*Stirs the cauldron* There is always my thought on how one should have a license to have a child. Driving a car is much easier than child rearing... need a license for that. :D

We can start by using the $200+ million/year the federal government has allocated for the last 6 years for three abstinence only programs - Adolescent Family Life Act, Community Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) and SSA Title V.

Funding for the largest of the three (grants to faith based organizations), CBAE, has increased over 400% since 2001 while grant program for comprehensive sex education have been flatlined or decreased. The latest CBAE guidelines require "grantees to teach abstinence from any "sexual stimulation" between two people, term so broad it could encompass kissing". (link)

We're also paying to teach our children that "sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects"
(link)

Well, you're not going to catch me arguing with you. I think this is a very significant issue for women and one that is abused by the pro-choice and pro-life movements for partisan political gain at the expense of practicable solutions for the women out there who are getting abortions.

And just for disclosure's sake, because it seems to be important to some people when I start talking about abortion for some reason, I have had two. One when I was sixteen and one when I was twenty-eight.

Dude...! You still, like, didn't address any of my points at all.

When a woman is able to produce a baby on her on is the day when she should be able to decide what happens to it. Pretty simple logic, wouldn't you say? Yes, I would say so. Otherwise, following your logic, men should be able to opt out of child support as that's nothing but 'control over men' and no one likes to be controlled :)

(But, oh, I'm pretty sure you'll slyly avoid responding to this point, too.)

It's sad enough when the overwhelming majority of abortions are done because the women "Isn't ready to be a parent" (Why are you having sex when you can't deal with the consequences?). Yeah... That one makes perfect sense to me. It's even sadder when half of the women who have an abortion typically have another one. That just goes to show that they really don't care enough to practice safe sex.

You made it, you take care of it. Men have to abide by this standard. So too should women. You can't do that? Then keep your legs closed. Yes, it's possible.

Men are just as qualified as women to judge whether something is murder or not. Very few people without a gross misunderstanding of the human mind believe that abstinence training is anything but a quick way to increase unwanted teen pregnancies (and thus abortions).

*Ahem*

That's nots really true. The biggest problem is that Western society has, as a whole, adopted the "Sex-is-natural-and-you-should-do-it-as-much-as-you-want!" philosophy and that has, as a result, correlated to a higher rate of unwed teenage pregnancies. Now compare that number to the number of unwed teenage pregnancies in non-Western societies which shun premarital sex. You'll find that the rate is much, much higher. Hell, look at the percentage of unwed teenage pregnancies in the US sixty years ago versus now. It's no surprise that the percentage rose as people began to take a more lax attitude toward sex.

*Shrugs*

Nothing you do will reduce the number of teenage pregnancies for so long as society continues to advocate premarital sex. It's really as simple as that.

...Just a little bit of off-topicness.

The way it is treated today by law, in effect, a fetus is no more than a growth inside a woman’s body. Even if you're fucking someone that doesn't give you the right to tell them what zits they can or can't pop. What I’m trying to point out is that your argument is just another rehashing of when does life begin debate. Your argument makes sense if you think of the fetus as being alive, it doesn't if you think of it as a functionally unnecessary part of a female. All she's doing is having elective surgery in that case. Sorry if I’m not in the correct flow of the debate, it really is hard to read so many posts.

Anyway, my thoughts on abortions. I am opposed to them in principle. However, if I had a vote I would not vote to ban abortion. I understand that there is a difference in the way in which I think and someone who is pro-choice thinks. There are logical arguments which make a solid case for being allowed to have abortions. Because I do not agree with their fundamental assumptions I do not believe in them, but unfortunately I have yet to hear any convincing argument which can tell me the right assumptions to make. Therefore, I must allow for the benefit of the doubt. That is to say I could be wrong, and I’m not going to impose my will on someone when I'm not sure of something to a satisfactory degree.

When abstinence training is introduced into schools, they often REPLACE safe sex training. It's called "Abstinence Only" specifically. Just telling kids "Don't do it" isn't enough. Some of them are going to do it anyway, so they need to understand the realities of safe sex practices. Get tested, wrap it up, pop the pill, etc. In 2005, the federal government spent $168m in abstinence only programs. Congress did a study on these program and found that over 80% of these federally funded programs teach inaccurate information.
(NSFW, Language)


It's when abstinence is taught along side responsible sex practices that one should expect the best results: lower teen pregnancy rate, lower abortion rate, lower STD rate.

*Ahem*

Like I said, it ain't gonna' happen so long as Western society as a whole glorifies premarital sex. People engage in dangerous activities not because they don't know better, but because they don't care.

*Shrugs*

For as long as such actions are tolerated, they'll continue.

I have to say that I'm rather impressed that a thread about abortion has made it 8 pages without being locked.

Anyways - I understand and can accept the fact that abortion is the taking of a viable life. I'm still pro-choice and I believe I always will be. I would choose to have the child, but then it's not my body. I'm just glad I would be able to have the freedom to make that choice.

Ummm... No? Many states have laws which protect fetus' rights.

It does when you're half-responsible for making it :)

First of all, that wasn't my point and, second of all, 'surgery' is a pretty callous way of describing it.

The ambiguous late term abortions, correct? But, how does that help your case? It just means the line between alive and not alive is drawn slightly farther back, my assertion still seems logical.
Is that because you say so?:)

I didn’t say it was your point. I said it was what it boiled down to. Which is basically what all arguments about abortion boil down to. The inescapable assumption that must be made: when does life begin? It’s not callus in the context; it’s only callus if you believe you’re killing a living being.

There's a reason that some fathers win custody. Why? We are half responsible for the kid. And it makes sense. It takes two to tango, anyway.

The way I read it, your assertion was that fetus' are basically the property of the woman to do with as she pleases.

Are you serious...? Humans aren't asexual. Women don't create offspring on their own. They shouldn't be given absolute power to decide it's fate. It's really no simpler than that.

I'll support abortions as soon as a man can opt out of child support without being hounded by the government. But, you see, that will never happen. Why? Abortion rights activists (Especially the women) bitch and moan about 'a woman's right to choose', but as soon as someone advocates extending those 'rights' to men they suddenly change their arguing point. Why? Because they (You included) know that you're pushing across a gross inequality under the guise of 'choice'.

It's not even about that. It's about being accountable for one's actions, which many people who seek abortions aren't (Evidenced by the fact that half of them have subsequent abortions). I've asked this question before, but have yet to receive an answer. Therefore, I'll ask it again.

The most given answer for having an abortion is "I'm not ready to be a parent" or "Having a baby would change my life" or "I'm not mentally prepared to be a parent". What do you think would happen in a man tried to give ANY of these reasons as to why he shouldn't be a parent? And how, pray tell, is that promoting the 'gender equality' that most pro-abortionists advocate?

Right but, it think you'd agree that it would be pretty hard to gain custody of a mole on someone else's cheek?

Men have the same choice as women to have whatever unnecessary surgery they want to remove a body part. By law we are only responsible for living beings. Our right as a parent only starts when we have a baby to consider, and when do we have a baby to consider? Well it makes sense to say whenever that baby is alive. So what’s the next logical question? I guess I’ll repeat myself again, it only makes sense to think about shared responsibility of a living entity. If a fetus is not alive then it’s just another part of a woman’s body. She may do with it whatever she pleases. Also, I think we’ve all had enough of the masturbation argument to see that it doesn’t really matter that the fetus will eventually become alive. Before it does it’s nothing more than something that resides in the category of unused sperm or eggs at least by law in these here United States.

Because when there actually is something alive to consider both men and women have basically the same rights. She can't end the baby's life he can't end the baby's life and neither can give crappy reasons for not wanting to be a parent as a valid excuse.


Funny thing is, my personal beliefs lead me to be much more on your side. I'm just playing devil's advocate. In a larger sense I'm also trying to point out the futility of argument when you don’t have a common starting point.

Infinite_Loser, let's assume that you're correct and that the father should have an equal say in what happens to the fetus. I don't think you are, at least not completely, but let's pretend for a moment.

What do you do if one wants to keep it and the other wants it aborted? Go to court? Fight custody battles before the child is born? What if a father wants the mother to get an abortion for a baby she wants to keep. What if he wins in court and she needs therapy afterwards, should he have to pay for it? If the father wants the child aborted and the mother wants to keep it, and the mother wins in court, should the father have to pay child support?

You're entering a massive, grey labyrinthe. These questions and the possibly horrid answers that go with them have the potential to drive pregnant women towards back alley abortions, which, I think we can all agree, should never happen.

Glad you agree. See? You're catching on ;)

Edit

For the purpose of the clarification of biological terms, most of you are interchanging vague references to a fetus, baby, or child when discussing abortion. I do appreciate the value of human life, and can still laugh when masturbation is offered as a waste of one's seed.

The moral argument does boil down to when life begins, and I doubt there will ever be consensus on that. For myself, the argument truly resides in who gets to choose the outcome of an unwanted pregnancy. It certainly isn't my decision or anyone else here to judge that choice. Furthermore, the government should never have a place in that decision or any other that intrudes upon a patient and doctor decision.

Today, abortion is a legal and highly restricted procedure. Without that small bit of legality, we would return to the back alley abortionists that my mother and I endured in the early '60's.

Moral outrage regarding abortion does not impress me, given that most who express it have never known the need of an illegal abortion, or are men that will never face that particular choice within their own body.

It's about choice, people, and who gets to make that choice.

I shouldn't be, but I always find myself shocked at how callous people can be when talking about the unborn. Maybe you can explain to me how it takes two people to make a mole, and then explain to me how the mole will grow into a human adult.

A fetus is not a body part any more than a siamese twin.

*Ahem*

What do you think about this? Accept the fact that if you have sex you can get pregnant or follow the method I like to called "Stop-having-sex-if-you-can't-deal-with-the-consequences".

...
...
...
...
...

Oh... What the hell am I saying? Obviously the aforementioned is a such a new-age and profound concept that it far exceeds the scope of the normal person (At least in the US). I'm still awaiting the day I can get absolve all parental rights with the phrase "But I'm not mentally ready to have a child!". You make it, you take care of it. Males are held to this standard and so should women (Buuut... This'll probably be ignored just like pretty much everything else I bother typing out).

I'd also like to quote myself from post #314:

So regardless of the Morality you seem to be projecting, It really comes down to Money, and control?

I wonder if people would be satisfied if they did indeed outlaw abortions again and girls/women started falling over dead because of incidents with coat hangers.

Chances are (in my opinion) those calling themselves Pro-Life would go back to ignoring the inevitable results of banning abortion, and dwell smugly in the victory they have won. Its far easier to be happy about all the baby jesus' you saved, than to watch the suffering inflicted by the process.

No. No, that's not it at all. It's hard to advocate a 'choice' in which one party doesn't have it. Still, I must ask, isn't forcing a man to pay for a child he doesn't want a manner of 'control based on money'? Why, yes. I think it is. Who knew...? Isn't that the same thing you're vehemently arguing against. Really. Just how hypocritical can one person be?

In a perfect world there'd be no such incidents. Of course, the world isn't perfect and any action is going to have it's negatives. The question is whether or not the positives will outweight the negatives. Unless you believe that everyone who gets an abortion would still seek them out and not pursue other, more fetus-friendly measures then you've no logical basis to say how 'horrible' it would be. What did people do before abortion existed?

But, you know, this thread is starting to peeve me a bit. Why does the following concept seem so hard to understand (Even though we men have been told it time and time again)?

If you don't want a kid, keep your legs closed. Duh!

>_>
<_<

There. Just had to get that out one more time.

Amen to that, IL. Amen.

If a man doesn't want to pay for a child, he should realize the consequences of unprotected vaginal sex before he engages in it. I know there are other circumstances of which a child might come about by mistake, but it still stands: A man should realize the risks and consequences of his actions, especially when there are children involved. Sex is how most children come about; men shouldn't be sexually irresponsible.

More of the stock of the choice over abortion lies with the mother because she has much more invested biologically and emotionally. The man can take off at any time, which is why there are laws that force the child-support issue. This is not to say that men have nothing invested, because they do. But to give men the power to opt out of child payments if he wanted an abortion opens up many other problems. Could a mother who doesn't want a baby opt out of the responsibility, passing it off to the father because it was he who instigated the sexual relation?

It amazes me that the battle rages on with basically the same few viewpoints, just being restated over and over.

Man says it's not equal for a woman to be able to choose, but not a man.
Woman says it's her body, her choice.
Man says fine, but if you can choose to opt out without my consent, then I should be able to opt out without your consent.
Man gets called irresponsible, deadbeat bastard for wanting to level the playing field.

Gotta love it.

It takes two people to make a baby, but the woman has all the cards- and the man by the balls. I'm not saying that it's right for a man to walk away from his child just because it makes it equal, but there's nothing whatsoever "right" about a woman's right to choose while the man gets stuck with whatever that choice may be.

So let's assume we can give men the right to opt out of child support. Can we also assume that the man is solely responsible for the child if the mother doesn't want it and the father doesn't want an abortion? If a man has a right to opt out of child support, the woman should be offered such rights as well.

And the opting out is not on equal grounds. A woman's decision to carry a baby to full term is not the same as a man's decision to not support the child.

I'm glad no one here on TFP was aborted. That's the type of framework I give abortion.

To bad hitler wasn't aborted, though, huh?

Squandered potential. That happened after he was born.

Abortion is something that I expect will occur whether it's legal or not.

So from a practical point of view, I'd argue that it should be legal.

I don't give abortion that type of framework. I wish that no one would become unpregnated with a child they don't want because they have been instilled with the notion of birth prevention as part of female empowerment. This is where we are going wrong. We are not instilling the notion of female empowerment over their reproductive system.

I guess I've always wondered why people believe what they believe. I can understand this perspective.

The perspective I've always worked under was: abortions are going to happen whether they're legal or not. Keeping them legal keeps them safe. I'd rather have safe, legal abortions than unsafe, illegal abortions.

Also, the only pregnancy I should have any say over is the one I caused. I shouldn't have any say over any other woman's pregnancy, ever.

When I think about it seriously, creating a prohibition on abortion isn't the answer. As has been said by many pro choice people for a long time, it would result in people having dangerous procedures and would create an unsafe societal situation for women seeking abortion.

What should be done, though, is a much more responsible and scientific education program for all early teenage people. I'm not against responsible sexuality.

Oh goodie, then we can throw away all the laws for drugs, driving, rape, murder, child abuse and molestation...

...because after all, people are going to do it anyway, so it's just practical to legalize it.

:no: :shakehead: :rolleyes:

...except that illicit drugs, rape, murder, child abuse, and molestation aren't currently legal, nor are they up for such consideration.

that's crap analog: drugs, yes - get rid of those. driving? what the junk? rape, murder, child abuse and molestation clearly have violent victims; which is of course the real question. is a fetus a human being prior to birth. and that question we get to go round and round and round about. ad infinitum.

MJ is up for consideration. And frankly, I think most non-heavy drugs should be considered. With proper education, they wouldn't be anywhere near as harmful. As for rape, non-consensual sex play can play an important role in the sex lives of people.

I think the point does stand, though.

Anyone who equates abortion with rape or any other violent crime has crap credibility when it comes to dealing with the hard facts of a normal life.

The "logic" applied was that something should be legal because "people are going to do it anyway".

That's asinine. Asinine. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's already legal or not. It has to do with that line of "logic" being mind-numbingly ludicrous.

Yes, there are laws that regulate the use of a motor vehicle. Lots of them, in fact. I guess you don't drive.

And if a person was pro-life, I'm sure they'd argue that it would be a victim of a violent act.

I didn't. See my comment to baraka.

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it would be, what if Roe vs. Wade was about killing a child, and now killing anyone under 3-4 years old, not old enough to communicate, was the cutoff? In the reality and society we live in now, that would be tantamount to infanticide; murder. But in this other reality, which is entirely possible, it would be a simple, legal, and mostly acceptable practice.

Now look at this from the perspective of one who views abortion as murder. It's really no different than the above.

will, now imagine that roe vs. wade was about making a child of 3 or 4 kill another child of 3 or 4 to control the population. now imagine it was about feeding old people to hungry lions. now imagine that it was about me fucking every single female member of the tfp.

its not - it's about whether abortion, prior to birth, is illegal by way of being murder or improper termination, or whether it is a surgical procedure that a woman can choose to have. it's not about killing 3 year olds.

analog: i pointed out driving because in the list you gave, it would seem to be saying that driving itself was illegal, not only that driving is governed by laws. your second point was precisely my point: this all boils down to whether or not you consider the fetus a living human being and thus capable of having violence perpetrated on it; or if it is a part of the mother's body and thus at her discretion whether to keep it. no one gets pissed off when i trim my toenails.

Then I would suggest commenting on this rather than coming up with your own asinine response. The issue is abortion, not that laundry list of items you came back with.

You missed my point in that to me (and a multitude of others), it's the same thing as killing a 3 year old. If you can't understand the other side of an argument or discussion, then you don't have your own side.

will: i do understand that. my point was that your list seemed a little bit hyperbolic...understandably for the sake of argument, but still. i think reasonable minds can disagree over whether there is sufficient proof that a fetus represents an independent human life prior to birth. i don't think there is much dissension about a 3 or 4 year old.

i don't think we will ever gain scientific 'certainty' about that point: you can show little hands and feet and all kinds of junk, and without having a 'soulometer' (and agreeing what a soul means, and blah blah blah) there's no way to show independent human life versus the development of a vessel to receive a soul at birth...this argument largely takes on a non-scientific aspect.

i think it becomes a question of whether you are more afraid of the possibility of murdering a fetus/potential person, or altering / potentially ruining the life of a definitely alive person.

the rest of the science here is just mumbo-jumbo, because it's not definitive. we don't even have standards by which to judge definitive in the case, so its more like a bunch of monkeys flinging poo at each other at the zoo.

The point that I've been trying to make is that the responsibility of the 'life ruining' would lie solely with the man and woman who were irresponsible. Just like it's not the jury who ruins the life of a murdered who is convicted, the society that fights against abortion isn't ruining the life of the unexpected mother.

And btw, I don't think a man should be let off the hook either. It takes two to tango, and any man who leaves his responsibility should be treated the same as a father who abandons his kid.

I think it should be legal for parents to 'abort' there 'biological by-product' at anytime up to the age of reason (i.e. 18). That would certainly give the family unit much more control over itself and eliminate the government intrusion.

Kryptoni, what about accountability? What about the responsibility that comes with reproduction? Obviously some people (my own people: liberals) need intrusion so they won't murder fetuses. No one complains when police bring in someone who's murdered people who've been born.

No one has ever answered my question posed to pro-choicers: Why do you believe the time of birth separates life from not life? And please don't answer the question with "well why do you think it starts at conception?!", because it's rude to answer a question with a question.

willravel - I actually agree with your stand. I was pointing out the absurdity of abortion. That it is acceptable to murder your children because they are not able to live outside a womans uterus yet.

Therefore, if it is acceptable to murder unborn children, why not born? What's the difference. They are still reliant on me as a parent for life (i.e. food, shelter, etc). They are still just a lump of screaming flesh for the first year at least anyway. Then they never make rational decisions until well after 18. Sounds like me as a parent should be able to have the 'freedom' to decide if this 'biological by-product' is not living up to the standards I set and thus wish to 'abort' them.

And for all those "What about incest, rape, deformations, etc". Think on this. Rape and incest are physical attacks that leave emotional scars. Why add murder on top of that? How is that fetus responsible for how their 'father's' genetic material was obtained? If the emotional scar is too much to bear, adoption has alway been an option. There is also about 50+ kinds of birth control methods available.

Responsibility and Morality does matter. Freedom of choice is not the trump card unless you believe in anarchy.

I guess that just shows how bad things are that I took your satire seriously.

i generally do not bother with debates about this topic. my general attitude is that if you oppose abortion dont have one, but that your opposition onoy has power insofar as it affects yourself--so opposition to abortion and arguments concerning its legality have nothing to do with each other--because you can oppose is and exercise your opposition by not having one and that says nothingabout whether the procedure should be legal and safe.

that because there are NO grounds for opposition that are universal.

so nothing about anyone's opposition on ethical or religious grounds can go beyond the limits of the belief community that gives that opposition its orientation--

and because it makes no sense to assume that the fact that abortion is legal means that the overwhelming majority of people who avail themselves of it do not consider what they are doing and why quite seriously--

there is no argument that follows from religious or "moral" opposition to the procedure that translates into an argument for it being illegal.

so if you oppose abortion, dont have one seems the only reasonable position on this.


the reason why so many christian belief communities get their collective panties in a twist about this issue is because their conception of life involves this curious abstraction called "the soul" which is like an essence of a table except unlike the set of predicates that differentiate a table from non-tables, the "soul" is ineffable. you cant define it. you either find the term compelling or you dont. it is arbitrary outside the confines of the belief communities that animate it. this "soul" thing is apparently transferred across the medium of a divine blowgun at the moment of conception--but maybe it always existed, conception always happened and maybe most christians are secretly platonists that way, such that actual choices made by human beings arent choices at all--this position makes some sense of the catholic church's linkage of opposition to abortion to opposition to birth control--well that and two ultra-reactionary popes in succession.

taking this "soul" construct as the point of departure, it follows that there would be no meaningful distinctions across the various phases of fetal development, merely an unfolding of attributes of the soul-container, the jar containing the peanut butter, etc.

it's funny to read debates about problems of determining the point at which viability begins outside the uterus carried on by folk whose politics presupposes a notion of the soul. so the critique would be of a lack of precision based on a category that admits of no precision, not even a coherent definition that does not--in a perfectly circular manner--presuppose prior belief in it. at this point, the argument repeats that of the first paragraph.

but from this imputing of a notion of the soul follows the entire discourse of abortion as "murder"--but it makes no sense outside that framework and it is pretty apparent that this is the case, so it seems to me that repeatedly referring to abortion as murder as if the case was decided on the basis of an entirely arbitrary "essence" which a religious tradition articulated 2000 years ago used to explain how animation is possible, what it is etc. is little more than trolling.
its not like you can possibly win a debate with others who do not share your belief system using it.
you wont influence them.
you'll just piss them off.

In my opinion the difference between a baby and developing fetus is the ability to function in even a mimimal way as what I define as human. I am of the opinion that the human brain is the one defining aspect of our biology that truly makes us what we are. Thus until the minimum connectivity and development of the internal structure of this organ is in place, it is indeed a grouping of cellular material as of yet incapable of the thought needed to be a human entity. The eventual creation of this ability does not come into play until it is not longer....eventual.
Once these connections are made, this "screaming flesh" as you so eloquently put it, has the hardware in place to be a sentient being, and in my opinion changes status dramatically. Fortunately, it is well understood that the vast majority of abortions take place long before there is even the slightest chance thought could take place. So...I personally have no major issues with the proceedure.

Well, for some women, one of those consequences includes the choice of an abortion.

It's a choice I don't want to have to make for myself, and so I protect myself appropriately.

RB has it: If you don't like abortions, don't have one. If you're male, wear a damn condom. Or better yet, get a vasectomy and quit putting the burden of protection on the female.

I fully support a woman's right to choose, and it saddens me to see our reproductive freedoms in this country being chipped away right and left. The average American has no idea what a hard-fought battle it was to get emergency contraception over the counter, given the current political climate and those in charge of the FDA. We're fighting back, despite our losses, and we're trying to make gains. Congress recently voted to undo the Global Gag Rule--their vote probably won't succeed, given that Bush is likely to veto the bill it's included in, but they're trying.

Do we really want to go back to a time of coathanger and back alley abortions? I think not. Women will always have abortions--they have been having abortions since the beginning of time. It's better that we guarantee their ability to safely have an abortion without risk of infection or death than force them to seek out illegal abortions. The best option, of course, is to educate people about family planning and freely distribute family planning methods in order to prevent women from being forced to make a choice--but that is becoming harder and harder to do in a country that promotes abstinence-only education and where people think that emergency contraception is equivalent to RU-486.

Thank you for validating the point I've been making all along. If a woman gets pregnant then it's the man's fault for being irresponsible. If a woman doesn't want to be a parent she can have an abortion that's her 'right'. If a man doesn't want to be a parent then he's a deadbeat who should have used protection.

Errr... What? How does that work? This is why I completely hate pro-abortion arguments. They're just so damn hypocritical and don't even try to hide it. When it comes to (Potential) parenthood, men are held at MUCH higher standards then women are, and it's no where near that 'gender equality' nonsense that pro-abortionists love to spew.

For once-- If only once-- I'd love to see a court deny a woman an abortion using the statement "If you didn't want a child you should have gotten your tubes tied!". But, oh, that wouldn't fly well with you pro-abortionists, would it?

*Snip*

I REALLY hate such comments as this. Reproductive freedom...? What's that...? You mean that thing which 'apparently' exists but men have none of? Yeah... Well, you can talk about 'reproductive freedoms' the day "My semen, my choice!" gets me absolved from any parental duties :)

Reproductive freedom is perhaps the only freedom that we haven't regulated the hell out of... and god, that seems so backwards.

I don't believe in the soul, but I do understand that not only does human life have worth, but to take that life is murder. So I suppose I fit into the moral/ethical side of the equation, but not the religious/spiritual side. I wonder if that makes me unique in the "pro-life" crowd.

Anyway, when I ask myself if abortion should be allowed I have to consider what it means to be alive. I consulted philosophers and found them all to be windbags, so I decided it should be simple: a human being is alive if they are in a state where they can metabolize, reproduce, grow, and respond to stimuli. Since babies can't reproduce, that suggests that if at any point in the life cycle of an organism it can reproduce, it's alive. A fetus can metabolize, grow, and respond to stimuli, therefore it's alive in a broad scientific sense. It has exactly nothing to do with biblical notions or political whatever, it's simple reason based on established definitions.

"...and they taste like chicken." Science is not necessarily at the heart of this debate.

The human life, however, is a currency in which innate value fluctuates wildly... in each mind, in each society, and in actual practice.

Survey question read: "Is it illogical to be pro-life and support the death penalty at the same time?"

ok so here i am again.

whining about men as somehow victims in scenarios that involve abortion seems to me wholly disengenuous--a reflection of the anti-choice tactic of the month debates and nothing more. given that abortion is only a wedge issue, that it has been for many years has functioned to ground the identity politics of the right, adapting it in an effort to split men away and frame them as being-victimized is no surprise. structurally, then, these arguments are simply the same old same old, really: content-wise they dont say anything.

this:

is only interesting as a map of how it is that the writer gets worked up as he writes. you can see it happening--by the time you get to the last sentence of the first paragraph, you can see the anger replacing argument. and unless you really do find this mapping idea interesting, the second paragraph is just dissociative: you arent talking to anyone except an Imaginary Other. i'm not going to bother to pull it apart---there's noplace to go with it that doesnt seem mean as i think them out---and even if i were inclined at the moment to be mean, the argument itself does not justify the effort.

so it seems that if you back away from the self-defeating paroxym character of il's last post and think about what there is to be thought about in it---affect management issues aside--it looks like it is about is child support payments.

to my mind, these matters are unrelated and so if that is the topic you really want to discuss, il, then make another thread.

this because what you advance isnt an argument either way for or against the procedure of abortion, nor is it an argument about the grounds on which a decision might be made concerning the procedure. it is beside the point.

unless you really think that making a claim which is functionally equivalent to "i oppose no-fault automobile insurance so therefore cars should be outlawed" actually advances your position.

there are myriad problems with local laws concerning child support--but they are not logically framed if you drag them into this debate. that is why i think you should start another thread--for all i know, you might have interesting things to say about that topic--but i do know that this topic and that one are unrelated and persisting in imagining otherwise isnt doing your arguments any good.

So then late-term abortion's in which a 'fetus' is pushed through the cervix so a practitioner can impale a instrument through the 'soft spot' in the 'fetus' skull to 'scramble' the 'brain matter' so a no longer 'viable' fetus is then removed is OK????

Wow... I'm glad my Mom wasn't so self-centric, otherwise I may not be here...

Also, back to my point... Why is it ok to abort a child before birth but not after? Does disconnecting the umbilical cord define when they are no longer 'biological material' and become a human?

Why do we take the kids away from their parents because they utilize corporal punishment and call the parents 'abusers' but say it is not only fine and dandy but we will PROVIDE you with the resources to seek out your own abortion if the pregnancy is inconvenient?

kryptoni: so i assume that, given the choice, you would oppose an abortion for yourself or anyone you are in a relationship with. which is fine.

but you cannot possibly imagine that your posts are going to persuade anyone who does not already agree with you of anything.

in fact, i suspect you know that.
you are trolling.
stop it.

Repeatedly comparing abortion (particularly early term) to killing a baby outside the womb is a pretty obvious fallacy intended to piss people off. It's not adding anything constructive to this conversation.

Funny thing, really. There were also these other two paragraphs which were... Ummm... Ignored (Well, I'll just say avoided). Paragraphs which dealt with-- Yes-- The 'choice' (If you want to call it that) aspect surrounding abortion.

Anyway, what is this "self-defeating paroxysm" of which you speak of? I'm sorry, but advocating 'gender equality' or 'the right to choose' while stating that only one gender should be afforded those rights is hypocritical and nothing more than meaningless flub. You can't claim equality in a situation where less than the half population is able to make a 'choice' regarding their own 'creation'. Also, I do hope you realize I'm not serious about actually absolving males from any and all parental duty, right? Just thought I'd show how absurd the "It's mine so I can do as I want!" argument is (Almost like that "Roe vs. Wade for men" case did). It's always fun to see the pro-abortionists become angered when someone suggests extending the 'rights' they want to grant to females to males. Goes to show that they don't like their own argument.

Edit: I must ask... What kind of rebuttal is "If you don't like it, don't do it!" Clearly you have to realize how fallacious that is.

Wow.. so, only agreeing with you and others is adding something constructive?

Let me see then... why is this topic even open if we can't try to debate the topic and perhaps stimulate intelligent analysis.

My 'topics' on this issue are as follows -

1. When does life begin?
2. Why is it a 'right' to destroy biological matter that left to develop will result in a viable life form?
3. Why is Morality irrelevant or personal?
4. If morality is personal, why can't I carry it forward to other areas?

I don't consider my post trolling and find it laughable that my post stimulate personal attack replies instead of on-topic discussion...

Pretending there is a difference between the organism 2 seconds before birth and 2 seconds after birth is a fallacy then, too.

i am still figuring out how to move between member and mod modes. so this first bit is mod-speaking. i'll use caps so you can tell them apart:

==========================================================
Kryptoni: Your previous 3 posts were all couched in inflammatory arguments and language. The last post, which was more defensive, was not couched in the same way.

That you should stop trolling an already volatile thread does not mean that you have to change the content of you positions--but you *do* have to change how you write the posts.

Consider this a warning.
=========================================================

back to member mode: il: i really do not understand you post 365 at all. i dont see the connections you are making. if you want to continue a discussion with me, please rephrase the main paragraph so i can figure out what you are saying.

as for the paroxym remark--i actually bit the relevant sections of your previous post in my response and went through what happened and where.

Yes Sir!

kryptoni takes his ball and leaves the playground......:surprised:

Here's the difference, will. The world at large, let's call it human civilization, has at this point "agreed" that killing people who are already born is wrong. World over it has been codified in laws and in religious texts and is a firmly established principle. (The fact that despite all these laws both religious and secular we kill each other wholesale creates a lot of cognitive dissonance for me, and I don't know why it doesn't for others, as well, but that's a COMPLETELY different conversation.) The whole world is very divided as to whether or not aborting a fetus is wrong, particularly depending on its state of development.

Telling other people that their belief which says that the abortion of a fetus in the first trimester is tantamount to the murder of an 18 year old is an appeal to ridicule which is only going to make people mad because you're effectively calling them a murderer. Now, granted, that's basically what pro-life people are saying anyway, but it's a pretty nasty way to go about making that point.

What about 'honor killings' of female children by their parents that still happens today?

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...php?id=1371052

NOTE: I'M NOT TROLLING !

See....now that might make a splendid new thread, it really does little to further this discussion, in fact it denotes a certain tie between the two subjects leading to the troll tactics you have been accused of.

Why not make a new thread?

I've been ridiculed before, I've got a thick enough skin. I don't see any point in sugar coating my conversations about abortion any more than I do about the death penalty. Why allow all of the weight of the situation to be filtered away? From my perspective, I wouldn't coddle someone's feelings if we were talking about killing anyone, be they born or not, because murder as a perceptual concept is partially emotional response. To deny that is to deny what murder means.

Forget it. Wasn't important. Though, you never did answer my question from the last page. How is "If you don't like it, don't do it!" a valid argument? Surely you can how fallacious such an argument is...

Yes, I read. I still fail to understand what's wrong in pointing out the blatant hypocrisy in one's argument.

The 'whole world', you say? Yeah... That's a bit of an overstatement. In the majority of the world, abortion is 100% illegal. Just thought I'd throw that out there... Just for kicks.

il: i outlined my argument in no. 354.

(this is a big thread, lots of posts, things get lost/overlooked i expect)

if i wrote something here, it'd just be the same thing.
i dont see a way around the problem.
and i would be surprised if a debate about it didnt end up simply repeating it,
but who knows.

ever the optimist...

hmm...will: does that make removal of a cancerous tumor 'murder'? i mean, this can really go around and around and around and around...i respect that you believe what you believe, and trust that you will act on it. i do not think that abortion is murder, i do not think most people want to see women who have abortions treated as murderers, and i do not understand on what basis the anti-abortion side forms a basis for *universal* condemnation, ergo roach's post. as i said earlier, the point with the 'before birth' vs. 'after birth', to me, is that it is VERY CLEAR that we're talking about an independent life with a thing that has been ejected from el vagina and is yelling its head off...its not so clear from any scientific point of view prior to conception...because we don't have a way to measure what it means to be an independent human lifeform, as far as i can tell.

il: yes, it is unfair towards men, at present, with regards to the choice of abortion or not abortion. so your answer to 'its not fair' is 'take it away from everyone'? i don't see how that makes sense.

Because there are much better options than recklessly having abortions. We got along without them sixty years ago and the majority of the world gets along without them, so there's no reason to think that we can't get along without them now.

Of course, I like the idea of holding women accountable for their actions jus tlike we men are. Yeah... That's the best solution out there :thumbsup:

Does a tumor grow into a person? Is a tumor a member of our species? Does a tumor fit all the stipulations for being alive? The answer to all of those questions is no.

This tumor vs. fetus, fetus vs. teenager thing is a slippery slope. It could lead to accusations of murder in reference to geriatric medicine. It is related to such claims as: Exposing your children to second-hand smoke is child abuse.

It's hard to keep our bearings when we are so opposed to the essential idea here. On one hand, some of you would say they are fine with abortion, as it is a humane enough way to terminate a pregnancy with little suffering. On the other hand, others say life is sacred, and deciding on an abortion is a decision to destroy a life. Whether this is akin to murder is beside the point. Ultimately, what is at issue here is how we each view life: How it comes about, how it develops, how it ends--how we should or should not control it. It is hard to say who is right and who is wrong.

But I think the important thing is to try our best to understand where we are each coming from. There is little point trying to change one another's minds, as they could very well be set in stone, as it were.

I don't think there is any blanket solution to this issue. It is something that is based on individual experience and circumstances.

holy shit! there's a whole page here my browser didn't pull up the first time. fuck, i'll have to read a bit to get back into it: for now will, i was responding to this:

"a human being is alive if they are in a state where they can metabolize, reproduce, grow, and respond to stimuli"

now, quickly i italicized the first part because that would seem to be begging the question. so, in my words, i would substitute the 'human being' in that phrase with 'human flesh' or the like. the point is, that a tumor can do all those things. with test tube babies, and genetic engineering on the march - how long is it until we can extract ye olde double helix out of any part of the body and make it grow? will that be less of a human? i don't want to sidetrack into cloning and such - but to me a fetus certainly has the potential to support life. but many things have the potential for life: sperm, eggs, and eventually other parts of the body as well, i hypothesize.

ergo, i think of a fetus as a highly specialized organ in the human body...but i do not see that it can be proven to be a separate human being until birth. but then i'm getting to be repeating my previous argument.

il: we got along just fine without them for sixty years...first, no we didn't. different procedures, but i'm pretty sure that cultures have found ways of inducing stillborn children / miscarriages for a long time. women have aborted their children using less surgical techniques. i think what you mean is that our society hasn't overtly condoned them until recently, and even that is widely varied. see this thread for a microcosmic example of that dissent. taken out of the ethical realm you are claiming regardless abortions as 'right' or 'wrong,' your statement would seem to me to basically say 'we done fine so far with x, why can't we keep doing x?' which is essentially denying progress, or change if you prefer.

therefore, we are back at the discussion of ethics. not of any sort of 'back in the good old days' discussion. i think.

It took you less than an hour to completely contradict yourself. I'm not sure you have any idea what you're talking about, but you seem to thrive on using baiting tactics in your arguments. Are you here for grown up discussion or do you have something you feel you need to prove?

How about this? An organism is alive if it is in a state where they can metabolize, reproduce, grow, and respond to stimuli. The species homo sapiens is an organism. A fetus is a member of the species homo sapiens.

A fetus isn't an organ because it doesn't have a specific function working with the body.

*Ahem*

Before 1970, less than 1% of all pregnancies in the US ended in abortion (Not including miscarriages). In 1970, 4.9% of all pregnancies ended in abortion. In 2003 about 23.9% of all pregnancies ended in an abortion. That's an absolutely HUGE percentage increase and, unless you're going to argue that before 1970 approximately 25% of the female population were self-aborting their unborn children, then I'm going to have to go out on a limb and say that the only progress which has been made is in increasing the number of people resorting to abortions per year.

Obviously, something is really wrong here when there were less abortions sixty years in the absence of contraceptives than there are today when there have to be no less than twenty different contraceptive methods.

Pardon me, but where's the contradiction? And baiting...? Yeah, ok. If you want me to start baiting, I will. Anyway, for your viewing pleasure:

Linky linky

Because, you know, at least one of us has to pull up statistics.

Edit: I'm also pretty sure I posted this earlier, but if not... Within the United States, support for abortion remain conditional. That is, people support them in the cases of rape or where it poses a thread to the mother's life. When they're used for a matter of convenience, support for them plummets. That's nice to know, considering that 98% of all abortions are done due a matter of convenience.

Linky linky

Omigod, I just read this and saw TUMOR vs. TEENAGER.

HAHAHAHHA!

IL, the statistics regarding abortions in the United States prior to 1970 are misleading at best. Roe v. Wade came about in 1973, so any information regarding abortions performed legally versus those performed illegally is often inaccurate prior to that date.

The WHO estimated that 19 million unsafe abortions are performed worldwide every year. 95% of backalley abortions occur in developing countries. Approximately 68,000 women per year die from complications from unsafe abortion procedures.

Additionally, women from Latin America are coming to the United States, and unaware of their right to choose or too poor to get a surgical abortion, they use misoprostol (an ulcer medication) off-label to induce an abortion, which when not used in coordination with mifepristone (RU-486) can be very dangerous, and lead to birth defects or hemorrhage.

Personally, my desire is to educate people about family planning in the first place, so that they don't have to get abortions.

will, first you make the same begging the question move when you put in the "fetus is a member of the species homosapiens," but i understand that this is due to your particular view point. however, whether a fetus is a 'member' of homosapiens would seem to precisely be the point.

as to the second point, i'm not even close to arguing that a fetus is technically an organ - i was simply making an analogy based on my own beliefs. as much as i loathe wikipedia, i checked it to verify your definition, and you're pretty much spot on. using that definition, i could make a stretch to argue that a fetus is precisely an organ, the specialized purpose of which is to eventually grow into a little people person. i do not think this would be accepted by the scientific community. i'm sure we'll agree on that, if nothing else :)

Why wouldn't a fetus be a member of the species homo sapiens?
YES! WE AGREE! :thumbsup:

To quote myself:

Now, did I deny that there were no abortions prior to Roe vs. Wade? Nope. Never did I say that. I did say, however, that the number of abortions has increased SUBSTANTIALLY since Roe vs. Wade. To argue against that you'd have to present the argument that 25%+ (Which, mind you, has been as high as 30%) of ALL pregnancies prior to 1973 ended in abortions.

Linky linky

Out of 211M pregnancies a year, there are approximately 46M (We'll say 27M safe and 19M unsafe) abortions done of which 68,000 women die (.36% of unsafe abortions result in the death of the female). If I'm understanding you right, you somehow believe that if abortion was illegal right now that suddenly we'd have 46M+ unsafe abortions per year? Ehhh... I highly doubt that. I've no doubt there'd be some unsafe abortions per year, but nowhere near the ridiculous amount of the number of total abortions we have today.

isn't that 'membership' precisely what this discussion / debate is about? is a fetus a person or not? is it "alive" in the sense of being separately living, not in the sense of being a biological 'living' thing. fucking moss is a living thing, you know? my tongue is a living thing.

i don't see conclusive evidence that a fetus has taken on the 'separateness' that i would consider a prerequisite for 'membership'

So... I'm wondering... What's the difference between a child five seconds before it's born and five seconds after it's born? How about a month before it's born and a month after it's born? Now how about seven months before it's born and seven months after it's born?

il: although it's an interesting piece of discussion, i don't see what that has to do with the central point of the thread...wait a minute..what is the central point of this piece of shit?

anyways, i think the more important part of what i was saying back in the day was this i don't think it's terribly germane to this argument, but whether or not we did something else for umpteen bajillion years or not isn't relevant. we used to beat our wimmins down if they gave backtalk too. societies change.

i have no fucking clue il. i can't seem to place a call to one to get a real clear bead on that. that is precisely the question, however - at least as far as i can tell. the important thing is this: i know i don't have a clue. i also know that you don't have a clue. neither of us has a clue. so we're back where we started - this isn't a scientific argument. it's an ethical / philosophical / perhaps spiritual argument, that we prance around in a scientific manner.

"Things change" isn't a good reason why we as a society should allow something, as that can lead to a very slippery slope ;)

But, you see, if you're in support of abortion then you obviously know as you make a distinction somewhere, so I'd like to know where that is. Yes, I realize that this is a ethical/philosophical argument. Ethically speaking, I'd like to think that most people wouldn't murder another person. Therefore, at what point do pro-abortionists believe a fetus becomes a person? It should be a rather simple question if you believe in abortion.

I'm not faced with this delimma as I believe a fetus is a person >_>

il: i didn't say that 'things change' was a good reason. i did say that 1. things do change, and that 2. saying that 'something has changed and i don't like it - we did fine without it!' isn't a reason to go back. as i said, it's irrelevant, in and of itself.

i've already said this, i think: i don't know when a fetus becomes a person. you don't know when a fetus becomes a person. i am sure its a person after birth. you are sure its a person after birth. you think it's a person before birth...but that's precisely what we are discussing. how sure you can be of that belief. i don't think very sure at all, depending on what 'being human' means to you.

therefore, i'm not 'pro-abortion.' i'm 'pro-choice.' because reasonable people can have a debate on this that lasts for ten fucking pages on a site like tfp, or for years out in 'the real world,' obviously it's not a settled question. therefore, i feel most comfortable letting people choose how they want to handle it, and let them deal with the repercussions.

Well, it seemed to me as if you were saying that we should keep abortion legal as it's the '(Relatively) new thing on the block'.

ANYWAY... As I said in my last post, I'm not faced with the dilemma of whether or not a fetus is a person because I don't differentiate a fetus from a person. However, there are people who do so I'm merely asking them at what point does a fetus start being a person. It's not a hard a question by any means.

it's not hard if it's impossible i suppose. it's just impossible. that's the point. i'm not saying that i know when 'life begins.' i am saying i know a baby is 'alive.' i don't know anything about the 'aliveness' of a fetus, in the sense of independent sentient being-ness. so i can understand any choice up to the point of birth, and therefore i'm pro-choice. not pro-abortion. not pro-abortion in the first trimester. pro choice.