Banning Abortion: Does It Make Sense?

[Hornburger]

GET PREGNANT.[/B]:roll:
I am simply in awe and not in a good way, of how YOU think an unwanted pregnancy is 'easy'. Wanted ones are tough enough. So, two lives get ruined? That's easy for whom, exactly? You'd rather force a miserable situation on someone just so YOU can say, 'look at me, I saved a fetus!'? Oh, but now you've destroyed this woman, her future, her trust..but that's ok, it was easy

I never said pregnancy was easy. All I am saying is that I'd rather have someone go through the pain of pregnancy so an innocent may be saved.

It's a matter of whose life is more important, and what you're saying is that the person who did nothing wrong should die. And you'd rather kill the baby, and potentially kill the mother also.

The parents could have used preventative measures so they never had the baby in the first place. That's where their wrong comes into play. The baby did nothing wrong.

All I'm saying here is that if the fetus was a baby, then his/her life is more worth saving than the mother's, and the mother most likely will live after the pregnancy. You are looking at the short run, of how painful it will be for the mother, and yes, there will be lots of pain involved. But in the long run, you get 2 people living instead of 1. If after pregnancy the mother doesn't want the baby, the baby can always go over to adoption. I like that better in comparison to having only the mother living when the baby never chose to die.

But this is assuming the fetus is a baby. Then I would go baaack to the results of if each side would turn out to be right.

 

[ngdawg]

Son, you're missing the entire point here.
How is a potential (to the average of about 40% success conception to term) human being MORE important than one already here living?
Parents can and do use preventative measures. Sometimes incorrectly, sometimes they don't work and sometimes some naive 15 year old was told how much 'he loves her' and will 'protect her' from getting into that situation.

the baby can always go over to adoption.

Read the statistics I posted on the number of adoptions as opposed to the number of abortions.

But in the long run, you get 2 people living instead of 1.

And at what quality of life? At whose and what expense, be it monetary or emotional and both? Why is quantity of life so much more important than quality? You'd rather have 1.3 million more miserable, poor pregnant women draining every resource available just so we can have 1.3 million more unwanted children? Enlighten me with more than personal emotional rhetoric....

 

[Hornburger]

Son, you're missing the entire point here.
How is a potential (to the average of about 40% success conception to term) human being MORE important than one already here living?

Well, it's not like the mother is going to die or anything...and if she is, abortions should be legalized in that case.

Parents can and do use preventative measures. Sometimes incorrectly, sometimes they don't work and sometimes some naive 15 year old was told how much 'he loves her' and will 'protect her' from getting into that situation.

Well if birth control pills AND condoms are used, the chances are like .000001% Anyway, you can't really screw up taking a pill lol

Read the statistics I posted on the number of adoptions as opposed to the number of abortions.

lol, umm, I can't find them...can you please post them again?

And at what quality of life? At whose and what expense, be it monetary or emotional and both? Why is quantity of life so much more important than quality? You'd rather have 1.3 million more miserable, poor pregnant women draining every resource available just so we can have 1.3 million more unwanted children? Enlighten me with more than personal emotional rhetoric....

Well, we don't know if they are going to be miserable. Some can go on to lead very happy and successful lives and greatly contribute to society. We don't know if the babies really want to live or not. So who are we to judge? I say let them live their lives as they see fit. You can't just kill someone because they are miserable, or because they have some type of handicap...I just don't see how we can let people die who never did anything wrong or didn't choose to die.

 

[ngdawg]

Not sure where this .0001% comes from...http://www.4woman.gov/faq/birthcont.htm
Male condoms are 84 to 98% effective at preventing pregnancy.

The pill is 95 to 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy. Some antibiotics may reduce the effectiveness of the pill in some women. Talk to your doctor or nurse about a back-up method of birth control if she or he prescribes antibiotics.
Mini-pills are 92 to 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy if used correctly
This IUD is 99% effective at preventing pregnancy.
This IUD is 98% effective at preventing pregnancy
Female condoms are 79 to 95% effective at preventing pregnancy.
The diaphragm is 84 to 94% effective at preventing pregnancy. The cervical cap is 84 to 91% effective at preventing pregnancy for women who have not had a child and 68 to 74% for women who have had a child. The cervical shield is 85% effective at preventing pregnancy

Please back up your claims next time. Obviously you can't thus far, making vitually everything you tried to factualize worthless. I'm not going to post a post over, specially one that answered YOU in an earlier exchange. Search, please.

Well, we don't know if they are going to be miserable. Some can go on to lead very happy and successful lives and greatly contribute to society. We don't know if the babies really want to live or not. So who are we to judge? I say let them live their lives as they see fit.

THAT'S THE POINT!!!!

 

[kal-el]

I never said pregnancy was easy. All I am saying is that I'd rather have someone go through the pain of pregnancy so an innocent may be saved.

