Abortion

[AvoidingtheAmericanDream]

:huh: this might be a terrible idea.

but anyway. my stance on abortion is that we need it. firstly because if its made illegal, then girls are going to go through horrible back-alley abortions with monstrous tools that often times kill the mother and the baby alike.

secondly, and this is my main issue concerning abortion rights, the world is overpopulated with stupid, evil, dictating creatures called humans who exploit the earth, the other organisms, and even eachother. where are the good ol' hunters who're gonna come wipe out these sprawling hominids? its bad enough that american children are influenced to have as many kids as they can handle as soon as they get out of school and get a job and a house and a car.... note its mainly rightists who are in favor of aborting abortions.... maybe thats because theyd just love to see humans take over the world, shower in stolen money, hump some prostitutes, talk politics in the form of complicated economical debate which accounts for nil, and then go confess to their god. the god made in their image. oops, i mean the god who made man in his image. or do i?

drop some thoughts, either way.

[AvoidingtheAmericanDream]

i forgot to mention all the children without families who are waiting in orphanages.

[commiecrusader]

in general, i agree with you i think.


but anyway. my stance on abortion is that we need it. firstly because if its made illegal, then girls are going to go through horrible back-alley abortions with monstrous tools that often times kill the mother and the baby alike.
exactly like the Victorian times etc. also, punishing someone who helps a woman abort a baby who would otherwise probably be unloved, abuse, become a slave or whatever, is surely less morally blameworthy than encouraging this child to be brought into the world?

also, the pro-lifer agreement is essentially pretty stupid in my opinion, since legally, an organism isn't considered to be 'alive' unless it can function independently, which a foetus or bundle of cells clearly cant do. they therefore arent alive, and cannot therefore be 'killed' in the conventional sense. its like throwing away mould. could this not eventually turn into something more advanced if left to evolve like the bundly of cells (k thats kind of a crappy anachronism but whatever). in essence abortion is preventing something from coming alive, not killing something.

[Major. Rudiger]

:D Well i dont really care about abortions. Its more a girl thing i thonk. THat what right does a man say about abortions. You have no right to voe on the issue. Well you can talk about that ok but if its ever going to be down to a vote that woman should be the only one.


oh yah my school to go take part of a anti abortion portets i going this you just to cheack out Ottowa :D

[fallen camarade]

Abortion is a technology that is here to stay, no matter what anyone feels about it. It simply cannot be officially "okay", or made illegal, so it is just going to remain the choice of individual people as to whether or not they want to use it. If asked where I stand on the issue, I would say "who cares, it's not going anywhere". If I absolutely had to choose between pro-life and pro-choice, I would associate with those who believe in the pro-choice movement, but I'd rather just tell people that it's a waste of time to argue about it, and even more importantly, that voting for a presidential candidate based on their view of abortion is a very stupid thing to do.

[yoko_ono]

I will absolutely not stand for any more crusty old republican men telling us what to do with our bodies. I just can't believe people would harass and even attempt to kill abortion doctors or women who try to get abortion. And no I don't think men should have any say what so ever in the decision.

[NovelGentry]

Legally I'm not arguing that men should or shouldn't have a say, but be aware that some men really wish they did, myself included. The fact is if I ever get a girl pregnant and she gets an abortion without consulting me I'm aborting her -- but that's just me.

I'm legally pro-choice, but personally pro-life

[Michael De Panama]

While we're on the subject, everybody should check this out:

http://www.showandtellmusic.com/mp3s/galle...MarkieDiary.mp3 (http://www.showandtellmusic.com/mp3s/gallery_l/MarkieDiary.mp3)

"The Diary Of An Unborn Fetus"

Listen to it all the way through.

It'll blow your mind!!

[LSD]

Disgusting.

Absolutely disgusting reactionary exploitative manipulative bullshit.

Next let's hear about the cancer cell that is tragically irradiated.

"...when god me special for you..."

FUCK YOU. Whoever made that should have their testicles ripped out. The sheer arrogance and presumption is appalling. FUCK YOU.

I am really at a loss on this one, that pissed me off more than anything I've heared in a long while.

FUCK YOU

[Michael De Panama]

Well, I thought it was pretty funny.

It's some grown man doing a munchkin voice. The unborn child is a blonde haired blue-eyed boy, of course.

:P

[LSD]

The unborn child is a blonde haired blue-eyed boy, of course.

Well, white children are worth more...... :D


That is, honestly, a very scarry piece of propaganda.
It just showcases how deeply insane people on the other side of this are....

..they think their foetuses are talking to them...

[Subversive Pessimist]

I will absolutely not stand for any more crusty old republican men telling us what to do with our bodies.

Fine, do what you want to do with your body, just don't hurt anyone else. Abortion is not about doing "whatever you want with your own body", it's about killing another human being. One of the methods is to inject ACID into the childs body and kill it.

[pandora]

This conversation makes me sad mostly because the nature of most of the answers are really unfeeling on a complicated subject.
This is a private decision a woman or family must make based on love and needs.
I am currently living with a woman giving her baby up for adoption, this is the second time I have lived and supported a woman in this situation.
It breaks my heart.
The emotional drain and physical demands of having a baby to give it up for adoption can permently psychologically damage a woman for life.
Hoping this time works out better, she is healthy with a good boyfriend and doing well emotionally.
Last time my friend tried to kill herself afterwards, her drug addiction spiralled and she became a drug addict after taking many with her into a hell realm.

You can not imagine how giving up a baby affects someone, Jenny's dead now, she died of AIDS in SF I've heard after being a prostitute and then helping others in the hospice. What a waste, the baby died after 2 years of crib death.
Jenny had a second baby to overcome the lose, it also died because Jenny was an addict at that point.
Heartbreaking, the pain in her heart nearly killed everyone around her because she lashed out as she fell.

She tried to abort the first baby, but guilt held her back so she would then try to throw herself down stairs trying to kill her and the baby.

So, now what do you think about abortion.
Jenny might have been hurt by that, but not like she was.
I hope my friend now makes it through.
I've known other mothers who;ve given up their babies, I never met one who did not have a large dark hole in her heart where a baby should have been.
MUCH WORSE THAN AN ABORTION IN EFFECT.

So there you go, that's what I think.

[NovelGentry]

I argued something in a conversation once that can be somewhat adapted to this. It was a matter of how people were born into poverty, and the person was arguing that it is the parents fault. I agree that it is the parents decision to birth a child into poverty, however, it is not the position of the parents to escape poverty as easily as the capitalist would have you believe, and furthermore it is the right of people to have children. Thus people are placed in a situation where there rights are restricted by a system which forces them to be guilty of that right. Truly sickening if you ask me.

Let me just ask you this however, you said she tried to abort the baby but guilt held her back so she just threw herself down the stairs trying to kill it and herself. She was too guilty to abort the baby but not to guilty to abort the babies life aswell as her own?

I just can't understand that kind of logic. Her intention is to kill the baby either way, whether she dies with it or doesn't should not make her feel less guilty, she's still killing the baby.

This argument seems at first to work against abortion by making it seem like abortion can make someone so guilt ridden that they don't just kill the baby but kill themselves -- but wouldn't this problem only become ten times worse if abortion was legal? Possibly not through the mother intentionally killing herselft but accidently, as well as more intentional cases?

[LSD]

Fine, do what you want to do with your body, just don't hurt anyone else. Abortion is not about doing "whatever you want with your own body", it's about killing another human being. One of the methods is to inject ACID into the childs body and kill it.

Absolute Bullshit.

Their is no child, there is no "human being."

As long as the "child" is a zygote parasitically feeding off of the mother, you're damn right it's a "part of her body." If we start defining humans as anything that is gnetically human or anything that has the potential to be human, we start down a very dangerous road.

Society must set boundries for when something is human and when it is not. Birth is a very simple, definable, and pragmatic point at which to do so.


