Abortion - for or against? [Archive]

RedFW

16th February 2003, 18:36

redstar2000, i know to some Communists, it seems every issue is a class issue; that every opponent of the traditional Communist stance is either a 'petty bourgeois' or a religious fundamentalist. but this doesn't have anything to do with religion. sure it maybe was a factor in forming my opinion, but there are millions of pro-lifers out there who are atheists.

And there are "Catholics for Choice", what is your point? There are people on both sides of the abortion debate that are atheist and religious, so what? It has everything to do with controlling women, something I see to be inextricably linked, though not exclusively, to religion.

redcomrade seemed to think it was alright to abort the baby up until the point it actually came out of the mother. his seems to be the general position round here. it actually makes me feel ill that you heartless scum bags aplaud this man.

I don't know what the general position is around here because I haven't been a member of che-lives for very long. I agree with redcomrade and redstar. As you are so disgusted by this stance, would you like to explain your reasons and why it is you have, from your moral highground, bestowed upon us the label "scumbags"?

Dr. Rosenpenis

16th February 2003, 19:55

I don't think that anyone here is in favor of giving the mother rights to kill her children, perhaps give them up for adoption, but you cannot do that with a fetus.

CheViveToday

16th February 2003, 20:49

I seriously doubt that there are millions of atheist pro-lifers. I guess I could be wrong....

RedFW

16th February 2003, 23:43

And, JustJoe, does their being atheist (regardless of the numbers) supposed to give some sort of greater credibility to their anti-choice stance? I don't think it does.

Just Joe

16th February 2003, 23:56

And there are "Catholics for Choice", what is your point?

thats exactly my point. its pro-life vs pro-'choice', not atheist vs christian.

It has everything to do with controlling women

no, its a moral choice. if you agree with terminating life because of inconveniance, then you support abortion. if you agree with preserving life at all costs, you don't. the only time death is an option is in war.

I don't know what the general position is around here because I haven't been a member of che-lives for very long.

neither have i. but from what i've seen, its very much militant pro-choice.

As you are so disgusted by this stance, would you like to explain your reasons and why it is you have, from your moral highground, bestowed upon us the label "scumbags"?

i'd describe people with no other feeling than hate, as a scum bag. militant pro-lifers are the type of people who don't think there should be a limit on the age of consent; the type who don't see a problem with child porn; for want of a better word....scum!

Dr. Rosenpenis

17th February 2003, 04:58

Just Joe, it's not about preserving life or terminating it, it's about giving a woman rights to her own body. The fetus is not a sentient, individual, instead, it is part of the woman, it's in the woman's body. You should not care for your body according to law, law's has no jurisdiction in a woman's body, none.

redstar2000

17th February 2003, 05:01

JustJoe, how did we get from a woman's right to control her own fertility to "people who don't think there should be a limit on the age of consent" and then, on down to "the type who don't see a problem with child porn"?

Wow!

You say that this is not a religious issue and then turn right around and say that it's a "moral decision". Well, which is it?

Or do you wish to argue for a morality that is completely independent of religion? That's ok...but then you have to specify the source(s) or at least tell us why your position is more "moral" than ours.

Freedom of the young to enjoy their sexuality is a different issue. The child pornography industry is likewise a different issue. People have differences of opinion on those issues...or even how to define them accurately.

They are not relevant to this discussion...and I think it's arguing in bad faith for you to bring them up as a kind of smoke-screen.

Shall women have control of their own fertility...or shall control be vested in others? Which others? On what grounds?

And when Ireland is completely unified and independent, will you still make Irish women take the ferry to England to rid themselves of an unwanted pregnancy? (See, I can raise a pretty good smoke-screen myself!)

:cool:

Umoja

17th February 2003, 06:11

I used to support Abortion a lot more, but I'm on the fence now. It seems completely illogical to just let a person kill an unborn child, so I only believe it should be legal in the first trimester (if that's possible) or as soon as it can be safely removed. All other types should be harshly regulated.

RedFW

17th February 2003, 09:51

Wow, it didn't take long for this thread to take off.

I completely agree with everything Victorcommie and Redstar posted.

And I would like to add IIRC women in Ireland can use (I don't know how available they are or how expensive) IUDs and Norplant, which prevent a fertilised egg from settling in the womb. Why is abortion and the morning after pill immoral, but these are okay to use? And, of course, I would like the same questions Redstar raised to be answered.

And I would like to address the use of "militant pro-choice". It is an attempt to defend myself from the attack on my right to control my body. Consider it a counter attack if you like.

so I only believe it should be legal in the first trimester (if that's possible) or as soon as it can be safely removed. All other types should be harshly regulated.

I thought this too, but I have recently changed my mind. What about doctor interference prolonging a woman's pregnancy until she misses the last date for an abortion to be preformed, which is very common. Or scheduling and rescheduling the appointment when they actually have no intention of performing the abortion. What if the woman's life is in danger? What if the woman's life is not in danger but there are significant health risks if she chooses to carry the pregnancy to term? And women can be well into the first trimester before they even realise they are pregnant, which gives them very little time to make a decision, get money together for an abortion and make the appointment.

Liberty Lover

17th February 2003, 09:57

Funny how all you abortion supporters are alive

Just Joe

17th February 2003, 12:27

JustJoe, how did we get from a woman's right to control her own fertility to "people who don't think there should be a limit on the age of consent" and then, on down to "the type who don't see a problem with child porn"?

yeah forget that. its another discussion.

You say that this is not a religious issue and then turn right around and say that it's a "moral decision". Well, which is it?

its moral.

Or do you wish to argue for a morality that is completely independent of religion? That's ok...but then you have to specify the source(s) or at least tell us why your position is more "moral" than ours.

my positions more moral than yours because i agree with preserving life wherever possible and you agree with terminating it based on inconveniance.

Freedom of the young to enjoy their sexuality is a different issue. The child pornography industry is likewise a different issue. People have differences of opinion on those issues...or even how to define them accurately.

They are not relevant to this discussion...and I think it's arguing in bad faith for you to bring them up as a kind of smoke-screen.

yeah as i said, its a different discussion. but these militant pro-choicers are usually the same radical people who think the age of consent should be abolished. basically, they have no morality or feeling other than hate.

Shall women have control of their own fertility...or shall control be vested in others? Which others? On what grounds?

women should be as free as anyone, but like anyone, they are not free from consequence. freedom of your actions is also taking responsibility for your actions.

redstar2000

17th February 2003, 15:26

"Funny how all you abortion supporters are alive."

No funnier than the fact that those who initially decided that abortion should be illegal are now dead.

"Militant pro-choicers...have no morality or feeling other than hate."

That is such a bizarre statement that I am nearly at a loss how to respond to it. I'd ask you to produce evidence for this astounding assertion, but it would be a waste of time...there isn't any.

What motivates you, JustJoe, to pour such venom on women who simply want to decide for themselves whether or not this is the time for them to have a child?

Or do you suggest that women should just "take a cold shower" or "curl up with a good book" until such time as they are willing and eager to have children? Ready to follow that advice yourself? Be honest, you're not and I don't think there is a normal man in the world who would accept that constraint except under severe duress.

Humans evolved to enjoy sex...and will do so at pretty much any reasonable opportunity. Are we therefore "immoral"? Yes, I know what that senile turd in the Vatican "thinks"...what do you think?

"My position is more moral than yours because I agree with preserving life whenever possible and you agree with terminating it based on inconvenience."

Actually, JustJoe, I'm not so sure that you've thought through the implications of that statement. Would you really keep an individual who was brain-dead "alive" in a hospital on a heart-lung machine indefinitely? How about someone with a fatal and terribly painful illness (bone cancer is a good candidate) so that in order to keep them from screaming and disturbing the other patients, it's necessary to drug them into permanent unconsciousness?

And then there's that word "inconvenence"...how does an outsider see into a woman's mind and discover whether she wants to terminate a pregnancy because (1) it's a psychological disaster or (2) it's going to interfere with her vacation trip to the Canary Islands next fall?

Since it's not possible to read minds, the only rational choice is to let the pregnant woman decide. You're certainly free to "disapprove" of her choice. If you were friends with her before, you can refuse to have anything more to do with her. If she's a co-worker, you can ask for a transfer so you don't have to speak to her on the job. I, myself, wouldn't react in such a churlish and immature way, but you are always free to do so if you insist.

But where do you think you get the right to call in the cops to stop her?

That is what the anti-choice position boils down to...if you cannot argue a pregnant woman out of having an abortion, threaten her with imprisonment, make her pay a huge amount of money for an illegal abortion under medically unsafe conditions, and then carry out the threat by putting her on trial and sending her to prison.

Tell me again about who is motivated by "hate", JustJoe, I forgot.

:cool:

Just Joe

17th February 2003, 22:19

That is such a bizarre statement that I am nearly at a loss how to respond to it. I'd ask you to produce evidence for this astounding assertion, but it would be a waste of time...there isn't any.

you took what i said completely out of context.

What motivates you, JustJoe, to pour such venom on women who simply want to decide for themselves whether or not this is the time for them to have a child?

they can decide by not having unprotected sex, not by killing an unborn child.

Or do you suggest that women should just "take a cold shower" or "curl up with a good book" until such time as they are willing and eager to have children? Ready to follow that advice yourself? Be honest, you're not and I don't think there is a normal man in the world who would accept that constraint except under severe duress.

no i don't think they should do that. but there are plenty of other options other than abortion. people have to take responsibility you know. if youre gonna go round fuckin everything on two legs, youre gonna have to face up to the consequences. i know men can get away with that, but we can't change that without changing biology.

Humans evolved to enjoy sex...and will do so at pretty much any reasonable opportunity. Are we therefore "immoral"?

i enjoy sex as much as the next man. but i'm not gonna go with a hooker unprotected, am i. its called using your head. don't fuck around unprotected.

Yes, I know what that senile turd in the Vatican "thinks"...what do you think?

resorting to cheap, personal attacks on a man loved and admired by millions, really doesn't do your argument much good.

Actually, JustJoe, I'm not so sure that you've thought through the implications of that statement. Would you really keep an individual who was brain-dead "alive" in a hospital on a heart-lung machine indefinitely? How about someone with a fatal and terribly painful illness (bone cancer is a good candidate) so that in order to keep them from screaming and disturbing the other patients, it's necessary to drug them into permanent unconsciousness?

were drifting again. this is about abortion, not mercy killings.

And then there's that word "inconvenence"...how does an outsider see into a woman's mind and discover whether she wants to terminate a pregnancy because (1) it's a psychological disaster or (2) it's going to interfere with her vacation trip to the Canary Islands next fall?

if its such a disaster, it was pretty stupid of her to get pregnant in the first place wasn't it? there is always adoption for mothers who really feel they are not ready.

Since it's not possible to read minds, the only rational choice is to let the pregnant woman decide.

you can't fuck up, then throw money at something to make it go away. especially when its a childs life at sake. while were on that one, what about the childs voice? does he not get a say in life or death?

Tell me again about who is motivated by "hate", JustJoe, I forgot.

this has got nothing to do with the debate but i'll clear it up anyway.

when i say motivated by hate, i mean the radical pro-choicers who are just looking for a target. they are usually very poor people or very oppressed. they hate there government, they hate there country, they hate religion and religious people, they hate others who don't agree with them, they hate rich people and they hate anyone who remotely fits into normal society. they are the types who agree with abolishing the age of consent and that type a thing.

you could very well be one of these people although you actually are politically aware and intelligent. but still, a lot of your ideas are motivated by hate.

(Edited by Just Joe at 10:19 pm on Feb. 17, 2003)

CopperGoat

17th February 2003, 22:54

How is there no need for abortions in a communist society?

By the way I am saying yes to abortions

Dr. Rosenpenis

17th February 2003, 23:00

Just Joe, instead of replying to every sentence, you think you could maybe reply to the question being adressed, or maybe present some new reasons why?

Anyway, weather or not the mother had unprotected sex, it is still her choice weather or not she will have a baby. I realize that people should take some responsibility for their actions, but that is a personal decision, not one that the law will make for you. It is up the woman. The consequences of having an unwanted child, are horrible. First, I believe that we must acknowlege that there is such thing as an unwanted child, society cannot deny that, women should not be forced to accept their children, that is another personal choice. Abortion can prevent this from happening, I am not saying that abortion should be used as a birth control, but instead as a last resort, not that it is any of my business, it would really be the woman's business.

Just Joe, you must be more tolerant. You must understand that it is not murder.

Alexander Pop

17th February 2003, 23:21

Well..... blah.... I'm totaly opposed to ABORTION because it is the same shit as MURDER!!! If you allow abortion you are a murderer!!!!!!!
VictorCommie...you say fetus has no feelings and shit... ok... but still it is alive! Neither you or I or any other person have right to destroy life!
I was in a situation when my girlfriend got pregnant but opposed to everyone I stood to the fact that I will not alove it! I had a fight with my parents, my relatives,.... but I went though all that.... now I have a wonderful baby-girl and I am glad that I didn't kill her!

Just Joe

18th February 2003, 00:45

fair play Alexander.

Palmares

18th February 2003, 01:10

Pro-choice.

Plain and simple.