Innocennt? A fetus isn't human? Like I said, until the stage of viability it is nothing more than a vegetable. I'm sure you wouldn't think twice about taking a bite out of a carrot, would you?

It's a matter of whose life is more important, and what you're saying is that the person who did nothing wrong should die. And you'd rather kill the baby, and potentially kill the mother also.

If someone did nothing wrong, of course they shouldn't die,but agin,a fetus is not a human being. If an abortion is performed after 7 or 8 months, sure, it's murder then, but a fetus is simply a clump of cells not capapble of processing thoughts, feelings, or emotions. You can't murder something that isn't human.

The parents could have used preventative measures so they never had the baby in the first place. That's where their wrong comes into play. The baby did nothing wrong.

Yes, condoms are a great tool. The person who invented the condom should have his statue erected all over the world.:lol: But anyway, you're right there, people should try to limit the chances of pregnancy,either by abstaining, or using birth control. If some chick gets knocked up by a guy, the decision as to abort is hers, not yours.

All I'm saying here is that if the fetus was a baby, then his/her life is more worth saving than the mother's, and the mother most likely will live after the pregnancy. You are looking at the short run, of how painful it will be for the mother, and yes, there will be lots of pain involved. But in the long run, you get 2 people living instead of 1. If after pregnancy the mother doesn't want the baby, the baby can always go over to adoption. I like that better in comparison to having only the mother living when the baby never chose to die.

It didn't choose to die,it didn't choose at all. Iti sn't even human until after viability. It has no moral value. You're portraying wishful thinking as fact here.

But this is assuming the fetus is a baby. Then I would go baaack to the results of if each side would turn out to be right.

Assumptions aren't facts. A fetus is a clump of cells. Here's a question for ya-
Why does "God" make so many abortions via miscarriage?

 

[L'Image]

Hmmm, again, I seem to be repeating myself: What if you are wrong? I am not saying that you definitely are, but what if you are? You don’t know for sure if you are right or not. And if you are wrong, you still are murdering a child. If you are right, a woman has to go through with 9 months of pain…

You are repeating yourself. And it is frustrating having to once again point out that you perhaps, maybe, on some faith-based grounds are right, but since there is no way of proving it on any secular and common basis you simply have no legal case. It is EXACTLY the same principle that makes it impossible for vegans to say nobody should be allowed to eat meat, on the grounds it is unethical - the reasons for this being unethical are completely subjective and thus the call for meat or no meat, abortion or no abortion should be a matter of individual choice, not common legislation.

Can you prove me wrong, if I say carrots have emotions and should have the same rights as any human citizen? Of course you can't - it's a personal opinion of mine. Don't tell me you find it in any way rational that, were I to gather a majority in support of my pro-carrot views, I could legislate to hinder you from eating carrots? This is precisely what your argument sounds like in the ears of someone that disagrees with your very premise.

umm…I know it takes two people to have sex lol…I don’t see why this is relevant to the discussion. Women are the people who have the fetus, not men…yes, it is terrible for men to leave a women, but how can you force two people to be in a relationship together? I don’t understand your point.

You seem to understand it exactly. How can you force women to carry out a pregnancy, taking this enormous risk and responsibility, when they are the only part having to go through this out of the two parts responsible? Such a law would by definition be sexist, and if you support enforcing a legislation that singles out half of the citizenry as having less than equal rights yet more responsibility than the other, you better have damn good justification for doing so - justification beyond "well, what if I'm right?"

And they may be killing a baby.

Again -- you may be killing a carrot. Your eating meat may be wrong in someone else's opinion, etc, etc.

Your paying taxes which go to wars in the middle east, on the other hand, most DEFINITELY takes lives -- yet I can't force you to stop paying tax or move abroad. Your working with or around certain chemicals can cause spontaneous abortion were you to impregnate someone/get pregnant. Yet we can't tell people having had contact with such substances that no, you can't have sex, way too likely to cause abortions. And so it goes. Can you take a wild guess at why not?

Because we have this apparently dying concept of "rights", "freedoms" and "liberties". Our society is based around the notion that you are free to do whatever the hell you want to, as long as it doesn't interfere with me doing and believing what I in turn do.

I don’t recall ever saying that women have the only responsibility in this situation, so please do not put words into my mouth.

All that I pointed out is that you consistently leave men out of the debate, which is quite sexist and gives the impression women alone are responsible for their pregnant state:

The woman DID have a choice, and she chose to have that baby when she did not take preventive measures before sex.

Here you assume it is the sole responsibility of women to "take preventive measures". I may add that every single birth control pill out there is fallible, and has side effects.

Support preventive measures before she got pregnant. When she gets pregnant, you have a new duty to society. Didn't want that duty, should have thought about that condom and that birth control pill.

You consistently use "she", not "they".

To protect the life that she has created through her sexual activity.

The life that she has created? Women cannot procreate all by themselves. Again, something is missing in this sentence of yours, and it is this gaping void that allows for you to burden one part with the responsibility for an activity both parties engaged in. It is telling that most pro-lifers seem to be men, which need not themselves accept the consequences of pregnancy.

Your posts, and I assume you are male, in that respect reek with some sort of holier-than-thou contempt for unwillingly pregnant women.

How about this crazy idea...TAKE SOME BIRTH PILLS

How can you prosecute a man in this situation? Yes, the man would be wrong for leaving the mother, but you can’t FORCE him to stay.

Exactly - since you cannot do that, your cause for FORCING the woman to have his baby stands on even weaker grounds.

 

[L'Image]

Edited double post.

 

[L'Image]

You are taking my point out of context. I was referring to how a pregnancy is not much in comparison to death. I know a pregancy is very dangerous, but in comparison to a sure death, I would rather save someone's life and give someone else a little bit of pain.

Even when giving someone else - unwillingly pregnant women - quite the excrutiating bit of pain and permanent damage to the body would only in your own opinion lead to preventing a "sure death" of something YOU consider to be sentient life? How can you claim your opinion as superior to these women's, superior enough to cause them pain and change their lives forever?

ehh, I change my mind, we don't know if it's alive or not, lol

So where exactly does that leave your argumentation, now?

Man-induced is the only reason why it should be prosecuted...that's the whole crime...we can't prosecute nature...

If you claim yourself to be an atheist, you cannot argue that something that happens naturally is more acceptable than something man-induced. Namely, unless you claim a fetus to possess some divine qualities, the abortion of it is no - big - deal regardless of whether it's done intentionally or not. Religious/spiritual advocators of pro-life can at least claim natural abortion differs from man-induced because it is the will of their god.

This seems to be a weak argument on my behalf though, since you're apparently not getting the gist of it.

I'm not, I believe I may be saving someone's life, and I think a life is worth a little pain.

And what if there is no "life"? Only pain, which you forced on someone? See, for someone that doesn't agree with your definition of sentient life worthy of protection, the only consequence of your proposed halt to abortions is a lot of women being denied the autonomy of their own bodies, being forced to undergo severe pain, extreme psychological stress and then either the unwanted responsibility of caring for a child or the probably unwanted pain of having to give up their now-baby to strangers.

No, I am not proposing legislation. I propose that the Supreme Court looks into an abortion case and overturns the Roe v. Wade precedent.

Eeh, the difference being..?

This sums up my argument: We don't know either way if it a fetus is living or not. The less disastrous choice is pregnancy, so I say ban abortion.

For someone that disagrees with your very premise, the most disastrous "choice" possible is hindering women from the right of having one!

meh, just my opinion, just like yours is that it's not a life.

But the second your OPINION becomes LAW, it is no longer "just" your opinion - it is an opinion being imposed on all pregnant women out there, regardless of whether they agree with your beliefs or not.

umm, yes an amoeba is living, and I don't think humans were once amoebas lol.

Didn't all life evolve from amoebas, originally? That's the little I remeber from my biology classes, at least.

But...you need to draw the line somewhere...and sometimes you physically need to get rid of such sperm, that's why wet dreams and crap happens.

Oh, how appropriate! Let us draw the line at the exact point where men would have to sacrifice freedom or pleasure of any sort!

And anyway, there was no conception, no DNA was injected, so there is no life.

Sperm and egg having merged is no more or less of a sentient life than sperm and egg separately. They are both cellular constellations with the inherent possibility of somewhere down the line, provided the circumstances allow it, become a sentient human being. Sperm needs egg, sperm and egg combined need a healthy uterus, a uterus needs a host, the host needs food and water and so on. Obviously it is quite convenient to "draw the line" after, and not before, these cells are inside the woman, making them and their prospective life a responsibility entirely hers to "keep alive".

Nop, legislators decide what is best for the people...I don't get your point, all I was saying is that I'd need a majority so a new rulilng can be made.

My point is that a law can be utterly unjust, totalitarian and oppressing of basic freedoms and rigths of certain individuals despite it being supported by a majority of all total citizens. You having majority backing does not in itself justify your utter disregard for the rights and freedoms of the minority.

No, people don't die in masterbation. A sperm is not a life.

Oh, but what if it is? What if I am right? Should we take that risk, hmm?

Who is the "they" that you refer to, men? You said men can have an opinion on this matter, but now you seem to be contradicting yourself.

You don't seem to be following my point. Nobody should be allowed to force anyone into parenthood regardless of gender, therefore men have no right to deny women they've impregnated to terminate pregnancy - nor should women, imho, have any right to proceed with a pregnancy unwanted by the male donor; on that same token, your objection that men should have a right to choice is irrelevant as terminating a pregnancy doesn't hinder them from having children in the future.

And how does men being allowed to force anyone to have sex with them matter in the case of abortion? I don't understand your line of reasoning here.

I believe forcing a woman to have unwanted children with you, basically is equivalent to forcing her into having unwanted sex with you. This is in the context of men having a say in pregnancy which we (well, at least I was) discussing. If one does not view a fetus as an actual child, denying the termination of this fetus can be compared to instilling the fetus to begin with - that is, enforcing unwanted sexual reproduction.

If it was between murder and pregnancy, I'd choose pregnancy every time.

Sure, me too, but it isn't murder. Legally, objectively and rationally, it just isn't. If you one day find yourself in a pregnant state you are free to subjectively evaluate it otherwise, but scientifically, until about the third trimester, it cannot be murder.

 

[Hornburger]

Not sure where this .0001% comes from...http://www.4woman.gov/faq/birthcont.htm
Male condoms are 84 to 98% effective at preventing pregnancy.

The pill is 95 to 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy. Some antibiotics may reduce the effectiveness of the pill in some women. Talk to your doctor or nurse about a back-up method of birth control if she or he prescribes antibiotics.
Mini-pills are 92 to 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy if used correctly
This IUD is 99% effective at preventing pregnancy.
This IUD is 98% effective at preventing pregnancy
Female condoms are 79 to 95% effective at preventing pregnancy.
The diaphragm is 84 to 94% effective at preventing pregnancy. The cervical cap is 84 to 91% effective at preventing pregnancy for women who have not had a child and 68 to 74% for women who have had a child. The cervical shield is 85% effective at preventing pregnancy

Please back up your claims next time. Obviously you can't thus far, making vitually everything you tried to factualize worthless. I'm not going to post a post over, specially one that answered YOU in an earlier exchange. Search, please.

wow, aren't we snippy lol...either way, the percentages are pretty high.

THAT'S THE POINT!!!!

I was talking about the baby...

 

[Hornburger]

Innocennt? A fetus isn't human? Like I said, until the stage of viability it is nothing more than a vegetable. I'm sure you wouldn't think twice about taking a bite out of a carrot, would you?

Well, I consider the it to be a life once conception has occurred and DNA has been injected into the cell. It is the personality and DNA within the cell that makes it set apart, sort of individualizing it a little.

If someone did nothing wrong, of course they shouldn't die,but agin,a fetus is not a human being. If an abortion is performed after 7 or 8 months, sure, it's murder then, but a fetus is simply a clump of cells not capapble of processing thoughts, feelings, or emotions. You can't murder something that isn't human.

I think it is...those feelings and thoughts will be developed because of the DNA inside of it. No other baby will ever have that exact same DNA ever again.

It didn't choose to die,it didn't choose at all. Iti sn't even human until after viability. It has no moral value. You're portraying wishful thinking as fact here.

ehh, you know what I'm going to say about DNA lol, so I won't repeat myself again.

Assumptions aren't facts. A fetus is a clump of cells. Here's a question for ya-
Why does "God" make so many abortions via miscarriage?

Well...I don't believe in a God myself...so I think it's just natural that mistakes happen...so yeah.

 

[Hornburger]

You are repeating yourself. And it is frustrating having to once again point out that you perhaps, maybe, on some faith-based grounds are right, but since there is no way of proving it on any secular and common basis you simply have no legal case. It is EXACTLY the same principle that makes it impossible for vegans to say nobody should be allowed to eat meat, on the grounds it is unethical - the reasons for this being unethical are completely subjective and thus the call for meat or no meat, abortion or no abortion should be a matter of individual choice, not common legislation.

lol, my grounds now lay on the fact that DNA has been injected into the cell. By this, I think it makes the fetus an individulized and the start of a human life.

Can you prove me wrong, if I say carrots have emotions and should have the same rights as any human citizen? Of course you can't - it's a personal opinion of mine. Don't tell me you find it in any way rational that, were I to gather a majority in support of my pro-carrot views, I could legislate to hinder you from eating carrots? This is precisely what your argument sounds like in the ears of someone that disagrees with your very premise.

The laws of society depend on what the people value. Laws will reflect these values.

You seem to understand it exactly. How can you force women to carry out a pregnancy, taking this enormous risk and responsibility, when they are the only part having to go through this out of the two parts responsible? Such a law would by definition be sexist, and if you support enforcing a legislation that singles out half of the citizenry as having less than equal rights yet more responsibility than the other, you better have damn good justification for doing so - justification beyond "well, what if I'm right?"

Well...because I think women are carrying a life, and that's important.

Men don't carry a life within them...All I want to do is protect in what I feel is a life.

Your paying taxes which go to wars in the middle east, on the other hand, most DEFINITELY takes lives -- yet I can't force you to stop paying tax or move abroad. Your working with or around certain chemicals can cause spontaneous abortion were you to impregnate someone/get pregnant. Yet we can't tell people having had contact with such substances that no, you can't have sex, way too likely to cause abortions. And so it goes. Can you take a wild guess at why not?

Because we have this apparently dying concept of "rights", "freedoms" and "liberties". Our society is based around the notion that you are free to do whatever the hell you want to, as long as it doesn't interfere with me doing and believing what I in turn do.

Exactly, and I feel that freedom to kill the fetus interferes with that life being destroyed.

All that I pointed out is that you consistently leave men out of the debate, which is quite sexist and gives the impression women alone are responsible for their pregnant state:

Can you stop already? Men are not being debated in this discussion, it is only the rights of the woman and the rights of the baby.

Here you assume it is the sole responsibility of women to "take preventive measures". I may add that every single birth control pill out there is fallible, and has side effects.

What side effects do you speak of? I am not that familiar with the pill, I apologize. And no I never said it is the sole responsibility of women to take preventative measures...men should wear condoms...

You consistently use "she", not "they".

bah, everything has to be so "politically correct" nowadays. :roll:

The life that she has created? Women cannot procreate all by themselves. Again, something is missing in this sentence of yours, and it is this gaping void that allows for you to burden one part with the responsibility for an activity both parties engaged in. It is telling that most pro-lifers seem to be men, which need not themselves accept the consequences of pregnancy.

Why does this matter?

Your posts, and I assume you are male, in that respect reek with some sort of holier-than-thou contempt for unwillingly pregnant women.

And you seem to think women are more important than other forms of life.

Anyway, subconsciously, most people are sexist and racist, to a degree. If you deny this, I say you lie lol

Exactly - since you cannot do that, your cause for FORCING the woman to have his baby stands on even weaker grounds.

Its her baby, first of all, not his like you said.

Second of all, men leaving the woman doesn't result in death-an abortion does.

 

[kal-el]

Well, I consider the it to be a life once conception has occurred and DNA has been injected into the cell. It is the personality and DNA within the cell that makes it set apart, sort of individualizing it a little.

Yea it's a life, maybe after 6 or 7 months and it develops a nervous system. Individualizing it? Huh? A fetus has no individual qualities, it's basically a vegetable, clump of cells.

I think it is...those feelings and thoughts will be developed because of the DNA inside of it. No other baby will ever have that exact same DNA ever again.

WTF does DNA have to do with anything? Baby? It is not a baby, it is a fetus, there's quite a diffence there. A fetus has no thoughts or feelings of personality, a conciousness, and those are the qualities that make someone human.

ehh, you know what I'm going to say about DNA lol, so I won't repeat myself again.

Huh?

Well...I don't believe in a God myself...so I think it's just natural that mistakes happen...so yeah.

Good, religious people who are against abortion can feel free to refuse it for themselves, just like blood transfusions and surgery,and antibiotics, and so on. But they do not have the right to push their out-dated, mystical belifefs on everyone who wishes to enjoy the fruits of scientific progress. Because if religion and superstition, which are basically the same, had power over science, we'd still be living in the dark ages.

 

[Hornburger]

Even when giving someone else - unwillingly pregnant women - quite the excrutiating bit of pain and permanent damage to the body would only in your own opinion lead to preventing a "sure death" of something YOU consider to be sentient life? How can you claim your opinion as superior to these women's, superior enough to cause them pain and change their lives forever?

I don't remember saying my opinion was superior to anyone else's, I do not believe I am that arrogant. It is just what I personally believe is the best course of action from my personal experience, learnings, and values.

So where exactly does that leave your argumentation, now?

Now I have determined that it is a life because it has been injected with DNA, lol.

If you claim yourself to be an atheist, you cannot argue that something that happens naturally is more acceptable than something man-induced. Namely, unless you claim a fetus to possess some divine qualities, the abortion of it is no - big - deal regardless of whether it's done intentionally or not. Religious/spiritual advocators of pro-life can at least claim natural abortion differs from man-induced because it is the will of their god.

This seems to be a weak argument on my behalf though, since you're apparently not getting the gist of it.

What? I took it that man-induced was like men killing life. I probably misunderstook your post lol, so ehh...nevermind.

And what if there is no "life"? Only pain, which you forced on someone? See, for someone that doesn't agree with your definition of sentient life worthy of protection, the only consequence of your proposed halt to abortions is a lot of women being denied the autonomy of their own bodies, being forced to undergo severe pain, extreme psychological stress and then either the unwanted responsibility of caring for a child or the probably unwanted pain of having to give up their now-baby to strangers.

And what if there is "life"?

Okay, but I think the life is worthy of protection.

Eeh, the difference being..?

It's pretty much the same I guess....but why does this matter again lol?

For someone that disagrees with your very premise, the most disastrous "choice" possible is hindering women from the right of having one!

mmk, that's your opinion.

But the second your OPINION becomes LAW, it is no longer "just" your opinion - it is an opinion being imposed on all pregnant women out there, regardless of whether they agree with your beliefs or not.

I know...lol

Didn't all life evolve from amoebas, originally? That's the little I remeber from my biology classes, at least.

That doesn't mean humans were once the amoebas, lol. They were a totally different species...I'm confused again lol.

Oh, how appropriate! Let us draw the line at the exact point where men would have to sacrifice freedom or pleasure of any sort!

Again, women bear the children, my entire argument rests on protecting life, and it is not the man's baby. Why do you think child custody most likely will go to the female? Because it is the mother and her baby, not the man's.

Sperm and egg having merged is no more or less of a sentient life than sperm and egg separately. They are both cellular constellations with the inherent possibility of somewhere down the line, provided the circumstances allow it, become a sentient human being. Sperm needs egg, sperm and egg combined need a healthy uterus, a uterus needs a host, the host needs food and water and so on. Obviously it is quite convenient to "draw the line" after, and not before, these cells are inside the woman, making them and their prospective life a responsibility entirely hers to "keep alive".

What? In order to make life, you need sperm joining WITH an egg, not just sperm coming out. You can't make life with JUST sperm, so...no...there is not DNA involved in the sperm, so...no.

My point is that a law can be utterly unjust, totalitarian and oppressing of basic freedoms and rigths of certain individuals despite it being supported by a majority of all total citizens. You having majority backing does not in itself justify your utter disregard for the rights and freedoms of the minority.

umm, I never said the majority is always right. But okay.

Oh, but what if it is? What if I am right? Should we take that risk, hmm?

Nope, I'd rather take the more cautious approach, but that's just me.

You don't seem to be following my point. Nobody should be allowed to force anyone into parenthood regardless of gender, therefore men have no right to deny women they've impregnated to terminate pregnancy - nor should women, imho, have any right to proceed with a pregnancy unwanted by the male donor; on that same token, your objection that men should have a right to choice is irrelevant as terminating a pregnancy doesn't hinder them from having children in the future.

So say abortion is banned. Would you say it would be sexist if you let the men leave the relationship?

I believe forcing a woman to have unwanted children with you, basically is equivalent to forcing her into having unwanted sex with you. This is in the context of men having a say in pregnancy which we (well, at least I was) discussing. If one does not view a fetus as an actual child, denying the termination of this fetus can be compared to instilling the fetus to begin with - that is, enforcing unwanted sexual reproduction.

If someone has sex, the parents recognize the risks that they may receive diseases or the women may get pregnant.

Sure, me too, but it isn't murder. Legally, objectively and rationally, it just isn't. If you one day find yourself in a pregnant state you are free to subjectively evaluate it otherwise, but scientifically, until about the third trimester, it cannot be murder.

Again, you imply that men shouldn't have an opinion on the subject. Why such contradictions?

 

[Hornburger]

Yea it's a life, maybe after 6 or 7 months and it develops a nervous system. Individualizing it? Huh? A fetus has no individual qualities, it's basically a vegetable, clump of cells.

WTF does DNA have to do with anything? Baby? It is not a baby, it is a fetus, there's quite a diffence there. A fetus has no thoughts or feelings of personality, a conciousness, and those are the qualities that make someone human.

But doesn't DNA give the fetus it's own unique personality? I don't know.

Good, religious people who are against abortion can feel free to refuse it for themselves, just like blood transfusions and surgery,and antibiotics, and so on. But they do not have the right to push their out-dated, mystical belifefs on everyone who wishes to enjoy the fruits of scientific progress. Because if religion and superstition, which are basically the same, had power over science, we'd still be living in the dark ages.

Well, if people want to believe in God, I'm cool with that, but like you said, don't put them on me. I hate it when people merge politics with religion, *coughGeorgeBushcoughcough* lol

 

[kal-el]

But doesn't DNA give the fetus it's own unique personality? I don't know.

Yes, but a fetus in the early stage of developement has no personality, therefore it's not human.

Well, if people want to believe in God, I'm cool with that, but like you said, don't put them on me. I hate it when people merge politics with religion, *coughGeorgeBushcoughcough* lol

George Bush? Don't even get me started on him. I guess "God" condones of the hundreds of US coffins coming home and the torture going on in the prisons? How do you think the Middle Eastern people feel when he says God is on our side? But, science destroys these asinine supernatural beleifs.

 

[Hornburger]

Yes, but a fetus in the early stage of developement has no personality, therefore it's not human.

I dunno, I think since it has DNA it's human, it just hasn't fully developed, but that's just me.

George Bush? Don't even get me started on him. I guess "God" condones of the hundreds of US coffins coming home and the torture going on in the prisons? How do you think the Middle Eastern people feel when he says God is on our side? But, science destroys these asinine supernatural beleifs.

ahh, yes yes...he can be quite fruity sometimes...we should have never gotten involved over there...maybe if there WERE wmd's...but alas, no

 

[kal-el]

I dunno, I think since it has DNA it's human, it just hasn't fully developed, but that's just me.

Having DNA dosen't give a fetus full human moralality. For instance, try pulling a strand of your hair out, examine it closely, the tissue at the end of it is a hair follicle. It has DNA, but it's only as human as an apple.

ahh, yes yes...he can be quite fruity sometimes...we should have never gotten involved over there...maybe if there WERE wmd's...but alas, no

Yes, he is a headcase, that's for sure. Whenever he is giving a speech and he talks about evildoers, I expect him to don a cape and fly off stage!:lol:

 

[steen]

I'll have to see, I dunno, it is difficult to see how a bunch of cells can in fact be alive (referring to early terms, not late terms).

Live cells certainly are alive.

However, the embryo is injected with DNA...which I think is important.

Huh? No it isn't. The embryo is a product of the egg being "injected" with DNA by the sperm.

The only other thing is that if fetuses are living, then it is killing someone,

It is killing, but you have yet to show there is "someone." What is your requirement for there to be "someone"?

Sorry I didn't reply Steen...but I don't see that discussion leading to any new and open-minded discussions and a more effective conclusion, which I feel is the main reason for debating...

AH, so when I have objection to your reasoning, you decide to not deal with them? Your reluctance to stand by your views is duly noted. I have specific reservations regarding your arguments, and you don't want to deal with them. You want to spew propaganda but not deal with the issue? yes, that is duly noted. A pity; for a moment you seemed to have potential for a rational debate.

so I guess I'll just sum up my opinions here...no offense is intended, don't take it the wrong way lol

But I AM taking offense. You are posting claims on a public discussion board and then refuse to deal with the disagreement with your views. Why should anybody NOT take offense at that?

 

[steen]

Society does not protect animals like it does humans.

And society doesn't see the embryo as a "human." SO your argument doesn't support your position.

And "natural abortions" are different they have died of natural causes.

So the embryo is better off through a "natural" abortion than from a medical/surgical abortion?

Like when a man dies from natural caues, no one goes to jail. However, is someone stabs that man and he dies, then the murderer goes to jail.

Because of the crime against a person, against a sentient being.

Allow abortion, and people die. Forbid it, and you save some.

Forbid abortions, and people die.

It's a terrible thing if women think that it is more important to kill a baby instead of going through with a pregnancy.

But there is no baby until birth, your revisionist linguistics none withstanding.

Anyway, my point there was that since we have no way of knowing who is REALLY right, we’d have to look at the results of each side: If pro-lifers are right, then a woman has to go through with pregnancy.

And thus be enslaved for 9 months. Yes, regardless of how you look at it, prolife is slavery to the woman.

If pro-choicers are right, then you kill a child.

More silly hyperbole. You kill an embryo or sometimes a fetus, you kill mindless, non-sensate, non-conscious tissue.

Until we get scientific proof of either side, go with the less destructive decision.

Enslaving woemn is not destructyive? What misogynistic hate mongering.

...If you are right, a woman has to go through with 9 months of pain…

And you find that the least worrisome alternative? You are willing to force the woman into pain for 9 months on a what-if?

Because the woman and the man could have used preventative measures before having sex.

58% of all abortions are to couples that used contraceptives. Are we to understand that you have no problem with them having abortions? Or was that argument just a strawman?

And they may be killing a baby.

"Baby" is still the developmental stage beginning AFTER birth, your revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding.

What? No, men should use condoms before having sex…

And when they do and pregnancy happens anyway?

Or is this still just a specious argument you are throwing out?

Men and women are to blame for not taking necessary preventative measures.

Like people who don't wear their seatbelt when driving? Oh, so you are saying that they should be denied treatment in the ER for the unwanted outcome of their not taking necessary precautions?

How can you prosecute a man in this situation? Yes, the man would be wrong for leaving the mother, but you can’t FORCE him to stay. You can’t force two people to be in a relationship together.

But you want to FORCE the woman to stay in a relationship with the embryo and fetus. Your arguemnt is hypocritical.

 

[steen]

I'm not, I believe I may be saving someone's life, and I think a life is worth a little pain.

To the woman, right? Amazing how you have no problem assigning pain to somebody else. M ust be nice, being able to assign the burden of your beliefs onto somebody else. Makes your position entirely risk-free to you, never mind the burden you inflict on others.

Now, back to the "saving someone's life" part. Your argument MUST mean that if somebody is dying and the safe extraction of some of your bodily resources, f.ex. a blood donation, can save them, then you should be FORCED to give blood, even if it involves a brief moment of pain and outside control of your body. certainly, if you can assign such control for 9 mnonths on the woman, 15 minutes on others should be fine.

So you are arguing that people should be forced to give blood, right?

That wouldn't protect anyone's life...there was no conception...

Buut there were death of live cells that could, under the right conditions, lead to the birth of a person.

No, people don't die in masterbation. A sperm is not a life.

But it certainly is alive. Please tell us what is necessary for something to be "a life."

Neither side knows for sure whether it is living or not. So it doesn't matter whether you think it really is living or not, actually.

Ah, but a guy dying from kidney failure certainly is "living," he is "alive," he most certainly is "a life."

I'll say it one more time lol, if pro-lifers are right, then a pregnancy. If pro-choicers are right, then murder. If it was between murder and pregnancy, I'd choose pregnancy every time.

Becuase it saves the life. But then, you should be in favor of a "right to life" for the bleeder or the kidney patient to the point where they can force the use of your body. After all, that is the "right" you want to give to the embryo or fetus.

Or are you saying that these people are less worth than the embryo or fetus?

 

[steen]

I never said pregnancy was easy. All I am saying is that I'd rather have someone go through the pain of pregnancy so an innocent may be saved.

So you are OF COURSE also saying that you'd rather have someone go through the pain of blood donation or safe kidney donation against their will so an patient with bleeding or kidney problems may be saved.

It's a matter of whose life is more important, and what you're saying is that the person who did nothing wrong should die.

The fetus is not a person.

And you'd rather kill the baby, and potentially kill the mother also.

There is no baby.

The parents could have used preventative measures so they never had the baby in the first place. That's where their wrong comes into play.

[So for the 58% of abortions that happen after contraceptive nuse, you have no objection to the abortion. That's nice to know.
The baby did nothing wrong.

All I'm saying here is that if the fetus was a baby,

It isn't. The developmental stage "baby" begins at birth, not before.

then his/her life is more worth saving than the mother's, and the mother most likely will live after the pregnancy.

That is the worst misogynistic, hate mongering demeaning of women that I have seen in a long time.

You are looking at the short run, of how painful it will be for the mother, and yes, there will be lots of pain involved. But in the long run, you get 2 people living instead of 1.

Exactly as if you force someone to give blood or donate their extra kidney even against their will.

SO you MUST be advocating for forced organ and blood donation as well. Otherwise, your argument is so incredibly hypocritical as to be an outright lie.

If after pregnancy the mother doesn't want the baby, the baby can always go over to adoption. I like that better in comparison to having only the mother living when the baby never chose to die.

There is no baby, and the embryo or fetus are incapable of chosing anything, your antropomorphizing none withstanding.

But this is assuming the fetus is a baby.

Which is never is.

 

[steen]

Well if birth control pills AND condoms are used, the chances are like .000001% Anyway, you can't really screw up taking a pill lol

Your claim is flatout false.

And the FACT still is that 58% of the abortions happen after the couple used contraceptions.

Could you please cease the spewing of outright falsehoods, thanks:bs

 

[steen]

Well, I consider the it to be a life once conception has occurred and DNA has been injected into the cell.

And sperm and egg are not life? Why not?

It is the personality and DNA within the cell that makes it set apart, sort of individualizing it a little.

Ah, just like a hydatidiform mole?

I think it is...those feelings and thoughts will be developed because of the DNA inside of it.

That would be, once these are ABLE to develop. Which is NOT at the time an abortion takes place.

 

[steen]

The laws of society depend on what the people value. Laws will reflect these values.

And the law is that persons have the right to control their own body. A right you want to remove from the pregnant woman but not from anybody else. So not only are you against the law, you are also hypocritical.

Well...because I think women are carrying a life, and that's important.

So they can be enslaved. Yes, that misogyny is all to clear in your argument.

Men don't carry a life within them...

The sperm is a life.

All I want to do is protect in what I feel is a life.

But ONLY when it involves dumping that burden on somebody else. AFter all, you couldn't care less about saving a life if it involves YOPU having to be forced to give your bodily resources against your will. It is fine to force the woman, but it is not ok to force you. Yup, misogynistic hypocricy.

And you seem to think women are more important than other forms of life.

More than a non-sentient, non-sensate lump of cells, certainly.

Its her baby, first of all, not his like you said.

There is no baby until birth.

 

[steen]

Now I have determined that it is a life because it has been injected with DNA,

So the hydatidiform mole is a life. Thanks for clarifying how silly and ridiculous your argument is.

Again, women bear the children, my entire argument rests on protecting life, and it is not the man's baby. Why do you think child custody most likely will go to the female? Because it is the mother and her baby, not the man's.

What a stupid and sexist argument. And falt-out false.

What? In order to make life, you need sperm joining WITH an egg, not just sperm coming out. You can't make life with JUST sperm

SUre you can. You can clone the DNA and generate a rather large mass of cells.

so...no...there is not DNA involved in the sperm, so...no.

Really? Sperm doesn't have DNA? Could you enlighten us about what gradeschool level class you learned that in?