Abortion

[Hate Is Art]

Would communism make abortion Illegal or Legal? I think abortion should be illegal because of the killing of innocent children.

[CubanFox]

Abortion was legal in the USSR before the baby was 3 months in the womb.

[Beccie]

It should be totally about the woman weather she wants an abortion or not.

[Ian]

Wasn't abortion outlawed in all cases in the Soviet Union in 1936? although that may have been reversed later on

(Edited by Ian Rocks at 12:01 pm on May 10, 2003)

[CubanFox]

According to "The Russians" by Hendrick Smith (it's a thick book about a Western journo's trip into 1980's USSR, quite an interesting read) there's the 3 month rule I mentioned earlier. So I guess it was reversed.

[Hate Is Art]

Quote: from Commie01 on 11:03 am on May 10, 2003
It should be totally about the woman weather she wants an abortion or not.


what about the baby though? doesn't he/she have a choice about living?

[Umoja]

Yeah, when does a woman have a right to kill her child? I'd say in the First Trimester, so if the Soviets had a three month limit I can agree.

[Ian]

I think any time is cool with me, It's up to the woman really whether she wants the baby. Plus, the world is very crowded in some parts, why not allow self-population control!?

[Umoja]

So if the woman gives birth to the baby she can kill it as long as she is it's parent? What about the day before it's supposed to be born, can they kill it then? What if the "baby" does something bad when they are three months old, and the woman kills it, does she have a right to? When does a woman lose control over her babies life?

[hazard]

for anybody interested, this debate erupted in the OI forum about a month ago with some intersting results

here's a link

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...c=2193&start=10 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=2193&start=10)

[Ian]

*sigh* Umoja, anytime the baby is in the womb is fine by me frankly.

[hazard]

I think china's treatment of abortion is a better topic than russia's treatment

but I've had it with the entire debate, at least on this message board

basically, I don't think one can support socialism AND abortion at the same time

[Ian]

lol, show me a socialist party that does not support abortion and I will show you a sect...

Every socialist party I know supports a women's right to choose.

(Edited by Ian Rocks at 12:44 pm on May 11, 2003)

[Beccie]

I do not agree with the killing of unborn babies, if I were to ever fall pregnant I would not be able to have an abortion. However I do not have a problem with woman choosing to abort their children. No one should be forced through an unwanted pregnancy.

My cousin had an abortion, she was 17 her boyfriend at the time had no job and no desire to help her raise the kid. She was living out of home and probably would not have been able to get support of her alcoholic parents. She had no job herself, she felt that abortion was her only option. I tried to talk her out of it but I supported and respected her decision.

In some circumstances abortion can be the only realistic option.

[Umoja]

I still don't believe it's moral to abort a baby any time during the pregnancy, because if you could abort it days before it was outside of the womb, wouldn't it make just as much sense to kill the baby right after it leaves it's mother?

So, I'd stick with the first trimester for that reason.

[truthaddict11]

you either have all forms of abortion availible or you have it none there is no middle ground in my opinion. as communists we must expand freedom not limit it . for further reference there is no such thing as a "partial birth" abortion it is a phrase created by the anti-choice army.

visit http://www.imnotsorry.net it brings back the old feminst thinking of Abortion Without Apology

(Edited by truthaddict11 at 9:29 pm on May 11, 2003)

[truthaddict11]

here is a link to an article from the Nation on the issue

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030...30421&s=pollitt (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030421&s=pollitt)

[Iepilei]

did you know about a hundred or so years ago, the churches anti-abortion stance was not due to the fact that they were against 'child murder'.

the methods used were tricky, and more times than not the mother would die. the church had no argument against the loss of the unborn child until the abortion procedure became less complex and dangerous to the mother.

personally, I believe that anytime before it becomes a 'concious' being is ok. don't take that as i'm "for" abortions, as I myself would NEVER have one if I were a woman, and I would never suggest my wife have one. i must bear my own responsiblities.

however, many people are too stupid and young to hold such an honor. foster homes fill quickly and many never see adopted families. children need close care and nurturing, those who don't suffer worse than anyone could imagine.

[Umoja]

What does a concious being count as? Can you kill a person who's asleep, because they aren't concious? What if the woman wants to kill the baby while it's asleep, is that expanding freedom?

You can't always live with just to extremes. On many issues their needs to be a middle ground.

[truthaddict11]

i am talking about in the womb. i dont think anyone here condones infantcide.

[YKTMX]

I think anytime up to a few months is reasonable, maybe the only thing Stalin ever got right!

[truthaddict11]

what about women who dont know or cant afford an abortion in the first "few months"

[Umoja]

Firstly, I am sure a woman would become aware after at least two months (otherwise exceptions into the second trimester I could understand, but I'm not a woman who's been pregnant so I don't know) and regardless Abortion (along with all medicare) should be free.

[rAW DEaL bILL]

#1 fuck what the USSR did! the ussr was totaly fucked after lennin. #2 i believe abortion should be legal no matter what. its the pregnant womans choice. i mean what if like a 12 yr old got raped? shes not gonna be able to take that kinda stress of having a fucking kid and for some people theyd rather die than give their baby up for adoption no matter what the circumstance. its the womans choice not the governments.

[WUOrevolt]

abortion is about the womans choice about her own body. It should be legal.

[hazard]

the woman loses her choice once she starts to abuse it

a woman chooses, with her own body, to pull the trigger of a gun. according to the abortion supporters idiotic, juvenile logic, she should be permitted this choice

but she isn't, is she?

a woman has the choice whether to have sex or not. the purpose of sex is to procreate. if a baby is made from the process that is explicitly designed for that purpose, a woman must remain accountable for that action. her choice was made when she had sex. to have an abortion is a cop out, and is murder.

12 year olds getting raped is not an exception. it is a bad argument.

abortion is a billion dollar baby butchering industry that benefits only the bourgeoisie

[Rock1Renegade3]

I agree with some that it's the mother's decision weather or not to abort, but it should have been her responsiblity to not get pregnant in the first place.
Also, depending where she is and how old she is, there are free clinics that provide you with all your needs, so really a teenager in the U.S has no excuse of getting a unwanted pregnacy.
It is up to the mother, no one else, but she should not abuse that fact that she can always get an abortion.
Anyways, abortions causes depression and gives you suicidal thoughts, would a girl really want that?

[Invader Zim]

Anti abortion arguments are meaningless as you say that its barbaric to take a life of an unborn baby, however by the same logic you should ban contraception. Take the "morning after" pill, using that you are possibly killing a phetus early in its development, it is still however an unborn baby.

Condoms, you are stopping a baby getting consived, that unconcived baby does that not have a right to life?

This is one reason why i think that abortion should be legal as where do you make the line between killing a baby and mear contraception?

I saw a really good quote in someones sig, it was something like: -

"70% of anti-abortion leaders are male, 100% of men will never be pregnant."

[Umoja]

You can't say contraception is a problem, because everytime a man realeses sperm he is killing millions of "potential" babies. Even when a child is conceived, millions of other children die. Most sperm aren't meant to live, and even killing a fetus early on in the pregnancy isn't nearly as horrible as aborting the baby days before it's born.

I agree largely with hazard, to an extent. (Raped 12 y/o girls is a topic I ain't gonna touch)

[rumblefish86]

when it comes to abortion every womans circumstance is different but every woman who has an abortion does not take it lightly. Do you know what its like to be in that postion? Do you know how it feels to preganant and scared? No? Well shut the fuck up

You make it sound as if abortion is something easy to do and its not.

[mentalbunny]

Well if you make it illegal you'll end up with a host of back-street clinics and some unwanted kids into the bargain. Is that what you'd rather have? You aren't going to change society. I don't like abortion but it's the lesser of two evils.

[redstar2000]

Quote: from hazard on 10:43 pm on May 14, 2003
the woman loses her choice once she starts to abuse it

a woman has the choice whether to have sex or not. the purpose of sex is to procreate. if a baby is made from the process that is explicitly designed for that purpose, a woman must remain accountable for that action. her choice was made when she had sex. to have an abortion is a cop out, and is murder.

12 year olds getting raped is not an exception. it is a bad argument.



Who said male supremacy was dead?

This is the sort of anti-woman, fuck-witted and utterly barbaric bullshit that makes communists cringe and feminists scream in rage!

It totally ignores every aspect of social and class reality and raises procreation to the status of divine imperative.

Very well, hazard, you have now qualified for the question that I always raise.

If abortion is "murder", then is it your wish that a woman who has one be executed or would you be "satisfied" with merely life imprisonment without parole? Those are the punishments in the United States for premeditated murder in the first degree.

While you ponder your answer, I will offer this: those who would punish women for being female are purely and simply enemies of communist revolution! :angry:

:cool:

[Umoja]

I don't believe abortion should be legal though, I just think it shouldn't be like "Well, the kid is gonna be born a day from now, but I wanna kill it." Most women, rightfully, object to men talking about abortion being a bad thing, but realistically it's a unique circumstance. Just because most (most likely all) males can't relate, doesn't mean we should be hands off about it. I'm sure if sperm could scream as they died, then their'd be similar problems.

[mentalbunny]

Umoja:

"Well, the kid is gonna be born a day from now, but I wanna kill it."

That's a classic straw man fallacy. We're not saying that, we're saying when a woman finds out she's pregnant and for various reasons could not cope with having the child then abortion should be a legal option. We're not saying that it's acceptable to kill of a kid just cos you decide you don't want it when you're way into your third trimester, ok? That rhetoric of yours is dangerously close to the stuff they use in OI!

And redstar2000, great post!

[Saint-Just]

If you make abortion illegal, you have unwanted children. These unwanted children though; once born the mother might be in a very difficult decision, whether to look after it or not.

If the child has to go to a home for unwanted children, then that child may have difficulty in the fact that their parent(s), specifically the mother is alive yet does not want to care for the child.

I do not know what most cases of abortion revolve around, young pregnancies or rape.... anyway, if these incidents are reduced abortion will likely be reduced in its frequency.

[Umoja]

I see your point Mentalbunny, but the "idealistically bad thing" quote was grossly exaggerated. I don't think abortion should be illegal, I just think it should carry gravity (at least 1g :biggrin:) with it. All the previous arguments about unwanted children make plenty of sense, and I don't disagree with them, but I do disagree with the concept that the child can just be killed willy-nilly. So more or less, I am opposed to supporting abortions 100%, and am just being concious of that rather then jumping in and just saying I'm "pro-choice". Maybe it's a problem of thinking in absolutes.

[hazard]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 9:25 am on May 16, 2003

Quote: from hazard on 10:43 pm on May 14, 2003
the woman loses her choice once she starts to abuse it

a woman has the choice whether to have sex or not. the purpose of sex is to procreate. if a baby is made from the process that is explicitly designed for that purpose, a woman must remain accountable for that action. her choice was made when she had sex. to have an abortion is a cop out, and is murder.

12 year olds getting raped is not an exception. it is a bad argument.



Who said male supremacy was dead?

This is the sort of anti-woman, fuck-witted and utterly barbaric bullshit that makes communists cringe and feminists scream in rage!

It totally ignores every aspect of social and class reality and raises procreation to the status of divine imperative.

Very well, hazard, you have now qualified for the question that I always raise.

If abortion is "murder", then is it your wish that a woman who has one be executed or would you be "satisfied" with merely life imprisonment without parole? Those are the punishments in the United States for premeditated murder in the first degree.

While you ponder your answer, I will offer this: those who would punish women for being female are purely and simply enemies of communist revolution! :angry:

:cool:


redstar:

to answer your question, no, the woman herself does not commit the act of murder. it is the abortionist who performs the action, FOR PROFIT, mind you, that is legally responsible for the action.

you have fallen victim to one of the worst acts of rhetorical logic EVER in human history. the defence of abortion is just that: rhetoric. your ad hominen assaults upon me prove that more than anything.

it is strange that your obvious assumption that I would condemn a party who does perfrom the murderous action with death, simply because of her sex. this is rhetoric. for you, to oppose abortion is to oppose women. for me, to support abortion is to support ALL that capitalism stands for. propaganda. exploitation. blood for profit. it has NOTHING to do with women and EVERYTHING to do with brutal exploitation of a lifeform, be it human or otherwise, for the sole purpose of generating capital. unfortunately it is women who are burdened with this life bearing process. that, however, is irrelevant to the context of this argument.

redstar, in the past I have seen you to be a well reasoned and thoughtful person. now I see that you have indeed at least one major flaw. gullibility. if you were to review the stances on thi issue on a basis of their arguments and NOT on a basis of the rhetoric ( ie. those who oppose abortion are woman hating sexistpigs ) you should see that abortion is a sickening practice performed for sickening reasons and defended in a sickening way. that is why your post has left me feeling sickened.

[hazard]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 10:14 am on May 16, 2003
Umoja:

"Well, the kid is gonna be born a day from now, but I wanna kill it."

That's a classic straw man fallacy. We're not saying that, we're saying when a woman finds out she's pregnant and for various reasons could not cope with having the child then abortion should be a legal option. We're not saying that it's acceptable to kill of a kid just cos you decide you don't want it when you're way into your third trimester, ok? That rhetoric of yours is dangerously close to the stuff they use in OI!

And redstar2000, great post!


nice fallacy ID

however, I don't think you have proven your case that that argument is indeed a fallacy.

you, however, have committed the SAME fallacy in your argument by attributing anti-abortionists with holding the position that pro-abortionists want abortions to be performed for only frivolous reasons.

anti-abortionists are pointing out that IF women want to have an abortion for a frviolous reason, they are permitted to do so. and when you incorporate money as a factor, ie. thge woman can't afford he child, such reasons ARE frivolous. you really mean that women can't afford to sacrifice their 29" TV's and sports cars and swimming pools. similalrly, assuming there is a valid reason to have an abortion (though I am hard pressed to think of one), the anti-abortionist argument is only in reference to the fact that ANY reason is allowed. an abortion is treated like any other choice by the pro abortionists. like choosing between coke and pepsi, or choosing between irish spring, dove or ivory. choosing to have an abortion because you're having a bad day is acceptable under the current context of the law. THIS is the position that anti-abortionists take which is NOT a false presentation of the pro-abortionist stance. it is highly accurate

you also committed ANOTHER fallacy which is a no brainer, really. when you used the word "classic" in your description of straw man you did not qualify it. as such, the value of your conclusion, that the straw man fallacy occurred, was strengthened inapropriately by a word that had not been qualified. that IS a classic "freeloading term" fallacy. what makes it worse is the fact that I have reason to believe that the straw man fallacy did not even occur at all let alone in a "classic" sense.

anyway, whhich Informal Logic school are you from? I was taught by the LSD co-creators themselves, and am a big fan of their method.

[Umoja]

Isn't medicare free undercommunism? What about China isn't abortion free there?

[hazard]

umoja:

what about them?

china has a "one child" policy that forces women to have abortions if they get pregnant. I don't think ANY of us can agree to those terms.

abortion is currently covered under healthcare in canada, although eyeglassess are not. neither is medication. to me, these things can and should be funded before abortions are funded. the abuse of this in the system is ridiculous. as it is, women have admitted to not purchasing contraceptives as abortion is simply provided free while condoms cost ten bucks a box. a horrible tragic waste of life and healthcare funding.

[RedFW]

Hazard, you seem to suddenly be saying two very different things. Earlier in the thread you said:

to have an abortion is a cop out, and is murder.

Then Redstar asked you this:

If abortion is "murder", then is it your wish that a woman who has one be executed or would you be "satisfied" with merely life imprisonment without parole? Those are the punishments in the United States for premeditated murder in the first degree.

Then you said:

to answer your question, no, the woman herself does not commit the act of murder. it is the abortionist who performs the action, FOR PROFIT, mind you, that is legally responsible for the action.

Well, which is it? Is having the abortion murder or performing the abortion murder? Both?

anti-abortionists are pointing out that IF women want to have an abortion for a frviolous reason, they are permitted to do so.

Which 'frivolous' reasons are you referring to? Are the emotional, physical and financial (which I will come back to) inability to cope with pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood frivilous reasons? Who gets to decide they are 'frivolous'? Who knows the circumstances of an unplanned pregnancy and the woman's (in)ability to cope with these things better than the woman herself who is pregnant?

and when you incorporate money as a factor, ie. thge woman can't afford he child, such reasons ARE frivolous.

They may be for people with dispensible income; however, they are very serious reasons to consider carrying a pregnancy to term, especially in countries without nationalised healthcare.

you really mean that women can't afford to sacrifice their 29" TV's and sports cars and swimming pools.

Actually, I had in mind things like the cost of pregnancy (frequent OB/GYN visits) childbirth (hospital expenses even if there are no complications). And as many women in the US are in jobs that do not offer healthcare they, if they choose to continue the pregnancy, are faced with either keeping their jobs and running up enormous debt or leaving their jobs and signing on whatever state benefits and healthcare they can receive, which in simpler terms means crossing the line into poverty, which for many, I would even say most, is a very thin line.

similalrly, assuming there is a valid reason to have an abortion (though I am hard pressed to think of one), the anti-abortionist argument is only in reference to the fact that ANY reason is allowed. an abortion is treated like any other choice by the pro abortionists. like choosing between coke and pepsi, or choosing between irish spring, dove or ivory. choosing to have an abortion because you're having a bad day is acceptable under the current context of the law.

You seem to be conflating your criticism of a woman's privacy to have an abortion for whatever reason and your assumption that women who have abortions have taken the decision lightly. If we separate the two, why does a woman's reason for having an abortion concern you? An abortion is an abortion. Whatever the reasoning is behind it, it is still an abortion.

If you are totally against abortion, then there are probably millions of women who are using birth control (being responsible for one's actions and trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies) which are abortive. Should these be banned and these women punished? The doctors who prescribe them punished? The pharmaceutical companies punished? On a more extreme note, should some sort of testing be developed to ensure that only women who are able to carry a pregnancy to term without miscarrying are allowed to be pregnant? This would address the issue of 'natural abortion'.

THIS is the position that anti-abortionists take which is NOT a false presentation of the pro-abortionist stance.

Actually, I have found your respresentation of the 'pro-abortionist' stance to be an incredibly false 'presentation' or representation. I have offered my own stance, which you are now free to comment on.

abortion is currently covered under healthcare in canada, although eyeglassess are not. neither is medication. to me, these things can and should be funded before abortions are funded. the abuse of this in the system is ridiculous. as it is, women have admitted to not purchasing contraceptives as abortion is simply provided free while condoms cost ten bucks a box. a horrible tragic waste of life and healthcare funding.

I completely support your stance that eyeglasses should be covered by healthcare in Canada. I do not see the conncection between eyeglasses and abortions, and I think you could run an effective campaign for coverage for eyeglasses without needing to withdraw the coverage of abortions from the plan.

Abortion could fall under medication if you are talking about Mifepristone. And I am sure there are other out patient surgeries that are covered by the healthcare you are referring to, which would have more in common with abortion than eyeglasses.

I don't see the importance of eyeglasses over abortions. Why not cover both? And how is the coverage of abortion an abuse of the system? If abortion is legal, then why should it not be provided in a sanitary and safe environment to women?

I can understand your frustration regarding having to purchase condoms and other contraceptives (something that women have to do in the US), but I do not see why this should mean that abortion should not be covered. I think both should be. Which women are you referring to that have admitted to not buying contraceptives and having an abortion? I know that in the UK the percentage of women who have abortions because the contraceptives they were using failed is very high.

[mentalbunny]

hazard, I would like you to read my post about how it is impossible to get rid of abortion. Would you rather have a backstreet doctor stick a coat hanger up a woman's vagina or have a trianed doctor conduct a medical procedure? This not an exxageration, this is what happens.

[redstar2000]

RedFW, you are probably the most patient comrade I've ever seen on a message board; the fashion in which you calmly and deliberately dismantle the feeble yet outrageous arguments of the anti-female fake-leftists while containing your justified anger within the bounds of reason is truly impressive.

I wish I could do that. ;)

But since I can't...

Ok, hazard, your position is that women who have abortions will not be punished at all; it is the doctor who performs the abortion whose life is forfeit.

So your logic suggests that a woman may have as many abortions as she wishes for reasons serious or trivial as long as she can find a doctor willing to risk her/his life to perform the procedure.

That will come at a rather high price, will it not, assuming it can be found at all.

And your response, at least if you're still pretending to be logical is: well, she can always do it to herself without worrying about any legal penalties. Just be sure and sterilize that coathanger first. (!)

And how much surgery have you performed on yourself lately, hazard? Or do you suggest that men are "above" that sort of dirty female business?

"unfortunately it is women who are burdened with this life-bearing process; that however is irrelevant to the context of this argument."

That's right up there, hazard, with Bill Clinton--"I feel your pain"--not to mention Jimmy Carter--"life is unfair."
The "burden of the life-bearing process" is central to "the context of this argument"...if you are a woman.

What kind of crackpot "logic" is it that ignores perhaps the most crucial question that a woman faces? Or dismisses it as "trivial", like a swimming pool or a bigger dummyvision set?

That's an easy one to answer; it's the logic of one who says hey, it ain't my problem, babe.

Or, perhaps, if you don't like getting pregnant, why did you choose to be female?

And then there's Get thee to a nunnery (meaning take a vow of permanent celibacy.)

You take refuge behind the fact that in a capitalist system, there is naturally a good deal of money to be made in providing abortions on demand.

It is a feeble shelter. Women have been attempting to control their own fertility for as long as written history exists; there are extant Egyptian recipes for drinks that promise to induce abortion that are 5,000 years old...somewhat predating the rise of capitalism, wouldn't you agree?

Women controlling their own fertility. What a simple idea; what an admirable idea. Women should not have to be "prisoners" of their biology. How could anyone be against that?

Would you believe that some people find it "sickening"? Would you like to speculate on why they do; what lies at the heart of such an attitude?

It won't be "pretty".

:cool:

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Umoja on 12:35 pm on May 15, 2003
You can't say contraception is a problem, because everytime a man realeses sperm he is killing millions of "potential" babies. Even when a child is conceived, millions of other children die. Most sperm aren't meant to live, and even killing a fetus early on in the pregnancy isn't nearly as horrible as aborting the baby days before it's born.



You can't say contraception is a problem

Im not im simply comparing abortion to contraception to show how stupid anti abortion arguments are. Unless you plan to ban contraception you cannot logicaly ban abortion as in essance all abortion is, is a late form of contraception. Stopping the birth of an unwanted child, it is no differant to the morning after pill.

You can't say contraception is a problem, because everytime a man realeses sperm he is killing millions of "potential" babies.

Yes but the possibility exists that you are stopping a baby getting the chanse to have a life, which is the same argument used anti-abortionists. Because you are destroying potential, a pregnancy cvan still go wrong and the baby can be lost. Where do you draw the line between potential and life, exactly?

and even killing a fetus early on in the pregnancy isn't nearly as horrible as aborting the baby days before it's born.

So the older fetus is the more right it has to life? That is what you are saying. From where im sitting. That is not a very moral thing to say is it!

"Well, the kid is gonna be born a day from now, but I wanna kill it."

Like i said that fetus is still only a potential baby a miscarrage could occur in that time. What is the point where contraception become murder?

[Nordic Rebel]

Hazard you said


the woman herself does not commit the act of murder. it is the abortionist who performs the action, FOR PROFIT, mind you, that is legally responsible for the action.

Wouldn't this make abortion a murder for hire? If not would you be so kind and explain why.

[Moskitto]

I support the choice to be able to have an abortion, and I support the increased availablity of contraceptives which would reduce the need for abortions to happen, barrier method contraceptives, particularly the female condom are essential at stopping the spread of STDs.

China does not force women with multiple pregnancies to have abortions, families with more than 1 child (excluding twins) loose financial benefits from the government, and in rural areas families may have 2 children if the first is a girl.


similalrly, assuming there is a valid reason to have an abortion (though I am hard pressed to think of one)

so you're suggesting that if you're raped on day 12 of your menstrual cycle then it's not a valid reason to have an abortion? Women are also often unable to negotiate contraceptive use and sex with their partners, ever heard the saying "When a girl says no, she really means yes", that's why.

[mentalbunny]

Rape can happen in many situations, it's jsut sex without consent, and can happen in relationships!

Also, Moskitto, femidoms are apparently no good at stopping the spread of STI's, or so we are taught in PSHE. Stick to condoms they tell us.

And in China many baby girls are thrown onto rubbish tips soon after they are born because daughters are seen to be unable to support their parents in old age. There are a few kind-hearted people out there who find them and adopt them, but most just die.

[Saint-Just]

'china has a "one child" policy that forces women to have abortions if they get pregnant. I don't think ANY of us can agree to those terms.' --Hazard

I think even some people who would disagree with abortions would agree with China's policy. China is has such a large population the problems of it growing evermore outweigh the cost of restricting people to one child.

Massive suffering will entail if the population gets too large. The situation is extremely difficult. No one wants to force people to only have on child or to forcibly abort children; it may well be murder, however their population has grown so large they have no choice.

How else do you suggest they slow population growth? It is an extremely brutal policy they have, but there is no other choice for them.

[Moskitto]

Also, Moskitto, femidoms are apparently no good at stopping the spread of STI's, or so we are taught in PSHE. Stick to condoms they tell us.

http://www.femalehealth.com/

I've read that too, but i've read from feminist websites that they do if they're used properly because the mechanism is basically the same as a male condom and it's use is also supported by UNAIDS because it is the only female controlled contraceptive method which prevents the spread of HIV.

