Explain Your Reasoning.

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Cloning has started if you think it not possible to eventually get to that better think again. All my kids have been premies and the point at which premies survive gets earlier and earlier every year. It's one reason RvW needs to be reviewed because babies are surviving outside the womb much earlier than the third trimester that was the cut off back then. So when life can be created outside the womb, and grown fully outside the womb, will you then oppose all abortion since your premise that it's OK to kill that life if it can't be sustained outside the womb has gone out the window?

So I'm not going to answer the rest because it's been answered numerous times,

iow, "since I can't rebut what you said.................."

and at this point, it's your opinion that a fetus is a human and it's my opinion that it's not.

No it's is undeniable fact, it is not canine, it is not a fish, it is human and it is a unique, individual, A human. as in no other human.

However, since you asked an original question... if life could be created fully independent of a women, I would not support abortion.

OK why does that define whether the baby is alive and a human? And if we can take premies at 20 weeks now, do you support a cut-off date of after 20 weeks.

However it can't. And until that time, I will support women choosing what happens in their body.

But that's not what you said, you said that if the baby could survice outside the womb then you will not "support women choosing what happens in their body"

Which is it, she can kill the baby 1 minute before it is born or the cut off at when you believe it could survive outside the womb?

Just curious, are there any women here who are pro-life? Cause I have a feeling most (but maybe not all) the pro-lifers here are men.

What diffrerence does it make?

 

[Kelzie]

iow, "since I can't rebut what you said.................."

Actually, it's more like I'm tired of bashing my head against a brick wall

No it's is undeniable fact, it is not canine, it is not a fish, it is human and it is a unique, individual, A human. as in no other human.

No it's not. All the cells in your body are human. That doesn't give them the status of a human being. Like I said, it's a matter of belief.

OK why does that define whether the baby is alive and a human? And if we can take premies at 20 weeks now, do you support a cut-off date of after 20 weeks.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I do no support killing babies. If a premie can survive out of the womb at 20 weeks, it can be given to another person if the mother doesn't want it. However, a mother is forced to carry a fetus.

But that's not what you said, you said that if the baby could survice outside the womb then you will not "support women choosing what happens in their body"

Because if a fetus could be brought to term outside of a womb, it wouldn't be the woman's body anymore would it?

Which is it, she can kill the baby 1 minute before it is born or the cut off at when you believe it could survive outside the womb?

Already answered. Numerous times.

What diffrerence does it make?

I just find it somewhat amusing that the only people advocating for women to give up the right to their body is men...

 

[Kelzie]

Alright, I'll answer it. If it ever reaches the point that the fetus that is created naturally no longer needs the mother at any point, I'll be opposed to abortion, as long as you're willing to take care of that fetus when it becomes a baby. Pop that bad boy out of there!


If it's undeniable, how come I deny it, and if it's a fact, how come science doesn't recognize it as such?
It's a fetus, not a human. A cake in an oven isn't a cake yet, it's still developing into a cake!

Hell yeah, as long as the removal of that fetus is just as easy and cheap and accessable as an abortion, pop that bad boy out of there.

Since you're pro-life and I'm not, wouldn't it then make sense for you guys to pay for that?


I will always support what a woman chooses to do with her body. And if the fetus can survive, and you want it, go right ahead, but until that day I am all for abortion.

Once the fetus can survive outside of the womb abortion is pointless. Just pop it out, and put it up for adoption. Abortion is to avoid carrying it full term, but once you've carried it full enough for it to survive, then avoiding carrying it seems rather pointless.




Because men have less of an understanding about the issue. I don't know what it's like to be pregnant, and neither do you, so why are we leaving it up to people who have no idea what it is that we're talking about to decide what's ok to be done, because we're speaking strictly on morals, and not on fairness or practicality, because we don't understand what's going on (and unless you're Arnold Schwartzenager, don't deny it, because you've never been pregnant, never will be pregnant, and so you won't understand)

Heeyyy. That's what I said.... :mrgreen:

 

[Kelzie]

lol, I apologize

No harm done. :lol:

You know the old saying: "Two pro-choicers with the same argument are better than one."

Or somthing...

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger

iow, "since I can't rebut what you said.................."

Actually, it's more like I'm tired of bashing my head against a brick wall

And remains unrebutted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
No it's is undeniable fact, it is not canine, it is not a fish, it is human and it is a unique, individual, A human. as in no other human.

No it's not. All the cells in your body are human.

Yes.

