Abortion Debate

[The Personist]

open mind is the man

[open mind]

:appl:

open mind is the man

thanks, guys.:-)

[thedeadlyudder]

many more would die if they weren't done by professionals in a sanitary environment.

people die from infections that are a result of many simple surgeries every year....doesn't mean that i want those surgeries to be done by amateurs in seedy environments. most deaths occur in hospitals but that doesn't mean one should avoid them.

i'm mostly pro-choice because i think it saves lives (which i guess makes me pro-life in a way). i'd never tell someone i was involved with to abort a baby i had a hand in conceiving as it goes against my personal morals.....but i'm sensible enough to know that abortions will continue to happen whether or not they're against the law, and realize that if they're going to be done they ought to be done as safely as possible.
well im through but i would like to thank you for being a respectable person to debate with even if at times i wasnt, your not an idiot like some of the people on this thread including me

[caveBEAR]

well im through but i would like to thank you for being a respectable person to debate with even if at times i wasnt, your not an idiot like some of the people on this thread including me

:wave:

[maxvsmaradona]

ayo, deadlyudder, if a girl has an abortion, how does it effect your life in the slightest?

[chrislauren]

ayo, deadlyudder, if a girl has an abortion, how does it effect your life in the slightest?
:appl:

[jawstheme]

ayo, deadlyudder, if a kid starves to death in Africa, how does it effect your life in the slightest?

Do you see how dumb that particular type of argument can be? And no, I'm not comparing starvation to abortion, but the argument structure is fallacious. Unless you are seriously trying to argue that we can not care for something that doesn't directly effect us.

[maxvsmaradona]

Do you see how dumb that particular type of argument can be? And no, I'm not comparing starvation to abortion, but the argument structure is fallacious. Unless you are seriously trying to argue that we can not care for something that doesn't directly effect us.

It's not that dumb... It's a simple yes or no answer. A child starving in Africa doesn't effect my immediate life in the slightest.

[thedeadlyudder]

ive been thinking and it was stupid idead to get on this thread, what it really boils down to is personal morality and im not going to change peoples minds by saying things on here no matter how much i try so my apologies to everybody for anything i may have said.

and even though its against my better judgement i'll humor you people

You'll see, You'll ALL SEE!

[peder458]

ive been thinking and it was stupid idead to get on this thread, what it really boils down to is personal morality and im not going to change peoples minds by saying things on here no matter how much i try so my apologies to everybody for anything i may have said.

and even though its against my better judgement i'll humor you people

You'll see, You'll ALL SEE!

What will we see?

[The Personist]

What will we see?

my sentiments exactly.

[caveBEAR]

What will we see?

I said that one of his more angry posts could use a 'you'll see...you all see!', so he was actually being kinda funny.

Goodnight, my Sweet Prince.
:wave:

[perceptrons]

It's not that dumb... It's a simple yes or no answer. A child starving in Africa doesn't effect my immediate life in the slightest.
It doesn't have to immediately affect your life for you to care about it.

[Scrandon]

It doesn't have to immediately affect your life for you to care about it.
Or, maybe it does immediately effect your life because you do care about it.

[perceptrons]

Or, maybe it does immediately effect your life because you do care about it.
Which comes first?

[peder458]

I said that one of his more angry posts could use a 'you'll see...you all see!', so he was actually being kinda funny.

Goodnight, my Sweet Prince.
:wave:

Ahh, that makes sense.

Are you calling me a "sweet prince"? Haha... I am confused.

[thedeadlyudder]

Hello Again Everyone!:-)

[thrice00]

I know im kinda butting in here but I am christian who does not believe in abortion. I believe that no matter how you get pregnate (?)(accident, rape(sadly:() ect...) that child inside you should get a chance at life. Plus, I really cant see how you can do that to a featus but I guess thats because I have a weak stomach haha

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I know im kinda butting in here but I am christian who does not believe in abortion. I believe that no matter how you get pregnate (?)(accident, rape(sadly:() ect...) that child inside you should get a chance at life. Plus, I really cant see how you can do that to a featus but I guess thats because I have a weak stomach haha

I'll forgive the fact that you are 20 years old with terrible spelling and a lack of grammar capabilities. For the record, pregnant women do not have an enthusiastic attitude when it comes to deciding to undergo an abortion. It's a psychologically draining experience. But the debate at hand is for women to have the choice and the resources to undergo a safe abortion procedure. If you do not support the choice to have an abortion, then do not get one.

[thrice00]

I'll forgive the fact that you are 20 years old with terrible spelling and a lack of grammar capabilities. For the record, pregnant women do not have an enthusiastic attitude when it comes to deciding to undergo an abortion. It's a psychologically draining experience. But the debate at hand is for women to have the choice and the resources to undergo a safe abortion procedure. If you do not support the choice to have an abortion, then do not get one.

Im sorry about my grammer. I do get what you are saying and I respect that. I do believe that getting an abortion is murder, and if murdering someone is illegal, then why should we make an exeption to abortion??

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Im sorry about my grammer. I do get what you are saying and I get it that. I do believe that getting an abortion is murder, and if murdering someone is illegal, then why should we make an exeption to abortion??

It has to do with the legal definition of when life begins. Do you believe that life begins at the point of conception? What does it take to produce life? An egg and sperm. Simple as that. But what happens when sperm is destroyed? Is that abortion? Sperm is the seed of life. Within a man's testicles exists millions of potential life. Yet, when sperm is ejaculated (whether a woman is present or not), millions upon millions of potential life is thrown away (in most cases in a handful of tissue paper). Man has the seed that creates life. Yet, that seed tends to be flushed down the toilet. Is that considered abortion? Is that the same as flushing down the seeds of a tree that (if planted) could produce endless amounts of oxygen?

[sdbrown]

I'd like to live in a world where the morning after pills are used like Flintstones vitamins. My perception is that a woman has to go to a pharmacy and buy one at a time; busy schedules, low chances of pregnancy, and it being a relatively embarrassing process seems to incentivize someone to not get one and just take the chances. Why can't anyone just go buy a bottle and have them for when they need them? Seems like this, combined with effective contraception to begin with, would eliminate the need for most pregnancies.

Of course, there is still a chance that a woman could get pregnant having taken all those measures. A careful monitoring of one's own body can ensure that any further unwanted pregnancies are aborted very early on. I don't see personhood starting at conception or birth, and, seeing as I'm not a doctor, I don't know exactly when it does start. I think it's fair to say somewhere in the second trimester, around the point when the fetus starts becoming pretty highly developed. I would highly prefer that late term abortions be performed only in the presence of a danger to the mother's life.

As a person, you do have a legal and ethical responsibility to your fellow members of society to not partake in negligent or reckless behavior. Seeing as I believe that a fetus achieves personhood at some point during the pregnancy, and given the great resources available to solve any problems early on, I think that not making the choice and acting in the swiftest possible way is negligent.

There are just too many resources available early on (In a perfect world of course, not in a world where our leaders defund clinics and intentionally stigmatize the process) to justify a late term abortion in my mind.

Whoa there dude. Plan B is not an aspirin. I recognize the sentiment and agree to an extent but the reason you should go to a pharmacy is so you don't just pop one 'just in case' every morning. I can feel my ovaries quivering at the thought. Would you blast your balls with a super high dose of synthetic testosterone whenever a condom broke? The reason people take a chance is because if by some chance an egg did implant, there's some percentage (like 20-25%) of pregnancies that terminate on their own within the first 3 months anyway. There's no denying the disruption of a Plan B pill is less than that of an actual abortion but to say women should have them at the ready seems to completely ignore the side effects of the pills and pills like them (i.e. you're addressing the issue from a guy's perspective. It'd be like if I (a woman) said "guys should just freeze their sperm and get vasectomies at age 11 and we'd never have unplanned pregnancies again!")

I took a med ethics class about 2 years ago and from what I remember most late stage abortions are only performed if the baby is terminal (like its skull didn't develop or its spine is fucked) or will cause great harm to the mother.

[Machu505]

It has to do with the legal definition of when life begins. Do you believe that life begins at the point of conception? What does it take to produce life? An egg and sperm. Simple as that. But what happens when sperm is destroyed? Is that abortion? Sperm is the seed of life. Within a man's testicles exists millions of potential life. Yet, when sperm is ejaculated (whether a woman is present or not), millions upon millions of potential life is thrown away (in most cases in a handful of tissue paper). Man has the seed that creates life. Yet, that seed tends to be flushed down the toilet. Is that considered abortion? Is that the same as flushing down the seeds of a tree that (if planted) could produce endless amounts of oxygen? Well, the seed of a tree is analogous to the human embryo, so the last part doesn't make sense in the context of the full post. Sperm is more like pollen. Sperm or ova alone don't have the potential for growth like the human embryo does.

[thrice00]

It has to do with the legal definition of when life begins. Do you believe that life begins at the point of conception? What does it take to produce life? An egg and sperm. Simple as that. But what happens when sperm is destroyed? Is that abortion? Sperm is the seed of life. Within a man's testicles exists millions of potential life. Yet, when sperm is ejaculated (whether a woman is present or not), millions upon millions of potential life is thrown away (in most cases in a handful of tissue paper). Man has the seed that creates life. Yet, that seed tends to be flushed down the toilet. Is that considered abortion? Is that the same as flushing down the seeds of a tree that (if planted) could produce endless amounts of oxygen?

Isnt both the egg and the sperm each have half of the chromosomes needed in order to make a human being? If we can make a human being with just sperm or egg then thiers really no point of sex. So i believe that once the egg gets ferilized, then thats when its considerd a human being. But then again, im not a scientist, so I really dont know when "life" starts for a featus.

[Machu505]

I judge it this way:

The fetus is human by virtue of having human DNA. It is not, however, a human being. Human beings have been born. Furthermore, no one has the right to occupy another human being without the host's consent. The woman has the right to evacuate her loins whenever she pleases.

[sdbrown]

Isnt both the egg and the sperm each have half of the chromosomes needed in order to make a human being? If we can make a human being with just sperm or egg then thiers really no point of sex. So i believe that once the egg gets ferilized, then thats when its considerd a human being. But then again, im not a scientist, so I really dont know when "life" starts for a featus.
Scientists don't know either. When life begins should not factor into this decision because even if 'life' began when the egg was fertilized it is growing INSIDE SOMEONE ELSE. If that person does not want that thing leaching off them, they should have a say. Do you disagree? Would you be willing to have something YOU DID NOT WANT growing inside of you for 9 months, possibly causing you discomfort and health problems, potentially risking your career and well-being (postpartum)? Would you really? Or could you not possibly EVER understand the consequences of such a thing because you are male and therefore completely removed from the risk?

[sdbrown]

I judge it this way:

The fetus is human by virtue of having human DNA. It is not, however, a human being. Human beings have been born. Furthermore, no one has the right to occupy another human being without the host's consent. The woman has the right to evacuate her loins whenever she pleases.
Hahaha, this makes a wonderful slogan. If I ever find myself at a pro-choice rally, this will adorn my protestor's sign!

[Machu505]

I don't think it's feasible to divorce the point where life begins from the issue of abortion. If it is a human being, with all the rights and privileges inherent, then abortion is murder. But at the same time its right to exist would conflict with the woman's right to not have someone else in her body.

That's where shit gets complicated.

At that point, the pro-life movement has to decide which is more important: the right to life, or the right to have something living inside you without your permission.

[thrice00]

Scientists don't know either. When life begins should not factor into this decision because even if 'life' began when the egg was fertilized it is growing INSIDE SOMEONE ELSE. If that person does not want that thing leaching off them, they should have a say. Do you disagree? Would you be willing to have something YOU DID NOT WANT growing inside of you for 9 months, possibly causing you discomfort and health problems, potentially risking your career and well-being (postpartum)? Would you really? Or could you not possibly EVER understand the consequences of such a thing because you are male and therefore completely removed from the risk?

Sigh, I guess i deserved that last line. Look, Im sorry I feel this way. Could my opinions be what they are because I am a man? Probably. I do understand the consequences though, I dont understand the pain, but I do understand the consequences. Its tough, Ive seen my mother go through it 7 times. I have achually thought about this before because people have yelled at me for believing in this(high school), and if I was a woman, I would be so guilty of doing so that I would rather go through the whole pregancy/birth/having a child than having an abortion. I cant even imagine myself ending someones life. Hell, i couldnt even pull the trigger when I had the chance to kill a deer. I understand 100 percent what you are saying though, and I respect your opinions.

