I'm not aware of a pro-abortion crowd....there's your red herring.

I am aware of a pro-choice crowd that recognizes a woman's right to choose based on her own moral standards....not yours, mine, or the governments.

ROFL, calm down, oh great kemosabe. I wasnt referring to you. Silly llama. There have been many people who have replied to this particular thread. Mayhaps it is guilt that led you to think that it was?

You can be a completely open term. How endearing that you would give me that much power. :D Dear me, belly laughs do tend to hurt after a bit.

In response to you, however, no, rape isnt my only argument. It was the one I chose to use. How fair would that be if I did all the arguing for pro-choicers?

haven't posted much so be easy on me please. I think every situation is different. imo some parents dont deserve children. However, I have met some amazing people that are a product of poor parenting. I guess I am just wishy washy on the whole subject. Most of the time I lean torward keeping it legal. I am not fond of our govt making desicions for us.

It's a shame really. I think it'd be hilarious to see a prego with a goatee.

.03% of all abortion cases result from rape. If 10,000 women get an abortion, odds are maybe 3 are from rape. Almost all pregnancies (statistically, 9,997/10,000) are from lazy and irresponsible behavior (on the part of both the woman and the man). It's those women that are killing the baby because they couldn't just control themselves and act like an adult. Let's say before I was married I had 35 sexual partners. Pill + condom + spermacide, no exceptions. Statistically speaking, I would have had to lay over 10-20x the people to be anywhere near the area where I would have statistically in danger of having a kid.

Based on the sequence of posting, I am the only one you would have been responding to, unless of course you are just randomly responding to past posts without quoting, if so I'd recommend you use the quote feature as to clear up the confusion.

So please keep that amused smugness, 'your so vain you think this song is about you' attitude toned down a bit you have used it with me in the past as a smoke screen.

At any rate, the rape aspect really wasn't the issue, just a secondary reason to bolster your position which has nothing itself to do with rape, so why bring it up?

You, Ustwo, could never have an abortion, so why bring that up? Gods forbid it be a long thread that requires reading in sections, thus replying in them. As for the quote feature. I use it when I feel the need, thank you for pointing it out to me.

It is a discussion, I am discussing- much like yourself. I call them as I see them, something you should be used to. Kindly remove your bruised pride from my table since that is where it appears to have been left. It isnt my dish to wash.

Mr. Ravel, you are very much so correct, however, I have known a girl who got pregnant twice on the pill and twice on Norplant. It happens. There is always the argument about the pregnancy threatening the life of the motner and/or the child. Also, the child being born with deformaties and/or disease it can never hope to survive without insane amounts of pain and suffering. Why force the woman to go through carrying the child/ delivering the child all for naught?

I doubt I have to say this to you Mr. Ravel, but given previous circumstances, I shall. I am not raising the above to argue with you. I am merely trying to voice the other side. Nor am I trying to convert you to pro-choice. Perhaps to admit that there may be a time when an abortion may be acceptable. :D

You'd think she would have stopped using it after the first time. The pill clearly states that there is a failure rate.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3105699.html

When you combine them, the failure rate drops off considerably, when they work at contraception from different angles. The condom stops most sperm, but if it breaks, it has to deal with spermicide and the pill. It's when you do your homework before you get to home base that you tend to be the most safe.
We're still talking about a small number with failed contraception and there are only a handful of deformity related abortions in the past 20 years.

An overwhelming amount of abortions are the result of unprotected sex. I take issue with killing a baby because Lolita didn't feel like taking a pill or Frank didn't want to wrap it up.
There are some times when the mother isn't at fault. Rape (which includes incest because shagging your family member means your nuts, and shagging a crazy person is rape) deformation, and the mother being in danger means that the abortion isn't the mother's fault, but that still doesn't make it right imho.

Agreed... agreed... agreed... agreed.

I am not a fan of people using it as a form of birth control either. I would, however, rather there not be a baby than for there to be a baby no one wanted that would be mistreated or abused or ended up in a dumpster.

The sad thing is, we can only go by the number of rapes reported. I never reported mine, I miscarried the baby. No one need get sympathetic, I am not sad over it. Truth is, most women feel any range of emotion that in many cases stops a woman from reporting.

Then there is my whole "the world is overpopulated anyway" theory. I guess I am just more cold and unfeeling than I used to be. I wont lose any sleep over abortion though.

Thank you Mr. Ravel, for being you and not taking anything I type to heart. It gives me the warm fuzzies. :) I adore opposing views with you!

Because, as we know all know, humans are asexual.

:rolleyes:

Why are Americns so obsessed with what other people are doing with their genitals?

Abortions are just 'what other people are doing with their genitals'? No way, jose.

I believe if we really, really were able to stop obsessing over what other people were doing with their genitals we could make abortion obsolete.

FREE AND EASY ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL FOR EVERY WOMAN AND TEENAGE GIRL IN AMERICA 2008!

Solution driven commentary? Just one more reason why I love you so. :)

Dude....get over it, you were born without Ovaries. At least you can write your name in the snow. This whole control over women thing became kinda frowned upon a decade ago, so just quit acting like you can tell them what to do....Hell, you might even find out they are pretty smart. Then you can become an Infinite Winner.

That's a lovely thought, but who's going to pay for it?

My personal views on abortion aren't relevant here, so I'll go straight to what I think government policy ought to be. Women should have the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion. The opinion of the father should be given no legal weight. In countries with socialised health care (mine, for example), abortions should only be paid for by the state if a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or if continuing the pregnancy would be abnormally dangerous for the mother.

It's too bad we're not socialist.

"Socialist" can mean many different things... be careful what you wish for.

How does this thread get dug up out of the darkness every so often? It gets bumped and then disappears and then gets bumped and disappears again. Very strange.

It's an important topic. People always have something to say about abortions.

I realize it is a lovely thought and more like a pipe dream. Ideally we would pay for it in the interest of giving women a more concrete investment in the idea of birth control and curbing, what I consider to be, the rather barbaric practice of abortion as a means of birth control. Which, whether we like to admit it or not, is its greater purpose. After all, the public already pays a great deal for it the whether they like it or not.

So the big deal-breakers are the money (always the money, the money, the fucking money - why does the government seem to either be swimming in resources or flat broke?) and the pro-lifers who don't want women to be so empowered to engage in sex out of wedlock, especially their teenage daughters.

I fully admit to being a dreamer on this subject. Then again, if I were Queen, things would be different. :)

*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.