# Rape and pregnancy: the ignorance of the GOP



## yuyuyup (Aug 20, 2012)

(the word [censored] is censored)

copypasta from Huffpo:
"From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," said Akin said of pregnancy caused by [censored]. "If it's a legitimate [censored], the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist."

I'm still trying to hunt down the root of this [censored] rejection theory due to google clouded with reports of Akin's recent comments.  A blog "balloonjuice" found this earlier quote from another GOP leader, with analysis from doctors from 1988:

copypasta begin
HARRISBURG — The odds that a woman who is raped will get pregnant are “one in millions and millions and millions,” said state Rep. Stephen Freind, R-Delaware County, the Legislature’s leading abortion foe. The reason, Freind said, is that *the traumatic experience of [censored] causes a woman to “secrete a certain secretion” that tends to kill sperm.*
Two Philadelphia doctors specializing in human reproduction characterized Freind’s contention as scientifically baseless.
copypasta end

My uneducated guess is that many more [censored] victims DO become pregnant, and privately seek abortions.  This would certainly stunt the numbers.  To what degree ?  Who could possibly know ?  The demonetization of abortions certainly creates a stigma which would perpetuate such hidden statistics.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1807381.html
http://www.balloon-j...kins-pregnancy-[censored]-theory/



thanks costello


----------



## Costello (Aug 20, 2012)

lol, yeah at some point people were using the r-word for every situation. so we had to calm people down and banned the word.
i will see if i can fix your post...


----------



## Black-Ice (Aug 20, 2012)

CENSORED LIKE TAEWONGS TOPIC
AHHHHHH YEAHHHHH


so you failed. Try again later 
*ninja'd to the first post by costello o.o*
*feels special*


----------



## Crimsonclaw111 (Aug 20, 2012)

"One in millions and millions and millions" sounds like a bullshit statistic. And it probably is, coming from a politician.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Aug 20, 2012)

Typical of right wingers. I like how conservatives try to blame women for getting raped and use shit ass excuses like this for keeping abortion illegal. Someone should throw these pricks in a prison cell with someone serving a life sentence in solitary confinement and see what their opinions on [censored] are like after their experience.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Aug 20, 2012)

If you outlaw abortions, people will only go underground with it, possibly being victims of unsafe practices and face sterility, maybe even death. 

Do I think abortion is wrong? Absolutely. Does it have a place in our society. Yes, and taking that away could do more harm than good. Regardless of the arguments against it.


----------



## Yumi (Aug 20, 2012)

Wow, what an idiot.

Abortion should be legal (since the beginning of time). But many will think it's wrong. Why? Could be morals, religion views, etc. 
But what gives them the right to subjugate my body by telling me not to abort?..especially if it was an involuntary pregnancy.


----------



## Hells Malice (Aug 20, 2012)

Yumi said:


> Wow, what an idiot.
> 
> Abortion should be legal (since the beginning of time). But many will think it's wrong. Why? Could be morals, religion views, etc.
> But what gives them the right to subjugate my body by telling me not to abort?..especially if it was an involuntary pregnancy.



This.

Some girls (sluts) are going to (or do, location pending) abuse the abortion system, yeah. Fact.
But many, many girls are going to use it for valid reasons as well.
This oppressive bullshit has never made sense. It's another thing that hinders way more than it helps. There are pretty strict rules in place to ensure a cognitive lifeform is not aborted.
It should be a personal choice, not a political choice.


----------



## Zerosuit connor (Aug 20, 2012)

Having plenty of friends at my age (15) who have gone through that ordeal and even one who has fallen pregnant I know how the brain kinda works, Many of them were depressed, and the one who fell pregnant was seriously traumatised by the abortion. But I understand why she did it, she wasn't ready for the burden or responsiblity and even though the child reflected the ra*e it wasn't the reason she had it done. Many women who fall pregnant after ra*e often neglect the children, I know of a few cases where this is a fact. The abuse of abortion is another matter completely. It's traumatising to have it done but when slu*s take advantage of it and don't understand that they've indirectly taken life. In the end
*Ra*e is wrong
*Abuse of abortion is wrong
*Pregnancy after ra*e is traumatising and abortions as an action towards this are understood.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 20, 2012)

I am against government-aided abortion for those that are stupid and don't take the necessary precautions when engaging in unsafe sex. They chose to do that by their own free will, and should therefore live with their decision. If they want an abortion, they pay out of their own pocket.

[censored] victims, imo, should have the option to abort with government-aid because they didn't have the option to engage in unsafe sex to begin with.


----------



## the_randomizer (Aug 20, 2012)

All rapists should be emasculated while being forced to watch Justin Bieber music videos; that'll deter them for the rest of their miserable existences.


----------



## chavosaur (Aug 20, 2012)

that doesnt solve the even bigger problem of just Ra*e.
child molestation.which is just one reason i can condone abortion. I can understand when a women of the age of 20 or 30 couldnt handle having the child of her attacker. Beleive me I know, my sister was the byproduct of such a situation.
but to be a 13 or 14 year old child. To have your entire innocence stolen from you. And then in all that horror you find out your also pregnant with his child? 
There should be no question that that is somthing you just couldnt hold on to.


----------



## Depravo (Aug 20, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> They chose to do that by their own free will, and should therefore live with their decision.


And the unwanted child? Was it their free will to be foisted upon unwilling parents? It must be brilliant to know that the entire reason for your existence is to teach some slapper a lesson. When you see the lamentable state of some parents it's clear an abortion would have been a more responsible thing to do than having a child.


----------



## the_randomizer (Aug 20, 2012)

Abortion is a very sensitive topic with many, if for some reason that is not an option, go with adoption.  Either option is emotionally painful.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 20, 2012)

Depravo said:


> DiscostewSM said:
> 
> 
> > They chose to do that by their own free will, and should therefore live with their decision.
> ...



If the child is unwanted, then why bring it into the world in the first place? Also, I didn't say I was completely against abortion altogether. I said government-aided abortion was ok for just those that never had a choice due to [censored]. And for those who got pregnant out of stupidity? Take out your own wallet for an abortion that shouldn't have been needed had one been smart about what they were doing beforehand.


----------



## emigre (Aug 20, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Depravo said:
> 
> 
> > DiscostewSM said:
> ...



No contraception is 100% reliable.


----------



## Gahars (Aug 20, 2012)

That's not how biology works... at all... ever.

I mean, if you're trying to legislate on women's issues in the place of women, you should at least know something about the subject matter at hand (especially if you are an elected official in the nation's highest, most powerful legislature). There is no excuse for this kind of ignorance.


----------



## nando (Aug 20, 2012)

so basically if i woman gets pregnant during [censored] is because she most likely enjoyed it. makes perfect sense.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 20, 2012)

Excellent response from Obama 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/obama-todd-akin-rape_n_1812140.html


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Aug 20, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Depravo said:
> 
> 
> > DiscostewSM said:
> ...


You already have to pay for abortions.

I think you should be able to get an abortion if you want an abortion.
Simple as that.

The only people who are opposed to it are opposed to it because of religion but not everyone practices the same religion and as a result people should be able to get abortions when they want.


----------



## Thesolcity (Aug 20, 2012)

Gahars said:


> *That's not how biology works... at all... ever.*
> 
> I mean, if you're trying to legislate on women's issues in the place of women, you should at least know something about the subject matter at hand (especially if you are an elected official in the nation's highest, most powerful legislature). There is no excuse for this kind of ignorance.



Ducks say hello. This is just a pitiful attempt at someone trying to make a perpetually-invalid point whilst maintaining a level of such ignorance anybody with half a brain cell could see through. This is laughable, really. People voted these nitwits in, so who's to blame at this point?


----------



## Gahars (Aug 20, 2012)

Thesolcity said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > *That's not how biology works... at all... ever.*
> ...



And that's more about ducks than I needed to know. Maybe Freind will write this comment off as an appeal to his duck constituents.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 20, 2012)

ThatDudeWithTheFood said:


> DiscostewSM said:
> 
> 
> > Depravo said:
> ...



That's why I said "government-aided" abortions.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Aug 21, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> ThatDudeWithTheFood said:
> 
> 
> > DiscostewSM said:
> ...


My bad I thought we were talking about illegalizing abortion.


----------



## ouch123 (Aug 21, 2012)

Did you know that if males don't want to impregnate a woman, they can just think really hard that they don't want to and their sperm will self-detonate upon ejaculation? Look it up, I didn't.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 21, 2012)

ouch123 said:


> Did you know that if males don't want to impregnate a woman, they can just think really hard that they don't want to and their sperm will self-detonate upon ejaculation? Look it up, I didn't.



Men think of things other than sex during sex? *Mind blown*


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Aug 21, 2012)

I still think some members of the GOP are having issues comprehending how pregnancy even works so we should go light on this guy. He's just very confused!


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 21, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> That's why I said "government-aided" abortions.



So abortions for the rich only.  Gotcha.  Presumably you're also against funding for contraception?

So if you're a 30-year-old CEO who doesn't want a baby to get in the way of her career, abort away!  If you're a 16 year old who's condom broke and you don't want to say to your dad "Uh, can you lend me $3k for an abortion please" tough luck, potentially life-threatening pregnancy or coathanger abortion for you.  The system works.

How does it possibly make sense that the only people who don't have access to safe abortion are also the only people who can't afford to raise a child? Should there be government funding for if the abortion is to protect the health of the mother? How about her mental health? 

Anyway, here's another cracker from the GOP


> Mike Huckabee Would Like to Remind You That [censored] Has Created Some Extraordinary People


 http://gawker.com/59...ordinary-people

I do see that Romney and Ryan have tried to distance themselves from the issue by saying they're both in favour of allowing abortion in cases of [censored].  I'm not sure I've ever thought about this in detail before, but how on earth would a system like that, where abortion was illegal apart from in cases of [censored], actually work in the real world?  I presume the people enacting the law would be keen to avoid a situation where abortion was just as freely available as before, but required a work around of ticking a box saying "Reason for abortion - [censored]".  But then there's got to be some kind of burden of proof on the victim.  Do we wait the entire duration of a court case until we get a guilty verdict, by which time we could easily be in late term abortion territory (or even after birth, considering [censored] is under-reported and a victim may not come forward until they realise they've fallen pregnant from the attack)? Or do you get an abortion coupon as soon as you make the allegation, with the proviso that if you then withdraw the allegation or the suspect's guilt (if the suspect is even apprehended) is not proven beyond reasonable doubt then you face a charge of... What, murder?

In terms of 'legitimate' [censored], I think basically what goes on in these people's heads is that 'legitimate' [censored] is a [censored] they think could happen to them or their family.  Your wife lying in bed in her ankle-length nightgown when a guy with a shotgun and a ski-mask breaks down the door, that's legitimate [censored].  As opposed to people 'crying [censored]' after doing things you, your wife or daughter wouldn't do, like going out and drinking, or going to a bar, or traveling alone, wearing revealing clothing or being alone in the company of a male friend without a chaperone.  You want the loop-hole to be there for good honest God fearing folk just in case of an encounter with Mr Skimask, but you don't want people getting abortions willy-nilly for 'lesser' rapes.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 21, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> DiscostewSM said:
> 
> 
> > That's why I said "government-aided" abortions.
> ...



Just for giggles I think I will also throw therapeutic stuff in there- eventually the line gets quite fine between ectopic pregnancy, mother gets something unpleasant (I have some rather unpleasant stories of people being diagnosed with eminently survivable cancers but letting them go for 9 months turning it into a fatal one but that is a different discussion), foetus gets diagnosed with something unpleasant and young person really would not do well to be laden with a kid (most people are what 26 before they hit their stride?).

Anyway 3k these days.... I assume that is for the surgical version (chemical ones do well these days) but wow I guess I still love me some NHS (not that I ever disliked it).

As for the second part..... I though my drivel shield was good after many years wandering the internet and it is not like it is the first time I have encountered American politician but that.... granted it probably hits the buttons for the "right" people (although I have unpleasant things to say about anyone that would consider saying it is the fault of the victim) and I wonder what the stats would say about shotgun wielding, balaclava clad and sexual assault happy home intruders.



> ankle-length nightgown.....wearing revealing clothing


Anyone want to take a bet one this one also likely to rail on the wearing of a Burka and such without a possible clue about the irony?

Edit following up/in response to below- assuming about.com is a reasonable source ( http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/Average-Cost-of-an-Abortion.htm ) prices seem to hover around half a grand for both chemical and surgical which is a not inconsiderable sum of money for most and for the more vulnerable/paycheck to paycheck types that would hurt badly. They probably could rise to 3k if you get a fancy place to have it happen (full surgical complement easily starts at several grand) but it is probably best to start at the functional equivalent level.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 21, 2012)

I have to admit, I pulled the 3k figure out of thin air for the sake of argument, no idea how much it would cost for a private abortion are various stages of pregnancy with no health insurance.


----------



## Gahars (Aug 21, 2012)

The Onion has just been having a field day with this fiasco:

Congressman: Pregnancy Rarely Results From 'Legitimate [censored]'
Republicans Condemn Akin's Comments As Blemish On Party's Otherwise Spotless Women's Rights Record
Pregnant Woman Relieved To Learn Her [censored] Was Illegitimate
I Misspoke - What I Meant To Say Is 'I Am Dumb As Dog Shit And I Am A Terrible Human Being'


----------



## BORTZ (Aug 21, 2012)

> Controversial topics on the Temp
> Ending well


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 21, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> DiscostewSM said:
> 
> 
> > That's why I said "government-aided" abortions.
> ...



Guess I can go farther than this.

A better method than abortion for this 16 yo is to *NOT GET KNOCKED UP* in the first place. Seriously, anyone who is stupid enough to think "it won't happen to me", and then does, should have to deal with the consequences, because that is what life is. Learning from your mistakes. Sex makes babies? Who da thunk! What are those sex educational videos teaching kids if not that sex can create babies? Oh, I get it. The teens ignore the consequences because they only want the positive side of sex. Why would this 16 yo want to get knocked up in the first place if not for the selfish side of getting pleasure from it?

Consequences is not something that can be simply ignored, so why should anyone with a horny mind be able to get away with stupidity? Why should the government be involved in personal affairs such as this? I thought people wanted less government involvement? I guess it is only when the government is on their side, such that they only want what is beneficial from the government and reject all that does the opposite when both must exist. Life-threatening pregnancy? I do think life should be preserved, but I also know that people should learn from their mistakes. No, I'm not saying they should die to teach people a lesson, but government doesn't need to be involved for this abortion, and a lesson does need to be taught or people will continue to be stupid. People have to pay out of their own pocket for stupid stuff they do every day, which includes things that are life threatening. It must not be a problem for this 16 yo that is involved in a possible life-threatening pregnancy if they feel it isn't necessary to involve their parents like you mentioned in your example.

I still keep my stance on [censored] victims being able to have government-aided abortions because, unlike the horny teenagers and adults who feel they can ignore the consequences, these victims had no choice and were forced into it.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 21, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Guess I can go farther than this.
> 
> A better method than abortion for this 16 yo is to *NOT GET KNOCKED UP* in the first place. Seriously, anyone who is stupid enough to think "it won't happen to me", and then does, should have to deal with the consequences, because that is what life is. Learning from your mistakes. Sex makes babies? Who da thunk! What are those sex educational videos teaching kids if not that sex can create babies? Oh, I get it. The teens ignore the consequences because they only want the positive side of sex. Why would this 16 yo want to get knocked up in the first place if not for the selfish side of getting pleasure from it?
> 
> ...



First I should probably address that in the UK 16 is the age of consent give or take some stuff with carers/teachers which probably influences things a bit (as I understand it is 16 is some states with age provisos like the older can only be up to 18 or something and those are a bit contentious). Such a thing has made for some interesting discussions vis a vis driving, military stuff, drinking and firearms but that is a different discussion.

Sex education..... in a world where abstinence pledges exist and are encouraged in lieu of sex education you are really going to go that way? Beyond that I have seen some horrible things with people claiming condoms only work a smaller percentage than they actually do (strictly speaking some of the stuff they say is somewhat accurate... if you do not know how to actually use things). I certainly will call some of the things people think mind boggling stupid (I smoke weed therefore being my absolute favourite one) but it is not a clear cut issue.

"deal with the consequences"
...
...
The straight quid pro quo logic part of me says if you get pregnant and it is not ideal for it to be taken forward at this point then the consequence is an abortion becomes a useful medical procedure. Beyond that I would not consider it a strawman to liken forcing the bringing to term of a pregnancy/keeping a baby as a "punishment" of sorts to be quite barbaric.... although I want a better term as most nomadic/"barbarian" tribes I have studied actually have better methods of handling things there (to say nothing of the potential pregnancy terminating features of silphium- a now extinct plant but one that went extinct when written language was definitely a thing). Likewise I probably want to link freakanomics up although that heads towards areas some people find a bit uncomfortable.

"I thought people wanted less government involvement?"
I would contend government involvement is awesome provided they are awesome.... historically that is not as prevalent as it could be but there are examples and got reactions and good proactive stuff. As for the involvement itself funding welfare type things is one of the main functions of a government no?

"selfish side of getting pleasure from it"..... sex is fun and the moment you start saying otherwise is where you lose people and that is fairly well documented in education- it is the whole drugs are bad.... "but my mate took ecstasy, is fine and had a whale of a time" all of which might be quite accurate (give or take some of the potentially more questionable stuff as to the long term effects of ecstasy but I could probably sub in another drug) thing again. I agree simple messages certainly have their place but unlike many drugs sex is fun and can be made incredibly safe with not a lot of effort.


----------



## Sterling (Aug 21, 2012)

FAST6191 said:


> DiscostewSM said:
> 
> 
> > Guess I can go farther than this.
> ...



While I agree that sex education in the US is terrible (I don't even remember my class, and only small segments from health class) most of the time it's parents who opt out of such classes. They do it in order to give their son or daughter their own brand of teaching. Most of the time they do an even worse job at it, or not at all. 

Discostew's point is that when a properly educated you woman (who is also the proper age for consent) gets pregnant, yet she doesn't want a kid, she or her parents should have to pay out of pocket costs for an abortion. Government help could still extend to people who are too poor to properly take care of a kid, but in that case, it shouldn't happen in the first place. Government help SHOULD extend to those who have been improperly educated, underaged, or victims of [censored] if they so desire. This is what I think He's trying to say, and this is also my stance.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 21, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> > DiscostewSM said:
> ...



Are you for real?  Your genuine response to this issue is to suggest that poor people only have sexless relationships unless they want a child?  And you live in a reality where you think that can and should happen?

And if they are forced to carry the baby to term and can't afford to feed the child, that comes out of the pockets of everyone, at a cost far greater than that of an abortion or morning after pill (if you're the kind of nut that considers that abortion)?  Or we just let it starve to death?

Maybe when someone crashes their car or falls off their bike and needs a trip to the A&E they should be denied medical treatment for that as well, to 'teach them a lesson'.  Maybe if you can't afford years of surgery to rebuild your hand you shouldn't own a gun in case it explodes.


----------



## thisismyname (Aug 21, 2012)

Akin is an idiot. Newsflash: the world is full of them. I'm using a near-literal definition of full.

Attacks on Huckabee are inflammatory and irrelevant, as he was discussing a very real downside to abortion; you're talking about killing people and snuffing out their futures.
Don't really care about your reasons, it sounds like murder to me.....because it is.
Quoting Obama is laughable, as the amount of evidence that he hates the Hebrew people stacks so high I won't even link any of it; you'd just avert your eyes 'cause issues dear to your heart are all that matter.

Regrettably, a part of the human condition is that, whether you agree or not, abortion should be universally illegal because it allows you to turn "human being" into a subjective term.
---Plain and simple.

And no, women, your rights don't trump that because blahdeblah-blah-blah.............sorry none of the nonsense is relevant enough for me to remember the rote recitation.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 21, 2012)

thisismyname said:


> Akin is an idiot. Newsflash: the world is full of them. I'm using a near-literal definition of full.
> 
> Attacks on Huckabee are inflammatory and irrelevant, as he was discussing a very real downside to abortion; you're talking about killing people and snuffing out their futures.
> Don't really care about your reasons, it sounds like murder to me.....because it is.
> ...



And calling two cells a 'human being' isn't being subjective at all.

If we're not out there being promiscuous every second of every day, how many potential humans are we 'robbing of their futures'?  If a woman is forced to carry a pregnancy to term and it means she has to give up work, when if she'd had the abortion she would have gone on to be successful enough to chose to have four kids instead of just the one,have those three children had their futures snuffed out?

Aside from the immorality of forbidding abortion, it simply doesn't work in the real world, as much as some of the bleeding heart idealists on the far right would like to believe it would.

Not even going to bother with the paranoid wingnut nonsense about Obama and off-topic irrelevant antisemitism accusations.

Hardly anyone genuinely believes abortion is 'murder' when actually pressed on it, because only a very small amount of pro-lifers are against (or at least admit to being against) abortion to save the life of the mother or in cases of incest//child abuse/[censored].  It's just hyperbole.  If it's 'murder' then how come murder is OK in these circumstances?

Aside from anything else, the definition of murder is the illegal taking of life.  In countries where abortion is legal, if you agree with it or not, it is a stone cold fact that abortion is not murder.


----------



## thisismyname (Aug 21, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> thisismyname said:
> 
> 
> > Akin is an idiot. Newsflash: the world is full of them. I'm using a near-literal definition of full.
> ...


Were you trying to prove my point there? You were two cells once....are you not a human being?

vvvSTRAWMAN....BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA:


> If we're not out there being promiscuous every second of every day, how many potential humans are we 'robbing of their futures'?  If a woman is forced to carry a pregnancy to term and it means she has to give up work, when if she'd had the abortion she would have gone on to be successful enough to chose to have four kids instead of just the one,have those three children had their futures snuffed out?





> Aside from the immorality of forbidding abortion, it simply doesn't work in the real world, as much as some of the bleeding heart idealists on the far right would like to believe it would.



I live in the real world, where I know lots of people who have had, or who WERE unwanted pregnancies. It works fine.....for those who aren't the absolute center of their own universe.



> Not even going to bother with the paranoid wingnut nonsense about Obama.


Exactly why I need no links. XD


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 21, 2012)

What you mean is 'I have no links that won't make me look like an idiot' 

You were a sperm once, do those socks under your bed contain a massacre?


----------



## omgpwn666 (Aug 21, 2012)

Crimsonclaw111 said:


> "One in millions and millions and millions" sounds like a bullshit statistic. And it probably is, coming from a politician.



Politicians are the most sincere, honest, smartest, and greatest people on the planet.


----------



## thisismyname (Aug 21, 2012)

Not sure anyone would notice me looking like an idiot; you've kind of stolen the show.
Take a day and come back with some real arguments (or insults--- I guess is what we're doing now?)

I don't have a problem with where you stand on killing living human beings; so if you don't have a problem with your own stance, then there's really no problem.
I'm always going to be able to say, "I'm against annihilating tiny human beings who can't defend themselves." I'm glad I can say that.
You'll always be able to say, "I'm for doing that en mass, if it makes life easier."


----------



## leic7 (Aug 21, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> > DiscostewSM said:
> ...


So you _are_ against public funding for contraception? I'm guessing you're also opposed to funding for health care for smokers? And emergency treatment for people who drink and drive? These conclusions are entirely inline with your reasoning.

What lesson exactly should the 16-year-old learn, that she hasn't been able to learn already with an unwanted pregnancy? That sex would lead to babies? She's learned that obviously with the pregnancy. That sex would have consequences? She's facing them now with the pregnancy.

Is your intent truly to educate? Or do you simply just want to punish her, and to see her suffer?

Re: the role of the government, is it not to care for its citizens, and to protect the vulnerable and the marginalized? It's usually the poor and the under-educated who need help with getting an abortion the most. This is a social issue. Of course the government needs to get involved.

Abortion is not an easy choice for most women, as those who've undergone it could attest. If someone believes she couldn't provide happiness for her children, making the decision to intervene and abort her pregnancy is taking responsibilities for her past actions. She's "dealing with the consequences" and "learning from her mistakes" by taking action when she needs to act to prevent future tragedies. To sit idly by and carry it to term would be the irresponsible thing to do.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Aug 21, 2012)

thisismyname said:


> I live in the real world, where I know lots of people who have had, or who WERE unwanted pregnancies. It works fine.....for those who aren't the absolute center of their own universe.


So the woman/girl who is pregnant under your logic must never ever get an abortion when all your killing is what some cells? 
Seriously you kill cells when you wash your hands and take a shower are you going to never wash again and let those cells and germs live?

This is the 21st century not the bloody middle ages, people have a choice to have sex and not want to have any children from it and if it was a accident they have every right to have an abortion because they didn't want it in the first place what gives anyone the right to take that away from people and expect them to live a sexless life and be happy just because a minority group think killing a few cells is "wrong".


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 21, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Are you for real?  Your genuine response to this issue is to suggest that poor people only have sexless relationships unless they want a child?  And you live in a reality where you think that can and should happen?
> 
> And if they are forced to carry the baby to term and can't afford to feed the child, that comes out of the pockets of everyone, at a cost far greater than that of an abortion or morning after pill (if you're the kind of nut that considers that abortion)?  Or we just let it starve to death?
> 
> Maybe when someone crashes their car or falls off their bike and needs a trip to the A&E they should be denied medical treatment for that as well, to 'teach them a lesson'.



What kind of world do we live in where a person doesn't take responsibility for their actions?

Last I checked, people don't prep before they get into an accident. Can the same be said with sex before climax? I think not. If you're going to have sex, then take responsibility for what comes about because of it. Tax payers are the ones that have been funding these "government-aided" abortions (where else does the money come from?), but at least it is a good cause for [censored] victims. Why should my tax dollars go towards abortions for consenting couples that made the choice to engage in intercourse? Bad enough my tax dollars end up in the hands of politicians.

My bro-in-law gave me this link, and I found it to be a good watch, which involves abortion in comparison to the Holocaust. http://180movie.com/

Lat but not least, if you expect the government to provide for you (such as free abortion for anyone), then expect government to make the choices for you (much like a parent to their dependent children). Is that what you want?


----------



## thisismyname (Aug 21, 2012)

@[member='Just Another Gamer']

people literally.....LITERALLY(!) HAVE INFINITE CHOICES.......at any given moment.
You failed to show how that means.....anything.

"Seriously"....yes, more serious than you I guess...unless you think baby humans come from germs on your hands.
WHOOBOY I am not ready to help you with that one....there are books though.


----------



## emigre (Aug 21, 2012)

America really does astound me with the obsession on abortion the amercian political circle have on the issue. Having an occasional vote on abortion is one thing but the 'discussion' of abortion in America is really something else.

I'm Pro-choice. The woman should be the one who makes the decision. It's her body and her rights are the ones that should remain supreme. A fetus isn't a human being. Imposing illegality or limitation on abortion based on your own individual moral system is horribly wrong.

@[member='DiscostewSM'], what about couples who find themselves pregnant despite using contraception? I mentioned this already, no contraception in 100%. I believe people should be prepared but unfortunately things don't always go to plan. Should they be allowed state povision of abortion because they did the right thing but the contraception failed.



> Lat but not least, if you expect the government to provide for you (such as free abortion for anyone), then expect government to make the choices for you (much like a parent to their dependent children). Is that what you want?



State provision of services doesn't equal to a state making decisions for you. This may shock you, but a number of Western European nations (and a number across the globe) provide free abortion and funnily enough there isn't much to suggest the state makes the decision to abort for you. I KNOW, SO SURPRISING!


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Aug 21, 2012)

thisismyname said:


> @[member='Just Another Gamer']
> 
> people literally.....LITERALLY(!) HAVE INFINITE CHOICES.......at any given moment.
> You failed to show how that means.....anything.
> ...


Yes people have choices and just because someone CHOOSES to have an abortion its suddenly wrong because you disagree with it? if anything they probably made a better choice so they can actually live their life and then have children when they WANT to. See I used the word WANT not FORCED.

No one thinks babies from from germs on the hands but you kill germs and cells everyday and how is that any different from getting an abortion? Your just killing cells in the end so whats the actual difference? Seriously women CHOSE to have an abortion they weren't forced at gunpoint otherwise thats wrong, this attitude that abortion is wrong is just ridiculous and just plain childish.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 21, 2012)

Now, this is leading me into the territory of no abortion whatsoever, though I already made my stance on raped victims.

So it is the mother's choice about the abortion? What about Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor from the attempt of her mother, and the many others who survived abortion? Where was their choice to live? Why should they suffer with the ailments and disabilities that came about because of the attempted abortion?


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 21, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> What kind of world do we live in where a person doesn't take responsibility for their actions?
> 
> Last I checked, people don't prep before they get into an accident. Can the same be said with sex before climax? I think not. If you're going to have sex, then take responsibility for what comes about because of it.



Yes, people do prep before accidents.  People put on a helmet, they wear a seatbelt.  Sometimes they still get injured.  Sometimes people go for a drive not out of necessity, but for simple evil, wicked self gratification, often with another sick sinner doing it for the same reason. People take precautions during sex, but sometimes contraceptives fail.  Sometimes people get into a crash and they weren't wearing a seatbelt, but we don't try and work this out before treating them to decide if they need to be taught a lesson for it.



> My bro-in-law gave me this link, and I found it to be a good watch, which involves abortion in comparison to the Holocaust. http://180movie.com/



Cool, presumably if you manage to outlaw abortion in the US you're going to be all for invading all these other countries where this 'holocaust' is still going on?  After all, the morning after pill is just like gassing an actual person in an oven, and I don't think anyone would disagree that military action was justified in WW2.  So if it's equivalent, you'd better sign up for the war and get ready to save those 'babies'


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Aug 21, 2012)

Same could be said about the women who didn't want to be pregnant regardless of situation. Did they want to be pregnant in the first place? Why should they have to go through with the birth and have a child when they aren't ready for it? So its suddenly okay for those women to give birth and then struggle to live because they have to raise a child as well as support themselves?


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 21, 2012)

A contraceptive is a prevention method "before" fertilization, not "after". That is why I have no problems with those.

And the "lesson to be taught" doesn't have to be by denying service. It is easily put into the form of medical and insurance bills.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 21, 2012)

thisismyname said:


> Not sure anyone would notice me looking like an idiot; you've kind of stolen the show.
> Take a day and come back with some real arguments (or insults--- I guess is what we're doing now?)
> 
> I don't have a problem with where you stand on killing living human beings; so if you don't have a problem with your own stance, then there's really no problem.
> ...



A microscopic collection of cells is not a human being, unless you consider clipping your toenails to also be murder.

If abortion is murder, is murder, why do anti-choicers only ever show photos of the tiny percentage of abortions which occur late term?  Why not show the majority which are microscopic and say "LOOK AT THIS DEAD BABY"?

Because, again, no-one really thinks abortion is 'murder' equivalent to shooting a 5 year old.  Start asking people who repeat the 'baby killing' soundbite what sentence a mother should get if she has an abortion (I'm presuming miscarriages will have to be investigated as well, to ensure nothing was done to encourage it) and they suddenly have great difficulty answering.


----------



## emigre (Aug 21, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> So it is the mother's choice about the abortion? What about Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor from the attempt of her mother, and the many others who survived abortion? Where was their choice to live? Why should they suffer with the ailments and disabilities that came about because of the attempted abortion?



That's why you implement a criteria on when the abortion can occur. I'm not proclaiming an extreme view, a foetus isn't a living being but it can develop into one. And when it does, a limit is placed upon when abortion can occur. Jesson's abortion occurred at 30 weeks from what I understand. Actual limits on abortion usually occurs earlier than that. In the UK, it's presently 24 weeks (meeting certain criteria).  I'm not proclaiming an abortion-for-all at any time. But freely available abortions for women within a medically accepted time period.

Also wonderful attempt at emotional hyperbole.

EDIT: Would you answer the question of what women should do if the contraception fails?


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 21, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> A contraceptive is a prevention method "before" fertilization, not "after". That is why I have no problems with those.
> 
> And the "lesson to be taught" doesn't have to be by denying service. It is easily put into the form of medical and insurance bills.



If you don't have money, it's denying service.  You may not have the money now, but then pay money into the tax system for 40 years from a later date.  Then what do you say "Oh, you can have an abortion now, now you don't need one."?

How can you have 'no problem' with contraception when you want people who use them to be 'taught a lesson' when they fail?


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 21, 2012)

Just Another Gamer said:


> Same could be said about the women who didn't want to be pregnant regardless of situation. Did they want to be pregnant in the first place? Why should they have to go through with the birth and have a child when they aren't ready for it? So its suddenly okay for those women to give birth and then struggle to live because they have to raise a child as well as support themselves?



"I want to have sex, but I don't want to be pregnant" Is this the kind of thinking people have nowadays when they know that sex can lead to pregnancy?


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 21, 2012)

"I'm going to get into a car, even though it know that even if I'm careful it can lead to being in a car crash." 

I'm still waiting for exactly when you start the invasion of all these countries committing 'holocausts' like Norway, Scotland, Israel (where being 16 means abortions are always approved). Not places like Iran though. Those dudes are super moral when it comes to women's health.


----------



## Just Another Gamer (Aug 21, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Just Another Gamer said:
> 
> 
> > Same could be said about the women who didn't want to be pregnant regardless of situation. Did they want to be pregnant in the first place? Why should they have to go through with the birth and have a child when they aren't ready for it? So its suddenly okay for those women to give birth and then struggle to live because they have to raise a child as well as support themselves?
> ...


People use contraception and protection but even that isn't 100% effective like others have said and yet people expect that a fetus that came about as an accident has more rights than the woman who is currently the one that is pregnant and has a choice to either grow the fetus and have the baby or just get rid of that bunch of cells so they can move on with their life. Wow, just wow.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 21, 2012)

emigre said:


> EDIT: Would you answer the question of what women should do if the contraception fails?



Doesn't using a contraceptive come with the knowledge that it isn't 100% reliable? Everyone takes risks, but it seems many feel that their "risk" shouldn't be taken out on themselves when they get unlucky. That seems to be the consensus nowadays.


----------



## thisismyname (Aug 21, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Now, this is leading me into the territory of no abortion whatsoever, though I already made my stance on raped victims.
> 
> So it is the mother's choice about the abortion? What about Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor from the attempt of her mother, and the many others who survived abortion? Where was their choice to live? Why should they suffer with the ailments and disabilities that came about because of the attempted abortion?




History has shown that the sad result is that any group that has ever been considered notoriously victimized (in this case, "women," as a social group) just gets some arbitrarily large number of free passes to victimize some dehumanized "others," until that group amasses enough sympathy that the cycle starts over with them. We've enabled that. Not sure how that will work out with unborns though; they're not good at victimizing others.
@[member='BlueStar']
.....and also, to all those out there who think babies can come from toenails......that's not right either......
Many people, like me, believe abortion is pretty much exactly like shooting a person. I would give people who did such things the exact same sentence; neither a capital one, btw.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 21, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> "I want to have sex, but I don't want to be pregnant" Is this the kind of thinking people have nowadays when they know that sex can lead to pregnancy?



Given it is quite reasonable/cheap (or possibly even free at the cost of a bit of time) to get yourself into a position to have as much sex as you can handle without there being a reasonable risk of pregnancy is it such an unjustifiable position?


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 21, 2012)

thisismyname said:


> .....and also, to all those out there who think babies can come from toenails......that's not right either......



But they do come from special hugs.
[yt]l4lG4m5kdWM[/yt]


----------



## emigre (Aug 21, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Doesn't using a contraceptive come with the knowledge that it isn't 100% reliable? Everyone takes risks, but it seems many feel that their "risk" shouldn't be taken out on themselves when they get unlucky. That seems to be the consensus nowadays.






DiscostewSM said:


> Take out your own wallet for an abortion that shouldn't have been needed had *one been smart about what they were doing beforehand.*



One post you stating people should think ahead before the intercourse. And if they are smart yet the contraception fails than they should just deal with it?


----------



## thisismyname (Aug 21, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> thisismyname said:
> 
> 
> > .....and also, to all those out there who think babies can come from toenails......that's not right either......
> ...



That...is adorable.


----------



## Minox (Aug 21, 2012)

You know, I really think the answer to this question is quite simple. If you as a person think abortion is murder then if prompted with a situation where you find yourself faced with this question then don't do it.

But please let others make up their minds themselves, nobody likes a preacher.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 21, 2012)

Two consenting adults who chose to have sexual intercourse without protection should be fully prepared to face the consequences of such an act. The only instance in which a government-funded abortion is acceptable is when the pregnancy is a result of [censored] - it's really that simple to me.


----------



## kupo3000 (Aug 21, 2012)

Minox_IX said:


> You know, I really think the answer to this question is quite simple. If you as a person think abortion is murder then if prompted with a situation where you find yourself faced with this question then don't do it.
> 
> But please let others make up their minds themselves, nobody likes a preacher.



Yep, I keep noticing that pro-lifers or anti-choicers rely way too much on black and white POVs.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 21, 2012)

emigre said:


> DiscostewSM said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't using a contraceptive come with the knowledge that it isn't 100% reliable? Everyone takes risks, but it seems many feel that their "risk" shouldn't be taken out on themselves when they get unlucky. That seems to be the consensus nowadays.
> ...



Does a gambler get to keep his money after losing a game of poker, even though the odds were mostly in his favor? Risks are made, and risks are carried out. All in all, you either keep the growth in the womb, or pay for that abortion out of your own pocket. The government is not in the room while you are having sex to have any involvement.


----------



## thisismyname (Aug 21, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Two consenting adults who chose to have sexual intercourse without protection should be fully prepared to face the consequences of such an act. The only instance in which a government-funded abortion is acceptable is when the pregnancy is a result of [censored] - it's really that simple to me.



The fail argument is: "so wait until a trial determines it was [censored]? But they'll have the baby already, omg!"
Simple answer (keeping in mind I don't even support [censored] abortions): Reimbursement program, after-the fact
"ZOMG but poor^[email protected] people can't handle upfront costs"

Ever heard of loans?
"ZOMG haven't you ever been around poor folks, they can't get loans!"

Yes. Yes, they can. I have been around "poor" people...They manage just fine to get a mighty large amount of conspicuous items and monies just fine, while staying poor on paper.

For those that can't....thus is life.


----------



## thisismyname (Aug 21, 2012)

kupo3000 said:


> Yep, I keep noticing that pro-lifers or anti-choicers rely way too much on black and white POVs.



HA! ...pretty easy to make a general sweeping untrue statement instead of presenting an actual argument, I'd bet....kind of like the thread title.


----------



## emigre (Aug 21, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Does a gambler get to keep his money after losing a game of poker, even though the odds were mostly in his favor? Risks are made, and risks are carried out. All in all, you either keep the growth in the womb, or pay for that abortion out of your own pocket. The government is not in the room while you are having sex to have any involvement.



You're not providing a cohesive argument. You criticise those don't make the correct preparations. Yet should someone make those correct preparations, yet finds the contraception fails through no fault of their own, your answer it with effectively 'tough shit.' You're being contradictory because some lassaiz faire attitude about state provision of services.


----------



## thisismyname (Aug 21, 2012)

emigre said:


> DiscostewSM said:
> 
> 
> > Does a gambler get to keep his money after losing a game of poker, even though the odds were mostly in his favor? Risks are made, and risks are carried out. All in all, you either keep the growth in the womb, or pay for that abortion out of your own pocket. The government is not in the room while you are having sex to have any involvement.
> ...



I haven't really followed what you two have been saying, but I definitely think not taking [censored] seriously is terrible, Akin is an idiot, and life IS tough. Do you disagree that unwanted pregnancy may just be a part of "life is tough," that that's a reasonable assertion? I'm just wondering. It seems a lot of people think "this one part of life should be easy, and only happen exactly when you want it to."


----------



## leic7 (Aug 21, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> "I want to have sex, but I don't want to be pregnant" Is this the kind of thinking people have nowadays when they know that sex can lead to pregnancy?


I don't see why they shouldn't think that. Sex is enjoyable, nothing wrong with wanting to practice it regularly, it's not something anyone should feel ashamed about. At the same time, giving birth is not something anyone should casually do if they're not ready to do it. Sex and childbirth are 2 separate things, there's no conflict between enjoying sex and not wanting to be a parent, at all. So to answer your question: yes.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Aug 21, 2012)

well, personally i believe that there should be some more responsibility when it comes to sex these days though. even when playing soccer, you got to play with some responsibility towards the other players and your own health, so why cant people do that for sex?


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 21, 2012)

People can think abortion however they want (since it is their decision, no matter what my stance on it is), but I am only against those that have the idea that the government should be involved in the payment for any and all abortion cases.


----------



## leic7 (Aug 21, 2012)

thisismyname said:


> Do you disagree that unwanted pregnancy may just be a part of "life is tough," that that's a reasonable assertion? I'm just wondering. It seems a lot of people think "this one part of life should be easy, and only happen exactly when you want it to."


Unwanted pregnancy is as much a part of "life is tough" as getting sick is a part of it, but just because "life if tough" doesn't mean that we couldn't do anything to make it a little easier. When people get sick, we don't tell them to just accept their sickness and do nothing, instead we actively try and improve their situation via modern medicine. Why would we tell a woman to just accept an unwanted pregnancy and do nothing, when we could actually do something to improve her situation?


----------



## thisismyname (Aug 21, 2012)

leic7 said:


> thisismyname said:
> 
> 
> > Do you disagree that unwanted pregnancy may just be a part of "life is tough," that that's a reasonable assertion? I'm just wondering. It seems a lot of people think "this one part of life should be easy, and only happen exactly when you want it to."
> ...



....because we already have a million things to help moms.....without killing the unborn.

If it was discovered that drinking the fresh blood of a 25-year-old asian man would instantly cure the common cold...would we support that over plain old cold medicine? You had reasonable arguments before that leic7.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 22, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Now, this is leading me into the territory of no abortion whatsoever, though I already made my stance on raped victims.
> 
> So it is the mother's choice about the abortion? What about Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor from the attempt of her mother, and the many others who survived abortion? Where was their choice to live? Why should they suffer with the ailments and disabilities that came about because of the attempted abortion?



It's unfortunate and demonstrates we need to improve abortion methods and ensure they're carried out early.  I could counter with cases of women killed or injured by unsafe abortions they've had to turn to due to abortion restrictions. I'm not pro-abortion.  I think it's a bad thing and I think that in the vast majority of cases it's not taken lightly.  But I also don't think the government can force people, either through withholding medical treatment (I'm not sure how it is over there, but in most cases goverment funded abortion is only approved when it's believed to be in the best medical interests of the mother, including mental health) or banning it outright to force someone to risk their life for 9 months to turn every potential human into an actual human.  I don't think people should be forced by the government to donate bone marrow or a kidney either.

I also don't believe the pro-life mob are about 'saving babies', it's about punishing sex - something you've slipped into occasionally.  If it was about saving babies the same group would be pushing for greater access to contraception and sex education, when the opposite is the case.  It's about having a government so 'small' that it fits into your vagina.

As for 'I have a moral objection to this, the government can't spend my taxes on it' that never seems to be the case with government spending on lethal injections or missiles. 

Would you be ok with charities paying for the abortions of the poor, as opposed to the government directly? 

@thisismyname (Is this your first account?  Seems strange that someone would sign up for a gaming website just to argue about abortion)


> Do you have a surefire way to negate the potentially life-changing consequences of a car crash?
> 
> BY GOD YOU'LL BE RICH!!



Do you, apart from the one I've mentioned, never ever get into a car?  Just to be sure I get your reasoning, you think abortion should be illegal even to save the life of the mother, in cases of child abuse and [censored]?


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 22, 2012)

thisismyname said:


> The fail argument is: "so wait until a trial determines it was [censored]? But they'll have the baby already, omg!"
> Simple answer (keeping in mind I don't even support [censored] abortions): Reimbursement program, after-the fact
> "ZOMG but poor^[email protected] people can't handle upfront costs"
> 
> ...



So you get a 'baby killing coupon' (I thought you were against the _'killing of babies'?_), but if you can't find the rapist, they don't get proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt or whatever then you suddenly end up with a huge bill?

You've not really thought this through, have you.


----------



## leic7 (Aug 22, 2012)

thisismyname said:


> leic7 said:
> 
> 
> > thisismyname said:
> ...



No, when someone doesn't want her pregnancy when she's already pregnant, there are really only 2 options for her:
a. stop the pregnancy
b. keep the pregnancy

Those two are mutually exclusive events with a probability sum equal to 1. She has to choose one to the exclusion of another. When a person clearly does not want (b), (a) is her only choice; there is no other choice. If she could not get (a), she would be stuck with (b), against her wish.

As a society, we really cannot justify forcing people to keep their pregnancies and keep their bodies in a certain shape in order to keep the bunch of cells growing *inside* their bodies. Pregnancy is such an intimate bodily function that it has to be a voluntary one, not just at the point of conception, but throughout the entire duration of the pregnancy.

The cells that are developing inside a person, literally, and consuming nutrients from their host, are not a person. A 25-year-old man is a person, a pregnant woman is a person, so is a 1-day-old baby; but a sperm cell is not a person, an egg cell is not a person, a zygote is not a person, neither is an embryo. As far as I'm concerned, a person does not live literally *inside* another person.


----------



## Gahars (Aug 22, 2012)

Not to throw fuel into the fire, but...

Rep. Steve King: I've Never Heard of a Girl Getting Pregnant From Statutory Rape or Incest


----------



## Hells Malice (Aug 22, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Not to throw fuel into the fire, but...
> 
> Rep. Steve King: I've Never Heard of a Girl Getting Pregnant From Statutory [censored] or Incest



Link got censored, lol. Miiight have wanted to change the link name

Anyway, what's with all the ignorant white bumpkins talking about [censored] and pregnancy lately? It's a lot more sad than it is funny.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Aug 22, 2012)

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/steve-king-statutory-rape.php?ref=fpb

A reposting of the link since I'm exempt from the "censored" thing.


----------



## Issac (Aug 22, 2012)

leic7 said:


> thisismyname said:
> 
> 
> > leic7 said:
> ...



I agree with most part of your comment, except for this bolded part. In sweden abortion is legal. Though only within 18 weeks. 19th pregnancy week = you have to keep it.
Now, that little "sperm cell" has a heart which starts to beat of its own after 6 weeks.and around 9 weeks it looks like a human baby. I would feel uneasy not calling that a person, something with eyes, a brain, a beating heart.. However, a woman should be able to choose for her self! 18 weeks is quite far in my eyes, but still alright. I rather those who realise they're pregnant to terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible if they don't intend to keep it.


----------



## leic7 (Aug 22, 2012)

Issac said:


> leic7 said:
> 
> 
> > thisismyname said:
> ...



Yeah obviously the sooner you do it, the better. I would feel awful seeing a miniature baby get aborted, but still. A person should have full authority over their own body. If they don't, what it means in the context of abortion is that their pregnancy would be involuntary. Involuntary pregnancy, and the subsequent involuntary labour and childbirth, are just as bad as slavery.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 23, 2012)

After reading a few posts in this thread I had to shake my head and sigh - there are numerous reasons why abortion is not always the answer, but I'll start from the top.

There are numerous ways two consenting people can make sure they are safe as far as intercourse is concerned, ranging from the most basic like condoms (for men), cervical caps, diaphragms (for women) and so-on to the more elaborate, like long-term implants (usually made of precious metals) - those are the _physical contraception_ methods. Their prices vary, but I sincerely doubt that anyone might not be able to afford even the cheapest of condoms - they're not dear and they're available in nearly every convenience store.

Next there are the contraception pills. Originally quite expensive, as time passed, their prices went down and nowadays you can easily find a monthly set for nearly the same price you'd pay for a pack of condoms. They won't protect you from S.T.D's, but let's assume that the partners are clean and trust eachother in that regard. There are also sprays and foaming capsules if you want to further ensure that the male's seed won't make it to the egg, and although they're not effective enough as a stand-alone contraception method, they further enhance your security while you're using other methods. These are the _chemical and hormonal contraception methods._

Now, let's assume that the worst had happened - a woman forgot to take her pill, the condom broke, all protection methods failed - fear not, there's yet another option. A fertilized egg travels quite a distance before it reaches the womb and nests within it. During this process, it is still in a non-developing, "sleeping" state. This journey plus the proper nesting process take aprox. 3 days (72 hours). During that time, a woman may choose to take a "Morning-After" pill (or pill set - they come in many varieties) - this will trigger her body to discard the lining of her womb and block the nesting process, ultimately preventing pregnancy as well. It's not a contraception method, but let's call it the _"safety buoy"_ for those who forgot to stay safe for whatever reasons.

With all those methods available, I deduce that if a woman becomes pregnant after a consentual sexual act... it's her problem. I'm not even being sexist here - both partners had a myriad of options to choose from and refused to use them. Instead, they chose to leave nature's business to dumb luck and cross their fingers, _hoping_ that the woman won't get pregnant. As we already know, _hope_ is not a good contraception.

Now, it's time to face the important questions. _Do I think that abortions should be performed at all? _Yes, I believe so, but only in extreme cases such as [censored] and only in early stages of the pregnancy. Once the soon-to-be fetus develops its first organs, it's too late. It's a human being that has no means of defense, and if the state has to step in to defend it then so be it. The only instance where abortion should be performed regardless of the stage of pregnancy is when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman in question, but even then, it should ultimately be her choice as it's her life that's at stake.

_What about all those women who became pregnant due to their or their partner's negligence? Tough_. The couples in question should face the consequences of what they've done - you have intercourse without protection and you get pregnant, the wheel of life turns. I'm not saying that they have to raise the baby - by no means! There are hundreds, thousands of couples who cannot have children at all, they would really treat a newborn like a blessing.

Why should I care, and more importantly, pay for abortions that are againts what I believe in? _"I wasn't careful with my boyfriend, so hey! I know! I'll have an abortion! After all, it's not a baby if it's not out yet, right?" - wrong_. I don't think I should be worrying about someone else's _pregnancy out of negligence_ - I did _nothing _to cause it.

I don't want to point at people, but certain members of this community think that _"unwanted pregnancy is as much a sickness as any other" - _I just want to say that I find this statement _disgusting._ Pregnancy is a bodily function, pregnancy is _normal. _People aren't asking to become sick - they just become sick due to circumstances beyond their control. _Consentual intercourse is well-within everyone's control_ and putting an equating _pregnancy with common influenza_ is stretching the line _way too far_.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 23, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> With all those methods available, I deduce that if a woman becomes pregnant after a consentual sexual act... it's her problem. I'm not even being sexist here - both partners had a myriad of options to choose from and refused to use them. Instead, they chose to leave nature's business to dumb luck and cross their fingers, _hoping_ that the woman won't get pregnant. As we already know, _hope_ is not a good contraception.
> 
> Now, it's time to face the important questions. _Do I think that abortions should be performed at all? _Yes, I believe so, but only in extreme cases such as [censored] and only in early stages of the pregnancy. Once the soon-to-be fetus develops its first organs, it's too late. It's a human being that has no means of defense, and if the state has to step in to defend it then so be it. The only instance where abortion should be performed regardless of the stage of pregnancy is when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman in question, but even then, it should ultimately be her choice as it's her life that's at stake.
> 
> ...


My posting probably counts as continuing a topic that had run a course and was beginning to falter.

No qualms with the present incarnation of your options and methods (hence their being chopped)- there are some minor discussion points later (not sure about the last few years but the UK did not care for spermicide for the longest time where in the US at least it was common) and I should note condoms are free to anyone that wanders into a sexual health clinic in the UK among other places (schools and universities will also have things here). What I will posit is some of the chemical methods are quite far reaching with the end result being the foetus being broken down into chemicals and reabsorbed- how might this figure into things?

"When it develops organs"..... if that is your stance then fair enough and I am far too lazy right not to look up the human foetus development chart to reconcile development phases/times with accepted times for various types of abortions but I do have to note it is but your opinion which will probably alter the weight it can carry depending upon the situation. I can certainly see where philosophical issues might arise between abortions being performed at one stage yet with serious medical intervention there is chance that someone could survive at the same stage but that is an adjunct discussion at best.

"Tough [you get to carry it through]". Adoption and such is certainly a viable option but assuming the square bracketed text is accurate I would find that objectionable both on a general philosophical/game playing level (you have a quick, easy and relatively hassle free option and you are choosing the hard method?) and I will go further and say something like then the several months it will realistically cost the would be mother and related support networks are not inconsiderable (even immediate adoption will probably see some maternity leave happen).

"_"unwanted pregnancy is as much a sickness as any other" - _.... I just want to say that I find this statement disgusting"
Far be it for me to interpret the words of another but I would argue it could be read as seen as it is a problem for some that is potentially solved by medical science (be it the results of it or people practising it). Pregnancy is certainly a natural state but it will have a decided impact on lifestyle as mentioned in the previous paragraph and although it is often forgotten medicine is there to improve quality of life as well as make sure you carry on as close to breathing/a normal state should you so desire/for as long as possible. Likewise there are occasions being sick is beyond the control of the person that gets sick but it is not clear cut (see also health and injury insurance rates variation according to activity for a basic one and take to it further I will look at something like teeth- your gnashers might be fine but for at least partially aesthetic reasons braces might be an idea or even come the other way and ponder if not having a completely healthy diet plus exercise plus whatever might trouble something somewhere) which means we have a spectrum rather than a binary classification and as such people can fall along it. Carrying on from that pregnancy is not the only potentially negative outcome of sexual activity and I fail to see a logical leap between denying someone an abortion (time issues aside in the case of purely socio economic reasons) and denying them assistance with a STD/STI/VD/[insert current acronym/initialism de jour] if indeed the object of medical care* is quality of life. As for the phrase I could agree the phrasing itself was not very choice unless it was picked so as to be succinct in which case I might have to say success.

*given everybody living will interact with medical care at some level I probably want a better term but something like "wellbeing management" seems somewhat akin to manglement speak.

I suppose in the end in it a matter of philosophy on what constitutes life, what constitutes viable life/what is a useful abstraction, what is justifiable as far as preventing things from going further, what possible modifiers there are (geography, resources, state of science.....) and assigning/determining value. Given that for each of those there possibility for near endless debate before it even comes to attempting to wring a universal philosophy from it.


----------



## leic7 (Aug 23, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't want to point at people, but certain members of this community think that _"unwanted pregnancy is as much a sickness as any other" - _I just want to say that I find this statement _disgusting._ Pregnancy is a bodily function, pregnancy is _normal. _People aren't asking to become sick - they just become sick due to circumstances beyond their control. _Consentual intercourse is well-within everyone's control_ and putting an equating _pregnancy with common influenza_ is stretching the line _way too far_.



I may be the one who used the words "unwanted pregnancy" and "sickness" within the same paragraph, but that doesn't mean there's an implied equivalence between them. I never said nor implied an unwanted pregnancy was a "sickness" in my original analogy. Why are you getting all indignant over nothing?

If someone doesn't want the pregnancy, she obviously didn't ask for it. Whether you think her situation could've been preventable is irrelevant. It is what it is now, and that's what matters. If a smoker gets lung cancer, if a drunk driver gets hurt, if someone catches pneumonia after being out in the cold without a jacket, if someone who doesn't know how to swim goes on a boat without a life jacket, and drowns... Do we help them? In Canada, yes we do, with public funding. I would never say because I did nothing to cause their suffering, they should either pay out of their own pockets, or continue to suffer. Could any of those situations have been preventable? That's irrelevant. What's done is done. Let's focus on helping people who need help now.

There's something I don't know how to stress enough: the importance of a person's right to their bodily integrity. I think it's absolutely paramount that a person be able to retain full control over their bodily integrity, that this control should override even the right to life of another human being. So the life of the fetus, even if you do consider it a person, takes a backseat to the right of the woman to maintain her bodily integrity. Why is the right to maintain one's bodily integrity paramount? If it wasn't, the state could forcibly take anyone's kidney, bone marrow, blood, etc. in order to save another person's life, without the donor's consent. But we can't do that, even if you're the only match for them, and your refusal would lead to their certain death; we'd still honour your wish, simply because that's your body, your call.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 23, 2012)

leic7 said:


> I may be the one who used the words "unwanted pregnancy" and "sickness" within the same paragraph, but that doesn't mean there's an implied equivalence between them. I never said nor implied an unwanted pregnancy was a "sickness" in my original analogy. Why are you getting all indignant over nothing?


That's simply how I understood the statement - if that was not your point, fair enough, but that's how it came across to me.





> If someone doesn't want the pregnancy, she obviously didn't ask for it. Whether you think her situation could've been preventable is irrelevant. It is what it is now, and that's what matters. If a smoker gets lung cancer, if a drunk driver gets hurt, if someone catches pneumonia after being out in the cold without a jacket, if someone who doesn't know how to swim goes on a boat without a life jacket, and drowns... Do we help them? In Canada, yes we do, with public funding. I would never say because I did nothing to cause their suffering, they should either pay out of their own pockets, or continue to suffer. Could any of those situations have been preventable? That's irrelevant. What's done is done. Let's focus on helping people who need help now.


I think you're mistaking a direct consequence of someone's actions and accidents and illnesses. If a smoker gets lung cancer, that's an actual life-threatening sickness. It may be a consequence of the smoking but it doesn't necesarily have to be connected with it, but that's besides the point - the treatment is beneficial to the patient's health. Unwanted pregnancy, is not an illness, it's not life-threatening - it doesn't have to be _"treated"_, it's simply _unwanted _and that makes a huge difference. If someone catches pneumonia after being in the cold without a jacket, again, he catches an actual illness. Pregnancy is not an illness, it's a bodily function. If someone starts drowning because he or she had no life jacket on him or her, it was irresponsible to go swimming or sailing, but again, a life is at stake here. In case of pregnancy, there are two lives at stake, which is why abortion _"just because I didn't feel like making sure I was safe"_ should not be legal. A fetus is not a pimple, you can't just pluck it out and get on with your life - it's a developing human being and if you didn't want it in the first place, you had more than enough options to prevent your pregnancy. Doctors vow to first and foremost not harm patients, and abortion is harmful - to the developing fetus and in some cases to the mother as well.





> There's something I don't know how to stress enough: the importance of a person's right to their bodily integrity. I think it's absolutely paramount that a person be able to retain full control over their bodily integrity, that this control should override even the right to life of another human being.


So, let's say that you have siamese sisters or brothers who share vital life organs and their separation would mean that one of them dies. What do you do then? It's the exact same relation - you have two human beings and one of them has to die for the sake of the other, right? Wrong. Hardly any doctor would agree to perform surgery in such a case as it spells a death sentence to one of the twins, yet when there's a mother and her unborn child, people are quick to simply scoop up the fetus. How come? Because it cannot speak for itself yet?





> So the life of the fetus, even if you do consider it a person, takes a backseat to the right of the woman to maintain her bodily integrity. Why is the right to maintain one's bodily integrity paramount? If it wasn't, the state could forcibly take anyone's kidney, bone marrow, blood, etc. in order to save another person's life, without the donor's consent. But we can't do that, even if you're the only match for them, and your refusal would lead to their certain death; we'd still honour your wish, simply because that's your body, your call.


It's nothing like that situation at all - the patient and the would-be donor do not share a mutual relation like the mother and the fetus do. You're boldly talking about the bodily integrity of a woman completely forgetting about the bodily integrity of the unborn child - you value one life higher than the other, that's a logical fallacy, life is life. Once the embryo turns into a proper fetus and becomes an entity separate from the mother entirely and only connected to her via the womb and the cord, you should consider it as a separate person because that's who it is in biological terms. As I said, if the pregnancy was not wanted, the mother had time before the fetus was formed - why didn't she use that time to take a "Morning-After"? Why didn't she think ahead and protect herself from unwanted pregnancy? Why didn't her partner do it? The couple is at fault and the couple should deal with it - you're shifting the responsibility for their actions from themselves onto the doctors when they had all the chances to prevent their "predicament" from happening.

I'm anti-abortion (on-demand, not when it's necessary for health-related reasons or in case of [censored], where it could cause further psychological trauma), I'm pro education. Teens should be properly taught about how to prevent unwanted pregnancy, contraception should be widely available and affordable and every clinic should have a "safety window" where mothers can leave their "unwanted children" - I choose that option over practically murder for the sake of someone's comfort.



FAST6191 said:


> My posting probably counts as continuing a topic that had run a course and was beginning to falter.
> 
> No qualms with the present incarnation of your options and methods (hence their being chopped)- there are some minor discussion points later (not sure about the last few years but the UK did not care for spermicide for the longest time where in the US at least it was common) and I should note condoms are free to anyone that wanders into a sexual health clinic in the UK among other places (schools and universities will also have things here). What I will posit is some of the chemical methods are quite far reaching with the end result being the foetus being broken down into chemicals and reabsorbed- how might this figure into things?
> 
> ...


I agree, it is a never-ending debate. It really is simple to me though - pregnancy is not an STD, it's not an illness and requires no "treatment" - it's not something that's broken in your body - it's a natural consequence of sexual intercourse and the resulting "life" should be treated with utmost respect - the same level of respect the mother recieves. People carry on saying that doctors are all about "improving the quality of life" - to me, they're all about tending to the sick and protecting life. I'm just glad that the thread didn't magically turn into a flamewar, really. It's an interesting discussion and I'm glad it's on an appropriate intellectual level so-far.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 23, 2012)

I keep hearing "what about life-threatening pregnancies? Shouldn't that allow abortion?" (I'm still speaking about government-funded abortions)

At what stage of the pregnancy does one know whether their pregnancy can be life-threatening? Answer - It can be as early as *before* conception ever takes place. The main ones are life-styles and health. If one lives unhealthily, and gets pregnant, do you think one should be allowed to get an abortion via government funds because they chose even before sex to put themselves at risk? If a woman goes to the doctor, finds out there are risks with her in particular if she gets pregnant, yet does the nasty and gets pregnant anyways even with all available pregnancy prevention methods, does she get a free pass with the government? What if she doesn't go to the doctor to know about the risks if any and the same scenario happens? Free ticket there? We live in an age where knowledge is at a person's fingertips. If a person isn't willing to look things up before engaging in anything, why should they be an exception? Why should ignorance be a passable mindset?


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 23, 2012)

Agreed that certain risk factors can be determined very early on (both through tests and family history) and before going on I should note that neither of us appear to be that well versed in obstetrics and gynaecology or related fields so debating this will probably end up amusing to ones versed in such fields. Stil I will note one of the most common issues is ectopic pregnancy (umbilical cord attaching to a fallopian tube as opposed to the uterus and crazily risky to all involved) which naturally can not be determined prior to getting pregnant (and given it can be some time from actually being pregnant to being ultrasounded.....). Similarly most modern medics will refrain from blanket statements and will instead say something like if you get pregnant you with your biology are at risk of (diabetes, hypertension, stroke.....) but prediction is hard and when maladies are combined it can turn quite easily from "we will need to keep an eye on that at each checkup" to "you will need to take these pills" to "you will need to do the whole bedrest thing until you give birth" to "get me an operating room this instant". Furthermore you also have probabilistic things like those maladies associated with recessive genes (historically spina bifida although some stuff is happening there through to things like downs, sickle cell and going through to things like deafness*) and things the mother getting illnesses during pregnancy (pregnant but then diagnosed with cancer or possibility of transmission of a disease to the foetus).

*there was actually a debate in the past where deaf parents sought to create a deaf child and on the flip side how far autism might go in the event of a test for it (it is a spectrum disorder but even in the very much not so functional area some interesting things have happened) but that also involved discussion of IVF techniques to attempt to cause it (up to and including inducing multiple pregnancy and selectively aborting) so again probably warrants a different discussion.

Likewise there are also issues like partially detached umbilical cord which is risky for all parties and could be solves either by aborting (in many ways the cheaper, easier and less risky/invasive procedure) and proper surgery in an attempt to reattach it to say nothing of the halfway station of aborting but still needing surgery for the sake of the would be mother and "we will try but if we deem it"- what goes here?

For giggles I will come the other way and note that carrying multiple foetuses can also pose a lot of problems for both the person carrying the foetuses and the other foetuses involved so terminating one can give the other a chance to survive. For further giggles biology itself will often see one of multiple foetuses terminated during pregnancy (see also chimerism and "Siamese" twins) and theoretically you probably could catch it and prevent it happening.

With the exception of the further giggles sentence and maybe some of the cancer stuff and the "Siamese twins" none of those are a "once or twice in a career"/"we are going to need to call in a further specialist" sort of thing probably even at the GP/midwife level and certainly not at the specialist level.

To top it all or perhaps something that will render the rest of this post so much extra food for thought where I might be inclined to possibly entertain the "you screwed up now deal with it debate" aka the merits of socio economic abortion at some level and there are more eminently debatable aspects of abortion procedure (timings and such) how would you answer a charge of denying potentially knowable conditions prior is no different to denying basic emergency care? It gets tricky as it then involves what level of medical care if afforded as a basic human right and/or reconciling it with healthcare systems of a country but my contention would still be "got a potentially viable medical reason- come on in" even if I were to sideline everything else.

Short version- you tried to make a blanket statement of a sort and I am calling you on it.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 23, 2012)

emigre said:


> A fetus isn't a human being.



That's what it boils down to, isn't it? Whether you agree with this statement, or not. Because if you don't agree that a fetus isn't a human being, then abortion is clearly intentional, cold-blooded, self-serving murder. And if you think a fetus (which is not "two cells" as someone put it, but by the time most abortions are performed has a face, ten fingers, ten toes, etc.) is not a human being, then what is it exactly?? Does it really matter if it's not "viable" yet, i.e. able to live outside the mother's body? The mother's body is, functionally, just an incubator, a life support mechanism. Is an unconscious old person on life support not a human being? 

I have raised three children - adopted one and the biological father of two. During both pregnancies I have felt my babies' feet and hands push and kick, felt their bodies twist around ... they're definitely alive in there. One time after rubbing cocoa butter all over my wife's stomach (supposed to protect against stretch marks) I could make out the profile of my daughter's entire body through the skin ... for just a moment, cuz then she moved a bit and I couldn't see it anymore. Needed to get more comfortable, I guess. 





Yumi said:


> Wow, what an idiot.
> 
> Abortion should be legal (since the beginning of time). But many will think it's wrong. Why? Could be morals, religion views, etc.



Oh, I dunno ... maybe it's the ripped-to-pieces human baby corpse in the trash that they find objectionable?



I have a hard time with this issue, because I don't just take one political party's side and rationalize my mind into agreeing. I've thought hard about it, for many years of my life. But believe it or not, despite what I wrote above, I am of the opinion that abortion should be legal. Legal, but not treated as a non-event or 'just a medical procedure.' It should be STRONGLY discouraged, because it is a killing, period. I don't know how it is that we've come to the point as a society that we can digest millions of purposefully terminated babies a year and treat it as nothing, but that is where we are. Still, I am pretty much a libertarian when you get right down to my core beliefs and I don't want the government involved. And that's that.


----------



## Haloman800 (Aug 24, 2012)

I hope everybody realizes that 1 member of *ANY* organization does _not_ speak for the entire party, or in this case, _any_ of the rest of the organization. I would also like to mention that the man who made the claims retracted his statements later and apologized.

Now, I'm not going to make any comments on [censored], but abortion is wrong. It is murdering an unborn child. Just because he/she can't defend themselves does not make it right. A child in the womb can develop a heartbeat as early as 6 weeks.

I find it funny that liberals thing it's okay to murder innocent babies but they think it's wrong to murder guilty, hardened, murderous, criminals.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Aug 24, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> I hope everybody realizes that 1 member of *ANY* organization does _not_ speak for the entire party, or in this case, _any_ of the rest of the organization. I would also like to mention that the man who made the claims retracted his statements later and apologized.
> 
> Now, I'm not going to make any comments on [censored], but abortion is wrong. It is murdering an unborn child. Just because he/she can't defend themselves does not make it right. A child in the womb can develop a heartbeat as early as 6 weeks.
> 
> I find it funny that liberals thing it's okay to murder innocent babies but they think it's wrong to murder guilty, hardened, murderous, criminals.



Yeah, well...I'm all for voluntary euthanasia of the elderly and terminal patients, so what's that say about me?


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 24, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> Yeah, well...I'm all for voluntary euthanasia of the elderly and terminal patients, so what's that say about me?



Not much of anything when it comes to this issue ... a conscious decision to terminate one's self is not the same as a conscious decision to terminate another.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Aug 24, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> TwinRetro said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, well...I'm all for voluntary euthanasia of the elderly and terminal patients, so what's that say about me?
> ...



And as said before in this topic, there really is no straight answer, unless you can set a solid definition of what makes a human...well, human. What is the line between a person, and what's not a person? And for that matter, what right is it for any one person to define it? This might very well be an issue that's debated about and legislated on for decades to come.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 24, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > TwinRetro said:
> ...




Well, just like dogs reproduce more dogs and nothing else, cats reproduce more cats and nothing else, flowers reproduce more flowers, etc etc. so unless somehow we are different from this pattern, isn't it safe to say that humans reproduce more humans? What is in the womb of a human is human and can't be anything else.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 24, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> TwinRetro said:
> 
> 
> > And as said before in this topic, there really is no straight answer, unless you can set a solid definition of what makes a human...well, human. What is the line between a person, and what's not a person? And for that matter, what right is it for any one person to define it? This might very well be an issue that's debated about and legislated on for decades to come.
> ...



Strictly speaking evolution dictates speciation tends to happen with the only reason for it not to happen to a species being that it went extinct. This means humans will not always produce more humans and indeed present humans may produce none or infertile offspring with a distant ancestor. There was also that whole debate about introducing long* human gene sequences to other things or introducing long sequences to another.

*do we then have the debate of what constitutes long sequences- all DNA is C, T, A and G arranged in pairs and chemically identical so is removing a section of 6 base pairs from a human sample functionally any different from another sample?

Likewise the argument that waving my arm through the air means a couple of molecules of Nitrogen, oxygen, carbon.... will never meet and as such could form a human life is a bit out there but life in the form of viruses and bacteria ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/21cell.html?_r=1 ) has been created in a lab and the basic model of scientific progress (Moore's law in silicon and the rate of mapping of the human genome and the equivalent string assembly for genes) means it may well be possible to produce a human within our lifetimes effectively from dust. Similarly there was a mouse being altered to produce sperm for another species (in this case monkeys) and some work producing sperm from stem cells and what about stuff like mitochondrial transplantation- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7227861.stm (a human with three biological parents).

Beyond science is awesome though you are coming up on the debate others have been having- at what point is human life formed? Is it
a sperm and an egg separately? Some philosophies and such take issue here and will try to get their followers to not use contraception but likewise where does that sit with less than stellar methods (rhythm method or plain earning one's red wings/timing accordingly)?
a fertilised egg (still technically a zygote) as yet unattached to a uterus or equivalent?
a fertilised egg now attached? This would bring up the issue of morning after pills in some instances as they could technically be effective at pregnancy termination? Certainly some of the less drastic chemical processes are effective here.

A zygote is technically defined as a single cell despite two being used to make it so does it count after the initial doubling?

Granted it was not your comment formation of a heart.... "my heart was aflutter" yet science says the heart is a basic mechanical pump and the brain is where it is at. Going further down that path compared to other animals human offspring are seriously undeveloped- other animals walk, grab and more within hours and in terms of mental development apes and monkeys outpace human children for several years to say nothing of the incredibly late onset of puberty but as pregnancy is a serious burden in terms of energy gathering and use evolution presumably selected for the nine month gestation. I am not quite sure where I was heading with the previous sentence but I would hold arguing irrelevance is hard.

Again lines in the sand- bloody hard to argue for and especially with a far ranging issue like this.

Also as I forgot it in my initial reply to your questioning of medical reasons what happens if I am playing in say Sub Saharan Africa and without the benefits of a full modern medicine setup at the time and in the subsequent support network? Beyond that HIV transmission can happen from mother to child during pregnancy, during birth and possibly even during breastfeeding and as knowingly causing the transmission of HIV is a pretty heinous act (people doing as such by way of unprotected sex being charged with the more serious types of assault and various types of murder/manslaughter) where does that fit in?.


----------



## Pleng (Aug 24, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Just Another Gamer said:
> 
> 
> > Same could be said about the women who didn't want to be pregnant regardless of situation. Did they want to be pregnant in the first place? Why should they have to go through with the birth and have a child when they aren't ready for it? So its suddenly okay for those women to give birth and then struggle to live because they have to raise a child as well as support themselves?
> ...



"I want to eat [at a restaurant] but I do not want to get food poisoning". There's a clear risk of getting food poisoning from eating out - so better not provide any medical for food poisoning for those who have

"I want to have a few beers, but I do not want to fall over, injure myself and have to go to hospital" - Of course your reactions are slower after even one beer, so any accident you might get involved in is clearly not to be treated

"I want to go for a run/jog/walk" - well of course there's a risk there! Better disallow any treatment for ANYBODY who leaves the house


----------



## Judas18 (Aug 24, 2012)

Shouldn't a woman be allowed to decide what goes on with her body? I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want. Pro Choice.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 24, 2012)

Here's an excellent article about the wider thinking behind the 'pro-life' movement that Akin exposes 

http://prospect.org/article/akin-unmasks-pro-life-movement


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 24, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> emigre said:
> 
> 
> > A fetus isn't a human being.
> ...




What I was getting at with the two cells comment is that if you believe life begins at conception (a relatively modern idea, even in religious groups) then a fertilised egg with no brain, no human shape, no heart, nothing, is just as human as you or me.  Therefore, the idea goes, late term abortion is the same as the morning after pill is the same as slitting the throat of a two year old, is the same as contraception methods that prevent the fertilised egg from attaching to the wall of the womb.

Or so people claim.  I have a hard time actually believing it and I think in most cases what people really mean is "I'm morally opposed to abortion" and "I think it's the murder of a human being" is an easier argument to make.  If there was a fire in a hospital and you could save either 5 test tubs containing frozen fertilised eggs or a three week old baby, would people really save the test tubes?  Similarly, for those who want exceptions in order to save the life of the mother, would they save an adult woman over a 2 year old?


----------



## shortz1994 (Aug 24, 2012)

this dude is a douche, he is old, an set in his ways. no matter who says he was wrong for what he said. he still thinks he his right. the only reason for the "i'm sorry". it's all about that vote.
Just as Obama did with the "illegals" all for the 1 extra vote for office.
as i tell my kids, no matter what, make sure your wrapped, if not it's not worth the 5 min.( shit if i would have followed my own advice when i was 18  ).
i'm not "pro choice. i do think that there are times that an abortion should be done.(serious medical an [censored]). i hate when people know what they are doing, an decide to get one. (you an your girlfriend decide to do a "quickie" on the city bus,you forgot your wrapper,an still go at it. she gets pregnant, you break up, an she goes gets an abortion. an her excuse." i can't do it on my own"
that's bull shit. If a dude(me) can raise twins because his girlfriend/wife becomes a crack head.(her excuse was stress). then their is no reason 1 person can't raise 1 baby.
i guess my point is, if your over 15. you know what your doing. man up/women up an deal with what you did.( all for a 5 min blood rush.) 

!! were the hell is my first amendment..censored= R..A..P..E..... wtf.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 24, 2012)

Judas18 said:


> Shouldn't a woman be allowed to decide what goes on with her body? I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want. Pro Choice.



I've been hearing this catchy little argument my whole life in favor of abortion-on-demand. And I consider the logic flawed, because the mother's choice extends well beyond her body if she decides to have the child, and yet the father's circumstances and interests are completely disregarded .... if you get a girl pregnant and want to keep the baby and would even raise it on your own without her help, but she wants an abortion, then there's nothing you can do to prevent that baby from being snuffed out. But if you get a girl pregnant and you feel you're not ready and want the abortion done, but she doesn't, then tough shit you're gonna pay.

You say, "I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want," but that's exactly the power the pregnant woman is given over the father. Should the father be allowed to 'opt out' of his responsibility for the child he helped create if he wants the pregnancy aborted but the girl refuses?? It seems to me all the arguments for forcing the father 'own up' to his responsibility for the child are the same arguments that are disregarded when it comes to the girl's responsibility, if she wants an abortion.


----------



## shortz1994 (Aug 24, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Judas18 said:
> 
> 
> > Shouldn't a woman be allowed to decide what goes on with her body? I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want. Pro Choice.
> ...


i've got to say . most of that argument is true. when it comes down to it. if you are not with mommy, when the child is born, the father has limited rights. an that is wrong.( this was the only reason i stuck it out with my x. until my older twins were 16.).yes while it takes two to make a baby.(unless your octo-mom). it only takes one to destroy that life. 
the ones that refuse to destroy or terminate, are the vindictive ones.( i want his money, or make his life hell so he will come back.) and that statement is all not true. some times it's done like that cause of religion. but as it is said. it's her body, she can do what she wants. even if it's abortion.(my thing is, medicaid/welfare shouldn't pay a dime...i.e.. planned parenthood an those alike.).
believe me if i could carry a baby, an give birth. i would. but males body can't handle the stress of pregnancies. an fathers can give up their rights, yes you'll have to pay. but if the women merry's a dude that makes more then you.  then you really don't have to pay.( some states, NC an the south. they make you bend over, an don't have the niceness to use KY..). in the south fathers have no rights when it comes to kids/devorce/abortion. or any thing like that.   fathers re cash cows to those states.(south)


----------



## leic7 (Aug 24, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> leic7 said:
> 
> 
> > I may be the one who used the words "unwanted pregnancy" and "sickness" within the same paragraph, but that doesn't mean there's an implied equivalence between them. I never said nor implied an unwanted pregnancy was a "sickness" in my original analogy. Why are you getting all indignant over nothing?
> ...



I hope it's not your intention to imply pregnancy is just a minor inconvenience for the women who don't want it? Because it's certainly not just a minor inconvenience, and most women don't treat it as such. It's a long and delicate process, and a life-altering experience that could change the woman's life forever. It's also not a risk free process, pregnancy and childbirth can be "life-threatening" too, maternal mortality is real. If a woman doesn't want to go through with it, she shouldn't be forced to.

And *precisely* because of the special physiology of the relationship between the fetus and mother, that the woman should not be compelled into carrying it inside her if she's unwilling. Physiology dictates an inherent unequal relationship between the mother and the fetus, when one is completely inside another and just uses the body of another to serve its own needs. This is the physiological relationship between a donor/host and a recipient/parasite. To restrict the rights of the giver, and/or to arbitrarily impose "equal" rights on an intrinsically and fundamentally unequal relationship, would in fact not make the relationship any more equal, but elevate the status of the taker to a level above the giver.

If a fetus was granted the right (or worse, if *others* were given the right) to demand that another person's bodily integrity be compromised in order to protect its own bodily integrity, then it would actually have more privileges than any living person would. It would definitely have more privileges than the person who's in desperate need of a kidney transplant, the pregnant woman, newborn babies, and even the adult "Siamese twins". Doesn't it strike you as something even slightly off that a potentail human being should be granted more rights than an actual person? Why should society have such an inordinate interest in protecting the fetuses, exactly? Would you advocate the same level of protection for sperm cells, too? Foetal development is a continuum, during the first trimester, where the vast majority of abortions occur, the fetus doesn't even remotely resemble a human being. If you could assign the exact same moral worth of a grown person to this fetus, then you could also do the same for a sperm cell. Personally, I draw the line on personhood at birth.

There's a marked difference in the nature of the relationship between the twins, and the relationship between mother and fetus, even though both appear to have the same element of "attachment". The twins are on more or less of an equal footing, whereas the other relationship is anything but.

You also seem to be approaching the right to bodily integrity (and autonomy) from the wrong angle. The right to bodily integrity simply means that a person can unilaterally decide what they want to do with their own body, or their own parts of the body, without needing permission from anyone else. It's not about one person having to die for the sake of another. It means a donor can refuse to provide their own body parts for the service of another. It means if one of the twins decides to shut down their own part of the body, and commit suicide on their own part of the body, the other twin does not have the right to order them to stay alive.

When it comes to pregnancy, there's absolutely no question about the ownership of the uterus: a woman 100% owns her uterus. If the donor withdraws her consent to using her uterus as an incubator, and to using the resources produced by her own body for the service of the fetus, no one else should have the right to force her. btw to me abortion means "to abort the state of pregnancy for the woman". It's not about killing the fetus for the sake of the mother, it's about "when a woman no longer welcomes this foreign entity inside her uterus, it no longer has the right to stay." That's what the goal of abortion is: get the fetus out of the woman's body. But of course the fetus won't be able to survive outside. But that doesn't mean we can force the woman to keep it in just for the benefits of the fetus.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 24, 2012)

leic7 said:


> It's not about killing the fetus for the sake of the mother, it's about "when a woman no longer welcomes this foreign entity inside her uterus, it no longer has the right to stay." That's what the goal of abortion is: get the fetus out of the woman's body. But of course the fetus won't be able to survive outside. But that doesn't mean we can force the woman to keep it in just for the benefits of the fetus.


'
That "foreign entity" is her own child, but never mind that. Let's consider your closing, and the assumption that, "But of course the fetus won't be able to survive outside." 

Suppose the fetus _could_ survive outside the womb? And I'm not talking about the "partial birth abortion" scenario. I mean, suppose that through advancements in medical science it becomes possible in the future to "get the fetus out of the woman's body" but keep it alive through to full development?? It's not such a long shot. A few years ago I had a discussion with someone who worked in an neonatal ICU who told me that just during his career the number of weeks at which a 'preemie' could be kept alive had shrunk from around 28 weeks to about 22 weeks.  So, when science reaches the point that any fetus can be saved, and a pregnant woman decides she wants that foreign entity out of her body, should she still be held responsible as the parent of that child if it survives? Or is abortion really just about eliminating the consequences of irresponsible behavior?


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 24, 2012)

leic7 said:


> You also seem to be approaching the right to bodily integrity (and autonomy) from the *wrong *angle. The right to bodily integrity simply means that a person can unilaterally decide what they want to do with their own body, or their own parts of the body, without needing permission from anyone else.


I would adress the entirety of your post, but I don't think I could affect the way you percieve this issue in any way so I won't - you're set in your beliefs and that's alright.

What I don't appreciate is that you call my angle *wrong *when the only argument you have to support it is that it's not the angle *you *approach the subject from. The unborn child can decide whether it wants to be scraped out with a spoon or not, it's just unable to execute that wish. I'm not talking about a few cells that barely started multiplying, I'm talking about a fetus that is in the process of forming organs which already has a nervous system in place or is in the process of forming one. I see a huge difference between using a Morning-After pill to prevent a fertilized egg from nesting and an actual growing embryo that's already nested - one is acceptable to me, one is not. 

I don't think it's up to the mother whether or not the child should live and it is quite unfortunate that she has to carry it when she doesn't want to, but that's how human reproduction works. As I said earlier, the couple gets all the chances to prevent this from happening and yet chooses unprotected sex out of nothing else than negligence and I don't feel okay about giving them an option to kill a developing human being simply because it's still in the woman's womb. I simply can't accept denying the right to life to a developing child simply because its life is inconvenient to someone.



Hanafuda said:


> Suppose the fetus _could_ survive outside the womb? And I'm not talking about the "partial birth abortion" scenario. I mean, suppose that through advancements in medical science it becomes possible in the future to "get the fetus out of the woman's body" but keep it alive through to full development? It's not such a long shot.


If that technology was developed and is proven to give the child equal chances to those held in the womb throughout pregnancy, I would be more than satisfied with that resolution since it's a win-win situation.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 24, 2012)

Judas18 said:


> Shouldn't a woman be allowed to decide what goes on with her body? I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want. Pro Choice.



It's funny how people are pro-choice, yet ignore the original choice that got them pregnant in the first place.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 24, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Judas18 said:
> 
> 
> > Shouldn't a woman be allowed to decide what goes on with her body? I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want. Pro Choice.
> ...


Exactly. That kind of attitude opens many doors that should remain closed. Young people will grow up believing that whether they protect themselves or not, everything's going to be fine since worst-case scenario they can get an abortion. That's not how it's supposed to work - couples need to be well-aware of the consequences of unprotected sex and they should face consequences of their actions if they refuse to acknowledge the risks.

Like you said - they had a choice. They made theirs. The fetus didn't magically appear in the uterus - they put it in there and it's their fault entirely.


----------



## Hells Malice (Aug 24, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > Suppose the fetus _could_ survive outside the womb? And I'm not talking about the "partial birth abortion" scenario. I mean, suppose that through advancements in medical science it becomes possible in the future to "get the fetus out of the woman's body" but keep it alive through to full development? It's not such a long shot.
> ...



and then we can have lots of children born into a world that never wanted it.
Wonderful. We didn't have enough sad, depressed, lonely children already.

The sentiment is pure, the result not so much.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 24, 2012)

Hells Malice said:


> and then we can have lots of children born into a world that never wanted it.
> Wonderful. We didn't have enough sad, depressed, lonely children already.
> 
> The sentiment is pure, the result not so much.


Hardly any newborn left in the hospital ends up with no family of his or her own - most couples unable to have children prefer to adopt younger children rather than older ones.

And by the way, contraception is either really cheap or free (depending on where you live) so what should be invested in is education, not abortion.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 24, 2012)

Hells Malice said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > Hanafuda said:
> ...




Yeah, you're right. It's much better killing them all.


----------



## Hells Malice (Aug 24, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Hells Malice said:
> 
> 
> > and then we can have lots of children born into a world that never wanted it.
> ...



Hardly any, right now. Because there aren't many.

You cannot (properly) educate the stupid, most were already taught, they just don't listen anyway. At least, that is certainly the case around my area.
No matter how many trillions of dollars is spent on educating people, there will be plenty of morons still getting knocked up.



Hanafuda said:


> Yeah, you're right. It's much better killing them all.



So you'd rather most live a sad, miserable life?



EDIT:

and since I don't plan on actually debating (this thread is depressing), i'd like to point out: I'm in support of abortion with a reason. [censored] victims (as this thread ORIGINALLY targeting) should not be forced to keep a child of [censored]. That's insanely cruel. You could say the child did nothing wrong, but hell neither did the 'mother'. If she doesn't want to keep the baby, she should never be made to.
I think stupidty and ignorance should be phased out. But, good luck with that. It's the best solution to PREVENT pregnancy, but with so many morons out there, it's never going to be viable, and thousands of unwanted children being born is not an ideal situation in the least. Abortion is cruel, being born into a world that doesn't love you is crueler, even if some would be happy, many wouldn't.
There's really no right answer, solution, or choice when it comes to abortion. It's all situational and based on chance, whether it would be better to keep a child or not. Some children may be born and end up enjoying life, but others would be born and hate every moment of theirs.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Aug 24, 2012)

Hells Malice said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > Hells Malice said:
> ...



If a mother chooses to relinquish her rights to the child at the hospital, the child will most likely have paperwork written up within 24 hours for prospective parents. Adopting out a newborn to a good home is a piece of cake, since most people that go to an adoption agency are looking for children from Newborn to 6 months. The fact of the matter is, a representative of one or more adoption agencies have an office within the hospital for this very reason.

In most cases, the mother, already knowing she doesn't want, or can't take care of the child, finds adoptive parents before she even gives birth, either to someone in the family, or to another couple through an adoption agency. 

Newborns find no lack of good homes to go to. It's the older children that are looked over constantly.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 24, 2012)

Isn't the main problem for newborns the fact that people are often unwilling to adopt outside of their own race and therefore if you're the 'wrong' race in terms of the amount of kids up for adoption and the type of people wanting to adopt, you quickly end up too old and unadoptable and are many, many times more likely to end up unemployed and in prison?

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia....racial_adoption


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 24, 2012)

Hells Malice said:


> Some children may be born and end up enjoying life, but others would be born and hate every moment of theirs.



I believe that's what's known as "the human condition."

My hypothetical future in which all fetuses can be kept alive throughout their development does not exist, yet. But there could be a time, in the not so distant future relatively speaking, where birth control is absolutely effective, and even carrying a child in natural pregnancy could be seen as criminal neglect. When we master human incubation to the point that it is safer for the mother _and_ the baby to "grow" the child in an artificial womb, we may finally be done with the abortion controversy. (But the technology will bring new problems)


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 24, 2012)

Hells Malice said:


> And since I don't plan on actually debating (this thread is depressing), i'd like to point out: I'm in support of abortion with a reason. [censored] victims (as this thread ORIGINALLY targeting) should not be forced to keep a child of [censored]. That's insanely cruel.


Oh, I think you might've misunderstood me, I'll clarify just in case. I was talking about abortions on-demand - I'm okay with abortions when [censored] victims request them. Asking a woman to carry a child she never asked for would only enhance the trauma, it would be monstrous to ask her to do so. I'd appreciate if the police or the ambulace crew were equipped with Morning-Afters to give them to [censored] victims free of charge to prevent pregnancy, but if those fail or if the victim was held prisoner and had no option of preventing the pregnancy - fine, I can understand how abortion would be a necessity. I was only talking about those couples who have the problem because of their own negligence, couples that chose to have unprotected sex and refuse to deal with the consequences of their actions. A [censored] victim doesn't ask to be raped and if abortion will improve the victim's mental state and she wishes to have one, sure (as long as it is not an advanced pregnancy, of course).


----------



## Judas18 (Aug 25, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Judas18 said:
> 
> 
> > Shouldn't a woman be allowed to decide what goes on with her body? I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want. Pro Choice.
> ...


I do see you point, but it's the woman who will have to carry the baby for 9 months not the guy. Although yeah it would be nice if the potential father had more of a say, it's just not his body to command. It's hers and if she decides having a baby is not for her then what on Earth gives anyone the right to say otherwise?




DiscostewSM said:


> Judas18 said:
> 
> 
> > Shouldn't a woman be allowed to decide what goes on with her body? I really don't think anyone has the right to force a woman to have something she doesn't want. Pro Choice.
> ...


So she chose to be raped? She decided the contraception won't work this time around? That argument is flawed. I don't think abortion should be used as a contraceptive, however none of us have any rights to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. I'd rather someone get an abortion done properly rather than doing it the old fashioned way by forcing a miscarriage. So that's why I think women should be allowed to do it without any consequences. They have to live with the fact that they've taken something that could have been there's away. So if they can make that choice then all the power to them.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 25, 2012)

Judas18 said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > Judas18 said:
> ...




I don't think you do see my point, because I was never advocating that a woman be prevented from having an abortion if that is what she wants. I abhor abortion, but if you read my previous posts you'll see I am opposed to any legal prohibition or government involvement. My point was about the unfair Catch-22 of helplessness the father is put in. -- If the girl wants an abortion but he doesn't, tough shit the kid gets aborted. Now, it's her body so I agree with you this is how it should be. A woman should not be forced to go through with a pregnancy and give birth to the child if that is really against her wishes. But if the father wants her to have an abortion, and she refuses because she wants the baby, why is he forced to provide financial support, health insurance coverage, and etc for 18 years?? If you think the woman has the absolute legal right to get out of the responsibility of having the child, why isn't the man given the same option? We're supposed to have equal rights for women and men, so let's have equal rights.


So, here's my question --- do you think it is right to force financial responsibility, i.e. a child support obligation, on a man who didn't want the child and made his request known that the pregnancy be aborted as soon as he learned of it? If so, why should he be held responsible for it?


----------



## Judas18 (Aug 25, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Judas18 said:
> 
> 
> > Hanafuda said:
> ...


Because there is simply too much to read on here and I become uninterested incredibly fast. Yes it would be lovely if both men and women (and everything inbetween) had equal rights, but it all boils down to the fact that she carries the baby so it all goes in her favour. Laws are incredibly flawed but that's what we're governed by unfortunately =/


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 25, 2012)

Judas18 said:


> So she chose to be raped? She decided the contraception won't work this time around? That argument is flawed.



If you had been reading my other posts, you'd have known that I am not against abortion for raped victims because "they did not have a choice". Consent between couples is the choice I was referring to.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 25, 2012)

If anyone is interested, here is where I stand:

I'm one of those people that believes as soon as the sperm hits the egg it is now human. So, I do not believe that abortion should be used in any circumstance or at any time. It is extremely unfortunate and saddening when a woman gets raped and becomes pregnant but I do not believe someone should commit murder for any reason. (Now, you may believe that the fertilized egg doesn't become human until a certain stage in development so this wouldn't actually be murder, and that is fine. You have your belief, I have mine.) A child is a gift. It is always a gift. If someone doesn't think they are ready for the child, or they want to get rid of the child because every time they see him/her and it reminds them of the unfortunate event, they can always still put it up for adoption. The child can then have the opportunity to bring joy into the life of a different family. I believe there are always better options than abortion.


----------



## leic7 (Aug 25, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> leic7 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not about killing the fetus for the sake of the mother, it's about "when a woman no longer welcomes this foreign entity inside her uterus, it no longer has the right to stay." That's what the goal of abortion is: get the fetus out of the woman's body. But of course the fetus won't be able to survive outside. But that doesn't mean we can force the woman to keep it in just for the benefits of the fetus.
> ...



In a lot of the situations where the woman ends up choosing abortion, abortion is actually the most responsible solution at that moment in time, certainly much more responsible than any of the other alternatives suggested by uninterested, faraway parties who have absolutely no personal stake in the woman's situation. These people are too busy with their own agendas to look after the best interests of the mother, the child, and the family.

Once the child is born, their best interest should be the focal point in all discussions related to parenting. I don't see any particular reason to treat the children "born" under abortion any differently than other newborns? There are already existing processes for parents of newborns, whether they choose to be the legal parents or not.

Re: equality, once a child is born, *both* parents share equal parental responsibilities, regardless of their initial intentions before childbirth. A father who doesn't want the child has to provide financial support, just as a mother who doesn't want the child has to do the same, as well. So there's your "equal rights" for women and men. The only inequality is in the period before the child's born, and the things that happened and the decisions that were made during this period (pregnancy). But this inequality is dictated by the inequality in biology.


@[member='Foxi4']

I didn't call your angle wrong because it's not "my" angle, but because it's not from the angle of anyone in question. So I demonstrated a way to look -- from the perspectives of those individuals whose bodies were actually involved -- at what the right to bodily integrity would mean to "them". That's all.

Why are there so many contradictions in your posts? It's almost as if you'd never QAed your ideas before you uttered them...

If it's truly, TRULY, your conviction that abortion is equivalent to killing a human being, then you can't justify allowing exceptions for ra.pe. Since when can murder ever be justified on grounds of the murder victim's mother being a victim of ra.pe? Can a baby be legally killed because their mother was ra.ped?

If we are to assume that a fetus should have the rights of a person, when should it begin having these rights? "A fetus that is in the process of forming organs which already has a nervous system in place or is in the process of forming one" would be a third-trimester fetus. So first- and second-trimester abortions are ok?

From the perspective of the fetus, as long as it's in one piece with no missing body parts, its bodily integrity could be considered intact. How can this non-violation of the fetus's bodily integrity be used to argue against the mother's right to her own bodily integrity?

If it can't be argued in that way, then can it be argued with the fetus's right to life? If the fetus's right to life can be argued in favour of trespass to the person for the mother, then it would open the door for involuntary organ donations. (whether or not the donor and the recipient are physically attached to each other is a completely irrelevant point, as it was never even used in the argument to support right to life over right to bodily integrity to begin with.)

Another equally irrelevant point is whether or not the pregnancy itself could've, would've, should've been prevented in retrospect. Even if you were to take her past (in)actions as some form of "opt-out"/"implied" consent to being pregnant, she still retains the right to withdraw that consent at a later date. When she does withdraw consent, the only argument left is her right to bodily integrity vs. fetus's right to life.

If someone's right to life > another person's right to bodily integrity, is valid if and only if, during pregnancy, then fetuses would have more rights than any other groups of people. What is the justification for this?

Human reproductive biology gives the mother the choice to place her own priorities before those of the fetus, by the fact that women can terminate their pregnancies if they need to (abortions have been performed ever since ancient times, often unsafely). To justify overriding this "right" that nature has given women (control over their own bodies) through social means, you're going to need some very rational arguments, that can stand the test of scrutiny, to demonstrate the system provided by nature is inferior to the one you propose. I have yet to see anyone do that.

What I have seen so far is nothing more than an irrational desire to punish pregnant women for their alleged "irresponsible behaviours", so as to satisfy someone else's own notion of "justice". Thankfully, this desire isn't nearly as strong when it comes to other groups, otherwise smokers would have to face even more troubles than they already have...


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 25, 2012)

@[member='leic7']



> If it's truly, TRULY, your conviction that abortion is equivalent to killing a human being, then you can't justify allowing exceptions for ra.pe. Since when can murder ever be justified on grounds of the murder victim's mother being a victim of ra.pe? Can a baby be legally killed because their mother was ra.ped?


Do read what I said - I mentioned that it should be an early stage of the pregnancy. What I meant by that was that neither internal organs nor the nervous system is present in the developing embryo yet, meaning that it's still just a lump of flesh. I did say that if the child is alive and kicking then it's too late, _even _in the case of [censored]. 



> If it can't be argued in that way, then can it be argued with the fetus's right to life? If the fetus's right to life can be argued in favour of trespass to the person for the mother, then it would open the door for involuntary organ donations.


It's nothing like that - the womb is a temporary space the child occupies until it is capable of leaving. If there was a landslide and a person was under the mud on someone's property, you don't exactly sue him for trespassing. The child did not choose to be in the womb - it was put there by its parents and had no say in the matter as it didn't exist yet. It's not like organ donation - the womb is where it's supposed to be and is never physicaly removed from the mother's body.



> What I have seen so far is nothing more than an irrational desire to punish pregnant women for their alleged "irresponsible behaviours", so as to satisfy someone else's own notion of "justice".


With the amount of contraception ad campaigns, its low prices and high accessibility, "irresponsible" is the understatement of this still young century - it's a crime againts reason that should not cause suffering to others in any form or fashion.


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 25, 2012)

Castiel said:


> If anyone is interested, here is where I stand:
> 
> I'm one of those people that believes as soon as the sperm hits the egg it is now human. So, I do not believe that abortion should be used in any circumstance or at any time. It is extremely unfortunate and saddening when a woman gets raped and becomes pregnant but I do not believe someone should commit murder for any reason. (Now, you may believe that the fertilized egg doesn't become human until a certain stage in development so this wouldn't actually be murder, and that is fine. You have your belief, I have mine.) A child is a gift. It is always a gift. If someone doesn't think they are ready for the child, or they want to get rid of the child because every time they see him/her and it reminds them of the unfortunate event, they can always still put it up for adoption. The child can then have the opportunity to bring joy into the life of a different family. I believe there are always better options than abortion.


What if the woman is at risk of dying if she chooses to go through with the pregnancy


----------



## Judas18 (Aug 25, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Judas18 said:
> 
> 
> > So she chose to be raped? She decided the contraception won't work this time around? That argument is flawed.
> ...


Then you need to make that clearer, I have little time to read through every single post.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 25, 2012)

Judas18 said:


> DiscostewSM said:
> 
> 
> > Judas18 said:
> ...



It was my first post in this discussion on the first page.....


----------



## Judas18 (Aug 25, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Judas18 said:
> 
> 
> > DiscostewSM said:
> ...


Lol was it? I didn't read all of it. I get bored easily. Like I only read the first post then I picked other random posts to read.


----------



## someonewhodied (Aug 25, 2012)

Well you see, its like with guns.
In cases of legitimate shootings, the body has ways to....


ok I'm done. I can't even keep a straight face while typing this.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 26, 2012)

yuyuyup said:


> Castiel said:
> 
> 
> > If anyone is interested, here is where I stand:
> ...


A parent is there to love and help their child. How can a mother help her child if she kills it? If she did end up dying, she wouldn't be able the help her child after the birth, but she still helped it in the sense that she carried it and let it develop in her until it could breathe on its own and not die once it was born. And what greater love is there than someone giving their life for another?


----------



## Thesolcity (Aug 26, 2012)

I've learned you can't argue with certain people who are "pro-life". You seriously just can't. No matter what reason, whatever explanation, whatever call to reason, freedom, logic, love of another adult (sometimes even underage) human being, or even respect, they just won't listen. They'll carry on with this makeshift imaginary moral high horse and prance around on it because their heads are so far up their asses (or, more appropriately, women's wombs) that they are genuinely convinced they aren't retarded. Tell a pregnant [censored] victim that she should give birth to this baby because "_its the right thing to do_". Go on, I mean, they're only traumatized right? A little psychological trauma is no reason to put yourself in another's shoes.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 26, 2012)

Thesolcity said:


> I've learned you can't argue with certain people who are "pro-life". You seriously just can't. No matter what reason, whatever explanation, whatever call to reason, freedom, logic, love of another adult (sometimes even underage) human being, or even respect, they just won't listen. They'll carry on with this makeshift imaginary moral high horse and prance around on it because their heads are so far up their asses (or, more appropriately, women's wombs) that they are genuinely convinced they aren't retarded. Tell a pregnant [censored] victim that she should give birth to this baby because "_its the right thing to do_". Go on, I mean, they're only traumatized right? A little psychological trauma is no reason to put yourself in another's shoes.



And why is it that you focus on the extreme rather than the general consensus of the "pro-life" group?

Very few people think that a raped victim should "deal with it" because, as said many times, it was not their choice to begin with. The rest of the "pro-life" group feels that if a woman goes through the process that leads to pregnancy by their own free will, then they should live with that decision rather than feel they should be able to get out of being responsible for their actions. Pro-choice? Getting pregnant was a choice, the choice to have intercourse because one leads to the other, no matter how you look at it.


----------



## Thesolcity (Aug 26, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Thesolcity said:
> 
> 
> > I've learned you can't argue with certain people who are "pro-life". You seriously just can't. No matter what reason, whatever explanation, whatever call to reason, freedom, logic, love of another adult (sometimes even underage) human being, or even respect, they just won't listen. They'll carry on with this makeshift imaginary moral high horse and prance around on it because their heads are so far up their asses (or, more appropriately, women's wombs) that they are genuinely convinced they aren't retarded. Tell a pregnant [censored] victim that she should give birth to this baby because "_its the right thing to do_". Go on, I mean, they're only traumatized right? A little psychological trauma is no reason to put yourself in another's shoes.
> ...



*certain *

*certain *

*certain *


Given that and the context of this thread ("Legitimate" [censored]), its safe to assume I don't mean all. I read your comment earlier and this wasn't even about you. Hell, that's why I even focused on that specific extreme. Those are a very real threat. Maybe you haven't seen a girl confess to her pastor at a youth group that she was [censored] and pregnant, and that she didn't know what to do and that she didn't want to have a baby because her family would never understand only to have the pastor say that she should have the baby regardless because it was a "Gift from God" and that she should feel blessed, but that very nearly fucking sickens me. Its not even an issue whether they're a minority or not. I've made it my personal issue because its a very real threat, and a persistent one. This viewpoint of forced pregnancy being a "Gift from God" in its entirety needs to be expunged.  

Now, since you're pro-life (not that I'm bashing you for your viewpoint as long as you're not bat-shit crazy), how would you draft a piece of legislation centered around providing tax-payer funded abortions to those who were raped? How would you sort out those who were raped from those who weren't? No one can seem to find a proper method of weeding out these details and this is where everyone is stuck. There is no effective method to sort this out. So, we're stuck with choices of:

1) Taxpayer-funded abortions

2) Privately-funded abortions

3) No abortions


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 26, 2012)

Sorry, my mistake when you said "certain" people.

With your "gift from God" example, even I am repulsed by that thinking, and I am a religious person at that. There was no love in that violent act, and that seems to put the blame on the victim rather than the offender by forcing the victim to carry the bastard child (pardon my language). That is why even though I am pro-life, I am also pro-abortion for [censored] victims.


----------



## mrgone (Aug 26, 2012)

tl;dr the whole thread....

but i see it like this, that republicans see it the classic way:
- man is superior to women
- if you're married, it's not rap3


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 26, 2012)

mrgone said:


> tl;dr the whole thread....
> 
> but i see it like this, that republicans see it the classic way:
> - man is superior to women
> - if you're married, it's not rap3



False generalization and "tl;dr" in the same post....that's classy


----------



## Thesolcity (Aug 26, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Sorry, my mistake when you said "certain" people.
> 
> With your "gift from God" example, even I am repulsed by that thinking, and I am a religious person at that. There was no love in that violent act, and that seems to put the blame on the victim rather than the offender by forcing the victim to carry the bastard child (pardon my language). That is why even though I am pro-life, I am also pro-abortion for [censored] victims.



Imagine what I thought hearing it from a church goer the next day. That church was dropped quicker than....something. But my point still is that there's no way to sort out who's been raped and who hasn't and there never will be.


----------



## leic7 (Aug 27, 2012)

@[member='Foxi4']

Yes, and what you said is full of contradictions.

Is there an exception for ra.pe victims to obtain abortion? Yes or No?

Is there a period in which ra.pe victims can have abortion, where others can't? Yes or no?

Is the "cut-off" time for a ra.pe victim to get an abortion *before* "it becomes a human life"? Yes or no?

*Before* "it becomes a human life", can other women get an abortion? Yes or no?

Can women get abortions during the FIRST-trimester? Yes or no?

Can ra.pe victims get abortions in the FIRST-trimester? Yes or no?

Can women get abortions during the SECOND-trimester? Yes or no?

Can ra.pe victims get abortions in the SECOND-trimester? Yes or no?

About the connection between involuntary organ donation and involuntary pregnancy, I think all those analogies might be distracting you, or something. Just forget about pregnancy, the unborn child, conjoined twins, and all the rest. Just focus on involuntary organ donation alone. Can you tell us why involuntary organ donation is not okay? Again, _focus_. Why isn't it okay?


@[member='DiscostewSM']

I'm curious in which category you would put surrogate moms, who help other couples to carry their biological offspring. What happens if they change their mind during pregnancy?


@[member='Castiel']

If you were a parent, and if there were a "room" that you could send your child to, in which your child would have a chance to live a happy life, and also a chance to suffer a miserable existence; would you send your child into that "room", not certain what the outcome would be?

I wouldn't. I would love and cherish my child too much to GAMBLE on their future and happiness. If you win, that's wonderful. But what if you lose? Of course, the "room" is a metaphor for the world.



Foxi4 said:


> @[member='leic7']
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## kupo3000 (Aug 27, 2012)

Thesolcity said:


> I've learned you can't argue with certain people who are "pro-life". You seriously just can't. No matter what reason, whatever explanation, whatever call to reason, freedom, logic, love of another adult (sometimes even underage) human being, or even respect, they just won't listen. They'll carry on with this makeshift imaginary moral high horse and prance around on it because their heads are so far up their asses (or, more appropriately, women's wombs) that they are genuinely convinced they aren't retarded. Tell a pregnant [censored] victim that she should give birth to this baby because "_its the right thing to do_". Go on, I mean, they're only traumatized right? A little psychological trauma is no reason to put yourself in another's shoes.



I know exactly how that feels when trying to have that type of discussion with my religious father.
It's simply not worth the brain aneurism.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 27, 2012)

> Yes, and what you said is full of contradictions.
> Is there an exception for ra.pe victims to obtain abortion? Yes or No?
> Is there a period in which ra.pe victims can have abortion, where others can't? Yes or no?
> Is the "cut-off" time for a ra.pe victim to get an abortion *before* "it becomes a human life"? Yes or no?
> ...


By now you stopped reading what I'm writing or you refuse to. Focus, because that's probably my last reply to you.

Organ donation has _nothing _to do with pregnancy - _lending _or _leasing _would be a better word since the womb _never _leaves the woman's body - your analogy is_ incorrect, false, null and void_.

I'm only allowing [censored] victims to have an abortion_ before organs are developed_ because it _practically _guarantees that the developing child does not suffer in the process. If the nervous system is not developed yet and a brain is not in place, it is not a _conscious __life_ - it only has_ the potential to become one_ and I still _leave the decision  to the woman _as she's the one who was assaulted - yes,_ it's an exception simply because she never asked to be pregnant_ and although_ I don't condone abortion_, I give her the right to choose because _the pregnancy was not a direct result of her negligence or bad choices_ - I said it numerous times that _a Morning-After is a far better solution, but there are situations when it's too late_, for example when the victim was imprisoned.

_The "cut-off" time is not specified_ - doctors should _examine the fetus and decide whether it will suffer or not._ It's not a cut-off time _between being human and not being human_ - there's _no such thing_. The moment the fertilized egg nests _and starts recombining D.N.A into a new strain, it becomes a new human strain_. It is not a_ conscious life_ though - consciousness is gained via _creating a centralized nervous system with a brain as its center_.

My opinion is based on human biology and the natural, logical chain of Action and Consequence - your opinion is based on an idea you think is "freedom over all else" and I call "convenience".

Your entire argument runs down to the woman being in full right to protect her bodily integrity - fiar play, she has, however at the same time she has no right to be involved in the integrity of the unborn child's bodily integrity and once you realize that the child is a separate entity from herself, it's all pretty clear. It has separate organs, a separate nervous system and a separate mind - it's a different person that is unfortunately temporarily occupying the space in her womb. The woman's bodily integrity is not infringed upon - every organ is there, she hasn't donated anything whatsoever. You simply choose to believe that she has because that's the easy way out. It's simply more convenient to get rid of the unwanted child - you give the woman the right to dispose of it, yet you wouldn't give her the same right when the child is already born - why so?

I say that it should be up to the doctor to decide whether the child is _developed enough to have a conscience of its own_ and I refuse to give the right for abortion to women who became pregnant _out of their own negligence_. Women who did not have a say in the matter - [censored] victims,_ are a different case_. It is not their own negligence that caused the pregnancy but an _outside, hostile force which took away their right to be safe during intercourse_, but even in this case, I respect the _conscious life_, if it is already developed.

I hope that this is clear enough for you.


----------



## Aeter (Aug 27, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> It is not a_ conscious life_ though - consciousness is gained via _creating a centralized nervous system with a brain as its center_.


Recent studies contradict this though: http://www.livescience.com/22614-self-awareness-brain.html


----------



## kupo3000 (Aug 27, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> I said it numerous times that _a Morning-After is a far better solution, but there are situations when it's too late_, for example when the victim was imprisoned.



There's a few problems though. Certain pro-life groups are trying to limit access on contraceptions or ban it outright.
Heck, some pharmacies won't even sell you the morning-after (plan-b) pill.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 27, 2012)

kupo3000 said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > I said it numerous times that _a Morning-After is a far better solution, but there are situations when it's too late_, for example when the victim was imprisoned.
> ...


Which is why I'm not a Pro-Life person - I'm a Pro-Reason person. The fertilized egg has not yet begun to recompile itself.

To me, the definition of "Life" is_ "a self-multiplying machine that creates more of itself via means of ingesting sustinance of some sort"_ - the fertilized egg is not performing those functions until it properly nests, thus I cannot call it "Life" yet - it's only a lump of cells that has the potential to become Life.

People involved in distribution of contraception and Morning-After should be properly trained and educated in that sector of human biology, and if they refuse to sell them, the state should step in. I have little patience for the ignorant, everybody has the choice whether or not their intercourse is going to be safe. It's not a matter of their morality, it should be regulated by law and it should be their duty.

As for Aeter's comment, I believe that only creatures with a brain are capable to be self-aware, thus conscious and I'm pretty sure that I have plenty of scientists on my side. 



Aeter said:


> Recent studies contradict this though: http://www.livescien...ness-brain.html


I only skim-read, but from what I can see, the experiment revolves around a person suffering from memory loss and brain damage, not a complete lack of a brain.


----------



## kupo3000 (Aug 27, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> kupo3000 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxi4 said:
> ...



If the majority of pro-lifers actually thought like that there probably wouldn't be so many issues, but sadly in some of their minds the moment a sperm and egg join it's a fully formed fetus.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 27, 2012)

leic7 said:


> @[member='DiscostewSM']
> 
> I'm curious in which category you would put surrogate moms, who help other couples to carry their biological offspring. What happens if they change their mind during pregnancy?



They all consented to do this in the first place, right?


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 27, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> leic7 said:
> 
> 
> > @[member='DiscostewSM']
> ...


It's regulated by means of a contract. The surrogate agreed to do something for a given fee and if she refuses to do so mid-way through, it's the equivalent of a building contractor refusing to work - the contract binds him to. In a situation where a contract is breached by one party while the other party kept their word and paid for the job, it's pretty easy to determine the party at fault.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 27, 2012)

leic7 said:


> If you were a parent, and if there were a "room" that you could send your child to, in which your child would have a chance to live a happy life, and also a chance to suffer a miserable existence; would you send your child into that "room", not certain what the outcome would be?
> 
> I wouldn't. I would love and cherish my child too much to GAMBLE on their future and happiness. If you win, that's wonderful. But what if you lose? Of course, the "room" is a metaphor for the world.





Foxi4 said:


> [Y]our analogy is_ incorrect, false, null and void_.


@leic7 - Read what you wrote again. Going by what you said, you would like to have *every* child killed. Every child is born into this world. Every child has the chance to be either happy or miserable. By those two reasons alone you would rather have every child killed because nobody knows or will ever know whether a child will be happy or miserable, _regardless of who the parents are_. Someone can love their child and care for it all they want but that still doesn't guarantee it will be happy. There is media, there are friends, there are numerous things that will influence the child, not just the parent. And with how the world is today, there is no way of stopping that. These things will also influence the child, and how the child interprets them is what will determine how the child lives their life.

I have lived in depression myself. I lived in it for quite a few years and only just recently broke out of it. It's a terrible thing but it most certainly can be beaten. Aborting a child because you don't think they will have a happy life is bullshit. Like I said before, there is no way we can know how the child's life will turn out, and we most certainly don't have the right to assume that we do know. So to answer your question, yes. I would give my child that chance.


----------



## kupo3000 (Aug 27, 2012)

Castiel said:


> leic7 said:
> 
> 
> > If you were a parent, and if there were a "room" that you could send your child to, in which your child would have a chance to live a happy life, and also a chance to suffer a miserable existence; would you send your child into that "room", not certain what the outcome would be?
> ...



There's a big difference between a bunch of cells (blastocyst) and a fully grown 8-9 month old fetus.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 28, 2012)

kupo3000 said:


> There's a big difference between a bunch of cells (blastocyst) and a fully grown 8-9 month old fetus.


Like I said in my very first post in this thread, "Now, you may believe that the fertilized egg doesn't become human until a certain stage in development so this wouldn't actually be murder, and that is fine. You have your belief, I have mine."

I also fail to see how this post relates to what I was telling Leic... :/


----------



## leic7 (Aug 28, 2012)

@DiscostewSM Yep.


@[member='Foxi4']

Yeah you're so right in that organ donation has nothing to do with pregnancy, so just ignore pregnancy. Can you finally tell us a reason why involuntary organ donation isn't okay now? Just this issue alone. straight forward question. Dunno why you avoided answering it.

So, ra.pe victims can have abortions all the way until it becomes a "conscious life", but other women can't have abortions at all even when it's *not* a "conscious life"? Then you can't use the violation of another person's rights as an argument against early abortions, because there's no "another person" yet at this point as it's *not* yet a "conscious life" at the time abortions are already banned for these women. That means you really have no valid argument against these early abortions at all. It's simply a matter of a person's rights vs. a non-person's non-rights.


@[member='Castiel']

My apologies for making it sound like I was talking in absolute terms. What I meant was actually subjective certainty, the kind where you feel "I am sure I can definitely do this!" certainty. If I wasn't even sure myself if I could handle it, if I wasn't certain that I could be a good parent to the child... that's way too big of a gamble on something far too valuable, I wouldn't let a child into the world like this. Sorry I didn't make that clearer the first time.


----------



## Castiel (Aug 28, 2012)

leic7 said:


> @[member='Castiel']
> 
> My apologies for making it sound like I was talking in absolute terms. What I meant was actually subjective certainty, the kind where you feel "I am sure I can definitely do this!" certainty. *If I wasn't even sure myself if I could handle it, if I wasn't certain that I could be a good parent to the child... that's way too big of a gamble on something far too valuable, I wouldn't let a child into the world like this.* Sorry I didn't make that clearer the first time.


(The bolded part is where I'm basing my answer. If I'm still not understanding something, sorry :/ )
I would still have to say yes because like I said before there is still the putting it up for adoption option, and if a parents is scared that the family that adopts the child won't be a good family for the child, they can choose to do an Independent Adoption. This ensures that the parent can choose the family which they think will be suited for their child.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Aug 28, 2012)

Castiel said:


> leic7 said:
> 
> 
> > @[member='Castiel']
> ...


Adoption isn't really safe. The foster care system is notorious for being overcrowded and miserable. The homes are usually underfunded, and such poverty creates a breeding ground for abuse, sexual abuse, and mental illness. Even in the best of circumstances gives no guarantee that they'll be adopted, safe, or be able to live out happy lives; for example, Britain recently released a report detailing how 10,000 out of 65,000 children in care ran away or went missing. The foster system in general is under significant strain and its bureaucracy completely corrupt. The fact that the programs keep getting cut every year ensure that the facilities and the means to care for the children will worsen. And what do the politicians of big business usually have to say about it? Nothing. Instead, they point out the faults of select individuals to cover up that the problem is actually _societal, _not simply personal.

Independent adoption could be an option, but it heavily depends on the circumstances of the family since an agency is not involved. It can also become a very expensive process, in the preventative sense. Finally, legal problems are possible with domestic adoptions, since there's a risk of the birth-parents suing to regain custody of the child, like in the "Baby Richard" case. This could partially explain why certain celebrities have adopted children from other countries.

You're taking a very light-minded approach here. I suggest you try to research the financial and social _state_ of these options more before presenting them as some sort of panacea to abortion. They don't really hold up under serious scrutiny.


----------



## tatripp (Aug 28, 2012)

DSGamer64 said:


> Typical of right wingers. I like how conservatives try to blame women for getting raped and use shit ass excuses like this for keeping abortion illegal. Someone should throw these pricks in a prison cell with someone serving a life sentence in solitary confinement and see what their opinions on [censored] are like after their experience.


Typical of 16 year old liberal socialists. I find it ironic that many liberals preach open mindedness but refuse to consider something from a different point of view and criticize others for having a different view. Do you really think "right wingers" actually blame women for getting raped? Your understanding of the conservative view point is narrow at best. In general, conservatives are against abortion because they believe that an abortion is murder. Conservatives see the unborn baby as a completely innocent and defenseless child. An innocent child should not be killed under any circumstances even in [censored] and life threatening cases. I think liberals tend to value a mother more than an unborn baby because the unborn baby to them is more of a blank slate than an innocent child.

Another reason why conservatives dislike abortion is because of the horrible origins. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a proponent of Eugenics until it became unpopular. Eugenics was a movement that encouraged Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest. She considered the fit to be the white middle class and wealthy and the unfit to be black, poor, immigrants, and the disabled. Hitler was inspired by books and articles from people in her foundation and even referred to one of the books as "my bible." Even today there is blatant racism by planned parenthood clinics located in many minority neighborhoods.

Anyways these politicians are politicians. The rarity of the case has nothing to do with the law and avoids the real issue. As far as I know, their body will not automatically get rid of unwanted babies. These comments do not represent conservatism.


----------



## tatripp (Aug 28, 2012)

Hells Malice said:


> Yumi said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, what an idiot.
> ...


There are plenty of stupid girls who are going to do stupid things but I cannot think of a valid reason for an abortion. Even if it isn't a cognitive life form, it is still a life form. I consider the unborn child's soul more important than its cognition. Cognition does not make a human. If parts of your cognition are damaged or lost, you are still valuable. You can still choose not to have a child by choosing not to have intercourse. 
I know you probably won't agree with me but I just wanted to throw in my two cents.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 28, 2012)

These guys just can't stop, can they

http://www.dailykos....ock-similar-to-rape

EDIT : Oh for fuck's sake, right, you'll have to fix the url yourself. I can't believe we're having to have a discussion about rape without even being able to use the word.

Anyway, as to where the general abortion debate has gotten to, I don't think the government should be legislating based on ideas like 'souls'.


----------



## cobleman (Aug 28, 2012)

I am against abortion only for the fact that an old girlfriend of mine instead of discussing the pregnancy she chose to hide it we had been together for 8 1/2 years and she aborted without telling me.
With that said though how could any human expect a girl or woman that was raped to carry a child to term, knowing that the child would be despised when born and all the mother can see is the eyes of her attacker what sort of life would it be for that child if the mother could never ever love it and thats all it would be to them just an "IT" not a child that should be cared for and loved but a constant reminder of the terrible attack that stripped them of there dignity and there trust of society. Put aside your beliefs and consider the well being of the "Person"


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 28, 2012)

leic7 said:


> So, ra.pe victims can have abortions all the way until it becomes a "conscious life", but other women can't have abortions at all even when it's *not* a "conscious life"? Then you can't use the violation of another person's rights as an argument against early abortions, because there's no "another person" yet at this point as it's *not* yet a "conscious life" at the time abortions are already banned for these women. That means you really have no valid argument against these early abortions at all. It's simply a matter of a person's rights vs. a non-person's non-rights.


That's not exactly true - I'm making an *exception* in the case of [censored] victims by weighing pro's and con's - a [censored] victim had nothing to do with her predicament and should have the option to bail out of it if possible without causing suffering to the unborn child. A woman who got pregnant after normal intercourse has no such right - she knew what she was doing and what were the possible consequences.

You live in a bubble - you think that a person is first and foremost free and you value it highly, but you fail to understand that your freedom ends where somebody else's freedom begins.

I'll explain it to you again because you seem to have issues with reading, and I'll add bullet points for your convenience.
A consenting couple could've easily used any type of physical contraceptive (such as a condom), _a [censored] victim is stripped of this right._
A consenting couple could've bought and taken a Morning-After once they realized that the woman is in serious danger of becoming pregnant and didn't do so, instead relying on dumb luck. _[censored] victims held prisoner againts their will are stripped of this right._
A consenting couple could've planned their intercourse earlier and choose to use hormonal contraception or other long-term methods. _[censored] cannot be planned by the victim by definition._
You still don't understand my point though, so I'll do my best to help you out with this one.

*A consenting couple had 72 hours to go to the doctor, ask for a prescription and receive a Morning-After pill to prevent the pregnancy. They had all the power in their hands and could prevent it within three working days.* What this means is that they chose to wait those three days and see if the woman will become pregnant or not rather than waste their time sitting in a GP's office. In other words, apparently the pregnancy wasn't that threatening throughout those three days.

*I much prefere if [censored] victims are given Morning-After*, instances of [censored] victims being held prisoner after the ordeal for a time period exceeding three days are *extremely rare*, thus even the abortion I find incredibly sad but acceptable would simply be the final way out rather than a permanently used solution.

You accuse me of being unfair - giving people rights and non-rights wheras you yourself violate the rights of the unborn child, be it concious or unconcious. Remember what I said about _zygotes, embryos and fetuses_. Zygotes have the potential to become life, embryos are life and fetuses (late stage) are concious life. Can you see the gradation here?

A zygote only has the potential to become new life, but potential alone is not life yet - a Morning-After is acceptable by all means. An embryo is life at its earliest stage - it should have the chance to develop, we shouldn't put wrenches into the clockwork of life, however in _extreme _cases it should be up to the mother - cases such as [censored]. Fetuses are the most "advanced" stage before the child is fully formed - the later in pregnancy the more complete they are, and if they are found concious by a party of doctors, they're human beings with their own rights that we need to respect.

Moreover, I am not giving more rights to [censored] victims than to consenting women, I am merely *returning the rights they were stripped off to them*. A consenting couple had both the right to be safe during intercourse and the right to prevent pregnancy after the intercourse - a [censored] victim hadn't and it is only fair and just that she gets to choose in the end.

*As for your question about involountary organ donation*, I'm not answering your question because it has no relevance to the thread. It's not a quiz bowl - I'm not here to answer your questions. Excuse me, but I won't amuse you - I'm not a clown, so if you're looking for that, I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere. This is no debate, but it's a serious discussion none the less, and if you don't feel like making a point and prepared an entire comedy routine especially for me that requires me to answer your questions first then I'm afraid you'll have to dumb it down to something short that makes sense.

*EDIT:* I'm not one to correct the Staff, but I said it in the past and I'll say it now. _"Ra-pe"_ is not a swearword, it's not offensive in any way and it should not be censored. I realize that it is often used by people far too immature to understand the weight of it, but the fact that this word is quite "heavy" doesn't mean that is shouldn't be used. By censoring it, instead of punishing the immature party, the Staff is punishing the entire community. It's a little bit upsetting that we're being treated like children here.


----------



## Aeter (Aug 28, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> As for Aeter's comment, I believe that only creatures with a brain are capable to be self-aware, thus conscious and I'm pretty sure that I have plenty of scientists on my side.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know, but the guy's self-awareness is still largely in tact, while the parts of his brain thought to be critical for self-awareness were destroyed.
Actually, they're just saying that self-awareness can't be pin-pointed in the brain, but is a complex of interactions between multiple brain regions.
So yeah, I'm still wrong...


----------



## kupo3000 (Aug 28, 2012)

tatripp said:


> Another reason why conservatives dislike abortion is because of the horrible origins. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a proponent of Eugenics until it became unpopular. Eugenics was a movement that encouraged Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest. She considered the fit to be the white middle class and wealthy and the unfit to be black, poor, immigrants, and the disabled. Hitler was inspired by books and articles from people in her foundation and even referred to one of the books as "my bible." Even today there is blatant racism by planned parenthood clinics located in many minority neighborhoods.



No, just no, I don't even. 
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with eugenics (another method of artificial selection).
Natural Selection ≠ Artificial Selection.
Heck, humans have been practicing artificial selection ever since they started learning how to breed different plants and livestock.
As for "Survival of the fittest", Darwin only meant it as a metaphor for life forms suited better (adapted) for immediate and local environment, not the common misnomer of in the best physical shape or a specific race.


----------



## leic7 (Aug 29, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> You live in a bubble - you think that a person is first and foremost free and you value it highly, but you fail to understand that your freedom ends where somebody else's freedom begins.


I wonder what exactly you think constitutes a "somebody else" in that statement.



> A zygote only has the potential to become new life, but potential alone is not life yet - a Morning-After is acceptable by all means. An embryo is life at its earliest stage - it should have the chance to develop, we shouldn't put wrenches into the clockwork of life, however in _extreme _cases it should be up to the mother - cases such as [censored]. Fetuses are the most "advanced" stage before the child is fully formed - the later in pregnancy the more complete they are, and if they are found concious by a party of doctors, they're human beings with their own rights that we need to respect.


So what kind of rights does an "embryo" have? If you don't want any of your views challenged by anyone, say so, and I'll stop. But I just want to say I really didn't ask questions to make fun of you, I just wanted to base my response on your actual answers instead of my own assumptions.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 29, 2012)

leic7 said:


> So what kind of rights does an "embryo" have? If you don't want any of your views challenged by anyone, say so, and I'll stop. But I just want to say I really didn't ask questions to make fun of you, I just wanted to base my response on your actual answers instead of my own assumptions.


Fair play, perhaps you didn't, but if you want to make a point in a discussion, just make it.  As for the embryo, I simply respect the unborn life. Its chance to become concious life shouldn't be taken away from it just because someone took their chances - three days is just about enough time to stop the process. If someone doesn't use that opportunity, there's nobody to blame other than the person in question and what right do we have to intervene?  Like I said - pregnancy is not an illness and requires no treatment unless the child develops in an unexpected fashion. The pregnancy could've been prevented but it wasn't.



Aeter said:


> I know, but the guy's self-awareness is still largely in tact, while the parts of his brain thought to be critical for self-awareness were destroyed.
> Actually, they're just saying that self-awareness can't be pin-pointed in the brain, but is a complex of interactions between multiple brain regions.
> So yeah, I'm still wrong...


Don't worry - it was still quite an interesting article.


----------



## leic7 (Aug 29, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> leic7 said:
> 
> 
> > So what kind of rights does an "embryo" have? If you don't want any of your views challenged by anyone, say so, and I'll stop. But I just want to say I really didn't ask questions to make fun of you, I just wanted to base my response on your actual answers instead of my own assumptions.
> ...


So, the embryo has no legal rights? And there are no legal reasons against early abortions? The only thing to discourage a woman from exercising her legal right is...your disapproval? Who the heck do you think you are? Your personal respect for "the unborn life", and your personal belief that "if she didn't do it within the first 3 days then she suddenly can no longer do it on day 4", are products of your own morality. You're entitled to it, but don't expect that many others share it. If you don't personally "believe" in abortion, just don't get one when/if you're pregnant, and let others make their own choice in accordance with their own morality. In a democratic society, we can't make legislation based on any individual's morality. Abortion is a legal issue that involves a human right and a constitutional right.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 29, 2012)

leic7 said:


> So, the embryo has no legal rights? And there are no legal reasons against early abortions? The only thing to discourage a woman from exercising her legal right is...your disapproval? Who the heck do you think you are?


A citizen.





> Your personal respect for "the unborn life", and your personal belief that "if she didn't do it within the first 3 days then she suddenly can no longer do it on day 4", are products of your own morality.


It's a product of reasoning.What gives you the right to prematurely end life? Who do you think you are?





> You're entitled to it, but don't expect that many others share it.


You are entitled to your lack of respect to life, but don't expect that many to share it.





> If you don't personally "believe" in abortion, just don't get one when/if you're pregnant, and let others make their own choice in accordance with their own morality.


Or you allow a democratic society to voice their opinion via the mouths of their elected representatives in the senate/parliment/whatever applies in your country and let the majority decide what the rules are.





> In a democratic society, we can't make legislation based on any individual's morality.


You're right - in a democratic society, the majority creates legislature.





> Abortion is a legal issue that involves a human right and a constitutional right.


You have issues with distinguishing human rights and liberal mumbo-jumbo. An unborn child is as much a human as you are from a genetic point of view, you just refuse to acknowledge it. Like I said, it is only fair to give back the rights that a [censored] victim was stripped off and allow her to abort a pregnancy which is early, but it's not fair to allow a woman who didn't protect herself from pregnancy and didn't take a Morning-After to stop the process. It's simple.

We're in a vicious circle now - those arguments are so-called "non-arguments" - move a few words and they can be used by either side, as I've just shown you.


----------



## tatripp (Aug 30, 2012)

kupo3000 said:


> tatripp said:
> 
> 
> > Another reason why conservatives dislike abortion is because of the horrible origins. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a proponent of Eugenics until it became unpopular. Eugenics was a movement that encouraged Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest. She considered the fit to be the white middle class and wealthy and the unfit to be black, poor, immigrants, and the disabled. Hitler was inspired by books and articles from people in her foundation and even referred to one of the books as "my bible." Even today there is blatant racism by planned parenthood clinics located in many minority neighborhoods.
> ...


You are correct. I was unclear and wrong in my description. Let me clarify what I should have and meant to have said. Darwin's survival of the fittest idea is that the organisms that are more suitable to survive will survive and pass on their traits. Francis Galton, Charles Darwin's half cousin, coined the term eugenics. He was also a major supporter of it and wrote many books and papers about it. In Darwin's book The Descent of Man, Darwin supported Galton's work and agreed that the inferior members of society should not marry. Galton also acknowledged that his ideas came from Darwin's. My point that I should have made clearer was that Darwin did agree with Galton's ideas about eugenics and even inspired them to a significant degree.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 30, 2012)

tatripp said:


> In Darwin's book The Descent of Man, Darwin supported Galton's work and agreed that the inferior members of society should not marry.



This idea comes from a section taken out of context, deliberately omitting the next paragraph, by anti-science nutters like Ben Stein.

http://www.expellede...hitler-eugenics


> In Expelled, Ben Stein reads a passage (omitting ellipses) that was also read by anti-evolutionist William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes trial:
> _With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick, thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.)_
> But Stein does not quote the very next passage in the Descent of Man which makes clear that Darwin was not advocating eugenics. Rather, he remarked, “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. _Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature_.” (emphasis added)
> These are hardly the words of someone arguing for the sort of totalitarian eugenics practiced by the Nazi state, as implied by Expelled.



Eugenics is diametrically opposed to Darwin's ideas.  You need a wide genepool and as many different combinations as possible for new mutations to be found.  If there is genuine 'poor breeding' it would eventually be selected against.  Hitler's 'master race' would have ended up with horrible deformities and hereditary diseases because of the lack of genuine natural selection.

Conversely, I've heard people argue against abortion because, while poor people have a lot of babies, successful career men and women are more likely to want to abort an unplanned pregnancy to follow their life goals, so abortion increases the amount of 'undesirables' compared to the intelligent/wealthy.  Does that also count as 'eugenics'?


----------



## leic7 (Aug 30, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> leic7 said:
> 
> 
> > So, the embryo has no legal rights? And there are no legal reasons against early abortions? The only thing to discourage a woman from exercising her legal right is...your disapproval? Who the heck do you think you are?
> ...


You're not just a citizen, but someone who wants to force their own morals on other citizens by reducing the legal rights of other citizens if they don't choose how you want them to choose. There's a reason I specifically asked you what "rights" an embryo should have, ya know.

I fully acknowledge the evidence in biology, I'm also capable of recognizing that the abortion debate and the legal issues are *not* in the realm of biology. The similarity in genetic makeup among different types of cells is a biological question. "Who's considered a 'person'" and "what rights does a 'person' have" are legal questions. Be precise with your terminology. When you use words such as "human", "somebody", "unborn child", etc. do you mean them in the legal sense? The human right I've been referring to is a legal right defendable in court. Which "rights" you mentioned are actual rights?

What gives "me" the right to prematurely end life? Well, let's see: I'm a person; as a person, I have the right to bodily integrity, which is protected under the United Nations' declaration of human rights, and by the constitution in different countries (worded differently in diff. docs). If I were pregnant and I wanted an abortion, the UN's human rights declaration and the constitution both gave me that right.

You wanna strip people of that right? Better think real hard to come up with a substantial legal reason then. I'm just speechless at the fact that you seem genuinely convinced that your "reasoning" seriously makes sense. Don't you wonder why none of the supreme court rulings on abortion has ever considered your "reasoning" as arguments? 'Forgetting' to use contraception is not a crime against humanity, it's actually totally legal to 'forget' contraception, you can't penalize a person by denying their fundamental right for doing something legal, nor can you remove their right because they didn't exercise that right previously.

And I respect life just fine, I just never got indoctrinated enough to think it's sacrosanct, and I never feel the need to force it on another person. I just want to be able to mind my own damn business, and not have my human right and constitutional right violated because someone who can't even construct proper arguments wants to shove their morality down my throat. You could really use your own advice on how "your freedom ends where somebody else's freedom begins." Democracy doesn't simply mean 'majority rule', laws would have to be constitutional (unless you wanna pull some fancy legislative manoeuvres to sidestep the constitution itself).


----------



## narutofan777 (Aug 30, 2012)

abortion should stay legal.  not everyone has the money and time for a child anyway. women should not have to raise an unwanted child from [censored]. saying that people should take responsibility and raise the child is wrong. they are unprepared and not suited to raise one.

when I hear about homeless kids living the hard life because of irresponsible parents I feel sad. living in the streets, how ya' gonna stay alive? in some cities the crime rates are scary, what happens to those kids then? the ones in Detroit or St. Louis. Does anyone really think the most of these kids are gonna grow up to be stable functional adults? when you are surrounded by crime and poverty, how do you get past that life? No one is gonna get paid to save these kids, they gotta fend for themselves.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 30, 2012)

leic7 said:


> -Same argument over and over again-


You and your bodily integrity again. We already established several times that a developing child does not share the same genetic code as the mother - _it's a separate human being_ created from composed mother's and father's DNA samples, thus you cannot say that the mother has the right to govern it. The _bodily integrity_ of the mother is not voided by the entity inside her womb either - _none of her organs are ever removed from her body_. Your point is null and void and yet you keep on using it.

My reasoning makes perfect sense, it's been recognized by the UN as not violating any rights. In fact, this legislature is being actively used in my home country.

You mention forgetting about contraception - fair play, but is forgetting about contraception for nearly four days straight equal to forgetting once? How is going to a pharmacy to get a Morning-After difficult? Answer - it's not. What I want to happen is to make the pills free-of-charge. Condom broke? Been drunk and forgot to use one? Forgot about the pill? Go to a GP, get the pill - bam! Problem solved. It requires zero loss of life and zero morality issues. What you're doing is sweeping the responsibility under the carpet and just give the woman rights to do just about anything - you think it's right but I'm sorry, it's not. She had sufficient time to sort the issue out.

Democracy IS exactly what I said - it works around the Majority Rule ideology with a certain degree of protection for minorities. Constitution is not set in stone - it can change, there are specific organs in the legislature body which may change it or even overthrow it entirely.


----------



## tatripp (Aug 30, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> tatripp said:
> 
> 
> > In Darwin's book The Descent of Man, Darwin supported Galton's work and agreed that the inferior members of society should not marry.
> ...


Ben Stein apparently misquoted him and took it out of context, but that website also takes it out of context. If you look at the whole paragraph (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Notable_Charles_Darwin_misquotes) about midway down, you will see that Darwin did support Eugenics to some degree. He does say "*we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind...*which I understand to mean a necessary evil. He also explains how it is good that it is a good thing that the inferior members of society cannot marry as freely as the superior. Here is the quote "*Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."
*I don't think that Eugenics is opposed to Darwin's ideas but I'm not trying to say that Darwin created or agreed with a Hitler like philosophy. Hitler was inspired by his ideas and even Eugenics. The whole point of eugenics is reproduction for the fit and not for the unfit, and that was Hitler's goal. Darwin did not cause WW2 or create the man who caused WW2. 
Eugenics tries to control the population by stopping the unfit from passing on their genes, so I don't think the example of successful people aborting a baby is actually eugenics. Actually I the example you explained is called planned parenthood now despite not being planned and definitely not resulting in parenthood.


----------



## leic7 (Aug 31, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> leic7 said:
> 
> 
> > -Same argument over and over again-
> ...


When did I ever say the mother has the right to govern the _fetus_? Strawman much? I even at one point called the fetus a "foreign entity", and compared its physiological existence to that of a "parasite". What I actually said, is that the mother 100% owns her uterus, and all of the nutrients produced by her body.

What exactly do you think constitutes a violation of a right (justified or not)? Like, what are the central elements to be considered to determine whether a violation has occurred?

If you're interested, I suggest you read up on the ruling on the _Roe v. Wade_ case, or other similar cases, to educate yourself on how these types of arguments are made in North American courts. Regardless of how the eventual judgment went, just look at the arguments and rationale. I challenge you to find a single court example that would use your "reasoning" as actual arguments. Sorry I can't comment on how things work in your home country because I have no clue.

Is anyone actually proposing a constitutional change in the US because of the abortion issue?


----------



## smile72 (Sep 1, 2012)

What's wrong with this statement? Sounds like typical American Male Republican Politician to me.


----------

