1.3 million abortions performed in USA - when do babies have the right to life?

[nadoom]

isnt that rather alot?

Doesnt that say alot about the west when the extinction of a life becomes so routine?

nadoom wrote:
isnt that rather alot?

Doesnt that say alot about the west when the extinction of a life becomes so routine?

It isn't life at the stage of pregnancy that termination is allowed.

This isn't just my opinion, but the law.

It may be your opinion that it is life, but that doesn't mean you are right.

[Wilse]

@mdma:

Very complex and contentious issue but I tend to agree with you.

[nadoom]

law doesnt equal justice.

my wife is pregnant at the moment, she is 10 weeks, and the little baby has hands and feet and a beating heart. It is alive, regardless of what this law says. I know people will disagree and thats there business.

it isnt just a piece of goo to be discarded as if it is nothing. We are meant to be civilised people and this is an uncivilised act.

This is my opinion, and just as you think you are right i think i am right.

nadoom wrote:
law doesnt equal justice.

my wife is pregnant at the moment, she is 10 weeks, and the little baby has hands and feet and a beating heart. It is alive, regardless of what this law says. I know people will disagree and thats there business.

it isnt just a piece of goo to be discarded as if it is nothing. We are meant to be civilised people and this is an uncivilised act.

This is my opinion, and just as you think you are right i think i am right.



I don't *think* I am "right". I *know* what the law is.

Don't like the laws here? Move to Ireland.

-edit

We live in a democracy. Write to your MP if you want the law changed.

[cecilia]

a fetus is not a baby.

nature has a process called "birth". after that, you have a Separate individual. "giving birth" is not just opening the fridge and getting a sandwich. It's quite a complex process.

[Cymric]

nadoom wrote:
law doesnt equal justice.
This is a no-brainer. Law doesn't equal justice, and justice has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

my wife is pregnant at the moment, she is 10 weeks, and the little baby has hands and feet and a beating heart. It is alive, regardless of what this law says. I know people will disagree and thats there business.
Foetuses are still horribly dependent on their mother to live. They will die within minutes if separated from their mother, either naturally or artificially. They cannot sustain the process of life on their own. So how much of a 'life' is that? Biologists have a word for such a shared co-existence: parasitism. Sometimes, the mother will have a terrible (and occasionally, life-threatening) pregnancy because her body chemistry cannot handle the stress of the little darling in her womb. Where's the 'justice' in that? Think about that relationship, the next time you take your wife to her gynaecologist to have an ultrasound made.

it isnt just a piece of goo to be discarded as if it is nothing. We are meant to be civilised people and this is an uncivilised act.
In the Netherlands, women follow a strict protocol when they want to have an abortion. There's a contemplation period of 5 days, various discussions with doctors, and so forth. She always has the right to change her mind. Things may be different where you live, but I will eat my shoe if women do not take the issue very seriously. That's why I think that you are generalising considerably, and thus arguing against a strawman, in order to find support for your point of view. That's not a Good Thing.

And while you're at it: what does 'civilised' entail, precisely? No handwaving now, please...

This is my opinion, and just as you think you are right i think i am right.
If you are so sure about being 'right', then why bother bringing up this topic?

[PMC]

cecilia wrote:
"giving birth" is not just opening the fridge and getting a sandwich. It's quite a complex process.

Ah Cecilia, you've never been to Basildon then... Judging by some of the chav population there, childbirth seems to be greeted with all the fanfare and responsibility of someone getting a sandwich from a fridge.

Seriously though, Abortion is a massively contentious issue. As a man, I don't feel I'm qualified to pass judgement over what a woman can / cannot do with her body.

I agree that abortion must not become yet another form of contraception, but there was the well known case of a chemical plant leaking hazardous substances over a town in Italy a couple of decades ago. At the time, abortion was illegal in the Roman Catholic country, but the nature of the chemicals leaked meant that hundreds of unborn children were severely affected. The abortion law was amended to allow pregnant women to abort to avoid the risk of having a severely disabled / stillborn child.

There was also the recent case of the teenage Irish rape victim who was made pregnant by her attacker. She was unable to get her unwanted child aborted due to Irish law and had to endure media condemnation when she travelled to the UK to get an abortion.

Before we tackle this emotive subject, the above points need to be remembered.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

PMC wrote:

cecilia wrote:
"giving birth" is not just opening the fridge and getting a sandwich. It's quite a complex process.

Ah Cecilia, you've never been to Basildon then... :lol: *bump* Oh, will you pick that up for me, Deirdre? :python:

[nadoom]

@cymric

What you beleive naturally what you regard is right or wrong, this is a discussion about abortion. I brought up this topic because i think we should discuss it, certain things have happened in my life recently that have highlighted the barbarity of the practice.

You will find that new born babies are also 'horribly' dependant on their mothers to live, they cannot feed them selves and need constant attention. Would you dismember them and suck them up a tube, even with 5 days of careful contemplation? The idea that dependency has anything to do with being alive or not is absurd.

And while you're at it: what does 'civilised' entail, precisely? No handwaving now, please...

A civilised society would be seriously concerned with such high abortion rates.


@mdma

Don't like the laws here? Move to Ireland.

Every time i say something about anything you tell me to leave the country.. its as if you think this country only has room enough for one opinion (yours)

I have actually been thinking about moving to ireland. maybe in the future.

Regarding the law the point i was trying to raise is that "law" doesnt automatically make something right or wrong, the law in south africa 20 years ago classified peoples rights according to the colour of there skin, obviously that kind of law is wrong and shouldnt be followed because it is immoral.


@all
Another reason for this debate is that alot of members are happy to debate the rights and wrongs of muslim nations and how theyre societies are backwards and barbaricetc, but here in the west abortion happen en mass every day and is in islamic terms a disgrace. I suppose this is the west's very own honour killing system.

I do disagree with abortion, i think the manner in which it is trivialised is unjust both to the mother and to the unborn baby. Adoption and contraception are adequate solutions to this problem.

Just because this issue is thorny doesnt mean that it is any different to any topic in this section, this section is by its very nature contraversial.

if you are interested you can find a downloadable version of "the slient scream" where the process of abortion can be seen via ultrasound etc. it is disturbing so be careful:

http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm

@mdma


Quote:

Don't like the laws here? Move to Ireland.



Every time i say something about anything you tell me to leave the country.. its as if you think this country only has room enough for one opinion (yours)


What!?!?!? Show me one other instance. :-?



I have actually been thinking about moving to ireland. maybe in the future.

Regarding the law the point i was trying to raise is that "law" doesnt automatically make something right or wrong, the law in south africa 20 years ago classified peoples rights according to the colour of there skin, obviously that kind of law is wrong and shouldnt be followed because it is immoral.

Yes, and if you don't like the law you can try to change it when you live in a democracy.


Here's something that might interest you. I am a father yet I still think women should be given the right to terminate a pregnancy if that is what they require.

Do you think that by banning abortion that the practice would stop?

Well it wouldn't, the laws of supply and demand come into practice. That is why it is currently legal and regulated.

Maybe the current time limit is too much, maybe it isn't enough. I don't know, i'm not qualified to comment.

Neither are you.

[whabang]

my wife is pregnant at the moment, she is 10 weeks
Congratulations! :-D
I hope things work out well for you.

[Wilse]

@nadoom:

I'm confused as to what you hope to gain by discussing this again.
(There have been many, many threads on this topic over the years.)

Are you willing to consider other points of view?
Or is it simply a case of "abortion is ALWAYS wrong. Full stop. No
exceptions."

If it's the former, fair enough.
If it's the latter, what's the point?

[nadoom]

@mdma

im sorry i confused you with some one else. i apologise :) friends?

I agree that the way to change the law is through democracy, realistically that is unlikely. I have told my MP my views many times ( hes in labour friends of israel) ;)

I agree abortion should not be back street, the current situation isnt acceptable either. the key is education, and maybe a more responsible attitude to sex. the figure in the uk is about 1/4 million abortions per year it really is too much.

Im half english, and i feel sorry in a way to the english race because if they carry on with negative population growth, there wont be any left! My mauritian half though is popping babies out by the dozen.

Babies have survived being born weeks before the abortion limit, that raises big questions regarding the current system. In ireland abortion is illegal i believe, they seem to be doing an ok job policing it.

[nadoom]

@Wilse

Are you willing to consider other points of view?

yep, of course

Or is it simply a case of "abortion is ALWAYS wrong. Full stop. Noexceptions."

No thats not realistic there are valid medical reason etc.

I said in my first post that im talking about elective abortions, which probably accounts for a massive precentage of the total abortions undertaken.

If a woman gets pregnant it is the duty of the MAN and the woman to support it or choose to adopt it, abortion is such a drastic thing to do. Im not telling othe people to follow what i say, they can take it or leave it, but myself thats what i will be doing. and im tell u about it.

I suppose you could boil my arguement down to Abortion is BAD

If a woman gets pregnant it is the duty of the MAN and the woman to support it or choose to adopt it

In your opinion

Im not telling othe people to follow what i say

You just did.

There is no such thing as "duty", only legal responsibility.

If your wife got raped on her way home from work, and became pregnant.

Would you expect her to keep the baby?

If so, then what?

Would *you* raise it as your own, or would you make her get it adopted, causing yet more pain just because *you* don't like abortion.

nadoom wrote:
@mdma

im sorry i confused you with some one else. i apologise :) friends?


No worries.


I agree that the way to change the law is through democracy, realistically that is unlikely. I have told my MP my views many times ( hes in labour friends of israel) ;)

I agree abortion should not be back street, the current situation isnt acceptable either. the key is education, and maybe a more responsible attitude to sex. the figure in the uk is about 1/4 million abortions per year it really is too much.

Im half english, and i feel sorry in a way to the english race because if they carry on with negative population growth, there wont be any left! My mauritian half though is popping babies out by the dozen.

Babies have survived being born weeks before the abortion limit, that raises big questions regarding the current system. In ireland abortion is illegal i believe, they seem to be doing an ok job policing it.



The authorities in Ireland know that the women just catch the bus into Ulster for the British tax payer to pay for it.

Anyway, do you want abortion to be legal or illegal?

[nadoom]

If that did happen, then yes i would raise the baby as my own, and i will tell you why.. because in Islam it is forbidden to perform abortions unless the circumstances were extreme. And I beleive that Allah will never burden a sole with more than it can bare. it would be hard, for sure but somethings are worth more than an easy life.

I think abortion should be illegal. Im not tell people what to do by that.. im telling you what i think please understand the difference

I just asked my wife (an english muslim), and she says and i quote "i wouldnt (get it aborted) its not the babies fault" so there you go.

What would you do?

[cecilia]

Anyone with 2 brain cells knows abortion isn't the best thing to do. trust me when I say it's done because it's the last resort solution. Only morons use it as a lame kind of birth control. (I went to HS with a girl who had 4 abortions duriing her 4 years in HS. She was a moron. But then the catholic church encourages girls to be indenial).

Many people who have to get abortions are married women who's birth control FAILED. They already have about 2 kids and can't afford any more because it would affect their ability to raise the already existing children properly. These are not rich people. why make them poor? why make life hellish for those kids?

The ONLY intelligent solution to this problem is supporting 100% effective birth control. Notice you never hear the catholic church talking about that. hypocrites. But then we all know that the church is a business and they need to encourage a$$'s in the seats. 'Mo money, mo' money!'

no matter what the laws are, women will always find a way to be in control of their own lives. Even if that includes wire hangers. Fortunately, we have more options today. Altho, the pseudo-religious right want to return us to stone-age times. Well. I, for one, am no one's slave. No one is telling me what to do with my life or my body. You'll get a big FU if you try it.

For myself, I have always believed that I was created for important creative work and if I had to get an abortion, I would. I have neither the time or money to raise children and having any would make it impossible to pursue my career. People should NOT have children unless they are prepared to do that job with a 200% commitment. I don't believe the hype about being able to "do it all". One or the other always suffers and I think it's wrong to force a child to get less then they deserve.

nadoom wrote:
If that did happen, then yes i would raise the baby as my own, and i will tell you why.. because in Islam it is forbidden to perform abortions unless the circumstances were extreme.


Do you not think that rape is an extreme circumstance? How about if your 10 year old sister was made pregnant by a paedophile? Would that be extreme enough?


And I beleive that Allah will never burden a sole with more than it can bare. it would be hard, for sure but somethings are worth more than an easy life.

I think abortion should be illegal. Im not tell people what to do by that.. im telling you what i think please understand the difference

I just asked my wife (an english muslim), and she says and i quote "i wouldnt (get it aborted) its not the babies fault" so there you go.

What would you do?

I just asked my friend (an English atheist), and she said she'd abort it. So there you go.

If you really feel that strongly about it, then try to get the law changed.

If you can't then it's because you are in the minority.

Democracy is majority rule.

[nadoom]

Ive told you what i would do regarding that horrific scenario that you dreamed up. I guess the raping of my 10 year old sister would classfy in the extreme catagory, however most abortions are not this situation they are done for lifestyle reasons.

>>If you really feel that strongly about it, then try to get the law changed.

or move to ireland !

>>If you can't then it's because you are in the minority.

Duh!

>>Democracy is majority rule.

I already know that. But this is a post on a forum, a discussion, democracy isnt the issue here i know i vote you dont need to tell me...

what is the issue is the huge amount of abortions per year..

[matt3k]

Hi Nadoom,

Life begins at conception, therefore life begins at conception. In America, our founding principles state that all are created equal, given rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I agree, I believe the number is well over 40 million to date in the US.

Take Care,

Matt

most abortions are not this situation they are done for lifestyle reasons.

Evidence please.

[matt3k]

cecilia wrote:
a fetus is not a baby.

nature has a process called "birth". after that, you have a Separate individual. "giving birth" is not just opening the fridge and getting a sandwich. It's quite a complex process.

Hi Cecilia,

Actually the definition of a fetus is: "Refers to the unborn baby after 10 weeks of gestation until birth".

The baby is a totally seperate individual in the mothers womb from conception. The DNA isn't shared by the mother, it is unique to the baby.

Regards,

Matt

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Let me tell you this guys. As cute as young babies might look, if they could, they would eat their own mother.
Your survival instinct (feeling affection to the baby) and the babies' inability to be hazardous has made the world heavily overpopulated by mankind.

[matt3k]

PMC wrote:

cecilia wrote:
"giving birth" is not just opening the fridge and getting a sandwich. It's quite a complex process.

Ah Cecilia, you've never been to Basildon then... Judging by some of the chav population there, childbirth seems to be greeted with all the fanfare and responsibility of someone getting a sandwich from a fridge.

Seriously though, Abortion is a massively contentious issue. As a man, I don't feel I'm qualified to pass judgement over what a woman can / cannot do with her body.

I agree that abortion must not become yet another form of contraception, but there was the well known case of a chemical plant leaking hazardous substances over a town in Italy a couple of decades ago. At the time, abortion was illegal in the Roman Catholic country, but the nature of the chemicals leaked meant that hundreds of unborn children were severely affected. The abortion law was amended to allow pregnant women to abort to avoid the risk of having a severely disabled / stillborn child.

There was also the recent case of the teenage Irish rape victim who was made pregnant by her attacker. She was unable to get her unwanted child aborted due to Irish law and had to endure media condemnation when she travelled to the UK to get an abortion.

Before we tackle this emotive subject, the above points need to be remembered.

Hi PMC,

I agree that this is a emotive subject.

I have to point out though that I thought as a society that we were at a point that people aren't excluded from decision making based on gender? To say that because of their gender men have no right to be involved is not only sexist but hypocritical. The pro-choice crowd never tells men who are pro-abortion to stay out. They don't tell the 'Bill Clintons' or 'John Kerry's' of the world to mind their own business. In fact, they invite them to be speakers at their conventions.

No one ever complains that the 1973 Supreme Court had no right to be involved in the Roe v. Wade decision in spite of the fact that every single member of that court was male.

No matter how a life arrives here they still have to have rights at conception.

Regards,

Matt

[nadoom]

@mdma

http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf

Reasons for abortions:

Inadequate finances 21%
Not ready for responsibility 21%
Woman’s life would be changed too much 16%
Problems with relationship; unmarried 12%
Too young; not mature enough 11%
Children are grown; woman has all she wants 8%
^------------------ all above lifestyle related 89%

Fetus has possible health problem 3%
Woman has health problem 3%
Pregnancy caused by rape, incest 1%
Other 4%

[matt3k]

Hi Speelgoedmannetje,

The world is actually in a heavy decline in population. Many countries in Europe will collapse if they don't import people from other countries.

People of the world should begin having more children. If nothing more that to collect social security. :lol:

Regards,

Matt

[nadoom]

@Speelgoedmannetje
Plenty room up abergavenny way. (sparsly populated area of wales/england)

The amount of unborn babies that have been aborted since it was legalised in the uk is about 8.1 million.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

matt3k wrote:
Hi Speelgoedmannetje,

The world is actually in a heavy decline in population. Many countries in Europe will collapse if they don't import people from other countries.
Ah yes, because whiter is better. So what IF we import people from other countries? And exactly how would we collapse?


Outbreed thy neighbour :roll:

[Speelgoedmannetje]

nadoom wrote:

The amount of unborn babies that have been aborted since it was legalised in the uk is about 8.1 million. Great, 8.1 million unwanted kids, also being raised as unwanted.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Btw. In most countries where it is legalized, the abortion ratio is the lowest.
It's all a matter of civilization

[nadoom]

Hey im brown and im tellin you right now, that white people better start having kids/not aborting them!

i dont want to see the white race being annihilated!!
:-x

Btw. In most countries where it is legalized, the abortion ratio is the lowest.

Evidence please. Are you saying 1.3 million abortions a year is "low"?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

nadoom wrote:
Btw. In most countries where it is legalized, the abortion ratio is the lowest.

Evidence please. Are you saying 1.3 million abortions a year is "low"?

You should check your facts, maybe Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortus_provocatus) is a good start.

It's all a matter of a certain attitude towards sex.

[matt3k]

8.1 Million kids would greatly help the adoption problem. There is a great shortage of kids to adopt, it takes years to get one.

My wife and I have been looking into adoption and the waiting lists are long...

Perhaps if mothers terminated their pregnancies with a living baby and put he/she up for adoption this problem would be reduced...


Regards,

Matt

[matt3k]

Hi Speel,

8.1 Million kids would greatly help the adoption problem. There is a great shortage of kids to adopt, it takes years to get one.

My wife and I have been looking into adoption and the waiting lists are very long...

Perhaps if mothers terminated their pregnancies with a living baby and put he/she up for adoption this problem would be reduced...


Regards,

Matt

[Speelgoedmannetje]

matt3k wrote:
8.1 Million kids would greatly help the adoption problem. There is a great shortage of kids to adopt, it takes years to get one.

My wife and I have been looking into adoption and the waiting lists are long...

Perhaps if mothers terminated their pregnancies with a living baby and put he/she up for adoption this problem would be reduced...
You should read the link to wikipedia, wich I posted, maybe you get an idea how things are in reality, rather than theory. :-)

[matt3k]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

matt3k wrote:
8.1 Million kids would greatly help the adoption problem. There is a great shortage of kids to adopt, it takes years to get one.

My wife and I have been looking into adoption and the waiting lists are long...

Perhaps if mothers terminated their pregnancies with a living baby and put he/she up for adoption this problem would be reduced...
You should read the link to wikipedia, wich I posted, maybe you get an idea how things are in reality, rather than theory. :-)

Hi Speel,

I will be glad to read the link, but first I must object with your stating that my position is theory. My wife and I in reality have tried to adopt from multiple agencies. The lists in reality are very long.

I sit/have sat on nonprofit boards, indeed acquiring babies for adoption is very competitive because not many are available.

The fact is if babies weren't aborted and put up for adoption, this issue would be resolved.

The reality is that I know a great deal about adoption and the issues with it.

As stated I will read the link, but I wanted to clarify my understanding before continuing.

Regards,

Matt

[Speelgoedmannetje]

matt3k wrote:

My wife and I have been looking into adoption and the waiting lists are long...
Probably you should blame the Patriot act for that in the first place.

[matt3k]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

matt3k wrote:

My wife and I have been looking into adoption and the waiting lists are long...
Probably you should blame the Patriot act for that in the first place.

Hi Speelgoedmannetje,

We started looking far prior to the Patriot act.

The truth is rather simple, if more people would put babies up for adoption, instead of aborting. There would be far more available, therefore much quicker to acquire.

Regards,

Matt

[Speelgoedmannetje]

[nadoom]

it really is simple, abortion is an easy way out and punishes the unborn for a mistake that has been made, better would be to give birth and get the child adopted, OR use contraceptives, it is clearly obvious that 1.3 million abortions per year in the usa (it is a similar percentage in the uk) indicates that people are some what blasee about contraceptives and see abortion as a quick fix.

[cecilia]

matt3k wrote:
Hi Speelgoedmannetje,

The world is actually in a heavy decline in population. Many countries in Europe will collapse if they don't import people from other countries.no, NOT the WHOLE world, only western countries have a declining population. in third world countries the population continues to grow. the WORLD population is still dangerously high. how many people do you think this planet can support? How much pollution from humans can this planet handle? try looking at the BIG picture. there's way too many people all ready.

People of the world should begin having more children.that would be a disaster.

if you want to adapt try china. A relative of mine adapted a lovely girl from that part of the world and she's very bright and talented. Life should be about Quality, not quantity. MORE people is not better.

instead of people worrying about abortion they should spend time teaching people about contraception and responsible sexual behavior. all of which goes against the religious nuts, of course, but civilized people have to do the best they can dispite crackpots.

I refered earlier to that girl in HS school who had gotten 4 abortions. the main reason is because catholics encourage girls to feel shame about sex. If you even think about it you are somehow EVIL. So, how can a teenager begin to learn how to accept sexual behavior in an adult manner if you can't even think about it?

If you are adult you prepare for it by buying contraception. Naturally this girl couldn't do that because that would be admitting to the shame of sexual thoughts. So, when her boyfriend started to get friendly she could convince herself that it' wasn't her fault. The situation got away from her, she wasn't to blame. This, of course, is total BS, but it's the kind of illogic that people engage in when they are forced to by religious repression.
I'm not excusing it - after all, I didn't even have a date when I was that age because I didn't want to be stupid.
But, not everyone can be rational in the face of religious pressure.

religious groups make alot of noise about abortion because it satisfies their agendas. But that is just a distraction from what is really going on. They object to women having control over their lives. And as technology made contraception possible, the lives of women started to improve. When women could really work, have income, they could really gain more control. No longer were they forced to be enslaved and at the whim of others.

I'm so thankful that I was born at this time in history when I can decide what I want to do with my life. And not just in this time, but this place - just look at all those unfortunate women in africa. poverty, disease, children (many of whom will end up dead or worse). What a horror.

instead of getting all nutty about a non-issue, how about helping people in africa to have a better life?

[nadoom]

Dont bunch religious groups together, islam allows contraception.

people who hold this point of view are not getting 'nutty' they are expressing an opinion and a possible solution, they are not loading up the a.k. and heading out to the nearest clinic to mow em all down.

It is an issue, life is an important thing and the rights of the unborn do matter to some people.

It is an issue, life is an important thing and the rights of the unborn do matter to some people.

But only to the minority. The majority of people care more about the rights of the woman.

In the "Western" world at least.

[Cymric]

nadoom wrote:
it really is simple, abortion is an easy way out and punishes the unborn for a mistake that has been made, better would be to give birth and get the child adopted, OR use contraceptives, it is clearly obvious that 1.3 million abortions per year in the usa (it is a similar percentage in the uk) indicates that people are some what blasee about contraceptives and see abortion as a quick fix.
I am going to merge your answer to my response and this one together.

First of all, forcing the mother to carry the baby to term and then put it up for adoption is of course ridiculous. It ignores very conveniently how the child will feel when it is old enough to learn the truth of its ancestry ('adopted because your biological mother didn't want you, but was made to have you anyway---learn to live with it'), and begins to seek out its biological mother. That's a very nice prospect to look forward to.

Second, as far as contraceptives go, I think we are in agreement that they are the alternative to abortions. Cheaper, easier, far less hassle, and no need for complicated medical procedures. Your opinion that people see abortions as an easy way out then hinges on the assumption that everyone knows everything there is to know about contraceptives, is not ashamed of buying them, has the financial resources to get them, and is always very strict on using them as indicated. That happens as often as hell freezes over.

Women are not always strict with pills. Sometimes their body chemistry is just weird and unpredictable---women are not robots. Sometimes the contraceptive just doesn't work or fails because the people having sex thought they were using them properly, or were relying on fish wives' tales to prevent pregnancy. Sometimes there's copious amounts of alcohol involved. Cecilia already pointed out the disgusting and barbaric influence of religion, where (in some circles) people are made to feel ashamed of their own body and kept in the dark on purpose because to explain things would be 'sinful'. (A few years ago, a JHW couple, well into their 30's, went to a doctor because they could not conceive. It turns out they were completely unaware of the technicalities of becoming pregnant: literally, they did not know how to f-u-c-k.)

As a corollary, if a woman and a man take the necessary steps provided by modern medical technology, such as using condoms, or a diaphragm, or the pill, or whatever, and still manage to conceive, I really see no problem in calling the same medical technology to the rescue.I find it hypocritical to withhold the same technology when it fails on the grounds of some people thinking that it is immoral, unjust, barbaric, or whatever. Their intent at that time was 'not to conceive', for whatever reason. That reason still holds should the need for an abortion arise. Little lists such as already appeared to indicate the reasons for an abortion are therefore open to misinterpretation: they suggest that mom was a lazy bimbo who loved opening her legs for whatever prick looked her way, using abortions as a cheap way of solving whatever problem arose, and thinking of a cliche excuse to explain the need for one. Much more meaningful would be to present data on why an abortion was required in the first place---in other words, what went wrong with the contraception. Oddly enough, such data are never publised: it is always the lifestyle-related numbers which are supposed to convince us.

Sorry, but no. There will be women who indeed use abortions as a cheap contraceptive, but I am fairly sure that people in the clinics are sufficiently trained to ask the proper questions when someone visits them too often. It is now too late (as in 'I need to go to bed') to look up exact numbers, but over here, the vast majority of women entering a clinic only does so once in their lives. That doesn't square at all with the suggestion you wish to impress on us that abortions are taken too lightly.

[matt3k]

Cecilia and Cymric:

I can give plenty of examples of women who choose to have their baby and their life was better, or how I know lots of women who regret their abortion and wish they could take it back. Or how difficult and expensive it is to adopt because of shortages in babies. Telling these type of stories from both camps is getting us off the original topic.

Lets stay focused and talk about abortion for a minute. Abortion is the murdering of a baby. If your for abortion, your for murder of that baby. Can we at least agree on this before continuing?


Regards,

Matt

Abortion is the murdering of a baby. If your for abortion, your for murder of that baby.

IN YOUR OPINION!!!!

The fact is murder is illegal. Abortion isn't, therefore it isn't murder.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human life.

Abortion is neither unlawful, nor is it the act of killing a human life. It is a termination of the further development of a foetus up to 24 weeks from conception.

After that date, then yes it is murder.

This isn't my opinion, it is fact.

[PMC]

matt3k wrote:

I can give plenty of examples of women who choose to have their baby and their life was better, or how I know lots of women who regret their abortion and wish they could take it back.


So what about our Irish rape victim, or our Italian woman who lived downwind of a chemical plant? Agreed, abortion is not ideal but not everyone is in turmoil because they've elected to abort.

At sixteen, I had a mishap with a girlfriend that resulted in her taking the morning after pill, despite me taking appropriate precautions. Did that make us murderers?


Or how difficult and expensive it is to adopt because of shortages in babies. Telling these type of stories from both camps is getting us off the original topic.


No it isn't. Adoption is way too difficult, and is something I feel very strongly about. Many people bring unwanted children into the world, but there are fewer still who'd choose to raise these kids as their own. Frankly, the barriers in the way of adoption are shameful.


Lets stay focused and talk about abortion for a minute. Abortion is the murdering of a baby.


I refer you to my post above.

[matt3k]

mdma wrote:
Abortion is the murdering of a baby. If your for abortion, your for murder of that baby.

IN YOUR OPINION!!!!

The fact is murder is illegal. Abortion isn't, therefore it isn't murder.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human life.

Abortion is neither unlawful, nor is it the act of killing a human life. It is a termination of the further development of a foetus up to 24 weeks from conception.

After that date, then yes it is murder.

This isn't my opinion, it is fact.

Hi MDMA,

I'm glad you brought this up.

Brings up a very intertesting point. In any other form of murdering an unborn baby, you will be prosecuted with murder but, not with abortion? You could be on the way to get an abortion, some drunk hits your car and the baby dies and you sue and win for manslaughter. Don't you find this a bit incongruent? So it's not a living baby because I want to dump it, but now that this drunk hit my car and I can cash in, yeah it's a baby.

If we didn't question and challenge ourselves slavery would still be legal. Which in priciple is exactly as I describe above, a slave wasn't a living human being, they were a piece of property.

I used to be prochoice/proabortion. Only after long debates and exchanges with others did I become prolife.

Regards,

Matt

In any other form of murdering an unborn baby, you will be prosecuted with murder but, not with abortion? You could be on the way to get an abortion, some drunk hits your car and the baby dies and you sue and win for manslaughter.

Maybe in America you would be charged, but not in the UK.

Apologies for ranting at you the other day.

I'd had some bad news and I vented my spleen at you.

[cecilia]

matt3k wrote:
Cecilia and Cymric:

I can give plenty of examples of women who choose to have their baby and their life was better, or how I know lots of women who regret their abortion and wish they could take it back.so what? the point is people should have a choice. I don't tell others that they SHOULD have abortions or Shouldn't. they need to make that decision themselves. I would expect the same respect given to myself to decide what is Best for me!
I carefully thought about the topic BEFORE I even had a date and decided that if the situation came up I'd opt for abortion. I wouldn't even say anything to the guy. I'll bet that lots of people don't ever think about it Until they suddenly and unexpectedly get pregnant. This, of course is silly, but many people are!

Abortion is the murdering of a baby. If your for abortion, your for murder of that baby. Can we at least agree on this before continuing?of course not. A fetus is Not a baby. a fetus only has the POTENTIAL for Maybe Becoming a person. Someday. Maybe.
This what people really don't understand about the process of fetal development and birth. Just because you can - in your mind - visualize a baby that doesn't mean it will Become a baby. you have just romanticized the notion in your head.
A few cells with DNA is NOT a person. otherwise the snot out of your nose could be classified as a person. according to you, blowing your nose is the same as murder.
how rediculous! :roll:

Nature often aborts a fetus. a miscarriage is still common. are you going to arrest "Mother Nature"???

[Cymric]

matt3k wrote:
I can give plenty of examples of women who choose to have their baby and their life was better, or how I know lots of women who regret their abortion and wish they could take it back. Or how difficult and expensive it is to adopt because of shortages in babies. Telling these type of stories from both camps is getting us off the original topic.
And you conveniently ignore all I've written, because all you care about is what is written below:

Lets stay focused and talk about abortion for a minute. Abortion is the murdering of a baby. If your for abortion, your for murder of that baby. Can we at least agree on this before continuing?
No, we can't, I'm sorry. And that's precisely why I am not going to respond to this thread any longer after posting this message. You see, your kind flat-out refuses to accept that other people hold a different kind of view, and immediately resorts to using language as 'abortion is the murdering of a baby' in order to press the point home. You are thinking this through on highly emotional grounds, and there is no reasoning with emotions. You feel You Are Right And I Am Wrong, no matter what I say---unless, of course, I agree with you. That attitude is remarkably equal to the one when I'm talking with creationists, intelligent designers, HIV deniers, Moon hoax believers, euthanasia deterrers, homophobes, and people of similarly misguided ilk. Such 'discussions' are ultimately futile and a waste of bandwidth.

See it like this: suppose I am pregnant, and you my GP. I want to have an abortion, and you tell me: 'No. Learn to live with it.' Compare that to this discussion: You tell me that I should agree to your definition of abortion. I tell you: 'No. Learn to live with it.'

And that is why I now bid you gentlemen and ladies goodbye.

[bloodline]

nadoom wrote:
@cymric

What you beleive naturally what you regard is right or wrong, this is a discussion about abortion. I brought up this topic because i think we should discuss it, certain things have happened in my life recently that have highlighted the barbarity of the practice.



For some people the killing and eating of Animals is a barbaric practice... want to disscuss that as well?



You will find that new born babies are also 'horribly' dependant on their mothers to live, they cannot feed them selves and need constant attention. Would you dismember them and suck them up a tube, even with 5 days of careful contemplation? The idea that dependency has anything to do with being alive or not is absurd.



I've had a bad throat infection for the last week, that little disease is very much alive and dependant upon me, would you rather I didn't take an antibiotics to get rid of it... how is it any different from the unwanted baby?



And while you're at it: what does 'civilised' entail, precisely? No handwaving now, please...

A civilised society would be seriously concerned with such high abortion rates.



A civilised society should be much more concerned about loss of freedom to choose.



@mdma

Don't like the laws here? Move to Ireland.

Every time i say something about anything you tell me to leave the country.. its as if you think this country only has room enough for one opinion (yours)



What mdma is pointing out is that we live in a democracy. We have to live by the majority views, I am happy to live this way even though I might not always like the decisions taken. You are not forced to accept this way of life and you have the option to either vote against it at the appropriate time, or move to somewhere where your views are the norm.



I have actually been thinking about moving to ireland. maybe in the future.

Regarding the law the point i was trying to raise is that "law" doesn't automatically make something right or wrong, the law in south africa 20 years ago classified peoples rights according to the colour of there skin, obviously that kind of law is wrong and shouldn't be followed because it is immoral.



I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Right and Wrong are social constructs (regardless of where you believe they come from) and can only exist in the context of the people who acept them. What is right in one society is not right in another... Some countries think it's accetable to require women to cover their heads in public!

In some countries, and I know this sounds crazy, but Homosexuality is considered wrong!




@all
Another reason for this debate is that alot of members are happy to debate the rights and wrongs of muslim nations and how theyre societies are backwards and barbaricetc, but here in the west abortion happen en mass every day and is in islamic terms a disgrace. I suppose this is the west's very own honour killing system.



Don't turn this into a tit-for-tat argument, it reduces you to the level of the people I assumed you were superior to.

By making this statement you are essentially condoning the Honour Killing system.



I do disagree with abortion, i think the manner in which it is trivialised is unjust both to the mother and to the unborn baby. Adoption and contraception are adequate solutions to this problem.



Contraception fails, Rapists often to forget to use condoms... I would urge to to find out a little more about what happens to unwanted children... spend some time with a social worker who specialises in child welfare and you would probably need to have a good long think about your view.



Just because this issue is thorny doesnt mean that it is any different to any topic in this section, this section is by its very nature contraversial.



You aren't entering a logical discussion, you taking an ill-informed emotion stand which is of no value to anyone.



if you are interested you can find a downloadable version of "the slient scream" where the process of abortion can be seen via ultrasound etc. it is disturbing so be careful:

http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm



I know some wicked links too!!

http://www.fat-pie.com/spoilsminus2.htm

[PMC]

bloodline wrote:

Contraception fails, Rapists often to forget to use condoms... I would urge to to find out a little more about what happens to unwanted children... spend some time with a social worker to specialises in child welfare and you would probably need to have a good long think about your view.


Exactly!

Bloodline's point about rapists often not using condoms opens up a whole moral arguement. What happens to a baby conceived in an act of violence? What is the moral high ground in this case?

Also, some people conveniently forget that contraception does fail - condoms have a nasty habit of breaking. Sometimes the pill doesn't have time to work because the woman taking it suffers an upset stomach or is taking other medication that reduces the pill's effectiveness. What then?

How do you tell a scared and inexperienced sixteen year old that they've just thrown their future away because of a bad batch of latex? The important factor here is that an informed choice can be made, provided that the individuals concerned are properly counselled.

Simply throwing emotional rhetoric at the crux of the arguement does not answer the questions raised: Is sex education edequate? What happens in the extraordinary circumstances above? How would you react if your unborn child was severely disabled?

[bloodline]

PMC wrote:
How would you react if your unborn child was severely disabled?

Great point!

I had forgotten about this one! Imagine a young couple who want to have a child... but test show that the child is severely disabled and is going to require a great deal of care for the rest of it's life... Should the couple be forced to have this child, putting a huge strain on thier (and their families and the states) resources to the probable detriment of their other children as well as themselves?

Would it not be better to allow the couple to decide if they can deal with this situation?

[PMC]

bloodline wrote:

Would it not be better to allow the couple to decide if they can deal with this situation?


Precisely. It's not the duty of the state to intervene, the end decision on whether to continue with the pregnancy or abort is given to the parents, who would then reconcile their choice with whatever moral code they abide by.

Not one person has also raised the point about how to deal with an ectopic pregnancy - ie the foetus is lodged in one of the fallopian tubes, with dire consequences for both mother and child. What then?

If my partner's life was put in jeopardy due to pregnancy complications, I'd be very, very upset if the state (or whatever moral guardian judged itself fit to think on my/our behalf) took the decision away from me, my partner and the medical profession.

[matt3k]

Cymric wrote:
matt3k wrote:
I can give plenty of examples of women who choose to have their baby and their life was better, or how I know lots of women who regret their abortion and wish they could take it back. Or how difficult and expensive it is to adopt because of shortages in babies. Telling these type of stories from both camps is getting us off the original topic.
And you conveniently ignore all I've written, because all you care about is what is written below:

Lets stay focused and talk about abortion for a minute. Abortion is the murdering of a baby. If your for abortion, your for murder of that baby. Can we at least agree on this before continuing?
No, we can't, I'm sorry. And that's precisely why I am not going to respond to this thread any longer after posting this message. You see, your kind flat-out refuses to accept that other people hold a different kind of view, and immediately resorts to using language as 'abortion is the murdering of a baby' in order to press the point home. You are thinking this through on highly emotional grounds, and there is no reasoning with emotions. You feel You Are Right And I Am Wrong, no matter what I say---unless, of course, I agree with you. That attitude is remarkably equal to the one when I'm talking with creationists, intelligent designers, HIV deniers, Moon hoax believers, euthanasia deterrers, homophobes, and people of similarly misguided ilk. Such 'discussions' are ultimately futile and a waste of bandwidth.

See it like this: suppose I am pregnant, and you my GP. I want to have an abortion, and you tell me: 'No. Learn to live with it.' Compare that to this discussion: You tell me that I should agree to your definition of abortion. I tell you: 'No. Learn to live with it.'

And that is why I now bid you gentlemen and ladies goodbye.

I would've been happy to discuss those other items with you, but if we can't come up with an understanding and definitions of the topic we are discussing. Then it is pointless.

I bring up a very valid point that you are ignoring. How can a fetus(which by definition is an unborn baby.) have no rights if you wish to apply abortion and full rights as a human being if I wish to sue for manslaughter. If you can't discuss the baby/fetus, we are missing the whole point of the discussion.

I would argue the reason you are leaving is because you can't admit this fact, because of the precarious position it would put you in. Remember I used to be prochoice, if you admit that in certain situations fetuses have rights and none in other situation. Your arguement falls apart. This is exactly one of the items I had to come to terms with prior to becomming prolife.

You mentioned technology before, I could easily say with all the technology babies born prematurely are surviving at a much greater rate and women are surviving troubled prenancies but, discussing this is premature at this point, we have to define the language and the nature of abortion.

Regards,

Matt

[matt3k]

Hi Cecilia,

How can I sue for murder of a fetus if it not a baby/human being?

The very definition of fetus in humans is: either unborn young or unborn baby.

Not one person in this thread can admit that and unborn baby is a baby. In a court of law it is proven all the time, but we can't here which is totally amazing...

Reminds me so much when Jackson had to give speaking engagements labeled "why the negro is a man". People couldn't see that a slave was an actual human being. I think we need to have another engagement "why an unborn baby is a baby"...

As I stated earlier this was one of the clinchers that change my stance on abortion.

Regards,

Matt

[PMC]

@Matt3K

Where do you stand on the Morning After pill?

Do you consider the use of that to be an abortion (ie could potentially prevent a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the womb), or contraception (life does not begin until fertilized egg is implanted)?

I'd be interested to hear your views.

[matt3k]

bloodline wrote:

PMC wrote:
How would you react if your unborn child was severely disabled?

Great point!

I had forgotten about this one! Imagine a young couple who want to have a child... but test show that the child is severely disabled and is going to require a great deal of care for the rest of it's life... Should the couple be forced to have this child, putting a huge strain on thier (and their families and the states) resources to the probable detriment of their other children as well as themselves?

Would it not be better to allow the couple to decide if they can deal with this situation?


Hi Bloodline and PMC,

If the baby was severly handicapped I would definately have him/her. Regardless of handicap, color, race, etc. The baby still has rights.

As I have stated already, if I can sue for murder if I decide the baby has rights. The fetus in a court of law is a baby, granting me the right to sue.

Do you believe that the baby has rights or not? Either the fetus/baby is a human being and has right or it doesn't. How would you define this?


Regards,

Matt

As I have stated already, if I can sue for murder if I decide the baby has rights.

And as I have already stated, you *cannot* be prosecuted for the manslaughter of a foetus under 24 weeks gestation.

[cecilia]

matt3k wrote:
Hi Cecilia,

How can I sue for murder of a fetus if it not a baby/human being?

The very definition of fetus in humans is: either unborn young or unborn baby.no, that's YOUR definition. it's not the definition that educated people understand. A lump of cells is not a person.

Reminds me so much when Jackson had to give speaking engagements labeled "why the negro is a man". People couldn't see that a slave was an actual human being. I think we need to have another engagement "why an unborn baby is a baby"... "the negro" is a person because they have been born and they are genetically homo sapien.

[cecilia]

matt3k wrote:
.... I could easily say with all the technology babies born prematurely are surviving at a much greater rate and women are surviving troubled prenancies......if you research premature births you will find out that these children never really "catch" up to the children who are born to term. there is something necessary about actually Being and Developing in the womb. something that being placed in an artificial glass case can not really substitute for. You aggressively refuse to accept my point about birth and pregnancy being a PROCESS. that lump of cells in the womb are not in storage. They aren't just hanging out there for nine months (if and ONLY if all goes well). They are actualizing. Becoming. They haven't Become immediately. they are in the Act OF becoming. The reason DNA is called a "blueprint" is because it's shows the PLANS for a person. it's not the actual person. During those months the plans (DNA) are being reviewed and one by one, starting to be implimented. It's not done until it's finished.

To continue the "blueprint analogy": You are busy running into the architects office screaming about your house, and he's looking at you like your are retarded because all he has in front of him is drawings on paper. Well, you can't live in a drawing. And many a drawing has NOT ended up as a house.

face it, buddy, you just ain't smart enough to understand what is being discussed here. You really DO think a mother is a refrigerator and is only holding on to this "baby" for a stretch of time and then, PLOP, out it comes. You are completely clueless.
why don't you go to the library, look up some biology books and in about 10 years get back to us. OK?

Cecilia, I love you. :-D

[matt3k]

Hi Cecilia,

*quote:
no, that's YOUR definition. it's not the definition that educated people understand. A lump of cells is not a person.
*

Please google: "Definition of a fetus". As I have stated numerous times Cecilia the definition is an Unborn baby/unborn youth.

A Court of law, not me uses that definition. How else could you sue for manslaugher?

This has absolutely nothing to do with me. I'm pointing to the issue that abortion creates.

I pulled this definition from wiki:

A fetus (alternatively foetus or fœtus) is an unborn human offspring from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Prior to this time, the offspring is an embryo. Fetus literally means 'young one'.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

This is an huge issue dealing with the rights of the unborn. It is very important to define the language and meaning of this topic, before discussing it...

*quote
"the negro" is a person because they have been born and they are genetically homo sapien.
*
Citizens refused to see and understand that, even though you and I see it so obviously. An unborn baby is Still a baby, which under law has rights, and some people today still can't see this.

Regards,

Matt

[Speelgoedmannetje]

matt3k wrote:

A fetus (alternatively foetus or fœtus) is an unborn human offspring from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Prior to this time, the offspring is an embryo. Fetus literally means 'young one'.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
Language cannot be used as argument. Human language has no scientific meaning. Language is a cultural dependant thing. And it appears you cannot understand things beyond your culture.

A Court of law, not me uses that definition. How else could you sue for manslaugher?

Are you blind or ignorant?

Or are you arrogant enough to think that the rest of the world is the USA.

[PMC]

[matt3k]

mdma wrote:

A Court of law, not me uses that definition. How else could you sue for manslaugher?

Are you blind or ignorant?

Or are you arrogant enough to think that the rest of the world is the USA.

Hi MDMA,

Why resort to slander instead of discussing this fundamental principle? I'm from the US and can speak well concerning it's issues. Have I ever implied or expressed that you can't speak to this because your from the UK, and implied ignorance on your part? I respect your opinions and have treated you accordingly.

Your trying to take away from the truth stated by calling me ignorant and I don't appreciate it. I'm simply articulating items THAT ARE REALITY AND HAVE HAPPENED.

At this point know one here has engaged in conversation to discuss the incongruent placement of rights to the unborn human being.

I have continued to ask very simple questions that no one is willing to discuss and are attempting to get off subject into other areas before we adequately define the priciples and language of abortion.

I consider this a human rights issue and if anyone who considers themselves for human rights, even if they are proabortion, should at least humor me in this exercise.

Regards,

Matt

[PMC]

matt3k wrote:

I consider this a human rights issue and if anyone who considers themselves for human rights, even if they are proabortion, should at least humor me in this exercise.

Matt

So what you're saying is you're here to lecture us on human rights, and not answer any of the questions we've asked in return?

[matt3k]

PMC wrote:

matt3k wrote:

If the baby was severly handicapped I would definately have him/her. Regardless of handicap, color, race, etc. The baby still has rights.


@Matt3k

Have you any experience with dealing with severely handicapped people? It's okay to say "Oh, yes I'd definately have him/her", but do you fully appreciate the impact that someone with severe disabilities would have on your life?

Moreover, the point is largely moot because I'm guessing that you're not female. Like it or lump it (no pun intended), we don't have to carry the foetus for nine months before having to endure something akin to passing a bowling ball.



As I have stated already, if I can sue for murder if I decide the baby has rights. The fetus in a court of law is a baby, granting me the right to sue.

Do you believe that the baby has rights or not? Either the fetus/baby is a human being and has right or it doesn't. How would you define this?



A consciousness is what makes us human. As Cecilia aptly put it, a foetus is a collection of cells being built to a blueprint, consciousness develops later (IMHO).

However I have still to read your views on emergency contraception and/or the situation whereby your partner's life (together with the life of an unborn child) would be in jeopardy if the pregnancy was allowed to continue.

I'd much rather hear your interpretation of the last paragraph than be directed to wikipedia.

Hi PMC,

Yes, I donate my time to a camp for handicapped individuals and I believe all that I serve have rights, so yes I know first hand what it's like but, there again it doesn't matter yet, I'm trying to discuss abortion and lay a frame work before I go off into other items.

Please read my response to MDMA concerning that.... Thanks...

My definition frankly doesn't matter. I could say the fetus is a nonhuman lump of cells without any rights, but based on the dictionary and what happens in courts my definition would be 100% false.

Does a baby have rights or not?

You mention consciousness, when is a unborn baby aware of his surroundings and conscious? Surely if you would say that an unborn baby has individual rights, taking them would be a major human rights violation, Would you agree with this or not?

If can't define abortion, babies rights, discussion of ancilary subjects is futile.


Regards,

Matt

[PMC]

matt3k wrote:
If can't define abortion, babies rights, discussion of ancilary subjects is futile.

Matt

Clearly, I was mistaken in my interpretation that this was a discussion. If you keep referring me to the dictionary as a crux of your arguement then it is obvious that I am attempting to converse with someone unable/unwilling to enter into any discourse beyond "LOOK AT THE DAMN DICTIONARY AND AGREE WITH ME BEFORE WE CAN DISCUSS".

It seems to me sir, that all you're willing to do is to treat the idea of "discussion" as a means of spouting idealistic good-book thumping rhetoric, probably because people in the street find you as tiresome as I have.

Should you change your mind about treating this thread as a monologue then I'd be more than happy to entertain reasoned debate. As it stands, you've wasted four pages of the same verse, despite people's well intentioned attempts to provoke reasoned (and two way) debate.

Good night.

[bloodline]

@matt3k

The problem is, that I don't want to force anyone to have an abortion... but you want to force people to not have one, if they choose too.

Imagine a crazed psychopath rapes your wife/girlfriend (or even your mother/sister), I'm sure you'd be well chuffed to have band new baby to look after!

Your trying to take away from the truth stated by calling me ignorant and I don't appreciate it. I'm simply articulating items THAT ARE REALITY AND HAVE HAPPENED.

I "asked" if you were blind or ignorant, because I had twice previously informed you that what you were stating as fact are only "facts" in your culture, and you had ignored me both times.

As someone else has since pointed out, you seem unable to understand things beyond your own culture.

If can't define abortion, babies rights

Case in point.

You don't get to define these things, yet you somehow think that you do.

[cecilia]

mdma wrote:
Cecilia, I love you. :-Dwhy, thank you! I think I was INspired when I wrote that last one! it happens, sometimes! :-D

[cecilia]

matt3k wrote:
I pulled this definition from wiki:

A fetus (alternatively foetus or f?tus) is an unborn human offspring from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Prior to this time, the offspring is an embryo. Fetus literally means 'young one'.
just so you know, I majored in Experimental Psychology in Graduate school (which, by the way is a SCIENCE as opposed to clinical Psychology which is a bunch of women yentering it up). I had several classes in Comparative Psychology (animal behavior). I realize subtle points tend to escape you. The rest may find this instructive (or amusing). :-D

let's examine the wiki's article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus), shall we?

AS you noted but obviously failed to Comprehend, the "fetus develops from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy". Notice the word "develop". See how it implys that CHANGE has occurred. particularly after 2 months. take note that "a fetus is an organism, as yet undeveloped"

did you see that word? undeveloped???? very important!!!
Watch out! here comes the next Really important part:
"in the process of becoming a functional individual of a species."

WOW, i counted 5 important words in there! At no time is it implied that this is a finished person.

a very cool sentence right here: "The circulatory system of a human fetus works differently from that of born humans, mainly because the lungs are not in use: the fetus obtains oxygen and nutrients from the mother through the placenta and the umbilical cord."

that one makes me feel warm all over!

----

And as to the "law", here's a little factoid you might consider: If a criminal hurts another person during their criminal act and this results in the termination of a pregnancy, this is considered a wrongful death Because the person who was pregnant had the intention of at least trying to give birth (assuming nature didn't stop it). That woman Wants to hopefully have a human baby. and if a criminal prevents that from happening, then THAT is the crime.

The criminal basically "invaded" that womans' personal space and distrupted what one may assume to be a normal, healthy pregnacy. Of course it's wrong to interfer with someone health and life.
Just like it's wrong when those wackos went to health clinics and shot doctors because they may have helped women get abortions.

And, if you were really interested in helping people you would go to Russia where there are lots of babies born to women with HIV who abandon them. These children can't even get placed in adoption homes because people don't want to deal with them. The lucky ones stay at the hospital where they were left.
Come on, buddy? where's your plane ticket?

[jkirk]

I have continued to ask very simple questions that no one is willing to discuss and are attempting to get off subject into other areas before we adequately define the priciples and language of abortion.

you want an answer here is one

1 abortion is a decision in which pegnancy is ended by the mother(either surgically or medicinally)

2 manslaughter is a consequence of negligent behavior by anyone towards the fetus (this includes the mother)

i myself am anti-abortion except in certain circumstances however i recognize not all people believe the same as me so i will not force it down their throat.

life is precious to me(especially since me and my wife cannot have kids of our own)but the law says that abortion is legal i have to accept that. however this decision is best kept between the involved parties NOT only by an idealistic outsider.


BTW: a little factoid did you know the us military and the us health system classifies pregnancy as a disease. :-o

[KThunder]

i think that idealistic outsiders may be the best to decide these things. on the inside it is easy to allow emotions to cloud your judgment.
presuming that a person would reconsider abortion if an unwanted pregnancy happened to them or someone close to them is not the point as many (~85 percent according to harvard research) or incest/rape victims dont abort even if it is legal.
someone mentioned the blueprint arguement earlier and it is a good one except for one thing: after conception the house is already being built and if the house is a fetus(baby) the consideration is different than if we were really talking about raw genetic information: bueprint.

[KThunder]

on a separate but very related issue (and the originar of this thread):

yes abortion is bad, here is why.

the theory of evolution teaches children that they are just animals, no more no less. not special in the least except being the top of the food chain.

abortion teaches children (myself included as i was born after roe v wade) that they are not important. they could have been snuffed out of existance before they were even born and noone, except a bunch of right wing extreamests would have even batted an eye.

put these two thing together and ill tell you what you get,

suicide as a leading killer of teens,
drug abuse not only prevalent but condsidered normal among young people,
murder for seemingly unimportant things: embrassment, etc.
loss of moral certainty,- right and wrong dont really exist except as inconveniant social constructs

these same things happened in most world empires before they collapsed from greece to rome to aztec

yes abortion is bad

In your opinion.

drug abuse not only prevalent but condsidered normal among young people,
murder for seemingly unimportant things: embrassment, etc.

Have you ever tried to take your own life?
Do you suffer from a severe mental illness?
Have you ever frequently taken recreational drugs?
Have you ever had an addiction to a Class-A narcotic?

Learning about evolution and abortion does not make you do/suffer from any of the above.

I should know.

[KThunder]

if you read my last two posts youll probably rip them apart and stuff but answer me a question- when does it become wrong for you. if two minutes before birth isnt wrong why is two minutes after. because a fetus isnt a baby does that mean it has no rights? an infant isnt yet an adult does that mean its right to life is different? it is as dependant on others as when it was in the womb, what if the woman waites untill just after delivery to say that she had been raped.
there really isnt a point were a baby changes significantly. from the very beginning it has its own genetics. very quickly it has its own blood type, sex, brain waves etc. it never actually is a part of the womans body.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

KThunder wrote:
these same things happened in most world empires before they collapsed from greece to rome to aztec You might back this up with source, 'cause I disagree with you. The downfalls were due to either making too many/too powerfull enemies, changing of religion, diseases (and sometimes all these disasters happened at the same time).

[KThunder]

200 years ago most people believed that they were created special by God they were important because of that. life was truely considered sacred.
i counsel young people who have no idea what value there is to life whatsoever. you live once and there is supposedly nothing else so grab all you can at any expense.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Sorry, no.

200 years ago people were advised to wear weapons when they travelled from city to city, because they were bound to be robbed.

[KThunder]

>Learning about evolution and abortion does not make you do/suffer from any of the above.

no it doesnt make you do any of those things but children learning these things (my kids started learning about evolution in kindergarten) develop a world view as i described. they dont consider others to be inportant or special so they dont value them except for what they get from them. personal feelings are supreme and if anything or anyone else interferes the person acts out, escape throught sucide, drugs etc. are common. and unfortunately violence is becoming more prevolent. how can school kids bring guns to school and blow their freinds away. simple they consider their feelings to be more important than anyone elses life

[KThunder]

sorry yes,
we are not talking about criminal activities here there are other motivations for that. although that is also becoming more of a problem.
slavery was justified because there was "scientific" rational that stated that african born peoples were less than human, less evolved, hence no right to life even if they were born.
indians, and aboriginies were slaughtered by the thousands for the same reason. some with jews, homosexuals, and gypsies in WWII.
whenever one group of people decides that any other has no right to life bad things happen. there are hundreds of documented cases were in WWII neighbores told soldiers that so and so was a jew and then stepped in to collect all valuables when so and so was taken

[Speelgoedmannetje]

KThunder wrote:
sorry yes, Sorry no,
Apparently you don't know the (ultraviolent) past. :roll:
(advice: Google)

[KThunder]

noone is saying that violent things didnt happen in the past, just that one of the reasons for such things happening today is the loss of the value of life in kids minds

[KThunder]

slavery was justified because there was "scientific" rational that stated that african born peoples were less than human, less evolved, hence no right to life even if they were born.
indians, and aboriginies were slaughtered by the thousands for the same reason. some with jews, homosexuals, and gypsies in WWII.
whenever one group of people decides that any other has no right to life bad things happen. there are hundreds of documented cases were in WWII neighbores told soldiers that so and so was a jew and then stepped in to collect all valuables when so and so was taken

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Read history again, dude, BEYOND the history of the British empire.
Your statement is based on nothing but your own 'healthy' thoughts.

[cecilia]

there really isnt a point were (sic) a baby changes significantly. from the very beginningthat's what you non scientists Never seem to understand no matter how often I and others point it out to you.
Yes, there IS a point when a fetus becomes a person. It's called "birth".

Generally, when this creature that has been Developing inside a womb gets to a certain point in that incredibly complex development, nature then decides it has to leave the womb and continue on a different mode of existence. Mothers usually don't make that decision. The water breaks and the contractions happen and everyone knows it's time to speed to the hospital.

There's a moment when a just born baby has to take in air into it's lungs for the first time. And while it's true that newborn HUMANS are basically defenseless, that's because human babies have such a large brain and need alot of time after birth to develop it. Many other mammals start to walk and move about almost immediately after birth. They have to. It's learn to run now or get eaten.

The point is that when that moment (birth) is reached, a fetus can no longer exist in a womb. It's wouldn't survive in there. One could almost say that staying there would be toxic.

I'm trying to get you to see how this is a complex process and not some abstract notion you have where it's all simple and black and white.

My opinions about this topic are based on what nature does. In nature there's plenty of "what if's", but they are there in case "this" or "that" behavior doesn't work. It's about survival.

Try going to old cemetaries - I like the ones in Boston. You will see a family grouped in the following way: Mr Smith's stone and next to him is the first Mrs Smith. Next to her is one or more babies that died during childbirth or soon after. Then you have the 2nd Mrs Smith (the 1st probably died in one of those births). You'll have a few more babies from wife number 2. And the cemetary doesn't list the miscarriages. Both my grandmother and mother had at least one miscarriage - and they were VERY healthy. There have been a hell of alot of dead babies for millions of years. In fact, it's only in the last century that women haven't died in droves. And that's only in Western countres.

Stop romantising fetus' and babies. It just looks silly.

how can school kids bring guns to school and blow their freinds away

Simple. They live in a backward country that lets them.

That is another thread entirely.

[cecilia]

KThunder wrote:
slavery was justified because there was "scientific" rational that stated that african born peoples were less than human, less evolved, hence no right to life even if they were born.that's not science. What RELIGIOUS kooks did was try and couch their bigotry by saying it was science.
If you actually understand science then this is what you know:

the last 13 odd years of the 20th century were spent mapping the human genome (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml). There's many things one learns from this, but in this thread the main idea is that All humans, no matter what they may look like are all related and "equal". We are, in fact each others brothers and sisters. no kidding.

Your thesis which has run across all your posts is that science encourages unethical behavior. And that religion is the only source of morals. to which I say Bullsh*t.

On the contrary, many a non-religious person has lived their lives very ethically. check out humanist society (http://www.americanhumanist.org/index.html) which aspires to:

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

there's been and are many creative and usful members of socity who feel that way, including my hero, Isaac Asimov.

A logical and educated human mind can not be currupted by stupidity. try it sometime.

[PMC]

cecilia wrote:
[quote]Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

Thanks Cecilia, I'm a devout humanist then! I've been looking for the spiritual pigeonhole for some time.

Back on-topic (and hoping for reasoned debate this time):

So at what point is a bunch of cells considered "human"? We live in an age where the genetic uniqueness what we took for granted is no longer to be taken for granted; scientists have bred mice that to all intents and purposes share much of our genetic makeup. Stem cells might also be considered "human" or "pre-human", yet exist in a test tube.

The only way to quantify this is to say "okay, life does not necessarily begin at the moment of conception". At some point between conception and birth the collection of cells metamorphosises into a human being. No-one's talking about giving an unborn baby less rights than an full grown person, but by the same token are you prepared to bestow the freedom of the vote unto a laboratory mouse?

[KThunder]

>that's what you non scientists Never seem to understand no matter how often I and others point it out to you.

yes we "non scientists" are quite simple stupid folk who should just forget our stupid unfounded opinions and listen to scientists the nearly godlike oracles who will tell us how to live and think
except for the fact that more often than not they disagree with each other, and us, and science itself.
birth is simply a triggered event that allows the expulsion of a fully formed infant from the mothers womb. the baby is fully capable of living outside before this. but that is beside the point.

the point is that none of that matters. it doent matter to humanists if life starts at conception, or some other time before birth, or even after birth. if a person wants to rid themselves of an unwanted child they will do so. regardless of the babys rights or lack thereof. they will justify it later, or not at all.
to many who are religious the spark of life is divine. to the athiest abortion should at the least be considered a poor form of birth control.

scientist just recently found that at all points in a pregnancy a womans body would reject the fetus except for hormones that keep her defences at bay. in other words, at no time is the baby actually part of her body, otherwise it woudnt need such protection.

you are right about one thing though cecelia, "this is a complex process" so is life. you seem to see in black and white more than you think. your black and white doesnt include the baby. and you seem to be able to accept my point of view about as much as i can accept yours.

[KThunder]

in my town last year a man got 2 years in jail for killing three abandoned kittens. it got front line attention in the papers for several days and repeated coverage untill the court case was settled.
not to long after a woman and man abandonded a baby in a dumpster she died, they got a year of probation.
is that the progressive part of humanism i heard about?

[KThunder]

>No-one's talking about giving an unborn baby less rights than an full grown person

thats exactly what we are talking about. noone has the right to take my life from me unless i forfeit my own right to life by endangering others violently and have to be taken out by police, or take someone elses life.

[cecilia]

KThunder wrote:
>that's what you non scientists Never seem to understand no matter how often I and others point it out to you.

yes we "non scientists" are quite simple stupid folk who should just forget our stupid unfounded opinions and listen to scientists the nearly godlike oracles who will tell us how to live and thinkThat's YOUR (once again) misinterpretation of what science is all about. Science is an intellectual discipline used to understand the universe. It's not a bunch of rules and regulations. that's your religion. don't confuse the 2. only religion has "oracles". Science requires exacting examination of reality. If someone suggests an interpretation of how things seem to work in the real world, experiments are immediately performed. Scientists have to be totally honest about what they did and how they did it. Otherwise other scientists can't try to replicate the original findings. And if findings are not replicated according to the original "guesses", then a reassessment has to be made.

What you see as scientists "disagreeing with each other" is simply the normal process of TRUTH FINDING. It's only in religion that people have the hubris to assume they know everything already. In science, we have the humility to know we don't DON'T know everything, but are willing to work hard to fingure it out.

....birth is simply a triggered event that allows the expulsion of a fully formed infant from the mothers womb. the baby is fully capable of living outside before this

I never said birth is a "triggered event". that's YOUR misinterpretation. And no baby is "fully capable of living outside before" birth. If that was the case they wouldn't need to place premature babies in incubators and treated with extreme care. This is nature trying to tell you that the process of Becoming a baby has been interupted and artificial means have to substitute. There is no real substitute for a natural womb, although medicine certainly tried hard.

it doesn't matter to humanists if life starts at conception, or some other time before birth, or even after birth. if a person wants to rid themselves of an unwanted child they will do so. regardless of the babys rights or lack thereof. they will justify it later, or not at all.
to many who are religious the spark of life is divine. to the athiest abortion should at the least be considered a poor form of birth control.first of all, don't assume all people who feel affinity for the ideas expressed on the humanists web site will automatically feel an abortion is right for them. the point is that it's an individual choice. A humanist would not have the Hubris to force their ideas onto others. Only some religious people do that. Because people like pat robertson or falwell think they know better than everyone else.

A humanist would know that each person has to decide for themselves.

re: as to your "spark of life" comment, let me quote Carl Sagan (http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml)
Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course.
Elsewhere in this thread I have already stated my opinions on birth control. It's near the beginning of the thread because everytime this topic comes up I remind people of what is actually going on and what is important. I will leave it up to you to find that post.


KThunder wrote:
scientist just recently found that at all points in a pregnancy a womans body would reject the fetus except for hormones that keep her defences at bay. in other words, at no time is the baby actually part of her body, otherwise it woudnt need such protection.of course a fetus is not a "part" of the woman. We have already established that a fetus has it's own set of DNA. Women and men carry all sorts of germs, virus' and bacteria inside their bodies. Sometimes it can be fatal to the carrier. That doesn't make a germ a person.

you are right about one thing though cecelia, "this is a complex process" so is life. you seem to see in black and white more than you think. your black and white doesnt include the baby. and you seem to be able to accept my point of view about as much as i can accept yours.If you read the excellent article by Sagan you'll see that I'm not the one here who has a black and white notion of reality.

[cecilia]

KThunder wrote:
in my town last year a man got 2 years in jail for killing three abandoned kittens. it got front line attention in the papers for several days and repeated coverage untill the court case was settled.
not to long after a woman and man abandonded a baby in a dumpster she died, they got a year of probation.
is that the progressive part of humanism i heard about?this has to do with the law, not ethical values by humanists or rational persons.
I'm no fan of lawyers. they also think it's amusing that people stupid enough to spill hot coffee in their own laps should sue the place they bought the coffee from.

lawyers are retarded. this is Off Topic.

[KThunder]

who do you think make laws and interpret and enforce them.
because something is legal doesnt mean it is right as someone said "lawyers are retarded"

> In science, we have the humility to know we don't DON'T know everything, but are willing to work hard to fingure it out

problem is we are talking life and death here. when a person is considered alive is debated by almost everyone, evolutionists, athiests, muslims, christian, etc. scientists say that they are willing to admit being wrong but there are as tough to admit it as the rest of us.

science pure and cold doesnt exist because it is utalized by emotional narrow minded human beings.

you claim to be a scientist cecelia could you be wrong about this?

[Wain]

abortion teaches children (myself included as i was born after roe v wade) that they are not important. they could have been snuffed out of existance before they were even born and noone, except a bunch of right wing extreamests would have even batted an eye.

put these two thing together and ill tell you what you get,

suicide as a leading killer of teens,
drug abuse not only prevalent but condsidered normal among young people,
murder for seemingly unimportant things: embrassment, etc.
loss of moral certainty,- right and wrong dont really exist except as inconveniant social constructs


This is a quite a leap...Our children get that man is an animal and abortion is legal and they in turn equate that with the idea that they are worthless and result in a road of depraved and immoral behavior and thinking...That's just stupid.


Not only is it a leap of logic crossing a HUGE vast wasteland of nothing to be able to connect these two things ...but the assumption that you can boil all of societies troubles down to this one simple argument that has no actual logical reasoning behind it is asinine and insulting to any of us that have actually been suicidally depressed, or had to make an existential leap of faith, or struggled with nihilism. Honestly your whole point here is not only poorly thought out and degrading, but it is easily refuted with one simple point...


Let's talk about why abortion actually most likely results in FEWER people who behave in the manner in which you describe...it's very simple...are you ready?


Abortion results in fewer unwanted children.



That's it.



A teenager having to make some strange connection between two completely unrelated points - one of which has NOTHING to do with him/her ( obviously wasn't aborted for the kid to have gotten far enough to hear this idea of two completely unrelated things being mashed together as hard as possible by the parent poster in hopes that they'll magically stick together) - seems to me to be very unlikely to occur...much less result in the horiffic degradation you describe.




Especially when compared to "you were a mistake and nobody wants you" coming from your parents (if they're even around)




Allow me to read into the implications of these two statements...the former infers that "it could have happened (but didn't and has nothing to do with you now)", the latter infers that "it SHOULD have happened." (<-- this latter also tends to bring with it the idea that whoever you are now is evidence of such)


Big difference, and my scenario require much less effort to disregard one's basic reasoning and rationality to get to the conclusion.


I've never met a parent or schoolteacher (of younger children anyway...lol) who didn't fill their (wanted) kids with constant "you're special!" kinds of sentiment, the whole idea that teenagers right and left who behave improperly is a result of them making this exotic and irrational leap across the GULF that exists between the two ideas you've presented here is just not fathomable as a likelihood.


As someone who was not only once a teenager, but also at the time suicidally depressed, a drug user, an atheist, a nihilist, a homosexualist, a petty thief, a software pirate, and a highschool dropout, and someone who still refuses to recognize societies views of right and wrong, with friends befitting at least 4 of the above character traits (you pick em' I've had a friend with them), I can tell you it never had the slightest damn thing to do with some retarded idea about me not being special because any of us could have been aborted...as a matter of fact, a lot of it came out of being quite positive that I WAS special, and being pissed off at the world for not handing me whatever I wanted.

Most of the problems that occur in society tend to be about looking good and an intrinsically retarded need to 'be right' (as an example...look at my post, I'm doing it right now.) They tend to have very little to do with anything else...yes there a plethora of greater underlying factors that influence these two drives, but I just can't believe for a moment that abortion being legal (a state of being for the state, having nothing to do with actual persons) is the (or even one of) the major influencing factors.

....and abortion never brought down any empire, and all civilizations must fail at some point, and the more people you have the more problems there will be...just like there will be more happiness as well.

[PMC]

Amen.

[Wain]

Q: when do babies have the right to life?


a: When they're in my phonebook
:-D

[KThunder]

>...as a matter of fact, a lot of it came out of being quite positive that I WAS special, and being pissed off at the world for not handing me whatever I wanted.

exactly we know our feelings we know our desires everyone else treats us as unimportant i am the most important being in the world noone else has value and if i cant have it all, then ill end it all

suicide continues to rise here in the states at least why exactly. shouldnt everyone be happy in this modern utopia where modern science solves every problem. i have presented my thoughts on it, it is an underlying world view that people dont recognize. if someone sees 5000 graphic muders on tv will they go out and kill someone. a very few might but most wont even think of doing anything like that. but does that mean that they asre totally unaffected. debatable but the evedence seems to show there may be some effect.

does somebody one day wake up and say im just and animal im not special and i could have been killed before birth and noone would care! no of course not but i beleive there is an effect from these comcepts.

[KThunder]

your not in my phonebook. :roll:

Welcome back Wain.

It seems we have recently been overrun by religious bigots.

Please don't go away again!

[cecilia]

KThunder wrote:
problem is we are talking life and death here. when a person is considered alive is debated by almost everyone,
no, scientists and doctors know when someone is alive and when they aren't. It can be measured. They also know when someone's body is alive but the brain is dead. It can be measured.
Obviously you didn't read or comprehend the comments made by Sagan. If you did you wouldn't write such silly nonsense.

life is NOT created when a living egg and a living sperm get together and mix to blend the DNA material. Life merely CONTINUES. there's no such thing as "new" life. We are all from the same soup. if anything, buddism is closer to the truths of biology. our bodies return to the earth to be remade in other forms, but life just continues.

atoms in my little finger once (may have) been parts of a tyrannosaurus rex. And we were ALL bits of the sun as it spun around forming this Solar System. Personally, I see this view of the world and my part in it as beautiful. Every bit of us has been around for billions of years and will continue to be here long after our separate awareness is over. My life has value because it is finite. I have to create my unique accomplishments right now. Because when I'm dead, i have no more chances. That cycle of continuing life into new possibilities is what makes life poignant.

I always felt that sillyness with a "life after death" takes away the power of death as a finality.

science pure and cold doesnt exist because it is utalized by emotional narrow minded human beings.
science "cold"??? who said that? not me!
you claim to be a scientist cecelia could you be wrong about this?is there a coherant sentence in this (and most of your posts)?
seriously, you so clearly have no rational arguments.

I'm not wrong because I haven't come to this conclusion in 2 seconds. I thought about it for a long time. It helps to be rational. It makes things alot easier. 8-)


btw, you continue to misspell my name - several posts by now. (not that i care, I just notice).
so much for [b]your[b/] powers of observation. :roll:

[matt3k]

Ok everyone,

Wow, step away for a day and lots happens. :-P

Let look at abortion like this for a moment.

If you hit a pregnant women in the stomach and she looses her baby. You will be sued for manslaughter. Even if your definition of a fetus is a bunch of cells that don't have any rights what so ever. Your definition is wrong and you will loose 100% of the time. So say what you please, really because it doesn't match reality. Try telling the judge, in your defence, that you killed a bunch of cells with no rights...

If you can't even admit this truth than really there is no logical reason to discuss the fetal right applications further, because you can't even admit a truth to discuss/debate from...

You aborted that womens fetus/unborn baby. All an abortion is the the termination of a pregnancy where a you have a dead fetus. (All pregnancies have to terminate.).

There is a paradox and anchialary issues that arise from this. As a matter a fact many changes are on the horizon because of the incongruent nature of this topic. Which is great fun to discuss...



Regards,

Matt

[adz]

matt3k wrote:

If you hit a pregnant women in the stomach and she looses her baby. You will be sued for manslaughter. Even if your definition of a fetus is a bunch of cells that don't have any rights what so ever. Your definition is wrong and you will loose 100% of the time. So say what you please, really because it doesn't match reality. Try telling the judge, in your defence, that you killed a bunch of cells with no rights...


So, whats your point. Here in Australia, if someone breaks into your house, trips over a foot stool and breaks their leg, they can sue you, doesn't make sense, but its the law. See how the law isn't always right???

There is nothing you can say or do to stop a woman doing what she wants with her body, if you outlaw abortions, it will simply return to the underground mess it was before. Besides, in the grand scheme of things, 1.3 million aborted foetus's is nothing when compared to the worlds living population of over 6 billion.

[bloodline]

matt3k wrote:
Ok everyone,

Wow, step away for a day and lots happens. :-P

Let look at abortion like this for a moment.

If you hit a pregnant women in the stomach and she looses her baby. You will be sued for manslaughter. Even if your definition of a fetus is a bunch of cells that don't have any rights what so ever. Your definition is wrong and you will loose 100% of the time. So say what you please, really because it doesn't match reality. Try telling the judge, in your defence, that you killed a bunch of cells with no rights...

If you can't even admit this truth than really there is no logical reason to discuss the fetal right applications further, because you can't even admit a truth to discuss/debate from...

You aborted that womens fetus/unborn baby. All an abortion is the the termination of a pregnancy where a you have a dead fetus. (All pregnancies have to terminate.).

There is a paradox and anchialary issues that arise from this. As a matter a fact many changes are on the horizon because of the incongruent nature of this topic. Which is great fun to discuss...



Regards,

Matt

Your argument is highly illogical!

If you are driving your car to the scrap yard (junk yard?), and someone smashes in to you... are you suggesting that you don't have the right to get compensation from that person?

Does that answer your question, can we move on now to a proper debate?

[bloodline]

@KTthunder

I appreciate your view, that one does not have to agree with abortion, but I really don't understand your attack on science?

Science has done more for mankind in the last 20 years alone, than every prayer ever said.

[jkirk]

What RELIGIOUS kooks did was try and couch their bigotry by saying it was science.

i'm sorry but i take offense with that statement since i know how you hate religion. you have lumped everyone who is religious into your silly statement.

first off religion had nothing more to do with it than science did.

second even if a self proclaimed religious person said such a thing this DOES NOT MEAN RELIGION CAUSED IT.

third evil in the human hearts causes this and anyone will make up anything to justify evil as something acceptable.

[jkirk]

If you can't even admit this truth than really there is no logical reason to discuss the fetal right applications further, because you can't even admit a truth to discuss/debate from...

i have already discussed the differences.....start from there or drop the argument.

[jkirk]

The North...you remember the North...supposedly we won

the south is going to rise again :lol: :lol:

jkirk wrote:
What RELIGIOUS kooks did was try and couch their bigotry by saying it was science.

i'm sorry but i take offense with that statement since i know how you hate religion. you have lumped everyone who is religious into your silly statement.

first off religion had nothing more to do with it than science did.

second even if a self proclaimed religious person said such a thing this DOES NOT MEAN RELIGION CAUSED IT.

third evil in the human hearts causes this and anyone will make up anything to justify evil as something acceptable.


Buy that man a drink! :pint:

[matt3k]

adz wrote:

matt3k wrote:

If you hit a pregnant women in the stomach and she looses her baby. You will be sued for manslaughter. Even if your definition of a fetus is a bunch of cells that don't have any rights what so ever. Your definition is wrong and you will loose 100% of the time. So say what you please, really because it doesn't match reality. Try telling the judge, in your defence, that you killed a bunch of cells with no rights...


So, whats your point. Here in Australia, if someone breaks into your house, trips over a foot stool and breaks their leg, they can sue you, doesn't make sense, but its the law. See how the law isn't always right???

There is nothing you can say or do to stop a woman doing what she wants with her body, if you outlaw abortions, it will simply return to the underground mess it was before. Besides, in the grand scheme of things, 1.3 million aborted foetus's is nothing when compared to the worlds living population of over 6 billion.

Hi Adz,

I do see how the law isn't always right and I do agree with your example.

My point is quite simple. The thread of this discussion is called when does a babies right to life begin? I find it most interesting that one unborn baby has full rights and protection under the law as a human being, while another unborn baby has absolutely none.

In both cases the unborn babies are classified as young humans, by very definition that's what a fetus is. Even if you ignore that fact, the incongruent application of the treatment of one fetus to another creates a paradox that I believe is worth discussion/debate.

Regards,

Matt

[matt3k]

jkirk wrote:
I have continued to ask very simple questions that no one is willing to discuss and are attempting to get off subject into other areas before we adequately define the priciples and language of abortion.

you want an answer here is one

1 abortion is a decision in which pegnancy is ended by the mother(either surgically or medicinally)

2 manslaughter is a consequence of negligent behavior by anyone towards the fetus (this includes the mother)

i myself am anti-abortion except in certain circumstances however i recognize not all people believe the same as me so i will not force it down their throat.

life is precious to me(especially since me and my wife cannot have kids of our own)but the law says that abortion is legal i have to accept that. however this decision is best kept between the involved parties NOT only by an idealistic outsider.


BTW: a little factoid did you know the us military and the us health system classifies pregnancy as a disease. :-o

Hi Jkirk,

My wife and I were in the same boat as you, doctors told us we were out of luck and could not have a baby. They actually turned out to be wrong, many years later we did have a baby or two... Going through that experience I can appreciate your position.

I agree with your definition of abortion.

The issue of manslaughter under the law grants full rights to the unborn baby as a human being, hence your case to sue. This allows us to selectively grant rights to whom we choose. We can't have our cake and eat it too on this issue.

Funny thing Jkirk, these issues we encounter with abortion are identical to slavery. I find that most interesting.

You know thats another funny thing, I had a friend who was in the military and he mentioned that disease point to me. Lots of diseased people out there:-)

Regards,

Matt

[bloodline]

The issue of manslaughter under the law grants full rights to the unborn baby as a human being, hence your case to sue. This allows us to selectively grant rights to whom we choose. We can't have our cake and eat it too on this issue.

Did you not read my answer to you regarding this issue?

[jkirk]

The issue of manslaughter under the law grants full rights to the unborn baby as a human being, hence your case to sue. This allows us to selectively grant rights to whom we choose. We can't have our cake and eat it too on this issue.

well under our law the mother has supreme rights up until a point.then the baby's rights are prevalent however nobody except the mother can interrupt a pregnency and even then it must be within the confined view of the law.

if the law didn't allow it they would still end the pregnancy only it would be more dangerous to the mother. think of it in terms of moonshine. the government outlawed the sale or possesion of this drink(heck any alcoholic drink) no matter what the government did they could not stop it so they repealed the prohibition so they could regulate the safety of the drink since more people died from contamination, bad recipes,etc than when it was legal.

this don't make it right just safer and easier to get to. now think of this also. you take a child and put a cookie in front of them then tell that child that he/she can't have it that child will do anything to get at it. now you take that same child and tell him/her that the cookie is his the child might eat the cookie but the desire to eat the cookie is not as strong. heck the kid might not even want the cookie.

so in other words reduction of abortions(in the long term) by having them available vs not available and women killing themselves to perform illegal abortions. when you think along these lines abortions must be available however it still remains and will always remain the judgement of the mother and her beliefs and means.

[PMC]

matt3k wrote:

My point is quite simple. The thread of this discussion is called when does a babies right to life begin?

We've tried to debate this issue with you, but keep getting battered with "read the dictionary".

So tell me this, when do YOU think that a baby's right to life should begin and we'll discuss further. If not, I've neither the time nor inclination to spectate to a lecture.

In both cases the unborn babies are classified as young humans, by very definition that's what a fetus is.

How many people have to point out to you that your opinion DOES NOT equal fact?

You are quite possibly the most arrogant person I have ever seen post on amiga.org!

[PMC]

mdma wrote:

You are quite possibly the most arrogant person I have ever seen post on amiga.org!

Agreed, this is the first time in over 2000 posts that I've ever lost my temper with someone here. I even kept my cool when Doomy was lurking around these pages.

PMC wrote:

mdma wrote:

You are quite possibly the most arrogant person I have ever seen post on amiga.org!

Agreed, this is the first time in over 2000 posts that I've ever lost my temper with someone here. I even kept my cool when Doomy was lurking around these pages.



At least Doomy was entertaining at times!

[matt3k]

bloodline wrote:

matt3k wrote:
Ok everyone,

Wow, step away for a day and lots happens. :-P

Let look at abortion like this for a moment.

If you hit a pregnant women in the stomach and she looses her baby. You will be sued for manslaughter. Even if your definition of a fetus is a bunch of cells that don't have any rights what so ever. Your definition is wrong and you will loose 100% of the time. So say what you please, really because it doesn't match reality. Try telling the judge, in your defence, that you killed a bunch of cells with no rights...

If you can't even admit this truth than really there is no logical reason to discuss the fetal right applications further, because you can't even admit a truth to discuss/debate from...

You aborted that womens fetus/unborn baby. All an abortion is the the termination of a pregnancy where a you have a dead fetus. (All pregnancies have to terminate.).

There is a paradox and anchialary issues that arise from this. As a matter a fact many changes are on the horizon because of the incongruent nature of this topic. Which is great fun to discuss...



Regards,

Matt

Your argument is highly illogical!

If you are driving your car to the scrap yard (junk yard?), and someone smashes in to you... are you suggesting that you don't have the right to get compensation from that person?

Does that answer your question, can we move on now to a proper debate?


Hi Bloodline,

I agree totally with your point.

Although you example doesn't fully answer my question.

Lets say I'm driving my pregnant wife to the scrap yard and somebody hits us killing both my wife and the unborn baby.

I will sue for 2 counts of manslaughter, my wife and the baby. Because, by law 2 people were killed. How can a lump of cell by some people definition be a person?

Basically, this states that in some situations a fetus has no rights and has full rights in others. How can both cases exist?


Regards,

Matt

[PMC]

matt3k wrote:

Basically, this states that in some situations a fetus has no rights and has full rights in others. How can both cases exist?



You got me. Ask a lawyer.

[matt3k]

mdma wrote:
In both cases the unborn babies are classified as young humans, by very definition that's what a fetus is.

How many people have to point out to you that your opinion DOES NOT equal fact?

You are quite possibly the most arrogant person I have ever seen post on amiga.org![/quote]

Hi MDMA,

How many sources would you like me to site that gives the same definition of a fetus? Pick up ANY dictionary in the world and it would give the same definition. It is not my opinion.

With all due respect, if I had to define arrogance it would be someone who assumes that their definition of something is correct without ever researching and confirming it.

If you can't even admit such a simple thing, or pick up a dictionary, dictionary.com, wiki, and prove the definition I'm using (Not my defintion) is wrong. Then I'll concede on this one.

If you can't use the dictionaries definition of something to base a debate on, and get upset at me for referencing it for my arguement is just crazy.


Regards,

Matt

[PMC]

@Matt3k



So tell me this, when do YOU think that a baby's right to life should begin and we'll discuss further.

[bloodline]

Hi Bloodline,

I agree totally with your point.

Although you example doesn't fully answer my question.

Lets say I'm driving my pregnant wife to the scrap yard and somebody hits us killing both my wife and the unborn baby.

I will sue for 2 counts of manslaughter, my wife and the baby. Because, by law 2 people were killed. How can a lump of cell by some people definition be a person?

Basically, this states that in some situations a fetus has no rights and has full rights in others. How can both cases exist?


Regards,


No, the key is a question of control! For example I may want to chop my hand off, I may well be thinking about choping my hand off at some point in the future. That does not give you the right to chop my hand off, and if you did I would be fully entitled to sue you. Now if we can move on to the real question?

matt3k wrote:

If you can't even admit such a simple thing, or pick up a dictionary, dictionary.com, wiki, and prove the definition I'm using (Not my defintion) is wrong. Then I'll concede on this one.


taken from wikipedia.org:-

a fetus [sic] is an organism, as yet undeveloped, in the process of becoming a functional individual of a species.

btw Hello Atheist2.

Every 6 minutes a woman dies needlessly as a result of an unsafe illegal abortion.
(http://www.womenonwaves.org/article-1020.42-en.html)

[jkirk]

In both cases the unborn babies are classified as young humans, by very definition that's what a fetus is.
fetus - webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fetus)
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth

though i am unsure how this relates to anything in this debate though.

it reminds me of the old argument "i had my car fixed yesterday it is broke today with a diffrent problem. the mechanic should have known better and cover it in his warranty." :-? :crazy:

[cecilia]

jkirk wrote:
What RELIGIOUS kooks did was try and couch their bigotry by saying it was science.

i'm sorry but i take offense with that statement since i know how you hate religion. you have lumped everyone who is religious into your silly statement.
I use the term "relgious kooks" because that's who I mean. My mother is religious and she would never stoop to bigotry.
But then my mother is openminded, generous, giving and intelligent. for such an individual religion is a personal aid to get through life. it's not a docrine to assault other people with.

however, Kooks like 'The God Hates Fags' family or pat robertson or falwel are all consumed by their idiotic notions and refuse to accept reality, logic or common sense.

first off religion had nothing more to do with it than science did.religion may not have created stupid people but stupid people sure love to use their version of it to justify their stupidity. same with science. when in HS I saw written material from the KKK trying to "prove" that black people are inferior. They had drawings (shape of head nonsense) showing "scientific proof". there is no such "proof" of course, but they desperately need to use the "authority" of science to "prove" their bigotry valid. And when they claim "god" is on their side they try to con people with religious terms.

everytime i see pat robertson insist that this or that person should be assassinated i roll my eyes. :roll: and then, of course, he makes a fake appology. And how many funerals of vets do the 'The God Hates Fags' family have to 'attend/try to disrupt' before people get the idea that these people are revolting?

I can always tell if a person is truly religious or a fake (like robertson). If i never hear about the person's religion, then they are sincerly religious. If i hear a neverending stream of preaching, then that person is a phoney.

as has been pointed out by others on this thread, there's some people who are not here to discuss, but only to push their agenda. they obviously graduated from the Billsey school of being a pest.

[adz]

matt3k wrote:

Hi Adz,

I do see how the law isn't always right and I do agree with your example.

My point is quite simple. The thread of this discussion is called when does a babies right to life begin? I find it most interesting that one unborn baby has full rights and protection under the law as a human being, while another unborn baby has absolutely none.

In both cases the unborn babies are classified as young humans, by very definition that's what a fetus is. Even if you ignore that fact, the incongruent application of the treatment of one fetus to another creates a paradox that I believe is worth discussion/debate.

Regards,

Matt



Every country has different laws regarding this, but in the end, it all comes down to whether the mother wants the baby or not. In your example, if the mother is pregnant and is intent on having the child, then of course she has the right to sue, not for the foetus' sake, but for her own loss. If the mother was about to walk into an abortion clinic and got hit by a car, then morally, she has no right to sue, but the law isn't designed to cater for individual circumstances like this, so she too would have the right to sue for her loss.

Something also worth noting, and I'm not 100% certain of the law in the states, but would the driver be criminally convicted? If not, then that pretty much answers your question. Actually, I'm pretty sure that in general, a baby isn't considered living until it draws its first breath outside of the mother. Anyways, just a bit more food for thought, I've got work to do :-D

btw, you continue to misspell my name - several posts by now. (not that i care, I just notice).

He can't even spell foetus correctly either. ;-)

[Wilse]

@Wain:

Hey man, long time.....

Sorry for the completely OT post but any chance you could give an
opinion of these?:
http://www.myspace.com/abelsoul

I've always respected your opinion wrt music and would appreciate it.


cheers,

[Turambar]

@Thread

mmmm deja vu...

[matt3k]

mdma wrote:
[quote]
matt3k wrote:

If you can't even admit such a simple thing, or pick up a dictionary, dictionary.com, wiki, and prove the definition I'm using (Not my defintion) is wrong. Then I'll concede on this one.


taken from wikipedia.org:-

a fetus [sic] is an organism, as yet undeveloped, in the process of becoming a functional individual of a species.

Hi MDMA,

I went to wikipedia.org and did key word searches for your definition and read the whole page for fetus, didn't see it. Here is the definition from wikipedia.org:

Fetus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fetus at eight weeks"Foetus" redirects here. For the musical group Foetus, see Foetus (band).
A fetus (also foetus) is a developing mammal after the embryonic stage and before birth. The plural is fetuses or foetuses, or, very rarely, foeti.

In humans, a fetus develops from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy (when the major structures have formed), until birth. Fetus, in Latin, literally means "filled with young, pregnant, breeding, with young and/or a bringing forth, bearing, hatching, producing."

Regards,

Matt

[matt3k]

adz wrote:


Every country has different laws regarding this, but in the end, it all comes down to whether the mother wants the baby or not. In your example, if the mother is pregnant and is intent on having the child, then of course she has the right to sue, not for the foetus' sake, but for her own loss. If the mother was about to walk into an abortion clinic and got hit by a car, then morally, she has no right to sue, but the law isn't designed to cater for individual circumstances like this, so she too would have the right to sue for her loss.

Something also worth noting, and I'm not 100% certain of the law in the states, but would the driver be criminally convicted? If not, then that pretty much answers your question. Actually, I'm pretty sure that in general, a baby isn't considered living until it draws its first breath outside of the mother. Anyways, just a bit more food for thought, I've got work to do :-D[/quote]

Hi Adz,

Great points. The laws across the world are different. Your also right that under the law, they both could sue regardless of intent.

I actually have a call into a law firm to see if he could be criminally convicted. I will let you know. :-)

I think that we are finding that the application of rights is very subjective. There is even legal cases where if a woman abuses, not through abortion, her fetus can be held liable. I will have to look up those cases for the particulars.

Have a good one,

Matt

[jkirk]

did you read this as well

Since the 1970s in the United States, there has been continuing debate over the "personhood" of the fetus before birth, generally in the context of the argument over abortion, which is currently legal in the United States following the case of Roe v. Wade.

According to legislation which passed the US Senate in March 2004, an unborn child is defined as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb and who is injured or killed during the commission of a federal crime of violence..". (Unborn Victims of Violence Act, April 2004)

[jkirk]

I went to wikipedia.org and did key word searches for your definition and read the whole page for fetus, didn't see it.


This page was last modified 03:24, 24 February 2006.

mdma posted on 2-22-06

that quote may have been changed

[matt3k]

bloodline wrote:


No, the key is a question of control! For example I may want to chop my hand off, I may well be thinking about choping my hand off at some point in the future. That does not give you the right to chop my hand off, and if you did I would be fully entitled to sue you. Now if we can move on to the real question?[/quote]

Hi Bloodline,

I understand your point, and agree that in your example, you could indeed sue even if you were going to chop it off.

I would like to point out that my understanding of the law, I do have a call into a law firm to clarify these items, the issue is that the fetus/unborn baby is treated a human being, not a potential human being or to be human. I will confirm this with you when I know. :-)

Ok, Bloodline... I'm going to guess what your real question is, please confirm though, ...

When does the unborn baby have full rights under the law?

My answer is conception.

Take care,

Matt

[matt3k]

PMC wrote:

matt3k wrote:

Basically, this states that in some situations a fetus has no rights and has full rights in others. How can both cases exist?



You got me. Ask a lawyer.

Hi PMC,

Roger dodger on that one. I have a call into a law firm, I will let you know what I find out.

Take Care,

Matt

[jkirk]

When does the unborn baby have full rights under the law?


Never.

[matt3k]

PMC wrote:
@Matt3k



So tell me this, when do YOU think that a baby's right to life should begin and we'll discuss further.

Hi PMC,

I believe that right to life begins at conception.

Regards,

Matt

[bloodline]

matt3k wrote:

PMC wrote:
@Matt3k



So tell me this, when do YOU think that a baby's right to life should begin and we'll discuss further.

Hi PMC,

I believe that right to life begins at conception.

Regards,

Matt

What makes conception so special? Why are the sperm and egg less valid in your view?

I went to wikipedia.org and did key word searches for your definition and read the whole page for fetus, didn't see it. Here is the definition from wikipedia.org:

Are you so unsure of your own beliefs that you have to stoop to removing text from the wikipedia page to "prove" your arguments?

Thankfully we can all see the extent of your disgusting behaviour by looking at the wikipedia history of that page just before you changed it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fetus&oldid=40781810

You sir are a disgrace to the human race.

It is not just my opinion, but that of many other regular and long time active members of this site that you should piss off and don't come back here until you can behave like an adult.

[adz]

bloodline wrote:

What makes conception so special? Why are the sperm and egg less valid in your view?

"...Every sperm is sacred!!!..." :python:


I'll...errr...get my coat :-D

bloodline wrote:

matt3k wrote:

PMC wrote:
@Matt3k



So tell me this, when do YOU think that a baby's right to life should begin and we'll discuss further.

Hi PMC,

I believe that right to life begins at conception.

Regards,

Matt

What makes conception so special? Why are the sperm and egg less valid in your view?

I wonder how he feels about your sock?

Maybe you could let him adopt it? :lol:

[cecilia]

mdma wrote:
I went to wikipedia.org and did key word searches for your definition and read the whole page for fetus, didn't see it. Here is the definition from wikipedia.org:

Are you so unsure of your own beliefs that you have to stoop to removing text from the wikipedia page to "prove" your arguments?

Thankfully we can all see the extent of your disgusting behaviour by looking at the wikipedia history of that page just before you changed it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fetus&oldid=40781810

You sir are a disgrace to the human race.

It is not just my opinion, but that of many other regular and long time active members of this site that you should piss off and don't come back here until you can behave like an adult. :madashell: :smack: what a weasel.
unable to comprehend any point that has been made in this thread (or the links outside of it), this piece of dog poo tries to change reality. well, we ain't dumb.

this is why i never trust people who are anti-science. anyone who can't stand being examined is not worth my time.

[jkirk]

Thankfully we can all see the extent of your disgusting behaviour by looking at the wikipedia history of that page just before you changed it.

maybe you had better look again


last sentence of intro

When speaking in the most literal of terms, a fetus is an organism, as yet undeveloped, in the process of becoming a functional individual of a species.

This sentance should be striken from the article as it injects the opinion of the fetus as a not yet member of a species. An individual's functionality, or lack thereof, has no bearing on membership in a species. Species is a genetic designation in which membership is granted as soon as a unique DNA signature occurs. "Functional" is a subjective term. For example, marsupials posess significant locomotion outside the womb as a fetus, would that be considered "functional"?

--BigJugs 23:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "functional" is subjective. The sentence seems to have no point, so I'll delete it. thejabberwock 03:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[jkirk]

i see someone put it back in. :-)

[matt3k]

mdma wrote:
I went to wikipedia.org and did key word searches for your definition and read the whole page for fetus, didn't see it. Here is the definition from wikipedia.org:

Are you so unsure of your own beliefs that you have to stoop to removing text from the wikipedia page to "prove" your arguments?

Thankfully we can all see the extent of your disgusting behaviour by looking at the wikipedia history of that page just before you changed it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fetus&oldid=40781810

You sir are a disgrace to the human race.

It is not just my opinion, but that of many other regular and long time active members of this site that you should piss off and don't come back here until you can behave like an adult.

It is the weekend so I don't want to put alot of time into this right now.

MDMA,

You have now blatantly lied to everyone on this base. Congratulations. If you were any adult you would apologize for such a terrible error on your behalf.

It looks as though Jkirk already posted the historical records of truth.

Now back to enjoying my weekend.

Matt

[cecilia]

the complexity of this issue (http://www.mahablog.com/2006/02/25/chao-chous-dog-has-puppies/)
In case you're wondering, from a Buddhist perspective it might be argued that since a "person" is an aggregate of the five skandhas (form, sensation, perception, discrimination, consciousness) and an embryo or fetus has only form, it's not a person. On the other hand, Buddhism teaches that each of us is all of us, throughout space and time. The cells of whatever is conceived contain all life forms, from the beginningless beginning to the endless end, perfect and complete. Interfering with life's attempts to express itself is a serious matter.


So where does that leave us? It leaves us with individuals who have to make hard choices. Struggling with hard choices is a distinctively human activity. I think it's something we need to do to be fully human. It helps us wake up. The decisions we make may be less important than the fact that we can make decisions.

[Hyperspeed]

Well I'm not sure I can be arsed to trawl through 8 pages of bickering but I'd like to make my views known.

· I believe there is no place for sex outside of marriage and that people should control their urges until they've met someone they fall in love with
· The Muslims have got the right idea
· I don't think abortion is moral. In extreme cases of risk to the mother, of criminal rape and of scientific proof that the child will be born terminally handicapped I will accept
· I believe that life is created at conception - the right to life starts when pregnancy is confirmed
· It's scary when you think of the human soul as just a program executed in the neurons. The soul must be 'created' at some point during conception/gestation - why would it just appear at the foetus stage?
· I suspect in hundreds of years time we may find that plants may well have a soul. Why else would they fight for survival, why would they reproduce, why the genetic computer?

Facts:
· `The Pill' won't prevent HIV/AIDS, it plays with a woman's body, hormones and may cause long term problems
· `The Morning After Pill' is in effect an abortion
· Love and monogamy is common in the animal kingdom in animals such as swans and lemurs - we're the most intelligient animal yet we are extremely promiscuous. This seems more of a problem in the US/UK where 60's liberal free-loving defied centuries of tried and tested social proving.
· Drinking alcohol makes ugly people seem sexually attractive :-D

If I can think of any more scientific wisdom I will return!

CIAO!

[cecilia]

Well I'm not sure I can be arsed to trawl through 8 pages of bickeringthere's useful info in there. if you had bothered to read it you would find out that this is wrong:I believe there is no place for sex outside of marriage and that people should control their urges until they've met someone they fall in love within relation to abortion as many people who get abortions are MARRIED and simply had a failure with their contraception. And can't afford to endanger the welfare of their existing children with another child. I'm glad life is so simple and easy for you.

and, who the hell are you to decide what people do sexually? what about people who don't want to be married? what kind of antediluvian nonsense is this?

[Hyperspeed]

"What about people who don't want to be married"

If you can't afford the cost of a lavish ceremony then a simple promise in a registry office shouldn't be shunned. Marriage has held the family together for thousands of years and is basically the glue that bonds society.

Promising to be faithful to someone in front of a few friends shouldn't be something you wouldn't want to do... it's just the media has portrayed marriage as something uncool where grandad dances embarassingly at the reception. People getting hitched and family planning can reduce abortions, but this cancerous teenage pregancy phenomena that Anglo-Saxxon countries suffer from goes deeper.

Maybe if we started questioning the hippy and trendy attitudes instead of the tried and tested we would get back to the moral standards of previous generations.

Psychologists are suggesting now that even gay-marriages and 'civil partnerships' have a fantastic effect on couples.

Casual sex is in my view a product of the 'swinging 60's' and all the drugs and crap music that accompanied it. Alarm bells ring when you hear of people with multiple partners - they've got to be seriously miserable inside. It's these 'arrangements' where unwanted children occur and since there is no longer stigma attached with it you can basically get drive-thru abortions. No responsibility, no consequences, state-funded, mindless murder.

If women want choice then they should 'choose' before hopping into the sack with half the town. If a married woman wants to control the family then both the man and woman should make sure both get a hysterectomy and have regular fertility checks.

There's plenty of choice. Prevention is better than cure. At the very least the time limit should be reduced to below the foetuses more advanced development of 20 weeks and the issues of adoption raised (there's many women begging for a child they can't conceive).

So much fertility treatment and so many babies in the rubbish bin - does this make sense?

[cecilia]

please read the whole 8 pages. you are talking about things you know nothing about.

jkirk wrote:
i see someone put it back in. :-)

Me.

`The Morning After Pill' is in effect an abortion

The Morning after pill prevents the sperm from fertilizing the egg.

Still consider it an abortion?

You have now blatantly lied to everyone on this base.

Lied?

I do not lie. I stand by my assertation that it was you you removed that text from wikipedia.

I also would like to ask you what your first Amiga was, when you got it, what Amiga's you currently own, and what you use them for.

Also, are you going to start posting in the the Amiga section of this website, or just continue to post the propaganda of your American interpretation of Christian morality in the Coffee House?

[adz]

Have you all seen my Miggy Montage (http://www.amiga.org/gallery/index.php?n=1319) :-D Come on matt3k, show the world your Amiga(s) :-)

[jkirk]

adz wrote:
Have you all seen my Miggy Montage (http://www.amiga.org/gallery/index.php?n=1319) :-D

nice :-D

[bloodline]

Casual sex is in my view a product of the 'swinging 60's' and all the drugs and crap music that accompanied it. Alarm bells ring when you hear of people with multiple partners - they've got to be seriously miserable inside.

Not getting any, eh? Chill out dude!

[jkirk]

Casual sex is in my view a product of the 'swinging 60's' and all the drugs and crap music that accompanied it.

actually,,,, no. casual sex has always been a product of human beings. it was just publicised more during that time.

jkirk wrote:
Casual sex is in my view a product of the 'swinging 60's' and all the drugs and crap music that accompanied it.

actually,,,, no. casual sex has always been a product of human beings. it was just publicised more during that time.

See no evil, hear no evil. :roll:

Some people will never learn that oppression of human emotions and feelings is a bad thing, and cause of most of the worlds problems.

[PMC]

Casual sex (like homosexuality) has always happened, it's just that some conservative societies have repressed any form of discussion of the subject.

We think that no-one bonked without a marriage certificate prior to the 60s, but that just isn't the case. If you've ever read some of the stories about the conduct of American serviceman and British civillian women during WW2, you'd be quite shocked. It's just that by the 60s two things changed - Firstly, the contraceptive pill finally gave women the freedom to express their sexuality and secondly, as a result of this society was more prepared to accept that sexuality wasn't a subject to politely sweep under the carpet.

Casual sex and the enjoyment of was not something that simply started with the Rock n Roll revolution (the term itself is a veiled reference to the act of sex).

We must also remember that abortion has happened all through history too. I can't say I'm delighted about that, but I'd rather that abortion took place under controlled, clean and professional conditions, where the mother has access to counselling before and after the procedure.

[cecilia]

"What about people who don't want to be married"

If you can't afford the cost of a lavish ceremony then a simple promise in a registry office shouldn't be shunned. Marriage has held the family together for thousands of years and is basically the glue that bonds society.i didn't mean people who don't want a ceremony. I was refering to people who don't want to be part of a couple. Some people actually LIKE being single.

If women want choice then they should 'choose' before hopping into the sack with half the town. If a married woman wants to control the family then both the man and woman should make sure both get a hysterectomy and have regular fertility checks.don't bore me with your sick fantasies. I'm not talking about your whores. I'm refering to normal women who live in the real world. contraception does'nt work 100% of the time - even when used properly.

btw, as you show your ignorance of biology, let me inform you that a hysterectomy will increase the chances for heart attacks and osteoporosis because you are creating a premature menopause. Thank you for showing your hatred of women. tell ya what.....why don't I rip off yer balls, you ain't using them for anything important.

[jkirk]

If women want choice then they should 'choose' before hopping into the sack with half the town.

half the town is not necessary only one is required. furthurmore cecilia is right contraception is hit and miss though they claim 95% effectiveness or higher.

If a married woman wants to control the family then both the man and woman should make sure both get a hysterectomy and have regular fertility checks.

don't you mean tubes tied? hysterectomy is removing everything. how the heck can someone be fertile when they don't exist anymore. furthurmore hysterectomies are not reversable. once they are gone then they are permanantely gone. in my opinion this is NOT AN OPTION.

my wife went through this procedure(hysterectomy) and my mother both due to cancer. do not take this procedure lightly.

now even if you meant tubes-tied this is far from reliable either. the only fool proof way to avoid pregnancies is abstaining from having sex. in our society however the chances of that happening is slim to none(this includes both sexes.)

[koaftder]

nadoom wrote:
law doesnt equal justice.

my wife is pregnant at the moment, she is 10 weeks, and the little baby has hands and feet and a beating heart. It is alive, regardless of what this law says. I know people will disagree and thats there business.

it isnt just a piece of goo to be discarded as if it is nothing. We are meant to be civilised people and this is an uncivilised act.

This is my opinion, and just as you think you are right i think i am right.



Then dont abort it. Why would you care if somebody else aborts theirs?

it shocks me how people get so riled up over these stupid ethical dilemas. Gays, abortion, and god. Thats what people here in the US base their votes on. Collectively we are losers. Dont we have better things to vote on? Like maybe how to educate our kids better? Maybe keeping the economy on track?

People will scream and rant and rave and do evey obnoxious thing they can think of to try and make abortions not happen, but once that kid pops out, nobody gives a rats ass about it, or what happens to it, in fact, the pro lifers are the same freaks who complain about having to pay for welfare cases and the like.

[cecilia]

article:

Contraception Prevents Unwanted Pregnancies! (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2006/03/newsflash-contraception-prevents.html)

A new study from the AGI provides further evidence for the obvious. Social conservatives have successfully caused many states to make irrational decisions in policies governing sexuality, with entirely predictable consequences. Particular kudos go to the Post for mentioning the class issues that so often go unmentioned when reproductive policy is discussed:

From 1994 to 2001, many states cut funds for family planning, enacted laws restricting access to birth control and placed tight controls on sex education, said the institute, a privately funded research group that focuses on sexual health and family issues.

[...]
Despite some gains, the United States still lags far behind most industrialized nations in reducing abortion and teenage pregnancy. In 2002, 21 in 1,000 American women age 15 to 44 had an abortion. Although that is the lowest abortion rate since 1974, the decline has stalled, prompting fears that individuals and policymakers have lost focus on the underlying problem of unintended pregnancies, said Guttmacher President Sharon L. Camp.

"Unintended pregnancy in the United States is twice as high as in most of Western Europe," she said in an interview. "As a direct result, abortion rates are twice or three times as high as European countries. There is no reason why abortion rates need to be as high as they are."

The problem is particularly acute for the nation's estimated 17 million adolescent girls and low-income women, because a lack of education and money are often barriers to practicing abstinence or effective birth control.

Which should remind us, again, that "pro-life" policies don't work even on their own terms. And that, pace William Saletan's assumption that better birth control polices are something everyone can agree on, as Katha Pollitt says "although of course many abortion opponents support birth control, the organized antichoice movement hates it." And while it is true that bad reproductive policy does not break down on a clean red state/blue state basis, it should be noted that the staunchest pro-choice states in the country--California, New York, Washington, and Oregon--rank 1st, 5th, 11th and 9th respectively. While South Dakota, so allegedly "pro-life" it just passed an unconstitutional bill to ban abortion entirely, of course ranks 44th. (It should also be noted that South Carolina's rank near the top is less anomalous than you might expect; it was one of the minority of states that at least liberalized its abortion laws before Roe.)

[jkirk]

South Dakota law bans nearly all abortions (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd.abortionban.ap/index.html)

uh-oh here we go again. :-o

[Hyperspeed]

by Cecilia
Thank you for showing your hatred of women. tell ya what.....why don't I rip off yer balls, you ain't using them for anything important.


OOoh! Matron!

I hope you mean BOING! Balls... :-D

Okay, I've got crumbs all over me, sweet wrappers strewn across the desk and I'm going cross-eyed. I've finished reading all 9 pages of this thread!

It saddens me to see you lot picking on one person again. I remember seeing it with Doomy. It was like the velociraptors in Jurassic Park trying to bite at the T-Rex!

Some interesting points:

* nadoom's wife said "I wouldn't abort it - it's not the baby's fault"

* If abortion is not like pulling a sandwich from a fridge then what's the difference between cesarian section and abortion? Cesarians can be performed early...

* mdma: you said "I'm not qualified to comment" but just because you don't have a degree doesn't mean you can't speak your mind. You also say that democracy is majority rule - would that be the 23% 'majority' that took Blair to power!?

* Cecilia: You say that career people shouldn't give a child less than it deserves. Well being sucked up a pipe and burned in an incinerator is hardly what I'd call deserving.

* speelgoedmannetje: The foetus is not Chucky from Childsplay. It won't eat Mom.

* If the foetus is not part of the mother and the hormones keep it from being rejected... then why are the hormones preventing it from being rejected!? WHY!

* Cymric: Your argument that women in the Netherlands who have an abortion only have it once is a bit lame. It doesn't matter whether one woman has ten abortions or ten women have 1 abortion each!



I have more snippets for the next post!

[Hyperspeed]

Okay! Next post (I'd probably time-out in just one...)

Cecilia: You constantly assert your scientific foundations yet so far you have compared the developing foetus to a nose blowing, virus and a germ.

Your comparison with the architectural plans is interesting though.

Last year I read about an artist/scientist that had created a sort of circuit using rat neurones and had wired this to some kind of painting device.

The living neurones would interface with the device and actually draw random lines across the paper.

Were these neurones (with their own genetic information) actually thinking? They were certainly living...

Was this cybernetic organism suffering in the way the `Silent Scream' portrays?




Another point of thought is this: if we can terminate a foetus because it is not neurally developed to be human then should we also lift the ban on euthanasia for people with Parkinsons disease or Alzheimers? They're alive but some sufferers are not far from brain dead. If you look at an MRI their neurones are almost completely destroyed.

And just what is the difference between someone in a coma and an unborn child? The brain of a person in a coma is regenerating itself so it can operate again - the foetus is generating to operate for the first time!

I've heard that the unborn child responds to music too, wouldn't it be a good idea to find out exactly when the foetus responds to stimulae? I mean, people with motor-neuron disease (Steven Hawking) can't respond that well either but they're thinking alright!

I also heard Isac Asimov mentioned ... I doubt very much he would be pro-choice if he saw the drive-thru culture of abortion in the UK/US. It's very much like the unwanted iRobot!

Also, it might be good for everyone who hasn't read 'A Brave New World' to find a copy. It certainly sounds like the future we'd all be living under the career-minded pro-choice zombies.

Cecilia: You wait 'till your maternal hormones kick in!

[cecilia]

* nadoom's wife said "I wouldn't abort it - it's not the baby's fault"yeah, that's right, it's HER CHOICE. a concept you seem unable to understand

* If abortion is not like pulling a sandwich from a fridge then what's the difference between cesarian section and abortion? Cesarians can be performed early...i believe i said, giving BIRTH wasn't like "pulling a sandwich from a fridg".
as for the rest, if a woman WANTS to have the potential of a baby and she needs to have a cesarian, that is HER CHOICE. if she Doesn't want the potential of a baby, she has an abortion.

* Cecilia: You say that career people shouldn't give a child less than it deservesa fetus or a bunch of cells is NOT a baby. I'm refering to a Baby Person that has gone through the process of Birth. Once BORN, a baby requires lots of time and attention. Which is why people shouldn't have baby's if they can't spend the time, attention and money they need.
If they can't and pregnancy happens, abortion is a better solution. It's only cells. once a Baby is born, the damage that is possible from negelect is worse.

* If the foetus is not part of the mother and the hormones keep it from being rejected... then why are the hormones preventing it from being rejected!? WHY!obviously you don't understand that nature is trying to keep life going. No NEW life is ever created (please read the links to Sagan's articles), it's just continued in different DNA combinations. If you can think, you can decide that not all combinations need to eventually develop into persons.

Don't confuse the way that the womb has been designed with "Mother Nature's" Intent. All Nature wants to do is insure the probability of continuing the species. NOT nessarily for making EVERY single conception developing into a Person. Nature ALSO makes Death a real possibility every single day. You love to romanticize the Natural Process. Stop the nonsense.

[Hyperspeed]

Well I'm not from the God Squad but I am curious as to what the scientific definition of nature is.

Particularly as you talk of it having intentions



by Cecilia

obviously you don't understand that nature is trying to keep life going



So aborting life would be unnatural?

'nature' - character, complexion, essence, features, make-up, quality, traits

'un-natur-al' - abnormal, anomalous, irregular, odd, perverse, perverted, unusual

[cecilia]

nature's Intention is to keep life going. it's that simple. But that doesn't mean we - as thinking persons - have to be enslaved by this. Some of us actually can look ahead and realize that if we let this planet get overpopulated that there is a finite amount of energy and food and resources available and as these get slim, people and animals will suffer horribly.
It makes alot more sense to limit the birth rate and try to keep the Quality of each existing life high rather than be at the whim of what will surely be a horrible existence for most people left to fight over scraps.

Thinking ahead is what responsible humans do. try it sometime.

[Hyperspeed]

How far ahead do you want me to think?

The way I see it is this:

We live in a galaxy with billions of stars and we have no proof that life exists on any. We do have a good hunch it might.

However, we spend our time waging wars when we should be colonising other worlds. The solution to overcrowding here is to set up home elsewhere.

by Cecilia

I always felt that sillyness with a "life after death" takes away the power of death as a finality.



I feel the same. We could well be lulled into a false sense of security when we rely on God and the afterlife. This is why every lost life particularly when it could be saved or 'nurtured' in this instance is a loss of cosmic proportions...

...an injustice not even the implosion and re-emergence of time and space can correct.

I hope you lot are right when you say the foetus is not thinking, not alive... it may well have been the foetus that discovered the warp drive or the cure for breast cancer.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Hyperspeed wrote:
I hope you lot are right when you say the foetus is not thinking, not alive... it may well have been the foetus that discovered the warp drive or the cure for breast cancer.Or maybe that little semen one just spilled by jerking off could be a reborn jesus :roll:

[Hyperspeed]

If it was your seed it would spawn Satan, you filthy sod.

And there's me trying to steer the thread into constructive debate!

*slaps forehead*

:-D

[cecilia]

We live in a galaxy with billions of stars and we have no proof that life exists on any. We do have a good hunch it might.

However, we spend our time waging wars when we should be colonising other worlds. The solution to overcrowding here is to set up home elsewhere.well, no kidding :roll:

but it's only SOME idiots wasting time with wars and nonsense. there are others who spend their lives looking for ways to gain information and help educate others to live better lives.

but even IF humans start living on other planets, the same overpoulation problem can exist. We can't act like the problem doesn't exist. and there's ALOT of people right here on this planet that DO, in fact, act like they never have to worry.

it may well have been the foetus that discovered the warp drive or the cure for breast cancer.this is nonsense. a foetus can't discover anything. you will be better off if you learn to use logic.

And speel was trying to show you how ridiculous your notion is by being satirical.

[PMC]

Don't forget that a mother's body can (and does more often than is generally realised) abort a foetus for all kinds of reasons. Miscarriages can happen at any stage and I know many, many women who've sufferred this. Many fertilized eggs are rejected during the woman's normal menstural cycle. Just because an egg is fertilized doesn't mean that pregnancy is automatically a given.

The issue is one of education. If you don't want to get pregnant then the solutions are either abstenance or contraception.

Frankly I'm pleased that some of you feel that you're happy raising as many children as you can. I'd rather see willing parents than unwilling ones. However please respect that some of us have a different point of view that we're happy to live by. At the end of the day, as a humanist it's about whatever works for you.

Personally, I can't condemn abortion whenever I hear the names Adolf Hitler, Westlife or Jeremy Beadle.

[adz]

jkirk wrote:
South Dakota law bans nearly all abortions (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd.abortionban.ap/index.html)

uh-oh here we go again. :-o


Hmmm, this coming from a country that willingly sends its men and women into a foreign country to kill and be killed in a war of terror? I wonder how many pregnant Iraqi women have been claimed as "collateral damage"?

[Hyperspeed]

by Cecilia
Thinking ahead is what responsible humans do. try it sometime.


by Hyperspeed
it may well have been the foetus that discovered the warp drive or the cure for breast cancer.


by Cecilia
this is nonsense. a foetus can't discover anything. you will be better off if you learn to use logic.

And speel was trying to show you how ridiculous your notion is by being satirical.


So I'm to "think ahead" but I can't use my intuition, imagination or make decisions based on the knowledge and experience I have taken in?

I'm to use Klingon "logic" so that emotions don't get in the way of reason.

Now, I'm no regular viewer of Star Trek but doesn't this science-based show always try to convey the fact that emotion, sentiment and human-exclusive instinct/intuition usually prove useful?

Do Star Trek shows not regularly highlight the limitations of "logic" and how it is based solely on the facts and procedures we know? Nobody in science knows what life is and why pain has a terrible synergy with staying alive.

Is it not "logic" that we examine unnatural abortions of a foetus until we prove that beyond reasonable doubt that the entity does not experience pain?

Within the last few years, doctors have been debating whether the recently deceased should be given pain killing drugs as many a mortuary worker has observed writhing, kicking and strange noises from the cadavers.

They have ruled out decomposition or buildup of gases for this phenomena. Indeed some 'corpses' actually 'come back to life' (seemingly from an undetectable coma) as an MRI scanner pronounced them neurologically dead but there was still life there.

When graves were exhumed from WW2 it was often found that the soldiers had been 'buried alive' in the haste of battle after being mistaken for the dead. Some were just in an altered state of consciousness or coma. Investigators knew the soldiers had been buried alive because they had scratched on the lids of their makeshift coffins with their fingernails, desperate to get out of their living tomb.

This inanimate state suddenly thirsting to cling onto life is frighteningly similar to a foetus being aborted. If plants with no neurons act to feed or defend themselves, then what happens when a complex mammal with developing brain matter is torn out of it's mother?

Cecilia: If I switched off your electricity supply, you'd be the type to wait for it to come back on just so you can wipe your backside.

Take off your lab-coat/pinstriped suit and start thinking like a woman. Not like Doctor Spock.

[cecilia]

I'm to use Klingon "logic" so that emotions don't get in the way of reason.Klingons are not "logical", they are emotional. Although they believe in Honor. It's the Vulcans who are logical. If you are going to employ the ST universe in an analogy, at least get the details right.
:roll:

Your amusing little fantasy comparing the newly dead with the very much alive group of cells known as fetus shows absolutly nothing. people can speculate all they like, without proof, it means nothing. Logic and science require proof, and the ability to predict. if you can't do that you are just indulging in story-telling.

And while I love to be entertained I DO know the difference between reality and fantasy.

Cecilia: If I switched off your electricity supply, you'd be the type to wait for it to come back on just so you can wipe your backside.fortunately, you are nowhere near my energy source. And, if there was a problem I'd call the electrician. Unless it's a simple issue, then i can solve it myself. We've been known to have Blackouts here and, trust me, no one panics.

Take off your lab-coat/pinstriped suit and start thinking like a woman. Not like Doctor Spock.this is what people say when they have no argument and can't come up with any other way to express their anger and frustration. I refuse to become a barbarian. I was born with an intellect and i proudly use it. i leave all the "women-thinking" to you. it seems to suit you better.
and, that's "MR" Spock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spock). The doctor (ben spock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Spock)) was the baby expert.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Hyperspeed wrote:
When graves were exhumed from WW2 it was often found that the soldiers had been 'buried alive' in the haste of battle after being mistaken for the dead. Some were just in an altered state of consciousness or coma. Investigators knew the soldiers had been buried alive because they had scratched on the lids of their makeshift coffins with their fingernails, desperate to get out of their living tomb.

This inanimate state suddenly thirsting to cling onto life is frighteningly similar to a foetus being aborted. If plants with no neurons act to feed or defend themselves, then what happens when a complex mammal with developing brain matter is torn out of it's mother?For the same reason you'd not undergo any surgical operation, because the only thing anaesthesia does is making you forget that you're in pain. A featus cannot remember it's pain either. The only difference is that the featus can still move their limbs and when you're drugged you cannot.

[Hyperspeed]

This is an interesting point Speelgoedmannetje.

It has been known for people to give testimonies after having had surgery where they were under general anaesthetic and could recall every word the surgeons had uttered.

In some horrendous cases the individual experienced all the pain of being sliced open but the general anaesthetic had paralysed them so they could not react to it.

When the human body is asleep it will paralyse itself so that extreme movements whilst dreaming do not injure the body. Have you ever had a nightmare and not been able to move?

Your last point is also of consequence. Is pain only painful if we remember it?

Are we to say that pain is not pain unless it can be proven? How, even with an MRI scanner, are we to tell what pattern of brain activity (at present) equates with pain and the link with pain being a survival mechanism.

It is my main concern in cases of abortion that somehow these 1.3 million foetuses died clinging onto life in the form of pain.

Also, what is more cruel - inflicting pain... or inflicting a scenario where pleasure is never felt?


EDIT: By this I mean ending a life before it has the chance to see, touch, hear, taste, smell, experience delight, recognise a face, play, stroke, learn to love and ultimately to continue the 'life' that started billions of years ago.

If life isn't beggining with the foetus, by aborting it you are certainly ending this particularly well evolved branch of it. And as with binary, 1-bit=2, 2-bit=4, 3-bit=8, 4-bit=16... by aborting one you could be aborting 65,536 if you look into the future.

[bloodline]

Hyperspeed wrote:
This is an interesting point Speelgoedmannetje.

Your last point is also of consequence. Is pain only painful if we remember it?



When I was about 2 years old, I fell down some stairs ans sliced my ear off, on something sharp at the bottom of the stairs... I'm pretty sure that was a very painfull event, but I have no recollection of the event. If it wasn't for the photos and a faint scar (the doctors stuck my ear back on, and did a pretty good job), I would never have known.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Hyperspeed wrote:

EDIT: By this I mean ending a life before it has the chance to see, touch, hear, taste, smell, experience delight, recognise a face, play, stroke, learn to love and ultimately to continue the 'life' that started billions of years ago.
So, we humans have to make a baby every month after the previous has been born, to prevent one single (and maybe a very important) baby for not being born?

[PMC]

Reminds me of the insult.

"Your daddy left the best part of you trickling down your mummy's leg".

[Hyperspeed]

Speelgoedmannetje: Yet another valid point.

However, I feel that the egg, since it is only half of the genetics necessary to make a human being is not a being.

It's more complex with animals I suppose and one couldn't put it in terms of an acorn or seed as they are already 100% of the genetics needed to germinate.

When the egg is fertilised by the sperm, that is when I believe you are killing something. Why else would they need to join, other than to make a single living thing?

Vegetarians eventually came to the conclusion "If it has a face, don't eat it". The same may hold true for abortion...



Addendum #1:
bloodline: The only part of the human body that stays with you for life is your brain matter. Brain cells are never replaced like the skin or gut. Even bone material gets regenerated over 20 years.

If this happened to you as a child then the memory is still there, it is simply regressed. Your personality and intuition will have evolved ever so slightly as a result.

Addendum #2:
One thing to argue against the foetus being human is that the only thing it does not inherit is memories or experiences. But then maybe this is what makes it a consciousness unlike a plant which inherits everything.

Maybe, just maybe though... everything has a consciousness proportional to the complexity of DNA? Is it not possible consciousness is like CPU power in that the more complex the computer, the more processing power it'll have?

If you pegged your nose, closed your eyes and plugged your ears all day you'd still have urges to eat, sleep etc. Isn't an urge something that also indicates life?

Does the mother feed the foetus forcefully, or does it consume for itself?

[bloodline]

Hyperspeed wrote:
Speelgoedmannetje: Yet another valid point.

However, I feel that the egg, since it is only half of the genetics necessary to make a human being is not a being.


Actually, It has all the generics needed to make a Human. But only half the chromosomes, since to minimise defects you have a copy of every chromosome... it's complicated...


Vegetarians eventually came to the conclusion "If it has a face, don't eat it". The same may hold true for abortion...


I prefer to say if it has opposable thumbs... don't eat it :-)




Addendum #1:
bloodline: The only part of the human body that stays with you for life is your brain matter. Brain cells are never replaced like the skin or gut. Even bone material gets regenerated over 20 years.

If this happened to you as a child then the memory is still there, it is simply regressed. Your personality and intuition will have evolved ever so slightly as a result.


Actually every atom in your body is replaced after around 7 years, while your nerve cells might not regenerate they are constantly maintained and molecules are replaced.


Addendum #2:
One thing to argue against the foetus being human is that the only thing it does not inherit is memories or experiences. But then maybe this is what makes it a consciousness unlike a plant which inherits everything.

Maybe, just maybe though... everything has a consciousness proportional to the complexity of DNA? Is it not possible consciousness is like CPU power in that the more complex the computer, the more processing power it'll have?


Does conciousness really exist? or is it a product of your memories?


If you pegged your nose, closed your eyes and plugged your ears all day you'd still have urges to eat, sleep etc. Isn't an urge something that also indicates life?

Does the mother feed the foetus forcefully, or does it consume for itself?

Why do you have to smack the new born baby to make it breathe? why can a new born horse walk once it's just born... yet a human is totally helpless... Certain things are hardwired to ensure the organism survives.

http://arc.0daymeme.com/3_/banana****2gif.3_HOgXzaC9aequAc6o4p6h.full.gif

[jkirk]

Why do you have to smack the new born baby to make it breathe?

you don't. however it helps to clean around his mouth to stop the baby from breathing the liquid from the uterus(for lack of a better way of saying it)

yet a human is totally helpless


helpless yes but a child is more durable than you appear to be giving credit for.

[odin]

'Durable' :lol:. Sounds like it's a household appliance or something =).

[T_Bone]

mdma wrote:

nadoom wrote:
isnt that rather alot?

Doesnt that say alot about the west when the extinction of a life becomes so routine?

It isn't life at the stage of pregnancy that termination is allowed.

This isn't just my opinion, but the law.

It may be your opinion that it is life, but that doesn't mean you are right.

That depends on the age we're talking about. My daughter was physically born earlier in term than some abortions. I'm not sure how she could walk around today if we call her state at the time of birth to be anything other than alive, legally or otherwise.

[T_Bone]

cecilia wrote:
a fetus is not a baby.

nature has a process called "birth". after that, you have a Separate individual. "giving birth" is not just opening the fridge and getting a sandwich. It's quite a complex process.

Of course a fetus is a baby, it just hasn't been born yet.

[T_Bone]

mdma wrote:
[quote]
Yes, and if you don't like the law you can try to change it when you live in a democracy.

If it were that easy, Marijuana would be legal.


Here's something that might interest you. I am a father yet I still think women should be given the right to terminate a pregnancy if that is what they require.

I agree, but for pete's sake, why are people waiting MONTHS before doing it? The time to decide weather or not you want a freaking baby should be before you concieve the damned thing, not while it's growing into something with features resembling it's parents. If you know you're pregnant and you don't want it, why is it OK to procrastinate in taking the necessary action, for longer than we allow other, trivial things to be mulled over? Hell, parking tickets get resolved quicker.

Do you think that by banning abortion that the practice would stop?

Of course not, hasn't worked for anything else, but it would greatly eliminate people waiting untill they can just about walk before even thinking about it.

[Hyperspeed]

by bloodline:
Actually, It has all the generics needed to make a Human. But only half the chromosomes, since to minimise defects you have a copy of every chromosome... it's complicated...


Okay, but the male is not providing a copy of the female's chromosomes. There is a reason why we humans are not biologically the same as hermaphrodite worms.

by bloodline:
Actually every atom in your body is replaced after around 7 years, while your nerve cells might not regenerate they are constantly maintained and molecules are replaced.


That's interesting. I know that vitamins stop bad 'free radical' oxygen from wearing you down.

It'd be interesting to know how memories are stored. I read something once where it was claimed some memories are stored in the spinal cord (!?).


Does conciousness really exist? or is it a product of your memories?


I suppose if we disassociate the brain with the computer it could indeed be the memories making the 'soul'. Pity help us when they perfect a way to read/write memories!

They say 'deja vous' is a short circuit in the neural memory processes, so what is hypnotism?

by bloodline:
Why do you have to smack the new born baby to make it breathe? why can a new born horse walk once it's just born... yet a human is totally helpless... Certain things are hardwired to ensure the organism survives.


Well tapping the baby is just a precaution in some instances. I think newborn babies are able to swim with their heads underwater though... if that is hardwired then it raises interesting questions about our evolution.

I doubt you'd see chimps or gorillas swimming, and some humans have been known to be born with webbed feet and mermaid-style syndromes.

Anyway, back to abortion:

There is scientific evidence that primates exposed to violence and duress have a greater chance of becoming pregnant. Could the violence on the news, movies and TV be responsible for higher instances of casual sex and hence unwanted pregnancy?

It's also fairly obvious that exposing people to adult material is going to kickstart the basic instinct. This was a comment made at the time of erotic-avatars being banned from Amiga.org!

;-)

Maybe cleaning up our media and our attitudes towards drinking will reduce the massive gap between the world and the US/UK in terms of abortion.

Older quote by mdma:
The Morning after pill prevents the sperm from fertilizing the egg.

Still consider it an abortion?


The 'Morning After' pill is just a super powerful pill that can also abort a fertilised egg.

http://www.morningafterpill.org/mapinfo1.htm

[T_Bone]

mdma wrote:
most abortions are not this situation they are done for lifestyle reasons.

Evidence please.

Statistically, most abortions are done by 40 year old women who didn't realise they could still concieve.

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Let me tell you this guys. As cute as young babies might look, if they could, they would eat their own mother.
Your survival instinct (feeling affection to the baby) and the babies' inability to be hazardous has made the world heavily overpopulated by mankind.

Are you trying to covertly recruit? :-P ;-)

[cecilia]

T_Bone wrote:

cecilia wrote:
a fetus is not a baby.

nature has a process called "birth". after that, you have a Separate individual. "giving birth" is not just opening the fridge and getting a sandwich. It's quite a complex process.

Of course a fetus is a baby, it just hasn't been born yet.yes, it's not a tree, an orange or a rose. it's human DNA, but the reason it's called the "miracle of birth" is because there's no guarantee that it will live through the process (either pregnacy OR birth) and eventually become a person. the so-called religious right would arrest Mother Nature for commiting miscarriages because these ninnies think they know better than Everyone else.

You and your good wife wanted some kids and you worked to make that happen but even you pointed out that one of your daughters barely made it (if I understood your referance to her earlier-than-expected birth). For your sake I'm glad things worked out.

But not everyone has that as a goal. My point is that this is a personal decision and people not involved in the family should keep their GD noses out of other people's lives.

[bloodline]

Hyperspeed wrote:
by bloodline:
Actually, It has all the generics needed to make a Human. But only half the chromosomes, since to minimise defects you have a copy of every chromosome... it's complicated...


Okay, but the male is not providing a copy of the female's chromosomes. There is a reason why we humans are not biologically the same as hermaphrodite worms.


I'm assuming you haven't taken GCSE Biology yet... otherwise you shuld be well aware that a Male human Has both an X (Female) and a Y (Male) chromosome... The Female only has X chromosomes.


by bloodline:
Actually every atom in your body is replaced after around 7 years, while your nerve cells might not regenerate they are constantly maintained and molecules are replaced.


That's interesting. I know that vitamins stop bad 'free radical' oxygen from wearing you down.


Different issue.


It'd be interesting to know how memories are stored. I read something once where it was claimed some memories are stored in the spinal cord (!?).


Memories are stored by the connections between neurons, I suggest you read up about Neural Nets... the "Back Propagation Neual Net" is the easiest to understand.



Does conciousness really exist? or is it a product of your memories?


I suppose if we disassociate the brain with the computer it could indeed be the memories making the 'soul'. Pity help us when they perfect a way to read/write memories!


I find the idea intriguing! Read up on the "Transporter Paradox".


They say 'deja vous' is a short circuit in the neural memory processes, so what is hypnotism?


Those of us who have experiemented with psychoactive drugs are well aware of deja vous and other bizzare effects that messing around with the chemisty of the hypothalamus (The part of the brain associated with memory) can cause.


by bloodline:
Why do you have to smack the new born baby to make it breathe? why can a new born horse walk once it's just born... yet a human is totally helpless... Certain things are hardwired to ensure the organism survives.


Well tapping the baby is just a precaution in some instances. I think newborn babies are able to swim with their heads underwater though... if that is hardwired then it raises interesting questions about our evolution.

I doubt you'd see chimps or gorillas swimming, and some humans have been known to be born with webbed feet and mermaid-style syndromes.


I know little of Gorillas... but Chimps lack a layer of subcutaneous fat which means they loose too much heat if they are submerged in water for extended periods of time and die, they can't swim.


Anyway, back to abortion:

There is scientific evidence that primates exposed to violence and duress have a greater chance of becoming pregnant. Could the violence on the news, movies and TV be responsible for higher instances of casual sex and hence unwanted pregnancy?


Humans have sex... the've always had sex... they'll keep having sex... some of us perfer to be monogamous, but most will take any opportunity to have sex. SEX is central to pretty much everything we do.


It's also fairly obvious that exposing people to adult material is going to kickstart the basic instinct. This was a comment made at the time of erotic-avatars being banned from Amiga.org!

;-)

Maybe cleaning up our media and our attitudes towards drinking will reduce the massive gap between the world and the US/UK in terms of abortion.

Older quote by mdma:
The Morning after pill prevents the sperm from fertilizing the egg.

Still consider it an abortion?


The 'Morning After' pill is just a super powerful pill that can also abort a fertilised egg.

http://www.morningafterpill.org/mapinfo1.htm

I still don't understand why you consider a fertilised egg more important than the original sperm and egg?

[Hyperspeed]

by bloodline:
I still don't understand why you consider a fertilised egg more important than the original sperm and egg?


It is a symptom of a casual sex society where people cannot understand the importance of conception.

There has been discussion in scientific journals lately about different people being more connected to reality than others. Some have a more powerful sense of smell, some feel pain more (redheads were placed in this category) and some can visualise colours more intensely.

I really am beggining to wonder whether some people are mentally unable to appreciate what is going on between a man and woman when a child is conceived. I'm not talking about GCSE Biology lessons or the latest in psycho-analysis... I'm talking about realisation, appreciation, intuition, instinct.

Maybe it's to do with upbringing or discipline, a particular character of a parent or an experience that has left it's mark... who knows.

The problem I have with letting others do as they please whilst I live my life is that I see the world in a mess right now. I feel that casual has become oppresive, that opinions I don't agree with are too often encroaching onto my part of the 'live and let live' philosophy and I certainly don't want my kids experimenting with drugs, going for an abortion and becoming a self obsessed career junky.

Science isn't about defending the knowledge you possess but finding the knowledge you do not have.

Instinct is the kernel of the human operating system, patch it with Science v0.2 and the soul becomes corrupted. Press both eyelids to reset.

[Hyperspeed]

Here's another couple of things to mull over:

Last week on the news a court upheld a man's refusal to let his ex-partner proceed with implantation of a frozen embryo as their relationship had broken up (one of the pair must have had chemotherapy or something).

The man emerged from the court stating that now he could decide when he would father a child or not.

So if the court upheld when he could decide when his own fertilised embryo be implanted then why would it not uphold a father's protest over a woman aborting his child?

What if, in the distant future, an aborted foetus could be kept alive artificially (so the father could raise it). Would the woman be happy with this: not having to carry the child at all but knowing her 'aborted foetus' was now a laughing, playful child?

Is abortion more to do with erasing a mistake as opposed to the consequences of that mistake (i.e costs).

If abortion is more a psychological process of changing the past, and so many naeive people keep repeating the past without learning from others - this is where the elders of any civilised society must step in and assert themselves just as they would do if vandals kept smashing up a community or kids were skipping school.

Nobody likes extremes of anything, it's best to keep 'everything in moderation' as I was once told.

If there was an opposite pole to fascism it would be extreme liberalism. Extreme liberalism to me would be unregulated immigration, casual sex resulting in disease and pandemic abortions, massive budget deficits in government and in public purses and irresponsible use of power.

All seem to be associated with the US/UK right now and there is a common belief that the parts of the brain responsible for sex are closely related to those that control violence.

What's causing it - Media? Diet? Genetics? Music? Drugs? Pheremones? Global Warming? Solar Flares?

Personally I blame capitalism, a great way to keep the rich people rich and the poor people poor. And poverty is the main source of ignorance and depravity.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Instinct is the kernel of the human operating systemEver heard of infanticide built in (human) instinct?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Hyperspeed wrote:
The problem I have with letting others do as they please whilst I live my life is that I see the world in a mess right now. I feel that casual has become oppresive, that opinions I don't agree with are too often encroaching onto my part of the 'live and let live' philosophy and I certainly don't want my kids experimenting with drugs, going for an abortion and becoming a self obsessed career junky.
Not everyone wants to be Christian. Get over it :roll:

[Hyperspeed]

I'm agnostic but it's interesting that religions such as Taoism, Satanism, Paganism and Witchcraft have become more prevelant recently.

I would associate all four of the above with the darker side of sexual activity and matters of the occult.

I would consider even scientology to be a little dubious, even though they 'practise' science.


Not everyone wants to be Christian. Get over it


Not everyone wants to be indifferent either, some people sit back and watch the world go by - others have to share the burden of responsibility.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I would consider even scientology to be a little dubious, even though they 'practise' science.
No, they practise 'science'. Big difference.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Hyperspeed wrote:
Not everyone wants to be indifferent either, some people sit back and watch the world go by - others have to share the burden of responsibility.I hope you do not 'share the burden of responsibility' in others' private lives?

[Hyperspeed]

And their Patron Saint is John Travolta...

Be afraid!

[Hyperspeed]

by Speelgoedmannetje:
I hope you do not 'share the burden of responsibility' in others' private lives?


What happens when they use public facilities and money to have their abortions?

Do you think the people carrying out the abortions wouldn't rather just be doing it for purely life-saving reasons?

How can something be your private life when it involves so many other people?

How can it be private when the inertia of the abortion ideology threatens the very fabric of stable society - a slippery slope that will lead to other staple morals being thrown out in favour of experimentation.

24hr shopping and drive-thru abortion now - cloning, mind control, police state and genetic insurance policies in 20yrs time...

:-(

I'm agnostic but it's interesting that religions such as Taoism, Satanism, Paganism and Witchcraft have become more prevelant recently.

I would associate all four of the above with the darker side of sexual activity and matters of the occult.

:roflmao:

You're even worse than Metalman! :roflmao:

Hyperspeed wrote:
by Speelgoedmannetje:
I hope you do not 'share the burden of responsibility' in others' private lives?


What happens when they use public facilities and money to have their abortions?

Do you think the people carrying out the abortions wouldn't rather just be doing it for purely life-saving reasons?

How can something be your private life when it involves so many other people?

How can it be private when the inertia of the abortion ideology threatens the very fabric of stable society - a slippery slope that will lead to other staple morals being thrown out in favour of experimentation.

24hr shopping and drive-thru abortion now - cloning, mind control, police state and genetic insurance policies in 20yrs time...

:-(

:-?

You are quite possibly mad.

[Hyperspeed]

by mdma:
You're even worse than Metalman!


In what way!?

You're not into orgies around the wicker-man are you?

:-D



EDIT:
by mdma:
You are quite possibly mad.


Mad as a 'Mad March Hare'!

And that was a very lukewarm response from the pro-choice camp... where is Cecilia and her feminist ranting...

:-D

Hyperspeed wrote:
by mdma:
You're even worse than Metalman!


In what way!?


In the way that your complete lack of knowledge about any given subject in no way stops you from talking about it with an air of authority.



You're not into orgies around the wicker-man are you?

:-D

Nah, it's against my religion. :-D

[Hyperspeed]

by mdma:
In the way that your complete lack of knowledge about any given subject in no way stops you from talking about it with an air of authority.


I prefer to discuss things in a language people understand and not blur debate with trivia...

However, I challenge you to correct me on anything I have thus far discussed...

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Hyperspeed wrote:
However, I challenge you to correct me on anything I have thus far discussed...How can anyone correct you when you're only writing completely irrational stuff? :getmad:

Hyperspeed wrote:
by mdma:
In the way that your complete lack of knowledge about any given subject in no way stops you from talking about it with an air of authority.


I prefer to discuss things in a language people understand and not blur debate with trivia...

However, I challenge you to correct me on anything I have thus far discussed...

Ok, please tell us why you associate Taoism with " the darker side of sexual activity and matters of the occult".

What evidence do you have to back up this statement?

Please provide this evidence.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Let me tell you this guys. As cute as young babies might look, if they could, they would eat their own mother.
Your survival instinct (feeling affection to the baby) and the babies' inability to be hazardous has made the world heavily overpopulated by mankind.

Are you trying to covertly recruit? :-P ;-)Ah, now I understand :lol: :lol:

[Hyperspeed]

Ahhh, I thought it was the religion thing, you're very sensitive about that.

:-D

Unfortunately, you can't give an URL to everything but I would like to point out that that statement stems from lessons in religion which included Taoism many moons ago.

From what I gathered it was very much an earthly religion like animism, where substance abuse, ritual sacrifice and worshipping of the supernatural gave me an overall negative view of it in comparison to Buddhism.

I also have it in my mind that there was a lot of karma-sutra/geisha style teachings on sex and free-loving.

The Chinese are obsessed with this crap, they spent so much time reproducing and building walls that they forgot to evolve until the 21st Century.



EDIT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism

Taoism is not a belief-centered religion, and there are no known Taoist creeds. At the same time, certain characteristic beliefs or assumptions can be identified.
One of these is the existence of several classes of supernatural beings, who may enter into relations with human beings.

Entering into relations with human beings eh... kinky!

Folk Taoism focuses on rituals of sacrifice; elite Taoism emphasizes control over spirits

That must keep their spirits up...

Hyperspeed wrote:
Ahhh, I thought it was the religion thing, you're very sensitive about that.

:-D

Unfortunately, you can't give an URL to everything but I would like to point out that that statement stems from lessons in religion which included Taoism many moons ago.

From what I gathered it was very much an earthly religion like animism, where substance abuse, ritual sacrifice and worshipping of the supernatural gave me an overall negative view of it in comparison to Buddhism.

I also have it in my mind that there was a lot of karma-sutra/geisha style teachings on sex and free-loving.


So now we find out that your statement is just some made up association in your head rather than actual facts, though fact is what your present your opinions as.

If you could learn to state when something is your opinion and state why you think this, you'd be able to put across your thoughts in a lot clearer fashion than you currently do.


The Chinese are obsessed with this crap, they spent so much time reproducing and building walls that they forget to evolve until the 21st Century.

And then this is where you go wrong and show your true colours with a bigotted racist statement such as that.

Grow up.

[Hyperspeed]

Here's another fantastic URL relating to Taoism:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0892819634/102-4233157-6207357?v=glance&n=283155


And then this is where you go wrong and show your true colours with a bigotted racist statement such as that.

Grow up.


I do like to interject a little bigotted humour into my posts so as not to further exacerbate your religious insecurities.

We are however arguing off topic, so if you and Speelgoed have finished 'bitching and discussing ejaculation maybe we can get back to the more serious discussion of the murder of the unborn.

Hyperspeed wrote:
Here's another fantastic URL relating to Taoism:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0892819634/102-4233157-6207357?v=glance&n=283155


And then this is where you go wrong and show your true colours with a bigotted racist statement such as that.

Grow up.


I do like to interject a little bigotted humour into my posts so as not to further exacerbate your religious insecurities.

We are however arguing off topic, so if you and Speelgoed have finished 'bitching and discussing ejaculation maybe we can get back to the more serious discussion of the murder of the unborn.

And what religious insecurites would these be?

Consider yourself in the sh!t for breaking site rules btw.

[cecilia]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

Hyperspeed wrote:
However, I challenge you to correct me on anything I have thus far discussed...How can anyone correct you when you're only writing completely irrational stuff? :getmad: that's why i've become completely bored with this discussion. all points have been answered and yet this numbskull never gets it and keeps going off in irrelevant tangents. why waste my valuable time?

[Karlos]

Hyperspeed wrote:

I also have it in my mind that there was a lot of karma-sutra/geisha style teachings on sex and free-loving.

The Chinese are obsessed with this crap, they spent so much time reproducing and building walls that they forgot to evolve until the 21st Century.



Really? Say, would that be, like you know, all chinese or just like most of them?

Man, I *wish* I was as enlightened as you, I feel so deprived.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

cecilia wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

Hyperspeed wrote:
However, I challenge you to correct me on anything I have thus far discussed...How can anyone correct you when you're only writing completely irrational stuff? :getmad: that's why i've become completely bored with this discussion. all points have been answered and yet this numbskull never gets it and keeps going off in irrelevant tangents. why waste my valuable time?I hoped I could make my point clear, and I was not expecting to convince. But I really didn't expect him to behave like a complete @rse.

Call me ignorant, but I just do not see the benefit in expecting the worst of humanity.

[GadgetMaster]

The Chinese are obsessed with this crap, they spent so much time reproducing and building walls that they forgot to evolve until the 21st Century.



I do like to interject a little bigotted humour into my posts so as not to further exacerbate your religious insecurities.

Bigoted humour? you just accused a whole race of being unevolved and stupid :-?

[cecilia]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
I hoped I could make my point clear, and I was not expecting to convince. But I really didn't expect him to behave like a complete @rse.

Call me ignorant, but I just do not see the benefit in expecting the worst of humanity.you made your points clear enough, not to worry.
as for "expecting the worst", well, no need to feel badly or appologize. It's obvious from even a brief study of history and human accomplishments that at least SOME members of the human race are clearly not stupid.

what pisses me off is this 'holier than thou" attitude. The implication is that I'm not moral because I have decided IN MY OWN LIFE to choose having an abortion rather than bring a child into a situation where they would live in abject poverty. I would never tell other what they have to do, only that no one should decide for ME.

but for some reaason the Overly Rightious think they can push everyone around according to their pathetic little rules.

[bloodline]

GadgetMaster wrote:
The Chinese are obsessed with this crap, they spent so much time reproducing and building walls that they forgot to evolve until the 21st Century.



I do like to interject a little bigotted humour into my posts so as not to further exacerbate your religious insecurities.

Bigoted humour? you just accused a whole race of being unevolved and stupid :-?

Perhaps he's not part of the human race?


Hyperspeed is just very young and, one would hope, is still learning... I'm not proud of the limited view that I had as a teenager. Now I'm just bitter and cynical :-D

[Hyperspeed]

Guys, guys, guys (& girls)...

There's no need to resort to playground putdowns to express disgust.

My statement about the Chinese was merely an opinion based on an article I read in a newspaper on how for the last 200 years they have failed to keep up with Europe and now are emerging from that lag.

>This is an interesting article< (http://forum.physorg.com/Gentic-Variability-~-Geography-~-Tech-Innovation_3956.html)

by cecilia:
what pisses me off is this 'holier than thou" attitude. The implication is that I'm not moral because I have decided IN MY OWN LIFE to choose having an abortion rather than bring a child into a situation where they would live in abject poverty. I would never tell other what they have to do, only that no one should decide for ME.


Am I reading that correctly? You have had an abortion?

[cecilia]

Am I reading that correctly? You have had an abortion?as I clearly stated earlier in this thread (and elsewhere, for that matter) well before I EVER had a date I decided that I didn't want children. A career as an artist is very difficult and full of economic ups and downs. I knew I would never have the economic stability to raise children.

Therefore, I decided that should something unfortunate happen, like a pregnancy, I would just go and have it aborted. I wouldn't tell the guy, I would just do it. I figured it wasn't anyone elses decision, so no one else needs to know.

As to whether or not I've actually done this, that is none of anyone's business. yes or no. You will condemn me either way because you think you are "morally" superior. In your sick little mind (like all the nuns I knew growing up), even Thinking about this is a SIN.

Of course, in my mind, being a responsible person means thinking ahead and making plans (and another topic I'll not be discussing with you or anyone is what my prefered method of contraception has been).
What the catholic church has always encouraged is to keep girls as ignorant as possible. Because, for them, thinking about sex means you are a slut. Just thinking. If you make plans like buy condoms, you are a slut. Because good girls don't buy condoms. Good girls don't think ahead.

that's why one girl I went to HS with got 4 abortions during her HS career. Because she didn't want to Think about it. When her boyfriend got frisky it was all "out of her control". Not her fault. So, in that catholic thinking, she's not a slut.

Now, I am not good at being a catholic. I like to think ahead and make plans. That includes contraception and if that fails (as I was aware it could), abortion. It doesn't matter if it's actually happened or not. What people like you hate is that I made a choice without your permission.

You may find this quite shocking - it seems you are easily shocked - but I have to live my life and get my work done and people like you are never going to understand or help. Since I've done things that I'm quite proud of I think I've made all the right decisions. And I certainly don't need a child telling me otherwise.

[Hyperspeed]

"I wouldn't tell the guy, I would just do it." (http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/news/images/0409/fathers4justice.jpg)

Hyperspeed wrote:
"I wouldn't tell the guy, I would just do it." (http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/news/images/0409/fathers4justice.jpg)

What you don't know doesn't hurt you.

How many kids you got btw?

[cecilia]

mdma wrote:
How many kids you got btw?i'm sure he's a virgin - and will thankfully stay that way! :-D









notice he hates that part where he has no say. he hates not being able to control all "da Bit-ches" :lol:

[Karlos]

cecilia wrote:

mdma wrote:
How many kids you got btw?i'm sure he's a virgin - and will thankfully stay that way! :-D


I dunno, perhaps "right-hand impregnation trial #23476987354643" will be the one?

[bloodline]

Karlos wrote:

cecilia wrote:

mdma wrote:
How many kids you got btw?i'm sure he's a virgin - and will thankfully stay that way! :-D


I dunno, perhaps "right-hand impregnation trial #23476987354643" will be the one?


:lol:


Do socks count... or does it have to be another human?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

bloodline wrote:
Do socks count... or does it have to be another human?I think so, it only has to be alive. And of course the Great Sock lives!

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Karlos wrote:

cecilia wrote:

mdma wrote:
How many kids you got btw?i'm sure he's a virgin - and will thankfully stay that way! :-D


I dunno, perhaps "right-hand impregnation trial #23476987354643" will be the one?He of course has learned to keep his hands decently above the sheets....

[T_Bone]

Hyperspeed wrote:
"I wouldn't tell the guy, I would just do it." (http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/news/images/0409/fathers4justice.jpg)

She's right. Women shouldn't be able to be forced into being responsible for a child they don't want, any more than a man should.

The problem is, *MEN* don't have that same right. Once the child is concieved, planned or not, MEN have NO say in the matter, and are legally responsible for that child completely at the mother's whim.

If Women are supposed to have the right to absolve themselves of the responsibility of a child concieved by accident (which, I can't argue with), why ONLY women?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:

Hyperspeed wrote:
"I wouldn't tell the guy, I would just do it." (http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/news/images/0409/fathers4justice.jpg)

She's right. Women shouldn't be able to be forced into being responsible for a child they don't want, any more than a man should.

The problem is, *MEN* don't have that same right. Once the child is concieved, planned or not, MEN have NO say in the matter, and are legally responsible for that child completely at the mother's whim.

If Women are supposed to have the right to absolve themselves of the responsibility of a child concieved by accident (which, I can't argue with), why ONLY women?
Because it's still the woman's body. Men do not have to give birth. Big difference.

If Women are supposed to have the right to absolve themselves of the responsibility of a child concieved by accident (which, I can't argue with), why ONLY women?

Because it's still the woman's body. Men do not have to give birth. Big difference.

I think you misunderstand.

If an accident happens a woman can LEGALLY decide she doesn't want the responsibility of a baby and abort it whether the man agrees or not.

Why then, if an accident happens can a man not LEGALLY decide he wants no responsibility for the baby whether the woman agrees or not?

Currently the man has to provide child support maintainance until the child is an adult.

Utter double standards.

[bloodline]

mdma wrote:
If Women are supposed to have the right to absolve themselves of the responsibility of a child concieved by accident (which, I can't argue with), why ONLY women?

Because it's still the woman's body. Men do not have to give birth. Big difference.

I think you misunderstand.

If an accident happens a woman can LEGALLY decide she doesn't want the responsibility of a baby and abort it whether the man agrees or not.

Why then, if an accident happens can a man not LEGALLY decide he wants no responsibility for the baby whether the woman agrees or not?

Currently the man has to provide child support maintainance until the child is an adult.

Utter double standards.

Life's a {bleep}...

Women get to have babies, men get to have socks...

[T_Bone]

mdma wrote:
If Women are supposed to have the right to absolve themselves of the responsibility of a child concieved by accident (which, I can't argue with), why ONLY women?

Because it's still the woman's body. Men do not have to give birth. Big difference.

I think you misunderstand.

If an accident happens a woman can LEGALLY decide she doesn't want the responsibility of a baby and abort it whether the man agrees or not.

Why then, if an accident happens can a man not LEGALLY decide he wants no responsibility for the baby whether the woman agrees or not?

Currently the man has to provide child support maintainance until the child is an adult.

Utter double standards.

Exactly, and untill the abortion lobby can reconcile their stance so that their issue isn't "Rights for women, but women only, screw men" I'm not going to support them. Why should anyone?

It would be like Rosa Parks advocating the rights for black women to sit wherever they please on the bus, while not caring if the men still have to sit in the back and use separate drinking fountains, etc.

If you are going to support an issue dealing with "rights", while the issue itself ignores rights, the issue is flawed.

[PMC]

I have to agree with T-Bone.

Although I feel it's morally wrong to compel a woman to abort (indeed, I find the prospect of this abhorent), we men have no say once the gun has been fired. That means that subsequently we can be called upon at any point to fund a child who's existence we may not even have been aware of and from whom we may also be denied any contact.

Okay, absent fathers should support their family, but I'd be interested to hear the moral arguements for this:

My mate Phil was dating this girl who turned round one day and said

"I want a baby. I've decided to stop taking the pill and I think I might be pregnant"

Turned out she'd actually stopped taking the pill three months beforehand and had decided against telling Phil in case he objected. The baby miscarried quite early on, but the implications were clear, Phil was to financially support a child that he'd been duped into fathering.

[bloodline]

PMC wrote:
I have to agree with T-Bone.

Although I feel it's morally wrong to compel a woman to abort (indeed, I find the prospect of this abhorent), we men have no say once the gun has been fired. That means that subsequently we can be called upon at any point to fund a child who's existence we may not even have been aware of and from whom we may also be denied any contact.

Okay, absent fathers should support their family, but I'd be interested to hear the moral arguements for this:

My mate Phil was dating this girl who turned round one day and said

"I want a baby. I've decided to stop taking the pill and I think I might be pregnant"

Turned out she'd actually stopped taking the pill three months beforehand and had decided against telling Phil in case he objected. The baby miscarried quite early on, but the implications were clear, Phil was to financially support a child that he'd been duped into fathering.



Isn't this actually a separate issue? If your mate wanted to make sure he didn't get her pregnant, he should have taken precautions himself... ;-)

This is an issue of trust, not really one of rights.

[cecilia]

My mate Phil was dating this girl who turned round one day and said
"I want a baby. I've decided to stop taking the pill and I think I might be pregnant"i hope to the gods he dumped her a$$ that very minute!

she's being a complete c*nt. she's basically using him like a stud horse.

no guy should trust the pill. and considering how dumb so many girls are, he should be wary of them.

every potential baby should be wanted and planned by BOTH parents. I really wish people had to get an education and a licence to have kids.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:
Exactly, and untill the abortion lobby can reconcile their stance so that their issue isn't "Rights for women, but women only, screw men" I'm not going to support them. Why should anyone?

It would be like Rosa Parks advocating the rights for black women to sit wherever they please on the bus, while not caring if the men still have to sit in the back and use separate drinking fountains, etc.

If you are going to support an issue dealing with "rights", while the issue itself ignores rights, the issue is flawed.
Fair enough, but it just happend to be so that physically beseen the roles aren't equal and that fact should be taken into consideration.

[PMC]

cecilia wrote:
i hope to the gods he dumped her a$$ that very minute!

she's being a complete c*nt. she's basically using him like a stud horse.


My thoughts exactly. Put it this way, the relationship didn't last much longer.

no guy should trust the pill. and considering how dumb so many girls are, he should be wary of them.


That's very true. Even a stomach upset can reduce the pill's effectiveness. The problem is that condoms break with alarming regularity too. It's happened to me on many occasions.


every potential baby should be wanted and planned by BOTH parents. I really wish people had to get an education and a licence to have kids.

Again Cecilia, my thoughts exactly. You need a license to drive, qualifications to get a job etc but you don't need any qualifications to reproduce - arguably the biggest responsibility of all.

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

T_Bone wrote:
Exactly, and untill the abortion lobby can reconcile their stance so that their issue isn't "Rights for women, but women only, screw men" I'm not going to support them. Why should anyone?

It would be like Rosa Parks advocating the rights for black women to sit wherever they please on the bus, while not caring if the men still have to sit in the back and use separate drinking fountains, etc.

If you are going to support an issue dealing with "rights", while the issue itself ignores rights, the issue is flawed.
Fair enough, but it just happend to be so that physically beseen the roles aren't equal and that fact should be taken into consideration.

Not from the specific point being argued it shouldn't. The premise was that a woman shouldn't be saddled with the unwanted responsivility of a baby due to contraception failure. That has nothing to do with anyone's roles or body.