CheViveToday

18th February 2003, 03:28

Alexander, it's great that you kept your baby! But remember, you had the CHOICE. We're not saying you SHOULD abort the baby. However women should have the CHOICE to abort a baby if they feel it is necessary. Apparently you and your partner felt it was not necessary to abort the baby, and that is fine as well. You made the decision for yourself and it seems like it worked out. I'm happy for you. HOWEVER you have no right to make that decision for someone else by saying that nobody should be able to get an abortion.

(Edited by CheViveToday at 10:29 pm on Feb. 17, 2003)

redstar2000

18th February 2003, 04:27

"They are usually very poor people or very oppressed. They hate their government, they hate their country, they hate religion and religious people, they hate others who don't agree with them, they hate rich people, and they hate anyone who remotely fits into normal society."

Guilty, Your Honour! <shows total lack of remorse>

So now what, JustJoe? Want to put us all in one of your prisons or just burn us all at the stake? I thought I was supposed to be the "Stalinist" and you were supposed to be the absolute civil libertarian. :o

You continually refer to women with unwanted pregnancies as being "guilty" of "irresponsible behavior" by having "unprotected sex". JustJoe, I hate to "break" this to you, but contraception (all methods) is not 100% effective. What happens to the woman who is "careful" and "responsible" and yet becomes pregnant? Your attitude appears to be: tough shit!

And, in fact, it's worse...because you go on to say that "men can get away with it" and women can't...and that's just biology. As if I said, "I was born rich and you were born poor, so fuck you!"

Adoption would be a viable alternative, provided it was possible to transplant the foetus into the womb of the woman who wanted a child. Perhaps that will some day be medically possible...now, it is not.

I won't ask if you know what women go through in pregnancy; no man knows first hand what it is really like. But, from what I've heard...it's not exactly fun. For some (many?) unfortunate women, it's six or seven months of pure hell! Do you think these women "deserve" to be punished? For being "irresponsible" "sluts", perhaps, that go around "fucking everything on two legs"?

"What about the child's voice? Does he not get a say in life or death?"

It's not a child, JustJoe, it's a foetus...a potential child, that's all. It has the brain-power of a goldfish at most. It has no voice on matters of life and death or anything else...because it has no voice and nothing to say.

(By the way, just to confirm your worst suspicions, I am against arbitrary age laws of all kinds, including the so-called "age of consent". The restrictions I would impose are only two: no one who has reached puberty may have sex with someone who has not reached puberty; and no one may have sex with anyone that they have any kind of authority over. That's it!)

-----------------------------------

Now a couple of points for Alexander Pop.

If "abortion is murder", then do you think that women who have abortions should be executed or simply put in prison for the rest of their lives? (those being the traditional punishments for first-degree murder.)

Secondly, I noticed the curious omission of your girlfriend's opinions in your post. Was it her idea to go ahead with the pregnancy or did you talk her into it? Or did she talk you into it?

And, um, er, who is doing the bulk of the child-care chores around your place these days?

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 11:34 pm on Feb. 17, 2003)

RedFW

18th February 2003, 08:14

Justjoe, you conveniently avoided addressing the points I made in my previous posts. What do you have to lose by answering them? Other than your credibility, that is!

Just Joe

18th February 2003, 13:10

why would i want to put you in prison for having an opinion? my next door neighbour is exactly the same only a dumber version. he doesn't really know what Communism is but he knows he is one because it means he gets more money. he blames everyone for his predicement and would probobly be a Nazi if it wasn't for the fact that theres no ethnic minorities for freakin miles around.

sometimes contraception doesn't work. but then there is adoption.

And, in fact, it's worse...because you go on to say that "men can get away with it" and women can't...and that's just biology. As if I said, "I was born rich and you were born poor, so fuck you!"

biology is set in stone. money isn't. you are born a man or a women but there is no caste system with money. working class people turn to middle class people and the other way round.

look redstar2000, if you fuck up with contraceptives, you at least should go through with the pregnancy. i'm not saying you should be forced to keep the baby, but you seem to want to put an arm round the shoulder and say, it doesn't matter you fucked up, our child killing factory will make sure you don't have to go through a nasty pregnancy and lose your figure.

the foetus debate is another discussion too.

(By the way, just to confirm your worst suspicions, I am against arbitrary age laws of all kinds, including the so-called "age of consent". The restrictions I would impose are only two: no one who has reached puberty may have sex with someone who has not reached puberty;

glad to see you support such horrific measures. some girls reach puberty at 9 or 10. if you think its right for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 9 year old girl, i think you need a morality check.

RedFW

18th February 2003, 13:14

look redstar2000, if you fuck up with contraceptives, you at least should go through with the pregnancy.

He would need to be able to get pregnant first.

Just Joe

18th February 2003, 13:17

obviously, i didn't mean him.

RedFW

18th February 2003, 13:21

Then, "obviously", you should not have spoken in the second person.

Oh, and I am still waiting for you to address my posts...but I won't hold my breath. ;)

redstar2000

18th February 2003, 15:32

JustJoe, every time I get a "morality check", the results always come back the same: Commissar of Darkness :cheesy:

To suggest that a woman would have an abortion because pregnancy would "spoil her figure" is insulting. It's also none of your business. :angry:

"Biology is set in stone." Yes, until humans invented the necessary medical techniques, it was. It is no longer. And will be even less so in the centuries to come.

"Child killing factories"? Then, I take it that you would favor first-degree murder charges against women who have abortions...with the appropriate penalties under law. No? :confused:

I'll sum up briefly. There was a time when woman's fertility was male property. That time is coming to an end. Some men don't like that...they want their property back, to do with as they wish. They are doomed to failure.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:35 am on Feb. 18, 2003)

Just Joe

18th February 2003, 20:31

i'm bored of this debate now. you aint gonna change my mind and i aint gonna change yours.

later.

Alexander Pop

18th February 2003, 23:24

A CHOICE!? no i didn't have a choice.... why? because i chose not to choose!!! a long time ago!
btw.... it didn't work out with me and my partner.... we are getting a divorce tomorrow! But I'll keep the baby with me probably....
I did not what I thought was right.... I did what WAS RIGHT!
I'm not religous or anything.... as the matter a fact I despize religion as much as I despize abortion!
I just don't whant to work against life... against nature.... against GAIA!
I am a Son of Gaia.... I pledged my life to honor, respect and protect life! I shall not go pass that! For if I by some way do, I shall not be among the living anymore!
I'd rather take my own life (although I despize suicide), than take a life of another that has not done anything wrong... that didn't have a chance to do anything... that is difensless and innocent....
I have a message to all those who support abortion: "What if that person that you'd kill could of played a significant role in life....?"
We that live have to be thankful to our parents for not killing us! Have that in mind! By performing an abortion you attack the right among all rights - THE RIGHT TO LIVE! IT IS THE SAME AS PUTTING A GUN TO A MANS HEAD AND SQUEEZING THE TRIGGER! NO ONE HAS RIGHT TO KILL ANOTHER, UNLESS THE VERY OTHER VIOLATED ANOTHERS RIGHT TO LIVE!

redstar2000

19th February 2003, 01:30

Alexander Pop, I think if you look a little more closely at "Gaia"...you'll find the lady relies on death as much as she does on life.