What exactly would you propose as an alternative?
Forced births?

How about we strap the mother down and push the baby out of her. After all what say should she have over her own womb?


It is rather shocking that there are still some who cling to the archaic belief that they have a right to tell someone else what they can or cannot carry within them.

It's times like this I'm glad I don't live in America.

[NovelGentry]

Yeah!!! what if doctors thought it was a baby but the mother knew it was a giant tick who crawled into her womb!!! That's not killing a human, that's killing a giant tick!

But on a serious note, I agree a boundary must be set, but I do not agree that it is birth. Premature births produce living and sometimes well off babies, thus it can be shown that they are self-sustainable (or as self-sustainable as an old person on a respirator) at some point before birth. It would be and should be a crime to try and abort a baby even a month before birth, the child would come out kicking and screaming and the doctor would do little more than jab a pair of scissors into it's head. There's already a form of abortion similar to this in later terms, however, I think it must be researched more to actually be able to understand whether it's a point where the child is somewhat self-sufficient or is still in great need of mother.

If you base the argument completely on when the child is considered independent of the mother you go down an equally slippery slope that could allow for parents to legally neglect or abandon children who are already born.

[commiecrusader]

You cannot argue that an unborn baby is alive since it is entirely dependent on the mother. It is part of the mother, and therefore the mother should have the right to decide what happens to it.

[NovelGentry]

A born baby is entirely dependent on the mother (or caretaker)... dependent == needed to survive, if the mother does not feed the child it will die.

[NovelGentry]

A born baby is entirely dependent on the mother (or caretaker)... dependent == needed to survive, if the mother does not feed the child it will die.

[NovelGentry]

A born baby is entirely dependent on the mother (or caretaker)... dependent == needed to survive, if the mother does not feed the child it will die.

[LSD]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 05:39 PM
You cannot argue that an unborn baby is alive since it is entirely dependent on the mother. It is part of the mother, and therefore the mother should have the right to decide what happens to it.

That is not a particularly good argument, but I agree with the sentiment.


You cannot argue that an unborn baby is alive since it is entirely dependent on the mother. It is part of the mother, and therefore the mother should have the right to decide what happens to it.

That is the obvious rebuttal to a not particualarly good argument.

Here's a better one.

It's all bullshit. All of it. Basically the quibbling over "quickening" or "viability" is ultimately meaningless.

But then so is the "sanctity" of human life. Human life is only more important than, say, a dog's life because we ourselves our human and we make the decisions.

With that understood, I would propose that the reason that the line should be set at birth is exactly what you outlined. Any later and you risk the abuse of children.

Why is that worse than murdering a child 5 seconds before they would be otherwise born?
Because those 5 seconds make all the difference.

One the child is out of the mother he/she is a part of society, he/she is a seperate actor, albeit a dependent one. The essential difference is that the obligation of society, indeed the sole obligation of a society is to protect and care for the members of that society. That's it.

A child that has not yet been born is not a member of that society, and is therefore not subject to protection by it.

The "moral argument" that "taking a life" is "wrong" is as meaningless as it is petty. We take lives all the time, we hunt, we fish, we kill spiders. We outlaw murder because allowing a member of society to kill another potentially endangers every member of that society. If one individual kills another, society has failed in its duty to the murdered one.


A foetus is not privy to that protection, not because it isn't alive, but because by the only definition that matters in the discusion, it isn't human yet.

[LSD]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 05:39 PM
You cannot argue that an unborn baby is alive since it is entirely dependent on the mother. It is part of the mother, and therefore the mother should have the right to decide what happens to it.

That is not a particularly good argument, but I agree with the sentiment.


You cannot argue that an unborn baby is alive since it is entirely dependent on the mother. It is part of the mother, and therefore the mother should have the right to decide what happens to it.

That is the obvious rebuttal to a not particualarly good argument.

Here's a better one.

It's all bullshit. All of it. Basically the quibbling over "quickening" or "viability" is ultimately meaningless.

But then so is the "sanctity" of human life. Human life is only more important than, say, a dog's life because we ourselves our human and we make the decisions.

With that understood, I would propose that the reason that the line should be set at birth is exactly what you outlined. Any later and you risk the abuse of children.

Why is that worse than murdering a child 5 seconds before they would be otherwise born?
Because those 5 seconds make all the difference.

One the child is out of the mother he/she is a part of society, he/she is a seperate actor, albeit a dependent one. The essential difference is that the obligation of society, indeed the sole obligation of a society is to protect and care for the members of that society. That's it.

A child that has not yet been born is not a member of that society, and is therefore not subject to protection by it.

The "moral argument" that "taking a life" is "wrong" is as meaningless as it is petty. We take lives all the time, we hunt, we fish, we kill spiders. We outlaw murder because allowing a member of society to kill another potentially endangers every member of that society. If one individual kills another, society has failed in its duty to the murdered one.


A foetus is not privy to that protection, not because it isn't alive, but because by the only definition that matters in the discusion, it isn't human yet.

[LSD]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 05:39 PM
You cannot argue that an unborn baby is alive since it is entirely dependent on the mother. It is part of the mother, and therefore the mother should have the right to decide what happens to it.

That is not a particularly good argument, but I agree with the sentiment.


You cannot argue that an unborn baby is alive since it is entirely dependent on the mother. It is part of the mother, and therefore the mother should have the right to decide what happens to it.

That is the obvious rebuttal to a not particualarly good argument.

Here's a better one.

It's all bullshit. All of it. Basically the quibbling over "quickening" or "viability" is ultimately meaningless.

But then so is the "sanctity" of human life. Human life is only more important than, say, a dog's life because we ourselves our human and we make the decisions.

With that understood, I would propose that the reason that the line should be set at birth is exactly what you outlined. Any later and you risk the abuse of children.

Why is that worse than murdering a child 5 seconds before they would be otherwise born?
Because those 5 seconds make all the difference.

One the child is out of the mother he/she is a part of society, he/she is a seperate actor, albeit a dependent one. The essential difference is that the obligation of society, indeed the sole obligation of a society is to protect and care for the members of that society. That's it.

A child that has not yet been born is not a member of that society, and is therefore not subject to protection by it.

The "moral argument" that "taking a life" is "wrong" is as meaningless as it is petty. We take lives all the time, we hunt, we fish, we kill spiders. We outlaw murder because allowing a member of society to kill another potentially endangers every member of that society. If one individual kills another, society has failed in its duty to the murdered one.


A foetus is not privy to that protection, not because it isn't alive, but because by the only definition that matters in the discusion, it isn't human yet.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Michael De [email protected] 22 2004, 01:48 AM
While we're on the subject, everybody should check this out:

http://www.showandtellmusic.com/mp3s/galle...MarkieDiary.mp3 (http://www.showandtellmusic.com/mp3s/gallery_l/MarkieDiary.mp3)

"The Diary Of An Unborn Fetus"

Listen to it all the way through.

It'll blow your mind!!
It would have been better when the fetus started singing, if it broke into heavy metal, and started singing like some scandinavian metal vocalist.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Michael De [email protected] 22 2004, 01:48 AM
While we're on the subject, everybody should check this out:

http://www.showandtellmusic.com/mp3s/galle...MarkieDiary.mp3 (http://www.showandtellmusic.com/mp3s/gallery_l/MarkieDiary.mp3)

"The Diary Of An Unborn Fetus"

Listen to it all the way through.

It'll blow your mind!!
It would have been better when the fetus started singing, if it broke into heavy metal, and started singing like some scandinavian metal vocalist.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Michael De [email protected] 22 2004, 01:48 AM
While we're on the subject, everybody should check this out:

http://www.showandtellmusic.com/mp3s/galle...MarkieDiary.mp3 (http://www.showandtellmusic.com/mp3s/gallery_l/MarkieDiary.mp3)

"The Diary Of An Unborn Fetus"

Listen to it all the way through.

It'll blow your mind!!
It would have been better when the fetus started singing, if it broke into heavy metal, and started singing like some scandinavian metal vocalist.

[DaCuBaN]

:D

I think a sort of "I love you, berseeeeerkeeeer" style? :lol:

Frankly, anyone who values freedom in any way whatsoever can't realistically oppose abortion. Whilst a foetus is indeed a living creature, and it's destruction does indeed amount to murder, it's a matter of choice.

If you really care that much, instead of being a pratt about trying to stop it, why don't you try and get someone done for murder: I'd love to see how far you could actually take that line.

I'd love to see the money wasted too ;)

[DaCuBaN]

:D

I think a sort of "I love you, berseeeeerkeeeer" style? :lol:

Frankly, anyone who values freedom in any way whatsoever can't realistically oppose abortion. Whilst a foetus is indeed a living creature, and it's destruction does indeed amount to murder, it's a matter of choice.

If you really care that much, instead of being a pratt about trying to stop it, why don't you try and get someone done for murder: I'd love to see how far you could actually take that line.

I'd love to see the money wasted too ;)

[DaCuBaN]

:D

I think a sort of "I love you, berseeeeerkeeeer" style? :lol:

Frankly, anyone who values freedom in any way whatsoever can't realistically oppose abortion. Whilst a foetus is indeed a living creature, and it's destruction does indeed amount to murder, it's a matter of choice.

If you really care that much, instead of being a pratt about trying to stop it, why don't you try and get someone done for murder: I'd love to see how far you could actually take that line.

I'd love to see the money wasted too ;)

[Comfort]

alive=independent. that is not true at all. a 3 year old left on the side of a road and no one stopped to help would die. the parents would be charged with murder. that 3 year old child is dependent. shit, i'm 19 and i'm still utterly dependent :lol: i did not like what someone said about it not mattering because it won't change...then what the hell are we doing at this website. i'm not a women, i've never been pregnant and i've never had an abortion, i can only argue from the factual points. i'm prolife legally and personally but the black and white line is never clear, i can see points for abortion and not (like rape, poverty etc) but for couples that have kids because they do not practice safe sex...gotta take responsiblity. adoption and foster homes suck but life can get better, most of my friends have been adopted and/or lived in foster homes and they are no worse for the wear, some are but then again some biological parents are shitty too.

[Comfort]

alive=independent. that is not true at all. a 3 year old left on the side of a road and no one stopped to help would die. the parents would be charged with murder. that 3 year old child is dependent. shit, i'm 19 and i'm still utterly dependent :lol: i did not like what someone said about it not mattering because it won't change...then what the hell are we doing at this website. i'm not a women, i've never been pregnant and i've never had an abortion, i can only argue from the factual points. i'm prolife legally and personally but the black and white line is never clear, i can see points for abortion and not (like rape, poverty etc) but for couples that have kids because they do not practice safe sex...gotta take responsiblity. adoption and foster homes suck but life can get better, most of my friends have been adopted and/or lived in foster homes and they are no worse for the wear, some are but then again some biological parents are shitty too.

[Comfort]

alive=independent. that is not true at all. a 3 year old left on the side of a road and no one stopped to help would die. the parents would be charged with murder. that 3 year old child is dependent. shit, i'm 19 and i'm still utterly dependent :lol: i did not like what someone said about it not mattering because it won't change...then what the hell are we doing at this website. i'm not a women, i've never been pregnant and i've never had an abortion, i can only argue from the factual points. i'm prolife legally and personally but the black and white line is never clear, i can see points for abortion and not (like rape, poverty etc) but for couples that have kids because they do not practice safe sex...gotta take responsiblity. adoption and foster homes suck but life can get better, most of my friends have been adopted and/or lived in foster homes and they are no worse for the wear, some are but then again some biological parents are shitty too.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 05:34 PM
Fine, do what you want to do with your body, just don't hurt anyone else. Abortion is not about doing "whatever you want with your own body", it's about killing another human being. One of the methods is to inject ACID into the childs body and kill it.
Did you know that oranges contain ACID? I mean ACID, and we expect children to eat them!

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 05:34 PM
Fine, do what you want to do with your body, just don't hurt anyone else. Abortion is not about doing "whatever you want with your own body", it's about killing another human being. One of the methods is to inject ACID into the childs body and kill it.
Did you know that oranges contain ACID? I mean ACID, and we expect children to eat them!

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 05:34 PM
Fine, do what you want to do with your body, just don't hurt anyone else. Abortion is not about doing "whatever you want with your own body", it's about killing another human being. One of the methods is to inject ACID into the childs body and kill it.
Did you know that oranges contain ACID? I mean ACID, and we expect children to eat them!

[LSD]

i'm prolife legally and personally but the black and white line is never clear, i can see points for abortion and not (like rape, poverty etc)

This is the anti-abortion argument I understand the least.

So... a foetus is a living human being with full social rights... but if it wa conceived through rape KILL IT!!

That is so blatantly hypocritical, that you clearly have not thought this through.

Either you believe a foetus should be accorded rights or not, the circumstances of the conception should not matter. The reason you're confused, of course, is that deep down you know that giving a foetus rights is ludicrous and that forcing a woman to carry the product of a rape is immoral.


but for couples that have kids because they do not practice safe sex...gotta take responsiblity

um...why?

If I go out in the rain and catch cold, should I not be alowed to take antibiotics because I "gotta take responsibility"?

There is no "moral obligation" to carry a child if one chooses not to.



Did you know that oranges contain ACID? I mean ACID, and we expect children to eat them!

:lol: :lol:

[LSD]

i'm prolife legally and personally but the black and white line is never clear, i can see points for abortion and not (like rape, poverty etc)

This is the anti-abortion argument I understand the least.

So... a foetus is a living human being with full social rights... but if it wa conceived through rape KILL IT!!

That is so blatantly hypocritical, that you clearly have not thought this through.

Either you believe a foetus should be accorded rights or not, the circumstances of the conception should not matter. The reason you're confused, of course, is that deep down you know that giving a foetus rights is ludicrous and that forcing a woman to carry the product of a rape is immoral.


but for couples that have kids because they do not practice safe sex...gotta take responsiblity

um...why?

If I go out in the rain and catch cold, should I not be alowed to take antibiotics because I "gotta take responsibility"?

There is no "moral obligation" to carry a child if one chooses not to.



Did you know that oranges contain ACID? I mean ACID, and we expect children to eat them!

:lol: :lol:

[LSD]

i'm prolife legally and personally but the black and white line is never clear, i can see points for abortion and not (like rape, poverty etc)

This is the anti-abortion argument I understand the least.

So... a foetus is a living human being with full social rights... but if it wa conceived through rape KILL IT!!

That is so blatantly hypocritical, that you clearly have not thought this through.

Either you believe a foetus should be accorded rights or not, the circumstances of the conception should not matter. The reason you're confused, of course, is that deep down you know that giving a foetus rights is ludicrous and that forcing a woman to carry the product of a rape is immoral.


but for couples that have kids because they do not practice safe sex...gotta take responsiblity

um...why?

If I go out in the rain and catch cold, should I not be alowed to take antibiotics because I "gotta take responsibility"?

There is no "moral obligation" to carry a child if one chooses not to.



Did you know that oranges contain ACID? I mean ACID, and we expect children to eat them!

:lol: :lol:

[commiecrusader]

Thanks Lysergic, glad we could agree on something. When I said it was entirely dependent on the mother, I meant in the way that it's oxygen is taken from the mother, all nutrients are taken from the mother. Once born, it's milk can come from any source, but as a foetus, only the mother can provide the oxygen and nutrients, it is entirely dependent on the host/mother, whereas once born its food can come from anywhere.

Plus it is not an independent being. Whilst a parasite shares the nutrients of another creature, it isn't 'attached' to the host in the same way a foetus is. A foetus is part of the mother's body, in the same way that my hand is part of mine.

