And yet again, I find myself asking this question to the pro-abortion crowd: Why, oh why, are you having sex if you can't deal with the possibility of becoming pregnant? It's not differential calculus, nor is it a terribly hard question to answer, so I'm interested in hearing the reasoning behind your actions.

Psst.... I'm a liberal. Just sayin.

Are you even human?

Another interesting question: If you are against abortion, especially when it comes to your own potential children, why oh why are you having sex with someone who would abort your child?

Rumor has Homo sapiens engaging in intercourse for pleasure.

Contraceptives (especially if two methods are used at once) are proven to be pretty darn effective these days, though "accidents" still occur.

I suppose the difference is in the way some people will choose to "deal" with the possibility of becoming pregnant. For me, if birth control fails before I am financially, emotionally, and relationship-ally prepared for a child, abortion is an option. That doesn't mean becoming a single parent or adoption isn't an option for me or for anyone else, it is situationally dependent.

p.s. Sex is fun.

Don't know if this was meant to be serious or not, but it's very possible to be convinced that one's spouse/lover is incapable of seeking abortion and to be wrong about that. Isn't there supposedly some trend of conservative Christian women having secret abortions?

Of course, if you knew they considered abortion a viable option, then yeah, that's pretty dumb.

I thought it was for the moral dilemmas inherent in unplanned pregnancy. I guess i've been doing it wrong.:eek:

It was serious, and i was thinking something along the same lines as what you wrote terms of a reasonable answer. I just think that it is very possible to be convinced that one's spouse/lover is incapable getting knocked up and be wrong about that. Both positions are essentially the result of ignorance.

The question wasn't about abortion or father's rights necessarily- it was more about this sort of smug, superficial appeal to personal responsibility that often comes up in abortion talks.

I would say that they're both the result of misplaced or excessive trust, which at the same time can be reasonable trust.

Either way, I'm not interested in punishing poor decisions. What I am interested in is this: preventing an attempted escape from the naturally possible consequences of those poor decisions when the chosen means of escape is murder. And we're right back to the stalemate...

Yes, I am am and no, I wouldn't be having sex if I couldn't deal with the consequences of those actions. Just because you've got the self-control of a rabbit doesn't give you free reign to do as you wish. If you're engaging in an action which you know can have negative consequences, but you do so anyway without regards to those consequences, then you're what we'd like to call irresponsible.

Unless there's a giant, flashing neon sign above her head which says "Liable to abort your child!", there's really no way of knowing. You know?

How do you feel about contraception? Birth control pills, condom use, spermicides, Plan B? Is it being irresponsible to have sex when you use at least one method or combine multiple methods to avoid pregnancy when you're not ready for it?

And, directing that back to the original topic.. should a father's rights change based on whether contraceptives were used? If so, does it depend on what kind of contraceptive or which party was "responsible" for it (i.e. whether a woman took the pill improperly or a man didn't check a condom for breakage)?

And as for knowing whether someone would abort your child or not.. discussing that before unprotected sex is important. Hell, discussing that before using one contraceptive method on its own is important. Honesty goes hand-in-hand with maturity.

I've no problems with contraceptives. They're there for a reason. Ironically enough, though, the number of abortions performed per year due to a 'purported' failure in contraceptives is significantly higher than the actual fail rate of contraceptives, which means that people are either 1.) Not using them and saying they did or 2.) Not using them correctly.

...But I digress.

Anywho, here's the kicker about abortion. It doesn't matter what was said prior to sexual intercourse. If a woman gets pregnant and wants the baby while the man doesn't, the man is forced to be a father. If a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want to baby while the man does, he's SOL. Now, unless you're completely engrossed in your own biases, surely you see something wrong with that situation.

Hence why I like extending the "If-you-don't-want-a-kid-then-keep-your-pants-closed" mentality onto women.

And look who is on your side in this thread and who is'nt, just saying.

Hey, gun toting Crompsin thinks that I'm wrong. It's not just a liberal vs. conservative discussion.

I feel that more is wrong with a man being forced to be a father than with a man being SOL because a woman doesn't want to bear his child. I think I stated earlier that in my ideal world, children would only be brought into it when they are wanted and will be supported by both parents. I would personally never raise a child alone.

How does adoption enter into this? What if the woman is willing to carry the child to term, but then wants to give it up for adoption? Should the father get dibs on adopting the baby first if he wants it?

He's hardly a conservative, no, its a liberal vrs conservative discussion.

I'd argue that it's a liberal stance vs. conservative stance discussion on the abortion issue alone.

Or pro-choice vs. anti-choice.

Or pro-abortion vs. pro-life.

Whichever way you want to put it.

So I'm a conservative? A socialist, Kucinich supporting, anti-gun, Bush-bashing conservative?

I guess if you want to be careless and take that risk...

It's not fair, but unless you're completely engrossed in your own biases you'd see that most things in life aren't. There's only so much good complaining can do, especially when there aren't necessarily any viable alternatives (besides outlawing abortion, which wouldn't necessarily do anything anyway).

Clearly, especially since you're advocating a position which sharply diverges from the status quo in a novel way. Definitely a conservative.

You voting huckabee or giuliani?

RE: Your post # 75....
This thread was predicated (I think....) on an issue revolving around "fairness"....is it fair that women have so much more control (total)over the decision to bear a child, or not....and a man who has sperm "invested" in a given set of circumstances, is financially liable, or not....due to decisions beyond his control, made by a woman who hosts a pregnancy and delivers a resulting child. This same man, legally compelled to provide support for a child brought into the world by a woman who decided for both parents, to complete a pregnancy and give birth, has no legal means to prevent a woman from deciding to do the opposite....to terminate the pregnancy.

Ironically, in FoolThemAll's response to my comment, is the opposite sentiment of the "fairness", that willravel seems to be seeking in this thread's OP. FoolThemAll wants to see his view of what a recently impregnated woman's legal and safe choices should be, if she decides to attempt to terminate her pregnancy, affect as many women in as many jurisdictions as possible, even if it disproportionally burdensome, or "unfair", to the least wealthy in these jurisdictions.

I see it as an agenda to impose a set of restrictions to "save unborn babies", and if it only traps the poorest women, the ones with the least options, due to their poverty that tends to "lock them down", unable to travel to an unaffected jusrisdiction to then pay a fee to safely and legally end an unwanted pregnancy, so be it, because it is not about fairness to women, or to men involved at all.

It is a mindset that seems to run this way:
"As long as we restrict a "bunch of them", from access to safe, legal, clinical abortion, we are not concerned that women with wealth can put themselves beyond our capabilities to block clinical abortion and other reproductive health services, from the "least of us", in our society".

It is a mindset that seems to me, to be...."Un-American", and I saw it similarly in FoolThemAll's statement, quoted above:
....so you have one side of the argument this thread's topic has evloved into, who make it plain that they are not about "fairness" or "consistency", they are about imposing their restrictions on the most women, possible.

So, why are they even participating on this thread? There is a thread on this forum where a discussion closer to their take on this can be resumed:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=82025

In fact, I am going there, now.....

Incorrect. There is no such lack of concern, only a recognition that "only rich people get to murder their kids" is better than "everyone gets to murder their kids". Put another way - and I'm repeating myself here - restricting a "bunch of them" is an improvement but not by any means a finishing point. The concern would not be fully satisfied in the face of such an improvement.

Please don't do that. It demeans us all.

To put forth the idea that 'fairness' should not always be the first priority, that there are other ideals of more pressing importance.

It's directly on-topic.

Yeah, no shit...

On the other hand, I must say that I'm impressed with the majority of the TFP men's opinions here. For that alone, I'm glad Will started this thread.

For my part, I support Crompsin's opinion.

And Will, I mean to say this gently... we all know that you just love to argue for the sake of arguing. You're not going to change the status quo, and thank goodness for that. But go on making your case, because I like seeing all the rebuttals. :)

Will, leave my guns out of this. *flexes* They're huge, I know.

Oh, the nature of the political beast itself.

Yea that's what I'm saying :rolleyes:

You are just learning liberalism isn't about fairness either, you will learn that more and more the older you get.

For the record though I'm for abortion but for totally evil reasons....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_effect

This is bordering dangerously close to sounding like "Life isn't fair, so this shouldn't be either!" Maybe it's just me, but I find such a stance as purely evasive.

Anyway, I'm getting tired of the "Outlawing abortion wouldn't necessarily do anything!" lie. I've said this on previous threads, so I'll just copy and paste to save myself the hassle.

And:

But, yeah, outlawing abortion would be a bad thing.

You mean this status quo?

;)

I simply see it as a difference in priority. I prioritize justice and equality, and others prioritize apologism. This is to sexism as affirmative action is to racism: it's intended well but executed poorly. IMHO.

Regardless, I am about fairness. Whether a policy is liberal or conservative is less important to me than whether it's reasonable and fair.

IL, that's an interesting post. Very informative.

So in one post I'm agreeing with IL and Ustwo. Whoa.

Ustwo i'm fairly liberal also and what side am I on? I have many liberal friends who agree with me. This is not a liberal vs conservative debate stop trying to make it one.

Its a pro-anti abortion thread even if its not posed as one.

That then normally divides on conservative liberal lines.

You can NOT give a father any rights until birth if you want to maintain the current sophistry which is employed to make abortion seem less immoral.

As long as liberalism keeps open abortion as a defining issue, there can be no compromise.

No IL, contrary to your interpretation, the subject of this thread is not abortion in itself. I was referring to the status quo which Will himself brought up in the OP, which is the default of giving the mother 100% of the right to choose (terminating or continuing the pregnancy). I support that status quo, though of course there are always ways that these things could be improved.

This is not the thread to be discussing the other status quo, that of the Roe vs. Wade decision. I thought that was made clear on the first page, but apparently not to everyone.

How about this:
1) The father is notified upon completion of the abortion. He's not given say but at least is aware of the procedure.
2) Fathers who disagree with the abortion are given the opportunity to be added to an adoption list.
3) Women who get more than a dozen abortions that are not connected to rape are put on a watch list. At 13 the court requires them to go into therapy and a sex ed class. Don't laugh, there are women who have gotten more than 20.
4) Women who tamper with contraceptives or lie about being on the pill (and there's real evidence to support this) are guilty of theft. Men who tamper with contraceptives are idiots and will pay for any and all bills, be they abortion or child support.

I'd go for that, except #3 requires modification. A dozen sounds more like birth control.

A quick albeit unrelated response to an unrelated statement by IL, be careful of stats. The percentages you quote are based on "reported" abortions. When it was still illegal, there were back-alley practitioners who took advantage of young ladies who "got in trouble". Those were amongst those not reported.

So you would be comfortable with a lower number? Say 8?

I think there should be steep percentage of net worth based tax on all abortions after the first. This would stop people from using it as birth control.

A price increase would only punish the poor. But I like the direction you're heading in.

I do like the sliding scale idea. But I think 8 is still way too much.

I'd go with three max lifetime. That should be more than sufficient to cover errors, omissions and menopause.

This seemed to be in response to FoolThemAll's discussion of "when a fetus becomes a human," which he's right in identifying as the critical "stalemate" in any discussion regarding the "right" of a fetus to live.

And similarly, I think it is a VERY important question to the discussion of father's rights, because it is again where I draw the line. I do not believe that a father should now or EVER have any rights regarding a child until the moment of birth.

My entire opinion about abortion and father's rights stems from my belief that a parasite (or symbiont, should you choose to use that word) is the property of the mother and no one else, in line with every other piece of anatomy.

I similarly reject the position of pro-life individuals who believe that the cells, even in a "human-like" arrangement, somehow constitute "human life", particularly at the moment of CONCEPTION! I fail to see how that a position like that could coexist with a belief that antibiotics are an acceptable practice?

Why? Because for much of a pregnancy, especially immediately following conception, the magnitude of cells in a zygote is equal to the number of cells constituting a bacterial infection.

A "human-like" appearance is similarly unconvincing, and although I grant that the organism is multi-cellular, I do not hold that as a defining characteristic of humanity. There are billions upon billions of multi-cellular organisms which we do not protect from death. Some of them we actively work to destroy.

If you don't believe a baby is a child until birth, then you must see how that changes your opinion of what rights a father is entitled to regarding a fetus.

Unworkable I'd think. The woman would have to give your name, and if she doesn't want you to know she just won't give it. If you 'force' her to give the fathers name the feminists will eat you.


Eh? So a woman you had sex with had an abortion of your child without your consent so you are now on an adoption list?

1 abortion?
5 abortions?
10?
20?

What difference does it make? If its not a human life, and if its a womans choice how can you limit it or call it a problem? Its just another form of birth control right?


A dirty trick, but damn hard to prove.

I've always thought it would be interesting to order child support payments from all parents/guardians involved whenever these cases come into court.

Jinny my boy, its great to have strong beliefs and all but its best you understand them a bit better.

Equating pregnancy to a biological infection requiring antibiotics is perhaps the most unconvincing argument I've heard on the issue, well ever.

A pregnancy involves a mothers and fathers DNA, fusing, recombining, shuffling, to form a new human. We are designed to be good at this, it is a requirement for the species survival. A fetus is just about half mother half father, in DNA, if you don't count the mitochondria. It isn't a foreign organism sapping the mothers strength it IS her and the father.

The whole parasite view cute as a joke, but wrong biologically. Are eggs chicken parasites? Seeds plant parasites? Having children is simply a function of the organism human or otherwise.

Mind you I'm not arguing about the morality of the whole thing. Personally I think abortion is an excellent way to purge the gene pool of some anti-survival traits, but lets get our biology correct.

It's as evasive as the "if you don't want kids don't have sex" position. Neither really offers anything of value to the discussion. That was kind of my whole point.

Who said it wouldn't do anything? I said it wouldn't do anything to protect the father's rights to have an unwilling woman carry a child to term.

ustwo, unborn children fit the definition of parasite just fine. The fact that it irks you doesn't mean that jinn is ignorant.

Yep.

And the fact remains: anytime two people engage in ANY form of intercourse, sabotaged contraceptives or not (assuming the woman is beyond puberty, but not yet through menopause), there is an undebatable risk of pregnancy, whether either party wants that to happen or not.

It follows that EVERY time you have sex, there is an undebatable risk of either being responsible for a child for the rest of your life, or having "your" fetus (at least, that you contributed 50% to conceiving), be aborted. There are no two ways around this biological fact. It is the responsibility (and right) of the man to decide where he inserts his penis and ejaculates, knowing these undebatable risks that he is taking every single time. And it is the responsibility (and right) of the woman to decide not only whether she will leave herself vulnerable to those same risks, but also what to do if/when she does actually become pregnant.

There are no equal rights in a discussion about pregnancy. The fact is that it is still the woman's body, not the man's. And it is the man's sperm, not his body, and not even his child yet (assuming the dominant argument for abortion, which is that it is a bunch of cells). It is a fetus, and as such, it belongs to its harborer until it emerges.

Beautifully said, abaya. Thanks for saying what I've been trying to get across all along. :p

Well if you say so, I mean I'm sure his argument that you can't be for abortion if you are for antibiotic therapy is spot on :rolleyes:

Ownership is different than a responsibility for. Ownership went out with slavery. Humans cannot be property, especially young humans.

Your decision about life beginning at birth is just as arbitrary as the notion that life begins at conception. Neither have scientific basis because science's description of "life" is different than the term people wish to use in this debate: the philosophical meaning of life.
Then she can't have an abortion. The feminists (and outdated term) can eat all they want. This is a point on which I will not budge because I had a friend who was lied to by his horrible, hateful girlfriend at the time about having an abortion when she was lying about being pregnant.
This is a consideration for men who wanted the child. While it's not their child it at least provides them the option of giving a child in need a good home.
Abortion shouldn't be just another form of birth control. Those who view it along side condoms and pills clearly have lost perspective.
Yes, hard to prove. Not impossible, though.

I already know what you were 'trying' to get out and, no, it's not equal to my position. In a society where we advocate personal responsibility, it's amazing how readily one is to toss aside that concept when they feel like it. You (Not singling you out in particular) still haven't been able to come up with a reason why I'm wrong-- Other than, of course, "Because that's what humans do", hence why I called it evasive.

This skirts dangerously close to sounding like the justification upon which women were/have been entrapped throughout history (Properties of their father/husbands to be done with as pleased, etc.).

Anyway, biology and fetal development aside (Which I'm convinced 99% of pro-abortionists don't really understand), I find your attitude quite appalling. A fetus doesn't belong to the woman, otherwise she'd be able to do as she wishes with it when she wants (And she can't, as I'm sure you're well aware) nor is a fetus an extension of your body as you have no direct control over it's development.

Already responded to that. Unless you can, with confidence, assume that nearly 25% of women were self-aborting their unborn children prior to 1970, then I'm going to have to say that the number of abortions has indeed skyrocketed since 1973-- Not because they're more needed than they were in the past, but because people are relying on them more so as a form of birth control then they were in the past.

A fetus is an extension of the body, at leaslt in a parasitic way. It cannot exist without the mother, receives its nutrition from the bloodstream of the mother who feeds it through her own diet. If her food doesn't contain the vitamins and minerals required to grow, it will seek minerals from her bones and teeth, destroying them to get what they need.

It seems to me you're talking about ethics.

At the same time a baby cannot survive without someone to care for it....

Semantics aside. Since you (Among others) want to equate a fetus to a parasite, then it's important to note that parasites aren't extensions of the host body in which they occupy (They're separate entities). A woman has to go to extreme measures in order to not gather the required nutrients needed for fetal development.

Oh, and ethics is a completely different subject.

(PS> I'd like to point out that there have been cases of fetal development outside a mother's womb. I once posted an article on the subject. Let's see if I can find it...)

While I completely agree with you, this doesn't follow with the 'logic' given for why abortions are not murder.

If there is no moral reason not to have an abortion, if there is no value to a fetus, then it must be no different than the pill.

This is the place abortion has led us to. If you put a limit on abortions, then you admit there is something wrong about it, and if you do that you open yourself up to saying how is one different than 20.

Fair enough. You're wrong about parasites, jinn is wrong about antibiotics.

Why you're wrong about what? That you think it shows a lack of personal responsibility to have an abortion? That's a value judgment, there's no way to show you that you're wrong. Though it could be argued that since you have never been pregnant, or had an abortion your opinion isn't all that informed.

SHHHHHHH!!! Jesus!

No I wasn't. Activities a woman is evolved for and are required for the existence of the species are not 'parasitic' unless of course you feel the mans DNA is parasitic which would be fitting with liberal ideology.

Look up parasite in a dictionary. I have yet to find one that makes the distinction you're making. Perhaps it's because most dictionary publishers are liberals?

I made my case for the label of parasite being wrong and symbiant being correct. Unless you'd like to argue that the continuation of the species isn't beneficial.

Since when does a parasite have your own DNA? Is your Pancreas a parasite considering it saps food/air/etc from you and does nothing in return?

Fair enough, I do not want a man's right to say a woman has to have his child. Would you then at least grant the man the same right of opting out of parenthood and not be forced into child support? It's a right the man does not have pre-birth which a woman does, only makes sense he gets it somewhere in the path so long as it's stated pre-birth.

Ustwo, very good argument.

Well, its a complex thing. It would nice if it were a simple matter of "every child carried to term is beneficial to the species" but that's not always the case. Beneficence is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother isn't necessarily beneficial to the species, and a pregnancy that perhaps threatens the livelihood of the mother isn't necessarily beneficial to the species. Even an ideal pregnancy with ideal parents isn't necessarily beneficial to the species. In fact, there seems to be a natural predisposition by the species towards abortion if you count all the pregnancies that fail without abortions.

Speaking of natural predispositions, humanity seems to be spreading like wildfire. Nobody knows the earth's carrying capacity, but we do know that it must exist. It might be argued that the cause of species continuation might benefit from a decrease in the birth rate, which is something that the legalization of abortion accomplishes, though perhaps not to a very significant effect thus far.

But that isn't even necessarily that important. Until humanity reaches a point where the continuation of the species is threatened by abortion then your point is null.

Apparently, "the smaller, less complete member of asymmetrical conjoined twins" is considered a parasite. So the answer to your first question is probably a long time.

As for the pancreas, doesn't it produce insulin? A better example would be the appendix, which i think just sits around waiting to get clogged with shit so that it can be surgically removed.

My point is simply that propagation of the species is something demonstrated in every species as necessary. This doesn't suggest that everyone born is productive, but most everyone who is born carries with him or her the opportunity to reproduce.

If you're speaking of abortions as a form of population control, you'll likely be met with strong disagreement. As of right now there is no solution for overpopulation that doesn't involve a human rights disaster.

I don't disagree with this. But there is a difference between the general necessity for humans to reproduce and the fact that there are many instances where reproduction has been anything but beneficial to everyone involved. The distinction you're making is not represented in any of the definitions of parasite that i've seen.

I'm not saying that abortions are an effective policy for population control, or that i think that they should be mandatory. What i am saying is that there might be just as much reason to believe that abortion will damage humanity's prospects for the future as improve humanity's prospects for the future. That is to say either perspective is speculative and tenuous.

Unless you're arguing to determine the nature of a fetus being a parasite or symbiote on a case by case basis, then you're in for an incredibly difficult time.

Also, parasites harm the host. Unless you call morning sickness and mood swings harmful, a fetus does not fit the definition.

I think that it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that all unborn children fit the definition of parasite. Whether they contribute to the continuation of the species is irrelevant to whether they are parasites, since the continuation of the species doesn't necessarily have anything to do with providing a benefit for the host.

No, parasites don't contribute anything to their host. They need not necessarily harm the host. In fact, it's probably in their best interest to do as little harm to the host as possible. I suppose the ideal parasite would treat its host like a national park should be treated. As parasites go, unborn children are pretty good.

I am become threadjack, destroyer of conversations.

Re: the abortion bit of this thread:

All I can think as I read this is the following:

"Prove it."

Until such time, we're arguing values. As such, it always comes down to value of the (as far as the scientific community can agree) hypothetical potential "human" life ascribed to a fetus, vs. the value to the woman who doesn't want to be a mother, for whatever reasons she doesn't want to carry the fetus to term. It can be shown that a fetus is a living thing, just like cauliflower and organs and many other things...what can't be shown is that it s a separate human life form. If you can prove this, beyond a shadow of doubt, please share because you will change my view on the matter.

Assuming you can't prove this, we're left in a situation where we're arguing over possession of a living entity which at the very least has the potential for human life after birth. The question then becomes, via will's thread OP...who does that potential life form belong to? Man, or woman? In my opinion, it's not perfect, but the preponderance of the evidence would suggest the woman has most at risk in the pregnancy and birth process, so she gets to make the decision. It's not perfect. Maybe "Dad" bought a cute little outfit for his new little treasure to wear. All I can say is "tough shit." I wouldn't like it if I were in that situation, but there are a ton of things I wouldn't like if my wishes didn't line up with those of my girlfriend / wife-to-be / wife. I'm not convinced that a fetus has a soul, and that seems to be crux of the matter, ergo foolthemall's stalemate. Everything after this is pure semantics and personal ethics. When ethics clash in personal relationships...fundamental ethics....look out for squalls.

Well, the problem with examining the underlying assumptions that inform our perspectives is that they rarely exist completely within the scope of the subject at hand. Threadjacks are inevitable and can be important and useful.

But it's not a bacterial infection.

There's gotta be some elaboration here you left out. I don't think you meant to construct an argument that could be demolished with nothing but the above six words.

The problem here is not science. The problem here is language.

I can easily show you that it's a separate human life form. Watch: it's an organism with human DNA and the embedded, self-contained potentiality of each of the necessary vital organs associated with human beings. And it requires no additional blueprint - only additional sustenance - to reach that point.

Thus, it's obviously a separate human life form. It fits the definition.

"No, it's obviously NOT a separate human life form. Your definition's all wrong."

Oh? And what objective, empirical process did you use to arrive at the correct definition?

...yep. The science is on my side. And it's on your side as well. Because the real quibble is not over facts, but over moral interpretations of those facts. The real question is this: why should/shouldn't we value that clump of cells?

And no laboratory experiment is going to give either side the answer. It isn't a matter of science. It isn't a matter of demonstration. You can't show value. You can only allude to it and stubbornly fight for it without the benefit of being able to 'show' it. Which is what we all do.

You're absolutely correct. You can't debate the science but everybody argues the morality / legality. OH NOES. Men always lose in this debate.

Science isn't something that tells us that people walking around who work 9-to-5 are more important than a clump of cells hanging out on a uterus wall.

We are not "beautiful and unique snowflakes." A fetus is even less than that because it hasn't even started yet. The only value it has is MAYBE to its creators.

...

What is all this old and holy "sanctity of life stuff" and how do I wrap my head around it?

Legality's a dumb little logical circle to argue. Alas, there's way too many "the difference is that rape is illegal, duh" arguments that really ought to be aborted.

Men only 'always lose' this debate in the minds of those who willfully ignore the very point of the pro-life position.

And if an evil nazi tells me I have to choose between the life of a Safeway employee and the life of a future Safeway employee, I'll surely choose the bigger clump of cells.

But we're not talking about life versus life, or who gets to get into that all-exclusive club. We're talking about life versus nine months of imperfect health, significant discomfort, and lessened mobility. The relevance of that human life ceases to be relevant in such a lopsided choice. Life, obviously, for the win.

And yet I don't have free reign to kill orphaned reclusive homeless. You need not give a human life value for it to deserve protection from your deadly indifference.

Plus, the analogy only works if snowflakes 'start' nine months after their formation.

Ignore, for a moment, your thoughts on abortion and focus on your less charitable thoughts toward other types of murder. Like, for instance, the murder of a woman following a rape. Note your revulsion: that's the sanctity of life stuff in you.

I've seen the human byproducts of murder. Sweet baby Jeebus in Jersey don't suggest that offing a clump of cells in some woman's penis-receptacle is murder to me. Murder is a body stuffed full of explosives turned into a roadside bomb. Murder is a rifle bullet bouncing off a femur and ripping a man's chest in half. Murder is how brains smell when they're painting the inside of a truck cab after an ambush. Murder is strictly bipedal and insane-red and stinks like shit and makes damn sure you don't forget the taste.

...

Abortion isn't murder. It's excising a fucking tumor. It's hitting the RESET button on her crotch. No way a man will ever be in charge of that option.

Unless, of course, we decide that we need every last fetus to survive. That's how men really stick it to women. By leaving them only ONE option.

...

Meh, politics is something I should stay away from.

Honestly, I'm not smart enough for the topic.

I don't belong in this thread, anyway.

Sorry, Will.

I didn't suggest. I said it outright.

Murder isn't always exceptionally vicious or exceptionally gory. Murder isn't always a deep emotional imprint on your mind.

While pro-life/anti-choice ideology surely has some misogynists among its ranks, misogyny is not by any stretch a prerequisite.

I don't see anything wrong with your posts in this thread. They have that Crompsin charm that I can't even dream of replicating. Understand, your opinion is wrong :), but you're expressing it just fine.

Cancer cells do, malignant tumors are comprised of them.

Cancer cells and tumors aren't parasites.

Parasites are alive, btw.

Lettuce is alive too.

And if lettuce were a person, you couldn't kill it. It's alive, it's homo sapien. Where is the confusion? Or are we saying it's not alive and thus it's not a parasite.

TOUCHDOWN!

Ah, just what we needed... another thread debating the ethics of abortion. :p

Why is this necessary? What happened to the OP?

will, abaya, fta crompsin et al: that's the exact question. prove it. otherwise, we're just swirling shit around. ustwo was exactly correct 4 pages ago. this whole argument is a secondary argument to the ultimate question of the ethics of abortion in general. only after that has been decided, in regards to the status of the fetus, can this argument be anything other than posturing and putting together a personal ethics that has embedded within it the way a particular person feels about the fetus. the rest of this is nice, but it can't be proven one way or the other.

so you want a potential daddy's rights? well, i think he has the right to decide who he sleeps with, and to live with her choices. for instance, i'm pro-choice, my girlfriend is pro-life. hypothetically, if she were to get pregnant by me, i'd be a father more than likely. that's the way it is. i wouldn't try to force her to get an abortion. if she wanted an abortion, i would support her. i am unconvinced that fetuses have a 'soul,' nor do i truly know what the fuck a 'soul' is...do you? can you prove it?

That's what I was trying to say in my 2nd-to-last post. Them's the breaks, when you're the one with the semen squirting out of you into an always-potentially-fertile receptacle. No two ways around it.

If lettuce were a person it would be perfectly acceptable to remove it from life support i.e. terry schiavo. Or did you disagree with that too?

You can use whatever words you want to make whatever distinctions you want. Whether the fetus is human or not doesn't matter to me. Whether abortion is murder or not doesn't matter to me. In either case even if the unborn were alive and human they would still be parasites. They become not parasites the moment they're born (but they're still kind of parasites). It doesn't even really matter to me that they're parasites, though it provides useful context.

I'm not playing games with words here. What this really comes down to is that you've decided that abortion is unacceptable and you're readily willing to rationalize this decision while i have decided that it doesn't matter and am readily willing to rationalize this decision.

Post #164.

When is ethics ever not personal? When has any ethics ever been proven?

Who said anything about souls?

Da hell? What are you two talking about?

Fwiw, if snakes had hands it'd be perfectly acceptable for them to wear sweaters.

So a fetus should be aborted because it's not smart enough. Got it.

What food group is lettuce in?

Nope, you don't got it. A fetus should be aborted because the person tasked with carrying it for 40 weeks and possibly caring for it for the rest of their life isn't up to the task.

Who can say whether someone is "up to the task" or not? Do you have a potential machine, capable of telling someone's potential?

What does me determining whether someone is up to the task of carrying and raising a child have to do with anything? I don't tell women to get abortions. That's for the potential aborter to decide.

You said "up to the task" as if it's some sort of provable ability. It's not. One cannot say with any reasonable certainty that a woman is or isn't up to being a mother.

No, i said "up to the task" as in "I can't make it to work today, i'm not up to the task" or "I can't get a degree in physiology, i'm not up to the task" or "I can't carry this fucking thing in my body for 40 weeks and push it out my hey-nonny-nonny, i'm not up to the task." Whether it's provable is irrelevant.

Ever heard of "Where there's the will there's the way?" Besides being something you should put on your business cards, its converse, "where there is no will there is no way" is often also true.

I believe in the ability of the average person to effectively evaluate their own capabilities.

I KNOW YOU ARE A PIECE OF LETTUCE I'M NOT UP TO THE TASK OF ENCLOSING IN A ZIPLOCK BAG AND STORING IN THE PRODUCE SECTION OF MY FRIDGE BUT WHAT AM I?

Erm, sorry.

"Up to the task" is a subjective criterion best determined by the would-be mother. But it's very relevant whether abortion is murder or not, as "Am I up to the task" would be decidedly less relevant than "Is the option I seek something that not being up to the task could even begin to justify?"

Hrmm... maybe that would've been more parseable in caps.

Whether it's provable is your entire case on the subject. I didn't think I could learn to play violin, but what do you know I can. Who would have thunk it? I didn't think that I could graduate early, but lo and behold, I did. I did think that I could keep this thread on track, but it turns out I can't.
That's ludicrous.

Apparently, people.

And, as a bit of a side note, when does a fetus stop being a simple group of cells (Aimed at the pro-abortion crowd)?

FYI if Terri would have been 99% likely to come out of her vegetative state in 9 months they would not have pulled the plug and no one would have allowed the plug to be pulled. She wasn't likely to come out of the coma and had already waited for many years.

Didn't her husband profit from that whole ordeal?

Please, Shiavo is too much of a threadjack. Things are off course enough already.

fta: agreed. so it's a question of what your default position is, I think. The possible potential of the fetus to become a person, or the possible potential of the woman to live her life without going through the physical and emotional turmoil of pregnancy. Since science can't prove one way or the other about the 'humanity' of the fetus, I fall back on respecting the wishes of the "clump of cells" that I can talk to. You and others fall back on the potential wishes of the fetus. I can understand your position, and in fact I don't know that I'd be comfortable with an abortion in my personal life. I'm sure I'd have doubts and worries and all the stuff that most people have when contemplating/undergoing abortions. But I default to "the facts are inconclusive, so I go with what I absolutely do know." And that, for me, tends to favor the woman who would be carrying the child.

Re: the question of 'souls' or however you like to put it, that seems to me to be the crux of the question...how do you define a person vs. an automated lump of meat?

As I said, my position on "father's rights" is completed predicated on these issues, as they seem to fall out of the derivation of one's position on abortion in a general sense. I don't think you can have a conversation about father's rights, without deciding the morality of abortion. Ergo, the reason that a discussion of "father's rights" will, I think, always be reduced to a discussion on abortion.

Now, this might change when/if we get cheap and easy test-tube facilities. If you could extract the fertilized egg from the woman in a relatively non-threatening/arduous procedure, push it through "pregnancy" on the bench-top, and then release it to the father, my position might change again. But at present, I default to letting the woman decide.

For all questions of "it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck," I defer to jinn's earlier post. Looking like a human, or possessing cells that will eventually become "organs" and other specialized human features, does not inform my position in the least. We're talking about the potential for humanity, I think, and whether that potential is seen on a seizmograph or postulated from mathematical models, it doesn't matter to me if you're talking about semen on a bedsheet or a fetus at 6 months...potential to be a fully-realized human doesn't equate to being a human in my eyes. At least not scientifically, although I think it's highly suggestive.

Well, if you're talking about murder as a legal construct, then no, it is definitely not murder. On the other hand, if what you mean by murder is that someone or thing has killed someone or thing else in a way you find displeasing, well, then fur is murder too. The only reason the word murder comes up is because it carries a certain emotional weight- whether it actually is murder or not is irrelevant.

So? I thought you were a scientist. The fact that you can do things is piss poor evidence that other people can do them.

What is? That i came up with a better idea for your catch phrase than you did, or that i trust people to be able to determine what is best for themselves- at least inasmuch as i don't really expect anyone else, on average, to be able to do it as well?

Help me understand the nature of the ludicrosity.

I support abortion from a legal and constitutional stand point and not a moral personal one. What I mean by that is, while I personally could never have an abortion, I do not support the idea that the government should have any say so in whether or not I do decide to have a baby or not.

But, for sake of argument, let's say I'm expecting. It takes two to make a baby and it should take two to raise one, so I think the father should have a say so in the process. This is interesting. Something like this happened to some kids I went to high school with. A girl got pregnant and wanted an abortion right away. The guy who got her pregnant said absolutely not. He said that if she didn't want the baby, then he would find a way to pay for her care and then take the baby and raise it himself. Our school was ripped down the middle. People on both sides argued the law and a woman's right to her own body, but no one brought up the moral and personal choices of both involved.

I had so much sympathy for this guy. He was going to do the right thing and stick by his unborn child. In the end, they did reach some kind of agreement. However, legally speaking, she could have had an abortion and there would have been nothing he could do about it. Like I said, it takes two to make a baby, so it's only fair that both parties involved get a say so.

Abstinence is wonderful.

The legal definition of murder doesn't include abortion today, but it has before and it may in the future. Murder is separated from manslaughter by "intention to cause grievous injury and death resulted" or "conduct with a "depraved heart" showing lack of care for human life". Abortions are carried out with clear intent to end the function of the body of a fetus (I'll avoid using the word "kill" here in the interest of middle ground), and this does represent a lack of care for the fetus. I would say that even from the perspective of one who for whatever reason does not believe the fetus to be alive this is close to murder.
So you can tell me that everything you ever thought you could do you've done and everything you believe you cannot do you've not done? "Piss poor", indeed. All the evidence I need is one person who is incorrect about his or her potential. It's a guess, and as such there is always a chance it is wrong.

Besides all of that, you made the determination that if someone believes that they are not "up to the task" then they are correct. You didn't support this idea with anything, despite having the burden of proof. I demonstrated that I am an exception to your supposed rule, and then you say that "you can do things" but that everyone else can't, AGAIN, with no evidence or even a theory as to how or why this is so. I have provided proof that some people can be incorrect about their potential using myself as an example. Can you demonstrate how I am an exception to the rule using evidence and logic?

<=== Waits with his Welcome Wagon in the background

Welcome to the Grand Old Par.... er, too soon?

In time, in time........

Something like six years.

So it's not murder, or even manslaughter?

You'd make a good guidance counselor.

It isn't as simple as potential. Or evidence. Self fullfilling prophecies are what they are.

I don't try to do things that i don't think i can do, because as someone who doesn't have a lot of breathing room when it comes to the doing of things it's generally a waste of my time. The other side of that is that if i have to do something, then i do it- it does not benefit me to think about whether i can or can't. Usually i can rise to the occasion and if i can't, well, i tried.

That's me. I don't expect other people to do the same, even though many of them will. Furthermore, i don't think that it's my place to tell someone what they can and can't accomplish, especially when it comes to something with such a large potential for disaster as carrying a child to term and raising it. You don't think you can stop drinking while you're pregnant? Fair enough, spare us all the child you will fuck up in the womb and most likely out of the womb too. You're too self absorbed to make the kind of sacrifices required to raise a kid? Fine, kill it before it gets lungs, we might all be better off if you don't raise a child in your current state of mind. Shit, it doesn't feel right? Fuck it, go with your intuition.

This is not to say that good people can't come from bad situations, just that they have things stacked against them. If that set of parents at my friend's daughter's school who aren't able to get their kid to not try to stab other kids with pencils had had an abortion we might all be better off, including them and maybe even their kid. Then again, maybe their kid will get his shit figured out, or maybe he'll become a serial killer.

I never said it was a rule, or that it was absolute. I said "where there is no will there is no way" is often a true statement. The fact that you can surprise yourself by doing things does in no way refute what i said. And i'm not going to provide evidence, because it doesn't matter and works just as well as an axiom; it is difficult for a person to accomplish a task if from the outset they don't think they can, this especially being the case if there is no one around to encourage them.

Being a parent requires commitment, patience, guile, compassion and a whole slew of other things that aren't prerequisites to sexual maturity. If you can't even commit to your unborn child for 40 weeks then you fail, and perhaps we're all better of if you wait on the whole "being responsible for the well being of another human being" thing for a while.


Actually, i don't think will believes in killing at all, not even brown people from the other side of the world, so the wagon will probably have to wait.

And I thought we were busy inventing new kinds of Aids and Crack, man they move too fast for me to keep up.

Correct.

Crack and aids aside, how many of the republican presidential candidates want to invade iran?

Can you name one Democratic President in the last 100 years who did not lead military actions in their presidency?