Abortion Views

My point isn't that the aid shouldn't be given, just that its being wasted. I know i'm carrying the analogy too far, but...
in your brief example

Quote:

---

If you were drowning, would you reject the offer of a life preserver based upon the politics of those who were offering?

---

I'd extend that to:
wouldn't u be pissed off if loads of you & your countrymen were drowning and a saviour came along in a rickety boat, only able to save a few because the rest of the money (that could have been spent building a big boat to save hundreds) had been spent putting priests on the boat who were there to convert the few they saved?
Sorry thats taking the example way too far, but its a flavour of how i see it. Obviously any boat is welcome, but still...

My point isn't that the aid shouldn't be given, just that its being wasted. I know i'm carrying the analogy too far, but...
in your brief example

Quote:

---

If you were drowning, would you reject the offer of a life preserver based upon the politics of those who were offering?

---

I'd extend that to:
wouldn't u be pissed off if loads of you & your countrymen were drowning and a saviour came along in a rickety boat, only able to save a few because the rest of the money (that could have been spent building a big boat to save hundreds) had been spent putting priests on the boat who were there to convert the few they saved?
Sorry thats taking the example way too far, but its a flavour of how i see it. Obviously any boat is welcome, but still...

I'll grant you make your point even though I disagree.

I'm not going to say "be glad they're getting any aid at all"; that would be uncharitable and objectionable on any number of levels.

What I am saying is this:

With the money comes (apparently) a religious component that some find mis-placed.

How could one determine how much of the total worth of the program is "wrongly" absorbed by this religious component?

Any religious personnel involved are trained in some form of medical endeavor (hands-on or logistical support/problem solving types); they don't issue booster shots, birth control, and religious indoctrination in equal measures.

Neither do I think Planned Parenthood is the only organization qualified to dispense information or education having to do with sexual reproduction or contraceptive birth control.

If teaching, or more appropriately, "pointing out" the effectiveness of abstinence as part of the education is part of the mix, so what?

They will still do as they want-at least they'll have been made aware of a method that works every time it is tried-a method that is conspicuous in it's absence from Planned Parenthood's considerable arsenal.

I agree of course that the money isn't wasted being spent on teaching the virtues of abstinence or on sending undoubtedly well trained staff to the affected areas, but I would add that abstinence will also be one of the options counselled by the Planned Parenthood group, its just that they will consider alternatives.

The problem is that Bush appears to think that all these 3rd world countries have the same cuture as the USA and the rest of the western hemisphere.

...ie that women can say NO....that they have a choice.



In a lot of these cultures, women have no rights.

If a man wants sex, he takes it, and is rarely if ever prosecuted for Rape.



In addition, many women are forced into Prostitution, or in some cases Prostitution is just a way of life...a way to put food on the table.

They cant just "not put out", or their kids will starve.



Abstinance in these places is a non-starter.

"Just Say No" is a stupendously ineffective tactic to use in this instance.
Why waste taxpayer's money on a campaign that has zero chance of being effective?
I think in this case Bush is clearly using my money in a campaign to solidify his political position with the Christian voters.
In effect, American foreign aid has become just another political tool in the Republican reelection effort.

Bloody stupid waste of time and effort.

Clocker:

"Just say no" is the anti-drug slogan.

Rat:

I think abstinence is actually a more applicable and effective principle here in the U.S. where women have a choice.

It would necessarily be less effective in a society such as you describe, but:

Clocker:

I'm pretty sure the mere mention of abstinence will neither harm the effort nor add significantly to it's cost.

ilw:

I am used to hearing Planned parenthood denounce abstinence as an ineffective and intrusive idea pushed by the right; indeed they seem to advocate "abstention" from abstinence-I don't believe they've changed their mind as to it's theoretical efficacy.

Quote:

---

One-third of the new AIDS prevention money for Africa will be directed to groups that take narrow and ineffective approaches to HIV/AIDS prevention by excluding condoms and relying on "abstinence-only" messages. These are precisely the policies pushed by the President's right-wing base.

---

J2,
I am well aware that "Just Say No" is the official name for Nancy Reagan's
pitifully misguided foray into the War on Drugs.

Quote:

---

I'm pretty sure the mere mention of abstinence will neither harm the effort nor add significantly to it's cost.

---

Diverting money from an organization with a proven track record to groups who's main approach is "JSN" won't add to the cost, simply dilute the potential effectiveness of the money spent. The "JSN" approach failed in San Diego, why think it will work in Sierra Leone?

Actually, I have to say I haven't seen anything other than an abortion that could be said to work, so I guess I have nothing more to offer on the subject.

I've just read some truly horrible ranting by JPaul, where he accuses women who choose to end a pregnancy of commiting infanticide. What gives anyone the right to pass such damning judgement on so very many women?

Quote:

---

infanticide noun 1 the murder of a young child or infant. 2 someone who murders a young child or infant. 3 the practice of killing newborn children. infanticidal adj.

---

From Chambers Dictionary

While it can certainly be argued at what stage of developement a foetus may be when an abortion takes place, you cannot refer to it as an infant.

Jpaul.
As i posted previously, the decision to terminate a pregancy must be the most heartbreaking decision a woman can make. What effect do you think your accusations could have on someone. Would you accuse someone, who'd had an abortion, of infanticide if they were in the same room, to their face? No, you would not. Can you imagine a woman crumpling in front of you, destroyed by your words?
While this is the internet, i think in this case you should still consider the effects your arrogant opinionatedness might have on someone.

I'm sure your going to condemn me as being too immature to be able to debate this topic. Well, i'm a (male) mental health nurse (grade G) with 11 years experience. I studied general nursing during my training and know exactly how traumatised a young woman can be following a terminated pregnancy. I also know that it is something very many woman never get over completely.




PLEASE CLOSE THIS POST.

Actually, some women do not give a toss about unwanted preganancy. My mate thought, so what? I get this abortion free, and it does not fu*k up my life!

Me and her are no longer mates. I would be but it was the way she went about it.

Ok Guys.

Emotive issue.

We went with it as much as we could.

People are now getting upset, and we now think its time to close the topic of "Abortion".

I know that there are "spinoffs", that came out of the thread...eg Aid to 3rd world countries etc.

Please feel free to start another thread on these topics.

Rat Faced

I really don&#39;t understand why the other topic was locked, you chaps were stating your views not arguing over it <_<

So lets continue....

As far as i&#39;m concerned, it all depends on the circumstances......

Very simple.

We allowed it, on condition...

People are getting upset now.

Ladies that have gone through it for example, and men too.

This decision was not taken by myself alone.

The topic is ****Closed****

Consider this a report from myself; the result of a bit of research on a topic of interest:

Norma McCorvey, who was "Jane Roe", of Roe vs. Wade, has recently begun an effort to have the landmark Supreme Court decision overturned.

She claims to have been a rootless, ungrounded "street person" when, at the age of 21, she found herself pregnant.

She concocted a tale of rape so as to avail herself of legal aid in dealing with her problem.

Her lawyers, she now says, favored abortion; they commenced to "deceive" and "use" her to forward their own agenda, telling her the life growing inside her was nothing but "tissue".

After the successful argument of her case before the Supreme Court, McCorvey became a feminist icon, and was offered work in various abortion clinics.

What she says she witnessed while toiling in these clinics gradually wore on her; the de-personalization of the client, the abortion act, and the resultant "waste" eventually caused her to turn away in horror, disgust and sadness.

I will not recount here any of the graphic aspects of her experiences as she relates them in her court proceeding.

McCorvey&#39;s lawyer, Allan Parker, is the founder of the Justice Foundation, a human rights interest.

He figures he has an excellent chance of success, using as a blueprint the argument outlined by Thurgood Marshall in his case "Brown vs. Board of Education", which resulted in the overturning of "Plessy vs. Ferguson", legally ending segregation in public schools.

Marshall claimed, and proved, segregation did demonstrable harm to black children and their chances at education.

In this vein, Parker calls for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned on the grounds Roe "deprived women of all protection from the dangers of abortion."

He provides affidavits from 1000 women in testament to physical, psychological and emotional damage they suffered as a result of their abortions; and for which risk was never addressed beforehand.

These risks were not largely known in 1973, when Roe vs. Wade was decided.

Such is not the case these days.

The advances in scientific medicine in the intervening years yield a better opportunity for the current court to re-examine and decide with a greater degree of certitude the issue of "when life actually begins".

An important development in Texas, of all places, bears upon this case:

In 1999, the Texas legislature passed law under which the state of Texas will commit to, and provide for, the upbringing of every child, up too the age of 18, while guaranteeing the privacy of the mother, and, in effect, establishing the "right" not to have to care for an unwanted child-no questions asked.

It is hoped this law will lower the number of abortions in Texas by the twin provisions of care for the child and privacy for the mother.

McCorvey&#39;s plea was recently thrown out by a federal judge in Texas; her lawyer, Mr. Parker, is determined to eventually argue his case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In round terms, I support McCorvey&#39;s effort and applaud the Texas law.

Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you wish with regard to my expression of support; I&#39;ll gladly try to correct any mis-perceptions.

It seems I read through the same court transcript you did. However, this isn&#39;t the first time Roe vs Wade&#39;s been challenged in court, and it likely won&#39;t be the last, although I am glad that the judge threw the matter out this time.

There&#39;s really two stumbling blocks here: "protection from the dangers of abortion," and determining "when life actually begins."

For the former, there is an inherent risk of physical harm due to the nature of the operation. However, there&#39;s also an inherent risk in carrying a pregnancy to term, in giving birth, and in the healing process afterwards. There is the risk that, when I step outside, I&#39;ll be smacked with a car when I&#39;m crossing the road. There&#39;s always a risk when a person undergoes surgery of even the most minute sort. I&#39;ve previously stated about the hormonal influences on mood, so, unless it&#39;s required, I won&#39;t rewrite it.

For the latter, there is an unfortunate number of ways to discern the beginning of life. People in the "Right To Life" movement will tell you that life begins at fertilization. Various Christians will tell you that God creates life prior to conception. Rev. Charles Henderson (Presbyterian minister and Christian scholar) clarifies this:

Quote:

---

...Indeed, the very notion of "conception" in the Bible does not refer to the fertilization of an egg by a sperm, rather conception is what happens when God creates someone or something...the basic biblical teaching about the beginning of life is that it happens at God’s initiative, by God’s command, in God’s mind. The Biblical writers did not even have the notion of conception that we have arrived at only recently through scientific investigation. They believed that the male sperm was the "seed" of life and that this seed is "planted" in the womb where it grows like any other seed. Clearly, in this, the biblical view, our notion of "conception" has no place. Human life no more begins at conception than the apple begins when an apple seed finds its way into the ground.

The relatively modern idea that life begins at conception is entirely unbiblical. Not only that, it is more in accord with a purely humanistic perspective for it places the initiative for life in the hands of the human parents. Life begins, not in the mind of God, but in the womb of a woman following intercourse. That this notion of how life begins postdates the Bible entirely does not seem to matter to those who rely upon it. So familiar are we moderns with the basic "facts of life," that we sometimes confuse "fact" with "theology," and raise scientific knowledge to the level of revealed truth. In fact, the notion that life begins at conception, substitutes a humanistic notion for a clear biblical teaching, and makes scientific understanding do the work of biblical faith. This may be a good and valid substitution to make, given what we know about how life begins, but it’s important that those who make such moves understand what it is they are doing. When someone argues that life begins at conception, and should be morally and legally protected from that point forward, they have no stronger legs to stand on than those who argue that life begins at birth. Both points of view are arbitrary, and one can claim no greater religious or theological authority for one than the other...

---

Yet more will say that life begins at consciousness (although how do you measure consciousness?), and others will say life begins at birth, or when the fetus is viable (capable of life outside the womb). It becomes a chicken and egg argument, much like most other debates concerning abstract ideas.

Do you have more information on that Texas law? Although the state may provide for every child, what percentage of them are going to be below the poverty line? If it&#39;s anything similar to the basic welfare contributions of the USA, the "support" given by the state isn&#39;t going to be nearly enough to care for and raise a child. It is, however, unlikely that Dickens-style workhouses (a la Oliver Twist) will spring up overnight.

:ninja:

Just as " bad law may spring from good intentions"*, the reverse can be equally true.

*I cannot for the life of me find the author of this quote, so until proven otherwise I shall attribute it to.....myself.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@6 July 2003 - 17:42
Just as " bad law may spring from good intentions"*, the reverse can be equally true.

*I cannot for the life of me find the author of this quote, so until proven otherwise I shall attribute it to.....myself.

---

I will try to expand on my thoughts tomorrow.

Excellent quote; I haven&#39;t knowledge of it&#39;s author, either.

As time is a consideration, I&#39;ll ask:

As to the availability of abortion services, by way of any effort to reduce the sheer number of them, would you consider dissemination of extensive (secular) information to all females (not just those in crisis), information meant to educate as well as inform, too (for lack of a better word) fettering?

Planned Parenthood stands in opposition to any such efforts, preferring to act as the clearing house for any information on the subject, to the legalized exclusion of all others.

Uh uh.....now j2k4, no trying to sneak in the back door.

Wait until i get a concensus from the Mods and Admins on this.... <_<

OK.


This topic is being re-opened.


However; it will be MODERATED closely.

Rules:

1/ NO PICTURES

2/ NO CONDEMNATION OR FLAMING

eg: No accusations of horrific crimes etc.....


We WILL delete individual posts; if they seem overly zealous... to try and keep the topic open, and it may be closed for further deliberation at any time.


I&#39;ve taken the liberty of merging all 3 of the threads.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@7 July 2003 - 09:05


As to the availability of abortion services, by way of any effort to reduce the sheer number of them, would you consider dissemination of extensive (secular) information to all females (not just those in crisis), information meant to educate as well as inform, too (for lack of a better word) fettering?

Planned Parenthood stands in opposition to any such efforts, preferring to act as the clearing house for any information on the subject, to the legalized exclusion of all others.

---

Firstly, thanks to RF and Lamsey ( and any other mods involved) for reopening this topic.

I have no problem at all, j2, in trying to reduce the number of abortions performed. Dissemination of information is a good thing.
I am leery, given Bush&#39;s propensity to snuggle up to the Christian right, that such a program, not husbanded by Planned Parenthood, would evolve into a government funded form of dissuasion rather than education.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker+7 July 2003 - 19:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 7 July 2003 - 19:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@7 July 2003 - 09:05


As to the availability of abortion services, by way of any effort to reduce the sheer number of them, would you consider dissemination of&nbsp; extensive (secular) information to all females (not just those in crisis), information meant to educate as well as inform, too (for lack of a better word) fettering?

Planned Parenthood stands in opposition to any such efforts, preferring to act as the clearing house for any information on the subject, to the legalized exclusion of all others.

---

Firstly, thanks to RF and Lamsey ( and any other mods involved) for reopening this topic.

I have no problem at all, j2, in trying to reduce the number of abortions performed. Dissemination of information is a good thing.
I am leery, given Bush&#39;s propensity to snuggle up to the Christian right, that such a program, not husbanded by Planned Parenthood, would evolve into a government funded form of dissuasion rather than education.[/b][/quote]
My thanks to the relevant mods also-Rat-I though you said other angles were okay, as long as we stepped away from the nuts-and-bolts and kept to peripheral issues; sorry I mis-understood; I wasn&#39;t my intent to get around you.

Clocker-

We agree on this, except for the involvement of Planned Parenthood. While it is very apparent (or should be) to all, the best way to change the "abortion" landscape is to change attitudes with regard to sexual practices and contraception. Planned Parenthood wishes to have total control of this issue and be accorded a singularly "expert" status (think in terms of the N.E.A.&#39;s hammerlock on education issues). They are not about to concede any part of the issue to any other entity without a fight; They don&#39;t want to debate the efficacy of another voice on the issue, they want the other voice silenced.

Watch what happens as Bush pushes his AIDS program in Africa.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kAb@3 July 2003 - 07:16
In other cases, where the woman had the choice to be protected but didn&#39;t bother to etc., no.

---

What about the responsibility of the guy.............&#33; <_<

It is so easy to judge a woman while you can walk away from your responsibility <_<

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jetje+8 July 2003 - 07:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jetje &#064; 8 July 2003 - 07:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-kAb@3 July 2003 - 07:16
In other cases, where the woman had the choice to be protected but didn&#39;t bother to etc., no.

---

What about the responsibility of the guy.............&#33; <_<

It is so easy to judge a woman while you can walk away from your responsibility <_<[/b][/quote]
Women have my empathy, believe me, but am I to understand that there are no circumstances under which a woman might bear some culpability?

Quote:

---

It was basically someone holding a Barbie doll, with just the feet showing.....Its the symbology that was disturbing, not the graphic nature.

---

I&#39;m really out of the loop on this, but I&#39;m glad to see the thread open once again.
If you want to see the deleted pic from page 5 of this thread go here
Deleted Image
Rat Faced is right&#33;
The symbology is potent.
:D
Btw Rat, I&#39;m not trying to be an assh**e or something by posting the link.
If you don&#39;t feel it&#39;s appropriate or just too inflamitory feel free to delete.



*The decision was made on images. They are not appropriate in this thread&#33;

Quote:

---

Well luckily i live in a country where it is legal. It will prevent a lot of ruined lives for kids and mothers... Cases like rape are mentioned but also for mentally disabled people that doesn&#39;t have the ability to raise kids, for stupid young kids that were just dumb, for junks that accidently get pregnant.... It will prevent lives in missery for the people involved and the unborn child.
Ofcourse there is a certain timeline... at some point it is to late for an abortion, that has to be regulated well.

Woman in our country believe they are boss in own belly... i think that&#39;s their right

i think what should happen is more freely spoken about sexuality, good sexual education and explanings about birthcontrol and anti-conception product.
Also condoms must become cheaper and easier available...&#33;
Also the right for an abortion would help a lot of people that are searching for one to be able to get the right medical care in stead of going to an underground butcher that does it if you pay enough money...&#33;

---

My take exactly.

Good unbiased council too would help.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clintonesque@9 July 2003 - 08:55

Quote:

---

Well luckily i live in a country where it is legal. It will prevent a lot of ruined lives for kids and mothers... Cases like rape are mentioned but also for mentally disabled people that doesn&#39;t have the ability to raise kids, for stupid young kids that were just dumb, for junks that accidently get pregnant.... It will prevent lives in missery for the people involved and the unborn child.
Ofcourse there is a certain timeline... at some point it is to late for an abortion, that has to be regulated well.

Woman in our country believe they are boss in own belly... i think that&#39;s their right

i think what should happen is more freely spoken about sexuality, good sexual education and explanings about birthcontrol and anti-conception product.
Also condoms must become cheaper and easier available...&#33;
Also the right for an abortion would help a lot of people that are searching for one to be able to get the right medical care in stead of going to an underground butcher that does it if you pay enough money...&#33;

---

My take exactly.

Good unbiased council too would help.

---

Exactly.

It should be noted that Planned Parenthood&#39;s council does not qualify as "unbiased."

I think the word PLANNED gives that away j2k4

Neil

Thats exeptable too. lol

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil__@9 July 2003 - 09:17
I think the word PLANNED gives that away j2k4

Neil

---

You are, of course, correct. ;)

I apologize for allowing my bias to force this regretful redundancy.

I have read this thread and the various deep beliefs and experiences that have led to them. I can sympathize with men who are not considered in a woman&#39;s choice and the heartbreak and anger and frustration that could result.

I am really concerned about abortion used as a means of birth control, and also what is called partial birth abortions. I don&#39;t think there is always mandated counseling, and I wish there were.

I guess I would like to say that I admire Clocker&#39;s objectivity. It sounds to me like he has witnessed tough decisions that were made not just for the convenience of the woman involved.

And he realizes unless you have walked a mile in someone&#39;s shoes, you really have no clue.

I often wonder how a woman led to the decision by what is best for everyone involved, even the unborn child, totally comsumed by emotional, financial and physical stress goes through when she drives to the clinic ..........maybe if only one person would hold their hand out and say &#39;I will do everything within my power to help you have your baby....&#39; But by things I have seen on tv, she doesn&#39;t often get that by those outside the clinic. She receives only insults and ridicule by the protestors. I am afraid that would only reinforce any feelings she has about bringing a baby into such an &#39;understanding&#39; world.

I don&#39;t know. I don&#39;t have the answers. I think that if each and every one of us reached out......and maybe helped one woman, we could start to effect change. I hope to have that chance someday in someway.

Clevertoes

I am having mixed emotions when it comes to the God I know and love. I feel abortion is a sin. But I also feel that setting ones self up to judge another for their extremely painful hard decisions is also against God&#39;s laws. I somehow feel that God forgives, even to those that cannot forgive themselves. And my heart goes out to them.

The two key issues to focus on are: the nature of a fetus, and the nature of individual rights.

The first issue to grasp is the difference between potential and actual. A fetus is not an actual human being, but is human tissue. A fetus is only a potential human being, just like an acorn is a potential oak tree. That a fetus is potential human being, does not make it an actual one. Once you grasp this point, you need to grasp a much more complex point — which is not self-evident — about the nature of rights.

The second issue to grasp is that rights only apply to actual human beings. Rights only apply to human beings; they apply to human beings because man survives by reason. Men do not survive — at least for long — like animals do in the jungle. Rather then hunting for food like an animal, man grows it. He builds houses to protect himself from hurricanes and storms. He creates clothing to keep warm. He discovers drugs to kill bacteria that may cause him harm. He manufactures refrigerators to keep his food fresh. This is why man has rights — and animals do not — to leave his mind free to think, and his body free to act on that thinking. As a fetus does not use reason to survive; but, rather it survives on the sustenance provided by the body of its&#39; host, a fetus has no rights, and no need for rights. A fetus has no right to life, liberty, property.

The key issue in this context is that a fetus has no right to be inside the body of another human being, because no such right exists. Yet, this is the only kind of &#39;right&#39; it requires to exist. To grant the fetus such a right, would make its host — the pregnant mother — a slave. Slavery is not a right.

This in essence is the case for a woman&#39;s moral right to abortion: a fetus is not an actual human being, but is only human tissue inside the body of an actual human being. Rights only apply to actual human beings (whether a new born child, or a hundred year old grandfather, or a pregnant woman), as they require freedom to act by the use of their mind.

Well, I guess the struggle then is between the heart and the mind? ;-)

I will have to say I personally know a woman who struggled with a fear of tiolets flushing. So much so that her family offered to pay for her to be hypnotized to see if they could get to the root of her problem. She was taken clear back, to past lives to the point where she saw a woman with red hair who was crying....clear back to where it became obvious that she was actually an embryo miscarried into a tiolet. I know this may seem far fetched to many. And I myself have no clue as to the exactness of being hypnotized in this way.

But to hear of something like this..........kind of makes your heart lead and your head spin.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Infested Cats@12 July 2003 - 06:45
...a fetus is not an actual human being, but is only human tissue inside the body of an actual human being...

---

To be perfectly frank, a fetus fits the description of a parasite. Pro-lifers don&#39;t generally like to hear that. If one were to get nitpicky, it&#39;d be an obligate parasite.

:ninja:

I&#39;m completely for abortion. Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that this world is much too overpopulated for it&#39;s own good. So what&#39;s the big deal if the woman who was having a child decided that she didn&#39;t want it anymore. It personally doesn&#39;t bother me in the least, it&#39;s their choice.

While the baby is in the womb it really is not a human yet, it has no thought process, it cannot even comprehend what&#39;s going on. So if it dies then what&#39;s the big deal, it happens all the time. Who cares how it dies, it&#39;s not even a real human.

MagicNakor stated that "a fetus fits the description of a parasite." So basically having an abortion is similar to destroying a parasite. Makes sense now why so many people are against abortion. :rolleyes:

Also I&#39;m incredibly sick of seeing children being born constantly and growing up having a terrible life because the parents didn&#39;t want them in the first place. If the Catholic church hates suffering and is against death of a fetus, then why aren&#39;t they against the fact that because a woman coudn&#39;t have an abortion this poor child, through no fault of its own will live a horrible life because their parents didn&#39;t care for them or even want them around. It will probably slip through the cracks of our education system and end up at the age of 50 living on the street hassling people for some money so they can get drunk or do crack. So what&#39;s the point of putting a person through this, why not destroy the parasite and save someone the agony of living a terrible life. More space and air for the rest of us, and more happy people. Now I&#39;m not saying that just because your parents hated you and didn&#39;t want you will you end up leading a terrible life, but it is much more likely then if you were to grow up in a loving family.

All I know is that if I had the choice as a fetus to either die and go to heaven (which is what the Catholics believe will happen if you die in the womb) or to be born with parents that hate me and don&#39;t want me, I would definitely choose the first option.

Abotion needs to be illegal and us guys will just have to not be as stupid and not f*ck a girl u meet while u were walkin the streets with ur buddys

Perhaps, but how on Earth would it ever be possible to get every male on the planet to "stop fucking girls". Maybe if we asked nicely. Point is it takes two to tango, if the girl doesn&#39;t want to get pregnant maybe she shouldn&#39;t be having sex, hmm there&#39;s a thought.

DarkBlizzard,

thanks for the opinion...however you forgot to give your reasons.

I suspect that they are religious in nature, however you havent gave an argument either way.

Indeed, ScotchGuy. And rape is just something the media made up.

:ninja: