Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

March For Women's Rights
DanSRose Posted: Sun Apr 25 19:41:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I don't know if any of you are in the DC-Metro area or even have heard of this (which means you don't read the news or watch it), there was a massive march for women's rights, namely reproductive rights and abortion.
Estimates are between 400,000 and one million, now leaning closer to the million marker. A huge move for society, women, and minorities.


 
addi Posted: Sun Apr 25 20:16:19 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Close friend and her daughter drove up there from Atlanta this weekend to participate. Apparantly the alignment between the religious right and the current administration is making them nervous


 
beetlebum Posted: Sun Apr 25 22:19:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  my roommate is up there marching her heart out but i don't know if she realized what it was about considering she's very catholic and i thought she was pro-life (although she is wicked liberal on any other subject under the sun... almost ridiculously so).
i can't imagine what would happen if roe v. wade was overturned... and i'm really glad that the turnout was so great. i don't think that most young women my age (late teens, early twenties) could envision a world where abortion wasn't an option.


 
Malik Posted: Sun Apr 25 22:37:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  When the topic of abortion comes up, I pretty much stay quiet. First off, it's not my position to speak for or against said rights, because I'm not a woman and never had to deal with it.

And secondly, if I did, I would have a large amount of women telling me this (which they have, numerous times). :)


But minorties? I don't see how women are the minority in the country. From the CIA world factbook on the US:

total population: 0.97 male(s)/female (2003 est.)


 
libra Posted: Sun Apr 25 22:41:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Malik said:

>
>
>But minorties? I don't see how women are the minority in the country. From the CIA world factbook on the US:
>
>total population: 0.97 male(s)/female (2003 est.)

there's a majority of Latino's in many locations in CA, but they're still called the minority.


 
DanSRose Posted: Sun Apr 25 23:58:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I attended. Although I was outnumbered about 10 to 1 (and slightly threatened), it was a moving experience. It was wonderfully organized, controlled against reactions toward the assholes holding up "Dead Baby" signs, great speakers, etc.

Malik said:
>But minorties? I don't see how women are the minority in the country.

I meant "minorities" as a general term. A blow to women's rights would set back civil rights 50 years.


 
addi Posted: Mon Apr 26 07:58:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Unless there's a whole shitload of women getting fertilized by the Holy Spirit out there a pregnant woman IS a man's issue as well. Any girl that thinks it's solely a woman's issue to deal with is has been brainwashed by the radical men hating feminists. Any male that see's it only as "the stupid slut's" problem needs to be castrated. The two sexes don't live in isolation of each other.

Fact: people will continue to have sex, no matter what cute little sayings about abstainance the first lady comes up with.
Fact: Young teen girls and women will continue to have unplanned and unwanted pregnancies due to a momentary lapse in good judgement and having unprotected sex.

Fact: If Roe V Wade is overturned abortions will still be sought after, but they will be performed by less qualified people, done in less sanitary facilities, and be a much greater threat to the woman's health.

Fact: More women and "couples" that don't want a child will feel forced into keeping the baby, instead of aborting it. No doubt some of them will raise a healthy child in a loving environment and be happy they chose to keep the baby. And no doubt many will be terrible parents, neglecting the needs of the baby they never wanted, and contributing to a delinquent child that has a miserable life, and ends up harming others. I've seen this happen ("my religion says it's a sin, so even though we're going to be shitty parents, and the baby will be raised in poverty and filth, we'll go ahead and have child number five and counting"). If abortion is made illegal it will happen on a grand scale.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Apr 26 08:48:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Fact: people will continue to have sex, no matter what cute little sayings about abstainance the first lady comes up with.
>Fact: Young teen girls and women will continue to have unplanned and unwanted pregnancies due to a momentary lapse in good judgement and having unprotected sex.
>
Both facts are absolutely correct, and neither is an excuse for an abortion

>Fact: If Roe V Wade is overturned abortions will still be sought after, but they will be performed by less qualified people, done in less sanitary facilities, and be a much greater threat to the woman's health.
>
True, but if you apply the same logic to the drug war, maybe we should legalize all recreational drugs and let the govt control them, that way we can all get sterile needles and the govt can tax the hell out of them.

>Fact: More women and "couples" that don't want a child will feel forced into keeping the baby, instead of aborting it. No doubt some of them will raise a healthy child in a loving environment and be happy they chose to keep the baby. And no doubt many will be terrible parents, neglecting the needs of the baby they never wanted, and contributing to a delinquent child that has a miserable life, and ends up harming others. I've seen this happen ("my religion says it's a sin, so even though we're going to be shitty parents, and the baby will be raised in poverty and filth, we'll go ahead and have child number five and counting"). If abortion is made illegal it will happen on a grand scale.
>
Happens every day to normal loving parents, they raise future felons all the time. That is definitely not exclusive to the working class.

I posted before that I see both sides to the argument on abortion, but I have to lean somewhat to the side that says abortion is bad. I you have an unwanted pregnancy and there are no complications, then carry the baby and give it to someone who wants it.
If you are made to carry it to term, then the likelyhood of you doing it again are gonna be slim, unless you are retarded.
Too many people use abortion as a means of birth control. I personally think of this as murder.


 
Maya Posted: Mon Apr 26 09:35:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
I you have an unwanted pregnancy and there are no complications, then carry the baby and give it to someone who wants it.
>If you are made to carry it to term, then the likelyhood of you doing it again are gonna be slim, unless you are retarded.
>Too many people use abortion as a means of birth control. I personally think of this as murder.

how many children are STILL waiting for someone to want them? You really think being born unwanted and waiting to be 'picked' is better?



 
libra Posted: Mon Apr 26 10:27:04 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I don't think abortion is a good form of birth control, but I do think that it should always, always, be an option. I agree with addi that pregnancy is something that men and women both have to deal with, but I think that in this situation, women do have more say, seeing as they're the ones that are stuck carrying the baby. If men could get pregnant(i wish), then it would be a different story. It's women that have to deal with the majority of the emotional and physical consequences of pregnancy and abortion.

I think we need to look for other options to help prevent unwanted pregnancies. Like having condoms available at schools. I've been told that many European countries have condoms at school, but American schools tend to shy away from birth control and sex itself. They like to keep up the illusion that teens aren't having sex.


 
DanSRose Posted: Mon Apr 26 10:27:42 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Who do you think is getting the abortions? Rich, white couples who are too career focused to have a family?
No. It's of the lower socio-economic class, both black, white and other, and young people, both who are in no position to raise a child.

ifihadahif said:
>I you have an unwanted pregnancy and there are no complications, then carry the baby and give it to someone who wants it.

There are hundreds upon hundreds cases where women have done that and lost their jobs, families, etc. all because "they did the Good thing for the child".

You are talking a lot about punishment for a mistake, an accident, or a crime (yes Virginia, pregnancies do occur in rapes) and the fact is it is even more wrong to ruin two lives then stop one that isn't a life yet.

Has anyone seen a "baby" at 3 months?
http://www.w-cpc.org/pictures/02mos.jpg
5 months?
http://www.w-cpc.org/pictures/adam/mo5.JPG

That's not human. Not yet, anyway.


 
DanSRose Posted: Mon Apr 26 10:31:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Also, while it is absolutely an issue for both sexes, women have to deal with the reality of pregnancy, while men can say, "Fuck it," and walk away.
Women have to also deal with having the stigma of being "the single teenage slut with a baby".


 
addi Posted: Mon Apr 26 10:44:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Too many people use abortion as a means of birth control. I personally think of this as murder.

Anyone who does this IS retarded. I would venture to guess that it's not the majority, hif. It would fall under a very small percentage that used abortion as a means of birth control. It's too painful a proceedure, mentaly and physicaly.

One big problem I have with right to lifers is that they so often view it in black and white terms.
Reality: I think 99% of women view abortion as a horrible, painful, unwanted, lesser of two evils proceedure. NOT flippantly as "Oh, Go ahead and cum in me. I'll just run down to the local clinic and get an abortion if I get pregnant" attitude. it's portraying pro-choice women as evil baby killers that don't care about a child's life that pisses me off.
These women who march don't see abortion as a GOOD thing, they see it as a right women should have to choose in a bad situation.



 
FN Posted: Mon Apr 26 10:51:25 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  My guess is that stupidity gets (young) people into problems quite often as well.

I've actually met people who thought that the first time nothing could go wrong and that 'pulling back' was safe.


 
Mark Posted: Mon Apr 26 11:13:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>You are talking a lot about punishment for a mistake, an accident, or a crime (yes Virginia, pregnancies do occur in rapes) and the fact is it is even more wrong to ruin two lives then stop one that isn't a life yet.
>
I do agree with wo when a woman gets pregnant because of a crime (like rape) because I think it can be very traumatic having the child of someone that forced himself upon her.

But the other two, I don't know. I mean a accident may be a reason (although I do have my objections to it), but a mistake...How can you make a mistake with something like making a baby?


 
FN Posted: Mon Apr 26 11:23:06 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Wolffie said:
>But the other two, I don't know. I mean a accident may be a reason (although I do have my objections to it), but a mistake...How can you make a mistake with something like making a baby?

Slow down man lol you'll find out.

During the heat of the battle lol sometimes you tend to forget a few things.

I'd never have sex with a girl without knowing for certain she has taken her pill correctly.


I agree that abortion isn't a means of birth control, and I doubt it that women will let it happen a second time after they went through it once so to state that they'd do it once a year or something like some people make it come across is plain bullshit.


 
novemberrain Posted: Mon Apr 26 13:32:22 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Too many people use abortion as a means of birth control. I personally think of this as murder.
>
>Anyone who does this IS retarded. I would venture to guess that it's not the majority, hif. It would fall under a very small percentage that used abortion as a means of birth control. It's too painful a proceedure, mentaly and physicaly.
>
>One big problem I have with right to lifers is that they so often view it in black and white terms.
>Reality: I think 99% of women view abortion as a horrible, painful, unwanted, lesser of two evils proceedure. NOT flippantly as "Oh, Go ahead and cum in me. I'll just run down to the local clinic and get an abortion if I get pregnant" attitude. it's portraying pro-choice women as evil baby killers that don't care about a child's life that pisses me off.
>These women who march don't see abortion as a GOOD thing, they see it as a right women should have to choose in a bad situation.
>

I agree with addi.

Personally I'm pro-life. But I'm not going to tell other women what they can and can't do with her body.

Take away the right to choose, and women will find another way. The alternative, many many years ago when abortions were illegal, was to use a coat hanger.


 
Maya Posted: Mon Apr 26 14:10:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  novrain said:

The alternative, many many years ago when abortions were illegal, was to use a coat hanger.

i saw a docu-film bout that once, with demi moore, it was really horrible, the fact that some women resorted to hangers is scary as F***


 
marsteller Posted: Mon Apr 26 14:59:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  im not down with anti-abortion laws, or really anything that tells you what you can or can't do to your own body.

"It's my body, I do what I want"


 
Malik Posted: Mon Apr 26 15:10:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I, if I were a woman, would probably never have an abortion. However, I do not know the pain of pregnancy, nor do I know that stigma of being a single unwed young mother. So it's extremely easy for me to hold up my lofty principals and say that I would never get an abortion. But, if I were ever faced with that choice, my beliefs could change dramatically.

However, I think abortion is wrong in the same way that I consider alcohol/drug abuse wrong. I consider it wrong like not wearing a seat-belt is wrong. I consider it wrong like not buying health insurance or bankrupting at the age of 20. But, I don't think the government has the right to say, "We think that you would be better off, had you not done those things. So, we're going to do them for you or make you do them."


 
FN Posted: Mon Apr 26 15:16:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>im not down with anti-abortion laws, or really anything that tells you what you can or can't do to your own body.
>
>"It's my body, I do what I want"

Yeah well that's the problem.

Is the body of your child your property as well, that much that you can decide wether or not it should live?

And if not where do you draw the line.



I'm pro-abortion by the way, but I do understand the non-religious ethical background of the opposition.


 
marsteller Posted: Mon Apr 26 15:30:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Is the body of your child your property as well, that much that you can decide wether or not it should live?
>
>And if not where do you draw the line.


I think that as long as the child/fetus/whatever isn't developed enough that it could survive, it's kind of a part of the woman's body, so she can decide. but if it's developed enough, like to a birthable point, the women shouldn't be able to abort


 
FN Posted: Mon Apr 26 15:44:56 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>I think that as long as the child/fetus/whatever isn't developed enough that it could survive, it's kind of a part of the woman's body, so she can decide. but if it's developed enough, like to a birthable point, the women shouldn't be able to abort


And after how many weeks/days/hours/minutes do you draw the line in something like that?

And 'not being able to survive' is a very very very abstract thing as well, depending on what you understand by it.

Living by itself as in without any medical help, meaning premature children shouldn't be helped either or living by itself with for example breathing machines and so on, which would be against your initial suggestion.


 
Mark Posted: Mon Apr 26 15:59:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>Is the body of your child your property as well, that much that you can decide wether or not it should live?
>
>And if not where do you draw the line.

This is almost impossible to say. From one point of view the body of the baby is its own property. From another you can say it is of the mother since they are connected to each other, making it a part of the mother.

Here in the Netherlands (and perhaps in much more countries) an abortion can only be done in the first stage of pregnancy. After that it will only be done if giving birth is going to kill the mother and ten only when the mother gives permission (at least...that is how it supposed to be done).


 
addi Posted: Mon Apr 26 16:05:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  you pretty much nailed that one on the head marsteller.
At exactly what point during pregnancy does the (fetus, embryo, zygote, baby) develop into a sentient, independent, thinking, independent, person? Some argue that as soon as the male sperm fertilizes the egg it has become a child and therfore to abort it is murder. Others feel that a separate "person" doesn't exist until months later into the pregancy.

it becomes clouded and emotionally charged when people think it terms of the fetus's POTENTIAL. When I think about my son the thought of him being aborted literally sickens me. But I understand that I'm thinking of him as a fully developed individual person. I've lived with him, experienced life with him, and I cannot separate him from the fertilized egg that he was some 17 years and 8 months ago. Distancing myself from it I know in my head he was not a "person" at that point. He was not the little boy I taught to fish. He was a mass of cells, chromozones, protein, DNA, etc...,that would develop into a little person at some point. It's a tricky thing. I react strongly to any pro-choice person that says do whatever you want to the fetus. It's fair game till it pops out. And I react strongly to the pro-lifers that try to jam down my throat that they have the divine insight into exactly at what point the fetus becomes a person.
No easy answers on this one.


 
Asswipe Posted: Mon Apr 26 17:23:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kill babies, honestly, there are enough people out there. they are just like puppies and deer, and what do we do when there are too many baby golden retrievers out there? we slap 'em in death matches w/ dragons... we should do the same w/ babies.


 
Asswipe Posted: Mon Apr 26 17:24:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i wasn't aware the roe v. wade case was being re-considered... that what the "women's rights" march was ALL about?


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Apr 27 00:28:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>i wasn't aware the roe v. wade case was being re-considered... that what the "women's rights" march was ALL about?

Oh yes. President Bush has been having his people send things to Congress that will slowly erode women's rights, namely abortion. It is a series of amendments, that will, one by one, restrict abortion, making it legal in only 'Immediate Risk to the Mother' situations. Essentially it is a series of neo-conservative laws that make everything into a nice White Anglo-Saxon Protestan/Puritanical society and you are something wrong if you dissent.


 
libra Posted: Tue Apr 27 01:19:04 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>
>Oh yes. President Bush has been having his people send things to Congress that will slowly erode women's rights, namely abortion. It is a series of amendments, that will, one by one, restrict abortion, making it legal in only 'Immediate Risk to the Mother' situations. Essentially it is a series of neo-conservative laws that make everything into a nice White Anglo-Saxon Protestan/Puritanical society and you are something wrong if you dissent.

god dammit we need to get rid of him.


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Apr 27 01:54:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I forgot to mention Rich too.


Yes, yes we do.
Which reminds me: Who here is American and is of voting age? You should all be registered and ready for November.


 
libra Posted: Tue Apr 27 02:12:57 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>I forgot to mention Rich too.
>
>
>Yes, yes we do.
>Which reminds me: Who here is American and is of voting age? You should all be registered and ready for November.


oohhh, I'm ready. I can't wait!


 
marsteller Posted: Tue Apr 27 02:16:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  im american and of voting age. but fuck it, i won't be voting anytime soon. never registered, in spite of many opportunities, and don't plan to.


 
marsteller Posted: Tue Apr 27 02:17:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>you pretty much nailed that one on the head marsteller.

yeah, im great....imagine what i'd be capable of sober.


 
choke Posted: Tue Apr 27 04:35:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  thats dumb and stupid. stupid! if abortions ilegal we'l go back to coathangers shutupshutupshutup mr bush is so THICK! overpopulation sucks too good god what a retard!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 27 07:08:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Asswipe said:
>>i wasn't aware the roe v. wade case was being re-considered... that what the "women's rights" march was ALL about?
>
>Oh yes. President Bush has been having his people send things to Congress that will slowly erode women's rights, namely abortion. It is a series of amendments, that will, one by one, restrict abortion, making it legal in only 'Immediate Risk to the Mother' situations. Essentially it is a series of neo-conservative laws that make everything into a nice White Anglo-Saxon Protestan/Puritanical society and you are something wrong if you dissent.
>
yes, yes of course, mr bush can override the ruling of the supreme court, we must get rid of him !
what the fuck are you talking about dan ?
which "women's rights" is mr bush going to do away with ?
and even if he did, how would anti-abortion laws make this a "nice white anglo-saxon protestant/puritanical society" ? What does race have to do with it ? and isn't it the protestants and not the catholics that are FOR abortion rather than against it ?



 
addi Posted: Tue Apr 27 08:08:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  (Exerps from an article on Bush and abortion)
CNN Nov.6th, 2003
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush signed legislation Wednesday banning a certain type of abortion, handing the disputed procedure's opponents a long-sought victory even as a federal judge at least partially blocked the new law from taking effect...


The White House staged the ceremony, before about 400 cheering lawmakers and abortion opponents, at a federal building named for former President Ronald Reagan, a strong supporter of anti-abortion groups. An "Amen" was heard from the audience as Bush sat down at a desk, before a row of American flags, to sign the bill passed last month by Congress....

The president's signature represented an end to a legislative crusade that began after Republicans captured the House in 1995. Former President Clinton twice vetoed similar bills, arguing that they lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother....

Aware of its backing among the religious conservatives that make up a key portion of his base of political support, the president declared himself pleased to sign legislation he said would help him and others "build a culture of life" in America. To that end, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the president supports additional legislative moves -- which he did not specify -- to further restrict abortion....

"This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government -- it comes from the creator of life," the president said, receiving another lengthy standing ovation...

But Bush is also mindful of the more moderate voters he cannot afford to alienate, and last week repeated a position he offered during his 2000 campaign. He said he would not seek a total ban on abortion because public opinion had not yet shifted to support such a move...

___________________
I get a kick out of that last sentence: "...public opinion had not yet shifted to support such a move"...

He's gonna wait till public opinion changes till he moves on banning all abortions. Such a man of personal convictions! lol





 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 27 09:22:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>I get a kick out of that last sentence: "...public opinion had not yet shifted to support such a move"...
>
>He's gonna wait till public opinion changes till he moves on banning all abortions. Such a man of personal convictions! lol
>
It has nothing to do with his convictions, he's made his feelings very clear on this matter.
It has everything to do with not forcing his beliefs on others and recognizing how emotional this is for everyone.
It's called democracy in action.



 
addi Posted: Tue Apr 27 09:50:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  you're being duped, my Derby late night friend.
It pains me so, but I must disagree here. What he really means is that he's gonna wait till he thinks he can win the battle. When (and if) the polls consistantly say a majority of americans want a ban on all abortions THEN he will attempt to force it down the remaining 49% minorities throat.
It's called "Bush democracy" in action.


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Apr 27 09:59:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>im american and of voting age. but fuck it, i won't be voting anytime soon. never registered, in spite of many opportunities, and don't plan to.

Well, fuck you.
This removes you from the system and removes your right to complain. An absent vote is useless as it changes nothing. Just because there is no perfect candidate, you do it anyway, you pick the Best one. Both Democrats and Republicans feel the same, as that is the only to affect decisions.

And it's not Bush overturning Roe v. Wade. It's a series of restricions, Laws that are to 'supposeed' to be passed by Congress based on his neo-conservation religious political doctrine.
Oh, and there were dozens of religious groups at the March, including Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Christian Ministries from PA, ME, MD, GA, VA, and TN, also Quakers too.

Right now, 48% of Americans support Roe v. Wade, 45% are against it. That's from MSNBC, those middle of the road guys.


 
addi Posted: Tue Apr 27 10:30:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:

>And it's not Bush overturning Roe v. Wade. It's a series of restricions, Laws that are to 'supposeed' to be passed by Congress based on his neo-conservation religious political doctrine.

If the actions of congress are motivated by Bush, based on his "neo-conservation religious political doctrine", then it is Bush ultimately behind the attempt to overturn Roe


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Apr 27 10:37:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  But it is not the Executive Branch, but Legislative that is ultimately doing it. If Congress passes it, then 'nothing is wrong, everything is fine, and 2+2=5'.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 27 10:51:43 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I cannot comprehend how anybody can be against abortion.


What's the best thing: having to grow up as an unwanted child in bad circumstances or just not having to deal with it at all instead of messing up several lives.

Also, who is anybody except the mother to say that it's morally wrong.

Nobody has any bussiness in meddling with other's people stuff, especially when talking about things like these.

You can debate over it as long as in the end you agree that it's still up to the mother, but that's where any reasonable person draws the line, instead of trying to restrict it.

Nobody has any right to decide about the right of the mother to do an abortion or not.

The counter arguerment might be: well the mother doesn't have that right either. Perhaps not from some points of view, but that doesn't matter, the mother still has more right to decide than the outsider who doesn't have anything to gain or to lose by it.


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Apr 27 11:30:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Exactly. The mother is the best person, if not the only person, to decide the fate of their child. They do have the single most influence on the life of their child and would know where they would be in 5, 10, 15, even 20 years.


 
mat_j Posted: Tue Apr 27 11:31:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Dont worry Christophe old boy, i'm pro choice too, ("A pro choice catholic!" i hear you gasp, "A pro choice buffet catholic!" i reply with some zeal).

Ultimatly despite it being the product of a union of two people (or one person and a turkey baster), the right of the woman to choose what she does to her own body is hers and hers alone.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 27 11:34:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I cannot comprehend how anybody can be against abortion.
>
>
>What's the best thing: having to grow up as an unwanted child in bad circumstances or just not having to deal with it at all instead of messing up several lives.
>
>Also, who is anybody except the mother to say that it's morally wrong.
>
>Nobody has any bussiness in meddling with other's people stuff, especially when talking about things like these.
>
>You can debate over it as long as in the end you agree that it's still up to the mother, but that's where any reasonable person draws the line, instead of trying to restrict it.
>
>Nobody has any right to decide about the right of the mother to do an abortion or not.
>
>The counter arguerment might be: well the mother doesn't have that right either. Perhaps not from some points of view, but that doesn't matter, the mother still has more right to decide than the outsider who doesn't have anything to gain or to lose by it.
>
The other side of the argument is that it is murder. If you kill another person it is murder. No mother has that right.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 27 11:38:19 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>you're being duped, my Derby late night friend.
>It pains me so, but I must disagree here. What he really means is that he's gonna wait till he thinks he can win the battle. When (and if) the polls consistantly say a majority of americans want a ban on all abortions THEN he will attempt to force it down the remaining 49% minorities throat.
>It's called "Bush democracy" in action.

Isn't that what's happening now in reverse ?
Majority wins ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 27 11:42:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>And it's not Bush overturning Roe v. Wade. It's a series of restricions, Laws that are to 'supposeed' to be passed by Congress based on his neo-conservation religious political doctrine.
>Oh, and there were dozens of religious groups at the March, including Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Christian Ministries from PA, ME, MD, GA, VA, and TN, also Quakers too.
>
I was referring to your "white anglo-saxon protestant puritanical society" remark, that really didn't make sense in the context.
And which "women's rights" were you referring to, or was it just the one to abort their babies ?


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 27 11:42:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>The other side of the argument is that it is murder. If you kill another person it is murder. No mother has that right.

Depends on how you define murder.

When you get an infection you destroy cells as well, is that murder too? (No because a virus won't grow into a baby etc. Bullshit, chances are that bundle of cells won't either, with ot without abortion.)

And since the mother is the closest she overrules every other opinion.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 27 11:45:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Depends on how you define murder.
>
>When you get an infection you destroy cells as well, is that murder too? (No because a virus won't grow into a baby etc. Bullshit, chances are that bundle of cells won't either, with ot without abortion.)
>
>And since the mother is the closest she overrules every other opinion.
>
Not in everyone's opinion.
At what point does this bundle of cells become a person ? That is the main crux of the argument.
Would you say it's ok for a woman to abort in the last trimester of a pregnancy just because she is the mother ?


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 27 11:54:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Not in everyone's opinion.

So what, even if they don't agree, if there is one person on earth who has the right to decide it's the mother.

>At what point does this bundle of cells become a person ? That is the main crux of the argument.

That should be asessed by an independant medical team. Happened here in Belgium as well before they passed the abortion law and there haven't been any problems because of it since.

>Would you say it's ok for a woman to abort in the last trimester of a pregnancy just because she is the mother ?

No because she has had plenty of time before that.





You or anybody else has no right to decide over these things hif, nobody.

You can discuss it, but not think that you are entitled to enforce your opinion upon anybody concerning this subject.




You don't know what it's like to be in a situation where you get pregnant for whatever reason there might be and you know it will ruin your life.

And if you start with that outlook on things and abortion isn't allowed, people will find a way to begin with and otherwise the child will grow up and discover somewhere down the road that he or she was an unwanted accident. Chances are the child won't be treated the way a wanted child would have been either.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 27 12:03:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Not in everyone's opinion.
>
>So what, even if they don't agree, if there is one person on earth who has the right to decide it's the mother.
>
so the baby has no rights ?

>>At what point does this bundle of cells become a person ? That is the main crux of the argument.
>
>That should be asessed by an independant medical team. Happened here in Belgium as well before they passed the abortion law and there haven't been any problems because of it since.
>
Which medical team ? The pro abortion team or the anti-abortion team ?

>>Would you say it's ok for a woman to abort in the last trimester of a pregnancy just because she is the mother ?
>
>No because she has had plenty of time before that.
>
>
>
>
>
>You or anybody else has no right to decide over these things hif, nobody.
>
>You can discuss it, but not think that you are entitled to enforce your opinion upon anybody concerning this subject.
>
>
>
>
>You don't know what it's like to be in a situation where you get pregnant for whatever reason there might be and you know it will ruin your life.
>
>And if you start with that outlook on things and abortion isn't allowed, people will find a way to begin with and otherwise the child will grow up and discover somewhere down the road that he or she was an unwanted accident. Chances are the child won't be treated the way a wanted child would have been either.
>
There are far more couples wanting to adopt than are babies available, so your argument doesn't stand up.
Of course we have to the right to decide against murder.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 27 12:11:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>so the baby has no rights ?

Not untill it's considered a baby by a medical team.

>Which medical team ? The pro abortion team or the anti-abortion team ?

A neutral one. Or do you not believe in the discretion of the profession?

>There are far more couples wanting to adopt than are babies available, so your argument doesn't stand up.

It does, plenty of asian/african babies to adopt I'm sure, how come there is any need for orphanages if that is the case.

A baby isn't an economic thing, it isn't regulated by production and demand. Wanting a baby doesn't mean you have the right to have one.

>Of course we have to the right to decide against murder.

It isn't murder if it isn't considered a person and yeah there might be a lot of different opinions on it, and that's where the medical team comes in because I don't care what any religious or whatever freak says, they don't have a clue. Some people still think the earth was created in 7 days and don't believe in evolution as well.

If you think it's unethical, then don't do it, that's all there is to it.

Some people value the life of animals just as much as the life of a human being (not saying I do or don't), does that mean everybody who eats meat or every animal that eats meat is a murderer?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 27 13:20:04 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>so the baby has no rights ?
>
>Not untill it's considered a baby by a medical team.
>
>>Which medical team ? The pro abortion team or the anti-abortion team ?
>
>A neutral one. Or do you not believe in the discretion of the profession?
>
do you ?
I can line up well respected professionals on both sides of the issue. You just cannot get a consensus on when it becomes a person. I don't care how many times you try.

>>There are far more couples wanting to adopt than are babies available, so your argument doesn't stand up.
>
>It does, plenty of asian/african babies to adopt I'm sure, how come there is any need for orphanages if that is the case.
>
That is a whole other topic for another thread. It has to do with adoption laws and procedures.

>A baby isn't an economic thing, it isn't regulated by production and demand. Wanting a baby doesn't mean you have the right to have one.
>
absolutely correct.
Then again, who are you to tell anyone they don't have the right to have a baby, anymore than you have the right to tell them they can or cannot abort that baby ?

>>Of course we have to the right to decide against murder.
>
>It isn't murder if it isn't considered a person and yeah there might be a lot of different opinions on it, and that's where the medical team comes in because I don't care what any religious or whatever freak says, they don't have a clue. Some people still think the earth was created in 7 days and don't believe in evolution as well.
>
We're not talking about religious freaks here, we're talking about roughly half the population. Smart insightful people on both sides of the argument.

>If you think it's unethical, then don't do it, that's all there is to it.
>
Yeah, murder is pretty unethical.

>Some people value the life of animals just as much as the life of a human being (not saying I do or don't), does that mean everybody who eats meat or every animal that eats meat is a murderer?
>
There is no moral foundation for not killing animals for food, just a fringe group with an insane agenda.

I don't necessarily side with either side on the abortion argument.
I think too many welfare mothers have babies to collect a check.
I think too many sluts use abortion as a means for birth control. I've actually seen this happen.
I think abortion should only be allowed to happen in the first trimester, unless there are extenuating circumstances, like rape or health concerns.


 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 27 13:52:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  A woman using it isn't using it as birthcontrol since I highly doubt it she'll go through a curetage or a traumatic bleeding several times in a row.

Which one do you prefer, the slut aborting the cells or the slut letting them grow into a problemchild?

Like I said, if you don't believe in it then don't do it, but it's not because you think it's unethical somebody else thinks the same. I want to see how the people against it react if their daughter would get knocked up by the local slack-jawed yokel.

And if you are against abortion you can't use double standards and should stop using the pill, condom, and other means of birth control too because without them there would be a chance of a baby being born as well.

And I already know the counter to this one: it only counts from the moment the sperm and egg come together.

Bullshit, it's just another fase in the process of becomming a child then, just like ejaculation and the menstrual cycle if you think of it like that.

But ofcourse, it's a natural thing that women menstruate so it isn't murder.

However, any means of birthcontrol isn't natural unless you use abstenance.

And for the guys: don't forget it's forbidden to masturbate then as well. I wonder what the priests will say to that one.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 27 14:33:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>A woman using it isn't using it as birthcontrol since I highly doubt it she'll go through a curetage or a traumatic bleeding several times in a row.
>
So what do you say about a woman that's had 4 abortions because of "accidents" ?

>Which one do you prefer, the slut aborting the cells or the slut letting them grow into a problemchild?
>
problem children are not exclusive to unwanted pregnancies.

>Like I said, if you don't believe in it then don't do it, but it's not because you think it's unethical somebody else thinks the same. I want to see how the people against it react if their daughter would get knocked up by the local slack-jawed yokel.
>
She should be more careful who she sleeps with. That is definitely not a reason to murder a child.

>And if you are against abortion you can't use double standards and should stop using the pill, condom, and other means of birth control too because without them there would be a chance of a baby being born as well.
>
>And I already know the counter to this one: it only counts from the moment the sperm and egg come together.
>
That is correct.
>Bullshit, it's just another fase in the process of becomming a child then, just like ejaculation and the menstrual cycle if you think of it like that.
>
No, a sperm is a sperm and an egg is an egg, until they combine to form something else. A binary concoction if you will.




 
libra Posted: Tue Apr 27 14:58:19 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>Not in everyone's opinion.
>>
>>So what, even if they don't agree, if there is one person on earth who has the right to decide it's the mother.
>>
>so the baby has no rights ?
>

Its not a baby, its a fetus.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 27 15:05:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>ifihadahif said:
>>>>Not in everyone's opinion.
>>>
>>>So what, even if they don't agree, if there is one person on earth who has the right to decide it's the mother.
>>>
>>so the baby has no rights ?
>>
>
>Its not a baby, its a fetus.
>
what is the difference ?


 
libra Posted: Tue Apr 27 15:12:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>libra said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>Christophe said:
>>>>ifihadahif said:
>>>>>Not in everyone's opinion.
>>>>
>>>>So what, even if they don't agree, if there is one person on earth who has the right to decide it's the mother.
>>>>
>>>so the baby has no rights ?
>>>
>>
>>Its not a baby, its a fetus.
>>
>what is the difference ?

a baby is one of those crawling drooling smiling crying babbling soft smelly things.

A fetus is undeveloped. A fetus is incomplete.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 27 18:23:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  This was posted by Aurora a long time ago, remember her ?
Looking at this list can you tell when it stops becoming a fetus and becomes a person ?

Day 1 - conception takes place.
7 days - tiny human implants in motherís uterus.
10 days - motherís menses stop.
18 days - heart begins to beat.
21 days - pumps own blood through separate closed circulatory system with own blood type.
28 days - eye, ear and respiratory system begin to form.
42 days - brain waves recorded, skeleton complete, reflexes present.
7 weeks - photo of thumbsucking.
8 weeks - all body systems present.
9 weeks - squints, swallows, moves tongue, makes fist.
11 weeks - spontaneous breathing movements, has fingernails, all body systems working.
12 weeks - weighs one ounce.
16 weeks - genital organs clearly differentiated, grasps with hands, swims, kicks, turns, somersaults, (still not felt by the mother.)
18 weeks - vocal cords work Ė can cry.
20 weeks - has hair on head, weighs one pound, 12 inches long.
23 weeks - 15% chance of viability outside of womb if birth premature.*
24 weeks - 56% of babies survive premature birth.*
25 weeks - 79% of babies survive premature birth.*



 
FN Posted: Tue Apr 27 18:28:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Day 1 - conception takes place.
>7 days - tiny human implants in motherís uterus.

See, that's where 'you' go wrong from the start.

At 7 days the fetus is just as human as a chimp fetus.

It isn't human by any means since the trademarks of a human being are conscious thought and intelligence, not being a mere bundle of cells.


Starting from this I'd say the limit should be around 15-20 weeks.


 
libra Posted: Tue Apr 27 18:44:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i agree with christophe


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Apr 27 20:33:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  By 8 weeks, differentiation begins. Also, at 8 weeks and before, all mammals look the same.
At 4 weeks, all chordates look the same.
At about 20-24 weeks, differentiation occurs between humans and other primates.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Apr 27 21:36:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Day 1 - conception takes place.
>>7 days - tiny human implants in motherís uterus.
>
>See, that's where 'you' go wrong from the start.
>
>At 7 days the fetus is just as human as a chimp fetus.
>
>It isn't human by any means since the trademarks of a human being are conscious thought and intelligence, not being a mere bundle of cells.
>
I'd say that was just your opinion not based on science.
I would say the trademarks of human are based on DNA and not thought and intelligence.
>
>Starting from this I'd say the limit should be around 15-20 weeks.


 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Apr 28 00:06:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  That was from my old biology notes. Science.


 
Archangel Posted: Wed Apr 28 01:47:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
> (Exerps from an article on Bush and abortion)
> CNN Nov.6th, 2003
>WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush signed legislation Wednesday banning a certain type of abortion, handing the disputed procedure's opponents a long-sought victory even as a federal judge at least partially blocked the new law from taking effect...
>
>
>The White House staged the ceremony, before about 400 cheering lawmakers and abortion opponents, at a federal building named for former President Ronald Reagan, a strong supporter of anti-abortion groups. An "Amen" was heard from the audience as Bush sat down at a desk, before a row of American flags, to sign the bill passed last month by Congress....
>
>The president's signature represented an end to a legislative crusade that began after Republicans captured the House in 1995. Former President Clinton twice vetoed similar bills, arguing that they lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother....
>
>Aware of its backing among the religious conservatives that make up a key portion of his base of political support, the president declared himself pleased to sign legislation he said would help him and others "build a culture of life" in America. To that end, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the president supports additional legislative moves -- which he did not specify -- to further restrict abortion....
>
>"This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government -- it comes from the creator of life," the president said, receiving another lengthy standing ovation...
>
>But Bush is also mindful of the more moderate voters he cannot afford to alienate, and last week repeated a position he offered during his 2000 campaign. He said he would not seek a total ban on abortion because public opinion had not yet shifted to support such a move...

Regardless of who his core supporters were, the ban was on partial-birth abortions, I'll skip the details of how it's performed but a large number of babies/fetuses are actually born, then killed very late in the pregnancy, if you must have an abortion there certainly are better and safer procedures.


 
iggy Posted: Wed Apr 28 06:36:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>Dont worry Christophe old boy, i'm pro choice too, ("A pro choice catholic!" i hear you gasp, "A pro choice buffet catholic!" i reply with some zeal).


egads. both the supreme leaders of the resistance are actually agreeing with their nemesis?


 
iggy Posted: Wed Apr 28 06:48:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  by the way, i'm pro choice too.

i've known of a few kids that are born due to what u call 'accidents'

pretty screwed up if u ask me.

in fact some of them (adults) grew up in conditions so bad that they wished they never happened.

and i've seen some parents tat realised that they weren't accidents and they grow up all right.

so the choice belongs to the parents.

u can't just say its wrong, it's immoral, it's sinful... and let the fucking government decide.

for example.

look that the chinese government. they have a one child policy and when they discover a woman is carrying a second one, they raid the home and perform a forced abortion.


understand this, some families may not be able to afford birth control, let alone support a child...

some people are just not ready yet.

it is sad, yes.

painful to think about, yes

but the choice is not anyone's to make unless u're in it...

u can argue all u want.
u can show facts all u want.

but u can never say if it's right or wrong cos it didn't happen to you.

so why cast the first stone?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 28 07:12:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  chanz said:
>u can argue all u want.
>u can show facts all u want.
>
>but u can never say if it's right or wrong cos it didn't happen to you.
>
>so why cast the first stone?
>
Because ultimately it is not "happening to you", unless you happen to be the baby that is being killed due to mom and dad's stupidity.
Being an accident is not a precursor to a bad childhood anymore than being a planned child. The prisons are filled with people who had quite normal childhoods.
I can't speak for China, they have a different way of life and they have a population problem, and maybe they deal with it the best way they can.
I can tell you this, my oldest son was an accident. My second child was carried to term and we discovered in the delivery room that the child had hydroencephalitis, a condition known as water on the brain. His head was so large that he couldn't come out vaginally and survive. We had the choice to go caesarian and he would survive, but most likely be a vegetable, or vaginally and let him die mercifully.
We opted for the latter, and knowing the emotional scars this episode left, even though I'm still confident we made the right decision, it's still tough to support abortion just because of an "accident". There are just too many people on waiting lists to adopt babies nowadays.


 
addi Posted: Wed Apr 28 07:32:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Archangel said:

>Regardless of who his core supporters were, the ban was on partial-birth abortions,

Point 1: No need to have copied the entire article in your post. your point could have been made by just refering to it with a sentence or two(read the red type added by JQ next time you post)

Point 2: That article wasn't put in as an argument for partial birth abortions. I wanted to point out that this administration has publically announced that it would like to further restrict a woman's right to abortions (see Scott McClellans statement). Also that Bush seems to be more concerned with polls and not ticking off future voters than he is with having a strong moral stance on abortion. I get the feeling that if a large majority of the voters consistantly said in polls they wanted abortion rights left as they were Bush wouldn't be touching the subject. It just smacks of a "what's going to get me elected" mentality, rather than an unwaivering moral stance that he'd fight come hell or high water.

Lastly, the article is spattered with references to the religious right's support (and influence) for this administration... "AMEN!". Putting religious fanatasism and patriotism in the same room will always make me queasy.

Perhaps my judgement is clouded though by my complete distain for the dufuss.


 
FN Posted: Wed Apr 28 07:39:49 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Like I said before, if there were more parents waiting to adopt than babies available there wouldn't be any need for orphanages.

And yeah the procedure to adopt can be hard, but tough luck, if you really want a kid then go through it, that doesn't mean that there aren't enough babies lol and is that a reason to keep a child alive?

Not all childless couples who can't get kids want to adopt either, which is very understandable, I know I'd never do it.

I know adopted people who went trough the thing that you see as the right thing to do, I wonder if you have any idea what kind of emotional scars it leaves behind.

And it isn't happening to the child since, guess what, it isn't a child yet at the time, it's a non-distinctive blob of cells that COULD grow into a child.

Most pills by the way work with the activation of the impenetrable state of the egg. This means that sperm can still physicly get to it, it just can't get through the exterior, so normally fertilisation would have happened as well, so you should be against the pill.

And my quick opinion IS based on sience from an earlier post which I quoted.


And again, it's alright if you don't agree with it and very good for you that you were able to handle it but that puts you in no position whatsoever to prohibit other people from doing an abortion.

You didn't opt for it, well good for you, other people do opt for it, so let them, that's all there is to it.

If you don't see it as a just thing to do, then again, leave it at that, but don't go around pretending you can make that kind of a decision for other people just because that's how you see it.

This isn't something on which a government should decide since it doesn't have anything to do at all with society as a whole, it is something entirely individual and no outsider to any particular case has any say in it.

And really, if you say that when a girl is raped abortion is justified, that's just plain and simple bullshit, so what, then it isn't murdering a child?




Double standards and hypocrisy all the way.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 28 09:02:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Like I said before, if there were more parents waiting to adopt than babies available there wouldn't be any need for orphanages.
>
Absolutely not true, the waiting list to adopt babies here is very long because of that fact.

>And yeah the procedure to adopt can be hard, but tough luck, if you really want a kid then go through it, that doesn't mean that there aren't enough babies lol and is that a reason to keep a child alive?
>
It happens every day, but it shouldn't be as difficult as it is. I'm sure you have no idea what is involved here.

>Not all childless couples who can't get kids want to adopt either, which is very understandable, I know I'd never do it.
>
Irrelevant point.

>I know adopted people who went trough the thing that you see as the right thing to do, I wonder if you have any idea what kind of emotional scars it leaves behind.
>
Bullshit, I've known several adoptees and they are as well adjusted and anyone else, being adopted is not a precursor to emotional problems, it stems from how you are raised, period.

>And it isn't happening to the child since, guess what, it isn't a child yet at the time, it's a non-distinctive blob of cells that COULD grow into a child.
>
At what time during the pregnancy are you talking about ?
And still, that is only an opinion, that about half the population disagrees with.

>Most pills by the way work with the activation of the impenetrable state of the egg. This means that sperm can still physicly get to it, it just can't get through the exterior, so normally fertilisation would have happened as well, so you should be against the pill.
>
WTF?
I thought this was a discussion about abortion. How do you know whether I'm for against the pill anyway?

>And my quick opinion IS based on sience from an earlier post which I quoted.
>
Are you saying that at 7 days, a chimp fetus in indistinguishable from a human fetus, even at the DNA level ?

>And again, it's alright if you don't agree with it and very good for you that you were able to handle it but that puts you in no position whatsoever to prohibit other people from doing an abortion.
>
>You didn't opt for it, well good for you, other people do opt for it, so let them, that's all there is to it.
>
>If you don't see it as a just thing to do, then again, leave it at that, but don't go around pretending you can make that kind of a decision for other people just because that's how you see it.
>
>This isn't something on which a government should decide since it doesn't have anything to do at all with society as a whole, it is something entirely individual and no outsider to any particular case has any say in it.
>
>And really, if you say that when a girl is raped abortion is justified, that's just plain and simple bullshit, so what, then it isn't murdering a child?
>
>
>
>
>Double standards and hypocrisy all the way.

It's only double standards and hypocrisy if I subscribe to your opinions, which I don't. Your whole argument is predicated on the assumption that an unborn child is not human. That is an argument that has not been decided, at least not by about half the population.
When that many people are in disagreement, then you really have to consider both sides of the argument, which you are too arrogant to do. You just assume you are right and everybody else is wrong. That attitude will not serve you well in life.



 
FN Posted: Wed Apr 28 09:30:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>Like I said before, if there were more parents waiting to adopt than babies available there wouldn't be any need for orphanages.
>>
>Absolutely not true, the waiting list to adopt babies here is very long because of that fact.

Alright, how do you explain any parentless children to be left then?

>
>>And yeah the procedure to adopt can be hard, but tough luck, if you really want a kid then go through it, that doesn't mean that there aren't enough babies lol and is that a reason to keep a child alive?
>>
>It happens every day, but it shouldn't be as difficult as it is. I'm sure you have no idea what is involved here.

It should be this difficult, I know a couple with adopted children and the trouble they had to go through to be allowed to have them. It's only normal the couples trying to adopt children are thoroughly scanned.

>
>>Not all childless couples who can't get kids want to adopt either, which is very understandable, I know I'd never do it.
>>
>Irrelevant point.

Just a side note.

>
>>I know adopted people who went trough the thing that you see as the right thing to do, I wonder if you have any idea what kind of emotional scars it leaves behind.
>>
>Bullshit, I've known several adoptees and they are as well adjusted and anyone else, being adopted is not a precursor to emotional problems, it stems from how you are raised, period.
>

So you're saying it wouldn't make any difference for you wether your parents would be your biological parents or not?

>>And it isn't happening to the child since, guess what, it isn't a child yet at the time, it's a non-distinctive blob of cells that COULD grow into a child.
>>
>At what time during the pregnancy are you talking about ?

Said that in a previous post.

>And still, that is only an opinion, that about half the population disagrees with.
>

Half of the american population by the way, which doesn't reflect the rest of the world, again, just on a side note.

>WTF?
>I thought this was a discussion about abortion. How do you know whether I'm for against the pill anyway?

I'm saying that without the use of the pill there would have been the possibility of a child being born as well, the sperm can even come into direct contact with the egg.

Wether you are against it or not is not the point at all, the point is that if you consider one thing murder the other thing is murder just as well.

>
>>And my quick opinion IS based on sience from an earlier post which I quoted.
>>
>Are you saying that at 7 days, a chimp fetus in indistinguishable from a human fetus, even at the DNA level ?
>

What difference does it make if there is no other way to tell than to look at it at DNA level?

>>And really, if you say that when a girl is raped abortion is justified, that's just plain and simple bullshit, so what, then it isn't murdering a child?
>>

What's your reply to this?

>It's only double standards and hypocrisy if I subscribe to your opinions, which I don't. Your whole argument is predicated on the assumption that an unborn child is not human. That is an argument that has not been decided, at least not by about half the population.
>When that many people are in disagreement, then you really have to consider both sides of the argument, which you are too arrogant to do.

I do consider both sides and am giving my point of view on which aspects of the 'other' side seem to be pieces of crap to me.

>You just assume you are right and everybody else is wrong. That attitude will not serve you well in life.

It has served me very well up to this point and am pretty sure it'll stay like that.

I only assume that so long nobody else can give me any other satisfying answers, just like you don't cvhange your views because my answers aren't satisfying to you either.

I could say the same thing to you but I don't because I allow everybody to have his/her own opinion and I don't go forcing mine down everybody's throats and certainly not as far as aqtually trying to make it illegal.



And I'm fine with that, I'm even alright with people not agreeing to it; however I am strongly against the fact that people think they have the right or power (it will still happen anyway) to enforce their will about stuff like this upon others.


People against abortion are most of the time the same who don't believe in euthanasia either.


Everybody can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned as long as they keep their nose out of other people's bussiness.

The prohibiting of abortion is paternalisation in it's worst form.

If you don't want to do it, then don't, period.


I don't want to go to church either, are you seeing me rallying to outlaw religion?


 
libra Posted: Wed Apr 28 10:21:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>Like I said before, if there were more parents waiting to adopt than babies available there wouldn't be any need for orphanages.
>>
>Absolutely not true, the waiting list to adopt babies here is very long because of that fact.
>

The waiting list is VERY long in the US. But in other countries, its a lot shorter. American families could go somewhere else to find a child, it just won't look like them...


>>
>Are you saying that at 7 days, a chimp fetus in indistinguishable from a human fetus, even at the DNA level ?
>

Nothing's indistigishable from anything else at the DNA level. The fact is that the correct developments haven't taken place and it is not a complete human. Also, in order to classify humans as humans when talking about different primates, one of the main things scientists focus on is our mental capabilities (it used to be our toolmaking, social skills, communication skills, but then we realized chimps had all of those things...they could even grasp language.) The fact that the baby is not conscious makes an argument that it is not entirely human yet.


 
FN Posted: Wed Apr 28 10:50:36 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>The waiting list is VERY long in the US. But in other countries, its a lot shorter. American families could go somewhere else to find a child, it just won't look like them...

Plenty of black babies to adopt methinks.

>Nothing's indistigishable from anything else at the DNA level. The fact is that the correct developments haven't taken place and it is not a complete human. Also, in order to classify humans as humans when talking about different primates, one of the main things scientists focus on is our mental capabilities (it used to be our toolmaking, social skills, communication skills, but then we realized chimps had all of those things...they could even grasp language.) The fact that the baby is not conscious makes an argument that it is not entirely human yet.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 28 14:04:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>Like I said before, if there were more parents waiting to adopt than babies available there wouldn't be any need for orphanages.
>>>
>>Absolutely not true, the waiting list to adopt babies here is very long because of that fact.
>>
>
>The waiting list is VERY long in the US. But in other countries, its a lot shorter. American families could go somewhere else to find a child, it just won't look like them...
>
True, Americans are adopting thousands of babies every year from other countries. I have acquaintances that have adopted two from Guatemala and three from Russia, and one from Korea.
>>>
>>Are you saying that at 7 days, a chimp fetus in indistinguishable from a human fetus, even at the DNA level ?
>>
>
>Nothing's indistigishable from anything else at the DNA level. The fact is that the correct developments haven't taken place and it is not a complete human. Also, in order to classify humans as humans when talking about different primates, one of the main things scientists focus on is our mental capabilities (it used to be our toolmaking, social skills, communication skills, but then we realized chimps had all of those things...they could even grasp language.) The fact that the baby is not conscious makes an argument that it is not entirely human yet.
>
I'm not quite ready to buy into that argument yet. Does that also apply to those who have been in a coma for several years ?
As I see it, the baby is 100 percent human, just not fully developed yet.


 
libra Posted: Wed Apr 28 14:35:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The problem is that no one has decided

1. what defines a human

2. what defines the point of transition between fetus and baby

and...

do unborn babies even have rights? can they even be protected? I mean, they don't have birth certificates, social security numbers, if a pregnant woman goes traveling, she doesn't have to get a passport for the fetus growing in her...

if its true that fetuses have rights and that abortion is like killing, shouldn't there be fines/punishments for a mother smoking, drinking, doing drugs while pregnant?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 28 14:45:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>The problem is that no one has decided
>
>1. what defines a human
>
>2. what defines the point of transition between fetus and baby
>
>and...
>
>do unborn babies even have rights? can they even be protected? I mean, they don't have birth certificates, social security numbers, if a pregnant woman goes traveling, she doesn't have to get a passport for the fetus growing in her...
>
>if its true that fetuses have rights and that abortion is like killing, shouldn't there be fines/punishments for a mother smoking, drinking, doing drugs while pregnant?
>
In your own state, Scott Peterson has been charged with two counts of murder, one for his wife and one more for her unborn child.
In Utah, a woman was charged last month with attempted murder for doing drugs while she was pregnant. This is the same woman that was charged with murder for not having her babies via caesarian when it was known they would not survive a vaginal delivery.

These are all very good questions with no cut and dried answers. That is what I've been trying to say, but Chris is so very adamant and quick to dismiss the arguments of those who disagree.



 
libra Posted: Wed Apr 28 15:02:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>These are all very good questions with no cut and dried answers. That is what I've been trying to say, but Chris is so very adamant and quick to dismiss the arguments of those who disagree.
>

I do understand your points, hif. And I don't like the idea of abortion, but that's not to say that I don't think that i would NEVER have one, because I can't say what sort of situation i could end up in. I also wouldn't get an abortion lightly, without a lot of thought. But, the thing that bothers me about the anti-abortionists, is that they're trying to impose upon the bodies of others and the decisions of others in ways that I don't think are right. Abortion may be against people's morals, i see that, but it is a choice that a woman should be able to make. I don't think a bunch of men in the white house should be allowed to make that decision. Its not as if women are being forced to have abortions, its a choice they have to make, and if they don't believe in abortion, they won't get one.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 28 15:12:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>I do understand your points, hif. And I don't like the idea of abortion, but that's not to say that I don't think that i would NEVER have one, because I can't say what sort of situation i could end up in. I also wouldn't get an abortion lightly, without a lot of thought. But, the thing that bothers me about the anti-abortionists, is that they're trying to impose upon the bodies of others and the decisions of others in ways that I don't think are right. Abortion may be against people's morals, i see that, but it is a choice that a woman should be able to make. I don't think a bunch of men in the white house should be allowed to make that decision. Its not as if women are being forced to have abortions, its a choice they have to make, and if they don't believe in abortion, they won't get one.
>
It's not the "men in the White House" that can make that decision.
The Supreme Court already did.
The administration can foster a bill and try to get the votes to pass it, but that is a difficult thing to do without the consent of the people.
Forget for a moment, all the militant pro-lifers and pro-choicers, because both of them are idiots(the militant ones), and look at the core issue.
The pro-lifers don't see this as imposing their views on others, they see it as preventing the killing a human life. For them, it's not about the body of the pregnant woman, but about the life of the unborn child.
If you really view this as the killing of a human, how can you not oppose abortion ?


 
libra Posted: Wed Apr 28 15:23:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>If you really view this as the killing of a human, how can you not oppose abortion ?

I don't see it as the killing of a human. I see it as a termination of a pregnancy. The ending of a process that would normally produce a baby. I cannot oppose abortion, because of the fact that I cannot make a decision for someone else in that way. I think that that is more wrong than anything else in the situation.

P.S. I don't understand how many conservatives can be for the death penalty and anti-abortion. If they think a fetus is just as human as a man(or woman) on death row, how can they say that its ok to kill a man(no matter what he's done, its still taking a life), but its not ok to kill a fetus...


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 28 15:36:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>>I don't see it as the killing of a human. I see it as a termination of a pregnancy. The ending of a process that would normally produce a baby. I cannot oppose abortion, because of the fact that I cannot make a decision for someone else in that way. I think that that is more wrong than anything else in the situation.
>
A simple difference in terminology. With your logic and abortion is no different than coitus interruptus.

>P.S. I don't understand how many conservatives can be for the death penalty and anti-abortion. If they think a fetus is just as human as a man(or woman) on death row, how can they say that its ok to kill a man(no matter what he's done, its still taking a life), but its not ok to kill a fetus...
>
umm, the fetus is innocent


 
FN Posted: Wed Apr 28 15:44:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>umm, the fetus is innocent

Untill proven guilty.

Baby Hitler was innocent as well.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 28 15:55:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>umm, the fetus is innocent
>
>Untill proven guilty.
>
>Baby Hitler was innocent as well.
>
So what's your point ?
Kill all of them because they have the potential to be bad ?


 
FN Posted: Wed Apr 28 15:59:56 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>umm, the fetus is innocent
>>
>>Untill proven guilty.
>>
>>Baby Hitler was innocent as well.
>>
>So what's your point ?
>Kill all of them because they have the potential to be bad ?

Haha no I just wanted to see your reaction.


 
Asswipe Posted: Wed Apr 28 16:12:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>>
>The pro-lifers don't see this as imposing their views on others, they see it as preventing the killing a human life. For them, it's not about the body of the pregnant woman, but about the life of the unborn child.
>If you really view this as the killing of a human, how can you not oppose abortion ?

because killing humans isn't all that bad


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 28 16:30:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>ifihadahif said:
>>>>umm, the fetus is innocent
>>>
>>>Untill proven guilty.
>>>
>>>Baby Hitler was innocent as well.
>>>
>>So what's your point ?
>>Kill all of them because they have the potential to be bad ?
>
>Haha no I just wanted to see your reaction.
>
HA!
After I hastily posted my response, I realized you were probably being sarcastic or something like that.
When I'm posting at work, sometimes I have to get my stuff on, in a hurry.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 28 16:31:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>because killing humans isn't all that bad
>
That's true, some people do need to be killed.


 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Apr 28 17:48:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>That's true, some people do need to be killed.

Like those on death row? A life is a life is a life, and it's all sacred. This is why the Holy See is against both abortion and the death penalty: "No matter how wrong of an act someone did, or the what type of life they might lead from the environment they live in or the heritage they have, all life is sacred and must be treated as such."

I am pro-choice, as I have seen cases where girls (keyword) were not ready for a child and raise them in the most horrible of circumstances, where the child is beaten, kicked, abused, and is a burden instead of a gift. This is overwhelming group where abortions occur, not too-busy, independent women where a child would interrupt their career.
I am against the death penalty as it is not a deterrant for crime, alleviates little to none of the victim's or their families pain, and puts us in the same league with the other nations that execute their criminals. Nations that execute include #1 China, #2 Iran, #3 the US, #4 Vietnam, Congo, Chad, North Korea, Pakistan, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. What a lovely group. (There are 28 nations that do, the ones of the West are the US, Japan, and Egypt)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Apr 28 22:04:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>That's true, some people do need to be killed.
>
>Like those on death row? A life is a life is a life, and it's all sacred. This is why the Holy See is against both abortion and the death penalty: "No matter how wrong of an act someone did, or the what type of life they might lead from the environment they live in or the heritage they have, all life is sacred and must be treated as such."
>
Actually I was talking about certain co-workers, some relatives and in-laws, and this one waitress at the Waffle House.
The ones on death row are questionable.
I'm sure the overwhelming majority are guilty, but there have been enough proven innocent through DNA testing to give me pause.

>I am pro-choice, as I have seen cases where girls (keyword) were not ready for a child and raise them in the most horrible of circumstances, where the child is beaten, kicked, abused, and is a burden instead of a gift. This is overwhelming group where abortions occur, not too-busy, independent women where a child would interrupt their career.
>
I must say that in my experience, I have seen more abused children come out of regular families. I won't use the word dysfunctional because I think it is an oxymoron unto itself. All families are dysfunctional. you show me a non-dysfunctional family and I'll sell you beachfront property on the moon.

>I am against the death penalty as it is not a deterrant for crime, alleviates little to none of the victim's or their families pain, and puts us in the same league with the other nations that execute their criminals. Nations that execute include #1 China, #2 Iran, #3 the US, #4 Vietnam, Congo, Chad, North Korea, Pakistan, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. What a lovely group. (There are 28 nations that do, the ones of the West are the US, Japan, and Egypt)
>
I believe in capital punishment but as I said before, the number of death-row inmates proven innocent through DNA testing has given me reason to rethink it.
Certainly that woman in Houston last year that drowned her 5 kids needs to go, as well as Dahmer, and Ted Bundy, and Manson should have been executed as well.
How bout that guy in San Diego that kidnapped raped and killed that 5yr old girl. If she were your daughter would you still want him to live ?
To get 3 squares and a cot on your nickel for the rest of his life ?


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Apr 29 01:15:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If she were my daughter, I'd want to have him castrated and raped daily, which is why victims and family of victims are not present in sentencing or punishment. That is not justice; that is vengence and that gets nothing solved. It also has no end.


 
libra Posted: Thu Apr 29 01:15:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>To get 3 squares and a cot on your nickel for the rest of his life ?

I've always been told it costs more to kill 'em thanto keep them for life. Plus i think its worse...draw out imprisonment rather than quick and painless...


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Apr 29 01:52:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Prison is not a day at the beach. Yes, there are "things to do", but you are still incarcerated with other people who have been tried and found guilty under the court of law. It's an ugly, savage place. Most are. I know of some exceptions; one in California, where the warden really has made it a place of rehabiliation and reintegration, and the other is in Columbia, MD.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Apr 29 07:06:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Prison is not a day at the beach. Yes, there are "things to do", but you are still incarcerated with other people who have been tried and found guilty under the court of law. It's an ugly, savage place. Most are. I know of some exceptions; one in California, where the warden really has made it a place of rehabiliation and reintegration, and the other is in Columbia, MD.
>
Rehabilitation is a myth, they can and should certainly try, but for the great majority of prisoners, it does not happen.
So you're incarcerated for life in an ugly savage place, how is that a nod to "sacredness of life" you speak of ?
No, it does not cost more to execute someone than to keep them for life.
And many prisoners adjust well to prison life, so much so, that after they've been in for awhile, they cannot re-adjust to a life of freedom, that's why a lot of them end up back inside.


 
mat_j Posted: Thu Apr 29 08:00:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>I cannot comprehend how anybody can be against abortion.
>>
>>
>>What's the best thing: having to grow up as an unwanted child in bad circumstances or just not having to deal with it at all instead of messing up several lives.
>>
>>Also, who is anybody except the mother to say that it's morally wrong.
>>
>>Nobody has any bussiness in meddling with other's people stuff, especially when talking about things like these.
>>
>>You can debate over it as long as in the end you agree that it's still up to the mother, but that's where any reasonable person draws the line, instead of trying to restrict it.
>>
>>Nobody has any right to decide about the right of the mother to do an abortion or not.
>>
>>The counter arguerment might be: well the mother doesn't have that right either. Perhaps not from some points of view, but that doesn't matter, the mother still has more right to decide than the outsider who doesn't have anything to gain or to lose by it.
>>
>The other side of the argument is that it is murder. If you kill another person it is murder. No mother has that right.

Then no sailor has the right to either


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Apr 29 08:19:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>The other side of the argument is that it is murder. If you kill another person it is murder. No mother has that right.
>
>Then no sailor has the right to either
>
Not sure what you're point is mat but rest assured it is well received.


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu Apr 29 09:41:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yes, it does. Rehabilitation does work in the cases where reintegration occurs. The San Diego supermax prison run by the female warden (I can't remember it's name right now) does this. The supermax prison in Columbia, MD runs a program where prisoners are trained and released in the community (a white affluent one) and work in the stores and shops at one of the most prestigious malls in the area. This has been adopted by several other prisons across the nation because of its success.


 
FN Posted: Thu Apr 29 10:40:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>This isn't something on which a government should decide since it doesn't have anything to do at all with society as a whole, it is something entirely individual and no outsider to any particular case has any say in it.
>
>And really, if you say that when a girl is raped abortion is justified, that's just plain and simple bullshit, so what, then it isn't murdering a child?


A reply please hif?


 
FN Posted: Thu Apr 29 14:21:03 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Tough one isn't it? :o)


 
FN Posted: Thu Apr 29 14:31:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  an extract from Everlast - What It's Like that seems rather fitting:



Mary got pregnant from a kid named Tom that said he was in love
He said, "Don't worry about a thing, baby doll
I'm the man you've been dreaming of."
But 3 months later he say he won't date her or return her calls
And she swear, "God damn, if I find that man I'm cuttin' off his balls."
And then she heads for the clinic and
she gets some static walking through the door
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner
and they call her a whore
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes
'cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Apr 29 14:37:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Tough one isn't it? :o)
>
Yes, it is a tough one, as I stated before I am undecided on this issue and see the merit in both arguments. I don't lightly dismiss either side.
I do tend to lean towards the pro-life side, but not totally.
I have a lot of problems with the overzealous attitudes of the pro choicers, and to a somewhat lesser extent the pro-lifers. Both factions seem to have left civility out of their platforms.


 
FN Posted: Thu Apr 29 15:26:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Shows the hypocrisy though.


You said so yourself:

ifihadahif said:
>I think abortion should only be allowed to happen in the first trimester, unless there are extenuating circumstances, like rape or health concerns.


But yet you talk about how abortion is murder.




Clearly you have made up your mind about those 2 statements or you wouldn't have said anything about it, so tell me, what's the difference?

Is the baby guilty of the rape?


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]