[commiecrusader]

Thanks Lysergic, glad we could agree on something. When I said it was entirely dependent on the mother, I meant in the way that it's oxygen is taken from the mother, all nutrients are taken from the mother. Once born, it's milk can come from any source, but as a foetus, only the mother can provide the oxygen and nutrients, it is entirely dependent on the host/mother, whereas once born its food can come from anywhere.

Plus it is not an independent being. Whilst a parasite shares the nutrients of another creature, it isn't 'attached' to the host in the same way a foetus is. A foetus is part of the mother's body, in the same way that my hand is part of mine.

[commiecrusader]

Thanks Lysergic, glad we could agree on something. When I said it was entirely dependent on the mother, I meant in the way that it's oxygen is taken from the mother, all nutrients are taken from the mother. Once born, it's milk can come from any source, but as a foetus, only the mother can provide the oxygen and nutrients, it is entirely dependent on the host/mother, whereas once born its food can come from anywhere.

Plus it is not an independent being. Whilst a parasite shares the nutrients of another creature, it isn't 'attached' to the host in the same way a foetus is. A foetus is part of the mother's body, in the same way that my hand is part of mine.

[LSD]

My point, commiecrusader, was that the "dependency argument" gets a little iffy the closer you get to birth.

Since premature babies can survive independently, and thereby any foetus above a certain age can, if we base support for abortion solely on "dependency", anti-abortioners will try to set time=limits and these time-limits will progressively become closer and closer to conception.

"Dependency" is an argument, but I stand by my position that it isn't a particularly good one, and it certainly shouldn't be used a a sole justification for legalized abortions.

It can't hurt to use it along with a myriad of other arguments, but alone it's relatively weak.

[LSD]

My point, commiecrusader, was that the "dependency argument" gets a little iffy the closer you get to birth.

Since premature babies can survive independently, and thereby any foetus above a certain age can, if we base support for abortion solely on "dependency", anti-abortioners will try to set time=limits and these time-limits will progressively become closer and closer to conception.

"Dependency" is an argument, but I stand by my position that it isn't a particularly good one, and it certainly shouldn't be used a a sole justification for legalized abortions.

It can't hurt to use it along with a myriad of other arguments, but alone it's relatively weak.

[LSD]

My point, commiecrusader, was that the "dependency argument" gets a little iffy the closer you get to birth.

Since premature babies can survive independently, and thereby any foetus above a certain age can, if we base support for abortion solely on "dependency", anti-abortioners will try to set time=limits and these time-limits will progressively become closer and closer to conception.

"Dependency" is an argument, but I stand by my position that it isn't a particularly good one, and it certainly shouldn't be used a a sole justification for legalized abortions.

It can't hurt to use it along with a myriad of other arguments, but alone it's relatively weak.

[commiecrusader]

True dat.

However, a premature baby becomes dependent on a life support machine the same as if in the womb. So I guess you could say this means it isn't dependent on the mother, or you could say it is an extension, since in ICU the baby doesn't even take in it's own oxygen or anything. It still can't function on it's own.

And of course on it's own this is a relatively weak argument. But as you say there is a myriad of others such as free choice, how bad life could be for an unwanted child etc.

[commiecrusader]

True dat.

However, a premature baby becomes dependent on a life support machine the same as if in the womb. So I guess you could say this means it isn't dependent on the mother, or you could say it is an extension, since in ICU the baby doesn't even take in it's own oxygen or anything. It still can't function on it's own.

And of course on it's own this is a relatively weak argument. But as you say there is a myriad of others such as free choice, how bad life could be for an unwanted child etc.

[commiecrusader]

True dat.

However, a premature baby becomes dependent on a life support machine the same as if in the womb. So I guess you could say this means it isn't dependent on the mother, or you could say it is an extension, since in ICU the baby doesn't even take in it's own oxygen or anything. It still can't function on it's own.

And of course on it's own this is a relatively weak argument. But as you say there is a myriad of others such as free choice, how bad life could be for an unwanted child etc.

[NovelGentry]

However, a premature baby becomes dependent on a life support machine the same as if in the womb.

This is not true for all premature babies.


Since premature babies can survive independently, and thereby any foetus above a certain age can, if we base support for abortion solely on "dependency", anti-abortioners will try to set time=limits and these time-limits will progressively become closer and closer to conception.

This can go the other way too. It's all a matter of how the law would be written in terms of dependency. Which only goes to help your argument that such an issue cannot be based on dependency alone. But just making it a point that if that were the case it can slide just as easily in the other direction.

[NovelGentry]

However, a premature baby becomes dependent on a life support machine the same as if in the womb.

This is not true for all premature babies.


Since premature babies can survive independently, and thereby any foetus above a certain age can, if we base support for abortion solely on "dependency", anti-abortioners will try to set time=limits and these time-limits will progressively become closer and closer to conception.

This can go the other way too. It's all a matter of how the law would be written in terms of dependency. Which only goes to help your argument that such an issue cannot be based on dependency alone. But just making it a point that if that were the case it can slide just as easily in the other direction.

[NovelGentry]

However, a premature baby becomes dependent on a life support machine the same as if in the womb.

This is not true for all premature babies.


Since premature babies can survive independently, and thereby any foetus above a certain age can, if we base support for abortion solely on "dependency", anti-abortioners will try to set time=limits and these time-limits will progressively become closer and closer to conception.

This can go the other way too. It's all a matter of how the law would be written in terms of dependency. Which only goes to help your argument that such an issue cannot be based on dependency alone. But just making it a point that if that were the case it can slide just as easily in the other direction.

[DaCuBaN]

gotta take responsiblity

I sincerely think that abortion is one of the central debates when it comes down to figuring out how other people 'tick'.

The above statement, I wholeheartedly agree with. Where I draw the line is when a living, independant human being is punished for making a mistake!

I'm a bigot when it comes to this: I consider the opposing viewpoint idiotic, irrational, and selfish. They are the person who made the choice to live with the memory of their dead proto-child, not 'us'.

It's when the asshole in me really gets to take charge ;)

[DaCuBaN]

gotta take responsiblity

I sincerely think that abortion is one of the central debates when it comes down to figuring out how other people 'tick'.

The above statement, I wholeheartedly agree with. Where I draw the line is when a living, independant human being is punished for making a mistake!

I'm a bigot when it comes to this: I consider the opposing viewpoint idiotic, irrational, and selfish. They are the person who made the choice to live with the memory of their dead proto-child, not 'us'.

It's when the asshole in me really gets to take charge ;)

[DaCuBaN]

gotta take responsiblity

I sincerely think that abortion is one of the central debates when it comes down to figuring out how other people 'tick'.

The above statement, I wholeheartedly agree with. Where I draw the line is when a living, independant human being is punished for making a mistake!

I'm a bigot when it comes to this: I consider the opposing viewpoint idiotic, irrational, and selfish. They are the person who made the choice to live with the memory of their dead proto-child, not 'us'.

It's when the asshole in me really gets to take charge ;)

[Free Spirit]

I haven't read everyones posts so I'll just say what I think!
I surely believe that everyone deserves to have a life without anyone taking a decision of that he/she will not have it. BUT there are differences making an adoption after 1 month and 4 months. After one month it's quite like something you can take in a tissue and there hasn't been a high progress after that short time. There is no only an embryo and in those circumstances I think it's ok to make an abortion if there is a good reason for making it. And I also think that it's fair to make an abortion if there is something wrong with the child. It's better then living with high issues of mental or physical problems
There are cases where a healthy baby, grown into a human is aborted and then burned because the mother doesn't want it and that's the only reason, which is highly unfair....


:hammer:

[Free Spirit]

I haven't read everyones posts so I'll just say what I think!
I surely believe that everyone deserves to have a life without anyone taking a decision of that he/she will not have it. BUT there are differences making an adoption after 1 month and 4 months. After one month it's quite like something you can take in a tissue and there hasn't been a high progress after that short time. There is no only an embryo and in those circumstances I think it's ok to make an abortion if there is a good reason for making it. And I also think that it's fair to make an abortion if there is something wrong with the child. It's better then living with high issues of mental or physical problems
There are cases where a healthy baby, grown into a human is aborted and then burned because the mother doesn't want it and that's the only reason, which is highly unfair....


:hammer:

[Free Spirit]

I haven't read everyones posts so I'll just say what I think!
I surely believe that everyone deserves to have a life without anyone taking a decision of that he/she will not have it. BUT there are differences making an adoption after 1 month and 4 months. After one month it's quite like something you can take in a tissue and there hasn't been a high progress after that short time. There is no only an embryo and in those circumstances I think it's ok to make an abortion if there is a good reason for making it. And I also think that it's fair to make an abortion if there is something wrong with the child. It's better then living with high issues of mental or physical problems
There are cases where a healthy baby, grown into a human is aborted and then burned because the mother doesn't want it and that's the only reason, which is highly unfair....


:hammer:

[commiecrusader]

Is it fair for the baby/child to live knowing its mother didn't want it though? Even if its adopted it will have to cope with this fact, and if its left in the mothers care it is likely to be abused or worse, abandoned. What if the mother couldn't care for it adequately? The mother should always have the right to abortion I reckon.

[commiecrusader]

Is it fair for the baby/child to live knowing its mother didn't want it though? Even if its adopted it will have to cope with this fact, and if its left in the mothers care it is likely to be abused or worse, abandoned. What if the mother couldn't care for it adequately? The mother should always have the right to abortion I reckon.

[commiecrusader]

Is it fair for the baby/child to live knowing its mother didn't want it though? Even if its adopted it will have to cope with this fact, and if its left in the mothers care it is likely to be abused or worse, abandoned. What if the mother couldn't care for it adequately? The mother should always have the right to abortion I reckon.

[LSD]

surely believe that everyone deserves to have a life without anyone taking a decision of that he/she will not have it.

Mistake #1:

"Everyone" in this context means every person, yes? (otherwise it's the whole "animal rights" debate, and I don't think you want that)

Well, then with that understood, let me be the first to inform you that a foetus, whatever the age is not a person.

Human? Yes
Person? No.

See the above posts for reasons why.


BUT there are differences making an adoption after 1 month and 4 months. After one month it's quite like something you can take in a tissue and there hasn't been a high progress after that short time.

Mistake #2:

Again, see the above posts.


There is no only an embryo and in those circumstances I think it's ok to make an abortion if there is a good reason for making it. And I also think that it's fair to make an abortion if there is something wrong with the child. It's better then living with high issues of mental or physical problems
There are cases where a healthy baby, grown into a human is aborted and then burned because the mother doesn't want it and that's the only reason, which is highly unfair....

Mistake #3:

Classic Abortion Hyporcrasy 2.

You would kill a "living person" because "there is something wrong with" him?

Would you do it to an adult? How about a 5 year old? 2 year old? Newborn?

If you really believe that a foetus has the same rights as a child than you cannot approve of abortion ever[/b.


[b]I haven't read everyones posts

Yes, I noticed that...

[LSD]

surely believe that everyone deserves to have a life without anyone taking a decision of that he/she will not have it.

Mistake #1:

"Everyone" in this context means every person, yes? (otherwise it's the whole "animal rights" debate, and I don't think you want that)

Well, then with that understood, let me be the first to inform you that a foetus, whatever the age is not a person.

Human? Yes
Person? No.

See the above posts for reasons why.


BUT there are differences making an adoption after 1 month and 4 months. After one month it's quite like something you can take in a tissue and there hasn't been a high progress after that short time.

Mistake #2:

Again, see the above posts.


There is no only an embryo and in those circumstances I think it's ok to make an abortion if there is a good reason for making it. And I also think that it's fair to make an abortion if there is something wrong with the child. It's better then living with high issues of mental or physical problems
There are cases where a healthy baby, grown into a human is aborted and then burned because the mother doesn't want it and that's the only reason, which is highly unfair....

Mistake #3:

Classic Abortion Hyporcrasy 2.

You would kill a "living person" because "there is something wrong with" him?

Would you do it to an adult? How about a 5 year old? 2 year old? Newborn?

If you really believe that a foetus has the same rights as a child than you cannot approve of abortion ever[/b.


[b]I haven't read everyones posts

Yes, I noticed that...

[LSD]

surely believe that everyone deserves to have a life without anyone taking a decision of that he/she will not have it.

Mistake #1:

"Everyone" in this context means every person, yes? (otherwise it's the whole "animal rights" debate, and I don't think you want that)

Well, then with that understood, let me be the first to inform you that a foetus, whatever the age is not a person.

Human? Yes
Person? No.

See the above posts for reasons why.


BUT there are differences making an adoption after 1 month and 4 months. After one month it's quite like something you can take in a tissue and there hasn't been a high progress after that short time.

Mistake #2:

Again, see the above posts.


There is no only an embryo and in those circumstances I think it's ok to make an abortion if there is a good reason for making it. And I also think that it's fair to make an abortion if there is something wrong with the child. It's better then living with high issues of mental or physical problems
There are cases where a healthy baby, grown into a human is aborted and then burned because the mother doesn't want it and that's the only reason, which is highly unfair....

Mistake #3:

Classic Abortion Hyporcrasy 2.

You would kill a "living person" because "there is something wrong with" him?

Would you do it to an adult? How about a 5 year old? 2 year old? Newborn?

If you really believe that a foetus has the same rights as a child than you cannot approve of abortion ever[/b.


[b]I haven't read everyones posts

Yes, I noticed that...

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Abortion? No restrictions. Because, as aforementioned, it still happens, in worse ways, 2ndly, not to sound cruel but we do have an looming population crisis. No way could you force the mother to have and raise the kids. If abortion were banned, the orphanages would be jammed packed. It's quite simple, it's impossible/impratical to ban abortion.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Abortion? No restrictions. Because, as aforementioned, it still happens, in worse ways, 2ndly, not to sound cruel but we do have an looming population crisis. No way could you force the mother to have and raise the kids. If abortion were banned, the orphanages would be jammed packed. It's quite simple, it's impossible/impratical to ban abortion.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

Abortion? No restrictions. Because, as aforementioned, it still happens, in worse ways, 2ndly, not to sound cruel but we do have an looming population crisis. No way could you force the mother to have and raise the kids. If abortion were banned, the orphanages would be jammed packed. It's quite simple, it's impossible/impratical to ban abortion.

[commiecrusader]

Not to mention the fact that if abortion was banned it would become some sort of unregulated activity, like prostitution in the UK, and become much more dangerous and harder to regulate because of this. It would go back to some untrained woman with knitting needles in a back-alley like in the past, or using badly maintained and cleaned equipment.

[commiecrusader]

Not to mention the fact that if abortion was banned it would become some sort of unregulated activity, like prostitution in the UK, and become much more dangerous and harder to regulate because of this. It would go back to some untrained woman with knitting needles in a back-alley like in the past, or using badly maintained and cleaned equipment.

[commiecrusader]

Not to mention the fact that if abortion was banned it would become some sort of unregulated activity, like prostitution in the UK, and become much more dangerous and harder to regulate because of this. It would go back to some untrained woman with knitting needles in a back-alley like in the past, or using badly maintained and cleaned equipment.

[Free Spirit]

You would kill a "living person" because "there is something wrong with" him?

No don't misunderstand me. No I would never. The thought of that abortion exists make me depressed and I can't explain how it made me feel when I saw pictures of children after they had been aborted. It's horrible. It's unfair. But I can't say that it is fair to not fair to give birth to a child if he is going to suffer his whole life because of the mental or physical problems. When I said that was because I rather don't want to exist (which is like an empty nothing, something that never was/is) then living my whole life with some kind of dreadful skin cancer that causes deep wounds, like a burned body and you have to wear bandage because your whole body hurts. It's living on flames, it burns... :(

[Free Spirit]

You would kill a "living person" because "there is something wrong with" him?

No don't misunderstand me. No I would never. The thought of that abortion exists make me depressed and I can't explain how it made me feel when I saw pictures of children after they had been aborted. It's horrible. It's unfair. But I can't say that it is fair to not fair to give birth to a child if he is going to suffer his whole life because of the mental or physical problems. When I said that was because I rather don't want to exist (which is like an empty nothing, something that never was/is) then living my whole life with some kind of dreadful skin cancer that causes deep wounds, like a burned body and you have to wear bandage because your whole body hurts. It's living on flames, it burns... :(

[Free Spirit]

You would kill a "living person" because "there is something wrong with" him?

No don't misunderstand me. No I would never. The thought of that abortion exists make me depressed and I can't explain how it made me feel when I saw pictures of children after they had been aborted. It's horrible. It's unfair. But I can't say that it is fair to not fair to give birth to a child if he is going to suffer his whole life because of the mental or physical problems. When I said that was because I rather don't want to exist (which is like an empty nothing, something that never was/is) then living my whole life with some kind of dreadful skin cancer that causes deep wounds, like a burned body and you have to wear bandage because your whole body hurts. It's living on flames, it burns... :(

[LSD]

No don't misunderstand me. No I would never. The thought of that abortion exists make me depressed and I can't explain how it made me feel when I saw pictures of children after they had been aborted. It's horrible. It's unfair. But I can't say that it is fair to not fair to give birth to a child if he is going to suffer his whole life because of the mental or physical problems. When I said that was because I rather don't want to exist (which is like an empty nothing, something that never was/is) then living my whole life with some kind of dreadful skin cancer that causes deep wounds, like a burned body and you have to wear bandage because your whole body hurts. It's living on flames, it burns...

Right... but if a foetus is a "person", shouldn't it have the right to make that decision?

Who are you to "murder" someone because you think they're in for a bad life? How dare you make that decision?


You see?

It's an ultimately hypocritical position. You cannot have it both ways. Either a foetus has "personhood" and so cannot be killed, or it is not and can be killed.

The only one consistant on this issue was Martin Luther. He was against abortion even if the mother died.

He was also a raving anti-semite and proponent of mass-murder.

Good company you're in...

[LSD]

No don't misunderstand me. No I would never. The thought of that abortion exists make me depressed and I can't explain how it made me feel when I saw pictures of children after they had been aborted. It's horrible. It's unfair. But I can't say that it is fair to not fair to give birth to a child if he is going to suffer his whole life because of the mental or physical problems. When I said that was because I rather don't want to exist (which is like an empty nothing, something that never was/is) then living my whole life with some kind of dreadful skin cancer that causes deep wounds, like a burned body and you have to wear bandage because your whole body hurts. It's living on flames, it burns...

Right... but if a foetus is a "person", shouldn't it have the right to make that decision?

Who are you to "murder" someone because you think they're in for a bad life? How dare you make that decision?


You see?

It's an ultimately hypocritical position. You cannot have it both ways. Either a foetus has "personhood" and so cannot be killed, or it is not and can be killed.

The only one consistant on this issue was Martin Luther. He was against abortion even if the mother died.

He was also a raving anti-semite and proponent of mass-murder.

Good company you're in...

[LSD]

No don't misunderstand me. No I would never. The thought of that abortion exists make me depressed and I can't explain how it made me feel when I saw pictures of children after they had been aborted. It's horrible. It's unfair. But I can't say that it is fair to not fair to give birth to a child if he is going to suffer his whole life because of the mental or physical problems. When I said that was because I rather don't want to exist (which is like an empty nothing, something that never was/is) then living my whole life with some kind of dreadful skin cancer that causes deep wounds, like a burned body and you have to wear bandage because your whole body hurts. It's living on flames, it burns...

Right... but if a foetus is a "person", shouldn't it have the right to make that decision?

Who are you to "murder" someone because you think they're in for a bad life? How dare you make that decision?


You see?

It's an ultimately hypocritical position. You cannot have it both ways. Either a foetus has "personhood" and so cannot be killed, or it is not and can be killed.

The only one consistant on this issue was Martin Luther. He was against abortion even if the mother died.

He was also a raving anti-semite and proponent of mass-murder.

Good company you're in...

[Comfort]

don't just focus on the bad things about people "lysergic acid", luther wasn't all right but he was still a great reformer of the church. and if i've decided that prolife is the only way then i could say you are a proponent of mass murder. and it seems like you believe consistensty is such a great thing, here is an interesting comic (a lot funnier in picture form)

CITIZEN
keeps open mind on tough issues=wise and responsible
close minded and not open to change=stubborn and ignorant
POLITICIAN
keeps open mind on tough issues=shameless flipflopper
close minded and not open to change=strong and fearless leader

[Comfort]

don't just focus on the bad things about people "lysergic acid", luther wasn't all right but he was still a great reformer of the church. and if i've decided that prolife is the only way then i could say you are a proponent of mass murder. and it seems like you believe consistensty is such a great thing, here is an interesting comic (a lot funnier in picture form)

CITIZEN
keeps open mind on tough issues=wise and responsible
close minded and not open to change=stubborn and ignorant
POLITICIAN
keeps open mind on tough issues=shameless flipflopper
close minded and not open to change=strong and fearless leader

[Comfort]

don't just focus on the bad things about people "lysergic acid", luther wasn't all right but he was still a great reformer of the church. and if i've decided that prolife is the only way then i could say you are a proponent of mass murder. and it seems like you believe consistensty is such a great thing, here is an interesting comic (a lot funnier in picture form)

CITIZEN
keeps open mind on tough issues=wise and responsible
close minded and not open to change=stubborn and ignorant
POLITICIAN
keeps open mind on tough issues=shameless flipflopper
close minded and not open to change=strong and fearless leader

[Free Spirit]

Right... but if a foetus is a "person", shouldn't it have the right to make that decision?
I was only putting myself in a child's state but see that's not being for abortion
I'll say this again everyone should have the right for decision of his or her own life but how can you expect a foetus to make that decision? I think that everyone deserves and should have the time to grow and make those decisions later in life if it so it might be that he/she doesn't want to live, not me, not anyone. And when people choose to take away a life they are taking away their rights as well. (I'm not someone that would take someone's freedom of live)
But it's never so that a foetus as a "person" has the decision of his/her own life. My parents chose mine and so did my ancestors choose their children’s...

[Free Spirit]

Right... but if a foetus is a "person", shouldn't it have the right to make that decision?
I was only putting myself in a child's state but see that's not being for abortion
I'll say this again everyone should have the right for decision of his or her own life but how can you expect a foetus to make that decision? I think that everyone deserves and should have the time to grow and make those decisions later in life if it so it might be that he/she doesn't want to live, not me, not anyone. And when people choose to take away a life they are taking away their rights as well. (I'm not someone that would take someone's freedom of live)
But it's never so that a foetus as a "person" has the decision of his/her own life. My parents chose mine and so did my ancestors choose their children’s...

[Free Spirit]

Right... but if a foetus is a "person", shouldn't it have the right to make that decision?
I was only putting myself in a child's state but see that's not being for abortion
I'll say this again everyone should have the right for decision of his or her own life but how can you expect a foetus to make that decision? I think that everyone deserves and should have the time to grow and make those decisions later in life if it so it might be that he/she doesn't want to live, not me, not anyone. And when people choose to take away a life they are taking away their rights as well. (I'm not someone that would take someone's freedom of live)
But it's never so that a foetus as a "person" has the decision of his/her own life. My parents chose mine and so did my ancestors choose their children’s...

[Michael De Panama]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 05:29 AM
It would have been better when the fetus started singing, if it broke into heavy metal, and started singing like some scandinavian metal vocalist.
Anything can be made better if you put black metal vocals over it, of course.

\m/ :angry: \m/

[Michael De Panama]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 05:29 AM
It would have been better when the fetus started singing, if it broke into heavy metal, and started singing like some scandinavian metal vocalist.
Anything can be made better if you put black metal vocals over it, of course.

\m/ :angry: \m/

[Michael De Panama]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 05:29 AM
It would have been better when the fetus started singing, if it broke into heavy metal, and started singing like some scandinavian metal vocalist.
Anything can be made better if you put black metal vocals over it, of course.

\m/ :angry: \m/

[Anti-Capitalist1]

sorry, but I simply have to point this out: It's Fetus, not foetus. At least it is in the USA, I don't know if it would differ in other parts of the world.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

sorry, but I simply have to point this out: It's Fetus, not foetus. At least it is in the USA, I don't know if it would differ in other parts of the world.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

sorry, but I simply have to point this out: It's Fetus, not foetus. At least it is in the USA, I don't know if it would differ in other parts of the world.

[commiecrusader]

But it's never so that a foetus as a "person" has the decision of his/her own life. My parents chose mine and so did my ancestors choose their children’s...
Abortion has been commonplace throughout our history, whether it's been legal or not, and look at our society. We are hardly short of people are we? Not to mention the fact that making abortions illegal would as I said make the topic a much darker and more dangerous act.


Anything can be made better if you put black metal vocals over it, of course.

\m/ \m/
HEEEEELLS YEEEEAAAAAHH


sorry, but I simply have to point this out: It's Fetus, not foetus. At least it is in the USA, I don't know if it would differ in other parts of the world.
Yeah but in the USA its 'color' not 'colour'. In the UK and in Standard English and the Queens English (even though only she speaks like that lol) it's 'foetus'.

[commiecrusader]

But it's never so that a foetus as a "person" has the decision of his/her own life. My parents chose mine and so did my ancestors choose their children’s...
Abortion has been commonplace throughout our history, whether it's been legal or not, and look at our society. We are hardly short of people are we? Not to mention the fact that making abortions illegal would as I said make the topic a much darker and more dangerous act.


Anything can be made better if you put black metal vocals over it, of course.

\m/ \m/
HEEEEELLS YEEEEAAAAAHH


sorry, but I simply have to point this out: It's Fetus, not foetus. At least it is in the USA, I don't know if it would differ in other parts of the world.
Yeah but in the USA its 'color' not 'colour'. In the UK and in Standard English and the Queens English (even though only she speaks like that lol) it's 'foetus'.

[commiecrusader]

But it's never so that a foetus as a "person" has the decision of his/her own life. My parents chose mine and so did my ancestors choose their children’s...
Abortion has been commonplace throughout our history, whether it's been legal or not, and look at our society. We are hardly short of people are we? Not to mention the fact that making abortions illegal would as I said make the topic a much darker and more dangerous act.


Anything can be made better if you put black metal vocals over it, of course.

\m/ \m/
HEEEEELLS YEEEEAAAAAHH


sorry, but I simply have to point this out: It's Fetus, not foetus. At least it is in the USA, I don't know if it would differ in other parts of the world.
Yeah but in the USA its 'color' not 'colour'. In the UK and in Standard English and the Queens English (even though only she speaks like that lol) it's 'foetus'.

[LSD]

orry, but I simply have to point this out: It's Fetus, not foetus. At least it is in the USA, I don't know if it would differ in other parts of the world.

Foetus is more formal, and still often used in biology, but both are acceptable.


don't just focus on the bad things about people "lysergic acid", luther wasn't all right but he was still a great reformer of the church.

Luther was one of the most vireulently racist and anti-semetic writer that ever lived. More than that, though, he was also a violent classist.

Check out some of his writings on "striking down the peasants" if you want a good genocidal read.


and if i've decided that prolife is the only way then i could say you are a proponent of mass murder.

Yes, but then you'd be wrong.


and it seems like you believe consistensty is such a great thing, here is an interesting comic (a lot funnier in picture form)

I didn't say external consistency was important, but internal consistency is.

You don't have to be stubborn, but your arguments and beliefs can't contradict themselves.

[LSD]

orry, but I simply have to point this out: It's Fetus, not foetus. At least it is in the USA, I don't know if it would differ in other parts of the world.

Foetus is more formal, and still often used in biology, but both are acceptable.


don't just focus on the bad things about people "lysergic acid", luther wasn't all right but he was still a great reformer of the church.

Luther was one of the most vireulently racist and anti-semetic writer that ever lived. More than that, though, he was also a violent classist.

Check out some of his writings on "striking down the peasants" if you want a good genocidal read.


and if i've decided that prolife is the only way then i could say you are a proponent of mass murder.

Yes, but then you'd be wrong.


and it seems like you believe consistensty is such a great thing, here is an interesting comic (a lot funnier in picture form)

I didn't say external consistency was important, but internal consistency is.

You don't have to be stubborn, but your arguments and beliefs can't contradict themselves.

[LSD]

orry, but I simply have to point this out: It's Fetus, not foetus. At least it is in the USA, I don't know if it would differ in other parts of the world.

Foetus is more formal, and still often used in biology, but both are acceptable.


don't just focus on the bad things about people "lysergic acid", luther wasn't all right but he was still a great reformer of the church.

Luther was one of the most vireulently racist and anti-semetic writer that ever lived. More than that, though, he was also a violent classist.

Check out some of his writings on "striking down the peasants" if you want a good genocidal read.


and if i've decided that prolife is the only way then i could say you are a proponent of mass murder.

Yes, but then you'd be wrong.


and it seems like you believe consistensty is such a great thing, here is an interesting comic (a lot funnier in picture form)

I didn't say external consistency was important, but internal consistency is.

You don't have to be stubborn, but your arguments and beliefs can't contradict themselves.

[apathy maybe]

I hate debates about abortion (and there are quite a number floating around this forum). This one is slightly different to the normal run of the mill type however.

point 1)
If the foetus is a human/person then it is only all right to kill it if it is all right to kill a new born. (See Peter Singer for arguments on killing "defective" babies.)
(from Wikipedia on Peter

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being's ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one's future. Since the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack the latter (but not the former) ability, he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.)

point 2)
Dependency is a major point put forward by pro-abortionists. However, this argument is flawed as new technology means that the child can live for longer outside the womb.

point 3)
Who decides when a child is allowed to be aborted or not? Comrade RAF put forward (in another thread on Abortion) that right up until the child is born. Others say 3 months. Either way, you are going to have to pick an arbitrary line and say "no more beyond this".

[apathy maybe]

I hate debates about abortion (and there are quite a number floating around this forum). This one is slightly different to the normal run of the mill type however.

point 1)
If the foetus is a human/person then it is only all right to kill it if it is all right to kill a new born. (See Peter Singer for arguments on killing "defective" babies.)
(from Wikipedia on Peter

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being's ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one's future. Since the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack the latter (but not the former) ability, he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.)

point 2)
Dependency is a major point put forward by pro-abortionists. However, this argument is flawed as new technology means that the child can live for longer outside the womb.

point 3)
Who decides when a child is allowed to be aborted or not? Comrade RAF put forward (in another thread on Abortion) that right up until the child is born. Others say 3 months. Either way, you are going to have to pick an arbitrary line and say "no more beyond this".

[apathy maybe]

I hate debates about abortion (and there are quite a number floating around this forum). This one is slightly different to the normal run of the mill type however.

point 1)
If the foetus is a human/person then it is only all right to kill it if it is all right to kill a new born. (See Peter Singer for arguments on killing "defective" babies.)
(from Wikipedia on Peter

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being's ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one's future. Since the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack the latter (but not the former) ability, he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.)

point 2)
Dependency is a major point put forward by pro-abortionists. However, this argument is flawed as new technology means that the child can live for longer outside the womb.

point 3)
Who decides when a child is allowed to be aborted or not? Comrade RAF put forward (in another thread on Abortion) that right up until the child is born. Others say 3 months. Either way, you are going to have to pick an arbitrary line and say "no more beyond this".

[commiecrusader]

Who decides when a child is allowed to be aborted or not? Comrade RAF put forward (in another thread on Abortion) that right up until the child is born. Others say 3 months. Either way, you are going to have to pick an arbitrary line and say "no more beyond this".
I would suggest that as long as it is part of the mother then she should have the right to abort it. This decision will get more difficult for her the more developed the baby gets, so what is the point in making a law about it? If the mother makes a decision she is happy with then that's all that should matter. There is a girl where I live who is only just 16 and she has been forced to have a baby now because she didn't realise she was pregnant till it was too late to legally have an abortion. (Admittedly this is an idiotic mistake to make but nevertheless). Isn't it just as unfair to effectively condemn her to live off welfare or marry any old person as it is to have aborted the baby just a few weeks past the 'acceptable age'?

[apathy maybe]

So you think that even if a child is about to be born, if the mother wants to abort it she should be allowed to?

If no, from what age do you say the child has a right to live?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

So you think that even if a child is about to be born, if the mother wants to abort it she should be allowed to?

I know this was not directed at me, but I'll give my two cents anyways.

It's not anybody's business to question the mother's physical state, what trimester of pregnancy she happens to be in, or what her reasons for abortion are. It's still her body and she should do whatever the fuck she wants to it. Even if the technology exists to take the baby out after one month of pregnancy and keep it alive, if the mother wants to shove a clothes hanger in there and kill it, that's fine by me, because it's her own body. Not anyone else's business.

It has the right to live once it's no longer physically dependant on the mother. It's essentially part of its mother. A parasite, if you will. It has no rights whatsoever.

[apathy maybe]

So what you are saying is that even when it is born (because it is still dependent on somebody) it is still a parasite? Oh wait sorry, if it is not dependent on its mother.

OK but who determines if it is dependent on its mother or not? If a child can be born after 6 months and be completely independent of its mother, does the mother still have the right to abort?

What I am trying to get through is, even if you agree with a mothers "right" to an abortion you have to think about this issue. You are either going to have to put in an arbitrary age after which abortion is not allowed, or else you need a bunch of experts (or something).

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

So what you are saying is that even when it is born (because it is still dependent on somebody) it is still a parasite? Oh wait sorry, if it is not dependent on its mother.

It's not necessarily dependant on the mother, like you said. If the mother doesn't want it, she can have nothing at all to do with children's services (or whoever the fuck does that shit) taking the kid away. However, you can't force a woman to give birth to a premature baby if she doesn't want to. She might not want this kid to come back and ask her, “why didn't you keep me, *****?” But that doesn't matter. her reasons don't matter. It's her body.


OK but who determines if it is dependent on its mother or not? If a child can be born after 6 months and be completely independent of its mother, does the mother still have the right to abort?

Yes.



What I am trying to get through is, even if you agree with a mothers "right" to an abortion you have to think about this issue. You are either going to have to put in an arbitrary age after which abortion is not allowed, or else you need a bunch of experts (or something).

It's not rocket science. As long as it's in the mother, nobody can tell her what or how to remove it from her.

[commiecrusader]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 2 2004, 06:40 AM
So what you are saying is that even when it is born (because it is still dependent on somebody) it is still a parasite? Oh wait sorry, if it is not dependent on its mother.



So what you are saying is that even when it is born (because it is still dependent on somebody) it is still a parasite? Oh wait sorry, if it is not dependent on its mother.
No. It is not taking nutrients directly out of another's bloodstream. Breastfeeding isn't the same thing. Even if the baby doesn't drink it, it's still best to get rid of some of the milk anyway. And bottlefeeding is entirely different - at no stage was that part of someone. It's just chemicals and stuff. If some sort of tick or flea was drinking blood out of a bottle, even if we had to stand there to feed it, we still wouldn't say it was being parasitic would we.


OK but who determines if it is dependent on its mother or not? If a child can be born after 6 months and be completely independent of its mother, does the mother still have the right to abort?
Yes. Whilst the baby is inside the mother and part of the mother, the mother should have the right to abort the baby, it's part of her body so she can do what she wants to it. Even if the baby is 8 months and 29 days old, as long as it's part of the mother, she should be able to do what she wants.


What I am trying to get through is, even if you agree with a mothers "right" to an abortion you have to think about this issue. You are either going to have to put in an arbitrary age after which abortion is not allowed, or else you need a bunch of experts (or something).
Abortion should be allowed at any stage until the baby is no longer part of the mother. Once it's born, killing it would become murder, but before that, it is part of the mother.

And thanks for filling in for me RedZeppelin, you didn't say anything I disagree with, that I noticed anyway lol.

[apathy maybe]

Wow. This is amazing.

I accept (but disagree with) the idea that a "bunch of cells" (the foetus) is not human. But you are saying that a child almost born (which I would class most definitely as human) is still part of the mother and not human. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

edit: The last part of this thread prompted me to start a poll (in Science and Environment). Go take a look (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29436)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Whether or not it's "human" is trivial.
The fact is these fetuses are attacking America’s women and they need to be stopped!

Okay, just kidding.

But seriously, whether or not you call it "human" or a "child" or whatever is completely trivial. What matters is that they're inside of the mother and therefore nobody but the mother may determine what's to be done with this fetus inside of her.

Like I've said, it may seem irrational to remove a fetus and kill it in the third trimester when you can keep it alive, but if that’s what the mother wants... then that's what's done. Her motives don't need to be questioned. We're talking about an organism inside of her. Who cares why she wants it dead. It's her choice.

[commiecrusader]

I very much doubt any babies would be aborted at 8 months or whatever anyway. I think the mother would have a very hard time making and living with that decision. I don't dispute the fact that the baby would be almost fully developed, the fact remains that before birth it is still part of the mother, and therefore the mother should be able to do what she wants. If you view the baby inside as separate from the mother, then you should be against the removal of tapeworms etc. They don't kill you, just force you to eat more and more, same as a baby.

[comrade_mufasa]

I should start by saying that I think all males in the world should not be allowed to make any decisions on abortion. If you can bare children then the desion should be yours to create laws for or aginst abortion. Men (and yes i'm a man) don't even know what they are talking about when it comes to babies. In my opion all things maternal should be decided by a council of elected women, and they would be elected by women. But men are allowed to have there opions on abortion and this should be taken in to acount by this council.

Personally I am agenst abortion. I wouldn't want any children that I may father in the futer to not live, but I would let the mother decied what would happen in the end. Becouse I know that I would be there all the way trough everthing including the childs life. I will never be one of those run away fathers. What if that, or any unborn child, would have found a cure for cancer or something else that would be great for the world. Just think if your mother decided for abortion when she was barring you. You wouldn't exsist before you could even breath. But i'm for the argument that if there is to many medical complecations for the child and abortion is the best option then i'm for it. The thing is that most women getting abortions are teen mothers and young women who have not relized that a mother should die for the life of there children. This all has nothing to do with religion.

[che's long lost daughter]

How many million more of threads like this should be started????

[line_of_fire]

Mufassa im with you, but what if your girlfriend got raped, and pregnant? would you be able to love that child? Im not a real supporter of abourtion, but if the foetus is in the very early stages of developpement, then I do not think its a bad thing, people make mistakes. I know that sounds pretty lame, but think about it.

[comrade_mufasa]

I would leave it up to my girl. But I think it would not be the childs fault that some sick basterd can't control himself, so the child should live. If my girl decided to keep it I would help her with the baby but I don't know if I love the baby.