That doesn't give them the status of a human being. Like I said, it's a matter of belief.

So you with all the cells of your body are not a human being?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
OK why does that define whether the baby is alive and a human? And if we can take premies at 20 weeks now, do you support a cut-off date of after 20 weeks.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I do no support killing babies. If a premie can survive out of the womb

So why does that define the baby as alive and a human?

at 20 weeks, it can be given to another person if the mother doesn't want it. However, a mother is forced to carry a fetus.

So what? What is this definition of life you are creating our of thin air? What are the premises which bring such a conclusion? Since when does the fact that someone wants another person define that other person as a person? OK let's go with what you said, what if a mother with a 21 week old in her womb suddenly decides she doesn't want it, are you going to force her to carry it now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
But that's not what you said, you said that if the baby could survice outside the womb then you will not "support women choosing what happens in their body"

Because if a fetus could be brought to term outside of a womb, it wouldn't be the woman's body anymore would it?

So if it can be then it is OK to force the mother to carry it to term. What absurdity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Which is it, she can kill the baby 1 minute before it is born or the cut off at when you believe it could survive outside the womb?

Already answered. Numerous times.

No you haven't in fact you have confused the matter even more.

I just find it somewhat amusing that the only people advocating for women to give up the right to their body is men...

So you are stating as a matter of fact only men are pro-life? And it's not about a right to her body, I have no desire for her body thank-you, it's about the body that is living in hers that she created, she had a choice to do whatever with her body when she decide to have intercourse, oh I see it coming WHAT ABOUT RAPE, let's deal with elective intercourse and elective abortion for the time being.

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Cloning has started if you think it not possible to eventually get to that better think again. All my kids have been premies and the point at which premies survive gets earlier and earlier every year. It's one reason RvW needs to be reviewed because babies are surviving outside the womb much earlier than the third trimester that was the cut off back then. So when life can be created outside the womb, and grown fully outside the womb, will you then oppose all abortion since your premise that it's OK to kill that life if it can't be sustained outside the womb has gone out the window?




iow, "since I can't rebut what you said.................."

Alright, I'll answer it. If it ever reaches the point that the fetus that is created naturally no longer needs the mother at any point, I'll be opposed to abortion, as long as you're willing to take care of that fetus when it becomes a baby. Pop that bad boy out of there!

It will never be naturaly, neonatal care is not natural. What does this qualification you seek have to do with anything?

If it's undeniable, how come I deny it, and if it's a fact, how come science doesn't recognize it as such?
It's a fetus, not a human.

Sorry but you are scientifically incorrect it is just as human as you, everything it needs to be a human is there, it will never be anything else but human and it exist therefore it is being.

A cake in an oven isn't a cake yet, it's still developing into a cake!

How sophmoric to equate a living being to an inanimate cake. Your reasoning surfers quite a bit.

Since you're pro-life and I'm not, wouldn't it then make sense for you guys to pay for that?

I paid for the children I created.

I will always support what a woman chooses to do with her body.

How about selling body parts?

And if the fetus can survive, and you want it, go right ahead, but until that day I am all for abortion.

What about the child after it is born an no one wants it, just kill it? Again I ask when did want, become the defining charactistic of life? I'm sorry but I reject out of hand the premise that unless someone wants the other person the other person can be killed.

Once the fetus can survive outside of the womb abortion is pointless. Just pop it out, and put it up for adoption.

No the purpose of the abortion is to kill the child, just "popping it out" doesn accomplish that. Why not just wait 3 months and let the labor proceed to a natural birth?

Abortion is to avoid carrying it full term, but once you've carried it full enough for it to survive, then avoiding carrying it seems rather pointless.

And end up with a dead baby. Else the mother could carry to term. Not too much to ask when a life is at stake.

Because men have less of an understanding about the issue.

I think I have a pretty good grip on what life is or isn't and that is the issue.

 

[Fantasea]

Permit me to introduce Dr. Bernatd Nathanson to those of you who are unfamiliar with him.

He tells quite a story. I'd be greatly interested in comments.

CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST
By Dr. Bernard Nathanson
​

I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimises my credentials to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968.

A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to issue the decision which legalised abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced virtual abortion on demand up to birth.

How did we do this? It is important to understand the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion aw.

THE FIRST KEY TACTIC WAS TO CAPTURE THE MEDIA​

We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public.

The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.

Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalising abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalisation.

THE SECOND KEY TACTIC WAS TO PLAY THE CATHOLIC CARD​

We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its "socially backward ideas" and picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as "we all know that opposition to abortion comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics" and "Polls prove time and again that most Catholics want abortion law reform". And the media drum-fired all this into the American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favour of abortion are enlightened and forward-looking.

An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian religions were (and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly suppressed, along with pro-life atheists' opinions.

THE THIRD KEY TACTIC WAS THE DENIGRATION AND SUPPRESSION OF ALL
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION​

I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New York City and had to set up a prenatal research unit, just at the start of a great new technology which we now use every day to study the foetus in the womb. A favourite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that
the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. Why, you may well ask, do some American doctors who are privy to the findings of foetology, discredit themselves by carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic at $300 a time, 1.55 million abortions means an
industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion. It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma, but to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic utilitarian answer to social problems.

AS A SCIENTIST I KNOW, NOT BELIEVE, KNOW THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT
CONCEPTION​

Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is a divinity of existence which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity.

[Dr. Nathanson has since converted to Catholicism, being baptised in 1996.]

 

[ShamMol]

And he is also a nutcase. But you have your champion, just like the Repubs have Zell Miller...

 

[Fantasea]

And he is also a nutcase. But you have your champion, just like the Repubs have Zell Miller...

Thank you for a brief, but nevertheless revealing, analysis.

When there is no possibility that one can reasonably counter a statement or refute an argument, one can always fall back on the tried and true tricks of the socialist-lib-dems; mock, scoff, and attack the credibility of its author, as you have just done. Have you been studying their playbook?

On the other hand, maybe reflecting on all of the carnage for which he was responsible before he came to his senses, resulted in some psychological scarring to the doctor.

Nevertheless, having had so much 'hands on' experience, his credentials are impeccable, wouldn't you say?

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Thank you for a brief, but nevertheless revealing, analysis.

When there is no possibility that one can reasonably counter a statement or refute an argument, one can always fall back on the tried and true tricks of the socialist-lib-dems; mock, scoff, and attack the credibility of its author, as you have just done. Have you been studying their playbook?

On the other hand, maybe reflecting on all of the carnage for which he was responsible before he came to his senses, resulted in some psychological scarring to the doctor.

Nevertheless, having had so much 'hands on' experience, his credentials are impeccable, wouldn't you say?

Excuse me,

Why? Did you fart, or something?

discreditting is only a liberal tactic

I'm surprised that you make such an admission. However, I applaud your honesty for doing so.

Then what about conservatives not trusting the "liberal" media?

I'm sure you must have heard the story. When one understands the nature of a scorpion, one does not swim across a river with one on his back.

Are you ****ing kidding me, you've attempted to discredit THE ENTIRE MEDIA! THE ENTIRE ****ING MEDIA!

I see that you still have not had that speech impediment corrected. Too bad.

If you clean up the language, refrain from shouting, and repeat the accusation, I'll respond.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Why? Did you fart, or something?I'm surprised that you make such an admission. However, I applaud your honesty for doing so.I'm sure you must have heard the story. When one understands the nature of a scorpion, one does not swim across a river with one on his back.I see that you still have not had that speech impediment corrected. Too bad.

If you clean up the language, refrain from shouting, and repeat the accusation, I'll respond.

Oh yeah, now I really want your input, considering your idea of intelligent discourse is breaking up what I said, and responding to each thing out of context, and then complaining about my language.
Well, you know what, I really don't ****ing care what you think, and I don't find what you have to say worht ****ing reading, because you avoid ****ing arguing on ****ing points but instead throw this ****ing bullshit at me, so I really have no ****ing interest about what you think about anything, if you could actually call what you do "thinking".
****

That really got you riled up, didn't it?

See how easy it was to get the effect I wanted; to goad you into an even more heated reaction?

I have a confession to make.

I surreptitiously obtained a copy of a book entitled "The Socialist, Liberal, Democratic Playbook of How to Defend against the Indefensible" by James Carville and Paul Begala. I keep it under my pillow where no one can see it and read a chapter each night.

Chapter twelve, "Parse the Argument to Your Own Advantage" advocates the use of sentence splitting and re-ordered punctuation to re-cast the argument to one's own advantage.

An example cited was the exchange between someone waiting to be executed in the Tower of London who was saved by a comma. The message responding to the accused's request for leniency should have read:

"Pardon impossible, to be executed."

Instead, with the re-location of the comma by a bleeding heart liberal of the day, the note arrived as:

"Pardon, impossible to be executed."

See how simple it is?

Chapter eighteen, "Getting Up Their Dander" is filled with instructions about the many ways to drive someone up a wall. It says to simply take an obvious repetitive defect in one's style of presentation and repeatedly slap his face with it.

Sure worked in your case, didn't it?

(I'm having a dull day so I can't wait for your response to liven it up.)


:rofl :lol: :rofl

 

[Fantasea]

whatever. As far as I'm concerned your dead to me.

Caved in, did you? Well, that's just one more notch in my belt.

 

[petrsykora39]

Well, I think I have a solution that is acceptable for both sides. Once a woman has discovered she's pregnant and wants an abortion, we'll have a doctor remove that fetus so that someone else can take care of it. No matter how old the fetus is, it will be removed so that the woman isn't forced to have the baby while ensuring that an abortion isn't performed.

Sound fair to everybody?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Is such an operation possible? How long would the child have?

 

[Imudman]

Well, I think I have a solution that is acceptable for both sides. Once a woman has discovered she's pregnant and wants an abortion, we'll have a doctor remove that fetus so that someone else can take care of it. No matter how old the fetus is, it will be removed so that the woman isn't forced to have the baby while ensuring that an abortion isn't performed.

Sound fair to everybody?

Even if that were possible it would never happen, because then people would have to admit that unborn human children are worth saving. Good idea though...

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Caved in, did you? Well, that's just one more notch in my belt.

Well, bully for you, Fant. And a good thing too, 'cause you'll never have any notches in your bed post!

Galen is absolutely correct. When challenged you always avoid the point. People don't "cave in", they just stop wasting their time on you.

 

[Fantasea]

Well, bully for you, Fant. And a good thing too, 'cause you'll never have any notches in your bed post!

Galen is absolutely correct. When challenged you always avoid the point. People don't "cave in", they just stop wasting their time on you.

Rationalize it any way you wish. The result is the same.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Rationalize it any way you wish. The result is the same.

And if you could rationalise anything, you'd know that the results are entirely different.

 

[ElGringo17]

In the interests of full dislosure, you should know that naughtynurse has previously self-identified himself as a homosexual.

 

[Provita]

Here we are: pro-lifers, pro-choicers, people who goboth ways, liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, independants, and others. All expressing their different views of the subject of abortion, all with good and bad views of the subject, and some with reasoning to back them up, while others use facts. Well, here i am, a new member (Hi, im provite, nice to meet u :2wave: ), and I am here to also "debate" on this very wide subject.

One main thing argued is: Is the fetus "alive" before birth or is it only "alive" after? Well, although there are many different views of what "alive" is, science states that most of a fetus' "makeup" or structure is given to it from conception. Science states that all the genetics are formed at this point, and a genetics state it is human. Although most people would say that genes dont necessarily mean its alive, it does mean it is (obviously) a potential human in later time. Some threads andreplies that I have read earlier on this topic have stated that if we are to ban abortion because it kills "potential" babies, then we should ban emitting sperm unless for conception. The problem with this opinion is that sperm is not a potential baby, for it has only half the chromosomes and genes for a baby, thus needing an egg to fisnish the job, so this is, for the sake of compatison, like saying a house is potentially yours, well it could be yours, but you need another thing, the money to buy it. Without the money, it cannot possibly becomeyour house (ruling out raffles and charity and similar). So sperm can only potially become a baby with an egg. Now, as for those who dont agree with science's stating of life being mainly genetics at work, how about the heart? or brain?

The heart is fully developed and starts beating at the end of 4 weeks (on average). Would some say that once the heart is beating, that it is alive? then most abortion procedures are ruled out as murder. What about the formation of brain cells? The brain is almost fully formed by the end of the first trimester! The formation of a brain does not mean it can think, but it certainly means it is possible. Then there are some who say you arent alive until you are born. One backing for this reason before said that since a fetus is inside a mother and is dependant on it, the fetus is not alive. What about people on life support? When someone is taken off of life support, many peoplecall it murder. What about needed medicine? Without it, the human being cannot support it's own life by itself through normal activites. Just because you cannot keep yourselfalive by yourself does not mean you are dead, but ofcoarse, thats my view (for if life of a fetus can be viewed differently,so can life of adults.) Some say that the fetus is just many living tissue and cells grouped together, and is only alive because of its mother. That means it isnt living, right? Well, crash into a pregnant women, and kill her baby, and not her, and then go to jail, maybe that will change your mind. Wait a moment, did I just say "kill her baby"? Hmm, seems laws support it being alive in some cases but not others, thats kinda strange if you ask me.

Now, if a women, by choice of aborting a child for they cannot support a child, didnt want it, changed their mind, or "other", all they must do is go to the Abortion Clinic, pay up some money, which as explained by others before me, is expensive, and let the fetus "die" or "stop developing"(however you want to put it.) Statistics and charts show, giving birth (w/o major complications) is much cheaper than an abortion in most areas. So why wouldnt giving birth, and letting the fetus become a baby and have a life by adoption for a family (which most likely cant have a baby due to infertility) be a choice? Seems like a less expensive and easier way in my eyes, but im just me. I dont speak for the 1.5 million women in the U.S. every year who abort, and i dont speak for all the pregnant mothers, nor the mothers who already gave birth, yet witnessing childbirth, i can tell you, in my eyes, responsibilty for 9 months, and pain giving the mother 4 times the strength of the average male, is well worth another human life, although i dont think anyone is to judge how valuable a life truely is. Now, if this woman were to get an abortion, there are several popular procedures i will list. There are two procedures done in the first trimester before the potential baby is a fetus that are well popular. One is doe\ne when the woman inserts pills orally, containing a substance used against cancer, in which attacks the most rapidly growing cells, in this case: the potential fetus. It removes him/her (if you want to call them a him or her) from the uterus wall and in 6 to 8 hours, is expelled as one big "period". The other procedure is done surgically with a vacuum (must i say more?).

Later procedures, in the 2nd and 3rd trimester include vacuum suction, and similar substanced noted before, along with aqnother procedure using salt to poison the fetus, and then expelling it. Another procedure (in which shocks me) is done when the fetus is in the 3rd trimester where the fetus is taken out limb by limb by the doctor.

So it is obvious, the mother has the right to choose to get an abortion, or adopt,or take care of it. What if they are raped? I seems adoption can fix that. What about the most used deffense? MEDICAL PROBLEMS! Ah yes, the good ole Medical Problems defense. Well, although abortion is the quick answer, couldnt the mother atleast look for all the alternatives and try to fix all fatalproblems that may occur? I personnaly think doctors should start researching harder in the most common pregnancy problems that cause abortions and i cant say any more on that topic. I convinced a woman, who doctors told her that her son would have developmental problems, Not to have an abortion, and guess what! the baby was fine! infact more healthy than i was, ofcoarse i was premature by 1 month :mrgreen: anyways, hope u liked my reply .... nice seeing u all

 

[Provita]

i dont know about any of you, but id prefer to be adopted or be unwanted than to be poisoned, suctioned, or torn apart limb by limb, i have seen the limb by limb procedure in class before.... very disturbing

 

[Provita]

but hey, maybe its not disturbing to some other people.......

 

[Coolguy]

This has been a very interesting and tiresome read.

We actually have three sides to this equation.
Pro-Abortion------------Pro-Choice-------------Pro-Life

In a nut shell.

Pro-Abortion
In the case of Pro-abortion you have a country such as China. They had to come up with a solution to their ever increasing population. You can't afford to have another child, you don't get to. No choice there. & Yes I over simplified it.

Pro-Choice
The choice is left up to the pregnant individual.
They do not want to force their view on anybody living being.

Pro-Life
They do not want a person to be able to choose and they want to force this view on everybody by creating laws. Laws that would greatly effect the population and all that ills it. Creating more problems than it can solve.

I am pretty much Pro-Choice on this issue. All of this argument of when life begins is BS. It doesn't matter. The fetus or child is not an individual being until after it is born and even then it still can not survive on it's own without intervention from another being.

With the world becoming more populated and resources more depleted, a time will come when other countries will do just as China has. It may not be in our life time but it is coming.

You all that support Pro-Life should start to see the bigger picture. Steps need to be taken now so we do not have to do what China has sooner rather than later.


All of you that are Pro-Life, please tell me why you should be able to force your views on the population through the creation of laws.
Tell me why you should be able to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. Please tell me why your position is just so much better than choice. Because you have failed at showing how your view of forcing Non-Choice on the populace is better.

 

[Kelzie]

Actually in China's defense, they have done a remarkable job at avoiding a crippling problem that many other developing countries face. Namely, an increase in the life expactancy due to new western medicine, while the birth rate (already high because of the nature of most undeveloped countries in which children are needed to provide for the family) remains the same. Puts a huge burden on the fragile economy of LDCs to care for the new population of elderly and young.

And I understood it was one child per family, regardless if you could afford more or not.

Anyway off topic. Sorry.

 

[Provita]

This has been a very interesting and tiresome read.

We actually have three sides to this equation.
Pro-Abortion------------Pro-Choice-------------Pro-Life

In a nut shell.

Pro-Abortion
In the case of Pro-abortion you have a country such as China. They had to come up with a solution to their ever increasing population. You can't afford to have another child, you don't get to. No choice there. & Yes I over simplified it.

Pro-Choice
The choice is left up to the pregnant individual.
They do not want to force their view on anybody living being.

Pro-Life
They do not want a person to be able to choose and they want to force this view on everybody by creating laws. Laws that would greatly effect the population and all that ills it. Creating more problems than it can solve.

I am pretty much Pro-Choice on this issue. All of this argument of when life begins is BS. It doesn't matter. The fetus or child is not an individual being until after it is born and even then it still can not survive on it's own without intervention from another being.

With the world becoming more populated and resources more depleted, a time will come when other countries will do just as China has. It may not be in our life time but it is coming.

You all that support Pro-Life should start to see the bigger picture. Steps need to be taken now so we do not have to do what China has sooner rather than later.


All of you that are Pro-Life, please tell me why you should be able to force your views on the population through the creation of laws.
Tell me why you should be able to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. Please tell me why your position is just so much better than choice. Because you have failed at showing how your view of forcing Non-Choice on the populace is better.

Acctually.... if you were to read my post 4 replies ago >.> ... The baby is an idividual being the moment at conception, proven by science! And you say "then tell me why you should be able to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body", as i just noted above... it is a separate body, and she already chose what to do when she had sex, unless it was rape, in which you can still adopt, which is cheaper than an abortion, so dont give me an crap about costs. I can tell you one thing, you debate with only views, and no evidence, which is very poor for this subject atleast! The Fetus is an entire separate being from the mother, all it asks in return is her nutrients and care. And as for you, coolguy, saying that it doesnt matter, and that the baby cannot support itself... well last time I checked (and this has been stated also by many others in this subject) just because you cant support yourself, doesnt mean you arent deserving of life. People on life support... okay, if you abort for those reasons, lets just kill all the people on life support! HELL! they cant support THEMSELVES, SO LETS KILL THEM! technically its not killing them, CAUSE THEY ARENT ALIVE , RIGHT COOLGUY? or how about elderly on pills, without those, they cant support their own loves, infact, most human beings cant survive on themselves alone, we support and rely on eachother, we rely on electricity, and stores, and all those things, i bet YOU probably can't last 1 week in the forest with nothing but you and... YOURSELF. If you can, good job, but i guarantee you, most people can't. So that means they cant support themselves without others, SO LETS MURDER THEM TOO! YAYAAYAY! MURDER FEST.... excuse me , but no, your views AGAINST pro-lifers is distasteful. I have not attacked pro abortionists nor pro choicers AT ALL, while you just come in here , with your head up high and with no scientific or medical backing, and try to ram this discussion, please "coolguy", read my post from before! If you are pro life, then you are NOT anti choice, it just means you dont think a woman NOR a man should have the choice on whether to keep the baby, you can choose ALL of the rest that you want. So dont give me any of your bullcrap (excuse my language) saying Pro lifers impose laws on you and dont want you to choose, AS I HAVE JUST SAID, PRO LIFE DOES NOT MEAN ANTI CHOICE< ALL IT EMANS IS THAT ITS ANTI CHOISE ON ONE SUBJECT IN A MILLION SUBJECTS SUBJECT TO MAKING A CHOICE! Although i am against pro abortion, atleast i have the maturity not to attack them but to instead do heavy research and try to use scientific and medical date, with a view personal view points in a hard discussion, so that I could possibly change their views. I read all views of the "other side", and i dont automatically say its BS, i research it, and make up my mind, unlike you who seems will most likely always be pro choice and will always attack pro lifers. Im pro choice in everything except abortion, where im pro life, happy now? And if you were to acctually READ some of these arguments, you would see that if the fetus is alive or not IS a big deal, along with if they can think or feel pain! and the "creation of laws" , what laws? last time i checked... abortion was legal, so obviously our laws arent affecting YOU. Forcing non choice.. i guess i must repeat it a 3rd time.. hmm.... PRO LIFE DOES NOT MEAN ANTI CHOICE!



so dont come smashing in here and attacking people, got it? or atleast do so with EVIDENCE. you know? the thing that proves things....