It's only us inquisitive hairless primates (grandly titled "homo sapiens" :cheesy: ) who constantly meddle with "Gaia's" will...and we do it all the time.

"Gaia" says that this woman is infertile and shall not have a child...and then we step in and say: oh, yes, she will, and she does. "Gaia" says that woman shall have a child whether she wants one or not...and then we step in and say: oh, no, she won't, and she doesn't.

Many times "Gaia" still wins the argument...but her winning percentage is falling and our's is rising. Does that bother you?

Why?

"What if [the aborted foetus] could have played a significant role in life?" Yes, and what if he would have been the next Adolph Hitler? For every thing that happens, there are enormous numbers of things that cannot happen. We can only ever decide anything on the basis of the knowledge we have now...not on the basis of what we'll know decades from now, or even ten minutes from now!

"We that live have to be thankful to our parents for not killing us." That's a very strange statement and I'm not at all sure just what it is supposed to mean.

If my mother had aborted me, then I wouldn't have noticed and I wouldn't be here now to discuss why I thought she was a "murderous *****." Some other guy or girl might be here...but I wouldn't.

But "grateful"? I can't say I understand your use of that word...it's not like anyone had a choice in the matter in those days.

It seems to me that "gratitude" is something that you owe someone for a desirable gift, freely offered and freely accepted. "Life" doesn't fit those constraints...normally.

And I have to repeat this question, especially in view of your graphic image of abortion as "murder". Should women who have an abortion suffer life imprisonment or be executed for the crime of murder in the first degree?

Please choose and explain your choice.

:cool:

Alexander Pop

19th February 2003, 23:11

yes there should be a penalty! for it is a murder!

That about crossing Gaia is what I keep constantly repeating.... If we go against Gaia we go against our selves... It is not only cutting a branch that we stand on but cutting the whole tree of life!
We must instead accept the will of Gaia and work in the direction that fits all life!

redstar2000

19th February 2003, 23:40

AP, if you "despise religion" as you claimed in an earlier post, why do you fall back on a religious argument?

How does "accepting the will of Gaia" differ from "accepting the will of God"? True, "Gaia" doesn't have a "bible" yet...though I smell one on its way. :o

And you said that there should be a penalty but you didn't choose.

Defendent has been found guilty of murder in the first degree, namely undergoing a voluntary abortion. What penalty has the jury decided upon? Life Imprisonment Without Parole...or Death?

Well, AP, how did YOU vote?

:cool:

Alexander Pop

20th February 2003, 00:01

hmm... there already is religion based on Gaianism... but I am strongly against that! Those people are not true Gaians..... they use Gaia for themselves... so they too should pe punished by the true Gaians...

How do I vote!? hmm.... I couldn't say realy... i haven't thought of that... but if you insist I shall say: I vote for DEATH PENALTY!
I will probably be hated for saying that but to tell you the truth ... I don't care... For it does not matter to me what people think of me. I am only interesting in life of future generations that are from this point of view doomed to fail! And to tell you the truth, I am happy for knowing that I care and that I'm trying to pull out something that is good for all... but I am very unhappy because there are too many people who act with their EGO's! They don't realize that they're not the ones that will live in, for example, 100 years.... They will die and their ego will die with them, but their children, and children of their children,.... will have to live with mistakes of their ancestors! For their pathetic existance to please themselves not carring about their offspring!
It is sad.... very very sad! It is why I am in great pain!
I do not care about me.... I care about others.... I like halping others... and I can say that the fact that I helped someone pleases me far lot more than for example if I did something and got tons of cash for that or something similar....
I do hope you understand me as I'd like you to understand all this...

redstar2000

20th February 2003, 00:31

No, AP, I don't understand it. But at least you are consistent. You think abortion should be treated as first degree murder and women who have them should be executed.

It is just as well that you "don't care what other people think" on this issue...as you have definitely spoiled your chances to win "man of the year" award at any feminist conventions for the rest of this century. :cheesy:

And your "girlfriend" prospects are not so good if you explain that opinion to them.

Finally, I note the curious remark at the beginning of your post: "there already is religion based on Gaianism...but I am strongly against that! Those people are not true Gaians...they use Gaia for themselves...so they too should be punished by the true Gaians..."

Sound familiar?

:cool:

Hegemonicretribution

20th February 2003, 01:02

I can't be bothered posting all I want to at 1 am but hey I guess I am mostly pro life. However I see one of the only good points of human progress is our ability to end suffering. If a child will be born damaged then it is better to abort than call on the euthanasia debate. If the woman is raped I think she has a right also.

I do however think that in norml circumstances a man also has a claim to the life of the baby. It takes 2 to tango. It may be the woman's body, but that part that she is thinking of destroying is shared.

redstar2000

20th February 2003, 15:15

"I do however think that in normal circumstances a man also has a claim to the life of the baby...It may be part of the woman's body, but that part that she is thinking of destroying is shared."--hegemonicretrobution

What is the nature of the "claim" if not that of someone threatened with the loss of property? If we both bought a car as co-owners, and then I drove off with it and never returned...you'd have a "claim" against me. Is a foetus "co-owned"?

You didn't say whether or not you thought abortion was "murder" or not...but keep in mind the question you must answer if you do.

:cool:

Hegemonicretribution

20th February 2003, 15:33

I haven't time for a decent response now, I haave to go out I will try and answer in full tonight. But I will say I view it as a form of murder. You say they are no more concious than a goldfish, well a goldfish is still alive, all animals are, human's like to elevate them selves. Now would you do that with different living humans? However I will leave one other thing...I don't always see murder as wrong, I think that killing can be just. So I guess I am arguing both sides at once here..

DementedChild

20th February 2003, 17:23

I am pro abortion for many reasons, and like i forgot who said it but i guess there would be no need for abortions.

Arkham

20th February 2003, 17:33

Is anybody pro-abortion? Unless you have someone claiming that they like procedures like that for some bizarre reason, the tag you're looking for is "pro-choice". Reproductive rights are an essential part of women's rights. Most people who are pro-life don't even understand the context by which those arguments are being made. Essentially, no one cares about unborn babies. They're a potential. What its really about is fundamentalists pissed off that women can have sex and not have to deal with the consequences. Thats why the same people who are anti-choice are anti-birth control, and want you to be married before sex. People mouth the pro-life stance as though it means anything. They fall back on the bible, as though fetuses are somehow mentioned in there. The sanctity of life certainly isnt a constant in the bible. Given that there are no biblical or scientific justifications, it comes down to a pretend moral stance, that as I said, is just an echo of Victorian values-bearers mad that women don't have to be subjugated by outdated "rules" on when they can have sex. Its just sad to see people echoing these 30-40 year old arguments without understanding why they were made in the first place.

(Edited by Arkham at 5:34 pm on Feb. 20, 2003)

DementedChild

20th February 2003, 17:46

I am pro abortion for many reasons, and like i forgot who said it but i guess there would be no need for abortions.

RedFW

20th February 2003, 20:32

Fantastic post, Arkham!

I would like to add that in the US, it is the same people who are anti-choice who insist on denying any sort of financial assistance to women to help raise these "lives" they purport to care so much about a "saving". They then insist these "children" live a life of poverty.

Alexander Pop

21st February 2003, 15:52

"Seventy-seven percent of anti-abortion leaders are men. 100% of them will never be pregnant."

Wow... I'd say to that: Seventy-seven percent of abortion leaders are women. 90% of them will bonk their heads on the wall after they had an abortion for realizing what they've done. And that pain will remain for the rest of their pathetic life!

RedFW

21st February 2003, 16:55

It is more than seventy-seven percent ;)
And quite a few of those have never had and will never need an abortion.

And that pain will remain for the rest of their pathetic life!

Oh, no, you are wrong there. Didn't you hear? There is some minor discomfort after an abortion, but it is relatively painless. Unless of course, you are assuming a woman who has an abortion will suffer from emotional pain? If that is the case, I would say: Who the hell are you to assume what women, all or even a majority, feel after an abortion? Don't like abortion, don't have one.

Alexander Pop

21st February 2003, 17:20

I said 77% because you said it in your statement... I do not know the real number however....

I DON'T HAVE TO ASSUME! I HAVE SEEN!
I have many female friends, and many had an abortion...all of them suffered great emotional pain... I suffered one too just by watching them... few of them were so fucked up that they tried commiting suicide...
One tried killing herself in front of me... but it all ended good (if you can call that good)... i reacted fast and got the knife from her hand 'bout 1 second before it'd hit her belly.... but apart this with the suicides most of them were locked in their rooms for couple of days, crying, ripping theyr hair.... and shit.... they're better now but still they are a bit disturbed cause of that... and... guess what... they've all swarn not to commit an abortion ever again!
If you, woman, feel cool with all that than you have a problem with yourself.

Arkham

21st February 2003, 17:26

Actually, its not your perogative to try to protect women from themselves. As you said, you wanted to make clear there were consequences from accidental pregnancy. Clearly, emotional pain from an abortion is one of those potentials. But who are you to try to prevent emotional pain, and cause the physical, emotional, and lifelong pain from an unwanted child? That's right, you're in no such position. You would do well to remember that.

RedFW

21st February 2003, 17:35

It is in my signature, and it is from a planned parenthood brochure.

You can quit the scaremongering and melodrama. I am not even remotely moved by it. So, you have had many female friends who have had abortions and a few who have been so close to committing suicide? You even played the hero and knocked a knife out of one friend's hand before she did so. What is this supposed to prove? It is nothing compared to the thousands of women who have had safe, legal abortions and have not been driven to suicide.

If you, woman, feel cool with all that than you have a problem with yourself.

Would you care to elucidate what exactly this problem I suffer from is?

lacanchita

21st February 2003, 17:42

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 9:57 am on Feb. 17, 2003
Funny how all you abortion supporters are alive

Well said.

Arkham

21st February 2003, 17:53

Yeah, the flippant, pointless remark was really well put. The follow up that you neglected to mention was much funnier.

lacanchita

21st February 2003, 18:26

Thanks, I'm a funny person, generally speaking.

Arkham

21st February 2003, 20:03

Uh okay. I just think boiling a complex argument down to a flippant, meaningless joke is bad form, and pointless.

lacanchita

21st February 2003, 21:54

ok, I agree. There is obviously much more to be said - on both sides, but given the discussion already presented, I see no need in pointless repetition.

Alexander Pop

21st February 2003, 22:17

emotional pain and drive to suicude are just side-effects.... what I said before is the real cause to punish those that abort(murder)...
B-sides.... yall abortion-rocks homies are constantly repeating that a fetus is a part of a womans body.... well guess agian.... IT AIN'T! Fetus is in the body not a part of it.... it uses the body and it's suptaces to develop itself.... it's sort of like a parasite...
Most of women that abort are those that flipp off when they see da man (a guys thing) :) and they carry themselves into it so deep... get obsessed and shit... that they forget what da fuk are they doing... and for their unawareness a life must be put to end! Where is morality there? huh? gone to take a hike, a?
No woman is obligated to get pregnant... it is where the choice must be made... not after she gets pregnant... but if she gets pregnant she has to get on living with it! It's nature.... men inpragnate women... women give birth... and so on... it's a cycle that origins from the very dawn of life... not only in humans... Look at other animal... they get pregnant when they want to... they don't go like: "Oh my god... it was so good... my boyfriend came inside me...ooh...." and than : "Oh no I
m pregnant,... how will I tell my parents... oh no.... I must abort.... or they'll kill me..." and shit like that.... Ok, so other animals don't have sex for just pleasure...ok... but if you're having sex it don't mean you must get pregnant... so again I state - THE CHOICE IS MADE BEFORE YOU GET PREGNANT.

You know what they say: "No remorse after slaming in the horse!" :)
Peace out! :)

Arkham

22nd February 2003, 00:31

It is quite clear that you have a very low opinion of women, alternatingly acting like you want to take care of them, by protecting them from themselves, and implying that they are sluts, a very common male domineering position to take. You have exactly proven my point that the only reason you want to be anti-choice is to control women's sexual habits. Its an old story, and an unfortunate one at that.

No one has proven fetuses are alive in the conventional sense. If a woman has a miscarriage, perhaps we should prosecute her for manslaughter? It is merely a potential life. That being said, to make your point consistent, you would need to be against birth control methods as well. Those are just potential children in play as well.

Once again, I will state that no one is pro-abortion, they are pro-choice. Painting pro-choice people as being for abortion is an easy character assassination, and readily misses the point.

Your prose is disgusting and innappropriate to the conversation, and you have proven yourself to be a mysogonist.

(Edited by Arkham at 12:36 am on Feb. 22, 2003)

Towelly

22nd February 2003, 01:22

Unfortunately Just Joe`s attitude is typical of Irish public opinion on the matter.It`s a relic of reactionary Catholic dogma which still persists in this rainsodden bannana republic.To even support a womans right to termination in cases of rape or incest is considered shocking.

Towelly

22nd February 2003, 01:24

RedFW

22nd February 2003, 09:20

I completely agree, Arkham, particularly on your points about the obvious misogyny in Pop's posts and the rather unoriginal characterisation of women as sluts.

Pop, would you care to answer the question I put to JustJoe about contraception and the similar one raised by Arkham? If contraception works to prevent a fertilised egg from attaching itself the to the uterus, then why is contraception okay and abortion is not?

Alexander Pop

23rd February 2003, 00:43

hold on just there!... I don't consider women sluts.... where da hell did you pull that out?... I pretty much like women... even more then men for that point... I just said that THE CHOICE MUST BE MADE BEFORE, NOT AFTER!....
no it has not been proven that fetus is alive, but neither has it been proven the other way around!
That examples I gave, that you consider I use to say that women are sluts are just examples... men can be like that too.... but I didn't whant to keep giving tons of examples... it would be a waste of time!
I NEVER SAID I SUPPORT CONTRACEPTION!
As the mater a fact I am against any artificial form of contraception! that goes for condoms too! condoms are for one enviromental hazard and for the second I take them as an attack on the humans base element - sexual life.... as for the third existance of condoms has prolonged existance of many sex-transfer deseases (corporate interests!)...
AND - IF I WANTED TO HAVE SEX WITH A RUBBER I'D BUY ONE OF THOSE INFLATABLE DOLLS!

Blibblob

23rd February 2003, 02:48

ENOUGH!

This is the never ending debate. You wont EVER come to an agreement. Sheesh. Us damn economists, cant even ever agree on things not relating to economy.

RedFW

23rd February 2003, 11:10

Most of women that abort are those that flipp off when they see da man (a guys thing) and they carry themselves into it so deep... get obsessed and shit... that they forget what da fuk are they doing... and for their unawareness a life must be put to end! Where is morality there? huh? gone to take a hike, a?

I don't care what men can be like...the point is, you used the rather predictable charactersisation of women as obsessive sluts to argue that abortion should be illegal. The assumption that women who seek abortions are sluts and the "slut" label itself are heavily imbued with misogyny.

I NEVER SAID I SUPPORT CONTRACEPTION!
As the mater a fact I am against any artificial form of contraception! that goes for condoms too! condoms are for one enviromental hazard and for the second I take them as an attack on the humans base element - sexual life.... as for the third existance of condoms has prolonged existance of many sex-transfer deseases (corporate interests!)...
AND - IF I WANTED TO HAVE SEX WITH A RUBBER I'D BUY ONE OF THOSE INFLATABLE DOLLS!

So because "you" don't like contraception then no one should be allowed to use it? And the same for abortion?

This is the never ending debate. You wont EVER come to an agreement.

I am not here to come to an agreement with anyone.

(Edited by RedFW at 11:15 am on Feb. 23, 2003)

Alexander Pop

24th February 2003, 20:25

"I am not here to come to an agreement with anyone."

No shit RedFW :)

P.S. I didn't said I dislike contraception (and I wasn't speaking of contraception in global but of artifical contraception) but that it is wrong!

RedFW

24th February 2003, 22:10

No shit RedFW

What point did you hope to make by this? I wasn't addressing you.

P.S. I didn't said I dislike contraception (and I wasn't speaking of contraception in global but of artifical contraception) but that it is wrong!

I pointed out a question I raised about contraception which was "artificial" contraception. You responded. You included in this response a comment about your dislike of condoms. So, because you do not like contraception (the contraception I raised questions about) and condoms they should be illegal? Would you like to explain why they are "wrong" and "natural" contraception is good/right/moral?

(Edited by RedFW at 10:10 pm on Feb. 24, 2003)

RED RAGE

25th February 2003, 23:06

Every1 has the rite 2 do wot they will, so this is an open and shut case 4 me. yes 2 abortions! its not murder, its not even really alive yet!

pastradamus

27th February 2003, 00:24

Only in some cases would i agree with abortion.like rape.
Otherwise its murder,rejecting a child for simply being .Its an immoral human crime.

Arkham

27th February 2003, 00:47

Once again, no proof biblical or scientific for your viewpoint.

Blibblob

27th February 2003, 01:06

ok, can you shut up about the abortion thing now!

redstar2000

27th February 2003, 01:09

And the anti-abortion religious fundamentalists march on...

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/art...ion-colangelo22 (http://www.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0222abortion-colangelo22)

My personal response: I hope the Diamondbacks go 0-162 this coming season.

:cool:

canikickit

27th February 2003, 01:46

I have many female friends, and many had an abortion...

I believe you. Really.

I hope the Diamondbacks go 0-162 this coming season

I hope the bus crashes. Do they play 162 games per season?

I'm shocked that this thread lasted so long. Shouldn't it have just been a few "of course I am pro-choice" before whoever started realised they were on a leftist board and threads like this were irrelevant?

Guess not.

Arkham

27th February 2003, 01:57

Dear god, the name of the topic is Abortion. Why would you want to come in here and tell the people that are discussing it to shut up? Just don't read it.

RedFW

27th February 2003, 09:27

Only in some cases would i agree with abortion.like rape.
Otherwise its murder,rejecting a child for simply being .Its an immoral human crime.

I completely disagree. Why is the same act (choosing to have an abortion) murder under one set of circumstances and not under another? Surely, if it was an "immoral inhumane crime" whether or not she got raped would not matter? Of course, I do not agree that it is.

Blibblob:ok, can you shut up about the abortion thing now!

Why post in this thread, let alone read it if you are sick of this discussion?

Dear god, the name of the topic is Abortion. Why would you want to come in here and tell the people that are discussing it to shut up? Just don't read it.

Well said!

It isn't irrelevant to me, and I am disturbed that so many people in the left are against a woman's right make her own reproductive choices, whatever the circumstances, including abortion and the type of contraception she uses.

Alexander Pop

27th February 2003, 22:54

There is no need for scientific or whatsoever proof to consider something to be immoral! And abortio, wheater you like it or not, is immoral and sick, and should be by all means punished!
A healthy society cannot be accomplished on sick foundations!

RedFW

28th February 2003, 09:41

I made a post about 15 minutes ago. Is there is any particular reason why it has been deleted since then?

(Edited by RedFW at 9:44 am on Feb. 28, 2003)

redstar2000

28th February 2003, 16:11

Ok, AP, let's do it your way...but with a little twist.

Woman gets pregnant and wants an abortion; father says no way!

The rule is: the woman must have the baby...and the man must have his BALLS removed.

Fair is fair, right?

:cool:

Hegemonicretribution

28th February 2003, 17:00

Generally morals are a near concensus of oppinion, or what we are ledf to beleive is that. A stand point where people can say yes or no. Some to different extents. For example a brutal killing of a 2 year old child is immoral and we would nearly all agree.

People can be more moral than others, if they set themselves rules to adhere to, that is their beleif and should be respected. Those without any real cares or concerns aren't neccesarily evil, maybe just selfish, naive or lazy.

