# Abortion.



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

I wanted to see what peoples stance was here (and draw attention away from the incest thread). I know this is a sensitive topic so if you dont want in it, steer clear of this thread.

How do you feel about abortion.....should it be kept legal, legal but with very restrictive rules, or abolished.

Personally I feel late term abortions should be abolished. In my heart of hearts I am pro-life yet I have some reservations about this stance. First and foremost, I have never been exposed to a situation where either I or one of my close friends got/contributed to an unwanted pregnancy. Without this first hand knowledge, how can I even begin to imagine what people go through when making a decision of that magnitude. Secondly, I feel extremely guilty telling a person what they can or cant do with their body. It might be a moral standard that I can apply to myself yet telling someone else how to handle something going on inside them seems wrong to me. Thirdly, I feel wishy washy about whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest. At the heart of the matter, you are still killing a baby yet in the case of rape and incest, the baby was made unlawfully. In the case of incest there can be some serious health concerns as well.....but this shouldnt be reason alone.

I am confused on my own stance, but if I were to categorize myself I would be pro-life.....just not militant about it.

-X


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

My problem with abortion is that I have no say one way or the other. If my gf gets pregnant it really pisses me off that I have no say in weather I become a father or not. 
Examples:
Say she decides to keep the kid....I'm on the hook for child support even though I wanted her to get an abortion. 
Say she decided to abort the kid...I'm basically screwed because I wanted to be a father and now she has decided to kill my kid.
This is what pisses me off most about abortion are the abortion laws. I dont know the answer, or even have suggestions, but I dont like it.
And dont tell me that my decision was made when I pulled down my pants because it takes 2 to create life and only the guy has no say after it happens. 
So basically abortion is a safety net for the ladies if she happens to get knocked up by a looser.







Because we all know that chicks that get knocked up by rich dudes never get an abortion, it becomes a business decision.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

Ppl are gonna say im as deranged about abortion as i am incest, but anyhow:

I believe the legal abortion limit should be raised to a month AFTER birth. I guess most ppl would say thats legally transcribed to Murder; I'd call it "culling". *Far as im concerned, a human fetus might as well be a cement brick with arms and legs sticking out.*
Society has no problems with killing dogs and cats in pounds, but they have a fuckin cow over killing a fetus/newborn human who's sentient level is well below that of a dog/cat. 
Of course, I support the removal of both; I just used the dog/cat thing as a comparison.

Actually, ppl are just gonna say im outright fucked-up and belong in a fuckin mental institution (I know, cuz this isnt the first time I've posted my beliefs about this in an internet forum lol), but regardless, I'm quite proud of it. Oh, I suppose I'm also gonna get alot of "Wow dude thats sad, I really feel sorry for you" too. Hahahahahahaha. Or Adolf Hitler. I get called that alot too. So if you cant find any insults at me more original than those, don't waste your time insulting the post.

If you wanna make a scientific debate out of it, fine. If you wanna decry the morality/ethicality of it, don't waste your breath.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

I'll just ignore that last post, and add my 2 cents...

I think abortion should be legal, but under strict regulation. Even though it's a very sensitive matter to many, I believe that, given the right (ok, bad choice of words...) circumstances, people should have the right to decide over the fate of their own lifes: when a 17 year old girl gets raped and becomes pregnant, who are we to judge/decide what she would have to do??? I mean, when she is forced to keep the child, she probably won't be able to finish her education, which will have consequences for the rest of her life. I believe that someone in a similar situation should be able to make that, very tough, decision on her own...
And imho, this doesn't apply only to unwanted teenage pregnancies.

I don't approve abortion as a method of delayed contraception (due to lazyness/carelessness), and therefore I believe that regulations should be strict, but just saying "no" to it (no matter if it's due to religious, ethical or whatever principles), and denying it to people that are really unable to support a child (or in a situation like discribed above) is plain narrow-mindedness, in my opinion.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Judazzz said:


> I don't approve abortion as a method of delayed contraception (due to lazyness/carelessness)










This is what pisses me off so much about abortion. Does anyone have any stats on the current adoption system in America? I bet there are more people waiting for a baby then babies waiting for families....


----------



## pcrose (Mar 9, 2003)

Do you want a chick's perspective? I think it is wrong myself, people can always use protection or have the kid and give it up for adoption. It is also not the guy's fault it is both faults, because they knew the consequences. gross is correct in his standing of things. But sh*t happens and the couple has to decide what is best for them in their life. I don't like p-45's idea and I don't like how people kill cats and dogs that is why Oregon inforces any animal from the shelter to get spayed and neutred. I also think it is lame what my cousin did, she didn't think things through and her and her fiancee purposly had the kid but does she really take care of it? No! it is my aunt or his parents. She even says she should have waited, both of them don't hold jobs for very long and they have no means to support the kid, so basically I really don't consider it her baby it is like my aunt's new child and my aunt basically has adopted it.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Roe v. Wade was based on a lie. The woman was not raped and her emotional distress was overblown by NOW which wanted abortion legalized and Drs. that saw the potential $$$$'s made by promiscuous men and women. How do I know this? The woman herself who used the name _Roe_ is now part of a group against abortion.



> pcrose Posted on May 5 2003, 06:56 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Do you want a chick's perspective


Absolutely. Afterall, you have the right to decide to take a life or not.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> piranha45 Posted on May 5 2003, 06:24 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ppl are gonna say im as deranged about abortion as i am incest, but anyhow:
> 
> ...


Actually from my perspective, your reply to the thread is quite predicable.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

If 3 people thought the way P45 did my father would have no family, if a further 2 more did likewise he would have no extended family. If abortion were legal and acceptable there's a good chance I wouldn't be here to read bullshit like this. Makes me sick.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Btw, comparing humans to animals is a ridiculous argument. I don't know why I'm debating with you P45, your views don't seem to be based on any sort of logic or moral decency that I can fathom. Your lifestyle choices or wishes are very disturbing. If you're just messing around, well I'd question how much truth is behind it.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Neoplasia said:


> If 3 people thought the way P45 did my father would have no family, if a further 2 more did likewise he would have no extended family. If abortion were legal and acceptable there's a good chance I wouldn't be here to read bullshit like this. Makes me sick.


 What makes you sick? P45's comments or everyones comments in this thread? I think it would be best just to ignore his post, as this is a serious thread and I am interested in peoples thoughts and opinions. But I would like to know whos posts you are classifying as bullshit.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Sorry. Posts such as P45's. I realize it's best to ignore drivel like that, but if everyone had such a casual disregard for life as that then a lot of people would not be around.

Abortion begs to have the queston answered on what is life? How do you decide when life starts? Is it conception or is it later on during the pregnancy? I think that some people think later on because it's more comfortable to believe that. If life begins at conception well then abortion would be akin to murder wouldn't it? It's a very fine line, I wouldn't be surprised if it was eventually said that life begins at conception, I certainly would support such a stance.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Neoplasia said:


> Sorry. Posts such as P45's. I realize it's best to ignore drivel like that, but if everyone had such a casual disregard for life as that then a lot of people would not be around.
> 
> Abortion begs to have the queston answered on what is life? How do you decide when life starts? Is it conception or is it later on during the pregnancy? I think that some people think later on because it's more comfortable to believe that. If life begins at conception well then abortion would be akin to murder wouldn't it? It's a very fine line, I wouldn't be surprised if it was eventually said that life begins at conception, I certainly would support such a stance.


 Yeah I have heard arguments for life begins when

1. Conception
2. The heart starts beating
3. Birth

Well, If I were to choose from all three, I would have to choose number 1. It makes the most sense that, that is the instance when the "Miracle of Life" takes place. It shouldnt matter what (if any) religion you are as everyone should be able to agree that the creation of another human life is a miracle. Now, does the extermination of 100 or so cells in the zygote mean "murder". I dont know....


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

hastatus said:


> > piranha45 Posted on May 5 2003, 06:24 PM
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Ppl are gonna say im as deranged about abortion as i am incest, but anyhow:
> >
> ...


but of course, your a man of science! The direction of which, I would like think I'm coming from.
Neoplasia likes to think human fetuses are above animals.


----------



## pcrose (Mar 9, 2003)

If you think about it life does start at conception because the seed is like a plant it starts to grow till it blooms(bein born). I believe in my heart abortion is murder and I am pretty sure all of my family would never do it they would either keep the baby or give it to a couple who don't have the ability to make them. Kids are a blessing but it can be hard on your life if you have them to early in your life. My cousin and her fiancee screwed up the chances of going to college he was going to go to the culinary school and his parents were goin to pay for all of it, he can't do that because he is suppose to be working to support the child. School takes up a lot of time so he couldn't work fulltime if he still was to go to school therefore he couldn't provide for the family. I guess they try most of the time but I don't feel sorry for them neither does the rest of the family besides my Aunt and his mom. It is the couples choice but there are a whole lot of better alternatives and I don't think abortion should really be one of them. But it is America and the right to choose or not stands.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

You presume to tell me what I think now? All human life is above that of animals. Sorry to any PETA freaks out there but such is life. Humans have the ability to reason and create (though more often than not both qualities are misused or neglected). That isn't the point though. How can one say that a human fetus (not the use of the word human, implying it is a living thing) has no rights or is so inferior to the rest of life on earth that it can be discarded as easily as unwanted junk mail?

Ok so you're inclined to believe that life begins at conception...how then can you say


> Far as im concerned, a human fetus might as well be a cement brick with arms and legs sticking out.


 The two are virtually mutually exclusive. Either it's a living being or it's not. Unless you're saying it's ok to kill a living being up to a certain point during the pregnance (or as in China until it takes it's first breath).

Btw


> If you wanna make a scientific debate out of it, fine. If you wanna decry the morality/ethicality of it, don't waste your breath.


 Sorry but it IS a morality issue. I honestly hope you never have children if you truly believe a newborn child is below that of a cat or dog. Quite frankly you disgust me, unvelievable that people are actually proud of having sentiments like that.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> piranha45 Posted on May 5 2003, 08:07 PM ...but of course, your a man of science! The direction of which, I would like think I'm coming from.


Actually, your not even close, because _ethics_ is a part of science and I see nothing ethical (or morally for that matter) in your method.


----------



## plonker_from_mars (May 1, 2003)

if you want the kid have it, if you dont just abort, i agree with P45 it might aswell be a brick with arms and legs, it has no feelings anyway just abort it, imho dogs and cats being murderd is worse than someone aborting cats and dogs feel the pain , fetus dont a loada sh*t just comes out


----------



## thePACK (Jan 3, 2003)

plonker_from_mars said:


> if you want the kid have it, if you dont just abort, i agree with P45 it might aswell be a brick with arms and legs, it has no feelings anyway just abort it, imho dogs and cats being murderd is worse than someone aborting cats and dogs feel the pain , fetus dont a loada sh*t just comes out


 how do you know it has no feeling?


----------



## plonker_from_mars (May 1, 2003)

because its just cells waiting to devolop..... there like bits of paper waiting to be drawn on,


----------



## plonker_from_mars (May 1, 2003)

and they dont have any nerves either


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

my opinion is this

1. abortion isnt a morally good choice to make, but it is better than trying to raise a child you cannot support and care for

2. if a woman is raped why and the hell should she be forced to have that child it was against her will and would be a reminder of the terrible act

3. I dont think people should be allowed abortions and what not just because they want to for what ever reason, I dont know much about abortions so bare with me ( certain people only want one sex, they dont want a defected child, etc ,etc)


----------



## pcrose (Mar 9, 2003)

well if the women is raped she could also give it up for adoption as well.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

I found this article rather interesting. My pasting it here is basically to gived more insight into this topic. One thing key word I found interesting is her use and acknowledgement of the word that the fetus is *life*.

Perhaps if you read this through, you will see a contradiction in her statements between life as a human being and life as an embryo. BTW, it is well accepted fact that by 20 weeks the fetus does feel pain;

Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?

by Joyce Arthur

Copyright © August 2001

The main argument of the anti-choice movement boils down to this: a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is a human being with a right to life, and abortion is therefore murder and should be illegal. This assumption is deeply flawed.

At the outset, let me say that from a pro-choice point of view, the status of the fetus is a peripheral issue. Regardless of whether a fetus is a human being or has rights, women will have abortions anyway, even if it means breaking the law or risking their lives. Even women who believe that abortion is murder have chosen to get abortions, and will continue to do so1. That's why we should leave the decision up to women's moral conscience, and make sure that they are provided with safe, legal, accessible abortions. Because ultimately, the status of a fetus is a matter of subjective opinion, and the only opinion that counts is that of the pregnant woman. For example, a happily pregnant woman may feel love for her fetus as a special and unique human being, a welcome and highly anticipated member of her family. She names her fetus, refers to it as a baby, talks to it, and so on. But an unhappily pregnant woman may view her fetus with utter dismay, bordering on revulsion. She cannot bring herself to refer to it as anything other than "it," much less a human being. She is desperate to get rid of this unwelcome invader, and when she does, she feels tremendous relief. Both of these reactions to a fetus, and all reactions in between, are perfectly valid and natural. Both may even occur in the same woman, years apart.

However, anti-choicers insist not only that a fetus is a human being, but that this status is an objective scientific fact. Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving, thereby committing the logical fallacy of "begging the question." Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights.

Anti-choicers must claim that fetuses are human beings, of course, or they really have no case against abortion. Since this claim is the cornerstone of their position, it should be critiqued in detail, from philosophical, legal, social, and biological perspectives2. Even though it has little relevance for the actual practice of abortion, the assertion that fetuses are human beings has a potentially great impact on the rights of women.

Deconstructing Anti-Choice Language

Before going further, we need to clarify and interpret some anti-choice language. First, anti-choicers often confuse the adjective "human" and the noun "human being," giving them the same meaning. I am struck by the question they often put to pro-choicers: "But isn't it human?" -as if we secretly think a fetus is really a creature from outer space. If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, anti-choicers triumphantly claim you just conceded it's a human being. Now, a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote3. Anti-choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate human being. But with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, because human beings are much more than our genes (I'll expand on this point later). Also, both a fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being. It's a worn cliché, but it bears repeating-an acorn isn't an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn't a chicken.

Anti-choicers also use the phrase "humanity of the fetus," by which they may mean its physical human qualities, but it's ambiguous, maybe purposely so. In this context, the word "humanity" implies compassionate human feelings and virtues, such as pathos or love. The term seems cleverly designed to elicit sympathy for a fetus, and assign it human-like qualities it simply does not have. The ability to feel joy, sadness, anger, and hatred are an integral part of our "human beingness," and we do not learn to develop such sophisticated emotions until we start socially interacting with others.

An alternate phrase heard by anti-choicers is: "It's a life"-another ambiguous and vague term. *A fetus is certainly alive, and it might fairly be argued that a fetus is a distinct living entity (a debatable point though, because of fetal dependence on a woman's body), but this reasoning can apply to any living thing, including worms and germs.* Simply calling a fetus "a life" says nothing, unless the term is meant as another way of saying "a human being," which means anti-choicers are just begging the question again.

The same problem afflicts the anti-choice phrase: "Life begins at conception." Biologically speaking, this is a nonsensical statement since life began only once on this planet, over three and a half billion years ago, and hasn't stopped since. A fertilized egg is simply life continuing in a modified form-only one small step removed from the separate sperm and ovum, both alive before joining together, and both representing the unique genetic potential of a human being. In an anti-choice context, the term "Life begins at conception" can only be translated as: "A human being starts at conception." Once again, this is begging the question. Perhaps a potential human being gets its start at conception, but the fact that life is a continuum makes even this equivocal.

Is a Fetus a Human Being?

Historically, a fetus has never (or very rarely) been considered a human being, at least not before "quickening", an old-fashioned term indicating noticeable movement of the fetus. The Catholic Church even allowed abortion until quickening, up until 18694. Further, the wide variety of laws throughout the world were written specifically to protect born human beings and their property. There is virtually no legal precedent for applying such laws to fetuses5. Even when abortion was illegal, it had a lesser punishment than for murder, and was often just a misdemeanor6. The anti-choice view of fetuses as human beings is therefore a novel and peculiar one, with little historical or legal precedent to back it up.

Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can't hire someone else to do it.

Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being-the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.

Does a Fetus Have a "Right to Life"?

Anti-choicers say that a fetus has an inherent "right to life." But many of them support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the woman's life, or even health. This clearly indicates that they believe the right to life of a fetus is negotiable, certainly not absolute or paramount. By compromising their "right to life" definition in order to accommodate a woman's rights, they inadvertently acknowledge that women's rights are more important than the "right to life" of fetuses.

Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being. For example, the state cannot force people to donate organs or blood, even to save someone's life. We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will7. (In response, anti-choicers say that being pregnant is not the same as being a Good Samaritan, because the woman chose to have sex, voluntarily accepting the risk of pregnancy8. But sex is not a contract for pregnancy-people have a right to non-procreative sex9. Their argument is also sexist and puritanical because it punishes women, not men, for their sexual behaviour.)

Even if a fetus were a human being with a right to life, this right doesn't automatically overrule a woman's right to choose, which can be argued to have a higher moral value under the circumstances. The free exercise of one's moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman (it is not a mere "inconvenience"), her freedoms are significantly restricted if she is forced to carry to term.

If fetuses did have a right to live, one could make an equal case for the right of unwanted fetuses not to live. This is alien to the anti-choice assumption that all life is precious and should be encouraged and preserved at any cost. In the real world, however, some people commit suicide because they no longer want to live, and others wish they'd never been born. Life is not a picnic for all, especially unwanted children who are at high risk for leading dysfunctional lives10. Many people believe that being forced to live is a violation of human dignity and conscience. To be truly meaningful, the right to live must include the flip side, the right to die.

Ultimately though, to have a "right to life" requires that one be an individual capable of living an independent existence. One must "get a life" before one has a "right to life." A fetus is not a separate individual-it lives inside a pregnant woman and depends on her for its growth. In fact, the biological definition of "parasite" fits the fetal mode of growth precisely, especially since pregnancy causes a major upset to a woman's body, just like a parasite does to its host. I'm not trying to disparage fetuses with the negative connotations of the word parasite; in fact, parasites and their hosts often enjoy mutually supportive relationships, and this obviously includes most pregnancies. However, the parasitic relationship of a fetus to a woman means that its continued existence requires her consent11-if she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, her rights and bodily integrity are violated.

Can a Fetus Be a Legal Person with Rights?

Anti-choicers like to demand legal rights for fetuses. Significantly, there is no support for fetuses as legal persons in international human rights codes. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." Virtually all national constitutions do not treat fetuses as persons or citizens. American citizenship is limited to those "born or naturalized in the United States" (as per the 14th Amendment) and the word "Everyone" in the Canadian constitution has been deemed by the courts not to include fetuses12.

Declaring fetuses to be legal persons with rights would generate countless legal and social dilemmas. Fetuses would have to become dependents for tax and estate purposes, be counted in official census-taking, and be subject to many other laws affecting persons. Wouldn't every zygote have to have a Social Security Number, as well as a Certificate of Conception? The sheer absurdity of this proposal reveals that society does not think of fetuses as persons in the normal sense at all, and would have great difficulty trying to treat them as such.

Anti-choicers might argue that special laws or legal exceptions could be written for fetuses to accommodate their unique characteristics, but the very fact that exceptional laws for fetuses would have to be created proves that they are incapable of having the same legal status as real persons.

If anti-choicers want fetuses to share the same human rights as the rest of us, this means they should enjoy the constitutional freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, and other basic freedoms. Since fetuses are physically incapable of believing, speaking, or assembling, they cannot have or exercise any constitutional rights. This puts them in a totally different category than regular human beings. To give another example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that "Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada." Fetuses obviously cannot qualify for such a right on their own. Ironically, the Charter also says "Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned"- if fetuses did have rights, this would outlaw forced pregnancy!

The biggest challenge in giving legal rights to embryos arises when trying to decide whose rights would take precedence when they conflict-the woman's or her zygote's. The idea that a grown woman's value and status can be equated with, or overridden by, a cluster of undifferentiated cells the size of the period at the end of this sentence is not only bizarre, it's insulting. We are treading on dangerous moral and legal grounds when we exchange a woman's actual rights in favour of an embryo's theoretical rights.

The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, Roe v. Wade, tried to balance the rights of women and fetuses by allowing states to restrict abortion in the third trimester, except to protect the life or health of the woman. But this balancing act was a sham-women's right to choose would not be infringed in practice, because Roe v. Wade only prohibited the mythical "casual" late-term abortion invented by anti-choicers. In the real world, healthy pregnant women with healthy 8½ month fetuses do not casually demand abortions, and doctors do not casually agree to do them. To suggest otherwise is an insult to both women and doctors. Unfortunately, because of its faulty assumption that fetuses need to be protected from women's irresponsible decision-making, Roe v. Wade opened the door to the passage of many laws making it harder to access abortions, as well as a weakening of the decision itself by later Supreme Court rulings. Women's liberty and bodily integrity have been violated accordingly.

I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court that the state has an interest in protecting fetal life, but this should be done through guaranteed access to pre-natal care, health care, and education for pregnant women, not by restricting abortion. Pitting the rights of women against their fetuses harms them both-for example, women will avoid pre-natal care entirely if they fear being arrested for endangering their fetus by drug abuse. Canadian courts have wisely backed away from trying to give any protections to fetuses in such circumstances, because they realize it might infringe on women's established human rights. As a result, pregnant women in Canada enjoy exclusive rights over their bodies. To turn the tables and demand legal rights for fetuses is a direct call for the legalized oppression of women, by stripping them of their constitutional rights and personhood. This loss of rights and identity would occur not just during a nine-month pregnancy, but would, by logical necessity, reach to some extent into women's lifelong role as mothers and mothers-to-be.

Ironically, anti-choicers are trapped in a fatal contradiction here-women are undeniably human beings; yet anti-choicers are quite willing to sacrifice the human rights of women in favour of fetuses, whose status as human beings is highly questionable. If they can't even respect the lives and rights of born human beings, why should we trust their alleged concern for fetuses as human beings?

Does a Fetus Have a Social Identity?

A big part of what makes us human beings is our ability to participate in society, or at least be recognized as a member of society. Fetuses are excluded both by necessity and custom. There can be no meaningful social participation for someone cocooned inside another's body. Fetuses do not even have a social identity, since names are not officially bestowed until after birth. In fact, a birth certificate marks the first legal recognition of a person's existence. And fetuses are generally not given ritualized burials when miscarried or aborted. It is quite telling that the death of a newborn infant is much more of a crushing blow to parents than an early miscarriage. People simply place a higher social value on infants than fetuses, and this convention is ingrained in our culture and history.

In earlier times, even infants may not have been valued members of the society yet. Infanticide has been a common practice throughout history as a way to select for healthy, wanted babies, and conserve scarce resources for the rest of the tribe. The human species is estimated to have killed 10 to 15 percent of its born children13. Plus, infant mortality rates from natural causes were so high that babies were often not officially welcomed into the community until months or even years after birth, when their survival was more assured14. Of course, this is not an advocacy of infanticide. I'm simply saying that personhood, or the point at which one becomes an "official" human being, is a value judgment made by society according to social custom and necessity. It is a social construction incapable of empirical proof. Generally, modern industrialized societies find birth to be the most convenient and logical place to assign personhood, because that's where a person starts an independent existence, but perhaps also because of our low infant mortality rates. Even so, babies do not have an established social identity to the same degree as older children or adults, probably because of their still-undeveloped human abilities and potential.

Is a Fetus a Human Being Physically?

The normal meaning of human being implies a physical body of a certain size and shape with common attributes (excepting disabilities). Early embryonic forms do not share basic commonalities that define us as human beings. For example, zygotes and blastocysts are barely visible to the naked eye and have no bodies, brains, skeleton, or internal organs. Are they materially substantial enough to count as human beings? Fetuses cannot breath or make sounds, and they cannot see or be seen (except by shadowy ultrasound). They absorb nourishment and expel waste via an umbilical cord and placenta, not via a mouth and anus as do all other human beings. Further, fetuses are not just miniature babies. At various stages, fetuses have eyes on stalks, notochords (instead of spines), fish-like gills, tails, downy fur, distorted torsos, spindly legs, giant heads, and alien-looking faces. In fact, an early human fetus is practically indistinguishable in appearance from a dog or pig fetus. Finally, the fetal brain is not yet capable of conscious thought and memory (which aren't fully actualized until two or three years after birth). But our complex brains are what set us apart from animals and define us as human beings. The brain is the seat of personhood15.

Considering that the early fetus does not even look recognizably human, cannot engage in normal human perception or thought, and does not have the most basic human body functions, can we call it a human being?

Of course, there are striking physical similarities between a fetus and a newborn, such as well-developed hands and feet at a relatively early stage, and the overall structural form. As birth approaches, a fetus looks more and more like a newborn, until there is no significant difference by about 30 weeks gestation. But anti-choicers focus exclusively on these similarities, while ignoring the differences. For example, a hugely popular anti-choice photograph shows the perfectly formed, tiny feet of a 10-week old fetus held gently between someone's thumb and forefinger. There is no sign of the rest of the early fetus, which barely looks human at all. Anti-choicers try not to use pictures of embryos and early fetuses precisely because they look far less human than later ones (when they do, they usually enlarge them to make the embryo or fetus look the same size as a baby). Even the more commonly-used photos of later-term fetuses tend to deliberately shield from view anything that detracts from human-like qualities, such as the placenta or the oddly-shaped torso. (Also, women and their uteruses are completely erased from all such pictures.)16

Are Eggs and Embryos Stable Individuals?

Embryonic existence is very precarious. Zygotes, blastocysts, and embryos have a high failure rate, which throws cold water on the anti-choice claim that every fertilized egg is sacred. Scientists estimate that 55 to 65% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted in the first few days or weeks of a pregnancy, usually without the woman ever knowing she was pregnant17. It's called "fetal wastage." Another 10 to 15% of pregnancies are miscarried in the months to come. Fetal wastage occurs because early embryonic forms have a high defect rate-most early miscarriages are caused by genetic defects in the fertilized egg. This shows that eggs and embryos do not yet qualify as human beings according to Nature herself-at best, they represent tryouts for the human race.

Embryos are capable of splitting into two, to form twins, and may even recombine later18. This does serious damage to the idea of unique personhood, and the common anti-abortion belief that a "soul" is infused into a zygote at conception. Do twins share the single soul they got at conception, or is the second twin belatedly given its own soul after cell division? If the latter, which soul is lost if the embryos recombine? These questions are unintelligible if embryos are human beings, but simply moot if they are not.

As mentioned before, we are more than our genes, so the fertilized egg cannot represent a "complete" human being as anti-choicers would have it. We are not yet ourselves at conception. Whatever a pregnant woman eats, drinks, inhales, and does, has a huge impact on the specific human being a fetus will turn out to be. Our brains, personalities, abilities, and physical traits are shaped by our environment as well as by genetics. Further, anti-choicers claim that nothing is added to the fertilized egg except nutrition, but this is a misunderstanding of how embryos develop. The dramatic development that turns a zygote into a newborn is not simply growth-it is a radical, turbulent, and constant metamorphosis, with individual cells reproducing, migrating, and evolving specific functions at specific times. The end result is like a complex symphony by a billion musicians that began with a single, one-note instrument.

Can such a contingent and changeable entity really be identified as the same full and unique human being at every stage?

Life Is a Crap Shoot

Anti-choicers would not be convinced by the evidence in this article, because it doesn't refute their emotional conviction that a fertilized egg represents a real and unique human being, just like themselves. They identify with a fertilized egg (it's where we all came from, after all) and feel horror and anxiety at the thought that they themselves might have been aborted. But life is a crap shoot. If your parents had decided not to have sex the night you were conceived, you wouldn't have existed. If your father had worn a condom, you wouldn't have existed. Or, you could have been conceived, then miscarried. If you had been aborted, your mother may have had a later sibling who wouldn't have existed without your abortion. And so on. Ultimately, if you hadn't been born, it wouldn't matter to you, the same way it can't matter to aborted fetuses that they weren't born. The non-existent don't regret their non-existence, and when the living start worrying about the non-existent, they descend into irrational nonsense.

Moreover, the difference between a fertilized egg, and a sperm and an unfertilized egg, is relatively minor. The sperm and ovum each represent the potential for a human being. But men release billions of doomed sperm over a lifetime, and virtually all of women's thousands of eggs go to waste. The number of potential, unique human beings forever lost to the world is astronomical, and although our sheer luck at being alive seems miraculous, it is pointless to lose sleep over such matters-and even more pointless to oppress half the world's population just so a few more of these gazillion potential human beings can exist.

This is not to say that human life doesn't have value. Of course it does, but only the value that we ourselves bestow on it-in biology, life is cheap, life is wasteful, and death is vital. Nature does not value humans any more than worms, and in all species, vast numbers of eggs and seeds don't stand a chance of reaching maturity19. Life has been cheap throughout human history too-it's only modern medicine that has allowed us to keep most of our babies alive for the first time. Why shed futile tears over spilt milk and the biological facts of life? Instead, let's focus on protecting the rights and improving the quality of life of born human beings.

Conclusion

Despite the potential that a fetus has for becoming a human being, and its similarities to a human being, we cannot say that a fetus is a human being. A fetus resides in a legal and social no-man's land, where rights and personhood can have no force or meaning, unless women are kept thoroughly oppressed. Plus, there are many significant differences between a born human being and a fetus, which creates reasonable doubt as to its status. Because there can be no consensus on the matter, the value accorded to a fetus is a subjective, personal matter. Individuals, not society as a whole, must choose what the status of a fetus should be, based on their personal beliefs, morality, and circumstances. And ultimately, this choice belongs only to pregnant women.


----------



## mechanic (Jan 11, 2003)

pcrose said:


> well if the women is raped she could also give it up for adoption as well.


 This makes sense.I think everyone should be forced to continue a rapist's gene pool.
The right to life people make as much sense as PETA.
The peta people don't like hunting(They say it's animal cruelty)So what do they do?They go to the places where people hunt,and put out dog food laced with ground up glass! I thought a dog was a animal?!?
The anti abortion people get upset that you kill a fetus,so they go and shoot abortion doctor's.
Hypocrisy knows no end's.
Later
Eric


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

plonker_from_mars said:


> because its just cells waiting to devolop..... there like bits of paper waiting to be drawn on,


 We are all just masses of dividing cells. But in any case what if your mom decided your "awating cell" mass was a nuissance to her and aborted you? Or a better question would be your best friend/girlfriend/boyfriend/mate or a sibling? Would you be supportive if the person closest to you was never given the chance to live?

What is the precise moment when life begins? To me it is the moment of conception, therefore, abortion is essentially murder. Of course there are always exceptions. Such as if carrying the fetus to term poses a serious risk to both mother and child, then the sacrifice of one to save the other is legitimate, of course not something to be decided lightly. There is also the question of rape, though I have not come to a conclusion on that one yet. I can see it both ways but I'm leaning towards who's to say the child is not worth giving a chance?


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

mechanic said:


> pcrose said:
> 
> 
> > well if the women is raped she could also give it up for adoption as well.
> ...


 Very true. But both of those groups are at the extremes of each side. While they do have some valid points I give them less credence because extremists are more about shock value than an actual cause. PETA and the abortion doctor murderers do more harm to their respective causes than good, it is the same with virtually any issue; there will always be those at either extreme of the spectrum, but because they are more "passionate" (I use that word lightly, for lack of a better term) does not make them more right.

Btw Frank, interesting article (have not read all of it yet), it's very long but so far she's already contradicted her stance two or three times. And she seems to be getting lost in phylosophical matters.


----------



## plonker_from_mars (May 1, 2003)

if i wasn't born i wasn't born i wouldn't be living to wish i was born


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

plonker_from_mars said:


> if i wasn't born i wasn't born i wouldn't be living to wish i was born


 I was expecting a response akin to that, hence why I asked the question that followed.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

Neoplasia, I believe you misinterpreted my intended use of the term "brick with arms and legs". Of course I know its a living creature, I used the term "brick" to demonstrate my indifferent feelings towards the being.

Frank, there's multiple definitions of the term "science". I failed to take that into account when I used it.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

plonker_from_mars said:


> if i wasn't born i wasn't born i wouldn't be living to wish i was born


well said, especially for just a young teen











> and they dont have any nerves either


Only to a very limited extent, though. I'm not precisely sure on when nervous tissue begins to develop, but abortion doctors state that 6-month olds feel pain when they are killed. Not that I am concerned with that....


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

I think I knew exactly what you meant by that statement. Can't really interpret that in many different ways.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

piranha45 said:


> plonker_from_mars said:
> 
> 
> > if i wasn't born i wasn't born i wouldn't be living to wish i was born
> ...


 Not really, he totally avoided all my questions. I anticipated a cop-out comment like that and asked additional questions which I eagerly await responses to.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> piranha45 Posted on May 5 2003, 10:53 PM...Frank, there's multiple definitions of the term "science". I failed to take that into account when I used it.


I can see your problem with defining things.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

dictionary.com:

sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. 
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. 
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. 
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science. 
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing. 
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

It infers objectivity IMO...don't see ethics used in there at all....


----------



## plonker_from_mars (May 1, 2003)

> best friend/girlfriend/boyfriend/mate or a sibling? Would you be supportive if the person closest to you was never given the chance to live?


how can i be supportive if it never lived,
same answer again it never lived,so i never knew there person, and my life would be the same just that person wouldn't be in it


> What is the precise moment when life begins?


live starts devoloping when sperm enters egg, to me life begins when it can move around and think and kick, , a blob of crap i dont see as live 


> Of course there are always exceptions. Such as if carrying the fetus to term poses a serious risk to both mother and child, then the sacrifice of one to save the other is legitimate, of course not something to be decided lightly


what you mean something not to be decided on lightly! if the mother didn't abort she would die and so would the child, unless u mean she would die after its born, i think if the mother is young up to 25, abort but if the mother is over 25 have the child as the mother has lived and should give a child the chance to live,



> There is also the question of rape, though I have not come to a conclusion on that one yet. I can see it both ways but I'm leaning towards who's to say the child is not worth giving a chance?


well if she has the child it is just a souvenier of a terrible terrible moment, and the child will never know who its father is, and i think its even worse if you put a child up for adoption as child will allways be wondering who its parents are etc etc


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> piranha45 Posted on May 5 2003, 11:09 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> dictionary.com:
> 
> ...


I can see you are way out of your field of expertise. I don't have time to try and explain things to you as I doubt you will absorb any of it (an observation based on what I have read from you so far).

So here is a link that is more than just your dictionary definition:

Ethics in science

If you have no ethics then you are no scientist, but just a guy that is typing words to inflame people.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

k u win :sad:


----------



## cfr3 (Feb 20, 2003)

Before I begin I want everyone to know I am extremely conservative.

I don't look upon the issue of abortion as being that significant in my political views. I am fully supportive of early term abortions in the cases of rape and other extenuating circumstances. I however, do not support the use of an abortion as an attempt to rectify an unwanted baby. In most situations, I think that abortions are used by wreckless people as a "get out of jail free card". I feel that someone who has used their "right" to go out and have sex needs to be able to handle the responsibility that goes along with that. There are many arguments about when a human life is begun, but I believe that human life starts as soon as the embryo is formed. With that being said, when an abortion is being contemplated, the people making the decision are those who have already shown their inability to accept responsibility and to make good decisions, or else they wouldn't be in the position they are in (I do know that there are certain situations where this doesn't apply, and I would agree an abortion is OK, ie rape). These unreliable, immature people are determining the fate of another living being. I feel this is unacceptable that these people be given that choice/responsibility. I feel they should have the baby and give it up for adoption. The abortion laws lead to stupid sluts going out and whoring around because they know that they always have the safety net of an abortion.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

What's the purpose of abortion (why do we have them)? So people can have sex and not face the consequences. Why do people have ireesponsible sex? Because they don't have to face the consequences. What I'm getting at is abortion is used as a scapegoat for people who do not want to face the responsibilities that await them for acting irresponsible. "But it's my right to have sex if I want to." Yes it is, but it's also up to you to deal with whatever consequences arise from your actions. Don't want a kid? Don't have sex, wack off like everyone else. Most people don't drink and drive, why? Because there are serious consequences for doing so. Abortion is nothing more than yet another way for people to avoid taking responsibility for their actions in most cases. Take away the out and people will start behaving more sensibly, but as long as there is the option for people to do whatever they want without lasting consequences, well it will be taken advantage of and the abortion debate will rage on.

The ONLY purpose of an abortion IMO is one that is medically necessary, I can see no purpose what so ever for anything else.

Btw, even deciding to abort when the pregnancy is potentially fatal to the mother is a hard decision, there is always the "what if it turns out ok?". It should NEVER be taken lightly.


----------



## cfr3 (Feb 20, 2003)

well put neo


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

:nod:


----------



## Raptor (Jan 3, 2003)

Well put cfr3 and neo, It is amazing that what little respect for life there is out there. Being a man and a father. I am truely disgusted by some of this thread.
I have a 9 week old baby boy. And let me tell you i whould lay my life down for him. At 20 weeks that baby is alive. And in my book it is murder.
I have no problems with death. Just with people that play god.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

Neoplasia said:


> What's the purpose of abortion (why do we have them)? So people can have sex and not face the consequences. Why do people have ireesponsible sex? Because they don't have to face the consequences. What I'm getting at is abortion is used as a scapegoat for people who do not want to face the responsibilities that await them for acting irresponsible. "But it's my right to have sex if I want to." Yes it is, but it's also up to you to deal with whatever consequences arise from your actions. Don't want a kid? Don't have sex, wack off like everyone else. Most people don't drink and drive, why? Because there are serious consequences for doing so. Abortion is nothing more than yet another way for people to avoid taking responsibility for their actions in most cases. Take away the out and people will start behaving more sensibly, but as long as there is the option for people to do whatever they want without lasting consequences, well it will be taken advantage of and the abortion debate will rage on.
> 
> The ONLY purpose of an abortion IMO is one that is medically necessary, I can see no purpose what so ever for anything else.
> 
> Btw, even deciding to abort when the pregnancy is potentially fatal to the mother is a hard decision, there is always the "what if it turns out ok?". It should NEVER be taken lightly.


 I like Neos response too,

"every action has an equal but opposite reaction" Sir Issac Newton

if you dont like the consequneces dont do it

I think once society explicitly defines when a fetus is alive they should make all abortions past that point except for (rape victims and that sort) illegal,

so you say then what should we classify as alive, I would classify it as the youngest age that a fetus can be sucsessfully kept alive (premature births) without the need of permanant life support


----------



## KumbiaQueens (Feb 5, 2003)

IMO, Abortion should be used wisely, not just as the eraser at the end of the pencil to erase your mistakes, because however good your eraser may be, after awhile, nothing is erased anymore, you have worn our the eraser. Abortion is similar. I believe that abortion is fine if you're 15 and pregnant, however it shouldn't be anyone's choice but the mother. It's fine if it was an honest mistake, but after that "honest mistake" was made 5 times or so, its no longer acceptable. The problem is no longer "honest", but rather taken advantage of. Abortion shouldn't just be there, there should be strong restrictions.
It's strange how many people believe there is a high percentage rate of women becoming pregnant after being raped. It doesn't happen nearly as often as you'd think. If intercourse was unwanted, it hurts more because the body tenses, and more anti-bodies go out to attack the unwanted fluids. Personally, I dont know of any cases where the woman got pregnant from rape, or incest. However, I do know that it is possible to become pregnant under unwanted circumstances.

Bottom line, abortion should remain legal, but have strict restrictions placed onto it so that the right isn't abused.


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

cringes at the thought of this topic







(I hope it dosent get ugly) but what the heck, ill give my opinion.

I belive at some point in a pregnacy the fetus is a living being with a soul and to end its life would be murder, but at what point does this happen, I don't know, 9 months, 7 months, maybe less.the point is no one knows, so maybe we shouldn't risk making the wrong choice and end a possible life.

do I belive a eymbro is a living being with a soul at conception, no, but I can't prove my oppinion.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

I was about to start a thread just like this yesterday, but never got around to it. Last semester I wrote a 10 page term paper on abortion. It is a very touchy topic. I was pro-choice when I wrote it, cause frankly its easy to argue. However, in the reality before the writing the paper I was pro-life all the way. Then a friend of mine got pregnant at school. Her bf practically forced her to get an abortion because he wasnt ready to be a father. She went and had it done to please him, but cried the whole next day because she didnt even give her child a chance at life. I believe that abortions should only happen in such cases as rape, incest, or the mother's health being at risk.

Just a little fact about abortion...its peak in the amount per year was reached in 1990 and since then has been declining gradually due to the availability of different kinds of birth control.


----------



## BlazedSpecV (Apr 28, 2003)

abortion should ONLY be done in cases of:

1. RAPE!

a woman has no right to take away the life of a little being! if the girl was 15 and she made an "honest mistake" [psh, yea right!] by having unprotected sex with her boyfriend/random guy because they got hot one night, then she deserves the punishment to bare that child! if the condom breaks while two couples are having sex, and the woman gets pregnant, she still has no right to kill the living being.

basically, abortion is a cruel punishment! abortion does not only kill the living being inside the woman, it also creates a health hazard for the woman. in my opinion, abortion should never be used unless the woman was raped.

-james


----------



## KumbiaQueens (Feb 5, 2003)

BlazedSpecV said:


> basically, abortion is a cruel punishment! abortion does not only kill the living being inside the woman, it also creates a health hazard for the woman. in my opinion, abortion should never be used unless the woman was raped.
> 
> -james


 Mistakes can and will be made many times in your lifetime. I'm sure you've made a few mistakes... am i wrong? I didn't think so. What I found most interesting was when you said "it also creates a health hazard for the woman." You'd be surprised. What if having the child created a health hazard for the woman? Then what, keep the baby, but kill the mother?? May I remind you that our society bases its abortion rights around the mother. If having a child is hazardous for the woman, then the pregnancy is instantly terminated. The mother has no say in it.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

BlazedSpecV said:


> if the girl was 15 and she made an "honest mistake" [psh, yea right!] by having unprotected sex with her boyfriend/random guy because they got hot one night, then *she deserves the punishment to bare that child!*


 Thats the biggest BS excuse Ive heard. Its *NOT* *ONLY* her fault she got pregnant its also the guys'. Why should the woman have to bare the child and the guy get off scott clean. I mean Im pro-life as stated above...but damn give a better excuse than that. Thats just being hella sexist.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> ...Then a friend of mine got pregnant at school. Her bf practically forced her to get an abortion because he wasnt ready to be a father. She went and had it done to please him, but cried the whole next day because she didnt even give her child a chance at life. I believe that abortions should only happen in such cases as rape, incest, or the mother's health being at risk.
> 
> Just a little fact about abortion...its peak in the amount per year was reached in 1990 and since then has been declining gradually due to the availability of different kinds of birth control.


 She'll realize soon, if not already, that it was the smartest decision she's ever made (aside from not getting pregnant in the first place, of course). A week of grief and a grand or two (is that how much it costs? im not sure...) *easily* replaces 20 years of constant simultaneous drainage of money, emotional stress, and time.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

nitrofish said:


> cringes at the thought of this topic
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I started this topic to get ugly. It is a touchy subject, but in the end it is the point of a message board, to share ideas and thoughts on various subject. Most of this board is geared toward piranha but the Lounge is a place for people to get to know their fellow pfury users, and what better way then to tackle tough topics.....and besides, its better than talking about incest.


----------



## KumbiaQueens (Feb 5, 2003)

Xenon said:


> and besides, its better than talking about incest.














> A week of grief and a grand or two (is that how much it costs? im not sure...) easily replaces 20 years of constant simultaneous drainage of money, emotional stress, and time.


 Cost: I believe it can be free by going through Planned Parenthood or something like that. I know that there are a few organizations that aid the teen for no charge.
HOWEVER, the emotional cost is quite large. Yea, they may move on with their lives, but for the REST of their lives, they're going to be thinking that they killed their would-be first born. They're always going to have that over their heads, and may go through depression because of it.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

Xenon said:


> nitrofish said:
> 
> 
> > cringes at the thought of this topic
> ...


I hate that you had to bring it up so soon tho







Within 3 days, I'm an admitted sisterfucking babykiller







:sad:

Lets just hope noone brings up Capital Punishment as the next topic right away


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

piranha45 said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > ...Then a friend of mine got pregnant at school. Her bf practically forced her to get an abortion because he wasnt ready to be a father. She went and had it done to please him, but cried the whole next day because she didnt even give her child a chance at life. I believe that abortions should only happen in such cases as rape, incest, or the mother's health being at risk.
> ...


 So you've had an abortion and speak from a position of authority? My God, the more you talk the more disgusted I become. You are one sick individual that obviously doesn't know much about this kind of thing.

Fyi, no amount of money in the world can replace the joy of raising a child. Those two kids prove my point exactly, that people should NOT be having sex if they are unwilling to face the consequences. But then again I value human life so maybe I'm a tad biased...


----------



## KumbiaQueens (Feb 5, 2003)

It's okay, he just doesn't realize that the grieving never ceases... He's speaking from the typical male viewpoint, thinking all is easily over come. Next thing I know, he'll be saying to grab a quart of Ben & Jerry's, and munch our troubles away...







I'll just wait until he gets his girlfriend (if he should ever find one) pregnant, and HIM wanting to keep the baby, but she wants to terminate it. I wonder what kind of arguments he'll use to persuade her to go the other way.... "Ooh, its cruel... Ooh you're killing a being. Ooh, yea, I used to think like that, but I changed my mind... "







I'd pity his children, those poor beings...


----------



## BlazedSpecV (Apr 28, 2003)

"_What if having the child created a health hazard for the woman? Then what, keep the baby, but kill the mother?? _" - Kum

a pregnancy will ALWAYS create a health hazard for the woman. if she couldn't handle caring the baby for 9 months than perhaps she shouldn't have laid down and spread her legs at the will of her boyfriend!

"_May I remind you that our society bases its abortion rights around the mother_" - Kum

may i remind you that society is spilt on the abortion debate, and that half the country feels that the mother has NO RIGHT to take away the life of a living being?

"_*May I remind you that our society bases its abortion rights around the mother.* If having a child is hazardous for the woman, then the pregnancy is instantly terminated. The mother has no say in it. _" - Kum

you just gave two contradictory sentances, in one sentance you said that society bases the abortion rights around the mother, meaning she has the right to either give or take life. But in the next sentance, you're saying that the woman has no say what-so-ever in stopping a pregnancy. so basically you're saying in one case, a woman has the right to take life, but in another case, you're saying a woman has no say in anything she does. wow! great arguement!

"_Thats the biggest BS excuse Ive heard. Its NOT ONLY her fault she got pregnant its also the guys'_" - Stalker Karen

who lied down? who spread her leg? who could've said NO? the girl! i also agree that its not 100% the girls fault, its a 50-50 deal, but im just saying, if you're not ready to become a potential parent, then PERHAPS you shouldn't be humpin and climbin each other!

"_Why should the woman have to bare the child and the guy get off scott clean. I mean Im pro-life as stated above...but damn give a better excuse than that. Thats just being hella sexist_" - Stalker Karen

since when does the male get off so easily? i've seen a lot of men have to pay child support, have to forfeit about 40% of his pay to the mother AND on top of that, in some cases, the father doesn't even get to see his child! Oh, yea, lets dont forget the emotions and guilt the father feels for bouncing on the child, because he wasn't ready to be a man yet! Now how does a guy get off "scott clean" again?

"_She'll realize soon, if not already, that it was the smartest decision she's ever made (aside from not getting pregnant in the first place, of course). A week of grief and a grand or two (is that how much it costs? im not sure...) easily replaces 20 years of constant simultaneous drainage of money, emotional stress, and time. _" - Piranha 45

you know what she'll also realize? she'll also realize that she killed her first born. She'll also realize that she has been emotionally AND physically scarred for life. she'll also realize that she MIGHT HAVE NOT made the smartest decision of her life. So piranha, you say that a week of grief easily replaces 20 years of drainage of money, emotional stress, and time. So what replaces the 20 years of the thought that she killed her first born? what replaces the 20 years of the thought that she started out as a bad murdering parent? Oh yea, one other thing piranha, so if a week of grief and a grand or two easily replaces 20 years of emotional stress and time, how come your mom spent time and emotional stress molding you? after all, a week of grief and a grand or two, she could've just killed you and lived a happy, profitable "unstressful" life.

"_ I believe it can be free by going through Planned Parenthood or something like that. I know that there are a few organizations that aid the teen for no charge._" - Kum

i believe Planned Parenthood is an educational program that teaches young parents how to deal with young pregnancys, i dont believe it actually gives the young parents financial aide

"_It's okay, he just doesn't realize that the grieving never ceases... He's speaking from the typical male viewpoint, thinking all is easily over come_" - Kum

speaking from a typical male point of view, thinking all is easily over come? what are you? some kind of man-hater? in my opinion, i think men are a lot more caring than woman when it comes to children!

"_It's okay, he just doesn't realize that the grieving never ceases... He's speaking from the typical male viewpoint, thinking all is easily over come. Next thing I know, he'll be saying to grab a quart of Ben & Jerry's, and munch our troubles away... I'll just wait until he gets his girlfriend (if he should ever find one) pregnant, and HIM wanting to keep the baby, but she wants to terminate it. I wonder what kind of arguments he'll use to persuade her to go the other way.... "Ooh, its cruel... Ooh you're killing a being. Ooh, yea, I used to think like that, but I changed my mind... " I'd pity his children, those poor beings... _" - Kum

thats f**king wrong! thats like me saying i hope you f**kin get knocked up by your little boyfriend, and that he leaves you, or like spikey saying something like he wished you got raped. So in the future, instead of pitying another persons child, why dont you pity your own child!

-james


----------



## plonker_from_mars (May 1, 2003)

stop fekin raggin on every one neo


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

plonker_from_mars said:


> stop fekin raggin on every one neo


:rock: Whatever, I'm not I'm just mulling over p45's heart-warming views on life...


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Neoplasia said:


> plonker_from_mars said:
> 
> 
> > stop fekin raggin on every one neo
> ...


 Yea Neo, I am tired of you always picking on people!


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Screw you guys, I'm goin home. /cartman


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

KumbiaQueens said:


> It's okay, he just doesn't realize that the grieving never ceases... He's speaking from the typical male viewpoint, thinking all is easily over come. Next thing I know, he'll be saying to grab a quart of Ben & Jerry's, and munch our troubles away...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 as if *ANY* of that is ever gonna happen


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Well I would say a potentially insightful and intelligent thread has been pretty much ruined.


----------



## thePACK (Jan 3, 2003)

Xenon said:


> Well I would say a potentially insightful and intelligent thread has been pretty much ruined.


----------



## thePACK (Jan 3, 2003)

grosse gurke said:


> Neoplasia said:
> 
> 
> > plonker_from_mars said:
> ...


 i second that...hahaha...


----------



## KumbiaQueens (Feb 5, 2003)

James, I dont care what you abbreviate my name to, but DONT abbreviate it to "Kum"...







If you're trying to be like everyone else... use KQ.


----------



## KumbiaQueens (Feb 5, 2003)

Xenon said:


> Well I would say a potentially insightful and intelligent thread has been pretty much ruined.










I'm sorry... I just stand by my point, and fight it when others throw me down unless given a reason to think otherwise...


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Don't mind p45, he's just really ignorant and is crying for attention.


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

and not only that, but I am really just 13. I cant believe u found me out :sad:

btw what "ruined" the thread? It get derailed somehow?


----------



## mdemers883 (Jan 9, 2003)

maybe u can be friends with plunker, he is a 13 yr old mindless fuckstick as well.







now onto the positive end of this thread, neo I think you have contributed some very insightful and intelligent posts to this thread.

Mark


----------



## BlazedSpecV (Apr 28, 2003)

"_ James, I dont care what you abbreviate my name to, but DONT abbreviate it to "Kum"... If you're trying to be like everyone else... use KQ_" - Kum

if you don't care, then why are you making a big deal out of it?

-james


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

BlazedSpecV said:


> "_ James, I dont care what you abbreviate my name to, but DONT abbreviate it to "Kum"... If you're trying to be like everyone else... use KQ_" - Kum
> 
> if you don't care, then why are you making a big deal out of it?
> 
> -james


 you really had nothing better to do than ask a stupid question like that?


----------



## BlazedSpecV (Apr 28, 2003)

"_you really had nothing better to do than ask a stupid question like that? _" - Piranha 45

i'd ask you the same question as you asked me, but its a stupid question, so i wont bother *wink*

-james


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

BlazedSpecV said:


> in my opinion, i think men are a lot more caring than woman when it comes to children!


 And what makes you come to that conclusion


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

BlazedSpecV said:


> abortion should ONLY be done in cases of:
> 
> 1. RAPE!
> 
> ...


 so its ok to kill the "living being inside" in rape cases, what about when the child is two,years old, is it still ok to end its life. the point im making either its murder or not. if its not it should be ok whenever a woman decides, but if it is murder then it should never be legal , even in terrible instances. thats the only way it can be, is it right or is it wrong, it can't be both.


----------



## plikplak (May 1, 2003)

Nitro is right. As much as the politicians want you to believe it, there is no such thing as justifiable murder. Not even in war. It is a question of survival, nothing else. Is killing someone in the name of God murder? In the name of progress? Self defense? Greed? Yes, yes, yes, yes. The only thing that differntiates these things from one another is the point of view of the participants and witnesses. So to ask should abortion be legal is like asking if war should be legal. It is and it isn't. Killing another being (human or not) is wrong ALL of the time, but is neccessary some of the time. Just like lying and stealing and whatever else. If it is done for the good of others, to protect the weak and defenseless, it may be considered justifiable. If done for personal gain or greed or out of anger, it is wrong an should be punished as so. Concrete laws will not work in a situation like this, since it is a moral issue and not a logical one (though some will argue that is why we need laws, but tell me how many logical or rational people do you know? Common senese should be all we need but...) The same goes with war. In the end it is all up to interpretation. Such is the human condition.

Blah blah yackety schmakety...


----------



## plikplak (May 1, 2003)

Before someone makes me look stupid I was talking about murder, not killing for survival. As far a eating another creature goes, that is the food chain and the natural order. We as homosapiens operate outside of the natural order, being more highly evolved (?). Some animals kill others to protect territory and young, we are not those creatures. If another human attempts to kill your child, you punish him/her through the use of "laws" and "equal justice". Since we have chosen to live this way, we cannot equate ourselves with animals that live within normal natural boundaries. Human morality does not allow us to kill each other for simple survival (except maybe in self defense), it only allows it if there is a higher goal such as religeon or money. If we acted in the fashion of our primate ancestors, we would be allowed to run off our neighbors and take their children as our own, or kill them. We would not have abortion laws, because in nature rape does not exist, it is called breeding. Only when you include the ideas of personal freedoms and pursuits, can you begin to talk about the right to choose to abort your conceived child. If you do you are murdering a human being, there is no question since it is premeditated and deliberate. You made the choice to conceive your child, and since you have neither the guts nor the willingness to take responsibility for your actions, you choose your comfort over it's life. This sort of thing can be very damaging for women, who usually suffer for the decision much more than the man does. The doctor treats an abortion patient like a piece of meat, some others like a murderer, which they are. The docotor and male share just as much blame as she. There is no good answer to this question, since freedom allows us individual opinions. In nature you do only what is best for your survival, and children are sought after and most animal parents are willing to die to concieve and/or protect their offspring. We have the luxury to dispose of them at will, making use of that idea is what make us disgusting.


----------