[sdbrown]

Sigh, I guess i deserved that last line. Look, Im sorry I feel this way. Could my opinions be what they are because I am a man? Probably. I do understand the consequences though, I dont understand the pain, but I do understand the consequences. Its tough, Ive seen my mother go through it 7 times. I have achually thought about this before because people have yelled at me for believing in this(high school), and if I was a woman, I would be so guilty of doing so that I would rather go through the whole pregancy/birth/having a child than having an abortion. I cant even imagine myself ending someones life. Hell, i couldnt even pull the trigger when I had the chance to kill a deer. I understand 100 percent what you are saying though, and I respect your opinions.
jsyk, 'mean' wasn't my intent while writing. I understand the caps lock probably made it seem like I was yelling but that was because I was too lazy to use italicize. Yelling at someone for their beliefs usually does not help a situation where two people disagree.

[thrice00]

jsyk, 'mean' wasn't my intent while writing. I understand the caps lock probably made it seem like I was yelling but that was because I was too lazy to use italicize. Yelling at someone for their beliefs usually does not help a situation where two people disagree.

I think you misunderstood me too, I never really said that you were being mean, I was just suspecting that the whole "sex" deal was coming up. sorry about that

[The Indigo]

Sigh, I guess i deserved that last line. Look, Im sorry I feel this way. Could my opinions be what they are because I am a man? Probably. I do understand the consequences though, I dont understand the pain, but I do understand the consequences. Its tough, Ive seen my mother go through it 7 times. I have achually thought about this before because people have yelled at me for believing in this(high school), and if I was a woman, I would be so guilty of doing so that I would rather go through the whole pregancy/birth/having a child than having an abortion. I cant even imagine myself ending someones life. Hell, i couldnt even pull the trigger when I had the chance to kill a deer. I understand 100 percent what you are saying though, and I respect your opinions.
I don't believe you.

[Mitch]

Sigh, I guess i deserved that last line. Look, Im sorry I feel this way. Could my opinions be what they are because I am a man? Probably. I do understand the consequences though, I dont understand the pain, but I do understand the consequences. Its tough, Ive seen my mother go through it 7 times. I have achually thought about this before because people have yelled at me for believing in this(high school), and if I was a woman, I would be so guilty of doing so that I would rather go through the whole pregancy/birth/having a child than having an abortion. I cant even imagine myself ending someones life. Hell, i couldnt even pull the trigger when I had the chance to kill a deer. I understand 100 percent what you are saying though, and I respect your opinions.

Your mother is whorible!

[richter915]

Abortion is yet another debate that politicians and lawyers should have no place in but since there's money to be made, they open their greedy fucking mouths. Like the cigarette debate and evolution debate, only well informed scientists should be allowed to have an opinion.

Regardless of your idiotic faith, a fetus will die unless it receives "life support" from a mother. It would die if not in the womb much in the same way a leg would rot if not connected to the rest of the body. You can argue that it is viable outside of the womb through the use of machines but I respond with "so can a leg, if you keep it on ice and then supply it with blood". You can respond with "well, a leg doesn't have the potential to become a full human" which is true but essentially meaningless in this discussion because again, without the mother, a fetus cannot grow either. Therefore, the fetus is a part of the mother until removal of the umbilical cord and until that point, she can do as she wishes, especially if the fetus is a deterrent to the mother's health.

[Dicebox]

Abortion is yet another debate that politicians and lawyers should have no place in but since there's money to be made, they open their greedy fucking mouths. Like the cigarette debate and evolution debate, only well informed scientists should be allowed to have an opinion.
Why do you think this? What would this look like if scientists were able to decide legislation so heavily?


Regardless of your idiotic faith, a fetus will die unless it receives "life support" from a mother. It would die if not in the womb much in the same way a leg would rot if not connected to the rest of the body. You can argue that it is viable outside of the womb through the use of machines but I respond with "so can a leg, if you keep it on ice and then supply it with blood". You can respond with "well, a leg doesn't have the potential to become a full human" which is true but essentially meaningless in this discussion because again, without the mother, a fetus cannot grow either. Therefore, the fetus is a part of the mother until removal of the umbilical cord and until that point, she can do as she wishes, especially if the fetus is a deterrent to the mother's health.If a fetus is acceptable to be killed, would it be acceptable to kill one if it had just been born, yet was still attached to the umbilical cord?

[richter915]

Why do you think this? What would this look like if scientists were able to decide legislation so heavily? Scientists and physicians are the ones in the labs and hospitals who have a greater understanding of what it means to have life (in the biological sense). Politicians, lawyers, and religious figures only have a "spiritual" understanding of life and that is bullshit.

If a fetus is acceptable to be killed, would it be acceptable to kill one if it had just been born, yet was still attached to the umbilical cord? I don't think a fetus can be killed since I do not consider it to be a living, independently viable form of life. If it is attached to the uterus, it is actively drawing nutrition from the mother against her will. Thus, I do not consider killing a baby the same as killing a fetus that is attached to the mother's uterus.

[The Indigo]

If a fetus is acceptable to be killed, would it be acceptable to kill one if it had just been born, yet was still attached to the umbilical cord?
I'm not sure you understand what a fetus is. Fetus =/= baby.

[jawstheme]

Scientists and physicians are the ones in the labs and hospitals who have a greater understanding of what it means to have life (in the biological sense). Politicians, lawyers, and religious figures only have a "spiritual" understanding of life and that is bullshit.

I don't think a fetus can be killed since I do not consider it to be a living, independently viable form of life. If it is attached to the uterus, it is actively drawing nutrition from the mother against her will. Thus, I do not consider killing a baby the same as killing a fetus that is attached to the mother's uterus.

Overall, I agree with you, but I have two issues with your arguments. First, you make a sweeping generalization about politicians, lawyers, and religious figures. I'm sure there are plenty of each that have educated themselves on what biologically constitutes life.
Your second argument is flawed unless you believe that once the baby is born the mother has a right to not feed it and let it starve to death, with no legal repercussions. After 7 months a fetus is biologically as alive as a newborn. Unless you consider a newborn not alive because it can't survive on its own.

[Scrandon]

Whoa there dude. Plan B is not an aspirin. I recognize the sentiment and agree to an extent but the reason you should go to a pharmacy is so you don't just pop one 'just in case' every morning. I can feel my ovaries quivering at the thought. Would you blast your balls with a super high dose of synthetic testosterone whenever a condom broke? The reason people take a chance is because if by some chance an egg did implant, there's some percentage (like 20-25%) of pregnancies that terminate on their own within the first 3 months anyway. There's no denying the disruption of a Plan B pill is less than that of an actual abortion but to say women should have them at the ready seems to completely ignore the side effects of the pills and pills like them (i.e. you're addressing the issue from a guy's perspective. It'd be like if I (a woman) said "guys should just freeze their sperm and get vasectomies at age 11 and we'd never have unplanned pregnancies again!")

I took a med ethics class about 2 years ago and from what I remember most late stage abortions are only performed if the baby is terminal (like its skull didn't develop or its spine is fucked) or will cause great harm to the mother.
I was under the impression that it has less side effects than birth control, so I just figured it would be the best way to prevent pregnancies. I know it's not perfect, but nothing is. sheesh.

[richter915]

Overall, I agree with you, but I have two issues with your arguments. First, you make a sweeping generalization about politicians, lawyers, and religious figures. I'm sure there are plenty of each that have educated themselves on what biologically constitutes life.
Your second argument is flawed unless you believe that once the baby is born the mother has a right to not feed it and let it starve to death, with no legal repercussions. After 7 months a fetus is biologically as alive as a newborn. Unless you consider a newborn not alive because it can't survive on its own.

It is a generalization on both sides really but if I had to put my money on it...a scientist knows more about what constitutes life than a non-scientist.

A mother who neglects a human life resulting in it's death is 100% accountable and should be tried for murder. And that's really my point, a fetus that is 100% reliant on the mother for function is really no different than a tumor or limb.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

It is a generalization on both sides really but if I had to put my money on it...a scientist knows more about what constitutes life than a non-scientist.

A mother who neglects a human life resulting in it's death is 100% accountable and should be tried for murder. And that's really my point, a fetus that is 100% reliant on the mother for function is really no different than a tumor or limb.

What's your opinion on the sociological affects of abortion (population, reduction of crime, etc.)?

[richter915]

What's your opinion on the sociological affects of abortion (population, reduction of crime, etc.)?
kind of a broad request. If you could mention a specific example, I'll be glad to share my thoughts.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

kind of a broad request. If you could mention a specific example, I'll be glad to share my thoughts.

The fact that since Roe v. Wade in the early 1970s, the population of the U.S. would be much greater if abortion was illegal. Urban areas in particular would be over populated. In addition, since Roe v. Wade, crime has been reduced in urban populations, out of the notion that unwanted children would have been born in less fortunate environments and more likely resort to criminal activity in order to support their living conditions. I'm curious if there is any study that measures how abortion in the past several decades would affect entitlement programs such as welfare.

[richter915]

The fact that since Roe v. Wade in the early 1970s, the population of the U.S. would be much greater if abortion was illegal. Urban areas in particular would be over populated. In addition, since Roe v. Wade, crime has been reduced in urban populations, out of the notion that unwanted children would have been born in less fortunate environments and more likely resort to criminal activity in order to support their living conditions. I'm curious if there is any study that measures how abortion in the past several decades would affect entitlement programs such as welfare.
I'm definitely not well-informed on these issues so my opinions are likely flawed as they're based on few facts but:

It is likely true that the US population would be higher if abortion were illegal but abortions would still occur, likely at a rate seen prior to roe v. wade. Furthermore, with the large increase in populations, there would likely be an increase in homeless children, poor children, and children in foster homes. From a fiscal perspective, that doesn't bode well for taxpayers.

Although it's a component, I highly doubt that changes in crime rates in urban areas are largely due to abortion. Other factors including increased law enforcement and "efficient" court systems likely play a greater role.

Abortion likely benefits programs such as welfare and medicare but I would not advocate abortion as a means to improve social programs.

[captivewear]

If abortion was outlawed, how would you regulate it? also if a woman is caught having an abortion what do you do to her? Is she going to be charged with attempted murder and put in jail for 15-20 years?
I think everyone can agree that abortion is a horrible thing for anyone to have to go through and no one wants to have one. I can see why people would not want people to have one but to outlaw them? Really? I think you need to think that one through because I have heard tons of people say it should be against the law yet I have yet to hear ONE person come up with a good system to regulate it and what to do if they are caught...

[Dicebox]

It is a generalization on both sides really but if I had to put my money on it...a scientist knows more about what constitutes life than a non-scientist.
How would a scientist have any dominion over the moral realm. Purely from a scientific standpoint, you could only describe the different stages of pregnancy. Science can claim nothing objectionable about morality, such as, "living human beings have a right to live". I want to throw out this question as well, If we based morality purely on the preservation and survival of our species (from an evolutionary standpoint) wouldn't that make the idea of abortion immoral? Just a thought. I am interested to hear thoughts on this. I don't think science should be the platform on which we base morality because science can hardly (edit: cannot) make moral claims.


A mother who neglects a human life resulting in it's death is 100% accountable and should be tried for murder. And that's really my point, a fetus that is 100% reliant on the mother for function is really no different than a tumor or limb.
Given this scenario, which is better? A mother births a fetus (whatever you want to call it, lets not argue semantics), and this fetus is still attached at the umbilical cord. The mother then decides she no longer wants this thing being 100% reliant on her.
What ought she to do?
1. Have the fetus killed/terminated?
-or-
2. Have the doctor cut the umbilical cord?

[caveBEAR]

Given this scenario, which is better? A mother births a fetus (whatever you want to call it, lets not argue semantics), and this fetus is still attached at the umbilical cord. The mother then decides she no longer wants this thing being 100% reliant on her.
What ought she to do?
1. Have the fetus killed/terminated?
-or-
2. Have the doctor cut the umbilical cord?

Who the fuck here is arguing that post-birth a mother is able to just abandon the baby? Who the fuck in here is even arguing allowing abortions past around 4 months in the pregnancy?

Reel in the hyperbole, ask a real hypothetical thats answer will have actual meaning.

[The Personist]

Just wanted to chime in and say scientists AREN'T the authority of what is or isn't "life." Enter: critical theory.

[Dicebox]

Who the fuck here is arguing that post-birth a mother is able to just abandon the baby? Who the fuck in here is even arguing allowing abortions past around 4 months in the pregnancy?

Reel in the hyperbole, ask a real hypothetical thats answer will have actual meaning.
Richter915 is, he said
Therefore, the fetus is a part of the mother until removal of the umbilical cord and until that point, she can do as she wishes, especially if the fetus is a deterrent to the mother's health.
So then I asked
If a fetus is acceptable to be killed, would it be acceptable to kill one if it had just been born, yet was still attached to the umbilical cord?
He responded...

I don't think a fetus can be killed since I do not consider it to be a living, independently viable form of life. If it is attached to the uterus, it is actively drawing nutrition from the mother against her will. Thus, I do not consider killing a baby the same as killing a fetus that is attached to the mother's uterus.

[richter915]

How would a scientist have any dominion over the moral realm. Purely from a scientific standpoint, you could only describe the different stages of pregnancy. Science can claim nothing objectionable about morality, such as, "living human beings have a right to live". I want to throw out this question as well, If we based morality purely on the preservation and survival of our species (from an evolutionary standpoint) wouldn't that make the idea of abortion immoral? Just a thought. I am interested to hear thoughts on this. I don't think science should be the platform on which we base morality because science can hardly (edit: cannot) make moral claims. Great point you bring up as science can, and has been, used for immoral purposes throughout time (justification of genocide, for example). In this case, though, we need an impartial view on what constitutes life. You say that science can "only" define stages of pregnancy...isn't the big debate about "well, which stage in pregnancy does 'life' begin?". If that's a question that need be answered, I will take a scientist over a religious figure. When you look at the history, the Catholic Church has repeatedly changed it's opinion as to when life begins, only in the past century or so saying that the soul/life exists at conception and thus, all abortion is wrong. When Church officials can have their opinions so easily changed, it makes me think that they are driven be means outside of religion and, therefore, I cannot trust them. The same holds true for politicians. Scientists, though, rarely have such sorts of "changes in heart" and changes in scientific ideas only change with cold, hard evidence. Not "well, I think this is what God actually meant" or "this is what will get me votes, so I'll believe it.".

As for morality, again, science can be used for evil but it is generally due to politics and religion invading science. Science purely really has no input on what is moral or not. Using your example, science suggests that evolutionary dominance in a species is defined by successful procreation and thus, abortion is not evolutionarily advantageous. That says nothing about morality though. It says that we are hurting the progression of our species, that's it. Whether that is right or wrong is up to the individual to decide. I'm not sure about you, but I don't plan on telling my future kids "you know why I had you? for the success of our species." If science did dictate what is moral and just, then a mother who doesn't have ten kids is almost as bad as a mother who aborts a fetus.

To sum up my point, I agree with you...morality cannot really be defined by science but since I don't see any significant moral issue in the case of abortion (since I do not define it as murder), I don't see why morality ought to be brought in.


Given this scenario, which is better? A mother births a fetus (whatever you want to call it, lets not argue semantics), and this fetus is still attached at the umbilical cord. The mother then decides she no longer wants this thing being 100% reliant on her.
What ought she to do?
1. Have the fetus killed/terminated?
-or-
2. Have the doctor cut the umbilical cord?
Sorry to say but semantics is kind of important here...if the debate is "when does life PRECISELY begin" then we must PRECISELY define terminology. If you're suggesting a fetus and a baby is one in the same, then we'll have a fundamental disagreement.

As per your scenario, if the mother has given birth, then there is no longer a fetus and nothing is attached to the umbilical cord. It's a very picky scenario but by my basis, it's still a fetus that is drawing nutrients from the mother against her will if the cord is attached. If I was the physician, I don't think I could go through with the procedure and that's totally within my right to say "no, I cannot perform this abortion". But, I would still acknowledge that it is an abortion and that another doctor could do it. If the doctor were to cut the cord though and the mother specifically says not to, he can lose his medical license because he's disobeying patient autonomy (i'm a medical student, I know this crap).

[richter915]

Just wanted to chime in and say scientists AREN'T the authority of what is or isn't "life." Enter: critical theory.
Why are they not the authority? If not them, who is the authority and why should they be the authority over a scientist?

[The Personist]

Why are they not the authority? If not them, who is the authority and why should they be the authority over a scientist?

The question of life isn't simply a biological one; there are plenty of philosophical implications that mere biology doesn't deal with. I'm pro-choice, of course, but I hate allowing any discourse to make totalizing claims about anything, so I wanted to throw that out there.

[richter915]

The question of life isn't simply a biological one; there are plenty of philosophical implications that mere biology doesn't deal with. I'm pro-choice, of course, but I hate allowing any discourse to make totalizing claims about anything, so I wanted to throw that out there.
Of course there needs to be a discussion and I agree, science cannot be the absolute authority but I think it's ideas and claims hold greater weight than philosophy, religion, and politics.

[The Personist]

Of course there needs to be a discussion and I agree, science cannot be the absolute authority but I think it's ideas and claims hold greater weight than philosophy, religion, and politics.

how do science's ideas and claims hold greater weight? That's an absolutely ridiculous thing to say.

[richter915]

how do science's ideas and claims hold greater weight? That's an absolutely ridiculous thing to say.
Of the four (philosophy, religion, politics, and science)...science is the only one with the majority of it's conclusions derived from hard, reproducible evidence. Philosophy is very close because there's a significant amount of math and logic involved but politics and religion all based on believing any idea that gets you votes and the word of "God", respectively. So you're right, philosophy is also worth consideration in this debate but religion and politics should really have no input.

[The Personist]

Of the four (philosophy, religion, politics, and science)...science is the only one with the majority of it's conclusions derived from hard, reproducible evidence. Philosophy is very close because there's a significant amount of math and logic involved but politics and religion all based on believing any idea that gets you votes and the word of "God", respectively. So you're right, philosophy is also worth consideration in this debate but religion and politics should really have no input.

I dispute very much the idea that we can make hard and fast distinctions between these fields. Additionally, you're leaving out art. I don't reject or dislike science, but to value one of those four discourses (and I would consider politics and religion to be part of philosophy, at least sociology) over the others is a mistake. Besides, if science has primacy, then it's perfectly OK to subjugate women and outlaw abortion, and also why not allow for eugenics to best propagate the species?

I'm being dramatic, but I believe all of these things are fundamentally interconnected such that each informs and influences the other and every other one of them. So, I'm not a fan of choosing.

[richter915]

I dispute very much the idea that we can make hard and fast distinctions between these fields. Additionally, you're leaving out art. I don't reject or dislike science, but to value one of those four discourses (and I would consider politics and religion to be part of philosophy, at least sociology) over the others is a mistake. Besides, if science has primacy, then it's perfectly OK to subjugate women and outlaw abortion, and also why not allow for eugenics to best propagate the species?

I'm being dramatic, but I believe all of these things are fundamentally interconnected such that each informs and influences the other and every other one of them. So, I'm not a fan of choosing.
What does art have to do with abortion at all? I'm talking for this specific case, not in general. If you read my post above I discuss the problem of using science purely to dictate decisions and I'm not suggesting we do so for abortion. Science ought to have primacy because, in my view, a debate on the stages of life can be best solved through the use of science. You're right, it's wrong of me to say that other fields should have "no input" but I stand by the notion that, compared to scientific and pure philosophical input (as in, don't bring in god and who u voted for last year), sociological input should be viewed and interpreted as minimal.

On a separate issue, to defend scientific "conclusions" involving eugenics...the majority of those studies conducted by nazi anthropologists came to several flawed conclusions. The evidence is clear that humans are different but the conclusion they drew was to support a political agenda or racist ideals...proving my point that good science can be sullied by politics and human weakness.

[delerben]

Pro Life all the way. I wish I could vote for more democrats but this issue is the primary thing that stands in the way of me doing so.

[Connair]

Pro Choice even though I personally don't think abortion is right, but come on its the woman's choice not a bunch of old men in congress and some women will still do it if it was illegal so i thinks its better to do it safely. Everyone who has posted in this thread should watch the section on abortion in Freakonomics by thee way. That will shake things up.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

There's been an interesting case lately where a New Mexico man has taken out a billboard criticizing an ex-girlfriend for having an abortion of his would-be child:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/files/2011/06/Abortion-Billboard.jpg

However, it is uncertain that his ex even had an abortion in the first place (http://abcnews.go.com/US/abortion-billboard-lands-mexico-man-court-girlfriend/story?id=13783668). The man's Twitter history even suggests he supports violence against women (http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474 979418806).

[The Indigo]

Apparently, homegirl had a miscarriage.

[caveBEAR]

There's been an interesting case lately where a New Mexico man has taken out a billboard criticizing an ex-girlfriend for having an abortion of his would-be child:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/files/2011/06/Abortion-Billboard.jpg

However, it is uncertain that his ex even had an abortion in the first place (http://abcnews.go.com/US/abortion-billboard-lands-mexico-man-court-girlfriend/story?id=13783668). The man's Twitter history even suggests he supports violence against women (http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474 979418806).

:shudder:

Yikes, look at that dude. I think random strangers would abort their fetuses rather than risk that guy touch their children.

[GeeBee]

Pro Life all the way. I wish I could vote for more democrats but this issue is the primary thing that stands in the way of me doing so.
Funny, I'd vote for more Republicans if they'd quit sending real live humans off to their deaths in needless wars...
See how that works?

[Simulcast]

Funny, I'd vote for more Republicans if they'd quit sending real live humans off to their deaths in needless wars...
See how that works?

Who do you vote for exactly?

[DJWildefire]

While I am morally pretty muddled on the issue (I feel like people who had unprotected sex should not be able to abort, excluding rape), from a legislative perspective that's pretty hard to regulate. So I am pro-choice.

[Lueda Alia]

While I am morally pretty muddled on the issue (I feel like people who had unprotected sex should not be able to abort, excluding rape), from a legislative perspective that's pretty hard to regulate. So I am pro-choice.
I don't really understand this logic at all. You really think that a child should be a form of punishment? Such thoughts really baffle me, as I believe that children should be wanted and never used as punishment.

[DJWildefire]

I don't really understand this logic at all. You really think that a child should be a form of punishment? Such thoughts really baffle me, as I believe that children should be wanted and never used as punishment.

I believe that if you have unprotected sex, you are opening yourself up to bring a child into the world. If you don't want a child, give it up for adoption but I don't think it's fair to deny the potential for human life just because of a mistake you made. If you were using contraception and something broke or if you were raped, then that is not your fault and you should not be held accountable to deliver the baby. I don't think of it as punishment, I think of it as responsibility.

[3ver So Sweet]

I believe that if you have unprotected sex, you are opening yourself up to bring a child into the world. If you don't want a child, give it up for adoption but I don't think it's fair to deny the potential for human life just because of a mistake you made. If you were using contraception and something broke or if you were raped, then that is not your fault and you should not be held accountable to deliver the baby. I don't think of it as punishment, I think of it as responsibility.
couldn't agree more

[Lueda Alia]

I believe that if you have unprotected sex, you are opening yourself up to bring a child into the world. If you don't want a child, give it up for adoption but I don't think it's fair to deny the potential for human life just because of a mistake you made. If you were using contraception and something broke or if you were raped, then that is not your fault and you should not be held accountable to deliver the baby. I don't think of it as punishment, I think of it as responsibility.
Having an abortion does not make one irresponsible.

And it is a punishment if you are forcing someone to go through with a pregnancy against their will simply because they made a mistake.

[boxingwithstars]

I believe that if you have unprotected sex, you are opening yourself up to bring a child into the world. If you don't want a child, give it up for adoption but I don't think it's fair to deny the potential for human life just because of a mistake you made. If you were using contraception and something broke or if you were raped, then that is not your fault and you should not be held accountable to deliver the baby. I don't think of it as punishment, I think of it as responsibility.

You do realize that humans have sex for more reasons than procreation, right? And that making the choice to have sex =/= choosing to have a baby.

[DJWildefire]

Having an abortion does not make one irresponsible.

And it is a punishment if you are forcing someone to go through with a pregnancy against their will simply because they made a mistake.

You do realize that humans have sex for more reasons than procreation, right? And that making the choice to have sex =/= choosing to have a baby.

I think that if you willingly have unprotected sex, the consequences of that are your responsibility. I don't think we should deny the potential for human life just because a couple was too lazy to use a condom. In situations where something goes wrong, like a condom breaks, then I believe abortion is acceptable. I realize humans have sex for reasons besides procreation, but if you willingly choose to have sex unprotected I believe you should deal with the aftermath without abortion. Eda, I'm not forcing anyone to go through with a pregnancy against their will because I said from a legislative position, I am pro-choice. Completely and utterly.

[Lueda Alia]

I think that if you willingly have unprotected sex, the consequences of that are your responsibility. I don't think we should deny the potential for human life just because a couple was too lazy to use a condom. In situations where something goes wrong, like a condom breaks, then I believe abortion is acceptable. I realize humans have sex for reasons besides procreation, but if you willingly choose to have sex unprotected I believe you should deal with the aftermath without abortion. Eda, I'm not forcing anyone to go through with a pregnancy against their will because I said from a legislative position, I am pro-choice. Completely and utterly.
Do you think someone who gets extremely hurt in an accident because they didn't wear their seat-belt should be left to die? I mean, it's their fault that they didn't have it on when they're supposed to, so should they be punished for it because they were irresponsible?

That line of thinking just doesn't really work. There are better ways to punish people for their mistakes. Although, as I said, having an abortion does not make one irresponsible.

[DJWildefire]

Do you think someone who gets extremely hurt in an accident because they didn't wear their seat-belt should be left to die? I mean, it's their fault that they didn't have it on when they're supposed to, so should they be punished for it because they were irresponsible?

That line of thinking just doesn't really work. There are better ways to punish people for their mistakes. Although, as I said, having an abortion does not make one irresponsible.

I don't see how carrying out a pregnancy and then giving up the baby for adoption equates to leaving someone to die. That's a poor analogy because it's hyperbolic and not even on the same level of what we're talking about. I realize you're probably gonna reply with "but pregnancy can cause death" but that's rare enough that's still not on the same level.

I think having unprotected sex when you don't want a kid makes you irresponsible. And I think the least you can do to make up for that is take accountability for the mistake you made and deliver the child (assuming it lives throughout the pregnancy).

I'd also like to reiterate that I'm discussing this purely from a moral perspective and that while I think it is immoral to abort after you've willingly had unprotected sex, I also think it's immoral to legislatively mandate that, even if that was possible, which it really isn't.

[Lueda Alia]

I don't see how carrying out a pregnancy and then giving up the baby for adoption equates to leaving someone to die. That's a poor analogy because it's hyperbolic and not even on the same level of what we're talking about. I realize you're probably gonna reply with "but pregnancy can cause death" but that's rare enough that's still not on the same level.

I think having unprotected sex when you don't want a kid makes you irresponsible. And I think the least you can do to make up for that is take accountability for the mistake you made and deliver the child (assuming it lives throughout the pregnancy).

I'd also like to reiterate that I'm discussing this purely from a moral perspective and that while I think it is immoral to abort after you've willingly had unprotected sex, I also think it's immoral to legislatively mandate that, even if that was possible, which it really isn't.
One can take accountability by not choosing to bring an unwanted child in this world, though. That's what I'm saying.

And it's not hyperbolic because I'm applying the same "They made a mistake, they should be punished" logic. I do, however, appreciate the fact that you can detach your morals from your position as far as the law is concerned. I'm pro-choice as well (obviously), but I don't take any pleasure out of the abortion rates, nor do I think I would personally ever be able to have one. However, I know that others don't share the same morals and viewpoints, so I think they should also be able to make their own decisions, even if they made a mistake. I'm glad that you feel the same way as well.

[bung]

I do, however, appreciate the fact that you can detach your morals from your position as far as the law is concerned . . . I know that others don't share the same morals and viewpoints, so I think they should also be able to make their own decisions . .

This belief is a common fallacy among pro-choice individuals, as it becomes inconsistent when applied to other aspects of the law. According to such logic, the killing of an adult human being should be legal under any circumstances. For, even if you believe it is morally wrong to kill an adult human being and would never personally do so, I may feel differently. I may feel inclined to kill an individual on some occasion, and I should not be subjected to legal repercussions when I'm merely exercising my own personal morality, however much you disagree with it and/or could never do such an act yourself.

[caveBEAR]

This belief is a common fallacy among pro-choice individuals, as it becomes inconsistent when applied to other aspects of the law. According to such logic, the killing of an adult human being should be legal under any circumstances. For, even if you believe it is morally wrong to kill an adult human being and would never personally do so, I may feel differently. I may feel inclined to kill an individual on some occasion, and I should not be subjected to legal repercussions when I'm merely exercising my own personal morality, however much you disagree with it and/or could never do such an act yourself.

Yeah, except for the whole 'one is a fetus, one is a grown human' thing, but we all know how bung feels about that.
:rolleyes:

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Thanks to shows like 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom, younger people are becoming more supportive of abortion rights.

http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/study-watching-16-and-pregnant-makes-americans-more-likely-support-abortion

[tippy325]

Thanks to shows like 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom, younger people are becoming more supportive of abortion rights.

http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/study-watching-16-and-pregnant-makes-americans-more-likely-support-abortion

Hell, if you're stupid enough to have unprotected sex before marriage, then you better have that baby. It's your responsibility now; and, it's not the kid's fault you wanted to get laid.

But, I voted "only in certain circumstances". I probably wouldn't have my baby, provided that some random guy raped me.

Besides those few instances, abortion should be a no-no.

[SincerelyMe]

I love how so many pro lifers say it's okay "in certain circumstances". Do you consider it less of a murder if a woman was raped?

[tippy325]

I don't consider it less of a murder, but, since the sex was non-consensual, then that's utterly different than agreeing to intercourse. Sustaining a child conceived with someone you don't even know, or don't love, is pretty difficult. The best option would be to have the baby and put it up for adoption.

[TwelveTribes230]

This is still definitely a tough issue. I for one cannot and should not really have an opinion because I am not a woman. I would like to think an abortion is wrong or bad even if it is rape because its not the child's fault, but I cannot even comprehend how tough a decision like this is to make or to know what these women are actually going through. So I'll just leave it at that.

[Simulcast]

This is still definitely a tough issue. I for one cannot and should not really have an opinion because I am not a woman. I would like to think an abortion is wrong or bad even if it is rape because its not the child's fault, but I cannot even comprehend how tough a decision like this is to make or to know what these women are actually going through. So I'll just leave it at that.

That is entirely wrong.

[boxingwithstars]

I don't consider it less of a murder, but, since the sex was non-consensual, then that's utterly different than agreeing to intercourse. Sustaining a child conceived with someone you don't even know, or don't love, is pretty difficult. The best option would be to have the baby and put it up for adoption.

Yes, let me carry this thing inside my body for 9 months that I don't even want, go through the pain of child birth, and then give it away with no emotional repercussions. Sounds like the best option to me.

Whether the woman was raped or the sex was consensual, she shouldn't be forced to go through with the pregnancy if she doesn't want to. Pregnancy isn't punishment, and implying that having an abortion is a way to dodge your "responsibilities" is a fallacy, because that implies that it is our responsibility to reproduce. Like I said before, humans don't just have sex for the sake of procreating.

And while I agree that having unprotected sex is pretty dumb, I don't see how outlawing abortions in those cases will educate people and make them more likely to use protection. You're fighting fire with fire here.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I don't consider it less of a murder, but, since the sex was non-consensual, then that's utterly different than agreeing to intercourse. Sustaining a child conceived with someone you don't even know, or don't love, is pretty difficult.

Lots of women become pregnant from consensual sex from a man they don't love (ex-boyfriend, one night stand).


The best option would be to have the baby and put it up for adoption.

While adoption is a noble choice for a woman who brings a child to term but does not want to raise it, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, less and less unwed women are giving children up for adoption (http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-placing-children.html).

[TwelveTribes230]

That is entirely wrong.

How so. If you were really put in the woman's shoes and had to make a tough decision like this all different thoughts might enter your mind. It's a completely different story. You would have no idea what a woman goes through in a thought process like this and the after affects it has on a woman. Even strong people who are faced with unfortunate events tend to break . We can stand in the side lines and judge people, but once we are in their shoes its a completely different story.

Also if your saying your pro-life you are against the death penalty. Once again you are not in the other persons shoes. If someone killed someone I loved then I don't know what frame of mind I would be in. Thoughts of revenge and hate would naturally enter my mind. I would only hope that I would be strong enough to choose forgiveness, but once again these things are not happening to me so I cannot say something is completely wrong or bad without even going through it and experiencing it.

[TwelveTribes230]

You can't murder that which isn't alive.

How many times do we need to go over this? Life does not begin at conception. You cannot kill that which does not have life.

Well there is two different point of views here about life. When the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period the fetus developes a heart beat. This is what a lot of people recognize as human life, a heart beat. Not to mention when most abortions occur around 6-9 weeks in the fetus is developing breathing-like qualities and brain development. So in many cases a fetus can still have life like qualities while still in the womb, but then again there is another side that says its only alive when it is outside the womb.

[tippy325]

Yes, let me carry this thing inside my body for 9 months that I don't even want, go through the pain of child birth, and then give it away with no emotional repercussions. Sounds like the best option to me.

Whether the woman was raped or the sex was consensual, she shouldn't be forced to go through with the pregnancy if she doesn't want to. Pregnancy isn't punishment, and implying that having an abortion is a way to dodge your "responsibilities" is a fallacy, because that implies that it is our responsibility to reproduce. Like I said before, humans don't just have sex for the sake of procreating.

And while I agree that having unprotected sex is pretty dumb, I don't see how outlawing abortions in those cases will educate people and make them more likely to use protection. You're fighting fire with fire here.

Jesus Christ...I get chided for both saying that abortion and adoption are viable options.

I didn't imply anything. When I say its your responsibility, I mean you have to choice whether or not to keep the baby.

Oh, my good lord. Did I say I wanted to //OUTLAW// abortions? Clean your ears out...

How so. If you were really put in the woman's shoes and had to make a tough decision like this all different thoughts might enter your mind. It's a completely different story. You would have no idea what a woman goes through in a thought process like this and the after affects it has on a woman. Even strong people who are faced with unfortunate events tend to break . We can stand in the side lines and judge people, but once we are in their shoes its a completely different story.

I completely understand and appreciate your view point on this issue.

[Scrandon]

Yes, let me carry this thing inside my body for 9 months that I don't even want, go through the pain of child birth, and then give it away with no emotional repercussions. Sounds like the best option to me.

Whether the woman was raped or the sex was consensual, she shouldn't be forced to go through with the pregnancy if she doesn't want to. Pregnancy isn't punishment, and implying that having an abortion is a way to dodge your "responsibilities" is a fallacy, because that implies that it is our responsibility to reproduce. Like I said before, humans don't just have sex for the sake of procreating.

And while I agree that having unprotected sex is pretty dumb, I don't see how outlawing abortions in those cases will educate people and make them more likely to use protection. You're fighting fire with fire here.
If you view a fetus as a person with a right to life, then I can see how people view it as a responsibility to not end that life. Of course there are negatives associated with it, like emotional distress as you mentioned. But if you view the mother and the child as separate entities, each with their own right to life, the most important right any human can have, then of course you would expect the mother to sacrifice something in order to allow the child to live. It doesn't imply a responsibility to reproduce, it is a responsibility to not end another person's life.

[Simulcast]

How so. If you were really put in the woman's shoes and had to make a tough decision like this all different thoughts might enter your mind. It's a completely different story. You would have no idea what a woman goes through in a thought process like this and the after affects it has on a woman. Even strong people who are faced with unfortunate events tend to break . We can stand in the side lines and judge people, but once we are in their shoes its a completely different story.

It is ignorant to assume that one viewpoint is necessarily more right than another solely by its connection to the issue. It is also silly to discredit other views because of this.

You can and should have an opinion on the issue, because the decision doesn't just affect one woman. It is important to consider all perspectives when discussing this issue.

Also if your saying your pro-life you are against the death penalty. Once again you are not in the other persons shoes. If someone killed someone I loved then I don't know what frame of mind I would be in. Thoughts of revenge and hate would naturally enter my mind. I would only hope that I would be strong enough to choose forgiveness, but once again these things are not happening to me so I cannot say something is completely wrong or bad without even going through it and experiencing it.

This makes no sense. If I am pro-life I must be anti death penalty, because I don't know what it's like to have a someone close to me die? Why can't I be pro-life and for the death penalty? Or pro-choice and anti-death penalty? I wasn't in the shoes of Richard Ramirez or his victims, but I'm pretty sure I can determine that his actions were wrong. Experiencing the situation doesn't necessarily make you any more or less biased, it only provides a different perspective. Again though, it may not be more "right" than any other perspective.

[DJWildefire]

One can take accountability by not choosing to bring an unwanted child in this world, though. That's what I'm saying.

And it's not hyperbolic because I'm applying the same "They made a mistake, they should be punished" logic. I do, however, appreciate the fact that you can detach your morals from your position as far as the law is concerned. I'm pro-choice as well (obviously), but I don't take any pleasure out of the abortion rates, nor do I think I would personally ever be able to have one. However, I know that others don't share the same morals and viewpoints, so I think they should also be able to make their own decisions, even if they made a mistake. I'm glad that you feel the same way as well.

I'm about to make a very long post, so hold tight. With regards to your seat belt analogy, I think it would be more accurate to compare it to just the injuries naturally gotten from the car accident, not leaving the person to die. The person knew the risk of not wearing a seat belt and had to face the consequences when the car crashed and they got injured. But I don't think leaving them to die is applicable to what I was talking about, I don't know what that would be analogous to.

I agree that one can take accountability by choosing to abort a child, but I think it's immoral. I'm saying that the well-being of the fetus is the person's responsibility, from my perspective, if they chose to have consensual, unprotected sex. Obviously, if they are not fit to parent they also have the moral obligation to give up the baby for adoption.

Here's a different analogy I came up with that I think is more representative, still has some flaws but I tried to make it as good and relevant as possible:

A company has chicken eggs. You want a male chicken egg to potentially grow into a rooster to wake you up in the morning. But at the time this happens (presumably in the future since we don't have this technology yet) you can only tell whether the chicken fetus is male or female say, at the same proportion of time to the chicken gestation period as to the time a woman can know whether she's pregnant or not to the human gestation period. You order the egg and it arrives at your house, by now old enough to test whether it is male or female. You test and are disappointed to discover it is a female chicken fetus in the egg. I believe that it is immoral to then crush the egg, denying the potential of chicken life because you knew the risks involved when you ordered the egg and the well-being of the chicken fetus inside of it should now be your responsibility in my opinion. But I think it is perfectly moral to give up the chick after it hatches.

Yeah I'm definitely not advocating for any legal restrictions. I'm always curious how far pro-lifers we'll go. What if the abortion is necessary to the mother's survival? Is it ok to them then?

[boxingwithstars]

Jesus Christ...I get chided for both saying that abortion and adoption are viable options.

I didn't imply anything. When I say its your responsibility, I mean you have to choice whether or not to keep the baby.

Oh, my good lord. Did I say I wanted to //OUTLAW// abortions? Clean your ears out...


Uh...

Hell, if you're stupid enough to have unprotected sex before marriage, then you better have that baby. It's your responsibility now; and, it's not the kid's fault you wanted to get laid.

But, I voted "only in certain circumstances". I probably wouldn't have my baby, provided that some random guy raped me.

Besides those few instances, abortion should be a no-no.

[GeeBee]

Who do you vote for exactly?
Non-morons. Which means I abstain in elections to national office.

[DJWildefire]

I also believe that while a human fetus is alive, it is not a human until it's out of the womb. It only has the potential to be imo.

[Simulcast]

Non-morons. Which means I abstain in elections to national office.

Bravo. I've followed the same path since 2004.

[TwelveTribes230]

It is ignorant to assume that one viewpoint is necessarily more right than another solely by its connection to the issue. It is also silly to discredit other views because of this.

You can and should have an opinion on the issue, because the decision doesn't just affect one woman. It is important to consider all perspectives when discussing this issue.



This makes no sense. If I am pro-life I must be anti death penalty, because I don't know what it's like to have a someone close to me die? Why can't I be pro-life and for the death penalty? Or pro-choice and anti-death penalty? I wasn't in the shoes of Richard Ramirez or his victims, but I'm pretty sure I can determine that his actions were wrong. Experiencing the situation doesn't necessarily make you any more or less biased, it only provides a different perspective. Again though, it may not be more "right" than any other perspective.

Why can't I be pro-life and for the death penalty?

You cannot pick and choose which life is more valuable or which deserves to live or die. Just beacuse it is a fetus or a murderer, life is life and each life is equal in its own right. Pro-life is for life so how is that any different from anti-death penalty? Yes, on one hand you have an innocent fetus and the other a murderer, but they both are living begins who have a right to life. So saying you are pro-life and anti-death pentalty just proves that you are not really Pro anything because you are picking and choosing which life has more value when that decision is not up to you.

because the decision doesn't just affect one woman

If a woman does not want to get an abortion she won't, but if one woman does she can. If it is illegal than that woman who can have an abortion now cannot have an abortion. All you are doing is denying that woman who wants an abortion. You are basically telling the woman you know what is best for her when you do not know what is best for her because you have not idea the situstion she is in. You are not experiencing the things she is so how can you really tell her what is best and how can you utimitally take that right away from her. Listen I am all for pro-life, but once again if the tables were turn who knows how strong I or anyone male would actually be giving the circumstances. You can preach that you are pro-life all you want, but when you actually experience it things change and so do people.

[Love As Arson]

I'm saying that the well-being of the fetus is the person's responsibility, from my perspective, if they chose to have consensual, unprotected sex.
This does not make sense. "You chose to have sex, therefore whatever the results, you are in responsible unless that path leads to ending the pregnancy, in which case you must defer to a non-sentient entity."

[DJWildefire]

This does not make sense. "You chose to have sex, therefore whatever the results, you are in responsible unless that path leads to ending the pregnancy, in which case you must defer to a non-sentient entity."

*unprotected
I'm also confused about what that is supposed to mean.

[Scrandon]

Why can't I be pro-life and for the death penalty?

You cannot pick and choose which life is more valuable or which deserves to live or die. Just beacuse it is a fetus or a murderer, life is life and each life is equal in its own right. Pro-life is for life so how is that any different from anti-death penalty? Yes, on one hand you have an innocent fetus and the other a murderer, but they both are living begins who have a right to life. So saying you are pro-life and anti-death pentalty just proves that you are not really Pro anything because you are picking and choosing which life has more value when that decision is not up to you.
You enter the world with certain rights, but of course if you fuck up and piss people off, society can take them away from you. A life is not a life; context is very important. I'm not even in favor of the death penalty but I can understand the argument and understand that pro-life + pro-death penalty, or any combination of those views, is not a contradictory or logically inconsistent position.

[DJWildefire]

You enter the world with certain rights, but of course if you fuck up and piss people off, society can take them away from you. A life is not a life; context is very important. I'm not even in favor of the death penalty but I can understand the argument and understand that pro-life + pro-death penalty, or any combination of those views, is not a contradictory or logically inconsistent position.

Glad someone else dealt with that nonsense.

[Love As Arson]

*unprotected
I'm also confused about what that is supposed to mean.
Getting an abortion. Basically, I restated your argument in its proper terms. You have a responsibility unless that form of responsibility does not correspond to some silly moral paradigm.

[DJWildefire]

Getting an abortion. Basically, I restated your argument in its proper terms. You have a responsibility unless that form of responsibility does not correspond to some silly moral paradigm.

I didn't say this. I said you have a responsibility to care for the fetus' well-being if you willingly had unprotected sex.
EDIT: Again, I'm talking strictly in ethics. Not legislative.

[TwelveTribes230]

You enter the world with certain rights, but of course if you fuck up and piss people off, society can take them away from you. A life is not a life; context is very important. I'm not even in favor of the death penalty but I can understand the argument and understand that pro-life + pro-death penalty, or any combination of those views, is not a contradictory or logically inconsistent position.

Either way a life is still a life and you are choosing that it is less valuable than another. So how can you embrace life and say you are pro-life or for life if you are taking a life away even if the person is a criminal.....You cannot be like I believe everyone has the right to life and defend life then go back on your belief and take that away because the person committed an act. Your just picking and choosing which suits you best and what makes you most comfortable. When it all comes down to the fact that life is equal for every person no matter what kind of person or what they have done or what they have yet to become.

How can you say a life is not a life. No matter what context that person is still a living human being. And you or society has the right to take that away from a person? Then you are not Pro-life at all. All you are doing is checking off the baby fetus pro-life package but won't acknowledge the criminal. You take the good with the bad.

Also who says society knows whats best and is the ruler of all. I don't think that decision is up to us.

[Love As Arson]

I didn't say this. I said you have a responsibility to care for the fetus' well-being if you willingly had unprotected sex.
EDIT: Again, I'm talking strictly in ethics. Not legislative.
Why does abortion not fit into the debate regarding well-being? Life isn't always the best possible option. And I still don't see how there is an ethical calling if a person does not use a condom and produces a fetus.

[bung]

Yeah, except for the whole 'one is a fetus, one is a grown human' thing, but we all know how bung feels about that.
:rolleyes:

That is not relevant concerning the argument given. To be logically consistent, one must believe abortion is essentially a moral practice to have it be law.

The argument is:

I believe abortion is immoral and would never have one.
Other people may feel differently, however, and may not feel it is immoral.
Therefore, the law should allow those who feel differently to have abortions.

Now let's look at this logic in other cases.

I believe killing an adult human being is immoral and would never do it.
Other people may feel differently, however, and may not feel it is immoral.
Therefore, the law should allow those who feel differently to kill adult human beings.

I believe dogfighting is immoral and would never do it.
Other people may feel differently, however, and may not feel it is immoral.
Therefore, the law should allow those who feel differently to set up dogfights.

I believe stealing is immoral and would never do it.
Other people may feel differently, however, and may not feel it is immoral.
Therefore, the law should allow those who feel differently to steal.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I'm still asking pro-lifers why they only support the life of a fetus up until its actual birth. They don't seem to give a damn about its well-being post-birth. They don't want to have to pay for the parents' unemployment/welfare benefits. Once a child is born to a mother/parents who are not mature nor financially able to support a brand new human life... "too fucking bad, you ain't getting sympathy from me."

[GeeBee]

Bravo. I've followed the same path since 2004.
I was expecting a tirade against not voting. I knew I liked you ;-)

[SincerelyMe]

I'm still asking pro-lifers why they only support the life of a fetus up until its actual birth. They don't seem to give a damn about its well-being post-birth. They don't want to have to pay for the parents' unemployment/welfare benefits. Once a child is born to a mother/parents who are not mature nor financially able to support a brand new human life... "too fucking bad, you ain't getting sympathy from me."

Yep. Then it becomes "well you shouldn't have had a kid if you can't afford it."

[GeeBee]

I'm still asking pro-lifers why they only support the life of a fetus up until its actual birth. They don't seem to give a damn about its well-being post-birth. They don't want to have to pay for the parents' unemployment/welfare benefits. Once a child is born to a mother/parents who are not mature nor financially able to support a brand new human life... "too fucking bad, you ain't getting sympathy from me."
This. Also...go visit an orphanage or home for disabled in an Eastern Bloc country and tell me to "choose life". The idea that any life at all is preferable to abortion is a stance reserved only for people who live in wealthy nations.

[DJWildefire]

Why does abortion not fit into the debate regarding well-being? Life isn't always the best possible option. And I still don't see how there is an ethical calling if a person does not use a condom and produces a fetus.

In what situation would you value death over life?
I tried to explain why I thought that way with the chicken egg analogy. If you have unprotected sex you are opening yourself up to the possibility of pregnancy and, because a fetus has a high probability of becoming a human life, I think it's immoral to deny that potential when you didn't even take the protective means you should have.

[DJWildefire]

I'm still asking pro-lifers why they only support the life of a fetus up until its actual birth. They don't seem to give a damn about its well-being post-birth. They don't want to have to pay for the parents' unemployment/welfare benefits. Once a child is born to a mother/parents who are not mature nor financially able to support a brand new human life... "too fucking bad, you ain't getting sympathy from me."

I'm more pro-life than most of you it seems though I still identify as pro-choice and I certainly don't feel that way.

[Love As Arson]

In what situation would you value death over life?
An illness that was terminal and left me in perpetual pain. Or, to use a parallel to the given topic, a situation in which my continued existence was one of degradation.

f you have unprotected sex you are opening yourself up to the possibility of pregnancy and, because a fetus has a high probability of becoming a human life, I think it's immoral to deny that potential when you didn't even take the protective means you should have.
Infinite regress.

[DJWildefire]

An illness that was terminal and left me in perpetual pain. Or, to use a parallel to the given topic, a situation in which my continued existence was one of degradation.


Infinite regress.

I think if the mother doesn't want or can't care for the baby then she should give it up for adoption. Which wouldn't mean the child's existence would be one of degradation, anymore than the chances of a wanted baby's would be.

How is that infinitely regressive?

[Love As Arson]

I think if the mother doesn't want or can't care for the baby then she should give it up for adoption. Which wouldn't mean the child's existence would be one of degradation, anymore than the chances of a wanted baby's would be.
The mother has a responsibility to herself as well. If she cannot be a mother and cannot carry the child to term, abortion is reasonable and responsible.

And it is infinitely regressive, because any action taken by a person can influence their potential to have children and therefore influence a potential life.

[DJWildefire]

The mother has a responsibility to herself as well. If she cannot be a mother and cannot carry the child to term, abortion is reasonable and responsible.

And it is infinitely regressive, because any action taken by a person can influence their potential to have children and therefore influence a potential life.

In what circumstances would she not be able to carry the child to term? If she literally cannot, then I agree that abortion would be morally sound. But I don't believe that most people who have abortions do so because they cannot carry the child to term, it's because they don't want to.

The difference there is that abortion denies a potential human life, which is extreme influence. As well, I believe a fetus is living, just not a human life. From the moment of conception, the potential for human life is already fairly high. That's the difference and why I don't think you can accurately call it an infinite regression.

[Love As Arson]

In what circumstances would she not be able to carry the child to term? If she literally cannot, then I agree that abortion would be morally sound. But I don't believe that most people who have abortions do so because they cannot carry the child to term, it's because they don't want to.
For a wide variety of reasons, such as it would negatively impact her ability to earn money, or go to school or to continue life as she knows it.
You've yet to demonstrate that this is the wrong decision.
D

The difference there is that abortion denies a potential human life, which is extreme influence. As well, I believe a fetus is living, just not a human life. From the moment of conception, the potential for human life is already fairly high. That's the difference and why I don't think you can accurately call it an infinite regression.
The difference, then, is degrees. A potential human life isn't far from its constitutive elements and your decision to determine that life begins at conception is arbitrary.

[Scrandon]

Either way a life is still a life and you are choosing that it is less valuable than another. So how can you embrace life and say you are pro-life or for life if you are taking a life away even if the person is a criminal.....You cannot be like I believe everyone has the right to life and defend life then go back on your belief and take that away because the person committed an act. Your just picking and choosing which suits you best and what makes you most comfortable. When it all comes down to the fact that life is equal for every person no matter what kind of person or what they have done or what they have yet to become.

How can you say a life is not a life. No matter what context that person is still a living human being. And you or society has the right to take that away from a person? Then you are not Pro-life at all. All you are doing is checking off the baby fetus pro-life package but won't acknowledge the criminal. You take the good with the bad.

Also who says society knows whats best and is the ruler of all. I don't think that decision is up to us.
"Pro-life" is a media-driven sound bite, and should not be taken to be the characterization of the entire argument made by someone who opposes abortion. The stance taken by "pro-lifers" is not a stance that supports life over death in all cases, but one in which they do not support the termination of an innocent child's life.

And for the record, I am not pro-life at all, but your arguments are still bad.

[DJWildefire]

For a wide variety of reasons, such as it would negatively impact her ability to earn money, or go to school or to continue life as she knows it.
You've yet to demonstrate that this is the wrong decision.

The difference, then, is degrees. A potential human life isn't far from its constitutive elements and your decision to determine that life begins at conception is arbitrary.

None of those things except the earning money aspect would stop her from carrying the baby to term. If she's being tormented in a way that is dangerous to her than yes. I'm not talking about extenuating circumstances like that and it's those circumstances that make me legislatively pro-choice. But I do think that a large part of abortions that stem from unprotected, consensual sex are immoral.

Yes, I agree that the difference is degrees. And you're right, that's something I struggle with too. Sperm and eggs are technically living in my book because they're made up of living cells. But the potential for human life only skyrockets when those are combined and if they're combined intentionally, excluding cases where it would be dangerous to the mother or fetus to carry to term, I believe the mother should go through with the pregnancy.

[Scrandon]

I'm still asking pro-lifers why they only support the life of a fetus up until its actual birth. They don't seem to give a damn about its well-being post-birth. They don't want to have to pay for the parents' unemployment/welfare benefits. Once a child is born to a mother/parents who are not mature nor financially able to support a brand new human life... "too fucking bad, you ain't getting sympathy from me."They are also often the same people who say things like we should have the death penalty because it's cheaper than putting people in prison for life.

But now we're just stereotyping and it's kinda fucked.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

They are also often the same people who say things like we should have the death penalty because it's cheaper than putting people in prison for life.

But now we're just stereotyping and it's kinda fucked.

I assume you understand it is more costly to put a criminal to death than it is to house them for the rest of their lives.

[Love As Arson]

None of those things except the earning money aspect would stop her from carrying the baby to term. If she's being tormented in a way that is dangerous to her than yes.

Why is torment limited to physical circumstances?



Yes, I agree that the difference is degrees. And you're right, that's something I struggle with too. Sperm and eggs are technically living in my book because they're made up of living cells. But the potential for human life only skyrockets when those are combined and if they're combined intentionally, excluding cases where it would be dangerous to the mother or fetus to carry to term, I believe the mother should go through with the pregnancy.
I don't think that negates the arbitrary nature of your decision.

[kapnzach]

I'm militantly pro-choice. Robbing the reproductive rights of a woman is an awful, awful thing. It is basically reducing them to reproduction machines.

[DJWildefire]

Why is torment limited to physical circumstances?


I don't think that negates the arbitrary nature of your decision.

It's not. I didn't say that.

I don't think my decision is arbitrary. To me, it makes sense from an ethical point of view. But since many of us do not abide by the exact same ethical code, I can understand why you would not agree. What's most important is that, in practice, a mother should have the right to abort.

[Simulcast]

I was expecting a tirade against not voting. I knew I liked you ;-)

Heh. If only there were more conservatives like me, right?

[GeeBee]

Heh. If only there were more conservatives like me, right?
Actually, yes. I appreciate disagreeing with people who are actually well-read in their positions.

[Love As Arson]

It's not. I didn't say that.

I don't think my decision is arbitrary. To me, it makes sense from an ethical point of view. But since many of us do not abide by the exact same ethical code, I can understand why you would not agree. What's most important is that, in practice, a mother should have the right to abort.
Well, you've been saying that unprotected sex creates a moral obligation to the fetus, such that an abortion cannot be moral unless it the mother's life is in danger. I think this view neglects the mental life of a woman, as the well-being of her life in general. And I refer to it as arbitrary because potential exists at every point in a sexual relationship, yet you've located it at a precise point in time with no firm basis.
As for the rest, the act of getting an abortion isn't a moral issue. The only moral or ethical question is related to whether or not a woman is able to receive the proper services. The well-being of the fetus is of no moral consequence.

[DJWildefire]

Well, you've been saying that unprotected sex creates a moral obligation to the fetus, such that an abortion cannot be moral unless it the mother's life is in danger. I think this view neglects the mental life of a woman, as the well-being of her life in general. And I refer to it as arbitrary because potential exists at every point in a sexual relationship, yet you've located it at a precise point in time with no firm basis.
As for the rest, the act of getting an abortion isn't a moral issue. The only moral or ethical question is related to whether or not a woman is able to receive the proper services. The well-being of the fetus is of no moral consequence.

I don't think so because if she's in a dangerous mental state, her life is endangered. Of course that potential exists over the course of a sexual relationship, that's why if you have protected sex and something goes wrong, I feel an abortion is morally sound because you took the precautions you could to preclude conception. But if you willing have consensual sex, you took a risk, and if that risk results in pregnancy, I don't think it's fair to deny the 75-80% chance that fetus has of resulting in a human life. I don't see what's so arbitrary about that.

As for your last part, we just disagree.

[bernie16wb]

They are also often the same people who say things like we should have the death penalty because it's cheaper than putting people in prison for life.

But now we're just stereotyping and it's kinda fucked.
Those people are stupid because what they say is incorrect. The costs of the death penalty are significantly more than even the most harsh alternatives (life imprisonment). And then we'd never kill innocent people which is a bonus. Yay.

But anyway, back to the topic. I'm pretty strongly pro-choice with the cavaet that I do not think people should get abortions in most situations. I think one should take the responsibility to use precautions that eliminate most unwanted pregnancies.

I'm much more of a "persuade people to agree with you via facts, PSAs, other educational methods" than a "legislate away things you don't agree with" person.

[GeeBee]

Those people are stupid because what they say is incorrect. The costs of the death penalty are significantly more than even the most harsh alternatives (life imprisonment). And then we'd never kill innocent people which is a bonus. Yay.

But anyway, back to the topic. I'm pretty strongly pro-choice with the cavaet that I do not think people should get abortions in most situations. I think one should take the responsibility to use precautions that eliminate most unwanted pregnancies.

I'm much more of a "persuade people to agree with you via facts, PSAs, other educational methods" than a "legislate away things you don't agree with" person.
Agreed. Although any attempts to facilitate responsibility via education or free contraception are as vehemently opposed by the pro-life crowd. Which leads me to the conclusion that they're not about the sanctity of life. They're about making sure women follow their religious sexually-repressed mores.

[DJWildefire]

Agreed. Although any attempts to facilitate responsibility via education or free contraception are as vehemently opposed by the pro-life crowd. Which leads me to the conclusion that they're not about the sanctity of life. They're about making sure women follow their religious sexually-repressed mores.

I've noticed that too. So ridiculous.

[Dicebox]

Agreed. Although any attempts to facilitate responsibility via education or free contraception are as vehemently opposed by the pro-life crowd. Which leads me to the conclusion that they're not about the sanctity of life. They're about making sure women follow their religious sexually-repressed mores.
I've seen this as well. However I disagree with your conclusion. I think that a lot of the pro-life crowd feels wierd advocating for free contraception because (as a side effect) it encourages sex outside of the context of marriage. In their mind its like choosing the lesser of two evils, which is not an acceptable solution for many. I think the majority of pro-lifers are not set on oppressing woman, but truly care about the right to life for the unborn child.

[karic97]

i am sorry but can i make the point that roe v wade will NEVER be repealed so why do the pro-lifers continue to force feed the world there bulllshit

[perceptrons]

i am sorry but can i make the point that roe v wade will NEVER be repealed so why do the pro-lifers continue to force feed the world there bulllshit
I am sorry, but your request to make a point has been denied.

[Zeran]

i am sorry but can i make the point that roe v wade will NEVER be repealed so why do the pro-lifers continue to force feed the world there bulllshit

no, it won't ever be repealed, but conservatives can still keep voting for pro-life candidates, despite all else. the worst these people can do is make it incredibly difficult to get an abortion, like they are currently doing in some 30+ states.

[GeeBee]

I've seen this as well. However I disagree with your conclusion. I think that a lot of the pro-life crowd feels wierd advocating for free contraception because (as a side effect) it encourages sex outside of the context of marriage. In their mind its like choosing the lesser of two evils, which is not an acceptable solution for many. I think the majority of pro-lifers are not set on oppressing woman, but truly care about the right to life for the unborn child.
I have an easy solution for that...don't like sex outside the context of marriage--DON'T HAVE IT. Leave everyone else to do as they please.

What was that I was saying about religious mores?...

[perceptrons]

"I don't involve myself in sex that doesn't involve me."
- My Father

[Dicebox]

I have an easy solution for that...don't like sex outside the context of marriage--DON'T HAVE IT. Leave everyone else to do as they please.

What was that I was saying about religious mores?...
I absolutely realize that. I was not asserting that they would like to make sex outside of marriage illegal (although I'm sure some would), or that they would force or oppress people not to have sex. I think its just that they wouldn't feel they were acting in good conscience if they advocated for it. You understand what I mean right? They whole point was to combat the assertion that the hidden motives of most pro-lifers is to oppress women.

[GeeBee]

I absolutely realize that. I was not asserting that they would like to make sex outside of marriage illegal (although I'm sure some would), or that they would force or oppress people not to have sex. I think its just that they wouldn't feel they were acting in good conscience if they advocated for it. You understand what I mean right? They whole point was to combat the assertion that the hidden motives of most pro-lifers is to oppress women.
And what I'm asserting is that their idea of "advocating" is skewed. Sex-education and making birth control available is no more "advocating" for sex before marriage than seatbelts advocate breaking the speed limit.

[Dicebox]

And what I'm asserting is that their idea of "advocating" is skewed. Sex-education and making birth control available is no more "advocating" for sex before marriage than seatbelts advocate breaking the speed limit.
I agree somewhat. I don't think there is a great number of people who will have sex just because they have condoms or use birth control, but I do think it is freeing for some. At least to the crowd that is educated about sex and wouldn't have it without protection. In their case I feel like it would be similar to having cash in the wallet vs. in savings. You are more likely to spend money that you have with you. And like I said earlier, I think advocating is merely a side-effect and not the intention. I'd be interested to see some studies on this, I'm sure they're out there.

I don't think the seatbelt analogy fits very well though. Seatbelts don't protect you nearly as much in the event of a crash (assuming the crash, and injury from a crash are the events you're comparing to pregnancy) compared to the protection offered by condoms or birth control in protecting pregnancy. Also, the likelihood of crashes are not dependent on the use of seatbelts, whereas the likelihood of pregnancy is dependent of the use of birth control.

[caveBEAR]

I agree somewhat. I don't think there is a great number of people who will have sex just because they have condoms or use birth control, but I do think it is freeing for some. At least to the crowd that is educated about sex and wouldn't have it without protection. In their case I feel like it would be similar to having cash in the wallet vs. in savings. You are more likely to spend money that you have with you. And like I said earlier, I think advocating is merely a side-effect and not the intention. I'd be interested to see some studies on this, I'm sure they're out there.

I don't think the seatbelt analogy fits very well though. Seatbelts don't protect you nearly as much in the event of a crash (assuming the crash, and injury from a crash are the events you're comparing to pregnancy) compared to the protection offered by condoms or birth control in protecting pregnancy. Also, the likelihood of crashes are not dependent on the use of seatbelts, whereas the likelihood of pregnancy is dependent of the use of birth control.

I'm sorry, why do you give a flying fuck about these people? You're worried about people who are educated in sex, apparently won't have it without protection, yet once you put a condom in their hand they just can't help but fuck something?

Fuck them.

[GeeBee]

I agree somewhat. I don't think there is a great number of people who will have sex just because they have condoms or use birth control, but I do think it is freeing for some. At least to the crowd that is educated about sex and wouldn't have it without protection. In their case I feel like it would be similar to having cash in the wallet vs. in savings. You are more likely to spend money that you have with you. And like I said earlier, I think advocating is merely a side-effect and not the intention. I'd be interested to see some studies on this, I'm sure they're out there.

I don't think the seatbelt analogy fits very well though. Seatbelts don't protect you nearly as much in the event of a crash (assuming the crash, and injury from a crash are the events you're comparing to pregnancy) compared to the protection offered by condoms or birth control in protecting pregnancy. Also, the likelihood of crashes are not dependent on the use of seatbelts, whereas the likelihood of pregnancy is dependent of the use of birth control.
This is two full paragraphs of you worrying about something that ISN'T YOUR BUSINESS. If people want to fuck, married or not, they will, regardless of how "immoral" you or anyone else thinks it is. They may as well be making the most educated/protected decision possible.

[Dicebox]

I'm sorry, why do you give a flying fuck about these people? You're worried about people who are educated in sex, apparently won't have it without protection, yet once you put a condom in their hand they just can't help but fuck something?

Fuck them.

This is two full paragraphs of you worrying about something that ISN'T YOUR BUSINESS. If people want to fuck, married or not, they will, regardless of how "immoral" you or anyone else thinks it is. They may as well be making the most educated/protected decision possible.
Sorry, perhaps I gave off the wrong impression. From the beginning my goal was to try to explain what a lot of people on the pro-life side feel weird about advocating for free contraceptives. I never really inserted my opinion on the subject. I was just trying to shed light from the perspective of others, that they don't want to oppress women with sexually repressed mores at the heart of the matter. You may see this as a side effect, but it is not the intention.

My personal opinion is still being thought through. I know there is absolutely no point to legislate the personal decisions of people who act in a healthy state of mind under their own consenting will of everyone involved. In other words, there is no point to making people morally Christian by dictating what they can and cannot do. I come to a snag when it comes to abortion because, while I recognize the full right of women to be able to make decisions about their own body, I believe the fetus also has inherent right to live. In a conflict of interests, I think the right to live of the fetus outweighs the woman's decision to terminate it. This is in the general case of course, I would never fault a couple that would decide to abort if it created a severe risk on the life of the mother. (I'm not here to argue about this, I know both your stances, but since you asked about my opinion, I'll give it.)

So when it comes to any type of solution to reduce or eliminate abortions I am also working through those thoughts. Ultimately, the perfect solution I think is for every person to love Jesus. This is what I have set my heart out to contribute to the solution, so that others may have this joy that I have. In the mean time, I think that sex education and free contraceptives are a great and practical way to reduce the number of abortions! I don't mind that it might advocate premarital sex because people are free to make their decisions of personal business (even though I don't think it will bring about the greatest joy). Another way to reduce the number of abortions has to be a focus on what happens to the child after it is born. I think a lot of people have abortions because they could not afford the financial impact of having a baby. I would love to see a system of financial adoption of babies in action. Where instead of adopting and separating the child from the mother, a family could essentially give child support for the life of the child. I have no idea how to implement that idea or how to make it so the system is not exploited, but I definitely feel that Christians ought to be more pro-life when it comes to after the child is born.

[deFobbed14yrs]

I don't think loving Jesus will help with the whole pre-marital thing. It's biology to want to have sex. Even the greatest of Christians will have premarital sex and will get pregnant. Having a love for Jesus won't stop anything, people will always have sex.

[perceptrons]

Priests love Jesus and they have sex with little boys, sooo...

As for the financial adoption idea, that would be an absolute trainwreck.

[Dicebox]

I don't think loving Jesus will help with the whole pre-marital thing. It's biology to want to have sex. Even the greatest of Christians will have premarital sex and will get pregnant. Having a love for Jesus won't stop anything, people will always have sex.
Truth. Well, society 2000 years ago got married A LOT younger, soon after the age of puberty when those emotions were just starting to build up. There was no need to repress sexual desire because in general you would be married soon after those desires came. Now, In America we get married on average around 27 years old. If you were to repress your sexual desire for more than 10 years, I don't think that's very healthy at all. I'm all for a society of Christians that are mature at a younger age, and understand what healthy marriage is, and they get married at a younger age.

[Dicebox]

Priests love Jesus and they have sex with little boys, sooo...

As for the financial adoption idea, that would be an absolute trainwreck.
I think that's largely because of the sexual repression of priests who historically weren't allowed to marry. I think that practice is entirely unbiblical and doesn't stem from a love for Jesus.

It probably would.

[deFobbed14yrs]

Truth. Well, society 2000 years ago got married A LOT younger, soon after the age of puberty when those emotions were just starting to build up. There was no need to repress sexual desire because in general you would be married soon after those desires came. Now, In America we get married on average around 27 years old. If you were to repress your sexual desire for more than 10 years, I don't think that's very healthy at all. I'm all for a society of Christians that are mature at a younger age, and understand what healthy marriage is, and they get married at a younger age.

But studies show people getting married under the age of 25 are more likely to be unhappy with their marriage. i don't know if you can really be so mature as such a young age, especially when you haven't gone to college or traveled around the world and found yourself before you go into a marriage with another person. Life is more than marriage and kids. And some new studies show that kids don't really make marriages any better, worse actually because of the added stress, and it causes couple to fall more out of love with each other.
But we digress, abortion will still be an issue even if people didn't have pre-marital sex.

[perceptrons]

I think that's largely because of the sexual repression of priests who historically weren't allowed to marry. I think that practice is entirely unbiblical and doesn't stem from a love for Jesus.

It probably would.
I don't think it stems from a love of Jesus, I just meant that loving Jesus isn't a solution to anything.

[DJWildefire]

I've seen this as well. However I disagree with your conclusion. I think that a lot of the pro-life crowd feels wierd advocating for free contraception because (as a side effect) it encourages sex outside of the context of marriage. In their mind its like choosing the lesser of two evils, which is not an acceptable solution for many. I think the majority of pro-lifers are not set on oppressing woman, but truly care about the right to life for the unborn child.

Are you a member of Magnificent Defeat? Because I love that EP.
I also agree with some of the points you're making in here, especially in regards to WHY pro-lifers don't advocate sex education and free contraception, however much I disagree with their logic.

[saving jonathan]

Agreed. Although any attempts to facilitate responsibility via education or free contraception are as vehemently opposed by the pro-life crowd. Which leads me to the conclusion that they're not about the sanctity of life. They're about making sure women follow their religious sexually-repressed mores.

Exactly. It's so contradictory it's ridiculous.

[Dicebox]

Are you a member of Magnificent Defeat? Because I love that EP.
I also agree with some of the points you're making in here, especially in regards to WHY pro-lifers don't advocate sex education and free contraception, however much I disagree with their logic.
Thanks! Yes, I sing on it. Glad you like it. Cool, that was my intent in posting. Glad I got my point across.
I don't think it stems from a love of Jesus, I just meant that loving Jesus isn't a solution to anything.
You don't think that loving Jesus solves anything? Why do you think that? What would you have to say about Martin Luther King Jr.? I don't want to get too far off topic but I think that loving Jesus has great relevance to reducing the number of abortions.

[tkamB]

So when it comes to any type of solution to reduce or eliminate abortions I am also working through those thoughts. Ultimately, the perfect solution I think is for every person to love Jesus.

Well 65% (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf) of all abortions are gotten by people who" love Jesus" so I don't know if that's much of a solution.

[Dicebox]

Well 65% (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf) of all abortions are gotten by people who" love Jesus" so I don't know if that's much of a solution.
religious affiliation =/= loving Jesus

edit: thanks for the link. Looks like a great study
double edit: even though religious affiliation =/= loving Jesus, Protestant's abortion index was at 0.75, meaning that protestants were less likely to have an abortion compared to all women. In a quote from the study, Protestants were underrepresented among abortion patients, and the relative abortion rate for this group was lower than the rate for all women
Also, the abortion index for people who did not associate themselves with religion had an abortion index of 1.59 Women with no religious affiliation had a relative abortion rate one and one-half times that of all women

[peder458]

You don't think that loving Jesus solves anything? Why do you think that? What would you have to say about Martin Luther King Jr.? I don't want to get too far off topic but I think that loving Jesus has great relevance to reducing the number of abortions.

It seems strange that you are OK claiming that loving Jesus directly leads to less abortions (or something along those lines), but then call foul with this:

religious affiliation =/= loving Jesus

I do not see this as consistent. I find it a much larger leap to say that "if someone loves Jesus, they will be less likely to have an abortion," than to say "if someone claims to be a protestant/catholic, then they also love Jesus."

[peder458]

double edit: even though religious affiliation =/= loving Jesus, Protestant's abortion index was at 0.75, meaning that protestants were less likely to have an abortion compared to all women. In a quote from the study,
Also, the abortion index for people who did not associate themselves with religion had an abortion index of 1.59

Do you see the notion of "loving Jesus" and the cultural norms/constraints that come along with being affiliated with a religious group as the same thing?

[Dicebox]

I do not see this as consistent. I find it a much larger leap to say that "if someone loves Jesus, they will be less likely to have an abortion," than to say "if someone claims to be a protestant/catholic, then they also love Jesus."
I see what you mean. My point in saying "religious affiliating =/= loving Jesus" is to say that there are many that claim religion, yet have trouble with articulating the elementary principles of their faith. Further, some actions of the religious do not emulate a life of love for Jesus, but rather that Jesus is simply a cosmic security blanket that puts you on the good team.

Also please don't get me wrong. I would never dare to say that if you get an abortion, you do not love Jesus. However I would say that the act of getting an abortion is not loving Jesus in that moment, or maybe stems from an inaccurate view of Jesus' teachings.

I guess that is the contingent point isn't it, what exactly does it mean to "love Jesus"?

Do you see the notion of "loving Jesus" and the cultural norms/constraints that come along with being affiliated with a religious group as the same thing?
No. However they may exist in harmony with each other. Just because you go to church does not mean you love Jesus. However, if you love Jesus, it may cause you to want to go to church. My point is that loving Jesus ought to be the source of moral decisions for Christians. Please explain a little further what you mean though.

[peder458]

Also please don't get me wrong. I would never dare to say that if you get an abortion, you do not love Jesus. However I would say that the act of getting an abortion is not loving Jesus in that moment, or maybe stems from an inaccurate view of Jesus' teachings.

What exactly did Jesus say about abortion? Specifically?

I guess that is the contingent point isn't it, what exactly does it mean to "love Jesus"?
To some extent, yes.

[A Cat from Hell]

tbh, i think abortion is just one of those things that shouldnt be debated. the ppl that dont like it cant stop the ppl who support it. the ppl who support it cant make the ppl who dont like it support it either

[Dicebox]

What exactly did Jesus say about abortion? Specifically?
Well if you're looking for the word "abortion" and a specific condemnation of it, then you won't find it. But I assume you know that. Its the same question that people ask when they want to know if Jesus every condemned smoking marijuana. Your not going to find specific condemnation of it, but from his words, we can understand what he valued and ask ourselves, "is abortion consistent with his teachings?". We know that Jesus was a Jew and as such, loved and taught application from the law (Old Testament). Jesus said For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letteror one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. So Jesus believed in the Old Testament as having authority over life's decisions. You could read Psalm 139:13-16 which talks about God forming David even as he was a fetus. There's even scripture is Exodus 21:22-24 which tells that if men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and causes harm to the fetus, it shall be paid a life for a life. (I want to be careful with this passage, let it be noted that Jesus said he came to FULFILL the law, so I point this passage out not to say we should follow this law, or that even this law is applicable to today, but to show that Jewish teachings were that the fetus had a right to life.) These are just a few passages. But a great point is to see how much Jesus talked about the practice of abortion. He didn't, as you know. He was always about loving him first, knowing that the rest will fall into place, and is subordinate.

Like Jesus though, I don't want to come here and convince people to be morally christian. I want people to love Jesus. So please, I don't want to get into a debate about the morality of abortion.

Edit: Also I think a big teaching of Jesus is to put others before yourself. I think in the general case, this is in opposition to the idea of abortion.

[tkamB]

religious affiliation =/= loving Jesus
To consider oneself affiliated to a religion that loves Jesus would indicate that one also loves Jesus.


double edit: even though religious affiliation =/= loving Jesus, Protestant's abortion index was at 0.75, meaning that protestants were less likely to have an abortion compared to all women. In a quote from the study,
Also, the abortion index for people who did not associate themselves with religion had an abortion index of 1.59
There are other factors however that explain that difference ie: age. (http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/table-age-by-tradition.pdf) Those who are unaffiliated are much younger on average than those who consider themselves Protestants and are therefore more likely to have an abortion.

[SincerelyMe]

This is pretty sad.
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/151268/10_states_where_abortion_is_virtual ly_illegal_for_some_women/?page=1

[perceptrons]

Thanks! Yes, I sing on it. Glad you like it. Cool, that was my intent in posting. Glad I got my point across.

You don't think that loving Jesus solves anything? Why do you think that? What would you have to say about Martin Luther King Jr.? I don't want to get too far off topic but I think that loving Jesus has great relevance to reducing the number of abortions.
I meant more in regard to reducing abortions, but yes, loving Jesus, in and of itself, solves nothing.

[Dicebox]

To consider oneself affiliated to a religion that loves Jesus would indicate that one also loves Jesus.
I considered myself a Christian long before I loved Jesus. Is my own testimony now false?

[perceptrons]

I considered myself a Christian long before I loved Jesus. Is my own testimony now false?
in·di·cate verb \ˈin-də-ˌkāt\
in·di·cat·edin·di·cat·ing

Definition of INDICATE

transitive verb
1
a : to point out or point to
b : to be a sign, symptom, or index of <the high fever indicates a serious condition>

Cliff Notes: You are not representative of everyone. Generally, the statement, "to consider oneself affiliated to a religion that loves Jesus would indicate that one also loves Jesus," holds true.

[Dicebox]

Cliff Notes: You are not representative of everyone. Generally, the statement, "to consider oneself affiliated to a religion that loves Jesus would indicate that one also loves Jesus," holds true.
Ah! So we are in agreement then. There are some cases where that statement does not hold true.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

The trailer for the upcoming pro-life horror film The Life Zone

sn_Iq9D_Clg

It will scare you to death ... err, to never consider an abortion

[deFobbed14yrs]

will not watch

[caveBEAR]

The trailer for the upcoming pro-life horror film The Life Zone

I'm so confused...

[peder458]

Cliff Notes: You are not representative of everyone. Generally, the statement, "to consider oneself affiliated to a religion that loves Jesus would indicate that one also loves Jesus," holds true.

This was my point a page or two back. Not sure what is confusing about it...

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I'm so confused...

Once a woman sees this film, they will never consider an abortion. Just like after seeing Hostel, no college aged kids went backpacking in Europe.

[caveBEAR]

Once a woman sees this film, they will never consider an abortion. Just like after seeing Hostel, no college aged kids went backpacking in Europe.

Oh, I understood that. I'm just confused by the movie itself.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

The movie is being mentioned on the Colbert Report!

[perceptrons]

Ah! So we are in agreement then. There are some cases where that statement does not hold true.
Who said there weren't? You're the one who made a blanket statement that loving Jesus was the solution to reducing abortions.

[Dicebox]

Who said there weren't? You're the one who made a blanket statement that loving Jesus was the solution to reducing abortions. I'll show you.

Well 65% (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf) of all abortions are gotten by people who" love Jesus" so I don't know if that's much of a solution.Implies that the 65% of people that claimed to be Protestant/Catholic were also people who love Jesus. An absolute 1:1 ratio.

To consider oneself affiliated to a religion that loves Jesus would indicate that one also loves Jesus.
This is also an absolute statement. A implies B. If you consider yourself affiliated to a religion that loves Jesus, then you love Jesus.

However, we know this simply isn't true because both events are independent of each other. A neither implies B, nor does B imply A. We both agree that there are instances where people who claim to be Christian yet do not love Jesus. I would bet that this is the case more often than you think.

I believe that my goal is not to legislate or vote to legislate the morality or legality of abortion. Instead my goal is to show people Jesus, that they may love Him. I think in doing so, it will reduce abortions. We will see if my theory plays out to be true.

[x togepi x]

I'll show you.

Implies that the 65% of people that claimed to be Protestant/Catholic were also people who love Jesus. An absolute 1:1 ratio.


This is also an absolute statement. A implies B. If you consider yourself affiliated to a religion that loves Jesus, then you love Jesus.

However, we know this simply isn't true because both events are independent of each other. A neither implies B, nor does B imply A. We both agree that there are instances where people who claim to be Christian yet do not love Jesus. I would bet that this is the case more often than you think.

I believe that my goal is not to legislate or vote to legislate the morality or legality of abortion. Instead my goal is to show people Jesus, that they may love Him. I think in doing so, it will reduce abortions. We will see if my theory plays out to be true.

Hello No True Scotsman fallacy.

[Dicebox]

Hello No True Scotsman fallacy.
I know what you mean, but its different from saying, "This person is not a true Christian!". I couldn't determine with certainty who in fact does and does not love Jesus. But if one is able to love Jesus, then that love is independent from religious affiliation. Am I wrong?

Would it be too far of a stretch in analogy to say, "just because you are married, it does not mean you love your husband/wife"?

[x togepi x]

I know what you mean, but its different from saying, "This person is not a true Christian!". I couldn't determine with certainty who in fact does and does not love Jesus. But if one is able to love Jesus, then that love is independent from religious affiliation. Am I wrong?

Would it be too far of a stretch in analogy to say, "just because you are married, it does not mean you love your husband/wife"?

Your logic necessarily depends on the No True Scotsman fallacy when you say that having an abortion is "not loving Jesus at that moment."

[tkamB]

n8KD0BkODr8&feature=related

^True Christians.

[caveBEAR]

I believe that my goal is not to legislate or vote to legislate the morality or legality of abortion. Instead my goal is to show people Jesus, that they may love Him. I think in doing so, it will reduce abortions. We will see if my theory plays out to be true.

I don't know whether to :yawn: or :crackup: but I feel that one might be necessary...

[Dicebox]

Your logic necessarily depends on the No True Scotsman fallacy when you say that having an abortion is "not loving Jesus at that moment."
Gotcha. You're right. My apologies.

[perceptrons]

I'll show you.

Implies that the 65% of people that claimed to be Protestant/Catholic were also people who love Jesus. An absolute 1:1 ratio.
Even if only 2/3's of those people actually loved Jesus, the point still stands. No 1:1 ratio necessary.


This is also an absolute statement. A implies B. If you consider yourself affiliated to a religion that loves Jesus, then you love Jesus.

Not an absolute statement, need I paste the definition of indicate again?


However, we know this simply isn't true because both events are independent of each other. A neither implies B, nor does B imply A. We both agree that there are instances where people who claim to be Christian yet do not love Jesus. I would bet that this is the case more often than you think.
I bet it's not the majority, in which case your "solution" is still a crappy one.


I believe that my goal is not to legislate or vote to legislate the morality or legality of abortion. Instead my goal is to show people Jesus, that they may love Him. I think in doing so, it will reduce abortions. We will see if my theory plays out to be true.
How would we see that? According to those statistics, it doesn't seem like it does.

[Dicebox]

Even if only 2/3's of those people actually loved Jesus, the point still stands. No 1:1 ratio necessary.

Not an absolute statement, need I paste the definition of indicate again?

I bet it's not the majority, in which case your "solution" is still a crappy one.

How would we see that? According to those statistics, it doesn't seem like it does.
You're right. I guess my whole point was to show that just because you are affiliated with a religion, it does not mean you love Jesus. In my experience it takes a huge transformation, and I feel many people in churches are without it. Forgive me if I have been quick to judge sentences that seemed absolute. Helping people love Jesus is not my means to an end goal of reducing abortions. Helping people love Jesus is my goal. I think as a side effect, other things may fall into place. If my solution is crappy, then what worry is it to you? Maybe it is, however, I have made it my goal. I don't think everyone needs to have that goal, but I'd love for others to join me.

[deFobbed14yrs]

Doesn't Jesus forgive? So as long as you feel bad about the abortion and apologize you're good right? Viva la abortions.

[perceptrons]

You're right. I guess my whole point was to show that just because you are affiliated with a religion, it does not mean you love Jesus. In my experience it takes a huge transformation, and I feel many people in churches are without it. Forgive me if I have been quick to judge sentences that seemed absolute. Helping people love Jesus is not my means to an end goal of reducing abortions. Helping people love Jesus is my goal. I think as a side effect, other things may fall into place. If my solution is crappy, then what worry is it to you? Maybe it is, however, I have made it my goal. I don't think everyone needs to have that goal, but I'd love for others to join me.
I'm not a fan of loving Jesus, and don't want it pushed to people as a solution.

[japtoon33]

Pro choice.

[thedeadlyudder]

My last word on this thread, im prolife, ill always be prolife, and i will pray that eventually the country sees that abortion is super fucked up like they did with slavery but for now i will remain nonconfrontational

[NeonTiger777]

I'm completely pro-life.

It's not the child's fault that their parents were irresponsible and didn't use protection, so why should he/she have to die?

Did you know that unborn babies can feel pain and that abortions inflict a great amount of it?

If you're mature enough to have sex, you're mature enough to raise a child. BUT, if there are circumstances that you can't raise the kid (poverty, very young age, illness, etc.), then think of all the couples out there who really want to have a baby but can't. There are people who would give anything to love and raise the child that you are killing.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I'm completely pro-life.

It's not the child's fault that their parents were irresponsible and didn't use protection, so why should he/she have to die?

Did you know that unborn babies can feel pain and that abortions inflict a great amount of it?

If you're mature enough to have sex, you're mature enough to raise a child. BUT, if there are circumstances that you can't raise the kid (poverty, very young age, illness, etc.), then think of all the couples out there who really want to have a baby but can't. There are people who would give anything to love and raise the child that you are killing.

Then why has adoption rates been declining in the past decade?!?!?!?!?!

[katyara]

I'm completely pro-life.

It's not the child's fault that their parents were irresponsible and didn't use protection, so why should he/she have to die?

Did you know that unborn babies can feel pain and that abortions inflict a great amount of it?

If you're mature enough to have sex, you're mature enough to raise a child. BUT, if there are circumstances that you can't raise the kid (poverty, very young age, illness, etc.), then think of all the couples out there who really want to have a baby but can't. There are people who would give anything to love and raise the child that you are killing.

I really do not understand this logic. Since when have someone's sexual experiences been indicative of their maturity?

[boxingwithstars]

I'm completely pro-life.

It's not the child's fault that their parents were irresponsible and didn't use protection, so why should he/she have to die?

Did you know that unborn babies can feel pain and that abortions inflict a great amount of it?

If you're mature enough to have sex, you're mature enough to raise a child. BUT, if there are circumstances that you can't raise the kid (poverty, very young age, illness, etc.), then think of all the couples out there who really want to have a baby but can't. There are people who would give anything to love and raise the child that you are killing.

Girls finish puberty by age 16-17, which means they've reached sexual maturity. No fucking way does our sexual development line up with our cognitive development.

[AP_Punk]

http://www.boingboing.net/ttdb/20110622/comic.jpg/1043cbCOMIC%20counter-earth%20-%20war.jpg