There are some grey areas like this one...People here cannot decide, however from a selfish stand point, well perhaps not selfish, but a normal standpoint abortion is convenient. It can benifit those aborting. Others argue the life of an unborn child is more important than a possible decline iin the life of a mother.

Those arguing for abortion (in normal cases) simply want a limiting factor of sex reduced, others say not at the cost of unborn life.

End result, no-one here will agree....your stance will change as life experience shapes your views. However if it is a moral stand point we here do not have the power to argue people over....If we did the revolution would of come and gone by now.

Arkham

28th February 2003, 18:54

What you're talking about, people deciding what's right and wrong for themselves, is more closely attuned to what's known as ethics. Morals exist outside of a society, or time, or place.

It is possible to define an objective set of morals, though most people are too lazy, and suscribe to subjective morals, which aren't morals at all.

Alexander Pop just doesnt like something, therefore, it is Amoral. Ridiculous tautological argument, and stereotypical of pro-lifers. He and his ilk have proven that they don't like abortion, and it is therefore immoral, because they like to control women's reproductive capabilities, and therefore, women themselves.

This is true amorality.

Alexander Pop

1st March 2003, 00:31

ho said anything about the balls removal!?
that's unnatural too - so fuk that!

canikickit

1st March 2003, 00:47

that's unnatural too - so fuk that!

Yeah man! Fuk the internet and cars as well!

Anonymous

1st March 2003, 00:57

once again i see huge ideologist bulshit...

"unnatural"....
please define nature...

wile your thinking il give you mine, and most scientists defenitions of nature: "all matter"
therefore nature is all, the air, the rocks, the animals, the people etc..
so our toughts, actions, and atitudes are ALL natural, since we are nothing but a product of nature..
nature is not a green thing, or a supreme being that creates life and matter, it is everything from the air to the animals, and nothing we do is unatural..

get that in your heads all you ideologists..

Alexander Pop

1st March 2003, 01:14

cars on nonpoluting fuel are good :)
internet doesn't polute or do obscene stuff... it's cool :)

Arkham

1st March 2003, 02:15

If I subscribed to a subjective/objective paradigm of scientific philosophy, I would concede that anything made of matter is natural. But I don't, so I wouldn't use that tactic.

Blibblob

1st March 2003, 02:29

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volnatra.htm

Natural Law, no reason why i put that particular thing here...

Alexander Pop

1st March 2003, 21:53

please read something on Gaia Theory (Gaia: A new look at life on earth by J. Lovelock would be nice for you to read), or something on the Living Systems theory (you can find this on the net, there is a cool text by Joanna Macy) or try out the Planetary Biology theory (there is a site that has the whole book of this theory done in PDF)
When you read all that, you'll be able to understand me more :)

Moskitto

1st March 2003, 22:42

natural things are those which are created without human intervention, so the amino acid tyrosine is natural even though it is made by human cells but as an intra-body nutrient, but polytetraflouroethene isn't as it can only be made by the intervention of humans.

truthaddict11

2nd March 2003, 02:01

Quote: from Alexander Pop on 6:11 pm on Feb. 19, 2003
yes there should be a penalty! for it is a murder!

That about crossing Gaia is what I keep constantly repeating.... If we go against Gaia we go against our selves... It is not only cutting a branch that we stand on but cutting the whole tree of life!
We must instead accept the will of Gaia and work in the direction that fits all life!

LOL so if a women falls aborts her child you would want her charged with manslaughter?
Its funny how many of these pro-lifers dont give a damn about the kid after they are born. and they feel just great executing them

pastradamus

2nd March 2003, 02:47

Quote: from Arkham on 12:47 am on Feb. 27, 2003
Once again, no proof biblical or scientific for your viewpoint.

I dont need religion or science.Its basic human nature to know that killing is wrong.People who kill are ignorant to the nobility of human life.

Im only in favour of abortion under some circumstances & I believe the state should fund conciling before an immidate decision is taken.

redstar2000

2nd March 2003, 03:31

Why do people keep dragging "human nature" into discussions? No one knows what it is, or can define it in any way that can be tested, etc., etc.

My view is consistent with human nature; your view is unnatural.

If "killing is wrong" according to "human nature", how come we humans do it so much and are so good at it?

:cool:

RedFW

2nd March 2003, 10:00

I typed out a very long response to this, but it has gone missing (I have been assured this was a technical fault).

There is no need for scientific or whatsoever proof to consider something to be immoral! And abortio, wheater you like it or not, is immoral and sick, and should be by all means punished!
A healthy society cannot be accomplished on sick foundations!

Proof is needed, if you are going to convince me, and seeing as it is my right to have an abortion, whether I choose to use it or not, that is in jeopordy, I demand to know why?

So, abortion is sick and immoral simply because you say so? That just isn't going to work for me. Why are your morals more justified than mine and get to determine what I can or cannot do regarding my own reproductive capabilities? Is it moral to vehemently fight against a woman's right to have an abortion and then ensure the child she gives birth to lives in poverty for the rest of its life, which is exactly what is happening in the US? What about when the body naturally aborts a fetus? Should that be manslaughter and voluntary abortion murder?

And you can either answer the questions put to you in my previous post

pointed out a question I raised about contraception which was "artificial" contraception. You responded. You included in this response a comment about your dislike of condoms. So, because you do not like contraception (the contraception I raised questions about) and condoms they should be illegal? Would you like to explain why they are "wrong" and "natural" contraception is good/right/moral?

or you can f*** off and stop wasting my time by avoiding them. Have a nice day ;)

Just Joe

2nd March 2003, 11:59

If "killing is wrong" according to "human nature", how come we humans do it so much and are so good at it?

so youre just resigning human nature to being uncompatible with not killing people? very optimistic redtar. been reading too much Nietzche just recently?

So, abortion is sick and immoral simply because you say so? That just isn't going to work for me. Why are your morals more justified than mine and get to determine what I can or cannot do regarding my own reproductive capabilities?

that whole, you can't decide my morality for me is complete bollocks. where do you draw the line? to a mass rapist, rape isn't going to be immoral to him so should we let him do it? no because he directly harms another, which is what abortion does.

Blibblob

2nd March 2003, 13:40

There is no moral, nothing is right, nothing is wrong. It is all relative.

Guardia Bolivariano

2nd March 2003, 14:01

I think abortion should be a decision of the family in question not of the state.

redstar2000

2nd March 2003, 14:09

JustJoe, what I'm saying is that "human nature" arguments are stupid and useless.

I'm also saying that whenever people start defending their position with appeals to "human nature", it's because they've completely run out of anything logical, rational, or justifiable by evidence to say.

An appeal to "human nature" to support or condemn any position has exactly the same intellectual merit as an appeal to the "Will of God": zero

:cool:

PS: Nietzche was, for the most part, a crank...but he did possess a quality that is all too rare nowadays: integrity. His polemic against the pompous Richard Wagner is still quite amusing...and true.

