she is going to kill his child and see if the man is ok with that too, being it is his son after all. Though I don't think it would be too hard to convince most to be fathers, since if they chose to see the pregnacy through, he might not even get rights to it, and will be stuck paying a fortune in child support (despite the father having nothing to do with having the baby).

apathy maybe

16th December 2003, 10:49

I think perhapes that all future abortion threads should be closed and the people who start them be directed to the ones all ready started. Why? 'Cause the same arguements are being repeated over and over and over ad infimum. And to tell you the truth it is starting to get boring.
I think I might summerise them as I see them.
Far Left.
The anti choice who say that you must abort all second and third etc children (hasher then China)

Middle (so called free choice or pro choice)
It is the womens body, the man has little or no say in the matter. Once past a certain point the baby can be considered human and so can't be aborted.

Far Right. (so call pro life)
Life begins when the sperm joins with the egg. Any human disruption (not natural) after this is considered murder. There are plenty of contraceptive devices.

I am pretty far right on this issue but hell I've had my say. Maybe we should post a summury as well as links to the other threads if someone else makes a new one. Save all the flamewars that will errupt.

redstar2000

16th December 2003, 14:59

I think perhaps that all future abortion threads should be closed and the people who start them be directed to the ones all ready started. Why? 'Cause the same arguments are being repeated over and over and over ad infinitum. And to tell you the truth, it is starting to get boring.

I'm pretty sure it's not "boring" to those who are pregnant or may become so.

Far Left. The anti-choice who say that you must abort all second and third, etc. children. (hasher then China)

That's quite bizarre...who is the "far leftist" who advocates that?

I am pretty far right on this issue...

And that's why new threads keep being started and the "same arguments" keep being raised. You can't "be" a "leftist" (in any meaningful sense of the word) and have a "far right" position on women's reproductive freedom.

Without a consistent revolutionary approach to social existence, we have nothing but a muddle.

That's useless.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

16th December 2003, 19:01

Besides my opinion on father's rights, I think the state should make abortions more/less difficult to obtain depending on society's needs through various forms of social engineering.

Soul Rebel

16th December 2003, 20:14

sure, lets make it harder for womyn to have access to safe abortions. you know what- why dont we just outlaw it altogether? that way womyn can seek out sketchy people to perform illegal abortions, end up with horrible infections, and then die. hell, thats much better. lets let tons of womyn die horrible deaths because anti-choice conservatives like yourself (thats right, conservatives, because in no way are you a leftist) dont feel its right. i mean, what the fuck. what the hell do womyn contribute to society anyway? we're nothing but property, dont have the capability to make decisions on our own, and we just dont know how the fuck to keep our legs shut.

look at the post below:

Soul Rebel

16th December 2003, 20:31

lets just womyn die as this poor woman did, when she didnt have to. This is preventable people and should not have to happen. This is why we need to keep abortion legal.

If you want to read her story go to http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/issu...l_abortion.html (http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/issues/issues_morality_of_legal_abortion.html)

Invader Zim

16th December 2003, 20:49

Originally posted by el_profe+Dec 15 2003, 09:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (el_profe @ Dec 15 2003, 09:43 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 11:53 AM

[email protected] 14 2003, 11:04 AM
im considering suing my father to pay for backed child support and my college because he never payed a single dime and is required to pay for my college.
I wouldn't balme you, my bastrad father has Never paid a single penny towards my upbringing. I may go and pay him a visit for the first time in 14 years when I'm 18 in April.
what if your mom's would of had an abortion because they knew your fathers wouldnt of paid a dime for child support? after all it is very hard for a single woman to raise a child on her own. [/b]
what if your mom's would of had an abortion because they knew your fathers wouldnt of paid a dime for child support? after all it is very hard for a single woman to raise a child on her own.

Then I would not have been born, it doesnt take a genius to work that out. But just because my mother chose to keep me, doesn't mean she should have been denied all choise and had to keep me.

16th December 2003, 21:15

Why did these people use gary coleman for this?

http://www.garycoleman.com

Soul Rebel

16th December 2003, 21:31

that was a silly move. lets force people into checking out an antichoice site by using gary coleman. you know maybe prochoice sites should start using justin timberlake to pull people into their sites. how clever <_<

its ridiculous to use those pictures. i dont believe them- especially today because of two reasons: one being that now there is nonsurgical abortion and the second being that if a surgical abortion is done, the fetus would be tiny, not completely or almost completely developed. what they show you are altered pictures of late trimester abortions, which are usually done to save the womans life. tricky ass move on behalf of the antichoicers if you ask me.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

17th December 2003, 01:31

When I say make it easier/harder to get an abortion, what I meant was more along the lines of encourage/discourage it. I think that the government should engineer society to contain the maximum number of people to keep it running at optimum effieciency. That should be done by giving incentives for familes to have, or not to have, children, depending on society's needs. In the picture above, the fetus's father attempted the procedure, thereby, it could be assumed that both parties want the abortion, and thereby the abortion could legally take place.

el_profe

17th December 2003, 19:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 09:30 AM

El Profe:

SHIT, I bet your dad left you, or some guy dumpted you and fcking left you traumatized cause youre definetly a feminist probably a fcking lesbian who just hates men. men should have choices in reproduciton because they are 50% of the equation, listen no one forced the girl to fuck, she wanted to fuck, ends up pregnant and now want a doctor to solve her mistake?..... If a girl doesnt want to get pregnant use the fckng pill or be sure the man uses protectin or have her uterus removed. THIS IS WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT, WHAT HAPPENED TO PERSONAL RESPONSABILTY???????
We live in the victim era and its like a virus spreading all over where people blame others for their mistakes.

This is typical misogynist bullshit.
These 'stupid sluts' should pay for being women, in your eyes.
And being a 'fcking lesbian' who 'hates men' is the greatest crime of all in this patriarchal society.
I get the feeling you don't like male 'superiority' being challenged eh?
what, "stupid sluts should pay for being women" how the hell did you ever get that from my post????
Both the man and the women need to be responsible for that child, if not then the man does not have to pay child support.

I dont like male "superiority" being challenged?
What male superiority? you just hate men. thats all.

el_profe

17th December 2003, 19:15

Soul Rebel

17th December 2003, 21:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 02:31 AM
When I say make it easier/harder to get an abortion, what I meant was more along the lines of encourage/discourage it. I think that the government should engineer society to contain the maximum number of people to keep it running at optimum effieciency. That should be done by giving incentives for familes to have, or not to have, children, depending on society's needs. In the picture above, the fetus's father attempted the procedure, thereby, it could be assumed that both parties want the abortion, and thereby the abortion could legally take place.
How could it take place legally when abortion was outlawed? This was before Roe-vs-Wade. It was still a time when womyn were using coat hangers to give themselves an abortion. Even if the man wanted it- it was still illegal. It was illegal for everyone, period.

And why should a woman have a child depending on society's needs? She should have the child because she wants to, not because anyone told her to or rewards her for doing so.

El Profe- who cares if we have been pregnant? We can still be prochoice, because its a matter of choice. I know many womyn who have children and are pro-choice. That doesnt make them any less of a mother or hateful of childbearing- it makes them reasonable people who believe people should have the ability to make their own decisions regarding their body. I might as well say that i cant be anti war because i have never been in a war, that i cant be pro-guncontrol because i have never owned a gun or been shot, that i cant be an AIDS activist because i am not suffering from HIV/AIDS, that i cant be a gay activist because i am not gay, etc. And i dont recall anyone talking about pregnancy like it were torture. There is a difference in saying that womyn suffer without abortion from such things as poverty and saying that pregnancy is torture. Rather than read what you want to read, maybe you should read what is actually there. And who the fuck said they hated men? Maybe if you didnt have these stereotypical ideas of prochoicers and feminists you wouldnt have said that. And you call yourself a leftist? So unbelievable sad and pathetic. How can you be a leftists when you have no respect whatsoever for feminists (who by the way really helped spread the word of socialism and communism, organize unions, start social welfare services, etc.) or womyns choice? Oh and sure, the man can have "irrespnosible sex" and not have anything happen to him? No child support? Either way womyn will always be tied down, while men get off easy. My goodness do i ever love double standards.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

17th December 2003, 21:45

Men don't get off easy on irresponsible sex (at least if they are lawful). They get stuck paying child support, not only that, but they often don't even get any rights to the child that they are supporting (If you are paying for a child, at very least you should get to visit her/him). The failure not to isn't from bad legislature, but the inadaquate enforcement of it. As far as (tied down) goes, no one is forcing a woman to take care of the child after its born. For all of women's pain and suffering, I think they should recieve money for it (if society needs more people) because they are doing a service for society, supplying children, during which some of that time, they can't work.

dopediana

17th December 2003, 23:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 10:45 PM
Men don't get off easy on irresponsible sex (at least if they are lawful). They get stuck paying child support, not only that, but they often don't even get any rights to the child that they are supporting (If you are paying for a child, at very least you should get to visit her/him).
actually, they do. men get to visit the children unless they get a restraining order put against them. and what the freak do you mean "if you pay for a child you should have visiting rights"? i know guys who really don't deserve to visit their kids even though they do pay for them. men pay for children because they fertilized the egg and therefore are responsible for the child's existence. however as the woman carried the fetus in her womb for 9 months, she deserves to decide whether the man can visit or not.
and some guys really don't pay child support. an acquaintance of a friend is in deep shit for neglecting child payments while paying off an $8,000 ring for his new wife.

The failure not to isn't from bad legislature, but the inadaquate enforcement of it. As far as (tied down) goes, no one is forcing a woman to take care of the child after its born. For all of women's pain and suffering, I think they should recieve money for it (if society needs more people) because they are doing a service for society, supplying children, during which some of that time, they can't work.

women deserve money to take care of the child. not because they're doing society a service but because the child needs clothes, food, healthcare, and school. women shouldn't have to receive money for popping out babies, that's a really sick idea. especially because if women have babies to make money, it means the child's value as a person is decreased and abuse and neglect is more likely to happen. and when has society needed more people?

apathy maybe

18th December 2003, 08:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 01:59 AM

Far Left. The anti-choice who say that you must abort all second and third, etc. children. (hasher then China)
That's quite bizarre...who is the "far leftist" who advocates that?

In this case left and right were just arbitrary labels. They could have been up and down, in and out, green and red, black and nine, any two labels that could signify a line.

As to who advocates compulsary abortion, I am sure that there would be many greenies out there that would. This (http://vhemt.org/) <http://vhemt.org/>bloke doesn't but would like you not to breed.
He does support abortions but <http://vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#abortion>

RedFW

18th December 2003, 09:08

I bet most women on this forum that are pro abortion. Have never been pregnant?
WHY? becuase they talk about pregnancy like if it where torture. If it was half as bad as you describe it to be, women would hate having one child and lets not talk about another one because the torture of being pregnant is just too much. IF you have not been pregnant than you cant say how it feels to be pregnant cause you have never been through it. Its like me saying war is easy , when i have never been in war.

Whether most of the women here have or have not been pregnant is neither here nor there. Most of the people participating in this discussion are probably male and will never be pregnant themselves. They will never know what it feels like because they will never go through it; whereas, most women can become pregnant, whether they have or haven't, will or won't, doesn't really matter. Any decision about reproductive rights affects us. So, you can insist only women who have been pregnant have a valid opinion, and I can argue men can never have one, but what it comes down to is there is no one better informed about the woman's circumstances, what she feels about pregnancy, birth, motherhood, abortion than the woman faced with this, and that is why I think no one should interefere with her right to choose an abortion or not choose one.

I don't think anyone argued pregnancy is in itself torture, but if it isn't a choice, it very well could be. And, BTW, I have been pregnant.

JUST TELL ME THIS, HOW can you support abortion when the women is past the 6th month, where we know a child can be born in the 7th month, not only that but the child is practically formed.

That is quite an interesting question,isn't it? As if abortions after the sixth month were a regular occurence. This is from the National Abortion Federation fact sheet series (references are given on the webpage):

Despite the claims of some anti-abortion activists, women have access to abortion in the third trimester only in extreme circumstances. Fewer than 2% of abortions are performed 21 weeks or after, and they are extremely rare after 26 weeks of pregnancy. Very few abortions are provided in the third trimester, and they are generally limited to cases of severe fetal abnormalities or situations when the life or health of the pregnant woman is seriously threatened.

and

The earlier an abortion is performed the safer it is, because earlier abortions are less complicated. Therefore, it is important that women who decide to get abortions can do so without unnecessary delays. In fact, 88% of all abortions in the United States are obtained within the first 12-13 weeks after the last menstrual period (LMP). Sometimes, however, women have compelling reasons to obtain abortions in later weeks.

So, most abortions are performed before the third trimester or very early in the second, the third and fourth months, respectively. And even then abortion performed after the fifth month, as you described only make up 2% are only carried out for the reasons given above.

Rastafari

13th January 2004, 01:40

All these Pro-Life ideas do are breed ignorance. Here, want to see?
http://committeeforjustice.org/contents/ne...newyorker.shtml (http://committeeforjustice.org/contents/news/news052603_newyorker.shtml)

This little bit is from a philosopher and social observer by the name of George Carlin:
"Have you ever noticed that most people who are against abortion are people that you wouldnt want to fuck in the first place? Conservitives are physically unattractive and morally inconsistant. They're obsessed with fetuses from conseption to nine months, but after that they have no interest in you. None. No day care, no Head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothin'. If your preborn, you're fine; if you're preshool, you're fucked. Once you leave the womb, concervitives don't care about you until you reach military age. then you're just what they're looking for. conservitaves want live babies so they can raise them to dead soldiers. Pro-life. How can they be pro-life when they're killin doctors? what sort of moral philosophy is that? "We'll do anything to save a fetus, but we might have to kill it later if it grows up to be a doctor"? They're not pro-life; they're antiwoman. Simple. They're afraid of women, and they dont like them. They believe that a womans primary role is to function as a brood mare for the State. If they think that a fetus is more important than a woman,they should try gettin a fetus to wash the shit stains outta their underwear. For no pay. Pro-life. You dont see many white, antiabortion women volunteering to have black fetuses transplanted into their uteruses, do you? No. You dont see them adopting any crack babies, do you? No. Thats something Jesus would do. And you dont see many pro-lifers dousing themselves with kerosene and lighting themselves on fire. Remember the Buddhist monks in Vietnam? Morally committed religious people in Southeast Aisa knew how to start a protest: light yourself on fire! C'mon, you Christian crusaders, lets see a little smoke. Lets see if you can match that fire in your bellies. Seperate thought: why is it when it's a human being its called abortion, and when its a chicken it's called an omelet? Are we so much better than chickens? When did this happen? Name six ways we're better than chickens. See? No one can do it. You know why? Because chickens are decent people. You don't see chickens hanging around in drug gangs, do you? No. You don't see chickens strappin' someone to a chair and hookin their nuts to a car battery. and when's the last time you heard about a chicken who came home from work and beat the shit outta his hen? Huh? It dosnt happen. You know why? Because chickens are decent people. Back to abortion: The central question seems to be "Are fetuses human beings?" Well, if fetuses are human beings, why aren't they counted by the census? If fetuses are human beings, why is it there are no funeral following a miscarage? If fetuses are human beings, why so people say, "We have two children and one on the way," instead of saying, "We have three children:?
Some people say life begins at conception; I say life began a billion years ago, and its a continuous process. And actually, it goes back farther than that. What about the carbon atoms? Human life could not exist without carbon. So is it possible that maybe we shouldnt be burning all this coal? I dont mean to be picky, Im just looking for a little consistancy.
The hard core pro-lifers tell us that life begins at fertilization, when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Which usually ocours a few minutes after the man says "Sorry honey, I would have pulled out but the phone startled me."
But even after fertilization it's still 6 or 7 days before the egg reaches uterus and the pregnancy begins. And not every egg makes it. 80% of a womans fertilized eggs are rinsed out of her body once a month during those delightful few days she has. They end up on sanitary napkins, yet they are fertilized eggs. So, what these antiabortion people are actually trying to tell us is that any woman thats had more than one period is a serial killer. I dont mean to be picky, Im just looking for a little consistancy."

el_profe

13th January 2004, 06:26

Originally posted by AllTomorrowsParties+Dec 18 2003, 12:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AllTomorrowsParties @ Dec 18 2003, 12:52 AM)
[email protected] 17 2003, 10:45 PM
Men don't get off easy on irresponsible sex (at least if they are lawful). They get stuck paying child support, not only that, but they often don't even get any rights to the child that they are supporting (If you are paying for a child, at very least you should get to visit her/him).
actually, they do. men get to visit the children unless they get a restraining order put against them. and what the freak do you mean "if you pay for a child you should have visiting rights"? i know guys who really don't deserve to visit their kids even though they do pay for them. men pay for children because they fertilized the egg and therefore are responsible for the child's existence. however as the woman carried the fetus in her womb for 9 months, she deserves to decide whether the man can visit or not.
and some guys really don't pay child support. an acquaintance of a friend is in deep shit for neglecting child payments while paying off an $8,000 ring for his new wife.

The failure not to isn't from bad legislature, but the inadaquate enforcement of it. As far as (tied down) goes, no one is forcing a woman to take care of the child after its born. For all of women's pain and suffering, I think they should recieve money for it (if society needs more people) because they are doing a service for society, supplying children, during which some of that time, they can't work.

women deserve money to take care of the child. not because they're doing society a service but because the child needs clothes, food, healthcare, and school. women shouldn't have to receive money for popping out babies, that's a really sick idea. especially because if women have babies to make money, it means the child's value as a person is decreased and abuse and neglect is more likely to happen. and when has society needed more people? [/b]
Okay, that post just showed you just hate men, you just turned this into a man against women issues. Which it clearly isnt.

Women usually get more money than they actually need for the child, and in some cases the father has to pay the mom for her living expenses. The excuse being "the mom has the child", If taking care of the child is such a problem why dont they give to the father?..

I know why, cause they child is like a paycheck to them. Sad but true. Ive seen this happen to many times, its a good thing thing NH passed a law(i think they passed it) saying its unconstitutional for men to have to pay for all of the child's college education.

Loknar

13th January 2004, 08:13

If a woman is stupid enough to stick a close hanger insider of her then I'd say she is STUPID. I see it as no different from a cave man driving a nail into his head. I am sorry to sound unsympathetic but come on, there are other options. Adoption for example. Why is adoption bad? Because it would 'hurt' the kid? Well big fuck, if I have learned anything in my 19 years it’s life is just full of so much bad shit anyway. Abortion is the usual baby boomer answer to everything, the baby boomers are the most narcissistic, self-centered generation to walk the face of the earth.

Now, sometimes abortion is necessary, but to abort your kid because YOU fucked up by not wearing a condom it is your own damn fault. I remember reading about a case where a woman had an abortion because she wanted to go skiing with her friends. The current system is abused by trash of every type. I am usually anti-social program, but I think it may not be a bad idea for single mothers who decide to have a kid to be put through school by the government at no cost. It would help her get on her feet and raise the kid in a good environment. Anyway, it comes down to this, will you accept responsibility for YOUR actions?

As for the decision making process, drop the fact that I am anti-abortion. This comes does to men’s and women’s rights. Now, the woman doesn’t need the mans consent to abort the fetus, but for some reason he is responsible if she decides to give birth. I personally think this needs to be a 1 way street, the man should be included in all processes with in reason. If a woman’s body is her own, then why is the man responsible for anything that comes out? That’s from her body, her problem, not a mans problem.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th January 2004, 10:37

I say a baby is a man's responsiblity too, and they should be just as involved with the child as the mother, and likewise, he should get the same rights. Yes, the woman carries the child for 9 months, but no one can make men carry babies. We should strive to make things as equal as possible, and that includes including father in deciding to keep/abort the child, and raising it. I do not like the current system where a man has no rights to his child.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

13th January 2004, 11:57

el_Profe, Loknar, MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr, I hope you have unplanned pregnancies...

Misogynist fucks.

truthaddict11

13th January 2004, 13:00

i second that NoXion, its surprising how even one of these people has CC access..

el_profe, my mom and biological father got divorced 16 years ago I havent gotten a fucking cent from that asshole, and there were SEVERAL times in my life when we really needed that money. are you unaware how hard it is for single mothers to make it?

MidnightMarauder and Loknar, you say a should have a decision in a womens pregnancy, why? its her body, what if the "vote" is a tie? The decision to abort a pregnancy should be only the womens decision, the father is welcome to offer his opinion but the choice should only be that of the womens

I do not like the current system where a man has no rights to his child.

does that include the right over a womens body? <_<

Loknar

13th January 2004, 13:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 12:57 PM
el_Profe, Loknar, MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr, I hope you have unplanned pregnancies...

Misogynist fucks.
Actually I come from an unplanned pregnancy.

el_profe

13th January 2004, 18:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 09:13 AM
If a woman is stupid enough to stick a close hanger insider of her then I'd say she is STUPID. I see it as no different from a cave man driving a nail into his head. I am sorry to sound unsympathetic but come on, there are other options. Adoption for example. Why is adoption bad? Because it would 'hurt' the kid? Well big fuck, if I have learned anything in my 19 years it’s life is just full of so much bad shit anyway. Abortion is the usual baby boomer answer to everything, the baby boomers are the most narcissistic, self-centered generation to walk the face of the earth.

Now, sometimes abortion is necessary, but to abort your kid because YOU fucked up by not wearing a condom it is your own damn fault. I remember reading about a case where a woman had an abortion because she wanted to go skiing with her friends. The current system is abused by trash of every type. I am usually anti-social program, but I think it may not be a bad idea for single mothers who decide to have a kid to be put through school by the government at no cost. It would help her get on her feet and raise the kid in a good environment. Anyway, it comes down to this, will you accept responsibility for YOUR actions?

Yes. I think abortion should anly be allowed in the first 2 months, maybe the third month of pregnancy.
Everyone ignores the fact that this is just an wasy way out for the mistakes of a person.
Their are many women that cant have babis, and would like to adopt a child. giving the child for adoption i think is a better option than abortion.
This is about responsability, people are making the women seem like victims because they get pregnant, unless they where raped, its their fault(and the mans fault also) that she got pregnant. She is not a victim.

As for the decision making process, drop the fact that I am anti-abortion. This comes does to men’s and women’s rights. Now, the woman doesn’t need the mans consent to abort the fetus, but for some reason he is responsible if she decides to give birth. I personally think this needs to be a 1 way street, the man should be included in all processes with in reason. If a woman’s body is her own, then why is the man responsible for anything that comes out? That’s from her body, her problem, not a mans problem.
Yes, everyone wants the man to pay for the child, but when hedoes not want an abortion his approval is not needed??? Although I would agree that most of the time the man also is in favor of the abortion.

el_profe

13th January 2004, 18:41

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th January 2004, 19:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 10:00 AM
MidnightMarauder and Loknar, you say a should have a decision in a womens pregnancy, why? its her body, what if the "vote" is a tie? The decision to abort a pregnancy should be only the womens decision, the father is welcome to offer his opinion but the choice should only be that of the womens

I do not like the current system where a man has no rights to his child.

does that include the right over a womens body? <_<
The woman's body unfortunately has something that belongs to the father too. In the event of a "tie" when the man whats the child, and the woman does not, I think the man should automatically gain custody of the child, and the woman still has the baby, but gets off scot free without paying anything. I feel likewise, if a man does not want the child, and the woman does, then likewise, the man forfeits all rights to the child, and gets off scot free likewise. It's not perfect, but I think that is the fairest way to do things, in respect to both the man and the woman.

Invader Zim

13th January 2004, 19:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 02:00 PM
i second that NoXion, its surprising how even one of these people has CC access..

el_profe, my mom and biological father got divorced 16 years ago I havent gotten a fucking cent from that asshole, and there were SEVERAL times in my life when we really needed that money. are you unaware how hard it is for single mothers to make it?

MidnightMarauder and Loknar, you say a should have a decision in a womens pregnancy, why? its her body, what if the "vote" is a tie? The decision to abort a pregnancy should be only the womens decision, the father is welcome to offer his opinion but the choice should only be that of the womens

I do not like the current system where a man has no rights to his child.

does that include the right over a womens body? <_<
my mom and biological father got divorced 16 years ago I havent gotten a fucking cent from that asshole, and there were SEVERAL times in my life when we really needed that money.

Yeah me and my mum never got any money from my father, but thgey weren't married, though they had been having a long term relationship for years, and the pregancy was planned. But he's not apying a penny anyway.

Great system.

are you unaware how hard it is for single mothers to make it?

Very

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

13th January 2004, 19:56

I say if socialist measures were implemented, it shouldn't be that hard to raise children, even as a single mother. I say that neither side should have to pay for a child they don't want. If the father just turned tail and left, then abortion or adoption is always a choise, otherwise, some sacrafices are going to have to be made for the parent wanting to keep the child, and the state should be there to help, not the father, since it is the woman's body after all. If the father doesn't want to be a father, then I say he forfeits his rights, and responsibities to the child. However if the father wants to be a father, then I say the father should have certain rights, and responsibilities, to the child.

Loknar

13th January 2004, 20:02

My mom was also a single mother, I was the perfect candidate for abortion by abortionist standards, that is why I hate pro abortionists with a passion. Pro abortion wackos would have a kid like my self aborted to make my moms life 'easier' and to save me from 'pain'. How pussy is that?! As s someone who came from it , I can say that the reasons for abortion that are often thrown around are so pussy it isn’t even funny. This, and the current court system are the root of my hate for feminists.

Vinny Rafarino

13th January 2004, 22:25

I find it hard to take anyone seriously whom actually forms his opinion based on actions he considers to be "pussy" or "not pussy".

I am certainly glad there are people like you defending "international freedom" Mr. Loknar. It makes our jobs much easier.

See dick play. See dick run. Dick is a pussy, he sucks.

Edit:

If a woman is stupid enough to stick a close hanger insider of her then I'd say she is STUPID

I just noticed this absurd statement. Good grief...someone should stick a hanger in this kid. A lobotomy is just what the doctor ordered.

truthaddict11

13th January 2004, 22:37

The woman's body unfortunately has something that belongs to the father too. In the event of a "tie" when the man whats the child, and the woman does not, I think the man should automatically gain custody of the child, and the woman still has the baby

so force a women to go through with a unwanted pregnancy because the father wants it. basicly control over the womens body, lets see how far you get when you tell women that, Mr Falwell.

Commie Girl

13th January 2004, 22:55

I first was pregnant when I was 20, I chose to have the baby and marry the father. We went on to adopt a child and have two more biological children. The marriage ended after 17 years due to my ex-husband's mental illness (he committed suicide last January) and when I look into my oldest childs eyes, I can not believe that I even considered an abortion....but I did, and I decided that I would give him life, no matter how difficult it would be. Every day I am very thankful that another woman was so UNSELFISH as to put her child's best interest FIRST and let him live! Adoption is THE only choice! I am just voicing my opinion because I was also a single woman, pregnant, and have also gone through the agony of wanting to adopt a child....because of the abortion on demand policies, we were told there was a 10 year wait for an infant, so we opted to adopt an older child, who also has Fetal Alcohol and Autism! Convenience and selfishness are the reasons many women give for seeking an abortion. It is a baseless argument to say that this is anti-woman ( I am a woman) and whether people like it or not, women are the ones who carry the baby, but there wouldnt be a baby without a man. Men should have a say and it is ONLY 9 months out of a womans ENTIRE life! Give the Gift of LIFE!

Loknar

13th January 2004, 23:45

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 13 2004, 11:25 PM
I find it hard to take anyone seriously whom actually forms his opinion based on actions he considers to be "pussy" or "not pussy".

I am certainly glad there are people like you defending "international freedom" Mr. Loknar. It makes our jobs much easier.

See dick play. See dick run. Dick is a pussy, he sucks.

Edit:

If a woman is stupid enough to stick a close hanger insider of her then I'd say she is STUPID

I just noticed this absurd statement. Good grief...someone should stick a hanger in this kid. A lobotomy is just what the doctor ordered.
I suppose you're right RAF, but I am only speaking compassionately.

and what's wrong with the close hanger statement? these days you don’t need a close hanger, just head for a clinic or pop in RU-486

Bad Grrrl Agro

16th January 2004, 15:03

I think abortion, personaly, would be an unfortunate choice but it still shouldbe legal.

D'Anconia

17th January 2004, 17:55

http://www.angelfire.com/wy/Aware/images/samuel.jpg
Samuel Alexander Armas
Age 21 weeks old – in-uterine
Photo credit: Michael Clancy

Take a good look at the stunning photograph reproduced below. It was taken in the operating room during delicate surgery on the spine of a baby boy who was still in his mother’s uterus. His name is Samuel Alexander Armas. I hope you will never forget his story.

"Samuel’s Story"
"What you are viewing should be designated ‘Picture of the century!’ It won’t be. Most people will never get an opportunity to see it.

The photo depicts a 21-week-old pre-born baby, who was being operated on by a surgeon named Joseph Bruner (It is his finger in the photo). The baby had been diagnosed with spina bifida, which leaves the spinal cord exposed after it fails to develop properly. Unless the gap was closed to protect his nervous system, serious brain damage would likely have occurred before birth. There was no time to lose. Unfortunately, the baby was too immature to survive outside the womb, and corrective surgery had never been performed on a baby this young. However, the parents, Julie and Alex Armas, have a deep faith. She is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta, who had heard through the Internet of Dr. Bruner’s work at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. He and his team pioneered these delicate operations. Despite the fact that the procedure has not yet been endorsed in medical journals, the decision was made to attempt it on behalf of little Samuel.

To operate on such a tiny baby required special miniature instruments to be created. The sutures used, for example, were less than the thickness of a human hair. A Caesarean section was then performed to lift the uterus gently from Julie’s body, permitting the surgeon to make a small incision through which the operation would be performed. Then, it happened! As Dr. Bruner was probing the opening, the baby’s fully-developed hand wrapped itself around the finger of the surgeon. The photograph captures that amazing moment with perfect clarity.

This picture should be shown on every newscast and run in every newspaper in America. Every teenager should also see it. Why? Because it is an unmistakable reminder that growing in the womb of each mother is a baby. It is not a ‘blob of tissue,’ or a ‘product of conception.’ A pre-born baby is fully human from the moment of conception. What we see in the photograph expresses that understanding better than a thousand words.

Little Samuel’s mother was quoted as saying she and her husband ‘wept for days’ when they saw the picture. She said, ‘This photo reminds us [that] my pregnancy wasn’t about disability or illness. It was about a little person.’

That’s what human pregnancy and birth are about — a tiny human being with an eternal soul being formed in the ‘image of God.’ And that’s what the media elite fails to comprehend. That’s also why they don’t want people to see the incredible picture of this precious baby grasping the hand of his physician. I pray that it will not be hidden forever."http://www.angelfire.com/wy/Aware/Samuel.html

Bad Grrrl Agro

17th January 2004, 18:00

Its a sad thing when that choice is made but its still with in the womyn's rights to make that decision

Loknar

17th January 2004, 21:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 07:00 PM
Its a sad thing when that choice is made but its still with in the womyn's rights to make that decision
But people don’t have a right to kill others, taking life away is simply an immoral act for virtually every human. when people have sex they know the risk involved.

Bad Grrrl Agro

17th January 2004, 21:36

to each his/her own comrade

Soviet power supreme

17th January 2004, 21:42

I just wonder how you can call yourself a liberater of the people when you are limiting their rights.

You are the one who gives no right to man and more important to the child.

So I am asking all of you pro-abortions that would you accept the abortion in communist society where there are no poor people and no rapers?

Bad Grrrl Agro

17th January 2004, 22:14

their probably have been rapists in a so-called communist country

bombeverything

19th January 2004, 22:18

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 17 2004, 10:42 PM

I just wonder how you can call yourself a liberater of the people when you are limiting their rights.

You are the one who gives no right to man and more important to the child.

So I am asking all of you pro-abortions that would you accept the abortion in communist society where there are no poor people and no rapers?

If you are talking about a communist country, meaning communism in the full sense of the word then I do not understand why you are asking this question. If someone wants an abortion, then so be it. In a truly communist society no one will have the power [or the right] to tell anyone other than themselves how to live their lives.

The choice MUST exist. Anything less is external control, which is the opposite of communism.

So yes I would accept it.

Why do you believe that drugs should be illegal? What is morally wrong about the use of drugs? Why should the choice be up to anyone else but the individual?

Sabocat

19th January 2004, 22:46

I just noticed this absurd statement. Good grief...someone should stick a hanger in this kid. A lobotomy is just what the doctor ordered.

:lol:

Can you say 51st trimester abortion?

Spartacus2002

20th January 2004, 00:40

as far as abortion goes, i have two questions is the fetus, embryo etc. human?

i would say yes

now is it alive?

yes it has a heartbeat, it moves etc.

another question how can a fetus baby whatever be killed 2 minutes before leaving the whomb and thats fine its all dandy and 2 minutes after its left the whomb if you kill it its murder what changes so much in those 2 minutes. i do believe in a womans right to have control over her body, but it is not her body that is inside her its someone elses. her right to choice is too choose to a) not have sex or b) have protected sex... dont say "well what if a 12 year old is raped and gets pregnant!" we dont make rules on exceptions, what if someone breaks in my house and i kill them cuz they try to shoot my family, that isent wrong so murder should be legal!

this is my only major disagreement with my fellow leftists. i think that killing a baby is a constructive way of dealing with irresponsibility... use birth control

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

20th January 2004, 03:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 07:37 PM

The woman's body unfortunately has something that belongs to the father too. In the event of a "tie" when the man whats the child, and the woman does not, I think the man should automatically gain custody of the child, and the woman still has the baby

so force a women to go through with a unwanted pregnancy because the father wants it. basicly control over the womens body, lets see how far you get when you tell women that, Mr Falwell.
Ah, but no one cries when a man is stuck paying child support for a child he didn't want!

BuyOurEverything

20th January 2004, 03:33

Originally posted by D'[email protected] 17 2004, 11:55 AM
http://www.angelfire.com/wy/Aware/images/samuel.jpg
Samuel Alexander Armas
Age 21 weeks old – in-uterine
Photo credit: Michael Clancy

Take a good look at the stunning photograph reproduced below. It was taken in the operating room during delicate surgery on the spine of a baby boy who was still in his mother’s uterus. His name is Samuel Alexander Armas. I hope you will never forget his story.

"Samuel’s Story"
"What you are viewing should be designated ‘Picture of the century!’ It won’t be. Most people will never get an opportunity to see it.

The photo depicts a 21-week-old pre-born baby, who was being operated on by a surgeon named Joseph Bruner (It is his finger in the photo). The baby had been diagnosed with spina bifida, which leaves the spinal cord exposed after it fails to develop properly. Unless the gap was closed to protect his nervous system, serious brain damage would likely have occurred before birth. There was no time to lose. Unfortunately, the baby was too immature to survive outside the womb, and corrective surgery had never been performed on a baby this young. However, the parents, Julie and Alex Armas, have a deep faith. She is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta, who had heard through the Internet of Dr. Bruner’s work at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. He and his team pioneered these delicate operations. Despite the fact that the procedure has not yet been endorsed in medical journals, the decision was made to attempt it on behalf of little Samuel.

To operate on such a tiny baby required special miniature instruments to be created. The sutures used, for example, were less than the thickness of a human hair. A Caesarean section was then performed to lift the uterus gently from Julie’s body, permitting the surgeon to make a small incision through which the operation would be performed. Then, it happened! As Dr. Bruner was probing the opening, the baby’s fully-developed hand wrapped itself around the finger of the surgeon. The photograph captures that amazing moment with perfect clarity.

This picture should be shown on every newscast and run in every newspaper in America. Every teenager should also see it. Why? Because it is an unmistakable reminder that growing in the womb of each mother is a baby. It is not a ‘blob of tissue,’ or a ‘product of conception.’ A pre-born baby is fully human from the moment of conception. What we see in the photograph expresses that understanding better than a thousand words.

Little Samuel’s mother was quoted as saying she and her husband ‘wept for days’ when they saw the picture. She said, ‘This photo reminds us [that] my pregnancy wasn’t about disability or illness. It was about a little person.’

That’s what human pregnancy and birth are about — a tiny human being with an eternal soul being formed in the ‘image of God.’ And that’s what the media elite fails to comprehend. That’s also why they don’t want people to see the incredible picture of this precious baby grasping the hand of his physician. I pray that it will not be hidden forever."http://www.angelfire.com/wy/Aware/Samuel.html
Nobody cares. Did you really think you were going to convince anyone on here by showing bloody pictures accompanied by religious bullshit?

and what's wrong with the close hanger statement? these days you don’t need a close hanger, just head for a clinic or pop in RU-486

Yes, assuming one has access to RU-486. But if they do, they wouldn't be using coat hangers, now would they? And since you bring it up, do you support the use of 486? Judging by the context you used it in, I'm guessing you do but what's the difference between that and a surgical abortion?

I think abortion, personaly, would be an unfortunate choice but it still shouldbe legal.

Why is it unfortunate? Like I've said before. abortion is either murder or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. You wouldn't refer to murder as an 'unfortunate choice.' The fact that you aren't against it as much as 'regular murder' reveals the fact that you know it isn't actually murder.

bombeverything

21st January 2004, 07:54

Nobody cares. Did you really think you were going to convince anyone on here by showing bloody pictures accompanied by religious bullshit?

:lol:

truthaddict11

21st January 2004, 13:45

Originally posted by MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr+Jan 19 2004, 11:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr @ Jan 19 2004, 11:07 PM)
[email protected] 13 2004, 07:37 PM

The woman's body unfortunately has something that belongs to the father too. In the event of a "tie" when the man whats the child, and the woman does not, I think the man should automatically gain custody of the child, and the woman still has the baby

so force a women to go through with a unwanted pregnancy because the father wants it. basicly control over the womens body, lets see how far you get when you tell women that, Mr Falwell.
Ah, but no one cries when a man is stuck paying child support for a child he didn't want! [/b]
are you not aware that there are women who pay child support too? you completely avoided my comment. abortion is a womens right issue, simple as that. you however want to force women to go through an unwanted pregnancy because the man wants the child. if you want a kid meet someone who shares your interest! it seems that you are nothing but a complete misogynic asshole, how you got CC access is beyond belief.

Nordic Rebel

22nd January 2004, 06:21

@ BuyOurEverythyng

I too have the oppinion that abortion is an unfortunate option but should be legal. I don't see it as murder (especially with a fetus in the first trisemester) but there are better options for birthcontrol but if they fail then an abortion should be available because banning abortions is only going to lead to shady back alley abortions and more children in homes where they are unwanted. I belive none of us wants that.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

22nd January 2004, 10:31

Originally posted by truthaddict11+Jan 21 2004, 10:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (truthaddict11 @ Jan 21 2004, 10:45 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 11:07 PM

[email protected] 13 2004, 07:37 PM

The woman's body unfortunately has something that belongs to the father too. In the event of a "tie" when the man whats the child, and the woman does not, I think the man should automatically gain custody of the child, and the woman still has the baby

so force a women to go through with a unwanted pregnancy because the father wants it. basicly control over the womens body, lets see how far you get when you tell women that, Mr Falwell.
Ah, but no one cries when a man is stuck paying child support for a child he didn't want!
are you not aware that there are women who pay child support too? you completely avoided my comment. abortion is a womens right issue, simple as that. you however want to force women to go through an unwanted pregnancy because the man wants the child. if you want a kid meet someone who shares your interest! it seems that you are nothing but a complete misogynic asshole, how you got CC access is beyond belief. [/b]
Ok then, let women off child support too. If this child were unwanted, then abortion is ok, but if the father wants his child, he should no less rights to the baby/fetus then the mother has. If I am "misogynic" because I want equal rights between a man and a woman, then so be it. I see abortion as murder only if one of the parents wants to have the child. Banning this type of abortion will NOT lead to more children in foster homes because these children ARE wanted, and if there are a rise in backalley abortions, there ought to be a rise in the prison population too.