I think that's English now

(Edited by Moskitto at 10:39 pm on May 16, 2003)

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from Moskitto on 9:37 pm on May 16, 2003
http://www.femalehealth.com/

I've read that too, but i've read from feminist websites that they do if they're used properly because the mechanism is basically it's use is also supported by UNAIDS because it is the only female controlled contraceptive method which prevents the spread of HIV.


Thanks for the link but it doesn't work from the school computers1 And could you translate your comment into english, I don't quite understand!!! :biggrin:

[Soul Rebel]

Quote: from Rock1Renegade3 on 3:12 am on May 15, 2003
I agree with some that it's the mother's decision weather or not to abort, but it should have been her responsiblity to not get pregnant in the first place.
Also, depending where she is and how old she is, there are free clinics that provide you with all your needs, so really a teenager in the U.S has no excuse of getting a unwanted pregnacy.
It is up to the mother, no one else, but she should not abuse that fact that she can always get an abortion.
Anyways, abortions causes depression and gives you suicidal thoughts, would a girl really want that?


That is the biggest load of crap!!! First of all- there are reasons teens get pregnant. We have our government to thank for that. They don't want sex ed. cuz they think it increases the desire for sex. If ya dont teach a kid to protect themselves how can you expect them to act responsibily. Also, the comment about clinics is all wrong on many levels. Many states and towns do not have clinics available or within a reasonable distance, so it may be hard for teens to get there. Second, hardly any clinics are free considering that clinics who offer abortion do not get funding. Even planned parenthood has to charge at leas 8 bucks for a pack of birth control, I know cuz i go there. And what if a patient is poor and cant afford it? Then what? are they just expected to not have sex? Think realistically.

Also, many have made it seem as though it is the woman's fault. Men take a part in it too. If they didnt donate the damn sperm the woman would not have gotten pregnant. It takes two people, not one. So if men would throw on a damn condom there would be no need for an abortion. So dont blame it soley on the woman. Men also have to take responsibility.

Most womyn do not abuse abortion, so that statement is just plain ridiculous.

As for the emotional aspect that you pointed out- the same thing occurrs after pregnancy. Womyn get very depressed after having children, especially if it is not wanted. So either way, womyn do suffer emotionally. And it is not with every abortion case that the womyn get depressed- often they know it was a correct and justified choice. The whole depression thing is just a bunch of anti-choice propoganda.

[Soul Rebel]

I just thougt of something else- doesnt anyone care about the woman? If you make abortion illegal, womyn will lose their lives like in the past. Womyn used to die all the time from shoving coat hangers up their vagina in order to give them an abortion. The result: another dead woman. And ya know what- you know who performed many of these illegal abortions: men.

So alot of you sit here worried about a damn fetus, not a baby, but a fetus, without any goddamn concern about the mother. Well, sure if the mother dies during an illegal abortion who cares as long as the baby is around. Thats all we need: dead womyn and more babies in an inadequate foster system.

[Soul Rebel]

Quote: from Umoja on 2:57 am on May 16, 2003
Isn't medicare free undercommunism? What about China isn't abortion free there?


in china only the female fetus is really aborted. womyn are extremely underappreciated there, so to have a female is horrible to them.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 6:47 pm on May 16, 2003
'china has a "one child" policy that forces women to have abortions if they get pregnant. I don't think ANY of us can agree to those terms.' --Hazard

I think even some people who would disagree with abortions would agree with China's policy. China is has such a large population the problems of it growing evermore outweigh the cost of restricting people to one child.

Massive suffering will entail if the population gets too large. The situation is extremely difficult. No one wants to force people to only have on child or to forcibly abort children; it may well be murder, however their population has grown so large they have no choice.

How else do you suggest they slow population growth? It is an extremely brutal policy they have, but there is no other choice for them.


I would agree with chairman Mao, however the 1 child policy will mean that there will be a sevearly aged population in a few decades time. I doubt that the people of china will be able to support the aged, meaning that huge pressure will be placed on the economy and retirment age will be forced to be temporily abolished. If the balanced ratio between young and old people is even slightly altered then it can have drastic affects on the countrys economy and recources.

I believe that they are playing with fire and that they will get burned.

[Soul Rebel]

AK47- The same thing is done in India and womyn are pretty much becoming rare/extinct. Their female population is very low. They do not value womyn and only want men, so they abort female fetuses. Even as adults womyn are in extreme danger- bride burning and dowry deaths. Its very sad.

[GCusack]

I dont think the child's life should be anymore important than that of the mother! If the mother's life is going to be damaged by the arrival of a baby, possible too early or too late in life, then she has the right to abort the pregancy, also if the mother's health is going to be damaged the baby no longer becomes as important. Also, if it was the result of a rape then the mother should not be forced to keep the child!

[truthaddict11]

And it is not with every abortion case that the womyn get depressed- often they know it was a correct and justified choice. The whole depression thing is just a bunch of anti-choice propoganda. -SenoraChe

yes check out the site imnotsorry.net there it has stories of women who have a scence of relief after having an abortion.

Rock1Renegade3, many people cant afford abortion and i believe Medicade wont cover them, there are also many things the anti-choicers do such as "waiting periods" or "consuling" or parental consent. these restrictions should not exist

Hazard, are you aware that doctors who perform abortions and the thier patients receive death threats and harrasment constantly

[truthaddict11]

i recently read a story about a couple that wanted to get pregnant and 13 weeks into the pregnancy they found thier child had Trisomy 13, most die in utero but those who do live only live for about 1 month and are in suffering during that time with breathing cessation and sezuires. Not wanting thier child to suffer they had an abortion in the 16th week. for the best interests of thier child. so not everyone who has abortions is it for unwanted pregnancies

[GCusack]

good point! so the health of the baby should also be taken into account aswell as the mother, circumstances and other issues

[truthaddict11]

i believe some people call it "abortion with a human face" GCusack

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from SenoraChe on 6:13 pm on May 17, 2003
AK47- The same thing is done in India and womyn are pretty much becoming rare/extinct. Their female population is very low. They do not value womyn and only want men, so they abort female fetuses. Even as adults womyn are in extreme danger- bride burning and dowry deaths. Its very sad.


All true, however unless the population of China drops very rapidly very soon, they the economic disaster could mean the death of millions if not 100's of millions, womens rights or 100 million people who will no-longler need human rights? Whats worse? Tricky desision.

However they preferance for the male babys will mean that the womens population will fall massivly, causing less people to be born and the similar economic disatsers.

Very tricky, i dont know the answer.

(Edited by AK47 at 8:37 pm on May 18, 2003)

[RedFW]

I am not so sure it is so tricky as it is made out to be, AK47.

Surely if the sole concern is population control women would be forced/coerced/encouraged to abort a fetus of either sex?

And I am not convinced that women need abort for the sake of population control, which is what is commonly taken as being an acceptable excuse for the forced/coerced/encouraged abortions, reports of which have increased.

However, I think the trickier situation is trying to promote choice (abortion, birth control, sexual health) in China without becoming pawn for the Religious Right's assualt on family planning and sexual health funding, which could be seen to justify a limitation/elimination of choice, of all kinds, for not only women in China but the rest of the world as well.

[hazard]

Quote: from RedFW on 10:20 pm on May 16, 2003
Hazard, you seem to suddenly be saying two very different things. Earlier in the thread you said:

to have an abortion is a cop out, and is murder.

Then Redstar asked you this:

If abortion is "murder", then is it your wish that a woman who has one be executed or would you be "satisfied" with merely life imprisonment without parole? Those are the punishments in the United States for premeditated murder in the first degree.

Then you said:

to answer your question, no, the woman herself does not commit the act of murder. it is the abortionist who performs the action, FOR PROFIT, mind you, that is legally responsible for the action.

Well, which is it? Is having the abortion murder or performing the abortion murder? Both?

anti-abortionists are pointing out that IF women want to have an abortion for a frviolous reason, they are permitted to do so.

Which 'frivolous' reasons are you referring to? Are the emotional, physical and financial (which I will come back to) inability to cope with pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood frivilous reasons? Who gets to decide they are 'frivolous'? Who knows the circumstances of an unplanned pregnancy and the woman's (in)ability to cope with these things better than the woman herself who is pregnant?

and when you incorporate money as a factor, ie. thge woman can't afford he child, such reasons ARE frivolous.

They may be for people with dispensible income; however, they are very serious reasons to consider carrying a pregnancy to term, especially in countries without nationalised healthcare.

you really mean that women can't afford to sacrifice their 29" TV's and sports cars and swimming pools.

Actually, I had in mind things like the cost of pregnancy (frequent OB/GYN visits) childbirth (hospital expenses even if there are no complications). And as many women in the US are in jobs that do not offer healthcare they, if they choose to continue the pregnancy, are faced with either keeping their jobs and running up enormous debt or leaving their jobs and signing on whatever state benefits and healthcare they can receive, which in simpler terms means crossing the line into poverty, which for many, I would even say most, is a very thin line.

similalrly, assuming there is a valid reason to have an abortion (though I am hard pressed to think of one), the anti-abortionist argument is only in reference to the fact that ANY reason is allowed. an abortion is treated like any other choice by the pro abortionists. like choosing between coke and pepsi, or choosing between irish spring, dove or ivory. choosing to have an abortion because you're having a bad day is acceptable under the current context of the law.

You seem to be conflating your criticism of a woman's privacy to have an abortion for whatever reason and your assumption that women who have abortions have taken the decision lightly. If we separate the two, why does a woman's reason for having an abortion concern you? An abortion is an abortion. Whatever the reasoning is behind it, it is still an abortion.

If you are totally against abortion, then there are probably millions of women who are using birth control (being responsible for one's actions and trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies) which are abortive. Should these be banned and these women punished? The doctors who prescribe them punished? The pharmaceutical companies punished? On a more extreme note, should some sort of testing be developed to ensure that only women who are able to carry a pregnancy to term without miscarrying are allowed to be pregnant? This would address the issue of 'natural abortion'.

THIS is the position that anti-abortionists take which is NOT a false presentation of the pro-abortionist stance.

Actually, I have found your respresentation of the 'pro-abortionist' stance to be an incredibly false 'presentation' or representation. I have offered my own stance, which you are now free to comment on.

abortion is currently covered under healthcare in canada, although eyeglassess are not. neither is medication. to me, these things can and should be funded before abortions are funded. the abuse of this in the system is ridiculous. as it is, women have admitted to not purchasing contraceptives as abortion is simply provided free while condoms cost ten bucks a box. a horrible tragic waste of life and healthcare funding.

I completely support your stance that eyeglasses should be covered by healthcare in Canada. I do not see the conncection between eyeglasses and abortions, and I think you could run an effective campaign for coverage for eyeglasses without needing to withdraw the coverage of abortions from the plan.

Abortion could fall under medication if you are talking about Mifepristone. And I am sure there are other out patient surgeries that are covered by the healthcare you are referring to, which would have more in common with abortion than eyeglasses.

I don't see the importance of eyeglasses over abortions. Why not cover both? And how is the coverage of abortion an abuse of the system? If abortion is legal, then why should it not be provided in a sanitary and safe environment to women?

I can understand your frustration regarding having to purchase condoms and other contraceptives (something that women have to do in the US), but I do not see why this should mean that abortion should not be covered. I think both should be. Which women are you referring to that have admitted to not buying contraceptives and having an abortion? I know that in the UK the percentage of women who have abortions because the contraceptives they were using failed is very high.


this is why internet debates are ridiculous

redstar asks me a question, and in the context of that question, I make an answer

now, out of context of redstars question, my answer is placed under scrutiny. ridiculous.

anyway, ALL of these questions will be answered, NOW.

1) redstars question was in reference to WHO was legally responsible for the ACT of murder, if one, such as myself, believes the action(abortion) to be murder. I answered THAT question. in terms of LAW, ONLY the person resposible for the murder would be punished for the act. since the baby bearer requires, at default, another to perfrom the murder, she cannot be legally culpible for the crime of MURDER, which was redstars question.

the first quote I will not search for and place into context. at east put "..." in before it so EVERYBODy knows that you are copying and pasting quotations to present a patchwork argument against NOT my position but statements I have made in defence of my position.

2) that question was answered in the paragraph you extracted your quotation from. actually I went into GREAT DETAIL about frivolous reasons. why are you asking me this again?

3) adoption? hello?

4) ditto - if a woman "chooses" adoption, all expenses are handled. but pro-choicers seem to always assume that this choice is non existant. nice job.

5) care to explain what you mean by your claim that "abortion is an abortion"? isn't that the problem, entirely, with what I have called frivolous reasoning? if you are agreeing with this argument,a s you seem to be, you should make yourself a little more clear. as I said, you want to treat abortion as the same sort of thing as choosing between coke or pepsi, when it isn't. its more akin to a major life decision, whether you want to terminate a child in development or allow it to develop. an abortion is an abortion, well yeah, an abortion isn't a glass of cool aid. what the hell does that even mean?

6) your stance on contraception as the same thing as abortion is idiotic. don't waste my time.

7) and again, you either miss my point or are unable to see it. my mentioning eyeglasses has less to do with what healthcoverage should cover but what it should not cover. abortion. especially as it is being abused as it is by some women to save money on contraception


I would also like to point out that all of your questions, except for the first, fail to accurately portray the context in which my statements were made. that context was to challenge a claim made by a member that a fallacy had been committed. these arguments that I used were not intended as an argument against abortion, but arguments to defend a statement that had been mistakenly identified as a fallacy. the only reason why I answered any of your questions, since they really shouldn't have been asked or phrased as they were, was to point this out - abortion is only defende under the process of bad reasoning. the sheer number of fallacies committed in your response to something you should not, at default, have responded to are astounding. don't take this wrong way, but CONTEXT is the most important aspect of any argument, debate or disagreement. it is very clear that in every question you asked me that you fail to see the context necessary to argue even at an entry level.

[hazard]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:48 am on May 17, 2003
RedFW, you are probably the most patient comrade I've ever seen on a message board; the fashion in which you calmly and deliberately dismantle the feeble yet outrageous arguments of the anti-female fake-leftists while containing your justified anger within the bounds of reason is truly impressive.

I wish I could do that. ;)

But since I can't...

Ok, hazard, your position is that women who have abortions will not be punished at all; it is the doctor who performs the abortion whose life is forfeit.

So your logic suggests that a woman may have as many abortions as she wishes for reasons serious or trivial as long as she can find a doctor willing to risk her/his life to perform the procedure.

That will come at a rather high price, will it not, assuming it can be found at all.

And your response, at least if you're still pretending to be logical is: well, she can always do it to herself without worrying about any legal penalties. Just be sure and sterilize that coathanger first. (!)

And how much surgery have you performed on yourself lately, hazard? Or do you suggest that men are "above" that sort of dirty female business?

"unfortunately it is women who are burdened with this life-bearing process; that however is irrelevant to the context of this argument."

That's right up there, hazard, with Bill Clinton--"I feel your pain"--not to mention Jimmy Carter--"life is unfair."
The "burden of the life-bearing process" is central to "the context of this argument"...if you are a woman.

What kind of crackpot "logic" is it that ignores perhaps the most crucial question that a woman faces? Or dismisses it as "trivial", like a swimming pool or a bigger dummyvision set?

That's an easy one to answer; it's the logic of one who says hey, it ain't my problem, babe.

Or, perhaps, if you don't like getting pregnant, why did you choose to be female?

And then there's Get thee to a nunnery (meaning take a vow of permanent celibacy.)

You take refuge behind the fact that in a capitalist system, there is naturally a good deal of money to be made in providing abortions on demand.

It is a feeble shelter. Women have been attempting to control their own fertility for as long as written history exists; there are extant Egyptian recipes for drinks that promise to induce abortion that are 5,000 years old...somewhat predating the rise of capitalism, wouldn't you agree?

Women controlling their own fertility. What a simple idea; what an admirable idea. Women should not have to be "prisoners" of their biology. How could anyone be against that?

Would you believe that some people find it "sickening"? Would you like to speculate on why they do; what lies at the heart of such an attitude?

It won't be "pretty".

:cool:


are these ad hominen attacks really necessary? I could call you a punk ass wanna be tool communist who is really a femi-nazi in desguise hoping for a fourth reich of male submission through imposed eugenics, but I won't. the idea that one opposes abortion is a woman hater is very inflamatory. I suggest you consider not saying that ever again.

1st para: when did I say the doctors life was forfeit? oh yeah, I didn't, did I? don't imply that I did or would.

2nd para: how does my logic suggest, yet alone imply such a conclusion? your connection is a difficult one to predict. I am not going to attempt to even make such a connection.

3rd para: uh oh, another false implication attributed to my position leading to a ridiculous conclusion. I'm gonna stop this RIGHT HERE.


you are not defending your position, or attacking mine. what you are doing is interlacing as many FALLACIES as you possibly can, at once, in a bad attempt to make ME, and not my position, look ridiculous.

you criticize my logic, and yet you use the logic of advertisements, of capitalism. lies and deceit and treachery. do not waste my time with such bullshit.

ALL para: BEING CHARITIBLE . . . you propose a position that abortion should remain legal because women can be injured in back alley abortions.

is this correct? or am I to assume that your only point was to paint a bad picture of me to try and make my position look weaker than yours?

my charitable ascription of your argument isn't a bad one. my response, though, is simple. from analogy I look to ALL crimes. criminaqls ALWAYS face a certain level of danger when attempting the action that is criminal. drugs, theft and murder all present a level of risk to the criminal. abortion , if recriminalized, simply presents THIS EXACT SAME DANGER. it is the nature of crime to be dangerous.

by arguing that abortion is MORE dangerous IF criminal begs the question, doesn't it? a natural application of your position to ALL CRIMES works. theft should be made legal because it becomes lessof a danger to the thieves. this argument really doesn't work, under a basis of standard logical analysis.

I would like to add the newest front to the choice movement. "reproductive rights". this is standard capitalist propaganda. isn't it? these people talk about reproduction but they really mean their right to destroy and not produce. like freedom is really slavery.

any communist who cannot see the problem with the defence of abortion as it currenlty stands is either an idiot, a punk, wannabee communist or a capitalist. it MIMICS, to the point of being a carbon copy, the rehtoric of capitalism. seriously OPEN YOUR EYES AND LOOK AT IT. if you want to defend abortion, move away from being capitalist propaganda meme reproducing photocopiers. because thats all you are to me.

[hazard]

Quote: from Nordic Rebel on 2:51 am on May 17, 2003
Hazard you said


the woman herself does not commit the act of murder. it is the abortionist who performs the action, FOR PROFIT, mind you, that is legally responsible for the action.

Wouldn't this make abortion a murder for hire? If not would you be so kind and explain why.


it would. but that wasn't the question redstar asked, was it. CONTEXT. the charge, for the woman, would be conspiracy to perfrom a criminal action, or soemthing like that. my point was that her crime is technically less than the crime of the "doctor" who performs the abortion.

[RedFW]

this is why internet debates are ridiculous

Then why participate in them?

redstar asks me a question, and in the context of that question, I make an answer



No, first you made a statement: to have an abortion is a cop out, and is murder. The key word is 'have'.

I can only assume Redstar noticed this and raised the question: If abortion is "murder", then is it your wish that a woman who has one be executed or would you be "satisfied" with merely life imprisonment without parole? Those are the punishments in the United States for premeditated murder in the first degree.

Then you backpedalled and said: to answer your question, no, the woman herself does not commit the act of murder. it is the abortionist who performs the action, FOR PROFIT, mind you, that is legally responsible for the action.

This contradicts what you originally said.

now, out of context of redstars question, my answer is placed under scrutiny. ridiculous.

How was it scrutinised out of context? You have said two very different things, and I wanted to bring your attention to it.



1) redstars question was in reference to WHO was legally responsible for the ACT of murder, if one, such as myself, believes the action(abortion) to be murder. I answered THAT question. in terms of LAW, ONLY the person resposible for the murder would be punished for the act. since the baby bearer requires, at default, another to perfrom the murder, she cannot be legally culpible for the crime of MURDER, which was redstars question.

Redstar's question was raised assuming your position, which was fairly easy as you provided the statement: 'to have an abortion is murder'. You, however, avoided answering the question by trying to introduce the distinction between the person performing the abortion and the woman having the abortion; a distinction which was not previously part of the discussion and allowed you, for the time being, to ignore a major flaw in your reasoning.

the first quote I will not search for and place into context. at east put "..." in before it so EVERYBODy knows that you are copying and pasting quotations to present a patchwork argument against NOT my position but statements I have made in defence of my position.

Had you taken the time to search for it, you would have realised I was correct in not including ellipsis ('...') as it was a complete sentence and had no other sentences out of sequence in partial or in total included with it, though you forgot to capitalise the 't' in 'to', which is probably what caused your confusion. Oh, and I think you have created your own 'patchwork argument' without my help. How does one defend one's argument with statements that are totally void of one's argument? Just curious.

2) that question was answered in the paragraph you extracted your quotation from. actually I went into GREAT DETAIL about frivolous reasons. why are you asking me this again?

Actually, I didn't think the detail was so great, that is why I was asking you to clarify exactly what the boundaries of frivolity are. So it is only frivolous if the woman cannot afford to carry a pregnancy to term? And you did not answer my other questions, which were: Who gets to decide they are 'frivolous'? Who knows the circumstances of an unplanned pregnancy and the woman's (in)ability to cope with these things better than the woman herself who is pregnant?

3) adoption? hello?

Actually, there are lots of misconceptions regarding adoption. The first is that there are more couples who want to adopt than babies, which is false. In fact, there are more couples who want to adopt white children than there are white children. I think the numbers of children in foster care or receiving care by a family member other than their parents reveals just how discriminatory people can be regarding adoption. And as you have yet to address the inability to cope with pregnancy and childbirth, excluding financial reasons, your answer 'adoption' does not address these.

4) ditto - if a woman "chooses" adoption, all expenses are handled. but pro-choicers seem to always assume that this choice is non existant. nice job.

Not always, and this is where the issue regarding whether one is carrying a desirable baby becomes crucial. I cannot speak for other pro-choicers, but this is not an assumption I have made. If a woman decides she can carry a pregnancy to term and give birth without physical or emotional issues, and chooses adoption, I certainly would not have a problem with it.

5) care to explain what you mean by your claim that "abortion is an abortion"?

Of course I will explain. I said: An abortion is an abortion. Whatever the reasoning is behind it, it is still an abortion. My point was that you or anyone else assigning a frivolous reason to it or a justified reason, it is still an abortion either way. Some people say that they agree with abortion only when the woman has been raped. Or they say the women should have used birth control. I would argue that it is still an abortion and assiging it categories of frivolity or justification do not get away from the fact that it is the same act, and I don't think anyone is in a better position to choose it better than the woman who is pregnant. And if a woman is to use birth control, some of the most long-term, convenient and safest forms of birthcontrol are abortive.

isn't that the problem, entirely, with what I have called frivolous reasoning? if you are agreeing with this argument,a s you seem to be, you should make yourself a little more clear.

Isn't what the problem? I am not the only one who could do with making myself a little more clear.

as I said, you want to treat abortion as the same sort of thing as choosing between coke or pepsi, when it isn't.

How do you know what I want to treat abortion as other than what I have posted, which, if anything, wanted to get across to you that it is not a decision that women take lightly, like choosing between a coke and a pepsi. Choosing whether to carry a pregnancy to term and whether to become a mother are slightly bigger decisions than my choice of softdrink, but then again, if you can make it seem that women are incapable of taking the decision to abort seriously, then your case for making that decision for them becomes stronger, which is what anti-choicers are often guilty of.

an abortion is an abortion, well yeah, an abortion isn't a glass of cool aid. what the hell does that even mean?

I have explained what it means, and I agree it isn't a glass of cool aid, a coke or a pepsi.

6) your stance on contraception as the same thing as abortion is idiotic. don't waste my time.

Why is it idiotic? Most people provide reasons for dismissing another person's argument. And really, I have better things to do than waste your time, mate, don't flatter yourself. However, I suspect that you either know very little about contraceptives or you have realised yet another problem with your argument.

IUD, Norplant and Mifepristone all prevent a fertilised egg from settling in the womb.

And here are the questions you did not answer: Should these be banned and these women punished? The doctors who prescribe them punished? The pharmaceutical companies punished? On a more extreme note, should some sort of testing be developed to ensure that only women who are able to carry a pregnancy to term without miscarrying are allowed to be pregnant? This would address the issue of 'natural abortion'.

7) and again, you either miss my point or are unable to see it. my mentioning eyeglasses has less to do with what healthcoverage should cover but what it should not cover. abortion. especially as it is being abused as it is by some women to save money on contraception

Yes, I got your point, I was just trying to convey how ridiculous your comparison was. Interesting how you can always situate the blame with the women seeking abortions. Perhaps you should seek to have contraception covered? But then that would not be really solving anything as some of the most popular contraceptives are abortive. And you are assuming that all women who seek an abortion were not using some sort of contraceptive when they conceived, which, at least in Britain, is not the case. Is it an abuse of the system if women cannot get contraceptives covered but abortion is covered? And I am sure that there are millions of women in Canada who pay tax to your health service, so really they are paying for a health service that will cover safe, legal abortion for them, if they ever choose to use it.

I would also like to point out that all of your questions, except for the first, fail to accurately portray the context in which my statements were made. that context was to challenge a claim made by a member that a fallacy had been committed. these arguments that I used were not intended as an argument against abortion, but arguments to defend a statement that had been mistakenly identified as a fallacy.

Save me your longwinded speeches. You have yet to prove the context they were taken out of was so significantly different as to change the actual meaning of the statements. If I had, perhaps, taken them from another board, taken them from something you said two years ago or had only partialy quoted a sentence I would have found this an acceptable exuse. Again, How does one defend one's argument with statements that are totally void of one's argument? And you mentioned your statement was in the context of pointing out another member's fallacy, does that mean the statements warrant no response whatsoever or somehow transcend analysis themselves because they were made in that sort of context? I don't think so.

the only reason why I answered any of your questions, since they really shouldn't have been asked or phrased as they were, was to point this out - abortion is only defende under the process of bad reasoning.

Who are you to determine which questions I should ask and how I should phrase them? Unfortunately for you, you cannot dictate what people will ask and how they will respond or phrase questions on an internet message board. And your point that abortion is defended under a process of bad reasoning has really fallen apart, perhaps that is what you have a problem with, more than my phrasing of questions.

the sheer number of fallacies committed in your response to something you should not, at default, have responded to are astounding.

You can shout 'FALLACY!' all you want. I am beginning to think you do say that when you are at a loss for words or argument. It makes no difference to me, my argument or the questions you have yet to answer. In fact, which fallacies in my argument are you referring to?

don't take this wrong way, but CONTEXT is the most important aspect of any argument, debate or disagreement. it is very clear that in every question you asked me that you fail to see the context necessary to argue even at an entry level

Actually, the importance of context varies. Perhaps instead of barking on about how much of an injustice I have done you by quoting one of your sentences, you could explain why the other sentences in the same post are crucial, if in fact they are, to the understanding of the quote I have used. You could also do me the favour of pointing out why your post warrants no response. Maybe you didn't want a response, but not wanting a response and not warranting a response are two different things.

(Edited by RedFW at 10:36 am on May 19, 2003)


(Edited by RedFW at 12:38 pm on May 19, 2003)

[truthaddict11]

the choice of adoption over abortion is laughable. the kid will most likely end up in a group home or with foster parents thier entire life. We dont need a bigger squeeze on social services by having more kids in the adoption pool.

[redstar2000]

the idea that one [who] opposes abortion is a woman hater is very inflamatory. I suggest you consider not saying that ever again.

It is meant to be "inflamatory" because it is true.

To punish a woman who has an abortion in any way is to punish her for being female. That's woman-hating in my book. Therefore I will say it and keep saying it.

I note that your "arguments" have all the staying power of water in a desert...whenever they are challenged, they melt into the sand and you take up some new argument in their place.

First it's pregnant women who seek out and have abortions who are "murderers". No, it's the doctors who perform abortions who are "murderers". What next, the companies that make the surgical instruments? How about the taxi driver who drove her to the clinic?

I already know your response: I didn't say that.

All of this evident refusal to see where the logic of your position--"abortion is murder"--leads you to...suggests that the price of consistency is much higher than you want to pay.

Quit dicking around and face up to it: if "abortion is murder", then somebody gets the needle of death or life imprisonment without parole...those are the established penalties for murder in the first degree in the United States.

If you try to weasel and suggest a lesser penalty, then you have destroyed your own basic premise. Is abortion "manslaughter"? Or "criminal recklessness"? Maybe you'd like to just give the woman in question a stern talking to...with plenty of finger wagging.

Your comparison of re-criminalized abortion with other crimes is truly precious. Murder and theft, to use your best examples, are clearly threats to all people...we justifiably prohibit those activites because they threaten the security of all.

But how does it threaten my security or yours if women control their own fertility? Where is the social justification for your prohibition? What is the threat to you if women who don't wish to carry a pregnancy to term for any reason have an abortion? And whatever that "threat" might be, is it really of such a magnitude that you can actually feel righteous in demanding that "somebody" should be executed or suffer life-long imprisonment in order to stop it?

Your version of ad hominum attacks, though far weaker than mine, yields some interesting hints.

You said I was a "femi-nazi in disguise". The only other person that I've ever heard use that word--femi-nazi--is Rush Limbaugh, the barbaric right-wing nutball who does talk-radio in the U.S. Perhaps you should start listening to Dr. Dean Edell instead; his mind is actually in the current century.

And what do "we femi-nazis" want? "A fourth reich of male submission through forced eugenics."

Getting close to the bone, hazard? If women can control their own fertility, "what will they want next?" "Male submission???" Alarm bells ringing, hazard? You know, I'm starting to get a glimpse of what you perceive the real "threat" of abortion to be...and it has nothing to do with capitalism (that's just smoke out of your ass to try and make your views "respectable" on a left message board).

I hesitate, in fact, to explore what is really motivating your fear and hatred of women, hazard. I'm not a trained professional in those matters.

But communism is something that I do know a good deal about...far more than you. If abortion is "re-criminalized" in the U.S., it will not be ruling class women who will suffer; they will go to Canada or Europe and have their abortions without consequence. No, it will be poor and working class women who will suffer...thanks to folks like you! Even a beginner at Marxism knows that class comes first in any analysis...it is poor and working class women for whom "reproductive rights" are most vital.

Misogynists are not communists.

:cool:

A couple of minor points. I noted that you included "drugs" in your list of "crimes"...which makes for an interesting parallel: if it's ok to punish women for being female, why not punish drug addicts for being drug addicts?

The use of the word "punk ass" in your litany of insults is also interesting; in that context, I believe it refers to a male that desires penetration by another male. Got a little homophobia going on the side there, hazard?

(Edited by redstar2000 at 9:12 am on May 19, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 1:49 pm on May 19, 2003
the choice of adoption over abortion is laughable. the kid will most likely end up in a group home or with foster parents thier entire life. We dont need a bigger squeeze on social services by having more kids in the adoption pool.


A harsh but unfortunatly realistic way of looking at the issue, perhaps abortion is better than abject poverty.

[Moskitto]

The adoption system in the US is pretty screwed up, if it was better, saying adopt don't abort would be justifiable. However since babies being bought and sold for tens of thousands of pounds is what is going on at the moment, I don't see why this is an acceptable situation, except maybe low income families who cannot look after the child, but it is discriminatory against infertile low income couples. Still, I advocate free access to contraception to reduce abortions and reduce women having surgery they could have avoided if they had condoms.

My old best friend spent a lot of time in foster homes, his mum was committed to an asylum and his dad was sent to prison on drugs charges. He spent a while being fostered by his aunt and that's when I met him, he came to a party once and met some of my extended family who really liked him. A few months later he had a row with his aunt who arranged him to change foster parents. When my godfather heard from me he was changing foster home he applied to adopt him, however he was landed with loads of forms and eventually turned down because they said he was to old, although he would have been better off because he would have still had contact with his friends and wouldn't have spent the rest of his childhood with foster parents. Although the people he went with in the end are really nice people who he likes staying with. We had sleep-overs and my parents had to fill in forms and get phone calls from social services before he was allowed to stay over to make sure they weren't child abusers.

[mentalbunny]

Hazard, please can you answer me a few questions.

1. Do you want abortion to be illegal?

2. If you do what will be the penalties for having/performing an arbortion?

3. What do you expect to happen if abortions are made illegal?

4. What are you going to do to make abortions unnecessary?

5. Why, simply put, are you anti-abortion, or pro-life or whatever you want to call it?

6. I think, I may be wrong, that your issue is with profit from abortion. If there was no profit, would you still be pro-life?

Please answer these questions in a calm, reasoned manner. I'm not trying to get at you, I'm trying to understand you and your opinions.

[hazard]

Quote: from RedFW on 10:24 pm on May 19, 2003
this is why internet debates are ridiculous

Then why participate in them?

redstar asks me a question, and in the context of that question, I make an answer



No, first you made a statement: to have an abortion is a cop out, and is murder. The key word is 'have'.

I can only assume Redstar noticed this and raised the question: If abortion is "murder", then is it your wish that a woman who has one be executed or would you be "satisfied" with merely life imprisonment without parole? Those are the punishments in the United States for premeditated murder in the first degree.

Then you backpedalled and said: to answer your question, no, the woman herself does not commit the act of murder. it is the abortionist who performs the action, FOR PROFIT, mind you, that is legally responsible for the action.

This contradicts what you originally said.

now, out of context of redstars question, my answer is placed under scrutiny. ridiculous.

How was it scrutinised out of context? You have said two very different things, and I wanted to bring your attention to it.



1) redstars question was in reference to WHO was legally responsible for the ACT of murder, if one, such as myself, believes the action(abortion) to be murder. I answered THAT question. in terms of LAW, ONLY the person resposible for the murder would be punished for the act. since the baby bearer requires, at default, another to perfrom the murder, she cannot be legally culpible for the crime of MURDER, which was redstars question.

Redstar's question was raised assuming your position, which was fairly easy as you provided the statement: 'to have an abortion is murder'. You, however, avoided answering the question by trying to introduce the distinction between the person performing the abortion and the woman having the abortion; a distinction which was not previously part of the discussion and allowed you, for the time being, to ignore a major flaw in your reasoning.

the first quote I will not search for and place into context. at east put "..." in before it so EVERYBODy knows that you are copying and pasting quotations to present a patchwork argument against NOT my position but statements I have made in defence of my position.

Had you taken the time to search for it, you would have realised I was correct in not including ellipsis ('...') as it was a complete sentence and had no other sentences out of sequence in partial or in total included with it, though you forgot to capitalise the 't' in 'to', which is probably what caused your confusion. Oh, and I think you have created your own 'patchwork argument' without my help. How does one defend one's argument with statements that are totally void of one's argument? Just curious.

2) that question was answered in the paragraph you extracted your quotation from. actually I went into GREAT DETAIL about frivolous reasons. why are you asking me this again?

Actually, I didn't think the detail was so great, that is why I was asking you to clarify exactly what the boundaries of frivolity are. So it is only frivolous if the woman cannot afford to carry a pregnancy to term? And you did not answer my other questions, which were: Who gets to decide they are 'frivolous'? Who knows the circumstances of an unplanned pregnancy and the woman's (in)ability to cope with these things better than the woman herself who is pregnant?

3) adoption? hello?

Actually, there are lots of misconceptions regarding adoption. The first is that there are more couples who want to adopt than babies, which is false. In fact, there are more couples who want to adopt white children than there are white children. I think the numbers of children in foster care or receiving care by a family member other than their parents reveals just how discriminatory people can be regarding adoption. And as you have yet to address the inability to cope with pregnancy and childbirth, excluding financial reasons, your answer 'adoption' does not address these.

4) ditto - if a woman "chooses" adoption, all expenses are handled. but pro-choicers seem to always assume that this choice is non existant. nice job.

Not always, and this is where the issue regarding whether one is carrying a desirable baby becomes crucial. I cannot speak for other pro-choicers, but this is not an assumption I have made. If a woman decides she can carry a pregnancy to term and give birth without physical or emotional issues, and chooses adoption, I certainly would not have a problem with it.

5) care to explain what you mean by your claim that "abortion is an abortion"?

Of course I will explain. I said: An abortion is an abortion. Whatever the reasoning is behind it, it is still an abortion. My point was that you or anyone else assigning a frivolous reason to it or a justified reason, it is still an abortion either way. Some people say that they agree with abortion only when the woman has been raped. Or they say the women should have used birth control. I would argue that it is still an abortion and assiging it categories of frivolity or justification do not get away from the fact that it is the same act, and I don't think anyone is in a better position to choose it better than the woman who is pregnant. And if a woman is to use birth control, some of the most long-term, convenient and safest forms of birthcontrol are abortive.

isn't that the problem, entirely, with what I have called frivolous reasoning? if you are agreeing with this argument,a s you seem to be, you should make yourself a little more clear.

Isn't what the problem? I am not the only one who could do with making myself a little more clear.

as I said, you want to treat abortion as the same sort of thing as choosing between coke or pepsi, when it isn't.

How do you know what I want to treat abortion as other than what I have posted, which, if anything, wanted to get across to you that it is not a decision that women take lightly, like choosing between a coke and a pepsi. Choosing whether to carry a pregnancy to term and whether to become a mother are slightly bigger decisions than my choice of softdrink, but then again, if you can make it seem that women are incapable of taking the decision to abort seriously, then your case for making that decision for them becomes stronger, which is what anti-choicers are often guilty of.

an abortion is an abortion, well yeah, an abortion isn't a glass of cool aid. what the hell does that even mean?

I have explained what it means, and I agree it isn't a glass of cool aid, a coke or a pepsi.

6) your stance on contraception as the same thing as abortion is idiotic. don't waste my time.

Why is it idiotic? Most people provide reasons for dismissing another person's argument. And really, I have better things to do than waste your time, mate, don't flatter yourself. However, I suspect that you either know very little about contraceptives or you have realised yet another problem with your argument.

IUD, Norplant and Mifepristone all prevent a fertilised egg from settling in the womb.

And here are the questions you did not answer: Should these be banned and these women punished? The doctors who prescribe them punished? The pharmaceutical companies punished? On a more extreme note, should some sort of testing be developed to ensure that only women who are able to carry a pregnancy to term without miscarrying are allowed to be pregnant? This would address the issue of 'natural abortion'.

7) and again, you either miss my point or are unable to see it. my mentioning eyeglasses has less to do with what healthcoverage should cover but what it should not cover. abortion. especially as it is being abused as it is by some women to save money on contraception

Yes, I got your point, I was just trying to convey how ridiculous your comparison was. Interesting how you can always situate the blame with the women seeking abortions. Perhaps you should seek to have contraception covered? But then that would not be really solving anything as some of the most popular contraceptives are abortive. And you are assuming that all women who seek an abortion were not using some sort of contraceptive when they conceived, which, at least in Britain, is not the case. Is it an abuse of the system if women cannot get contraceptives covered but abortion is covered? And I am sure that there are millions of women in Canada who pay tax to your health service, so really they are paying for a health service that will cover safe, legal abortion for them, if they ever choose to use it.

I would also like to point out that all of your questions, except for the first, fail to accurately portray the context in which my statements were made. that context was to challenge a claim made by a member that a fallacy had been committed. these arguments that I used were not intended as an argument against abortion, but arguments to defend a statement that had been mistakenly identified as a fallacy.

Save me your longwinded speeches. You have yet to prove the context they were taken out of was so significantly different as to change the actual meaning of the statements. If I had, perhaps, taken them from another board, taken them from something you said two years ago or had only partialy quoted a sentence I would have found this an acceptable exuse. Again, How does one defend one's argument with statements that are totally void of one's argument? And you mentioned your statement was in the context of pointing out another member's fallacy, does that mean the statements warrant no response whatsoever or somehow transcend analysis themselves because they were made in that sort of context? I don't think so.

the only reason why I answered any of your questions, since they really shouldn't have been asked or phrased as they were, was to point this out - abortion is only defende under the process of bad reasoning.

Who are you to determine which questions I should ask and how I should phrase them? Unfortunately for you, you cannot dictate what people will ask and how they will respond or phrase questions on an internet message board. And your point that abortion is defended under a process of bad reasoning has really fallen apart, perhaps that is what you have a problem with, more than my phrasing of questions.

the sheer number of fallacies committed in your response to something you should not, at default, have responded to are astounding.

You can shout 'FALLACY!' all you want. I am beginning to think you do say that when you are at a loss for words or argument. It makes no difference to me, my argument or the questions you have yet to answer. In fact, which fallacies in my argument are you referring to?

don't take this wrong way, but CONTEXT is the most important aspect of any argument, debate or disagreement. it is very clear that in every question you asked me that you fail to see the context necessary to argue even at an entry level

Actually, the importance of context varies. Perhaps instead of barking on about how much of an injustice I have done you by quoting one of your sentences, you could explain why the other sentences in the same post are crucial, if in fact they are, to the understanding of the quote I have used. You could also do me the favour of pointing out why your post warrants no response. Maybe you didn't want a response, but not wanting a response and not warranting a response are two different things.

(Edited by RedFW at 10:36 am on May 19, 2003)


(Edited by RedFW at 12:38 pm on May 19, 2003)


redfw, once again, despit my idntifying WHAT YOU SHOULD NOT DO, you persist. misquoting does not prove anything except the fact that you cannot defend your position properly. nevertheless, just so all reasonable and intelligent people can see how many MORE flaws you have intertwined into your position, I will continue.

I paricipate in internet debates with the hopes that perhaps those I debate with will not employ the tactics of capitalist mis-information. considering I am on an anti-capitalist site my hope is not too far fetched. however, in this thread especially, I am encountering nothing but capitalist style arguments and fallacies. I particpate to expose rhetoric, and correct that which I hate.

FIRST AREA:

you attempt here to clarify your position, and I do appreciate that. what I did not appreciate was the value laden language used throughout this segment. watch the free loading terms. this is how capitalists argue. the worst one was "backpeddal". you can use that word IF you prove that such an even occured, which, as it turns out, did not. I will ignore your strawman version of my position assuming that you simply are having difficulty understanding the logical construction of my statements.

my "statement", as you call it, seems to be isolated and once again out of context. how did my sentence begin? what was the sentence that preceded it? a sentence fragment IS NOT a statement. freeloader, again.

anyway, even in the sentence fragment, there is no implication that procurring an abortion is the same as performing an abortion. if there is, you have to explain it to me because I don't see it. to have an abortion IS murder, whether you think the women, the doctor, the sun or the moon is responsible for the murder. your only basis for believing what you think I am trying to say is based upon an UNSTATED ASSUMPTION. as such, you MUST show me where the unstated assumption occurs.

here's a hint, it didn't occur, you are wrong.

ANSWER KEY:
ft - freeloading term
sm - strawman
ah - ad hominen

1) avoided, ignore, correct, confusion, 'totally void" and 'major flaw" are all ft fallacies

'taken the time to search for it', 'forgot to capitalize' are ah

the entire way in which you represent my answer as merely an attempt to avoid the question is SM. that is not true, as I answered the question more specifically than perhaps was intended. taht is anything BUT avoiding the answer. just because I didn't give you the answer YOU wanted doesn't mean I'm avoiding it. thus, straw man version of my position.

I'm not going to bother identifying the rest of these fallacies, but they occur IN EVERY SINGLE response to my answers. instead, I'll address ALL THE OTHER FALLACIES that occur. just a horrible mess that relies upon the bad, capitalist style reasoning that is connected to the defence of abortion.

2) if you don't think the detail was great, PROVE that it wasn't great. in any case, you have switched your position from PRETENDING no detail existed to get hung up on the idea of what it means to explain something not in detail, but in "great" detail. which, you seemd to equivocate the meaning of, I should add.

3) it seems to me, based on your response, that there is NO PROBLEM with adoption, but rather a problem with the people who are seeking to adopt. basically that they are RACIST. this seems to be a red herring tactic. I want to discuss adoption, you want to discuss racist families who don't want to adopt non-white children. this has nothing to do with what I want to discuss.

4) forget the fallacies, what the fuck do you mean by desirable baby? this is the insane, logic of eugenics originally deployed by the nazi's in their attempted extermination of "undesirable" races in WWII. I am so glad that you would not have a problem with a woman who would choose to have an adoption. what touching support. you seem to imply that some people DO have a problem with women giving their babies up for adoption. I would so love to hear what genocidal logic they use to support such a position.

5) I just love how you answer this one. You answer it in the exact way I assumed, in the rest of my #5 question, would. that is, you think women who simply have no good reason to have an abortion (ie. FRIVOLOUS ) can do so because an "abortion is an abortion". let me tell you something. that is not an answer. thats not even an excuse. thats not even ANYTHING. I said already, abortion is not a wristwatch. to say that something is allright simply because it is that thing is just idiotic, self defeating circular logic. I gave you a chance to correct yourself, but you seem to want to stagnate on this point. a punvch to the head IS a punch to the head, and its allright because thats what it is. oh yeah, thats a keeper.

6) I say contraception, and you decide to isolate only a couple of forms of contraception. these forms are actually not truly contraceptive, just as abortion is not. the word has a meaning which means "prevents conception". considering conception occurs at the moment the egg is fertilized, how are any of things even considered contraceptives under the definition of the word? they aren't. is your stance, like many radical pro-abortionists, is that wearing a condome is the same as having an abortion? if it is that is idiotic. or is it that non-contraceptive "contraceptives" are the same as abortion? clarify.

7) and I find it just as interesting that you believe men should have zero input in the reproductive process. why should ONLY women by permitted to get condomes through healthcare? your sexist, anti-male rhetoric is rather disturbing. I mention wha helathcare DOES NOT cover, which includes non-destructive birthcontrol methods methods, you agree with me, and then say my position is ridiculous. did I miss something? maybe you think its ridiculous that I use the eyeglassess example. I disagree. while eyeglassess could benefit more people in a non controversial and necessary way, abortion only SEEMS to benefit a small minority of ONE sex and is being used in seemingly abusive ways. oh yeah, its ridiculous to allow people site but not ridiculous to deny the life of a human in development. that was sarcasm.

"I have to prove that you took my statements out of context? wrong. you have to prove that YOU DID NOT. this is because YOU have decided to use them. I didn't force you to take ANY of my statements. the onus of proof is on you.

I shout fallacy when I am at a loss for words? fascinating. you COMMIT FALLACIES when you are at a loss of reason. thats very interesting that you make such a claim. hysterical, really.

this took me too much time to even begin explaining. but believe me when I say that I have no problem exposing the bad reasoning you use. eventually I will do a comparison between the logic of capitalism and the logic of abortion as being ONE AND THE SAME. this issue has become literrally a front for the debate between capialism and communism. its too bad far so many "communists" are debating on behalf of the capitalists and using their identicle method of debate.

[hazard]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 3:03 am on May 20, 2003
the idea that one [who] opposes abortion is a woman hater is very inflamatory. I suggest you consider not saying that ever again.

It is meant to be "inflamatory" because it is true.

To punish a woman who has an abortion in any way is to punish her for being female. That's woman-hating in my book. Therefore I will say it and keep saying it.

I note that your "arguments" have all the staying power of water in a desert...whenever they are challenged, they melt into the sand and you take up some new argument in their place.

First it's pregnant women who seek out and have abortions who are "murderers". No, it's the doctors who perform abortions who are "murderers". What next, the companies that make the surgical instruments? How about the taxi driver who drove her to the clinic?

I already know your response: I didn't say that.

All of this evident refusal to see where the logic of your position--"abortion is murder"--leads you to...suggests that the price of consistency is much higher than you want to pay.

Quit dicking around and face up to it: if "abortion is murder", then somebody gets the needle of death or life imprisonment without parole...those are the established penalties for murder in the first degree in the United States.

If you try to weasel and suggest a lesser penalty, then you have destroyed your own basic premise. Is abortion "manslaughter"? Or "criminal recklessness"? Maybe you'd like to just give the woman in question a stern talking to...with plenty of finger wagging.

Your comparison of re-criminalized abortion with other crimes is truly precious. Murder and theft, to use your best examples, are clearly threats to all people...we justifiably prohibit those activites because they threaten the security of all.

But how does it threaten my security or yours if women control their own fertility? Where is the social justification for your prohibition? What is the threat to you if women who don't wish to carry a pregnancy to term for any reason have an abortion? And whatever that "threat" might be, is it really of such a magnitude that you can actually feel righteous in demanding that "somebody" should be executed or suffer life-long imprisonment in order to stop it?

Your version of ad hominum attacks, though far weaker than mine, yields some interesting hints.

You said I was a "femi-nazi in disguise". The only other person that I've ever heard use that word--femi-nazi--is Rush Limbaugh, the barbaric right-wing nutball who does talk-radio in the U.S. Perhaps you should start listening to Dr. Dean Edell instead; his mind is actually in the current century.

And what do "we femi-nazis" want? "A fourth reich of male submission through forced eugenics."

Getting close to the bone, hazard? If women can control their own fertility, "what will they want next?" "Male submission???" Alarm bells ringing, hazard? You know, I'm starting to get a glimpse of what you perceive the real "threat" of abortion to be...and it has nothing to do with capitalism (that's just smoke out of your ass to try and make your views "respectable" on a left message board).

I hesitate, in fact, to explore what is really motivating your fear and hatred of women, hazard. I'm not a trained professional in those matters.

But communism is something that I do know a good deal about...far more than you. If abortion is "re-criminalized" in the U.S., it will not be ruling class women who will suffer; they will go to Canada or Europe and have their abortions without consequence. No, it will be poor and working class women who will suffer...thanks to folks like you! Even a beginner at Marxism knows that class comes first in any analysis...it is poor and working class women for whom "reproductive rights" are most vital.

Misogynists are not communists.

:cool:

A couple of minor points. I noted that you included "drugs" in your list of "crimes"...which makes for an interesting parallel: if it's ok to punish women for being female, why not punish drug addicts for being drug addicts?

The use of the word "punk ass" in your litany of insults is also interesting; in that context, I believe it refers to a male that desires penetration by another male. Got a little homophobia going on the side there, hazard?

(Edited by redstar2000 at 9:12 am on May 19, 2003)


that IS NOT true. that IS rhetoric. that IS a fallacy. IT IS called poisoning the well. you hope that by saying that that people will NOT oppose you for fear of being called a woman hater. the most obvious example of this rhetoic comes from McCarthy era communist bashing. communists were called "pinko commies" which meant that communists were gay. this was to prevent people from becoming communists. it ussually only works on the submissive types who tend to get scared by "big" words. nice use of that fallacy, nazi.

"to punish a woman for having an abortion is to punish her for being female". really. I know your're not going to bother even trying to explain how this can be, so just pretend I'm not asking. how about this one " to accuse an anti-abortionist of being woman haters is to accuse them of being thumb tacks ". now when you ask me to explain that I won't even bother. simply put, that doesn't make any sense. does your theory apply to all crimes that involve women? or just the ones that are "unique" to their sex? just to set the record straight, punishing a women for being a women does not require an abortion to be committed. she would necessarilly be punishable on the simple matter of her existence, if what you say is true. thats some really great rhetoric your're using there. just great.

some good creative language being used in the third paragraph. but wait! what do we got here, a FAULTY ANALOGY, copious FREELOADING TERMS and a STRAW MAN attack. stunning in its simplicity.

paragrpahs 4 and 5. of course you know that thats what I'm going to say. and you know this mostly because YOU KNOW that I did not say that. so why you make the effort to claim thats what I would state, imply or infer is unknown. thats just another great big X.

after the initial assault of ME (not my position) you do settle down a little redstar. good for you. your assumption that death is the expected penalty is based on ANOTHER assumption that I am living in the ONLY first world nation that condones legal murder by the state. neither of these assumptions are correct. to shrug off the rhetoic you seem unable to avoid in what you write, a punishment which I believe suitable would be similiar to the OLD abortion laws. which was something like five years in prison, minimum. if you wish to discuss this, please don't mince my words and please tone the rhetoric a little. for once. for me.

paragraph 9 and 10. abortion is similarly a threat to ALL people. or did you forget that you too were nce housed in your mothers womb? it is sad that at the phase of a person's life when a person is MOST vulnerable, MOST in need of legal protection a person is granted ZERO protection. abortion effects ALL people much MORE than ANY OTHER CRIME.

rest of post:

you really shouldn't admit that you committed the ad hominen fallacy attack. and you didn't just admit to it, you claimed that yours was "better" than mine! first of, I didn't committ one. I explained to you what mine might resemble if I were to committ one. you seem to misunderstand what a fallacy is, such as AD HOMINEN. it is what a person uses in substitution of an actual argument. they use fallacies because they are unable to argue properly, or that for which they are arguing for are unable of being properly defended. now redstar, I have seen you debate on this board many times. you are an effective arguer, a little heavy in the rhetoric department, but otherwise with good instincts and good writing skills. this leads me to the conclusion, as it has in the past, that abortion is simply incapable of proper defence.

for the record, femi-nazi's are accused for being such not because of the bizarre theory you have stated. it is based on the use of abortion to create a "perfect" race of "perfect" children who are "wanted" and "cared" for. nothing less than middle "class" is permitted. children raised in "poverty" are seen as being better off being aborted. the similarities between the nazi's as eugenics loving, master race freaks are there. it has nothing to do with hating women, but hating nazi's and hating their mentality, modes and methods.

I like how you try and slip in your McCarthy era propaganda as much as possible, too. yet another woman hating claim. this has GOT to be some kind of record...

if you know FAR more about communism, as you assert, why can you not see the similarities between how you are defending abortion and how capitalists defend their class system? if you know FAR more about communism, then why are you so quick to condemn millions of people to pointless execution in the womb based on the profit motive? if you know FAR more about communism than I, why can you only use the rhetoric, reason, propaganda and logic of the capitalists? abortion is GREED personified.

after smoking smiley face with sunglassess:

I answered the first claim somwhere in my response.

nice conclusion. ANOTHER ( how many is that? ) poisoning the well fallacy. this one was incorporated into a slippery slope fallacy. I'll take you through it. I stated "punk ass" in what you describe my "litany" ( this word is a free loading term fallacy ). this is the top of the "slope". then you see this phrase (punk ass) as being an referrant to homosexual penetration. this is the "slip". to prevent such a slip, try proving thats what the word or phrase means. which brings us to the conclusion, that I am a homophobe. by itself this claim is an ad hominen attack. in conjunction with the reasoning which you have used to lead to that conclusion it is a slippery slope. thats four fallacies in two sentences. you are producing 2 fallacies a sentence here! amazing!

redstar, if you believe in communism based on its logical moorings, which is its intent, I would like you to consider how you are behaving in this topic. I doubt that any communist could be so efficiently illogical. which now begs the question: are you really a communist?

[truthaddict11]

Quote: from AK47 on 1:47 pm on May 19, 2003

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 1:49 pm on May 19, 2003
the choice of adoption over abortion is laughable. the kid will most likely end up in a group home or with foster parents thier entire life. We dont need a bigger squeeze on social services by having more kids in the adoption pool.


A harsh but unfortunatly realistic way of looking at the issue, perhaps abortion is better than abject poverty.


the DCF in Florida cant even keep track of kids in foster homes now.

BTW in another sickening attempt by the GOP and Anti-Choice junta. They are trying to get a bill for "fetus rights" by literary pimping the murder of Laci Peterson.

[hazard]

mental bunny:

sorry, I'd really like to answer ALL of your questions, but respnding to the admitedly inflamatory posts of redstar and the other one took about as long as it looks it would have.

I will continue to respond to RedFW for now. as for redstar, I will now IGNORE any over the top rhetorical posturing such as has been his or her policy in this thread. this will probably be responded to with more over the top rhetoric, but my intention is to ignore it. perhaps once I see what is written by this individual I will be forced to respond, but perhaps not.

there are MANY ways to argue about abortion withouut resorting to name calling. what about the FLO defence? what about that woman who wrote about the violinist and the mad scientist? these people raised good arguments, FOR AND AGAINST, without calling each other nazi's and woman haters. why can't we?

I will be away from the net for a few days after tonight. as I seem to be charged with defending anti-abortionists, don't expect a response for a couple of days. there are dozens of other topics and threads for me to post in, and I simply don't have the time to take EVERYBODY on.

[truthaddict11]

Hazard

How exactly does abortion affect people more than any other "crime" . and how in your mind is it "murder". AND HOW THE FUCK IS ABORTION "GREED PERSONIFIED"
from the looks of this thread you are more concered over the "rights" of a fetus than the freedom of a women.

[hazard]

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 11:03 pm on May 19, 2003
Hazard

How exactly does abortion affect people more than any other "crime" . and how in your mind is it "murder". AND HOW THE FUCK IS ABORTION "GREED PERSONIFIED"
from the looks of this thread you are more concered over the "rights" of a fetus than the freedom of a women.

first question answered here when i said:
"abortion is similarly a threat to ALL people. or did you forget that you too were nce housed in your mothers womb? it is sad that at the phase of a person's life when a person is MOST vulnerable, MOST in need of legal protection a person is granted ZERO protection. abortion effects ALL people much MORE than ANY OTHER CRIME. "

second question: it is murder because it involves the termination of a human life that opposes that humans desire to live

third question: greed personified = profit of the insurance agencies, profit of the doctors, profit of the hospitals based upon THE BRUTAL EXPLOITATION OF A LIFEFORM THAT IS A HUMAN IN DEVELOPMENT. what makes the greed even worse is the rhetoric and lies told to women to convinve them to sacrifice their unborn children to godmoney. and oh yeah, many women do it for greedy reasons. it will make them unnattractive. they don't want to spend money on raising a kid. they want to get back at the father. etc.

final statement: so? women were also once fetuses, were they not? I'm ALL FOR the rights of women as long as those rights DO NOT infringe upon the rights of another. I don't think a woman has a right to poke the eyes of her dog, JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN, and I similarly don't think a woman should have the right to brutally and painfully exterminate a human embryo JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN.

now look what you made me do. now I had to raise my voice. I HATE it when people YELL at me.

[Moskitto]

second question: it is murder because it involves the termination of a human life that opposes that humans desire to live

Life Checklist for a first triemester fetus

Movement: Limited
Respiration: Yes
Sensitivity: No
Growth: Yes
Reproduction: No
Excretion: Yes
Nutrition: Yes

Conclusion: A first trimester fetus is not a "life"

[Invader Zim]

6) I say contraception, and you decide to isolate only a couple of forms of contraception. these forms are actually not truly contraceptive, just as abortion is not. the word has a meaning which means "prevents conception". considering conception occurs at the moment the egg is fertilized, how are any of things even considered contraceptives under the definition of the word? they aren't. is your stance, like many radical pro-abortionists, is that wearing a condome is the same as having an abortion? if it is that is idiotic. or is it that non-contraceptive "contraceptives" are the same as abortion? clarify.

I was actually thinking of the coil method of contreception, or the morning after pill, these allow the spirm to fertilise the egg, the egg would normaly move towards the wall of the womb and become imbedded and grow, etc baby born. The coil does not allow the wall of the womb to form ready for the fertilised egg. The morning after pill changes the chemical balance of the womb causing a period. But both have fertlised eggs. And the baby is concived, how does this differer from abortion, it is mearly at an earlier stage.

[RedFW]

redfw, once again, despit my idntifying WHAT YOU SHOULD NOT DO, you persist. misquoting does not prove anything except the fact that you cannot defend your position properly.

Would you care to identify exactly where I misquoted you, and may I remind you that reminding me of what you think I should do and should not do is really of no consequence.

You have used this excuse (misquoting, lack of ellipsis) quite enough to avoid answering most all of the questions put to you and points raised. You may address my posts point by point, including the last one which I defended both my argument and the way in which I quoted from your post, but I really think your avoidance of my responses and questions are all too telling of the actual strength of your argument.

nevertheless, just so all reasonable and intelligent people can see how many MORE flaws you have intertwined into your position, I will continue.

Yes, well, that is the difference, you are here for the show, and I actually have an argument I can defend. And let me guess, the reasoned and intelligent people are those who shudder with fear at your use of the word 'fallacy' to avoid answering every argument that has been counter to your own? LOL!

I paricipate in internet debates with the hopes that perhaps those I debate with will not employ the tactics of capitalist mis-information.

Yes, well, until you stop shouting 'fallacy' at every post that is in opposition to your own and actuall identify what it is that you disagree with and why, identify why you see what is being said as 'capitalist mis-information', I don't think being here will be of any benefit to you or the rest of the board, IMO, of course.

considering I am on an anti-capitalist site my hope is not too far fetched. however, in this thread especially, I am encountering nothing but capitalist style arguments and fallacies. I particpate to expose rhetoric, and correct that which I hate.

But if you never actually explain what it is your disagree with and why, then your posts will always shout 'fallacy' and be of little substance, which is all they seem to be saying to me. In fact, you seem to only be here to denigrate those you disagree with rather than discuss.

what I did not appreciate was the value laden language used throughout this segment. watch the free loading terms. this is how capitalists argue. the worst one was "backpeddal".

Okay, I can see that any hope of you addressing my points is, from here on out, lost.

What makes you consider 'backpeddal' to be indicative of the way a capitalist argues?

you can use that word IF you prove that such an even occured, which, as it turns out, did not.

You have yet to address my points and counter my argument . Once you have done this, I will consider the word and its usage.


I will ignore your strawman version of my position assuming that you simply are having difficulty understanding the logical construction of my statements.

You haven't addressed my points, so until you do so, it will be expected that I will have difficulty understanding why you have contradicted yourself.

I would like to remind you that I was clarifying a point made in a previous post and defending the way in which I quoted you, and I still expect that point to be addressed.

my "statement", as you call it, seems to be isolated and once again out of context.

This is why I asked you the questions regarding its context, which you could still extend me the courtesy of answering: you could explain why the other sentences in the same post are crucial, if in fact they are, to the understanding of the quote I have used. You could also do me the favour of pointing out why your post warrants no response. Maybe you didn't want a response, but not wanting a response and not warranting a response are two different things.

how did my sentence begin?

I quoted the sentence in its entirity and from the beginning. You did not capitalise the 't' in 'to' which was the first word in the sentence, and is, IMO, what started this confusion. Check here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=815&start=20) if your memory fails you.

what was the sentence that preceded it?

'her choice was made when she had sex.'

a sentence fragment IS NOT a statement. freeloader, again.

I agree; however, I did not quote a sentence fragment, I quoted a sentence.

It really is okay to admit that you were wrong, that you forgot to capitalise the first letter in the sentence, that I didn't need ellipsis, that I didn't really misquote you, that your sentence was not so far removed from its context as to change its meaning, that you will now address the point I originally made, which was that you said two very different things. In short, that you contradicted yourself.

anyway, even in the sentence fragment, there is no implication that procurring an abortion is the same as performing an abortion.

I never said there was. In fact, I think the word 'have' signals the distinction between the woman 'hav' the abortion and the person performing the abortion. This is why I believe you contradicted yourself. I only pointed out the contradiction you made later when answering Redstar.

Redstar asked: If abortion is "murder", then is it your wish that a woman who has one be executed or would you be "satisfied" with merely life imprisonment without parole? Those are the punishments in the United States for premeditated murder in the first degree.

You answered: to answer your question, no, the woman herself does not commit the act of murder. it is the abortionist who performs the action, FOR PROFIT, mind you, that is legally responsible for the action.

That is a contradiction or change in one's argument. You first said to 'have' the abortion was murder and then changed your argument to performing the abortion is murder. Which is it? Which argument are you going to stick with?

to have an abortion IS murder, whether you think the women, the doctor, the sun or the moon is responsible for the murder.

To have an abortion is to receive an abortion. The doctor performing the abortion is not 'hav[ing]' an abortion himself, he is performing one. You first said to have an abortion was murder, then you said the person performing the abortion was the murderer and now you are saying that to 'have' an abortion is murder no matter who performed it. Well, why not answer Redstar's question again? Who is responsible? If it is murder, then who is to be punished and receive either of the sentences that Redstar mentioned? And if taken to the extreme, would those providing equipment and premises need to be punished as well? Why not clarify your position a little so that we can see what it is you are saying?

your only basis for believing what you think I am trying to say is based upon an UNSTATED ASSUMPTION. as such, you MUST show me where the unstated assumption occurs.

I am asking you what you are trying to say. You are not answering me. Perhaps you could answer this: which unstated assumption do you think I am making? I am asking you questions so that I limit the number of assumptions I make. You are not answering them.

here's a hint, it didn't occur, you are wrong.

I really don't know what you are going on about here. You will have to explain.

1) avoided, ignore, correct, confusion, 'totally void" and 'major flaw" are all ft fallacies

You haven't addressed the points made from which those were taken. You can continue to pick certain parts of my post out and attach 'fallacies' to everything but that does not get away from the fact that you have not addressed my points.

'taken the time to search for it', 'forgot to capitalize' are ah

I was responding to what you said: the first quote I will not search for and place into context.
And what is your explanation for not capitalising the first letter of the sentence?

the entire way in which you represent my answer as merely an attempt to avoid the question is SM.

It was my opinion. Label it whatever you like, mate. It doesn't bother me.

that is not true, as I answered the question more specifically than perhaps was intended. taht is anything BUT avoiding the answer. just because I didn't give you the answer YOU wanted doesn't mean I'm avoiding it. thus, straw man version of my position.

No, give whatever answer you want. I don't mind. But be prepared to have other people recognise whatever contradictions you make, which is what I was doing.

I'm not going to bother identifying the rest of these fallacies, but they occur IN EVERY SINGLE response to my answers. instead, I'll address ALL THE OTHER FALLACIES that occur. just a horrible mess that relies upon the bad, capitalist style reasoning that is connected to the defence of abortion.

Yes, you have a knack for shouting 'fallacy', but you really haven't addressed my points. *yawn*

Would you care to define 'capitalistic style reasoning'? Is that a term of your own making?

2) if you don't think the detail was great, PROVE that it wasn't great.

I said: Actually, I didn't think the detail was so great, that is why I was asking you to clarify exactly what the boundaries of frivolity are.

Do you have a problem with me asking you to clarify what these boundaries are?

in any case, you have switched your position from PRETENDING no detail existed to get hung up on the idea of what it means to explain something not in detail, but in "great" detail. which, you seemd to equivocate the meaning of, I should add.

I wasn't 'pretending no detail existed', in fact, I said I didn't agree that the detail was 'great'. I didn't find the detail was great enough to explain away the questions I previously asked you, which you still have not answered: So it is only frivolous if the woman cannot afford to carry a pregnancy to term? Who gets to decide they are 'frivolous'? Who knows the circumstances of an unplanned pregnancy and the woman's (in)ability to cope with these things better than the woman herself who is pregnant?

it seems to me, based on your response, that there is NO PROBLEM with adoption, but rather a problem with the people who are seeking to adopt.

There is a problem with adoption being heralded as an alternative, in fact, the alternative to abortion when, in fact, there are so many children already in foster care and there would not be enough people willing to adopt any child if abortion were to be replaced by adoption.

basically that they are RACIST. this seems to be a red herring tactic. I want to discuss adoption, you want to discuss racist families who don't want to adopt non-white children. this has nothing to do with what I want to discuss.

I think I have explained above why it does have a lot to do with what we are discussing. I don't believe that adoption is as viable and option as is usually argued, and I was outlining the problems I saw with adoption. Now, do you want to address the problems I have mentioned or use your usual tactic of label and dismiss?

forget the fallacies, what the fuck do you mean by desirable baby?

This was connected to my point about white babies being more desirable to white couples and the shortage of people willing to adopt babies already in foster care who are not white. These are the babies people are talking about when they say 'there are more couples who want to adopt than babies to be adopted', they are talking about white babies. So a pregnant white woman has a better chance at securing whatever help she can with expenses because her baby is, more desirable for adoption than a baby born to a black woman. And questions are asked about the father's background if the woman has not yet given birth.


this is the insane, logic of eugenics originally deployed by the nazi's in their attempted extermination of "undesirable" races in WWII.

It isn't my logic. I wasn't saying I think they are 'desirable' or more 'desirable' than other babies. Which I think my explanation above covers.

I am so glad that you would not have a problem with a woman who would choose to have an adoption. what touching support. you seem to imply that some people DO have a problem with women giving their babies up for adoption. I would so love to hear what genocidal logic they use to support such a position.

I am glad you find my response 'touching'. I was responding to your claim that pro-choicers do not recognise adoption as a choice or an option. I don't have a problem with adoption or any woman choosing it as an option. I think choice needs to remain secure, and this includes adoption, abortion, birth control or choosing to abstain from sex. My response was not intended to imply that my approval or disapproval of a woman's choice is relevant but that I support the right of women to make those choices for themselves. You will have to quench your thirst of genocidal logic elsewhere, as I have made it clear in this thread and other posts that support 'choice' not forced abortion.

just love how you answer this one.

Cheers.

You answer it in the exact way I assumed...

*applaudes*

that is, you think women who simply have no good reason to have an abortion (ie. FRIVOLOUS ) can do so because an "abortion is an abortion".

I disagree with your paraphrasing of my position. And you asked me what I meant by an 'abortion is an abortion'. When I originally used this phrase it was to address your points about 'frivolous' reasons to have an abortion. My point was that you or anyone else assigning a frivolous reason to it or a justified reason, it is still an abortion either way. It is allowing some women to have abortions because [i]you think their situation warrants it and disallowing other women access to them because you think their reasons 'frivolous'. I often hear people say that only women who have been raped should be allowed abortion or that only women who were using contraception that failed and became pregnant should be allowed to have abortions. I have a problem with people assigning either frivolity or justification to reasons for abortion. I then introduced the fact that some the most popular long-term contraceptives are abortive making the reasoning that women should have use birth control to prevent an unwanted pregnancy instead of resorting to abortion afterward in itself ridiculous. What constitutes a good reason and a do you distinguish between a good reason and a bad one? And why do you place yourself in a position to know the answer to this above the women who are actually pregnant? I am saying I think women need to have the choice to make themselves and weigh up the options themselves, not have them imposed upon them and made by someone who has absolutely no insight into their situation.

that is not an answer. thats not even an excuse. thats not even ANYTHING.

You are free to address the points I have made, both in this post and previous posts.

I gave you a chance to correct yourself, but you seem to want to stagnate on this point.

You asked me to clarify something. I didn't know you were in a position to 'give chances' to other members on this board.

a punvch to the head IS a punch to the head, and its allright because thats what it is. oh yeah, thats a keeper.

If women have abortions induced by birth control or performed by a doctor, it is still abortion. Characterise it however you like, but until you address the things I have actually said, you are making yourself look nothing but the latest resident fool of this board.

I say contraception, and you decide to isolate only a couple of forms of contraception.

Yeah, I did isolate them for a reason. Women are told to use contraception. These are the most popular long term contraceptives available to women (usually only to those who can afford them).

these forms are actually not truly contraceptive, just as abortion is not. the word has a meaning which means "prevents conception". considering conception occurs at the moment the egg is fertilized, how are any of things even considered contraceptives under the definition of the word?

Ask the doctors who prescribe them, the pharmaceutical companies that make them or the governments that license them. This is not an issue to take up with me. They are accepted as contraceptives and licsensed as such by the respective governments who allow them to perscribed. If you don't like them being classed as contraception that is another issue altogether, but that is what they are, at present, classed as.

they aren't. is your stance, like many radical pro-abortionists, is that wearing a condome is the same as having an abortion? if it is that is idiotic. or is it that non-contraceptive "contraceptives" are the same as abortion? clarify.

No, I am not a radical pro-abortionist as I have already pointed out. I want women to have choice, all choices, and I want these to remain protected. And no, that isn't my stance unless you mention destroying a life that has a potential to develop, but I think Redstar knows quite a lot more about that, why don't you ask him? My stance is that women are told to use contraception, which , whether you like it or not includes the types I mentioned, then they are told how bad, wrong and 'frivolous' abortion is. People want to deny women access to safe, legal abortion but then say it is okay for the those who can afford the contraceptives I mentioned to, in effect, do the same. We all know which classes most women who will die or be severly injured will be from, and it is not those who can afford contraception or have jobs that cover it. Oh, and I think I have requested you address my points or responses, please extend me the same courtesy by not ordering me to 'clarify'?

and I find it just as interesting that you believe men should have zero input in the reproductive process.

I never said men should have zero input in the reproductive process. Care to point me to where I did say that?

why should ONLY women by permitted to get condomes through healthcare?

Where did I say only women should be permitted to get condoms through healthcare?

your sexist, anti-male rhetoric is rather disturbing.

I notice you chose not to quote me. Which rhetoric or part of my post are you referring to specifically? And please point out which part is anti-male


I mention wha helathcare DOES NOT cover, which includes non-destructive birthcontrol methods methods, you agree with me, and then say my position is ridiculous.

I agreed with your stance that eyeglasses should be covered by healthcare. I don't see why eyeglasses should be covered and abortion not covered. The ridiculous part came in when you tried to characterise the use of abortion by women, which is covered, as an abuse of the system. And then said that they are doing so to get out of paying for contraceptives.

while eyeglassess could benefit more people in a non controversial and necessary way, abortion only SEEMS to benefit a small minority of ONE sex and is being used in seemingly abusive ways.

Yes, you have already said this. Care to address the points I made? You can quote me, it doesn't hurt. So if we limit all coverage to things that only benefit both sexes, we can exclude Viagra (covered by most healthcare providers while contraception is not), vasectomies, treatment for prostate cancer, childbirth, pre-natal visits...the list goes on. I thought people who fund the healthcare, especially if this is through their taxes, should receive coverage of things that will benefit them. I think quite a lot would be excluded if we limit coverage to things that will only be a benefit to both sexes. How is it abusive. If women cannot afford contraception but can get abortion via their healthcare, then how is this an abuse? If women also fund the health service, then how are they abusing something they are helping to fund that is covering something they are going to make use of?

oh yeah, its ridiculous to allow people site but not ridiculous to deny the life of a human in development. that was sarcasm.

I didn't say that it was ridiculous to allow people site. I agreed that this should be covered. Because that is your personal view of the situation, don't have an abortion and if you are male do your best to find a partner whose views agree with your own. However, there are women and men who do not agree with you, who help fund the healthservice who will make the choice to seek an abortion. It should be safe, legal and covered by the healthservice.

I have to prove that you took my statements out of context? wrong. you have to prove that YOU DID NOT. this is because YOU have decided to use them. I didn't force you to take ANY of my statements. the onus of proof is on you.

Of course you do not have to 'prove' that I took the statement out of context. In fact, I never said you had to prove that. I said 'you have yet to prove the context they were taken out of was so significantly different as to change the actual meaning of the statements.

They are two very different things. If you are claiming that the context or even the rest of the post was essential to the understanding of the quote I used or the quote's removal from the post would change the meaning of the quote itself, then please explain, why?

I shout fallacy when I am at a loss for words? fascinating. you COMMIT FALLACIES when you are at a loss of reason. thats very interesting that you make such a claim. hysterical, really.

And you not addressing most of my points supposed to make this more believable? I thought you could think of something slightly more original than 'hysterical'. That is the usual reason why women are not supposed to be let out of the home to work, receive an education or take control of their fertility, isn't it. Hysterical is really a nasty way of saying out of one's own control, isn't it?

but believe me when I say that I have no problem exposing the bad reasoning you use.

How will I ever recover from this exposure? Boo Hoo. Maybe I should run off an join my local Life League. Of course it didn't take you long...how hard is it to ignore one's own bad reasoning, even when it is pointed out quite clearly, to avoid questions, which is exactly what you have done in just about every post. I should think it took you very little time to point of 'bad reasoning' on my part as to do so meant to ignore most of what I was saying and shout 'fallacy' a dozen times. I cannot believe you really think you have even begun to defend your stance. All you have done is avoid it mate, and there are quite a few other members on this board who have read this thread and thought the same thing. You are fooling no one, well except yourself maybe.

eventually I will do a comparison between the logic of capitalism and the logic of abortion as being ONE AND THE SAME.

Is this before or after you address my points from both this post and previous posts?

this issue has become literrally a front for the debate between capialism and communism.

*yawn* still waiting for you to address my points.

its too bad far so many "communists" are debating on behalf of the capitalists and using their identicle method of debate.

Still waiting for your illustration of this point.


(Edited by RedFW at 3:02 pm on May 20, 2003)

[Blackberry]

its too bad far so many "communists" are debating on behalf of the capitalists and using their identicle method of debate.

As RedFW said, you have have not shown any evidence of this. Personally speaking though, I can assure you that RedFW is indeed not a capitalist in disguise.

Carry on, and address ALL of the points she made.

[truthaddict11]

final statement: so? women were also once fetuses, were they not? I'm ALL FOR the rights of women as long as those rights DO NOT infringe upon the rights of another. I don't think a woman has a right to poke the eyes of her dog, JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN, and I similarly don't think a woman should have the right to brutally and painfully exterminate a human embryo JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN.

NO, you are NOT for the rights of women when you deny them the freedom of thier own bodies. no one on this site is saying that women should have the right to poke dogs in the eyes "just because she is a woman" that is something you are thinking in your chuavanist mind.

[Invader Zim]

RedFW that was an incredible post...

Hazard how can you argue with shuch a well made argument.

Again great post RedFW, especially this part: -

Redstar asked: If abortion is "murder", then is it your wish that a woman who has one be executed or would you be "satisfied" with merely life imprisonment without parole? Those are the punishments in the United States for premeditated murder in the first degree.

You answered: to answer your question, no, the woman herself does not commit the act of murder. it is the abortionist who performs the action, FOR PROFIT, mind you, that is legally responsible for the action.

That is a contradiction or change in one's argument. You first said to 'have' the abortion was murder and then changed your argument to performing the abortion is murder. Which is it? Which argument are you going to stick with?


How van you possibly answer that hazard?

[redstar2000]

a punishment which I believe suitable would be similiar to the OLD abortion laws. which was something like five years in prison, minimum.

A remarkably "light" sentence for "murder", don't you think? Particularly "murder" of the "most vulnerable"...your words, hazard.

But then you did say minimum, didn't you? What was the old maximum, I wonder...as I wonder what it would be if you were on the jury?

"to punish a woman for having an abortion is to punish her for being female". really. I know your're not going to bother even trying to explain how this can be, so just pretend I'm not asking.

What part of the word female don't you understand? As you may remember, only females can become pregnant, therefore only females can undergo abortions, therefore to punish a woman for having an abortion is to punish her for being female.

abortion is similarly a threat to ALL people. or did you forget that you too were nce housed in your mothers womb? it is sad that at the phase of a person's life when a person is MOST vulnerable, MOST in need of legal protection a person is granted ZERO protection. abortion effects ALL people much MORE than ANY OTHER CRIME.

An utterly nonsensical statement! In the absence of time-travel (!!!), abortion cannot "threaten" a single living human being.

for the record, femi-nazi's are accused for being such not because of the bizarre theory you have stated. it is based on the use of abortion to create a "perfect" race of "perfect" children who are "wanted" and "cared" for. nothing less than middle "class" is permitted. children raised in "poverty" are seen as being better off being aborted. the similarities between the nazi's as eugenics loving, master race freaks are there. it has nothing to do with hating women, but hating nazi's and hating their mentality, modes and methods.

What kind of a nutball argument is this? Honestly, has anyone ever heard of anything so loony?

This is what happens when you become dazzled by formal logic and forget the point of rational argument...to start with verifiable facts and reach a reasonable conclusion.

You are ever ready to shout "fallacy" this and "fallacy" that, hazard, while conveniently overlooking that logic is like a verbal computer: garbage in, garbage out!

Take out the trash, hazard.

:cool:

[Soul Rebel]

For the last time-abortion is not profitable. Insurances do not cover abortion!!! I have checked with insurances and it is not covered. Most insurances do not even cover the pill. Sure they will cover viagra, but not the pill.

Doctors do not profit from abortions!!! As i have mentioned before, many wont even performe them because they lose funding if they do. They are not even allowed to mention the word because they will lose funding. So either way the doctor is fucked: they cant help patients in order to help others.

[RedFW]

If we are talking about people profiting from abortion, why is it okay for the IVF doctor to make absolutely thousands of dollars, and his or her work is lauded, to implant several fertilised eggs into one woman knowing that most will not survive, and if more than one does, the woman will have to abort one or more to ensure the survival of the others? This is routing practice in the States.

And I am quite certain the bank balance of the IVF doctor is substantially larger than that of the doctor working at the local family planning clinic that no longer receives any funding from the government and already performs an abortion as cheaply as he or she possibly can without closing the entire clinic.



(Edited by RedFW at 9:03 am on May 21, 2003)

[Moskitto]

Quote: from SenoraChe on 12:59 am on May 21, 2003
For the last time-abortion is not profitable. Insurances do not cover abortion!!! I have checked with insurances and it is not covered. Most insurances do not even cover the pill. Sure they will cover viagra, but not the pill.

Doctors do not profit from abortions!!! As i have mentioned before, many wont even performe them because they lose funding if they do. They are not even allowed to mention the word because they will lose funding. So either way the doctor is fucked: they cant help patients in order to help others.


Insurance covers viagra but not the pill?!?!?!

that is fucked up.

America really needs public health care, in the UK there is public healthcare and insurance prices are low enough to be within reach of most people, My dad works at an insurance company supplying company insurance policies (although they do deal directly with the public as well) and they gets lots of enquiries from Americans because insurance is so much cheaper. And the pill is covered on the NHS anyway.

It seems stupid that men who have the fairly minor inconvienience of being unable to have sex are seen as more deserving of cover than women who want to reduce the risks of possibly very serious health complications as a result of a possibly unwanted pregnancy. Guess it works by the same logic that a guy who gets a girl pregnant is a "machine" but a girl who gets herself pregnant is a "whore" kinda sucks.

(Edited by Moskitto at 10:33 am on May 21, 2003)

[RedFW]

Guess it works by the same logic that a guy who gets a girl pregnant is a "machine" but a girl who gets herself pregnant is a "whore" kinda sucks.

I think the misogyny and double standard you described is what is behind most policies that seem to favour justify, the needs of men over those of women. I disagree on one minor point, though, I think it completely sucks!

[Hate Is Art]

Abortion is murder. How can killing a baby ever be justified.

[Moskitto]

Is it possible to disagree with the practice of abortion, however agree that it should be within womens rights to have one if they choose?

[Hate Is Art]

The Baby has a choice of living as well. Ok about rape babys,

Only 5% of rapes are the classic jumped on out of a bush by a mad pervert situation. The other 95% are done by people she knows. Less than 1% of rapes result in pregnancy so rape babies really shouldn't be considered.

Sperm and Eggs are just cells, they are not alive, a joined sperm and egg are alive, they are a feotus then an unborn child. By this reasoning you should be angry about women's periods because they get rid of eggs which could have been babies.

Do you support the murder of innocent children? No, I'm assuming not, so why support abortion, just because the child is still in utero doesn't make it any less of a human being does it.

[redstar2000]

Only 5% of rapes are the classic jumped on out of a bush by a mad pervert situation. The other 95% are done by people she knows. Less than 1% of rapes result in pregnancy so rape babies really shouldn't be considered.

Putting aside the minor consideration of "numbers originating in someone's rectal orifice", please explain to me why being raped by someone you know is somehow "not as bad" as being raped by a stranger? And then explain why it is ok to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term simply because she knew the scumbag who raped her?

Do you support the murder of innocent children? No, I'm assuming not, so why support abortion, just because the child is still in utero doesn't make it any less of a human being does it.

Well, yes, actually it does. Certainly during the first three or four months of pregnancy, you're talking about an organism with the brain of a goldfish. Perhaps by seven or eight months, when the fetus could survive outside the woman's body, you'd have a point in speaking of a child. Otherwise, it's meaningless to speak of something as human when it completely lacks the distinguishing characteristic of humans...an unusually large brain.

Abortion is murder. How can killing a baby ever be justified.

1. Because the pregnant woman is physically and/or psychologically unfit for pregnancy.

2. Because the pregnant woman lacks the economic and/or social resources to raise a child.

3. Because the fetus suffers a severe genetic defect.

There may be other reasons as well...but those are good for starters.

One good question deserves another, dn, and you know what it is: if "abortion is murder", what penalty are you prepared to inflict on the woman who has one? Death? Life imprisonment without parole?

How much are you prepared to punish women for the "crime" of being female?

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 4:53 pm on May 21, 2003)

[RAM]

Abortion is not murder as when do cells become a person?
If you say that they are a person at conception then is it a person or a potnetial person becuase the cells have not devloped yet into anything like a human. Should you then kill bacteria and viruses as they are living because they are cells?

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Digital Nirvana on 9:33 pm on May 21, 2003


Sperm and Eggs are just cells, they are not alive, a joined sperm and egg are alive, they are a feotus then an unborn child. By this reasoning you should be angry about women's periods because they get rid of eggs which could have been babies.




As i have explained both the coil and pill method of contraception allow the fertilisation of the egg, there for your above argument is false.

[Umoja]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 10:50 pm on May 21, 2003
Only 5% of rapes are the classic jumped on out of a bush by a mad pervert situation. The other 95% are done by people she knows. Less than 1% of rapes result in pregnancy so rape babies really shouldn't be considered.

Putting aside the minor consideration of "numbers originating in someone's rectal orifice", please explain to me why being raped by someone you know is somehow "not as bad" as being raped by a stranger? And then explain why it is ok to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term simply because she knew the scumbag who raped her?

Do you support the murder of innocent children? No, I'm assuming not, so why support abortion, just because the child is still in utero doesn't make it any less of a human being does it.

Well, yes, actually it does. Certainly during the first three or four months of pregnancy, you're talking about an organism with the brain of a goldfish. Perhaps by seven or eight months, when the fetus could survive outside the woman's body, you'd have a point in speaking of a child. Otherwise, it's meaningless to speak of something as human when it completely lacks the distinguishing characteristic of humans...an unusually large brain.

Abortion is murder. How can killing a baby ever be justified.

1. Because the pregnant woman is physically and/or psychologically unfit for pregnancy.

2. Because the pregnant woman lacks the economic and/or social resources to raise a child.

3. Because the fetus suffers a severe genetic defect.

There may be other reasons as well...but those are good for starters.

One good question deserves another, dn, and you know what it is: if "abortion is murder", what penalty are you prepared to inflict on the woman who has one? Death? Life imprisonment without parole?

How much are you prepared to punish women for the "crime" of being female?

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 4:53 pm on May 21, 2003)


Oddly, I agree with Redstar on most of his points except the last three examples. Number one I can easily understand, and their is no need to play devils advocate. But I disagree with the last two. Firstly, if the woman can't handle the baby adoption does exist, and should exist under communism, considering that we are also arguing the future uses of Abortion. The third I disagree with the most, just because a child won't be born "perfect" doesn't mean they should be killed. And what counts as a birth defect? I'm sure if anyone on this board who had no legs, for example, had heard that they should possibly be killed for it, they'd be quite offended.

[redstar2000]

Umoja, in this as in most realms of human knowledge, I am no "expert", but my understanding is that we're talking about something far more serious than "no legs"...like no brain or no spine or only half a heart...call it one of "God's" cute little jokes. There is a whole litany of horrors that can go wrong with a developing fetus and it happens often enough that the doctors have even coined a latin phrase for it: teratology. It is not something to be studied by the weak of stomach.

Like me.

:cool:

[Umoja]

Oh well in that case they should clearly just abort the baby and eat it. :biggrin:

Seriously though, I wasn't really thinking. Fatal "flaws" in children are bad things.

[scott thesocialist]

everybody should have the right to choice, its impossible to say for certain who is right and wrong. you have to treat every case individually, for me i would say it can be right in some cases but wrong in the other. i believe sometimes you need to do what has to be done no matter how terrible it can be.

[Sabocat]

Damn, I'm sick of this topic.

Abortion is not killing a life anymore than chemo therapy kills a life when it kills a tumor. It's a collection of cells.

If it can't sustain life on it's own, it's not a living being.

The U$ is awash in unwanted and exploited and abused children, because of some stupid dogmatic fairytale set of rules set up by the churches. It's these same whacko's who want to "save" unborn children, but have no problem with the death penalty or blowing up clinics and killing doctors. Sickening hypocracy.

It's the old fisherman mentality...."let 'em grow up some, so we can kill 'em when they're bigger".

Like the bumper sticker says...."If you're not for abortion....don't have one!"

[Moskitto]

James, Virus's aren't cells, they are Nucleic acids in protein coats, occasionally with a lipid inner layer.

if a baby has no brain or spinal cord, what is the point? I question the rationality of anyone thinking this baby should be taken to term. Although people do live with defects such as missing limbs, so in genetic defects choice should exist otherwise we end up with practices such as those suggested in the topic "Retardation - Possible Solution" Ideas expressed by people who lacked knowledge of the conditions they were talking about.

[Moskitto]

Quote: from AK47 on 11:33 pm on May 21, 2003

Quote: from Digital Nirvana on 9:33 pm on May 21, 2003


Sperm and Eggs are just cells, they are not alive, a joined sperm and egg are alive, they are a feotus then an unborn child. By this reasoning you should be angry about women's periods because they get rid of eggs which could have been babies.




As i have explained both the coil and pill method of contraception allow the fertilisation of the egg, there for your above argument is false.


Morning after pill does allow fertilisation, but cuts into the menstrual cycle to prevent pregnancy, the contraceptive pill does not allow eggs to develop because the oestrogen inhibits follicle stimulating hormone production so there are no follicles for eggs to develop from, so no fertilisation takes place, the mini pill is a source of progesterone which tricks the body into thinking it's pregnant therefore not releasing anymore FSH.

An unreleted subject is the Siamese twins Jodie and Mary, Jodie was healthy, but Mary was basically a growth on her with a brain which would never be able to function, there were so many people campaigning to "Save Mary" even though she was going to die anyway and there was nothing they could do about it, but everyone was treating at as a who lives contest.

[apathy maybe]

with out reading all the posts (only the ones on the front page) I think that abortion should be illegal (for a variety of reasons including drawing a line of the santury of Human life at conception. If a woman wants to choose she can get her tubes tied (which is reversable). Or else use contraceptions.

[redstar2000]

If a woman wants to choose she can get her tubes tied (which is reversable). Or else use contraceptions.

As I understand it, contraceptive surgery on a woman is rather more elaborate (and expensive!) than on a man...and is more difficult to reverse.

And, it must be repeated for the thousandth time, regular contraceptives sometimes fail. What then?

I think that abortion should be illegal (for a variety of reasons including drawing a line of the santury of Human life at conception.

I think the word you want there is sanctity--"the quality or state of being holy or sacred."

That's an "argument" from superstition, of course, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration. I could just as easily say "It's my sacred duty to kill you." Why? "Oh, God told me to."

No.

:cool:

[Soul Rebel]

actually- getting your tubes tied is irreversible. once its done, its done.

and dont just put the blame on womyn. men take part in it too. so why dont men take considerations too such as getting a vasectomy? i guess it not that important right since men are suppossed to spread their seed? yeah, right. bs.

[Valkyrie]

It's pretty much the standard also that surgeons don't perform tubal ligation unless the woman is over 30 and/or has had 3 children. In case in the future she changes her mind.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from SenoraChe on 9:34 pm on May 23, 2003
actually- getting your tubes tied is irreversible. once its done, its done.

and dont just put the blame on womyn. men take part in it too. so why dont men take considerations too such as getting a vasectomy? i guess it not that important right since men are suppossed to spread their seed? yeah, right. bs.



Actually a vasectomy is far more popular operation than having the womans tubes tied. This is according to some program i saw about future birth control. (how its a future method of birth control im not sureas its used today)

I agree with your entire perspective except that small comment, and the whole woman womyn thing, which i think is just daft.

[Moskitto]

And, it must be repeated for the thousandth time, regular contraceptives sometimes fail. What then?

yes, regular contraceptives do fail and abortions should be allowed incase of such incidents, however not using contraception and having an abortion afterwards is a waste of resources compared to £2 for a condom.

AK47 is right, Vascectomy is more popular than Histerectomy, however histerectomy is slightly less likely to repair itself, although botched histerectomies can result in ectopic pregnancy.

Any birth control surgery is reversible, however reversing the surgery is very expensive and may lead to complications.

And I don't see why doctors don't do histerectomies on women under 30, i know someone who had a vasectomy at 21, no questions asked.

[black sheep.]

Abortion is wrong. I don't understand why communists are all pro-abortion. However, I do believe that communism will reduce abortions. The USA has many abortions because of the lack of sex education. The rate is also due to our hedonistic society. Communism is very anti-hedonistic. Under Communism people will have more idealism. They won't be focused on "having a good time".

[Valkyrie]

Tubal Ligation for a female is comparable to a Vasectomy for a male. A Hysterectomy is not the same as Tubal Ligation.

Tubal Ligation (tying the tubes) cuts the fallopian tubes only and then "ties" them off.

Hysterctomy removes the uterus, & ovaries. It is now just a surgery used if a woman has cancer. Back in the archaic days, up to the 1950's and 60's they performed this type of surgery at the drop of a hat. Even when it really was not needed and for contraceptive purposes. Before they figured out tubal ligation.

Tubal Ligation can be reversed, but it doesn't always work because the fallopian tubes don't always fuse back together well and then there is scar tissue etc. (blahhh, I don't like this subject.) which can prevent pregnancy.
Getting a vasectomy reversed is much more successful and easier done.





(Edited by Paris at 10:11 pm on May 24, 2003)

[redstar2000]

The rate is also due to our hedonistic society. Communism is very anti-hedonistic. Under Communism people will have more idealism. They won't be focused on "having a good time".

Ah, nostalgia for the "good old days", when communist boys and girls made love to their tractors. :cheesy:

News Update: In 21st century communism, people will have an even better time than they have now.

The old puritanical version of 20th century communism is as dead as the dinosaurs...well, perhaps I exaggerate a little. We have a few on this board; but they're young enough to learn better.

In the advanced capitalist countries, the places where real communist revolution is feasible, an old-style puritanical communist movement would have about as much chance of gaining significant support as a party that proposed the restoration of feudalism.

It ain't gonna happen.

:cool:

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from black sheep on 8:11 pm on May 24, 2003
Under Communism people will have more idealism. They won't be focused on "having a good time".


I doubt that communism will lower the rate of people who want to get laid. Casual sex exists in all sociotys, whether it is legal or not.

[inessa1917]

back to the starting topic:

One friend of mine told me that once she saw a footrace for the banning of the abortion -- and on this race there were only men present.

I think this anti-abortion thing is one of the most stupid and hypocrite stuff of the clerical right-wing -- they bring several stupid esoteric stuff into picture and ignore the reality. :-(

[FabFabian]

First and foremost, abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, NOT KILLING A BABY. Want to piss me off, keep calling it a baby instead of the correct terms ie. zef, embryo, foetus. Baby is just hallmark sentimentality for a what could be rather than what it is.

[FabFabian]

Oh hell, I just remember something re communism and abortion. I think communism, if we are referring to how it was practiced in the former Soviet Union, had no problem with abortion. One would only have to look at the practice of encouraging their female athletes to get pregnant and then abort to improve their performances. Don't ask me the details, all I know is that the fluctuation in hormones allegedly helped enhance their abilities.

[Moskitto]

there's hormones released by the placenta which are banned perfomance enhancing substances in males because they have have anabolic effects, however they are not banned in women because it effectively becomes a ban on becoming pregnant, although many men have attempted to replace their own urine with their girlfriend's urine because they have been taking something illegal, only to discover they test positive for the hormones indicating their pregnant.

[onepunchmachinegun]

Quote: from CubanFox on 11:05 am on May 10, 2003
Abortion was legal in the USSR before the baby was 3 months in the womb.


we should learn of our predecessors and don't commit they same mistakes as they did, but learn from their and commit our own.
what ever people might have heard of what it was like in the USSR it's history and unimportant. we should learn from their mistakes, but not lean on what they builded back then.

I think that abortion should be legal because of the lifes the baby could ruin if it's parents weren't ready to have a child. perhaps it would be better of without life... just call me cynical, but that's my opinion!

[scott thesocialist]

it should be legal because then you always have the choice, if its illegal then the choice has gone people will still do it but they will be commiting a crime and i think havinga abortion would be hard enough.

[Iepilei]

pro-choice... but fuck partial birth abortions.

[truthaddict11]

first of all there is no such thing as "partial birth" abortions, the phrase itself is created by the anti-choice right. according to them basicly anything after 6 months is "partial birth"
secondly abortions performed in this time are rare but should always be availible to women
in my opinion you cant favor some forms of abortion without supporting all forms of abortions.
thats why i really hate anti-choicers who say it should only be legal in rape, incest or when the womens life is endangered. or in the case of the Attorney General people who oppose abortions in all cases including rape.

[Pete]

Ill never be pregnant, and all guys who are against abortion deserve to be castrated and fed their balls by those women's families who die from self-abortions in ally ways with a coat hanger.

[truthaddict11]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 11:34 am on May 30, 2003
Ill never be pregnant, and all guys who are against abortion deserve to be castrated and fed their balls by those women's families who die from self-abortions in ally ways with a coat hanger.

sounds like suitable punishment who should do the castration though?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Trained dogs with big teeth.

[Conghaileach]

No, women with rusty kitchen knives.

[Moskitto]

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 4:32 pm on May 30, 2003
first of all there is no such thing as "partial birth" abortions, the phrase itself is created by the anti-choice right. according to them basicly anything after 6 months is "partial birth"
secondly abortions performed in this time are rare but should always be availible to women
in my opinion you cant favor some forms of abortion without supporting all forms of abortions.
thats why i really hate anti-choicers who say it should only be legal in rape, incest or when the womens life is endangered. or in the case of the Attorney General people who oppose abortions in all cases including rape.


why would you need an abortion after 6 months? if you knew you wouldn't be able to take care of the child you would have the abortion earlier.

[Conghaileach]

Maybe there'd be some kind of emergency at around six months that could force a premature birth (through caesarian or whatever) or abortion. I doubt a baby after six months could survive outside the womb.

[Moskitto]

6 months they could, I know several people who have survived after 6 months, one of them plays rugby for England.

[Conghaileach]

I suppose that they would have required special medical attention when they were first born.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Moskitto on 8:57 pm on May 31, 2003
6 months they could, I know several people who have survived after 6 months, one of them plays rugby for England.


Yes I know a guy who was 21/2 months premature, he had to stay in an Incubator for a few months ater he was born though.

[truthaddict11]

when i was talking about after 6 months i mean that the current "partial-birth" bans that are happening will virtualy stop a women from having an abortion after this period regardless of the situation, as i stated much earlier in this thread about the couple who had a later term abortion for the good of thier child who would suffer severly if born and wouldnt live past a few weeks.

[Moskitto]

if the baby will not survive when it is born then there is nothing wrong with aborting after such a period, but just randomly saying oooh, i don't think i really want a child anymore or oooh, the finances don't work, well you've had 6 months to come to that conclusion.

[truthaddict11]

i am sure most women would have made up thier minds by 6 months, anyways most abortions are performed in the first trimester so the later term abortions are usually performed if there are complications

[RedFW]

I think the ACLU, Feminist Majority Foundation as well as Planned Parenthood have all argued that there is simply no evidence that women are phoning up family planning centres or their doctors after six months into the pregnancy asking for an abortion unless they have learned of health risks to themselves or of the potential suffering of a fetus if carried to term. The people who wrote this bill have yet to provide any evidence that supports such a claim.

And I don't think the people who wrote the bill really believed this was the case anyway. In fact, the language of the bill would not have been so vague as to include the safest abortion procedure for women whose lives are in danger, if they continue with a pregnancy, in the earlier stages if this were true.

And let's not forget that 'partial-birth abortion' is not a medical term but one coined by the pro-life lobby to assist them in demonising women. The more women are made to look 'hysterical', impetuous and unable to make the decision to carry a pregnancy to term without the aid of the pro-life lobby, the sooner the pro-life lobby can make those decisions for them. And once public opinion of women and their ability to make decisions related to controlling their fertility reaches its absolute lowest, safe, legal abortion will no longer exist.

[truthaddict11]

right on Red FW the anti-choicers fill the world with phrases like "partial birth abortion" and thier illustrations of this abortion in order to "scare" people into not having an abortion. sadly congress had passed a bill banning "partial birth abortions" which will make it almost open season on abortion all together.:(

[sglb]

every woman should have the right to choose about abortion, especially in overpopulated/third world countries. I dont think the theory of communism denies abortion rights.