RedFW

2nd March 2003, 17:52

Ah, Just Joe. So, you have finally decided to respond to my posts, haphazardly mind you , and one not even addressed to you.

And I see you have taken my quote out of context too as Alexander Pop has argued that women should not be allowed contraception because it is immoral, should not use condoms, because he doesn't like them, and cannot have abortions either.

that whole, you can't decide my morality for me is complete bollocks. where do you draw the line? to a mass rapist, rape isn't going to be immoral to him so should we let him do it? no because he directly harms another, which is what abortion does.

I didn't say this. I raised a question about why his views on contraception and abortion are more moral/right than mine and why his views on them should influence their legal availability. Project much? I do not agree that abortion hurts anyone except maybe men who cannot stand being able to control women. And, while you are here, would you like to answer the questions I addressed to you earlier about contraception?

RedPirate

2nd March 2003, 18:57

All for it, for someone else's sake...

Just Joe

2nd March 2003, 19:29

Ah, Just Joe. So, you have finally decided to respond to my posts, haphazardly mind you , and one not even addressed to you.

this is the first time i checked this thread in ages. i didn't respond originally because there was really no difference between your and redstar2000's argument.

And I see you have taken my quote out of context too as Alexander Pop has argued that women should not be allowed contraception because it is immoral, should not use condoms, because he doesn't like them, and cannot have abortions either.

thats not my stance. i don't disagree with contraceptions. proving my opinion on abortion is not dictated by the Catholic Church.

that whole, you can't decide my morality for me is complete bollocks. where do you draw the line? to a mass rapist, rape isn't going to be immoral to him so should we let him do it? no because he directly harms another, which is what abortion does.

I didn't say this. I raised a question about why his views on contraception and abortion are more moral/right than mine

the same reason my views on rape are more moral than those of a rapist. its general good conduct, not to rape. as it is general good conduct not to terminate life in non-extreme conditions.

and why his views on them should influence their legal availability. Project much? I do not agree that abortion hurts anyone except maybe men who cannot stand being able to control women.

pffft, extreme feminist garbage. i don't want to control women in the slightest. i have a moral view that life should be kept wherever possible. if a women decides is not simply the 'right time' to have a baby, she should have been more careful and i don't think she is in her rights to abort a child.

And, while you are here, would you like to answer the questions I addressed to you earlier about contraception?

where?

(Edited by Just Joe at 7:31 pm on Mar. 2, 2003)

Moskitto

2nd March 2003, 22:50

i disagree with abortion but i don't think it should be banned because other people don't disagree with it and it is debatable moral ground, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with contraceptives, i don't even see why anyone should want to discuss this point, the benefits of contraceptives far outway any possible "evilness" of using them.

RedFW

3rd March 2003, 09:00

this is the first time i checked this thread in ages. i didn't respond originally because there was really no difference between your and redstar2000's argument

This is what I was reffering to when I said you never responded to my post regarding contraception (page 3):

And I would like to add IIRC women in Ireland can use (I don't know how available they are or how expensive) IUDs and Norplant, which prevent a fertilised egg from settling in the womb. Why is abortion and the morning after pill immoral, but these are okay to use?

thats not my stance. i don't disagree with contraceptions. proving my opinion on abortion is not dictated by the Catholic Church.

I never claimed it was your stance. I said you took what I said about Alexander Pop's morals being more justified than my own out of context. I think I proved I was fully aware that Catholics do have views on abortion independent of the Catholic Church when I referred earlier to Catholics for Choice.

the same reason my views on rape are more moral than those of a rapist. its general good conduct, not to rape. as it is general good conduct not to terminate life in non-extreme conditions.

The point is, I wasn't arguing this, as I said above. I was questioning Alexander Pop about why his views on contraception, including condoms, and abortion were more moral than my own, and I have already mentioned his views.

I view a fetus as dependent upon a woman's body for survival and not independently living until she has given birth. IMO it is not murder, and in the US and UK as well as other European countries, the law agrees that my body and life are more important than a fetus if I choose to terminate it.

I should also mention that you have said you have no problem with contraception. What is the difference between contraception and abortion? The type of contraceptions I mention prevent a fertilised egg from settling in the womb an abortion detaches it from the womb.

Also, you mentioned that it is general good conduct not to terminate life in non-extreme conditions". Why is abortion wrong in one set of circumstances and right in another? It is the same act.

pffft, extreme feminist garbage. i don't want to control women in the slightest. i have a moral view that life should be kept wherever possible. if a women decides is not simply the 'right time' to have a baby, she should have been more careful and i don't think she is in her rights to abort a child.

You are so incredibly sensitive and demand your views be recognised as your own and not those of the Catholic Church, yet you are so quick to dismiss mine as "extreme feminist garbage". My feminist garbage has done a hell of a lot more to improve the lives of people than the Catholic Church can lay claim to.

Maybe Redstar could post what he did at Politics Online about women and their reproductive capabilities as property.

As for women being more careful, a very large percentage of women who seek abortions do so after the contraceptives they were using failed. I suppose women should just not have sex with anti-choice men. I am sure the views of anti-choice men would change very quickly. ;)

redstar2000

3rd March 2003, 12:44

Originally posted at Politics Online, 01/25/03

What is interesting is why this should still be a "question." Women have attempted to control their fertility for at least the last 4 or 5 thousand years...now it can be done safely and easily. The "morning after" pill is even easier and more private than an abortion. That battle is clearly won.

It seems to me that those who would deny, in some fashion, the right of women to control their own fertility are offering some pretty reprehensible alternatives: e.g., "God" should decide or "His" earthly representatives; the government should decide; the male partner should decide; the parents of the pregnant woman should decide; etc.

Why? What is the source of this urge to control the fertility of others? I think it goes back to the idea of women and their children as property, back to the transition from hunter-gatherer societies (primitive communism) to nomadism (private property in animals...and women).

In this view, your property (animal or human) does not possess the right of self-determination; the chicken does not get to decide whether or not it wishes to be killed and eaten...the pregnant girl does not get to decide whether or not she wishes to carry a pregnancy to term.

That's a tough position to defend publicly...thus recourse is made to nebulous concepts like "the will of God", "moral law", "father's rights", "parental rights", "the needs of society", etc. But beneath all that smoke and mirrors is a very rock-solid assertion: "My property does not make decisions...I make the decisions about my property."

The civilized consensus--weak though it still is in many places--is that women and children are not property. That consensus is under sharp attack from all those who defend the institution of private property itself...and the short-term outlook is very uncertain.

In the long-term, no one will concern themselves with someone else's fertility any more than they'd concern themselves with someone else's root canal.

:cool: