Abortion: For Or Against? [Archive]

NikkiD

12-23-2004, 01:06 AM

I voted for under certain circumstances.

I personally couldn't ever have done it, except under one of those circumstances.

As for someone else, there are just too many factors for me to say that I'm altogether for it or against it.

Some of the reasons I'm not altogether against abortion:

A baby that is not wanted but kept may not be loved and cared for as he/she should be. Not every woman would choose to give a child up for adoption just because she didn't have an abortion, but the parents may end up regretting having the baby and transferring those feelings onto him/her.

It's not my right to tell someone else what to do with their body.

Some of the reasons I'm not for abortion:

The man's rights go out the window. What if the man who fathered that child wants to keep it? So what if it's the woman who has to carry it, doesn't the father have as much right to that child, and as much right to that decision? I don't know the laws everywhere, but I do know someone who's ex girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes, and it still hurts him to this day. He has no children and would have given anything for that child. I mean a woman has the right to birth a child against a man's wishes and demand child support from him, but he can't demand that a child he wants be born so that he may care for it? Not a very fair system in my opinion.

Second, birth control is better taught and practiced before pregnancy.

The waiting list for adoption is astronomical.

Human life is precious.

ahctlucabbuS

12-23-2004, 02:33 AM

I mean a woman has the right to birth a child against a man's wishes and demand child support from him, but he can't demand that a child he wants be born so that he may care for it? Not a very fair system in my opinion.

I'm generally for abortion, but you do make an excellent point.

Though, still maybe not a reason for a ban unless special circumstances.

Maybe a right for adoption by the father should he so wish.

cpt_azad

12-23-2004, 02:40 AM

I'm not gonna get to detailed into this one.

For, only under circumstances that require, otherwise against.

Busyman

12-23-2004, 04:15 AM

Arm

12-23-2004, 05:39 AM

The man's rights go out the window. What if the man who fathered that child wants to keep it?
I dont think many men who are stuck in the pregnency situation would want to father children. Not a good argument. And no, human life aint precious. It has no real meaning, no real truths, no universal morals. :blink:

Skiz

12-23-2004, 05:45 AM

What happened to my reply? :unsure:

NikkiD

12-23-2004, 06:34 PM

I think the man should have absolutely no say so.

It ain't his body. Nuff said. :dry:

It's his DNA. And if she has the child, he is responsible for it. He should have a say in whether his child can be born. All this "it's her body" is crap. The baby inside was made by both of them, it's not hers alone.

EDIT: If that is the case, then why are men forced to pay child support for children that they didn't want their girlfriends to have? It's her body, right? It's her decision? Why should he be forced to pay for her decision?

vidcc

12-23-2004, 09:22 PM

I am not for abortion personally, but i am pro choice. I haven't voted because i don't feel any option represents that.

j2k4

12-23-2004, 09:24 PM

It's his DNA. And if she has the child, he is responsible for it. He should have a say in whether his child can be born. All this "it's her body" is crap. The baby inside was made by both of them, it's not hers alone.

EDIT: If that is the case, then why are men forced to pay child support for children that they didn't want their girlfriends to have? It's her body, right? It's her decision? Why should he be forced to pay for her decision?

That's the point.

BTW-Men are sometimes required to pay support for children who are not their own; even when proper paternity is not questioned, and the birth-father is not in hiding.

I know this, because it happened to me-15 years-worth-the court acknowledged all of these facts, but decided that I was it, and that was all she wrote.

TheDave

12-24-2004, 06:44 AM

for: if the baby will be severly handicapped or the mother will probably die

against: pretty much every other circumstance. if you got yourself pregnant it's your own selfish fault, stick it out and get the baby adopted. if you get raped though tough luck, 10 months out of your life is nothing on the whole life of the baby, again just get it adopted

ruthie

12-24-2004, 08:23 AM

100% for abortion, which has been practiced all throughout history. Herbal lore was common knowledge through the ages,and widely practiced, as was contraceptive measures.

human_pet

12-24-2004, 09:40 AM

TheDave

12-24-2004, 09:46 AM

i posted too early in the morning. now i think its only wrong after the fetus starts to look cute. the law got it right

vidcc

12-26-2004, 01:04 AM

I am not for it as a personal choice for myself however i am pro choice. I believe in the right of adults to make their own decisions under correct medical guidelines. I would like to see tighter controls on the time allowed.

Mad Cat

12-26-2004, 01:33 AM

I'm against abortion but only if the mother's life is endangered then I'm for.that's the only reason I can think of for legalising abortion.I do not think it's right to abort a handicapped babies.Are they not human beings?If that is the case,why not we kill other handicapped people?

I totally agree there, yet I am pro choice.

Killing the handicapped, as long as they are not in pain, is way unfair. We let criminals live yet we don't want a handicapped person to be alive because we'll feel sorry for them??

Given the choice, I'd live handicapped, as long as I wasn't in constant agony. It'd be the ultimate contemplation, wouldn't it? No worries, just thought.

hobbes

12-26-2004, 04:34 AM

If I got a woman pregnant, I could never live with agreeing to an abortion.

As an agnostic, that would be that embryo's only chance at existence.

For those who like to believe in God, I'm sure he would sort that shit out. I'm not sure why they worry about this subject. No loving God would penalize one who is killed, unborn.

Busyman

12-27-2004, 02:32 PM

It's his DNA. And if she has the child, he is responsible for it. He should have a say in whether his child can be born. All this "it's her body" is crap. The baby inside was made by both of them, it's not hers alone. See 1.

EDIT: If that is the case, then why are men forced to pay child support for children that they didn't want their girlfriends to have? It's her body, right? It's her decision? Why should he be forced to pay for her decision?
He had sex with her. Babies are a byproduct of sex. :dry:
No one has the right to control another's body, however.

1. As far as payment, paternity has next to nothing to do with it. That is all about the state not footing the bill for taking care of the child themselves. It helps keeps welfare down (at least for the mom). The state will pin fatherhood on the closest man standing near a pregnant woman if they could. The law doesn't allow such luxuries but it's damn close and rather scary.

Busyman

12-27-2004, 08:26 PM

I think where I fundamentally disagree with "pro choice" is that I believe the above extends to the child. No-one has the right to interfere with their body, particularly by killing them.

The balance is - 9 months out of one persons life (substantially less actually, because they wouldn't know right away). Or taking away someone else's entire future. I believe the child's rights take precedence, all else being equal.

However where the choice is death for on or the other, then the balance obviously moves. I believe in that instance the mother takes precedence, unless she choses to let nature take it's course (which I believe is any person's right).

In order for "pro choice" to have an argument the child must be devoid of all human rights, I do not believe this is a reasonable position.
The problem is that there are those that consider an embryo not to be a child.

Then there are those that consider an embryo the same as a crying 1 year-old.

Snee

12-27-2004, 09:27 PM

I say it's the (possibly not)mother's right to choose. And I'd rather someone who knew they couldn't take care of their child or wouldn't care for it did it. It isn't right what some people do to unwanted children.

But that it should be considered carefully as it can be very bad for someone who goes through it, what with feelings of guilt and everything. Not to mention the fact that the world might lose a possible genious or somesuch. So I don't like people who'd do it just 'cos they don't feel like having a child right now or because it doesn't fit their career-plans or something. Or for that matter 'cos it turned out to have some handicap in the making.

If every unplanned child got aborted I wouldn't have been around today.

EDit1&2: The father should have a say tho', if the mother to be decided to keep the child and decided he was to be its father, can't spring one of them surprises on someone like eighteen years later or force someone else into taking care of a child.

The mother should have the right to decide if she was to be a mother, but not if the biological father was to be a father.

Snee

12-27-2004, 09:48 PM

I tend to think of when one becomes human in terms of processing power. An embryo the size of my finger does not have the capability to form coherent thoughts the way someone older can, it's probably not sentient as it is.

Bugger if we all have souls tho', 'cos every soul would deserve at least one chance at life, I think.

j2k4

12-29-2004, 01:08 AM

testing...

silent h3ro

12-29-2004, 02:46 AM

What happened to my reply? :unsure: :lol:

mogadishu

12-29-2004, 07:27 AM

hey, if it means i have one less person to compete with for some bread, then sure. Abortion is totally blown out of proportion. Anyone who thinks a rape victim etc shouldnt have an abortion should have been aborted themselves.

j2k4

12-29-2004, 11:30 PM

That is the entire crux mate. How one thinks of the unborn.

However those who take the former position, also decide that the embryo has no rights. Which to me is very harsh indeed, even if one considers them not to be a child one cannot deny that they are some form of human being.

I will here reproduce a selected relevent excerpt from a recent column by William F. Buckley, which is, I think, a very succinct summing-up of JPaul's point.

I echo both the point and sentiment.

Herewith:

By one line of reasoning, a woman has the right to do what she chooses with her own body. That position can be taken, and was taken before Roe v. Wade came into town, by many who defended the right to abort. What the Supreme Court contributed was a constitutional validation. If abortion is a “right,” then perhaps the people who exercise that right are no more contumacious than people who write articles and take political positions. That would be a fundamentalist view of human rights, and there are those who believe that...(any who)...affirm the right to abort...(are)...doing nothing more merely than affirming the exercise of human rights in general.

Other analysts...(are)...fooled by the respect...(they feel)...for the Supreme Court. Since the Court had ruled that abortion was okay, what more argument was there to dwell upon?

There is, of course, the difficulty that the Supreme Court is capable of judgments which, on reflection, observers are free to question, and even to oppose. The overriding question being, of course, whether in the exercise of a “right,” the right of someone else has been transgressed upon. In this case, obviously, the right of the unborn child. If the child has a right, surely it is to live. Therefore, to end his life is to go beyond the plausible limits of the mother’s right.

On abortion, the views of some, pre-Roe and post-Roe, were that no judicial reasoning can validate the expression of freedom when it is invoked in order to obliterate another human life.

sArA

12-30-2004, 12:22 AM

Whilst I agree with many of the sentiments expressed here, what concerns me is that if we do not draw a line under the limits of 'rights to life' we are in danger of creating a climate that is not only anti-abortion, but also, fundamentally anti-contraception.

The use of the coil actively prevents implantation of a fertilized egg which therefore constitutes abortion.

In my opinion, time limits should be low and carefully monitored and we need to know that there is a difference between contraception, abortion and murder.

Biggles

12-30-2004, 12:30 AM

I tend towards the view that as the women is the vehicle for conception and carriage of the fetus she has the over-riding say in the matter.

Consequently, I lean towards what is called "choice". However, I do not think that abortion is the best means of birth control and I am increasingly uneasy with just how commonplace it has become.

Notwithstanding ethical or religious arguments, for the want of a condom or pill or coil, valuable medical resources are being used for something that is almost entirely preventable; rape or over-riding medical concerns being obvious exceptions.

I would like to see less reliance on abortion and greater use of intelligent "choice" before the event of conception. This can include abstinence if the individuals feel moved to go down that route but I cannot agree with those who would die in a ditch over extending education and availability of other birth control techniques. There is an underlying socio/religious agenda in the pro-life campaign that repels me and, I suspect, the broader public.

In short I have opted for the third way. :ermm: This is not an endorsement of New Labour.

ilw

12-30-2004, 12:32 AM

i vote for
theres plenty of people already

sArA

12-30-2004, 01:09 AM

Busyman

12-30-2004, 01:36 AM

I will here reproduce a selected relevent excerpt from a recent column by William F. Buckley, which is, I think, a very succinct summing-up of JPaul's point.

I echo both the point and sentiment.

Herewith:

By one line of reasoning, a woman has the right to do what she chooses with her own body. That position can be taken, and was taken before Roe v. Wade came into town, by many who defended the right to abort. What the Supreme Court contributed was a constitutional validation. If abortion is a “right,” then perhaps the people who exercise that right are no more contumacious than people who write articles and take political positions. That would be a fundamentalist view of human rights, and there are those who believe that...(any who)...affirm the right to abort...(are)...doing nothing more merely than affirming the exercise of human rights in general.

Other analysts...(are)...fooled by the respect...(they feel)...for the Supreme Court. Since the Court had ruled that abortion was okay, what more argument was there to dwell upon?

There is, of course, the difficulty that the Supreme Court is capable of judgments which, on reflection, observers are free to question, and even to oppose. The overriding question being, of course, whether in the exercise of a “right,” the right of someone else has been transgressed upon. In this case, obviously, the right of the unborn child. If the child has a right, surely it is to live. Therefore, to end his life is to go beyond the plausible limits of the mother’s right.

On abortion, the views of some, pre-Roe and post-Roe, were that no judicial reasoning can validate the expression of freedom when it is invoked in order to obliterate another human life.
Uh yeah, so are you for or against abortion? :huh:
--------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think an embryo has rights. I however think there is a "cutoff" point as to what is a baby and what is not. For instance, abortion at the 7th month is out of the question.

j2k4

12-30-2004, 02:26 AM

Uh yeah, so are you for or against abortion? :huh:

I chose the third option, which, I am given to understand, you are able to discern without asking the question.
--------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think an embryo has rights. I however think there is a "cutoff" point as to what is a baby and what is not. For instance, abortion at the 7th month is out of the question.

Though many efforts have been expended, scientific and otherwise, to divine the precise moment life begins, I gather you have determined the 7th month to be the appropriate cutoff; might I inquire how you arrived at this conclusion, or are you merely demonstrating your point?

Busyman

12-30-2004, 04:35 AM

I hate that post so much that it is painful for me even to respond to it. However I will as I have no option. I will also apologise in advance to one who I like to consider a friend. Sorry pal, but one has to take a stance on this issue. It's not a compromise, it's a matter of life or death.

Either the unborn are human, or they are not. One cannot draw an entirely arbitrary line. Give them the right to life, or deny it, but for fuck's sake choose. If they are human then they have the same right to life as any one of us. That right is absolute, it is unconditional.

However I accept that in some instances one life may have to be sacrificed for the greater good, hence my agreement with BM's original poll.
Ok then, what instances EXACTLY? :blink:

Btw, saying that you hated the post and had no option but to respond was worse than the response that you were apologizing for. :lol: :lol:

Good friends, good beer :beerchug:

Busyman

12-30-2004, 04:44 AM

Though many efforts have been expended, scientific and otherwise, to divine the precise moment life begins, I gather you have determined the 7th month to be the appropriate cutoff; might I inquire how you arrived at this conclusion, or are you merely demonstrating your point?
Read carefully. I said the 7th month is out of the question not the appropriate cutoff. Nice try though for someone who, hmmm, himself, hasn't voiced a stance. Maybe I can find it somewhere by using the Advanced Search. :dry:

Busyman

12-30-2004, 05:40 PM

This is not an issue I will debate for the sake of debate. As I stated earlier I see this type of discussion as being on behalf of those who cannot have it on their own behalf. As such it is not proper for me to use it as merely an intellectual exercise. Neither is it an option to ignore that which I normally would, for the sake of propriety.

To others this may be a discussion about freedom of choice, or a surgical procedure. To me it is a discussion about the right to life. I believe I agreed that with you earlier.
I gotcha. So basically, you don't want to say what instances you think abortion is cool besides saving the mom (which you stated earlier) nor will you say saving the mom is the only reason. You are not stating this because of the sake of debate or something like that.

Makes perfect sense.

On a side note:
Never go out on a limb....on the internet. :blink:

Rat Faced

12-30-2004, 06:11 PM

I cant vote here..

Although personally against it, i believe in the Right of the woman to choose.. which means id be voting for...

:blink:

Busyman

12-30-2004, 06:40 PM

My last was in response to

"Btw, saying that you hated the post and had no option but to respond was worse than the response that you were apologizing for :lol: :lol: "

However in answer to your last point, I do not think it is something for which one can prepare a list. It depends on the exact circumstance of the individual pregnancy. It is not a tick the box issue, at least not for me.

I know of one instance where a man impregnated his own daughter. When that child grew up he impregnated her as well. Now I would say that both children were innocents and had the right to a life. However, much as it pains me I can see that people would argue that abortion was an option in both cases.

In an instance like that I would still argue that the abortion was wrong, the perfectly innocent children were having their lives removed without them having a say. However I can also accept that there are strong arguments in the other direction, with regard to the emotional and mental health of the "mothers" who at the time were little more than children themselves.

However let's be honest, how often is one talking about life and death, or a situation like the above. As opposed to the convenience of the parents.
I understand but some things are black and white as far as what stance one takes regarding a person's rights....

Folks on here are getting all uppity and what not at the wording of the poll.

Maybe a mod can change it to

Abortion: For or Against ....the Right. :dry:
No really, change it.

Sure I would love to see no abortions but the issue is are you for or against the right of a woman to have one.

Example....

In instances of rape, incest, or saving the mom, I believe the female has the sole right to chose in ANY case. The only conundrum I have is when in the term is too late.

Rat Faced

12-30-2004, 06:52 PM

k, then its FOR... The womans Right to Choose

Busyman

12-30-2004, 07:05 PM

k, then its FOR... The womans Right to Choose
Glad to see that you voted.

For anyone else, the poll is not directed as FOR or AGAINST like it's something you would like to see more of or your favorite team.

It's regarding a woman's rights which I thought was fairly obvious.

My apologies. :dry:

Busyman

12-30-2004, 07:48 PM

I do understand your position and if it were only the Mother's rights to consider then the question would be much simpler.

However I also think that the unborn has rights too. In which case it is not a case of black or white. It is a case of balancing those rights.

For anyone who believes the unborn (be it child or fetus) has no rights then it really is a non-question.

I suppose what the whole abortion debate can be summed up by a couple of questions.

1. Is the unborn a human being.

2. Do they have any right to life.

If the answer to these questions is no (for the individual) then it is wholly down to the parents to decide. With the Mother having the right to make the decision

However if the answer is yes (which I believe), then it is no longer the black and white issue that you suggest. I believe that all human beings have inalienable rights. The first of which is the right to life, which outweighs everything else. So the unborn's right also have to be considered.
Good post.

I don't believe an embryo is a person. It is the equivalent of a tadpole and before that, it's the equivalent of a protozoa.

To further the point, if one takes the hardline religious stance then abortion should be illegal under any circumstance.

No bullshitting around with incest or rape conundrums. The religious stance should be, "Have the baby no matter what."

So depending on what you believe is a baby or whatever, there shouldn't be grey areas.

j2k4

12-30-2004, 08:34 PM

Read carefully. I said the 7th month is out of the question not the appropriate cutoff. Nice try though for someone who, hmmm, himself, hasn't voiced a stance. Maybe I can find it somewhere by using the Advanced Search. :dry:

I apologize, B., I voted several days ago when I first saw the poll, but never thought to confirm this in light of the board's recent spasms; I now understand your pique, and have voted and verified same.

I would be interested to hear how you would divine the exact point at which life begins; I myself stick hard by the moment of conception, as it signifies the point at which the march toward a new life seems-forgive the term-fated.

I see no other more-or-less obvious point of reference.

Your thoughts?

Busyman

12-30-2004, 08:56 PM

I can only speak for myself and my understanding of the stance taken by my religion. Which is not a black and white one. It is a case by case one.

However the default position is that abortion is wrong. It is seen as the taking of a life, there must be overwhelming reasons for that to be acceptable. The main one being, as you have stated the choice between one life or the other. The mother will take precedence.

For anyone who takes the same or a similar position to yours "I don't believe an embryo is a person. It is the equivalent of a tadpole and before that, it's the equivalent of a protozoa." then surely it is a non question.

I don't believe a tadpole or a protozoa has the same rights as a human being, but then I don't see how one can view an unborn person as not being human. I don't think we metamorphose into a human being. I think that is what we are, we may not look it in the early stages but it is what we are.

Now we are getting somewhere. Explain how it is not black and white based your stance. Barring that the mother is in danger, where does case by case come into effect?

I mean, what other cases can there be (based on your stance)?

Busyman

12-30-2004, 09:00 PM

I apologize, B., I voted several days ago when I first saw the poll, but never thought to confirm this in light of the board's recent spasms; I now understand your pique, and have voted and verified same.

I would be interested to hear how you would divine the exact point at which life begins; I myself stick hard by the moment of conception, as it signifies the point at which the march toward a new life seems-forgive the term-fated.

I see no other more-or-less obvious point of reference.

Your thoughts?
That's my man!!!

I believe that life starts at the moment of conception as well. I just don't view a merged sperm and egg the same as a baby.

Btw, what case(s) would you view abortion as being kosher?

j2k4

12-30-2004, 09:37 PM

That's my man!!!

I believe that life starts at the moment of conception as well. I just don't view a merged sperm and egg the same as a baby.

Btw, what case(s) would you view abortion as being kosher?

:)

I cannot reply to your last as I am not Jewish.

I would regard it (however regretfully) an option to be considered only in case of rape/incest/survival.

Avoidance of "stretch-marks" (as was profferred recently) wouldn't qualify.

Snee

12-30-2004, 10:37 PM

I'm interested that only 3 people were against, one gets the impression that the proportions would be somewhat more even from the media.

*goddess*

12-30-2004, 10:55 PM

:huh: I don't know if you're referring to the legal side of abortion, I know here what we actually want appears to have little to do with laws made/amended.

I couldn't have an abortion myself unless it was an extreme circumstance, but I generally wouldn't condemn someone that has one.

j2k4

12-30-2004, 11:31 PM

I'm interested that only 3 people were against, one gets the impression that the proportions would be somewhat more even from the media.

You are noticing an effect of media bias:

Popular opinion (as defined by most feminists, aided and abetted by the major media) holds that the "gray" area (option 3 in our poll) does not exist, and the public whose opinion resides therein are no different than those who would choose the "black" (#2) option.

It does their "cause" no good to publicize the fact that this school of thought even exists.

vidcc

12-30-2004, 11:33 PM

now busy cleared it up i voted "for" as i believe in the right of choice, even thoughit is not a choice i would make myself

Busyman

12-31-2004, 12:12 AM

It is always case by case, that's what case by case means.

Like I said I will not produce a list of possible scenarios. I have already mentioned a particularly extreme (true) case to illustrate the point.
Well your true case was not a case of abortion so it did not illustrate your point.

When do you believe that the unborn is entitled to rights, or does that only occur after birth.

That, consequently, is my conundrum. I'm against partial birth abortions wholeheartedly

Busyman

12-31-2004, 12:13 AM

now busy cleared it up i voted "for" as i believe in the right of choice, even thoughit is not a choice i would make myself
I thought you were a guy. :blink:

j2k4

12-31-2004, 12:26 AM

I thought you were a guy. :blink:

Geez, and I thought I had left out the most important fact.... :lol:

sArA

12-31-2004, 12:47 AM

Coming back late to this, and observing JPaul's comments, guess I must respond.

Obviously, no offence is taken in any way. The debate moved on...but my position at the time was one of ambiguity and provocation towards other issues... and I give you that. :)

Still, that debate still rages, and will continue for some time. :P

My 'opinion' if I have to give it is this...

I do not dispute the right to life of a human being, nor the repulsiveness of 'cosmetic' abortion.

Exceptions may and will apply, and they must be considered individually and pretty bloody quickly.

Abortion is ultimately the woman's choice although the father of the child should be allowed input.

I am against late abortion beyond say...12-14 weeks unless there is a very, very, very good reason.

ruthie

12-31-2004, 12:52 AM

However let's be honest, how often is one talking about life and death, or a situation like the above. As opposed to the convenience of the parents.

Besides getting into one's perception of "life or death", it should also be considered that mental health issues have a large role to play in the decision to abort or not...for many people, that is.
It really isn't anyone else's business if a woman chooses to have an abortion..
Abortion should be available, and not in a back alley.
I am sure some people make what some seem to refer to as selfish decisions, and, well...should that person be having a baby? How about a baby born with fetal alcohol syndrome, crack addictions, etc?
In some ways, I am amazed this is an issue for anyone,as it's no one's business.
Too much judgement..never know what a person's experience is unless you've walked in their shoes, and the bottom line is, we haven't...experience is unique to each and every individual,as is the way they perceive and process said experiences.
side note...for all the places abortion is illegal, I hope that ship keeps sailing that women can get on to have an abortion if so desired.

j2k4

12-31-2004, 01:52 AM

It's the unborn's business.

;)

Busyman

12-31-2004, 06:43 AM

It's the unborn's business.
Then that's something for the mother to take up with her maker.

Ultimately the mother is the vessel for life. She is in control.
If she consumes alcohol, indulges in smoking, etc. it can affect the baby.

Here's where black and white comes in:

If one sprout's the religious perspective that the moment of conception is where life begins them how can any instance of

possible birth defects
rape
or incest

be a reason for an abortion? What makes the unborn in these instances have a lesser right to life than the unborn that may cause stretch marks? :helpsmili

Biggles

12-31-2004, 05:37 PM

Firstly thank you, no offence was intended. However, I must once again take objection to the time issue.

I remain of the opinion that one accepts that the unborn is a person, or one denies it. Any "time from conception" based argument must be rejected.

For the simple reason that it assumes that there is a moment, post conception that one becomes a human. That makes no sense to me, we are not tadpoles, we do not go thro' a larval stage. We are human, from the moment of conception.

The argument seems to base it's validity on when the unborn looks sufficiently human to be afforded the same right to life as the rest of us. The core of my being tells me that argument is wrong.

Although again this can vary with religion. I read somewhere that the Zoarastrians held that the soul enters the womb in the 22nd week of pregnancy. Quite how they knew this I do not know. :blink: However, I suppose all religious revelations look a tad odd when viewed from the outside.

I believe there is a move to reduce the time limits downwards in the UK to 14 or 16 weeks (except for medical emergencies). However, as I understand it, 98% of existing abortions occur within this timeframe anyway so it wouldn't change much.

SpatulaGeekGirl

12-31-2004, 08:53 PM

Snee

12-31-2004, 09:10 PM

Why'd you feel bad about if you hate children anyway?

SpatulaGeekGirl

01-03-2005, 06:47 PM

I hate them but I don't enjoy watching them die......well...not always. :shifty:

Vanilla_Girl

01-12-2005, 05:09 AM

I believe it should be up to the woman so I am for.

brenda

01-13-2005, 11:17 AM

Oh yeah, no question. :no:

Imagine: have sex with a condom, condom has a hole, get preggers at 16/17 ect.

If it happened to me I would get an abortion, I might feel a little bit bad about it but I hate children and I don't want any. :ermm:

Anyone who feels emotionally old enough to emark upon a sexual relationship should be responsible enough to deal with the consequences. Unfortunately it is often the emotionally immature who choose to abort because they don't feel that they can cope with a baby...... only to discover that dealing with ones own emotions after having had an abortion is often the harder road to travel.

j2k4

01-13-2005, 09:09 PM

Anyone who feels emotionally old enough to emark upon a sexual relationship should be responsible enough to deal with the consequences. Unfortunately it is often the emotionally immature who choose to abort because they don't feel that they can cope with a baby...... only to discover that dealing with ones own emotions after having had an abortion is often the harder road to travel.

This is a point that isn't made often enough.

Thanks, brenda. ;)

vidcc

01-13-2005, 09:55 PM

I agree that it can be a more emotional road to travel, however there is a huge difference between
emotionally old enough to emark upon a sexual relationship and being emotionally old enough to raise a child.

Having sex is only as meaningful as the participants make it and can range from being the most intimate act of love to just something for personal pleasure without even knowing the partners name.

As i said already though one has to accept responsibility for ones own actions and make the correct decision appropriate to oneself.

Smith

01-13-2005, 10:58 PM

I dont think any of us should be able to deciede, it should be legal, and should be decieded by teh woman. Why should a president, let alone a male president deciede?

Petri

01-30-2005, 03:36 PM

For. I wish I had been aborted...

j2k4

01-30-2005, 04:56 PM

For. I wish I had been aborted...

I'm truly sorry you feel that way, Petri, but, on the other hand, it's good to see you posting again.

Hope you stick around.:)

Petri

01-30-2005, 07:25 PM

Someone actually remembers me? :blink:

j2k4

01-30-2005, 08:25 PM

Someone actually remembers me? :blink:

We never actually chatted, but sure, I remember you.

Where have you been?

NikkiD

01-30-2005, 09:12 PM

Someone actually remembers me? :blink:

Damn right. :D Where ya been hon? Missed you. :)

Petri

01-30-2005, 09:28 PM

Where have you been?

Where ya been hon?
Umm... nowhere. :whistling

Aren't we getting a bit off topic?

NikkiD

01-30-2005, 09:53 PM

Meh... it's the off topic section. :P

They'll just banish us to the lounge, methinks.

Snee

01-30-2005, 09:57 PM

This is the serious polls section you know, off-topic talk may be frowned upon in here.
Someone would need to report it to IKE or someone who cares, first tho'.

And I for one wouldn't dream of doing that.

Again. :P

j2k4

01-31-2005, 04:09 AM

Umm... nowhere. :whistling

Aren't we getting a bit off topic?

I've already used the words "yes" and "no" in this thread, so anything else I type is naught but an expansion of my earlier remarks, and as such is well worth anyone's time.

Considering the author.

Me.

Of course.

:P

RPerry

01-31-2005, 07:58 PM

Nice to see you Petri :hug:

don't worry about being banished to thelounge, haven't seen a mod around yet :unsure:

Biggles

01-31-2005, 07:58 PM

Plus the occasional hi-jack doesn't hurt. :unsure:

Petri

02-01-2005, 12:08 PM

OK, let's talk about me then. :P
I just uploaded my website the other day. It's not that interesting, but here it is anyway: http://koti.mbnet.fi/exec/

bigboab

02-01-2005, 07:06 PM

Plus the occasional hi-jack doesn't hurt. :unsure:

Do you mean in an 'Entente cordiale' type way?

Biggles

02-01-2005, 08:56 PM

Cordial or wine - preferably wine. :ph34r:

Petri - not a lot on that site yet is there? Plus was it a cigar or flower or was that simply a very cunning dig at a well known (ex)politician?

j2k4

02-01-2005, 10:28 PM

OK, let's talk about me then. :P
I just uploaded my website the other day. It's not that interesting, but here it is anyway: http://koti.mbnet.fi/exec/

Well, hell-at least you took the time.

I'll tell you what-I live in the midst of a thundering herd of Finnish people, heavily larded with Native Americans.

I can even spell the name of every Finnish person I know; they can't fool me by merely stringing 18 vowels together-I got'em covered.:D

Where in Finland, Petri?

Petri

02-02-2005, 09:17 AM

Where in Finland, Petri?
In Tampere, the third largest city of Finland (population over 200 000)... though according to the EU it's not a city, since there aren't enough people in relation to its geographical size. :rolleyes:

j2k4

02-02-2005, 08:41 PM

In Tampere, the third largest city of Finland (population over 200 000)... though according to the EU it's not a city, since there aren't enough people in relation to its geographical size. :rolleyes:

That doesn't sound quite right.

Are they now presuming to redefine what constitutes a city? :huh:

Biggles

02-02-2005, 11:15 PM

That doesn't sound quite right.

Are they now presuming to redefine what constitutes a city? :huh:

This may be a UK quirk but I thought in order to be a city one had simply to have a Cathederal.

j2k4

02-02-2005, 11:38 PM

This may be a UK quirk but I thought in order to be a city one had simply to have a Cathederal.

Works for me...:huh:

Barbarossa

02-03-2005, 09:25 AM

This may be a UK quirk but I thought in order to be a city one had simply to have a Cathederal.

Traditionally, yes, but now they are granting city status to all sorts of dives...

Wolverhampton.. Brighton & Hove.. Newport.. to name but a few :blink:

Petri

02-03-2005, 01:13 PM

This may be a UK quirk but I thought in order to be a city one had simply to have a Cathederal.
As an atheist I resent that... We do have one, though.

j2k4

02-04-2005, 12:47 AM

As an atheist I resent that... We do have one, though.

Quell your atheism, my boy; we are on a mission to secure city-hood for the fair burg of Tampere!

I hereby delegate this task to Bigglesworth; he is possessed of equal parts civic-mindedness and civility, and is of that particular mien that fairly shouts
Which way to the General Assembly, then??!!?!? :P

hobbes

02-04-2005, 02:31 AM

Your favorite movies include one of mine: The Shawshank Redemption.

Dark City is also excellent and quite unique. Hard to really describe it to anyone who has not watched it.

In addition to the quality of the movie, it was my introduction to Jennifer Connelly. :w00t:

Busyman

02-04-2005, 01:57 PM

Cheese

02-04-2005, 02:01 PM

Dark City = The Matrix

They even used the same sets...

Petri

02-04-2005, 04:11 PM

Dark City = a bit like Matrix, except that it's a million times better.

EDIT: Actually, it's Matrix that's similar to Dark City, as it was filmed later...

Busyman

02-04-2005, 06:40 PM

Dark City = a bit like Matrix, except that it's a million times better.

EDIT: Actually, it's Matrix that's similar to Dark City, as it was filmed later...
The only thing that was good about Dark City was the dark gritty city setting.

The movie sucked.

I would have wanted my money back if I saw it in a theater.

Petri

02-04-2005, 07:44 PM

Oh well, everyone's entitled to their wrong opinion... :D

Biggles

02-04-2005, 11:59 PM

As an atheist I resent that... We do have one, though.

I suspect J2's eyes were cast to New York rather than the Mound. One of the nice things about a CofS Synod is that they probably would be quite civil to an old Pagan.

Petri

If you have a population of 200,000 and a Catherdral then you live in a city. Any decision to the contrary is just perverse and indicitive perhaps of unrequited love or some other mishap on the part of the official concerned on a visit to your said city.

I am not sure if denomination is an issue - most Cathederals predate the reformation anyway.

Edit: The Mound is a place in Edinburgh where the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland meets and should not be taken to mean that J2's eyes were averted from certain anatomical characteristics - although as a gentleman I am sure he is circumspect in such matters. :rolleyes:

hobbes

02-05-2005, 02:50 AM

I suspect J2's were cast to New York rather than the Mound. One of the nice things about a CofS Synod is that they probably would be quite civil to an old Pagan.

Petri

If you have a population of 200,000 and a Catherdral then you live in a city. Any decision to the contrary is just perverse and indicitive perhaps of unrequited love or some other mishap on the part of the official concerned on a visit to your said city.

Ok, the first paragraph is almost meaningless to me "CofS Synod"? I assume that refers to the tangles of mucus that may accompany a cough or sneeze.

But the second is more troubling. Clearly your keyboard has been posessed by the spirit of J2. Had I seen the words: "anet, nonce or vis-a-vis" I would have been convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt.

j2k4

02-05-2005, 02:11 PM

You people have begun to run amok.

Deal me in. :D

Biggles

02-05-2005, 05:28 PM

Ok, the first paragraph is almost meaningless to me "CofS Synod"? I assume that refers to the tangles of mucus that may accompany a cough or sneeze.

But the second is more troubling. Clearly your keyboard has been posessed by the spirit of J2. Had I seen the words: "anet, nonce or vis-a-vis" I would have been convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Apologies

CofS = Church of Scotland - (not the most fundamentalist of organisations) Synod is a meeting.

I meant to include a vis-a-vis - oversight on my part.

JP

I am not even sure if the Cathederal still needs to be in use. Both Brechin and Elgin are cities but I am pretty sure both Cathederals are less than fully functional.

Wolfmight

02-06-2005, 02:12 AM

I'm only for it if the fetus hasn't developed yet... everything is still microscopic. I'm sure there's something you can take day to day that goes in and prevents anything from proceed towards developing the fetus with today's technology. Don't let that fetus form, and you should be wiping the seamen with a tissue.

Biggles

02-06-2005, 05:44 PM

I was in Elgin a week or so ago, city my arse.

:lol:

Hey! I never said I supported the idea.

kellenator

04-24-2005, 11:21 PM

abortion debates become such a bore but i'm definitely not against abortions.

hunaja

06-02-2005, 01:24 PM

Only in certain circumstances.

Chanel

06-11-2005, 05:44 AM

Only in certain circumstances.

Ditto.

maebach

06-14-2005, 07:34 PM

religion's a huge factor

bigboab

06-14-2005, 09:46 PM

I believe in certain circumstances it should be allowed. But done as soon as the pregnacy is diagnosed, provided it is within the time guidlines.

Busyman

06-14-2005, 10:23 PM

I believe in certain circumstances it should be allowed. But done as soon as the pregnacy is diagnosed, provided it is within the time guidlines.
What circumstances?

peat moss

06-14-2005, 11:43 PM

I believe in certain circumstances it should be allowed. But done as soon as the pregnacy is diagnosed, provided it is within the time guidlines.
What circumstances?

Rape would be one. Its funny, a man has no say in the matter but pays for the child's welfare its whole life. I still regret some decisions my first wife and I made 30 years ago about this issue. I was against it but supported her right as a woman . It still bothers me at times ,wondering what could of been. Its not to be taken lightly or used as a form of birth control. But just my honest opinon take it or leave it. ;)

Busyman

06-15-2005, 04:54 AM

What circumstances?

Rape would be one. Its funny, a man has no say in the matter but pays for the child's welfare its whole life. I still regret some decisions my first wife and I made 30 years ago about this issue. I was against it but supported her right as a woman . It still bothers me at times ,wondering what could of been. Its not to be taken lightly or used as a form of birth control. But just my honest opinon take it or leave it. ;)
Why rape and not "just because she may not want it"?