[Mazzen]

Greetings, comrades. I did not read the whole thread. However, I would like to comment that I'm about as left as they come and I am totally against abortion. I could have been a victim of abortion, but thank goodness that my mother wasn't selfish and believed that she didn't have the right to take my life away from me though I was still in the womb. She was in a difficult situation too. I've known about this my whole life, but everyday I thank all the goodness in the world that I'm alive and not aborted...I've come to appreciatte it even more now that I'm an adult. I don't care what the woman wants. I definately think the woman...AND MAN...should think about something before they do it. I know that most of the responsibility lays on the woman...hell, it's true in my life. My folks got divorced when I was like four or five and my dad stopped paying child support for me and eventually stopped seeing me...and he gets away with it b/c he's not a resident of this country...that's way off topic. Anyway, things should be thought about and actions considered. I don't care what kind of a situation the woman's in...that's no excuse. My mother went to school full time and work full time and raised me and my two brothers ALONE...and maintained a 4.0 average. If she can do that....struggle or not...there's no reason that a child/fetus/whathaveyou should suffer/die b/c of the actions of their parent(s). To me, abortion is complete and total bullshit. Give the child up for adoption after birth...but these children don't deserve death. What if they could make such an impact on this world...and the mother and us(society) fuck it up b/c we say the woman "has the right to choose". That dead fetus could have been the man or woman to find the cure to cancer. That fetus could have been the man or woman that would be a model communist and great revolutionary..no matter what that fetus would have become...we have no right to take it's life away...fuck that. I'll even say something that a lot of right wing'ed fucks have said...Abortion is murder. There, I said it. If I get banned...then fuck it b/c that's my opinion.

[truthaddict11]

how is abortion selfish? Because a women doesnt want to have a child at that time its being selfish?

i have heard this argument many times too about the "potential" of a fetus. it really doesnt matter what goddamned "potential".it is not our responsablilty to raise a communist youth army. it has it is a choice the women should make. so if you are really against abortion (as i have stated in the other thread only those who have come out opposed to abortion are MALE) then the best thing is to find a girl who agrees with you and dont have abortions.


I don't care what the woman wants.
pretty much sums up what the anti-choice junta feel
i am really sad about this so many "communists" you think it is ok to deny women control of thier bodies

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 1:25 am on June 11, 2003
how is abortion selfish? Because a women doesnt want to have a child at that time its being selfish?

i have heard this argument many times too about the "potential" of a fetus. it really doesnt matter what goddamned "potential".it is not our responsablilty to raise a communist youth army. it has it is a choice the women should make. so if you are really against abortion (as i have stated in the other thread only those who have come out opposed to abortion are MALE) then the best thing is to find a girl who agrees with you and dont have abortions.


I don't care what the woman wants.
pretty much sums up what the anti-choice junta feel
i am really sad about this so many "communists" you think it is ok to deny women control of thier bodies


Now I'm pro-choice however I think Abortion is morally wrong

however I don't think that a woman should have an abortion because she "doesn't feel like having a baby right now."


If she is destitue and doesn't have the resources to raise the baby, or can't find someone who could take the baby, if she was raped, etc.


Those are reasons for abortion


but not feeling like it sure as hell isn't

[truthaddict11]

ok but do you still believe she should have that protective right to have an abortion if she did not want a child at that time?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 1:53 am on June 11, 2003
ok but do you still believe she should have that protective right to have an abortion if she did not want a child at that time?

I'm conflicted...but yes she should still retain that right, if she wants an abortion she should be able to have one

though in my opinion she is abusing the system which is intended to help out those with no choice

[truthaddict11]

how is it abuse of the system? I see abortion as a way of women having control over thier bodies.

[Sasafrás]

Well, as country black folk down South always say: "If ya ass didn't want a baby, you shouldn't have opened ya damn legs." :)

Ain't that the truth...

I'm in the middle on the abortion issue, by the way, but I am more against it, I should say.

[Mazzen]

I agree w/ La Rainbeaux. I, too, am from the south. That doesn't make me a redneck, a rightwinger, or a bible toter. I, actually, stand alone in a rightwing'ed community. However, I don't see how y'all can make it about a woman's choice. The real issue isn't about her choice. It's about her taking another life. To take another life is murder...plain and fuckin' simple. I don't think it can get any clearer than that. You can quote me all you would like....but I really don't care what the woman wants. The decision shouldn't be layed in her hands. What about before abortion was an option?...Just b/c abortion is now an option...doesn't mean that it should be taken. I might be a little more aggressive on this issue since I was DAMN CLOSE to being a victim of abortion myself. I'm glad as hell that I'm not aborted...and I'm glad that my mother, as a strong, independent woman, was making her OWN decision when she decided to take care of me and suffer the consequences of her actions. It shouldn't be labeled as a punishment, but a lot of the times it is for women like my mother. Do you think it was easy for her to give up a career in law to take care of a child?...Do you think it was easy for her to do it alone?...I could pose these questions all day, but the bottom line is that ABORTION IS MURDER. Fuck "pro-choice"...the fact of the matter is that this so-called choice shouldn't even be in the hands of the state, the mother, a doctor....anyone. It's not something that human beings were meant to have the ability to do. Like I said, If the woman doesn't "feel like having a baby"...then she should have first of all thought of what she was doing when the baby was conceived. There you go, if the woman doesn't "feel like having a baby" then she shouldn't be having unprotected sex and whatnot. If she fails to do HERSELF that duty...then she should then give up the LIFE for adoption and not be SELFISH and take life away that is NOT HERS TO TAKE AWAY. I'll go on all day if I don't just damn post...damn. Very touchy issue, and I know my side...so I'll get off my damn soap box.

[RedFW]

I was hoping this particular thread would be abandoned for the more active one in 'Politics'.

Instead of quoting you or La Rainbeaux, I think it would be easier for either of you to quote me. I have put a lot of time into the other thread recently, and I am not up to retyping everything again. I think the points both of you have made have been addressed in both threads. If there is something specific that has been said, which you disagree with, please indicate why, and I will be happy to respond.

[redstar2000]

Well, as country black folk down South always say: "If ya ass didn't want a baby, you shouldn't have opened ya damn legs."

Gives you an insight, doesn't it, into what Marx was talking about when he referred to "the muck of rural idiocy".

I, too, am from the south. That doesn't make me a redneck, a rightwinger, or a bible toter.

You could have fooled me, especially judging by the general tone of your post and the more or less vehement hatred of women expressed in it.

...but I really don't care what the woman wants.

I dare say she is not losing any sleep over your opinion either.

What about before abortion was an option?

Ruling class women went to civilized countries and had safe abortions. Working class women went to quacks and butchers and died. Like to see the "good old days" back again, would you?

I might be a little more aggressive on this issue since I was DAMN CLOSE to being a victim of abortion myself.

Bad luck for us, I guess.

I could pose these questions all day, but the bottom line is that ABORTION IS MURDER. Fuck "pro-choice"...the fact of the matter is that this so-called choice shouldn't even be in the hands of the state, the mother, a doctor....anyone. It's not something that human beings were meant to have the ability to do.

"...meant to have the ability to do"? That sounds like a line from a 1950s B-fllm...There are things man was not meant to know, blah, blah, blah.

Meant by who?

I'll go on all day if I don't just damn post...damn. Very touchy issue, and I know my side...so I'll get off my damn soap box.

And stay off???

I know your side all too well...the outraged male who thinks pregnancy is a woman's "fault". Why? "Well, she's a damn woman, ain't she?"

The monumental gall of men who think they have the right to control the fertility of women never ceases to astound me.

Who the hell do you bastards think you are?

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:24 am on June 13, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Any anti-abortion MEN. Would you make self harm illegal of women Illegal?

Does a woman not have the right to do what she wants to her body, if she chooses to have an abourtion she is only harming part of her body. Until that Phetus is born it is completely reliant on its mother for every thing it is not even alive any more than a canser. If the woman chooses it to be removed that is her issue, the phetus is not capable of survival until it is born, so the question must be asked are you taking life or potentail. If you are only taking potential then how does it differ from contraception.

[truthaddict11]

Quote: from AK47 on 7:42 am on June 13, 2003
Any anti-abortion MEN. Would you make self harm illegal of women Illegal?

Does a woman not have the right to do what she wants to her body, if she chooses to have an abourtion she is only harming part of her body. Until that Phetus is born it is completely reliant on its mother for every thing it is not even alive any more than a canser. If the woman chooses it to be removed that is her issue, the phetus is not capable of survival until it is born, so the question must be asked are you taking life or potentail. If you are only taking potential then how does it differ from contraception.

Well look at the posts in the abortion threads 99% of the "leftists" here opposed to giving women a choice and who are feverently anti-abortion are in fact men. I started a thread on this a long time ago about abortion and the "pro-life" is just an excuse to control women. unforntunatly it is MIA in Politics perhaps when the new server is up I can locate it.

[GWF]

Abortion is in my -opinion- good, cause if you're 17 or so it ain't nice to have a baby to take care off, and poor people will become ever more poor because of the baby,
And abortion isn't really murder, cause the little baby can't think and feel already at that point, and if it was murder than mastrubation is murder too.

[Communist Superhero]

All women should have the right to terminate their pregnancies. Once again religion has created a schism between the working class. A division of morality between us all. Every human being has the right to choose how to live their lives. It isnt anyones responisbility to say whether it is murder or not, it is peoples resposibility, the workers responsibility to stand side by side with those women, who some are having to have abortions because of poverty, or becaue of rape, in solidarity and compassion and support each other, instead of burdening each other with these shitty moral questions which actually dont have anything to do with us!

[mentalbunny]

Well this reply doesn't cover anything about why you should think abortion is good or bad, personally I don't like it, but it is a necessary evil.

Consider if abortion was illegal again, what would happen? It's basically a law for the rich and a different law for the poor, a little like the situaiton in northern Nigeria where rich people can pay of the judges so when their unmarried daughters ge pregnant they won't be sentenced to death by stoning. We don't want a situation like that. I would feel better about the whole thing if people were more careful in the first place but abortion has to be there as a non-profit part of the health care system, rpeferably accompanied by counselling if the mother needs it as aboritonm can be pretty traumatic.

An improved adoption system would also help the situation and mean that less women would feel the need for abotions. I know that I'd rather have my child adopted than aborted. If people stopped spending large amounts on fertility treatment and considered all the parentless children already int eh world then it would be much better.

[Sandanista]

Id say that abortion was wrong but i am pro-choice, i just wouldnt want my gf to have one

[Communist Superhero]

"An improved adoption system would also help the situation and mean that less women would feel the need for abotions"

I dont think it is a question of improved adoption systems. If mothers wanted their children to be adopted, then there is nothing to stop them from doing it now. Some mothers may have been rapped, some may not want to have the pain of knowing that there child is somewhere in the world, that is why women must be able to have the right of abortion without any kind of moral or social repercussions!

I think discussing it the way we are also has a negative effect on womens right to have abortions. The pain and heartache one must go through making such a decision, can not be helped by people like us throwing up the question of whether it is morally acceptable.

[mentalbunny]

No, I think the adoption system is in a mess, although I don't know the facts, and adoption has a really bad image, pregnant women often don't really see it as a possibility.

[kidicarus20]

Cuba's abortions are covered under the sociailized health care plan.

http://www.cs-journal.org/lll1/lll1politics1.html

Good for them... They have been legal since 1965, I wonder if batista or whatever his name was allowed them?

[Mazzen]

Redstar...you insulted me, plain and simple. I didn't expect personal attack when I merely expressed my views and made criticisms on an ideal level..not a personal one. I think that when you have the nerve to insult a person...then you're showing your own insecurity and idiocy. Make an intelligent arguement. Don't make this personal. Personal arguement and whatnot makes your style of debate extremely sloppy b/c it has no place in formal debate. I, also, didn't expect a comrade to more or less tell me that he'd/she'd wished that I'd been aborted. You don't even know me and you say you know where I'm coming from, but you don't. You're just taking my arguement and confusing it for all the right wing'ed jargon and whatnot. You'd better realize whose side I'm on. I'm not the enemy and that is my opinion that abortion shouldn't be allowed. The others made good arguements and expanded my horizons and way(s) of thinking and made me a little more sympathetic towards those that choose abortion. Kudos to those that made their point(s) in a respectable way and didn't insult me as a person. Redstar...it takes an adult to control their words and what comes out when they express an idea and they would wish to make it seem like an intelligent arguement especially if they're presenting it to a person that sees it a different way. All in all, you just need to grow up a little bit, redstar. I'm very disappointed in your lack of maturity concerning the matter. I still feel strongly that abortion is wrong, but you didn't have to make an ass of yourself disagreeing with me. Did any of the others?...no. Why not? Because they have respect for me and themselves. You needn't make enemies with those that strive to achieve the similar goals as yourself. Don't make me an enemy. When people disagree on a topic..you shouldn't make it a childish arguement, but a learning experience. It seems that I stand alone here on my support for pro-life. I'm comfortable with that. but please. Do not make me an enemy b/c we disagree on one issue(so far). I'm new here and I've been looking for an internet community for a long time that would share the same ideals that I do. Please do not ruin it for me...and the others. We can learn a lot with one another. Well, that's basically all I have to say right now. Chao.

[Moskitto]

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 2:03 am on June 11, 2003
how is it abuse of the system? I see abortion as a way of women having control over thier bodies.


if you don't want a child at that time you can take the pill, and if you want to be even safer your partner can wear a condom as well. sex-conceive-abort is a pretty good way of messing up your whole reproductive system.

[mentalbunny]

Yes Moskitto, but people don't really understand this, sex education is really bad right now, teachers are generally too embarrased to really talk about it.

This is a related topic: at my school, which is co-ed, we have a "6 inch rule" which nmeans if teachers see pupils holding hands/hugging/kissing/etc then they can punish them, people have had 6 hour detentions (3+3, not 6 all in one go) just for having their arms round each other. You can imagine how angry this makes me, we're all going to end up repressed and twisted.

[redstar2000]

You're just taking my arguement and confusing it for all the right wing'ed jargon and whatnot.

Your "arguments" were "right wing'ed jargon".

I'm new here and I've been looking for an internet community for a long time that would share the same ideals that I do.

It's not merely a matter of "sharing ideals". Do you think that it matters what people think?

If you do, then you cannot be surprised at vehement opposition here to what is perceived as a reactionary position.

Consider a different issue: suppose you came here and said "I'm for socialism but meanwhile I think the U.S.-British invasion and occupation of Iraq is a good thing". Do you imagine that people would react to such a statement by saying "well, he's for socialism, so let's just overlook his teeny little mistake about U.S. imperialism".

You took it upon yourself to write a passionate post against women's reproductive freedom, going so far as to say "I don't really care what the woman thinks." Your words!

Can you really claim to be "surprised" at an equally vehement response...and keep a straight face?

I've noticed at Che-Lives that there are "newbies" and there are "newbies". Anyone who comes here and asks questions, even very naive and "dumb" questions, will always be welcomed and given a respectful response.

But someone who comes here with a political agenda better have a very good one...otherwise, the flamethrowers will be brought out.

If you want "happy talk" with little criticism, try the Chit-Chat or Lounge forums. In the serious forums, people take ideas seriously.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:40 pm on June 16, 2003)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 2:03 am on June 11, 2003
how is it abuse of the system? I see abortion as a way of women having control over thier bodies.



If the woman knew she didn't want to have a baby she should have used protection.

Abortion is not contraception. It isn't her being able to control her own body it's her being lazy.


She is abusing a system and procedure for those who really need it.


A destitute woman needs to get an abortion

A woman who goes out and sleeps with a different guy every night and gets an abortion everytime she gets pregnant is abusing the system

[redstar2000]

A woman who goes out and sleeps with a different guy every night and gets an abortion everytime she gets pregnant is abusing the system.

The old "some women are sluts" argument, again? I really thought you had learned better by now.

How about this response: women have a right to be "sluts" if they want to be...and have a safe and inexpensive or free abortion as often as they wish.

How many times does it have to be repeated: women have the absolute right to practice their sexuality any damn way they please.

If you personally don't like "sluts", fine. Don't have sex with any of them.

Otherwise, it's none of your business!

:cool:

[anti machine]

God. Such conflict. Such a dividing line right through this message board.

I do believe there isn't much logic to the motto: it's the woman's body, it's the woman's choice.

Suppose I wished to mutilate myself? Cut myself on my arms, maybe take a knife to my eyeball? It's my body, is it not? No no, i would be institutionalized. Suppose I expressed a desire to kill myself? There are wanted posters issued by the police to track down suicides and "rehabilitate them".

These are all the effects of a hypocritical system. I can't kill myself, let some blood every one and a while, or, hell, cut off my balls, but I can abort a child?

I don't necessarily disagree with any of the above actions. I simply state that if the U.S. condones one of them, they have to allow for all of them. These are OUR bodies. We can do with them as WE please.

[anti machine]

redstar-just curious. are you a chick?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:52 am on June 17, 2003
A woman who goes out and sleeps with a different guy every night and gets an abortion everytime she gets pregnant is abusing the system.

The old "some women are sluts" argument, again? I really thought you had learned better by now.

How about this response: women have a right to be "sluts" if they want to be...and have a safe and inexpensive or free abortion as often as they wish.

How many times does it have to be repeated: women have the absolute right to practice their sexuality any damn way they please.

If you personally don't like "sluts", fine. Don't have sex with any of them.

Otherwise, it's none of your business!

:cool:



Please tell me where I forbid women to practice promiscuity if they feel the need to....



I said a person who does that is abusing the system and they are. THey don't need an abortion. Tell me why do they need an abortion?


Shit I can get a cast put on my leg even if it's not broken. I'm abusing the system.


I can go to a food drive and take some cans even if I have a fridge full of food, I'm abusing the system.


It's abusing the system plain and simple.


They don't need the abortions, unless you can tell me why they need one.

And they sure as hell don't deserve one.

I never said they couldn't,or that they don't have a right to.


I'm just saying it's wrong, it's abusing the system, and those women who do that are stealing the time of women who really can't afford to have a baby.


THis isn't about freedom, it's about laziness

[truthaddict11]

Quote: from Moskitto on 7:11 pm on June 16, 2003

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 2:03 am on June 11, 2003
how is it abuse of the system? I see abortion as a way of women having control over thier bodies.


if you don't want a child at that time you can take the pill, and if you want to be even safer your partner can wear a condom as well. sex-conceive-abort is a pretty good way of messing up your whole reproductive system.


i think lardlad was talking about "the system" as in government

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 1:56 am on June 17, 2003

Quote: from Moskitto on 7:11 pm on June 16, 2003

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 2:03 am on June 11, 2003
how is it abuse of the system? I see abortion as a way of women having control over thier bodies.


if you don't want a child at that time you can take the pill, and if you want to be even safer your partner can wear a condom as well. sex-conceive-abort is a pretty good way of messing up your whole reproductive system.


i think lardlad was talking about "the system" as in government


kinda...you were closer to itthan he was

The system being the system set up for abortions

The medical system, etc.

[redstar2000]

redstar-just curious. are you a chick?

Would it matter? Even if I wore a t-shirt that said Proud to be a SLUT...?

THis isn't about freedom, it's about laziness

Um, make that Proud to be a LAZY SLUT!

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 3:09 am on June 17, 2003
redstar-just curious. are you a chick?

Would it matter? Even if I wore a t-shirt that said Proud to be a SLUT...?

THis isn't about freedom, it's about laziness

Um, make that Proud to be a LAZY SLUT!

:cool:


If you are gonna be promiscuous atleast use protection, don't kill some unborn child because you couldn't pay 75 cent in a truck stop to buy a rubber.


Now if you can't afford to raise a child ok then get an abortion


but if you are too damn cheap it's your own fault

[apathy maybe]

Suppose I wished to mutilate myself? Cut myself on my arms, maybe take a knife to my eyeball? It's my body, is it not?

Yes it is your body. Your life.
[quote]
These are all the effects of a hypocritical system. I can't kill myself, let some blood every one and a while, or, hell, cut off my balls, but I can abort a child?

that is hypocritical don't you think. People are put in jail for murder of a 6 month old fetus. And yet not for a 1 month old fetus.
[quote[
I don't necessarily disagree with any of the above actions. I simply state that if the U.S. condones one of them, they have to allow for all of them. These are OUR bodies. We can do with them as WE please.

Your should be allowed to kill yourself or mutilate your self. But I think we all agree that peaple should not be allowed to kill or mutilate other people. Fetuses are people too.
We should draw the line at contraception not after.

[redstar2000]

Fetuses are people too.

Then so are fish! Fetuses will, if left unmolested, become people. Fish will evolve into people too...it just takes a few hundred million years longer.

Had fish for dinner this evening?

Murderer!

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 11:17 pm on June 16, 2003)

[Hesh]

I agree with lardlad95. I a child isn't desired, then do what is in your power to avoid impregnation. It would be cheaper, and morally sound to some. However, though this may sound cold, if the parent cannot support the child in its life, I believe an abortion may be humane when compared to a potentially miserable life.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Hesh on 7:29 am on June 17, 2003
I agree with lardlad95. I a child isn't desired, then do what is in your power to avoid impregnation. It would be cheaper, and morally sound to some. However, though this may sound cold, if the parent cannot support the child in its life, I believe an abortion may be humane when compared to a potentially miserable life.


Exactley. If you don't want a baby go the cheaper route and get contraception.

You would be saving yourself alot of money and it wouldn't destroy a potential person.


If you are incapable of supporting a child then you must do what is in the child's well being.

It's better nnot to exist than to starve to death in a cold dark house not sure when mom is going to come home

[anti machine]

sorry redstar...i figured that, in light of the condemnation of men who oppose abortion because they are MALES, it would be interesting to know YOUR sex, as you are very adament in your belief in pro-choice.

[anti machine]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 5:15 am on June 17, 2003
Fetuses are people too.

Then so are fish! Fetuses will, if left unmolested, become people. Fish will evolve into people too...it just takes a few hundred million years longer.

Had fish for dinner this evening?

Murderer!

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 11:17 pm on June 16, 2003)


This is crossing into an absurd realm. Fish are not conceived via human beings. human beings are. We can enter into that age old debate about WHERE LIFE BEGINS, but comparing fish to fetuses simply won't cut it.

Is a fetus only a possiblity for a human life? Or is it human itself? A woman should be able to do with her body as she wishes-fine, agreed. But when does a child cease to become part of her body? Is it ever HER BODY.

To claim a child in the womb as part of the woman's body doesn't make logical sense. DOes it become an individual once it exits the vagina? WHen the doctor spanks it, life begins?

[Moskitto]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 5:15 am on June 17, 2003
Fetuses are people too.

Then so are fish! Fetuses will, if left unmolested, become people. Fish will evolve into people too...it just takes a few hundred million years longer.

Had fish for dinner this evening?

Murderer!

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 11:17 pm on June 16, 2003)


While I hate to argue against you in this discussion, you are wrong.

individual fish do not evolve into humans, the species may evolve into a species like humans. An individual fetus will grow into a human, there is a difference between the 2.

And abortions do mess up your reproductive system if you have too many.

And sleeping with a different guy/girl every night without protection is probably one of the more stupid things you can do, a stable relationship would give the infrastructure to raise children if wanted and make sensible reproductive decisions.

[mentalbunny]

Well self harm and suicide should not be unnacceptable, but seen as signs that the person needs help in some way, and if they continue to "rationally" say that they want to die and will die then fair enough. That might sound callous but I can see why many people would rather die than live and who are we to keep them here?

I have to agree with Lardlad, there has to be limits on abortion otherwise we could be encouraging "immoral behaviour2. I know I'm starting to sound like the Pope or someone but I think it is important to bear in mind other people, and promiscuity doesn't do anyone any good in the long run. it might be fun and not cause too much harm but it doesn't really bring any goodness in the world because it's all about selfish desires. I hate to sound puritanical, since I'd be a hypacrite if I said no one should ever have a one night stnad, but excessive promiscuity just fucks you up. So it should be clear that the system will not condone this kind of behaviour and you have to suffer the consequences if you get pregnant and there is a possibility of you at least giving birth to the child even if you don't keep it after that.

Sorry I'm not really making any sense, I just really dislike promiscuity because it's very damaging and encourages people to be selfish in other ways, it's a product of capitalism :wink:

[redstar2000]

This is crossing into an absurd realm.

Yes it is...deliberately so. The assertion that a foetus is a "person" is, in my view, equally absurd...and I reached for the most absurd parallel that I could.

People live outside the womb; foetuses can't. They are not "people".

And abortions do mess up your reproductive system if you have too many.

Is that so? Have studies ever been published on the subject? How were the subjects located? What was the criterion for "too many"? And what was the measure of "messed up".

I could be wrong, of course, but it seems to me that this is one of those "factoids" that "everybody knows" without any effort to actually learn the truth of the matter. There's a lot of that sort of thing going around these days.

And sleeping with a different guy/girl every night without protection is probably one of the more stupid things you can do, a stable relationship would give the infrastructure to raise children if wanted and make sensible reproductive decisions.

Stupid? Perhaps. But some people nevertheless choose to live that way, putting immediate pleasure ahead of long-range consequences.

I'm well aware that this approach to life does not commend itself to you...but what are the practical consequences of your views?

If you want to sniff your victorian disapproval and walk on, that's ok with me. If you want to "punish" those people that you disapprove of, that's another matter entirely.

...a stable relationship would give the infrastructure to raise children if wanted and make sensible reproductive decisions.

Well, maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't. But we are talking here about women who want to preserve their access to safe abortion if needed and men who want to deprive them of that.

You would appear to be hinting that multiple abortions should be "discouraged" in some fashion because 1. it may permanently impair a woman's ability to carry a pregnancy to term (a "violation" of her "primary" responsibility); and 2. it encourages the avoidance of "stable relationships".

Do I misread what you are saying here?

If you don't want a baby go the cheaper route and get contraception.

And if the contraception fails? As has been endlessly repeated in these threads on abortion, contraception is not 100 per cent effective. The means vary in effectiveness but all of them approach 99% -- that's not the same as 100%.

Consider a population sample of 20,000,000 sexually active fertile women. All of them are using the best contraceptive known (whatever it might be)...with a proven effectiveness of 99%. That tiny little 1% number results in the need for 200,000 safe abortions.

I know what some of you guys will be saying: "these damn women should quit fucking around so much."

Yeah, right.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 4:46 pm on June 17, 2003)

[Eastside Revolt]

Personally, I think that a meeting a woman you hardly know and flukishly ending-up having a child with her is a beautiful thing. However, if it going to make a horrible life for that child then you should definitly abort. If you or your community can afford to raise that child then you should do it.

[Moskitto]

Is that so? Have studies ever been published on the subject? How were the subjects located? What was the criterion for "too many"? And what was the measure of "messed up".

There are few women having multiple abortions, studies would have to be done on statistically insignificant samples.

I could be wrong, of course, but it seems to me that this is one of those "factoids" that "everybody knows" without any effort to actually learn the truth of the matter. There's a lot of that sort of thing going around these days.

The female body is an extremely complex system which goes through some many changes through pregancy and lactation, cutting off a pregnancy before completion affects the hormone balance, just like the after morning pill, however like the morning after pill, 1 abortion does not cause lasting harm, however using abortion as your primary method of contraception is likely to.

Stupid? Perhaps. But some people nevertheless choose to live that way, putting immediate pleasure ahead of long-range consequences.

yep, some people choose to live like that, that's fine by me but i prefer to think about my actions a little more than they do.

I'm well aware that this approach to life does not commend itself to you...but what are the practical consequences of your views?

well, I get 1 partner in a stable relationship where everyone is in agreement about custody of children and i have no STDs, and get sex with the same person who i know how to pleasure and they know how to pleasure me, whereas an unprotected promiscuous lifestyle is likely to cause STDs, and you having lots of children in places you've never heard of and you have lots of partners who are so busy pleasuring other people that they can't quite remember how to pleasure you and you can't quite remember how to pleasure them.

If you want to sniff your victorian disapproval and walk on, that's ok with me. If you want to "punish" those people that you disapprove of, that's another matter entirely.

Of course, that's why I was planning of living with someone who suggests getting a condom machine for our house.

Well, maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't. But we are talking here about women who want to preserve their access to safe abortion if needed and men who want to deprive them of that.

Not neccesarily the case, some men may want their partner to have an abortion to rid themselves of the legal burden of child support costs, whereas some women may favour keeping a child because they want a baby, or would not consider an abortion for personal reasons, or in extremely rare cases to "teach the father a lesson"

You would appear to be hinting that multiple abortions should be "discouraged" in some fashion because 1. it may permanently impair a woman's ability to carry a pregnancy to term (a "violation" of her "primary" responsibility); and 2. it encourages the avoidance of "stable relationships".

Do I misread what you are saying here?

No, I am discouraging women from having multiple abortions because 1. It damages the female reproductive system in the ways mentioned above 2. If a woman doesn't want children now she can use temporary contraception and if she never wants children she should have the right to a safe no-quibble sterilisation proceedure.

And if the contraception fails? As has been endlessly repeated in these threads on abortion, contraception is not 100 per cent effective. The means vary in effectiveness but all of them approach 99% -- that's not the same as 100%.

Abstinance is the most effective form of contraception at 100% effectiveness, followed by sterilisation, however, I don't think we need to begin discussing the stupidity of promoting abstinance as the sole method of contraception, or encouraging people to have themselves sterilised as the only way.

Consider a population sample of 20,000,000 sexually active fertile women. All of them are using the best contraceptive known (whatever it might be)...with a proven effectiveness of 99%. That tiny little 1% number results in the need for 200,000 safe abortions.

I would nit-pick and point out that it would actually be around 50,000, unless you're talking about sex every day, but i'll be right back...

Yes contraception does fail, that is why there must be access to safe, innexpensive and legal abortion, however the choice between a condom which will most likely work if i use it properly for £2 and a surgical proceedure costing hundreds, if not thousands, as my first choice for contraception, I would choose the condom because that £2 would most likely mean I don't have relatives and other fools going "OMG you sick fucker, having sex with that girl" and generally cause more trouble than £2.

...now back to where I was, sperm can only survive for 7 days in the womb at an absolute maximum, since the menstrual cycle is 28 days and ovulation occurs on day 14, there is only 1/4 of the menstrual cycle where conception can occur so unless all the cycles are synchronised (which is a very cruel and oppressive thing to do to women,) only approximately 1/4 of the 200,000 will become pregnant, making 50,000, following this you need to look at demographic factors which would probably reduce the figure lower still.

[anti machine]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 10:24 pm on June 17, 2003
Well self harm and suicide should not be unnacceptable, but seen as signs that the person needs help in some way, and if they continue to "rationally" say that they want to die and will die then fair enough. That might sound callous but I can see why many people would rather die than live and who are we to keep them here?


agreed 100%

[RedFW]

The female body is an extremely complex system which goes through some many changes through pregancy and lactation, cutting off a pregnancy before completion affects the hormone balance, just like the after morning pill, however like the morning after pill, 1 abortion does not cause lasting harm, however using abortion as your primary method of contraception is likely to.

Where are you getting this from, Moskitto?

And if it does affect the hormones, how is this any more dangerous than taking Depo-provera or the pill (not including mifepristone) for an extended period of time, which affect the hormones?

More to the point, there are women who repeatedly miscarry every time the get pregnant. I have heard of no danger to their health, and I would suspect their hormone levels would rise and drop with each pregnancy and miscarriage. Assuming the information you provided is true, then I would expect women who miscarry to also be at risk for whatever 'harm' a flux of hormones will cause them.

There are few women having multiple abortions, studies would have to be done on statistically insignificant samples.

Where are you getting this from?

Redstar:Well, maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't. But we are talking here about women who want to preserve their access to safe abortion if needed and men who want to deprive them of that.

Moskitto: Not neccesarily the case, some men may want their partner to have an abortion to rid themselves of the legal burden of child support costs, whereas some women may favour keeping a child because they want a baby, or would not consider an abortion for personal reasons, or in extremely rare cases to "teach the father a lesson"

What do you mean 'not necessarily'? Your scenarios are neither here nor there, and you have excluded more reasons for abortion than you have included.

And I notice you describe men wanting women to abort as escaping 'legal burden' while the women you describe who want abortions, even if it is as you say 'extremely rare', are relegated to the impetuous, less logical and emotionally unstable by wanting one to 'teach the father a lesson'. And for the less rare, you describe women as wanting abortion for 'personal reasons' as if this is somehow different to the reason you described some men wanting their wives and girlfriends to have abortions.

I think this thread and the one in 'Politics' contain quite a lot of comments from men who do not want women to have access to safe, legal abortion; regardless of the reasons women would or do choose abortion. Of course, there are women who would also like to see other women 'punished' by denying them access to safe, legal abortion; however, in this thread, and in the other, it becomes apparent that the ever present misogyny in the left is never so clear as when abortion is brought up.

No, I am discouraging women from having multiple abortions because 1. It damages the female reproductive system in the ways mentioned above 2. If a woman doesn't want children now she can use temporary contraception and if she never wants children she should have the right to a safe no-quibble sterilisation proceedure.

How is this different from Redstar's description? And you speak with much authority about the plight of the female body when exposed repeatedly to the hormonal changes caused by abortion, but you have provided no links or references.

And just because you say 'she can use temporary contraception' doesn't make 'temporary contraception' (I am assuming you mean condoms) any more reliable, and it does not address the need of women to have long-term contraception as women may not want children for 1-20 years and need contraception which they can be in control of, can use easily and can have access to cheaply or better yet, for free. 'Temporary contraception' is not putting women in control of their fertility or allowing them to 'take responsibility for their actions'. Long-term contraception will give them the best possible protection against an unplanned pregnancy. And when the best protection possible fails or is interfered with, and women are faced with an unplanned pregnancy safe, legal abortion needs to be one of the options women can consider.

And saying women 'should have the right to a safe no-quibble sterilisation proceedure' doesn't make such a right materialise.

Against my better judgement, I will share one of my experiences with 'temporary contraception'. I probably don't need any sort of contraception because my partner has had radiation therapy for Leukemia and it is unlikely that we will ever conceive together. When I decided to move here to be with him I realised that I could either not use anything or I could look into long-term contraception. I had heard too many stories about people who have received radiation therapy, thought they couldn't have children and then ended up conceiving. I knew that, for the time being, I didn't want another child, so I opted for long-term contraception. Fortunately, I was covered for another few months on my parents health insurance and was able to receive it. But as I was moving abroad and didn't expect to have any sort of healthcare coverage and if I did, I didn't know if contraception would be covered, so I needed contraception that would last until I could afford more. My partner has had to receive treatment related to the treatment he received for leukemia twice since I have lived here, each time for 6-12 months. We were told by his nurse for reasons I am still not totally clear about, that we would need to use condoms for the duration of the treatment plus six months. They insisted despite his radiation therapy and my IUD and the explanation was that if we did conceive there could be severe fetal deformation. What I have learned from this experience is that condoms are incredibly unreliable and are an inconvenient, expensive nuisance to any woman who wants to permanently control her reproductive capabilities. Long-term contraception is not cheap and is not available for the long-term to most women. And women who do move abroad or do not have health insurance have to be constantly worried about not getting pregnant, hoping when their contraception expires or is used up that they can find something else. And when they do get pregnant and cannot, for whatever reason, carry a pregnancy to term, abortion should be available. So, I find it (condoms/temporary contraception) an unacceptable substitution for long-term contraception and abortion.

(Edited by RedFW at 11:57 am on June 18, 2003)

[Moskitto]

Where are you getting this from, Moskitto?

And if it does affect the hormones, how is this any more dangerous than taking Depo-provera or the pill (not including mifepristone) for an extended period of time, which affect the hormones?

Pregnancy tends to cause entropy (the weightlifting term for masculinisation.) This effect is cancelled by female hormones under normal circumstances, this is why placenta hormones are banned substances in male athletes (a ban in female athletes would effectively be an unfair ban on pregnancy), aborting causes masculinisation which has a range of effects (refer to anti doping websites for details of symptoms.) Soviet athletes are believed to have used the conceive-abort method as a legal way for female athleres to develop muscle bulk.

The contaceptive pill causes the body to think it's pregnant, this is a normal thing for the body.

More to the point, there are women who repeatedly miscarry every time the get pregnant. I have heard of no danger to their health, and I would suspect their hormone levels would rise and drop with each pregnancy and miscarriage. Assuming the information you provided is true, then I would expect women who miscarry to also be at risk for whatever 'harm' a flux of hormones will cause them.

Women who miscarry generally miscarry for hormonal reasons rather than mechanical reasons, so the body has initiated the miscarriage. It is common for the body to need a "dummy run" before an actual pregnancy.

Where are you getting this from?

The number of women who have multiple abortions is not as great at those who have single abortions, most women who have a single abortions and don't want children generally get themselves sterilised.

What do you mean 'not necessarily'? Your scenarios are neither here nor there, and you have excluded more reasons for abortion than you have included.

These are reasons why men may support abortion and women may oppose abortion, this is to put light onto the myth that all women support abortion and all men oppose it, there's even a "feminists for life" site.

And I notice you describe men wanting women to abort as escaping 'legal burden' while the women you describe who want abortions, even if it is as you say 'extremely rare', are relegated to the impetuous, less logical and emotionally unstable by wanting one to 'teach the father a lesson'. And for the less rare, you describe women as wanting abortion for 'personal reasons' as if this is somehow different to the reason you described some men wanting their wives and girlfriends to have abortions.

where I live, if you father a child, you pay parental support whether you're married, in a long term relationship or just decided to fuck someone in a bar, men don't actually like this, therefore they would support an abortion as a way of escaping their legal obligation. A woman on the other hand may decide she actually wants to teach the father a lesson cos he got her pregnant, so she wants to keep the child so he would have to pay child support, it's not relegating the "woman to an emotionally unstable level" it's a simple expression of how the law works.

I think this thread and the one in 'Politics' contain quite a lot of comments from men who do not want women to have access to safe, legal abortion; regardless of the reasons women would or do choose abortion. Of course, there are women who would also like to see other women 'punished' by denying them access to safe, legal abortion; however, in this thread, and in the other, it becomes apparent that the ever present misogyny in the left is never so clear as when abortion is brought up.

I support access to safe and legal abortion, i would rather people didn't need to do it because we wouldn't end up with discussions like this, but i support the right to do it.

How is this different from Redstar's description? And you speak with much authority about the plight of the female body when exposed repeatedly to the hormonal changes caused by abortion, but you have provided no links or references.

Actually, the supposed "reasons" Redstar2000 assumed (his favourite arguement tactic) were that I saw women as baby machines who should be in stable relationships.

And just because you say 'she can use temporary contraception' doesn't make 'temporary contraception' (I am assuming you mean condoms) any more reliable

Do you support condom use or not?

People who complain that "Condoms aren't 100% effective" as a justification for not using them are rather stupid, "Fingers Crossed" as a contraceptive method is 0% effective, but not using contraception is basically the fingers crossed method, a condom is infinitely more effective as a contraceptive method, sure it's not 100% effective, but it's a lot better than no contraception.

and it does not address the need of women to have long-term contraception as women may not want children for 1-20 years and need contraception which they can be in control of, can use easily and can have access to cheaply or better yet, for free. 'Temporary contraception' is not putting women in control of their fertility or allowing them to 'take responsibility for their actions'.

There is something called the "Femidom" which is approved by UNAIDS for HIV/AIDS prevention in Africa simply because it is the only barrier method that women are in control of.

There is even a reusable panty condom/femidom which is 10% of the thickness of a condom and 5 times stronger.

Long-term contraception will give them the best possible protection against an unplanned pregnancy.

Yes, there is something else called the contraceptive pill which places control in the hands of the woman.

when the best protection possible fails or is interfered with, and women are faced with an unplanned pregnancy safe, legal abortion needs to be one of the options women can consider.

Of course, no one is argueing against abortion remaining legal, I'm just saying there are alternatives that would reduce the need for abortions. People shouldn't consider it their first choice for birth control.

And saying women 'should have the right to a safe no-quibble sterilisation proceedure' doesn't make such a right materialise.

Then by the same logic why are there any opposition politicians anywhere? Saying there should be a revolution to overthrow the bourgoise doesn't make one meterialise.

Women should have the right to be sterilised whenever they want, if a 20 year old man goes to a doctor and says "I want a vasectomy," the doctor simply sends him to a specialist who does the snip, and he's free to go. If a 20 year old woman goes and asks for her tubes to be tied, the doctor will innevitably argue, probably point to the risk of breast cancer of not having children. Women need the same rights as men regarding sterlisation.

Reading your story I think your doctor was misinforming you with your contraceptive choice, while it is true that radiation treatment or kemotherapy is likely to result in birth defects, condoms are however not your only choice, they are certainly the best choice for people practicing promiscuity, however since i'd assume you and your partner are practicing monogamy they are unneccessary and other methods are certainly more suitable. Although your story does reinforce my opinion that the US definitely needs a public healthcare system simpy to reduce the cost of all medical treatment.

[RedFW]

You haven't actually answered my questions, Moskitto.

Pregnancy tends to cause entropy (the weightlifting term for masculinisation.) This effect is cancelled by female hormones under normal circumstances, this is why placenta hormones are banned substances in male athletes (a ban in female athletes would effectively be an unfair ban on pregnancy), aborting causes masculinisation which has a range of effects (refer to anti doping websites for details of symptoms.) Soviet athletes are believed to have used the conceive-abort method as a legal way for female athleres to develop muscle bulk.

You haven't actually explained how a number of abortions are harmful to women. You have said that placenta hormones themselves are banned substances for male athletes but you have not remotely backed up what you said earlier about multiple abortions being harmful to women. Just because something is banned for men competing in athletics does not necessarily make it harmful to women. Indeed, I should think if there were any proven harm to women this would be exactly what the anti-choice lobby would need to see a final ban on abortion.

And I am also slightly confused because you say both pregnancy and abortion cause masculination. And then used the general statement 'under normal circumstances' the female body counters this, but you haven't actually provided any evidence of the inability of the female body to recover from the effect of masculination or any reference to studies that prove long-term harm to women who have more than one abortion.

The contaceptive pill causes the body to think it's pregnant, this is a normal thing for the body.

Is it? You were arguing that the hormonal flux of pregnancy and abortion were, if repeated, harmful to women. It isn't normal for the female body to think it is pregnant indefinitely, so this really does not answer my original question, which was how is this (abortion) any more dangerous than taking Depo-Provera or the pill for an extended period of time, which affect the hormones. And why is there no danger to women coming off of these as this would cause, especially if on one of these for a long period of time, a change in hormones.

Even though women are often defined as being women of because of their ability to become pregnant, women only spend a very small amount of their entire lives being pregnant.

Women who miscarry generally miscarry for hormonal reasons rather than mechanical reasons, so the body has initiated the miscarriage. It is common for the body to need a "dummy run" before an actual pregnancy.

This hasn't answered my question. Does it matter why women generally miscarry? The point is that women who miscarry will experience the same 'harmful' hormonal flux that women who receive abortions will. Your original assertion was that this flux if repeated several times could be harmful to women. So, if what you have said is true I would expect women who miscarry to be in danger as well, and women who miscarry certainly are not cautioned that another pregnancy ending in miscarrieage may be harmful their health.

The number of women who have multiple abortions is not as great at those who have single abortions, most women who have a single abortions and don't want children generally get themselves sterilised.

Source?

These are reasons why men may support abortion and women may oppose abortion, this is to put light onto the myth that all women support abortion and all men oppose it, there's even a "feminists for life" site.

But this has nothing to do with what Redstar posted. And it certainly isn't a myth I have heard, and I don't think that is what Redstar was getting at being a pro-choice man himself. I don't particularly care that there is a 'feminists for life' site. It really has nothing to do with this discussion. However, IMO, forcing women to be pregnant and disseminating myths about abortion to further one's political agenda isn't very feminist.

where I live, if you father a child, you pay parental support whether you're married, in a long term relationship or just decided to fuck someone in a bar, men don't actually like this, therefore they would support an abortion as a way of escaping their legal obligation. A woman on the other hand may decide she actually wants to teach the father a lesson cos he got her pregnant, so she wants to keep the child so he would have to pay child support, it's not relegating the "woman to an emotionally unstable level" it's a simple expression of how the law works.

Well, we only live about 30 minutes from each other, not on different planets.

You are conflating two things here. One is the law and the other is what you think are people's motivations for seeking abortions or encouraging their partners to have them. You may know the former, but you certainly don't know the latter.

By assigning a clear, logical and mature reason for men not wanting a partner to carry a pregnancy to term, to escape 'legal burden' and assigning impetuous, less logical and emotionally unstable reasons such as 'to teach the father a lesson' and 'personal reasons' assumes women cannot choose to carry a pregnancy to term simply because they want a child (a common reason) or that women who do choose to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term do so for financial gain, which are assumptions that denigrate women and the choices they make.

I support access to safe and legal abortion, i would rather people didn't need to do it because we wouldn't end up with discussions like this, but i support the right to do it.

That doesn't mean your responses or other member's who claim to love women and care about are any less imbued with misogyny. Whilst I am very glad you agree there is a need to give women to have access to safe, legal abortion, I think some of the remarks you have made about women and the decisions they may make are unfair, run-of-the-mill misogynist represenations.

Actually, the supposed "reasons" Redstar2000 assumed (his favourite arguement tactic) were that I saw women as baby machines who should be in stable relationships.


I have quoted you throughout, and I didn't think your views were misrepresented by Redstar.

Do you support condom use or not?

I don't support condom use as a viable alternative to long-term contraception or abortion.

People who complain that "Condoms aren't 100% effective" as a justification for not using them are rather stupid, "Fingers Crossed" as a contraceptive method is 0% effective, but not using contraception is basically the fingers crossed method, a condom is infinitely more effective as a contraceptive method, sure it's not 100% effective, but it's a lot better than no contraception.

You have obviously misunderstood everything I have posted regarding condoms, and I am very offended that after reading what I have posted about my experience with them you would even ask me some of these questions and argue against something I clearly was not saying. I thought instead of giving you some common scenario, I would give something I knew a lot more about, my own experience. I explained why we use condoms, and at no time did I even so much as suggest that condoms are so ineffective people would be better off not using them or any other contraception.

There is something called the "Femidom" which is approved by UNAIDS for HIV/AIDS prevention in Africa simply because it is the only barrier method that women are in control of.

There is even a reusable panty condom/femidom which is 10% of the thickness of a condom and 5 times stronger.

This is not long-term, affordable and convenient contraception for women, which is what women need.

Yes, there is something else called the contraceptive pill which places control in the hands of the woman.

And let's see how many women who want to prevent unplanned pregnancies can afford it or have it covered by their health insurance. Other medication can interfere with the contraceptive pill, which means women who are on it need to be told there is a chance it may fail if they are taking other medication, something that women are often not told. There are lots of better forms of contraception than the pill, but that isn't the point of this thread. The point is that women need to have access to safe, legal abortion as contraception isn't failsafe and not all women have access to long-term contraception. Women should not be punished and forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because contraception fails.

Of course, no one is argueing against abortion remaining legal, I'm just saying there are alternatives that would reduce the need for abortions. People shouldn't consider it their first choice for birth control.

Why shouldn't they? If they don't have access to long-term affordable birth control, then why shouldn't they? There is no one type of woman who seeks an abortion. Women seek them for different reasons. It really isn't anyone's business why they are seeking one or what type of contraception they were using at the time, or even whether they were using contraception. And maybe you are not arguing that but it is presently is presently under attack in the US, is banned in several countries and funding for family planning centres that can offer it, as well as alternatives, cheaply is being cut. In Britain, Life Pregnancy centres are popping up all over the place and SPUC is working very hard to gain support for a ban, the ultimate goal. But they are happy to settle, in the short term, for seeing abortive contraceptives and abortion no longer covered on the NHS (abortion is not available on demand on the NHS though it is available if the doctor agrees).

Then by the same logic why are there any opposition politicians anywhere? Saying there should be a revolution to overthrow the bourgoise doesn't make one meterialise.

What does this have to do with what I was saying? At least find something remotely related if you are going to criticise my logic. You saying there should be 'a no quibble policy' doesn't make one suddenly appear. You were saying you were discouraging women from having abortions because they could use 'temporary contraception' or they should have the right to a 'no quibble policy'. You presented both as being things women could actively seek, which, for most women, they are not. You cannot present sterilisation as a viable option when a 'no quibble policy' does not exist even if you think one 'should'. Well, you can, but it isn't a very credible argument.

Women should have the right to be sterilised whenever they want, if a 20 year old man goes to a doctor and says "I want a vasectomy," the doctor simply sends him to a specialist who does the snip, and he's free to go. If a 20 year old woman goes and asks for her tubes to be tied, the doctor will innevitably argue, probably point to the risk of breast cancer of not having children. Women need the same rights as men regarding sterlisation.

I completely agree. What I was disagreeing with was the way it was presented as something women could immediatly go out and get, when, even as you said, it isn't.

Reading your story I think your doctor was misinforming you with your contraceptive choice, while it is true that radiation treatment or kemotherapy is likely to result in birth defects, condoms are however not your only choice, they are certainly the best choice for people practicing promiscuity, however since i'd assume you and your partner are practicing monogamy they are unneccessary and other methods are certainly more suitable. Although your story does reinforce my opinion that the US definitely needs a public healthcare system simpy to reduce the cost of all medical treatment.

I was vague when I described my partner's treatment. He is receiving treatment for a problem that has arisen in relation to the bone marrow transplant he had when he was younger. He no longer has Leukemia, and is no longer receiving radiation therapy. This is a completely different problem though it developed directly from the treatment he received when he did have Leukemia.

I have been told by several specialists and nurses from two different hospitals on two separate occasions that if we conceived during his treatment fetal deformities could occur. I am startled that you would suggest I have been misinformed by doctors who have specialised and treated people with the same medication my husband is receiving. If you care to know, they are specialists at Great Ormond Street Hospital, which he has now been discharged from but received his first lot of treatment for this problem from, as well as his bone marrow transplant and UCLH.

I suppose you didn't gather from my story that I have an IUD and my partner probably cannot father children. I was told to be as safe as possible, to use condoms. I have had to use them during both lots of treatment, which last 6-12 months plus 6 months after the treatment has stopped. They are not convenient, affordable or suitable for long-term contraception.

And I don't get your last comment about the US?

(Edited by RedFW at 7:30 pm on June 21, 2003)

[Moskitto]

You haven't actually explained how a number of abortions are harmful to women. You have said that placenta hormones themselves are banned substances for male athletes but you have not remotely backed up what you said earlier about multiple abortions being harmful to women. Just because something is banned for men competing in athletics does not necessarily make it harmful to women. Indeed, I should think if there were any proven harm to women this would be exactly what the anti-choice lobby would need to see a final ban on abortion.

And I am also slightly confused because you say both pregnancy and abortion cause masculination. And then used the general statement 'under normal circumstances' the female body counters this, but you haven't actually provided any evidence of the inability of the female body to recover from the effect of masculination or any reference to studies that prove long-term harm to women who have more than one abortion.

under normal circumstances the female body produces female hormones which allow pregnancy to continue, male bodies don't generally support pregnancy. Stopping the pregnancy stops the production of the higher levels of female hormones which maintain the pregnancy, however because the body hasn't been weaned out of pregnancy, the hormonal levels change at a much higher rate.

Masculinisation isn't healthy, Osteopherosis, heart disease, infertility, breaking voice, enlargement of the clitoris, acne are all possible consequences. While a single abortion won't do much, multiple abortions are likely to cause these effects, that is why actual contraception is better (and cheaper) than abortion as your first "line of defense".

Is it? You were arguing that the hormonal flux of pregnancy and abortion were, if repeated, harmful to women. It isn't normal for the female body to think it is pregnant indefinitely, so this really does not answer my original question, which was how is this (abortion) any more dangerous than taking Depo-Provera or the pill for an extended period of time, which affect the hormones. And why is there no danger to women coming off of these as this would cause, especially if on one of these for a long period of time, a change in hormones.

During pregnancy the corpus luteum produces progesterone which inhibits further ovulation thus preventing 2 pregnacies at the same time. The pill exploits this as a way to prevent pregnacy, because the body is actually meant to do this the body can cope.

By assigning a clear, logical and mature reason for men not wanting a partner to carry a pregnancy to term, to escape 'legal burden' and assigning impetuous, less logical and emotionally unstable reasons such as 'to teach the father a lesson' and 'personal reasons' assumes women cannot choose to carry a pregnancy to term simply because they want a child (a common reason) or that women who do choose to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term do so for financial gain, which are assumptions that denigrate women and the choices they make.

Fine, next time I'll say that men may want their partner to have an abortion because he thinks his partner having a child will drive him loopy, or he won't be able to go to the pub as often and his partner may want a child because she feels she wants to have the responsibility of being a mother.

This is not long-term, affordable and convenient contraception for women, which is what women need.

$10 for something that is reusable, virtually indestructable which is worn by the woman isn't long-term, affordable, convienient or suitable for women? explain please.

That doesn't mean your responses or other member's who claim to love women and care about are any less imbued with misogyny. Whilst I am very glad you agree there is a need to give women to have access to safe, legal abortion, I think some of the remarks you have made about women and the decisions they may make are unfair, run-of-the-mill misogynist represenations.

sorry, if you took such extreme offence at the hypothetical reasons i listed i will remove them from my previous post, I will replace them with more appropriate reasons if you wish, I am not a woman, I did not know that women are incapable of taking revenge.

I have been told by several specialists and nurses from two different hospitals on two separate occasions that if we conceived during his treatment fetal deformities could occur. I am startled that you would suggest I have been misinformed by doctors who have specialised and treated people with the same medication my husband is receiving. If you care to know, they are specialists at Great Ormond Street Hospital, which he has now been discharged from but received his first lot of treatment for this problem from, as well as his bone marrow transplant and UCLH.

I am not denying that you were misinformed that conceiving while he was on treatment would be likely to cause birth defects, I was saying that condoms being recomended to you was probably misinformation, every cancer rehabilitation site i have seen only recommends birth control, not condoms.

And let's see how many women who want to prevent unplanned pregnancies can afford it or have it covered by their health insurance. Other medication can interfere with the contraceptive pill, which means women who are on it need to be told there is a chance it may fail if they are taking other medication, something that women are often not told. There are lots of better forms of contraception than the pill, but that isn't the point of this thread. The point is that women need to have access to safe, legal abortion as contraception isn't failsafe and not all women have access to long-term contraception. Women should not be punished and forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because contraception fails.

I agree that women need access to safe and legal abortion, but you should at least consider using a contraceptive method rather seeing abortion as your primary method of contraception. With growing cases of STDs there's more to think about with regard to sexual health than just pregnancy.

[soul83]

I do not agree with abortion. It goes against the most basic fundamental human right that is the right to LIFE. The innocent offspring shouldn't pay with their lives for their parents' mistakes perhaps they should have acted more responsibly in the first place, instead of abortion, for any of you who are about to commit this callous crime.... think about the innocent child and perhaps you should consider adoption. Why not give the child a chance to live a normal life in a normal family thus giving the child up for adoption instead of killing it like an animal.... I mean we speak of animal rights nowadays and we consider adoption to be a nice way out for our mistakes.... !!! It's contradictory isn't it !!!

(Edited by soul83 at 5:49 pm on June 22, 2003)

[Charlie]

Quote: from soul83 on 4:47 pm on June 22, 2003
I do not agree with abortion. It goes against the most basic fundamental human right that is the right to LIFE. The innocent offspring shouldn't pay with their lives for their parents' mistakes perhaps they should have acted more responsibly in the first place, instead of abortion, for any of you who are about to commit this callous crime.... think about the innocent child and perhaps you should consider adoption. Why not give the child a chance to live a normal life in a normal family thus giving the child up for adoption instead of killing it like an animal.... I mean we speak of animal rights nowadays and we consider adoption to be a nice way out for our mistakes.... !!! It's contradictory isn't it !!!

(Edited by soul83 at 5:49 pm on June 22, 2003)



But the "child" as you say is not human. How can a clump of cells have every human right?

Do you think people take sadistic pleasure in abortion? It's a horribly upsetting decision that will take a great emotional toll, mothers who choose abortion are not savage animals as you would put it.

And how about rape cases, what are the mothers mistakes then?

There is a huge difference between a fetus and a child, how can something taht hasn't even developed a brain or heart be given all the same rights as a independently living human? And the fetus doesn't even start developing until weeks after conception.

[apathy maybe]

But the "child" as you say is not human. How can a clump of cells have every human right?


You are just a 'clump of cells' as well so maybe you should not have any human rights.

[redstar2000]

The "godly" up to their usual "good works"...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3009692.stm

:cool:

[RedFW]

under normal circumstances the female body produces female hormones which allow pregnancy to continue, male bodies don't generally support pregnancy. Stopping the pregnancy stops the production of the higher levels of female hormones which maintain the pregnancy, however because the body hasn't been weaned out of pregnancy, the hormonal levels change at a much higher rate.

Masculinisation isn't healthy, Osteopherosis, heart disease, infertility, breaking voice, enlargement of the clitoris, acne are all possible consequences. While a single abortion won't do much, multiple abortions are likely to cause these effects, that is why actual contraception is better (and cheaper) than abortion as your first "line of defense".

I think I will start with your last comment. Telling a woman who is pregnant and is seeking an abortion that actual contraception is ‘better(and cheaper)’ than abortions as her “first line of defense” is ridiculous. What good is this? Women who are pregnant and want an abortion need to have access to it without someone patronising to them. And it is really none of your business whether women choose contraception or abortion. Making contraception available for free or cheaply and widely available is what needs to be done, then women will make up their own minds.

It doesn’t matter how you dress it up, Moskitto. Your description is specious, and behind the façade of a biological description is really no substance. I have asked you, and IIRC, so did Redstar, to name your sources for this information. Which studies are you referring to that prove a link between multiple abortions and Osteoperosis, heart disease, infertility- the most severe side effects of those you have listed? Or are you deducing that if ‘placenta hormones’ can cause the problems in athletes that women who are pregnant and receive more than one abortion are at risk for developing the same problems? Are you conflating the danger of ‘placenta hormones’ used by athletes for the ‘higher level of female hormones which maintain pregnancy’? And I would also like to know who carried out the studies you are referring to, if indeed you are referring to studies, of women who have had multiple abortions and have developed the problems you described and a proven link between the abortion and the problem has been clearly established? What do you mean by ‘weaned out of pregnancy’? It certainly isn’t a term that is used for women seeking advice about pregnancy. Indeed, all of the pregnancy and childbirth books I have contain no such phrase. If you are getting your information from The Female Body According to Moskitto that is one book I will not be purchasing.

I searched for any information I could find on a link between abortion, hormonal flux and the health risks you listed, but unsurprisingly, the only sites that make a link are ‘informative’ and ‘honest’ sites about abortions which are really scaremongering anti-choice sites behind the façade of 'helping women' and giving them the 'facts'. Indeed, most of them still insisted on a link between abortion and breast cancer, which has been debunked by Planned Parenthood ]http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/f...2800.html (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/facts/fact_cancer_022800.html[/url)

During pregnancy the corpus luteum produces progesterone which inhibits further ovulation thus preventing 2 pregnacies at the same time. The pill exploits this as a way to prevent pregnacy, because the body is actually meant to do this the body can cope.

You can continue to describe it however you like, but the female body is not meant to think it is pregnant indefinitely, so I think my point still stands.

Fine, next time I'll say that men may want their partner to have an abortion because he thinks his partner having a child will drive him loopy, or he won't be able to go to the pub as often and his partner may want a child because she feels she wants to have the responsibility of being a mother.

Why say anything at all? Why assume you know the reasons men want women to have abortions and women don’t. You may be right in one or two instances but the reasons are varied and trying to define and categorise them is patronising to the people in these situations.

$10 for something that is reusable, virtually indestructable which is worn by the woman isn't long-term, affordable, convienient or suitable for women? explain please.

They are not widely available. In fact, I have only seen them in one or two places in the town I live in. Though they may be reusable, that doesn’t make them any more convenient to use every time a woman has sex for the long-term, especially in a cohabiting relationship. And it may only be $10, but that doesn’t mean it will not need to be replaced. And I am also assuming that if a woman has more than one sexual partner, she would need to buy one for every partner she does have. Be careful because ‘virtually indestructible’ is not on the box, so if you are having another fit of exaggeration you may be putting the very lives at risk you are so intent upon patronising.

sorry, if you took such extreme offence at the hypothetical reasons i listed i will remove them from my previous post, I will replace them with more appropriate reasons if you wish, I am not a woman, I did not know that women are incapable of taking revenge.

I didn’t say I took extreme offence. Don’t exaggerate. Why remove them? Why not think about what you are posting next time and why it might be offensive? Who said women are incapable of taking revenge?

I am not denying that you were misinformed that conceiving while he was on treatment would be likely to cause birth defects, I was saying that condoms being recomended to you was probably misinformation, every cancer rehabilitation site i have seen only recommends birth control, not condoms.

I can assure you I wasn’t. You have not only missed the point I was making when I posted my personal experience with ‘temporary contraception’ but you continue to dwell on events within it that are irrelevant. The doctors knew I already had a form of long-term contraception, they knew my partner has had radiation therapy and probably could not father children but they still insisted we use condoms. It may me something in their protocol they must, regardless of the circumstances, advise all of their patients who take up treatment. And I will say it one more time: He is not receiving treatment that is in any way related to cancer/leukemia. He is receiving treatment for a problem that developed during his bone marrow transplant for leukaemia.

I agree that women need access to safe and legal abortion, but you should at least consider using a contraceptive method rather seeing abortion as your primary method of contraception. With growing cases of STDs there's more to think about with regard to sexual health than just pregnancy.

Well, that is very rich. I really hope someone as patronising as you doesn’t make it into the medical profession or any sort of sexual health/family planning work. I don’t want to think of the reaction you would get telling a pregnant woman seeking an abortion that there is more to think about than pregnancy! Pregnancy and STDs are related for obvious reasons, but we are talking about preserving safe, legal abortion and making it cheap or free on demand. I don’t understand why you set abortion and contraception in opposition to each other. If contraception fails, women need access to abortion, anything in addition to that really isn’t your business.
Making contraception available to women is what is needed. Women do not need to be patronised when making decisions that will affect their lives. Women can make the decisions about what sort of primary method of contraception they will choose and what is appropriate to their situation if they are given access to the information and the contraception. Telling women what they ‘should at least consider using a contraceptive method rather than seeking abortion’ engenders the very good/evil dyad that needs to be destroyed if women are ever going to be able to make decisions without being demonised.


(Edited by RedFW at 10:35 am on June 23, 2003)

[soul83]

Quote: from Charlie on 7:47 pm on June 22, 2003
[But the "child" as you say is not human. How can a clump of cells have every human right?

Do you think people take sadistic pleasure in abortion? It's a horribly upsetting decision that will take a great emotional toll, mothers who choose abortion are not savage animals as you would put it.

And how about rape cases, what are the mothers mistakes then?

There is a huge difference between a fetus and a child, how can something taht hasn't even developed a brain or heart be given all the same rights as a independently living human? And the fetus doesn't even start developing until weeks after conception.


If your mother killed you by performing abortion, would you still hold on to that same opinion. You wouldn't, because you wouldn't be here.

[soul83]

Nowadays there's a choice between abortion and adoption..... I prefer the latter.

[RedFW]

If your mother killed you by performing abortion, would you still hold on to that same opinion. You wouldn't, because you wouldn't be here.

What is your point?

Nowadays there's a choice between abortion and adoption..... I prefer the latter.

Good for you. However, I hope you don't expect to force your preference onto women.

I have already given my objection to adoption as a viable alternative to abortion earlier in the thread for your perusal.

[redstar2000]

Nowadays there's a choice between abortion and adoption..... I prefer the latter.

Preference is exactly what is at issue here.

Any woman who wishes to carry a pregnancy to term and raise the child should be free to do so.

Any woman who wishes to carry a pregnancy to term and give the baby up for adoption should be free to do so.

Any woman who wishes to terminate an unwanted pregnancy by abortion should be free to do so.

That is called reproductive freedom for women. It simply means she decides.

The basic position of the anti-abortion lobby is that she should not be allowed to decide, but rather forced by police measures to pick one of the first two options listed above.

One can debate the "ethics" of abortion itself endlessly...and this has been done in many threads on many boards. Anti-abortionists will scrounge through everything from 19th century reactionary German philosophy to the scraps and tatters of various theologies to whatever junk "science" they can locate in order to justify their views. They are not above the vilest and most hateful anti-women propaganda.

Very well; freedom of advocacy is not at issue here. When you call the cops or threaten to do so, you have passed beyond advocacy and entered the realm of a special police state for women in which every woman is convicted at birth for the crime of being female. Her reproductive organs are no longer her own but instead are owned and controlled by others who need pay no attention to her wishes whatsoever. She is "baby-maker" first, and human a very distant second.

If you personally think abortion is wrong, don't have one. You are even free to attempt to argue with other women and try to convince them that they shouldn't have one either...although you will probably be told to "mind your own damn business".

Once you even so much as hint that the police should be involved, you have crossed the line, in my opinion, between "left" and "right", between freedom and slavery.

And quoting the entire Collected Works of Karl Marx will not make up for that.

:cool:

PS: Moskitto, the next time you attempt to intimidate people with scientific terminology, I'm going to remind you of your howler in this thread: "weaned out of pregnancy" indeed! :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy:

[mentalbunny]

Beautiful post redstar.

[Charlie]

If your mother killed you by performing abortion, would you still hold on to that same opinion. You wouldn't, because you wouldn't be here.


... What IS your point?

And by the way redstar that was a truely informed and beautifuly wirtten post. i'll definatly be holding onto it.

[apathy maybe]

Any woman who wishes to terminate an unwanted pregnancy by abortion should be free to do so.

That is called reproductive freedom for women. It simply means she decides.
<sarcasm> And if I decide to terminate an unwanted marrage or acquaintance I'll just kill them off. If a child or even if MY child is annoying the shit out of me, why I'll just wack it on the head. </sarcasm>


She is "baby-maker" first, and human a very distant second.
what a foolish statement. A female human is human whether she has children or not. Forcing her to have children (which making abortion illegeal would not do) doesn't make her any less human. For most of human existance women have either been pregnent or breast feeding. BTW I don't advocate return to this.

[RedFW]

<sarcasm> And if I decide to terminate an unwanted marrage or acquaintance I'll just kill them off. If a child or even if MY child is annoying the shit out of me, why I'll just wack it on the head. </sarcasm>

Why do people in this thread keep bringing up points that have already been addressed?

If you have a problem with the points that have already been made about why a fetus is different from a child or spouse, then go back, quote, respond and back yourself up.

what a foolish statement. A female human is human whether she has children or not. Forcing her to have children (which making abortion illegeal would not do) doesn't make her any less human. I agree that a female is a human whether or not she has children.

What do you mean banning abortion will not force her to remain pregnant? What will banning it do then?

And what do you mean it will not make her less human? If control over her fertility is taken from her and is controlled by someone else, then she is as someone else said: 'subhuman'.

For most of human existance women have either been pregnent or breast feeding. BTW I don't advocate return to this.

What is your point? Not that I agree with it your statement. Women spend a very small part of their lives being pregnant and breast feeding. Even when they have more than one child, yet, much of their lives are defined and influenced by it. And having the ability to get pregnant is not the same as being able to control when you get pregnant. Just because many women have been pregnant and breastfed their children over many years doesn't mean it is something they shouldn't be in control of.

(Edited by RedFW at 9:49 am on June 24, 2003)

[Blackberry]

<sarcasm> And if I decide to terminate an unwanted marrage or acquaintance I'll just kill them off. If a child or even if MY child is annoying the shit out of me, why I'll just wack it on the head. </sarcasm>

What is the point you are trying to make? Maybe you are trying to compare those certain situations with abortion - but those comparisons are irrelevant, and have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

And see what RedFW says in reply to it.

[Red Comrade]

Here's my stance:

I believe in a woman's right to choose. If you do not think abortions are moral, don't have one, it's that simple. But don't try to enforce your "morals" on other people, because it is wrong.

How would some of you "pro-lifers" like it if we made abortions mandatory?

Anywho, making abortions illegal will just cause more of a health problem. Chances are that if a woman really wants an abortion, she's going to find a way to get one, and it'll probably be unsanitary.

[soul83]

Red Comrade perhaps you are confusing the issue of morality here.

Morality is not subjective. Without knowing it, we imbibe many ideas from what we read, from TV, films etc. often without knowing it we make our own certain premisses without ever examinig whether they can stand up to critical analysis.

You are saying that "You should never impose your moral convictions on others, whatever the circumstances". This would seem to respect the liberty of others and to reflect very accurately the spirit of the times, with its very tolerant approach, even in matters of morality.

This statement however does not stand up to critical analysis !! Suppose someone claimed that, in the exersice of his civil liberties, he feels free to torture someone or to rape a woman, would we simply acquiesce ?? Would we not, rather, tell him that torture and rape are simply unacceptable, both from a moral and from a legal point of view ?? And in telling him that, are we not implicitly saying that it is necessary in certain circumstances to take a stand against whoever offends human dignity ?? In such cases we are not 'imposing' our moral views on others, but we are simply seeing to the implementation fo human rights !!

Now this leads to another widely accepted moral presupposition, that Morality depends entirely on the convictions of the moral agent. This lays stress on the importance that the moral agent, in a given situation, make a very personal moral choice and put it into practice. It is also however implying that true morality is totally 'relativistic', i.e. it depends entirely upon the personal convictions of the moral agent. If this moral presupposition were correct, then all that goes on around us would simply jusitfy itself !! If, for instance, taking bribes or seeking vengeance could be shown to form part of a culture, then such actions would, in terms of this theory, by that very fact acquire moral legitimacy !! Or if my mother thought me that, ethnically, I may always lie to get myself out of awkward situations then on this (mistaken) moral presupposition, the mere fact that because my mother had taught me something that would purportedly give moral legitimacy to a (wrong) course of action !!

In truth we all rightly criticize what goes on both in our society and in other socities !! We feel free - and rightly so !! - to criticise hypocrisy, bribery, nepotism, etc. in our own culture, and we likewise form critical judgements about injustices in other socities, for instance the class racial discrimination in South African society before majority rule came about, and the mafia subculture in Southern Italy, North America, modern Russia etc. This shows that human beings are free to form moral judgements even where their own culture is concerned, but they go beyond this in being able to critique even societies other than their own !! Although we can never 'possess' the whole of objective moral truth, we do have access to objective moral truth regarding those points where we see that, in truth, a given course of action is objectively right or wrong.

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

PS - note that the foetus is not a "Potential human being" but a "Human being with potential"

(Edited by soul83 at 1:04 am on June 25, 2003)

[Red Comrade]

You do not understand my point Soul, abortion is not comparable to acts such as rape or torture, because the latter infringes the rights of another, independent person.

You see, a fetus is simply a piece of tissue. It has no organs, it has no limbs, and it is not independent, it is a parasite that cannot survive without the mother.

Do you think the fetus would survive if it is taken out of the mothers womb? Of course not, and modern science supports this fact.

The only time an organism becomes human is when it is perfectly independent and develops emotions and a nervous system. Without these things, it is simply tissue.

As I've said before, even if you make abortion illegal, people are still going to have them. The only difference will be that women will end up getting diseases and even die from unsanitory abortions. It's happening in Poland.

[redstar2000]

Morality is not subjective.

It isn't? What, pray tell, is the "objective" basis of "morality" in your view?

Yes, we unconsciously absorb a good deal from our culture and, on occasion, criticize it, reject it, and formulate a version that seems to "make more sense".

But if there is, in any sense, a "scoreboard" out there in left center field that's objectively recording our hits and errors, I don't see it.

Some things, like murder and rape, are "clear and present dangers" objectively to the safety and well-being of ourselves and those we care about...so the murderer or the rapist can expect little mercy from us. That's not "morality", that's self-defense.

Beyond that, the pickings get pretty slim. Bribery and nepotism, for example, are considered "moral" in many cultures...because it is believed that such customs benefit the extended family/clan, a very high priority in those cultures. The same thing is true of the other examples you gave; there were people who benefitted and thus considered those customs "moral".

Do we have the abstract "right" to impose our cultural "morals" on other people? Who knows?

What I can say is that we humans do it every chance we get! And, by and large, we do not feel the slightest bit of guilt about it; if anything, we congratulate ourselves for lifting the "backward folks" out of darkness and into our own version of "enlightenment".

Speaking personally, I'm no better than anyone else about that...and neither, most likely, are you.

Consider a western "woman's fashion magazine". To a devout Muslim, it is a piece of pornographic shit, the work of the "Devil". To a militant feminist, it is a piece of anti-woman shit, the work of an oppressive patriarchy. To a communist, it is just another exercise in "created demand" in service to corporate profit. Which of us would not shut it down if we could?

The methods would be different. The devout Muslim would put the publisher in prison or even kill him. The feminist and the communist would attempt to persuade women that there are more important things in life than personal adornment...leaving the publication to wither away from lack of interest.

Thus, to get to the nub of your philosophical evasion, you are free to consider abortion "immoral" and free to try to persuade others of that view...you are not free to put women who have abortions in prison and, worse, not free to even give them a parking ticket. And still worse, you are not free to harass them as they enter or leave a clinic, circulate their photos on the internet, or, in general, behave like an asshole.

Why not? Because our "morality" demands that you leave those women in peace.

And, if needs must, then that "morality" will be imposed on you, whether you like it or not.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 8:51 pm on June 24, 2003)

[SlimJin]

I don't understand, people are arguing that this is not about morality, but they are willing to use it to their advantage when it helps (We know who I'm Talking about). It doesn't work that way. I personally feel that nobody should have any say in an abortion except for the couple or if it is just the female by herself because the only way to truly know how to react you would have to be in that position til then just shove your morals up your you know what because you have no idea what is REALLY going on there! I have no problem with it and neither should you if it doesn't effect you!!!

[soul83]

Quote: from Red Comrade on 3:27 am on June 25, 2003

You see, a fetus is simply a piece of tissue. It has no organs, it has no limbs, and it is not independent, it is a parasite that cannot survive without the mother.



A parasite HARMS or KILLS off the host for example a tapeworm will harm you if it manages to get inside your intestines, a plasmodium can afford to kill the host.... a foetus will NOT kill or harm the mother... who is neither a host because it is not a foreign body, thus it will never be a parasite.... If you want a more accurate meaning consult your Biological terms dictionary.

Redstar, I never meant to impose my principles or my values here, I'm simply expressing my opinion. For me abortion is not a right way out. However, needless to say, for me a person can do whatever he or she wants, my country can legalise abortion, I wouldn't care. But I wouldn't do it..... - it is always up to the mother to decide. Abortion per se is immoral and will remain immoral according to the objective moral truth. There again anyone is free to believe whatever he or she wants.

(Edited by soul83 at 2:48 pm on June 27, 2003)


(Edited by soul83 at 2:51 pm on June 27, 2003)


(Edited by soul83 at 3:00 pm on June 27, 2003)

[mentalbunny]

Well at least that's something. Thanks soul83.

[FabFabian]

Ok, for the antichoice dickheads out there...here are some facts.

Birth control fails

The majority of women who seek abortions are married women.

Getting an abortion does not make a woman a slut or mean that she was one before. I don&#39;t know how anyone who claims to be a socialist or leftist can feel free to pass judgement on a woman&#39;s sex life. That kind of behaviour I expect from a right wing fundie.

As it was said before, the foetus is nothing but a parasite sucking off the host.

As for suggesting adoption or single parenthood, neither one are an easy option. The first means extreme emotional dilemmas and the fear of return of the child. The latter is not a healthy option for a child, who needs two parents not one.

That stupid remark that one should keep their legs closed if they don&#39;t want to be pregnant is ridiculous. For those who subscribe to it, they must have a very limited repetoire in the bedroom and be lousy lovers to boot. Sperm swim like a demon. Also, not all of us want to have sex for procreation. Some of us actually enjoy it. What a revelation&#33;&#33;&#33;