Is this the true face of the "Pro Life" campaign?? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Dostoevsky · 02-09-2004, 02:10 PM

I'll tell you what pisses me off. It's when people, including the government, force their views and morals on others. I do not personally support abortion, but I am definetly pro-choice because other people have the right to decide what's right for themselves. America is a free country and people should be able to make decisions about abortion for themselves. Am I alone on this one?

Paq · 02-09-2004, 09:38 PM

nope, you aren't alone, i totally agree.

not to mention, as i have said previously, most of the people arguing against choice in the matter don't have vaginas, so they never really are faced with that situation, except by proxy...

So..yeah, i'm with you, Dostoevsky

irateplatypus · 02-09-2004, 11:09 PM

dostoevsky,

i share your desire for freedom of choice, but your argument is based on completely different premises than most pro-lifers base theirs on. so, it really is something very separate from addressing any of the pro-life viewpoints.

It all lies in the your definition of human life:

the majority of pro-life proponents would argue that when you abort a baby, you are taking the baby's ability of choice away. by choosing to end it's life, you are making a decision for another person that is unable to promote its own agenda. the ultimate in restriction of freedom.

nearly everyone wants free-choice. the issue often boils down to the definition of a human life. no matter your stance, the fetus is just that... a small developing person. the beginning of a real human being, an entity that can sense its environment and feel pain.

i realize that women are sometimes put into horrible situations. oftentimes an abortion is the only thing that rescues them from disgrace and/or ruin. but still, this isn't the same as a woman having the freedom to have plastic surgury or a piercing. there are many ethical considerations that must be taken.

it is never as simple as either side would have you believe.

nanofever · 02-09-2004, 11:52 PM

The problem is that no 100% brightline exists to say where a fetus/zygote becomes a human, except for when the child can live outside the woman's body.

Is it murder if someone has an abortion an hour/week/month/9 months before they birth the child ?

Is using birth control to stop a pregency the same as an abortion ?

How about if my hypo-wife and I decide not to have sex one night when a child would have been concieved if we had sex, is that killing a child ?

The only brightline I see is when a child can survive outside the woman's body. That is why I think that third-trimester abortions are unethical while a first or second trimester are not.

Edit: That being said, I don't believe that my morality is right for anyone else and that is why I won't consider imposing my beliefs on someone else.

Bill O'Rights · 02-10-2004, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dostoevsky
I'll tell you what pisses me off. It's when people, including the government, force their views and morals on others. I do not personally support abortion, but I am definetly pro-choice because other people have the right to decide what's right for themselves. America is a free country and people should be able to make decisions about abortion for themselves. Am I alone on this one?

No, my freind, you are most certainly not alone on this one. You have summed up my viewpoints, to a "T". I couldn't even edit your quote to illustrate the "high points", as the entire post is a high point. Well said Dostoevsky, very well said.

Ustwo · 02-10-2004, 12:49 PM

So there Billy you KNOW when life begins then?

Paq · 02-10-2004, 04:04 PM

Actuallyy, i know many people who refuse to use birth control saying it's akin to murder and abortion. Admittedly, these people are a bit to the right of UsTwo, but they vehemently denounce any form of birthcontrol including the pope's roulette..(withdrawal) saying that once intercourse begins, it should continue until done so that pregnancy is helped along.

....

filtherton · 02-10-2004, 04:28 PM

So by that logic, does a women commit murder everytime she has her period?

Just curious.

Paq · 02-10-2004, 05:10 PM

i've asked her and she just gave me that "Are you stupid" look...
i do know she believes masturbation from male or female is a horrible sin.

oh, she's a virgin too..the other 7 people i know that fit the descript aren't, but they are trying to have children..

oh goodie, the next generation gets to have people like this too

matthew330 · 02-10-2004, 06:15 PM

no, that's ridiculous. By that logic you would be commiting umm, sexualar homicide (i made that up just now, whatever) every time you had sex and it didn't result in pregnancy (or maybe that's a better metaphor for those who like to counter the pro-life argument with "am i committing murder every time i masturbate). The difference is that whether or not you want to call a fetus a "life" once fertilization has occurred the "life process" has begun. Stopping that process is in the eyes of the pro-lifers (i.e.-me) has significantly more implications than birth control. Ones taking a life, the others preventing life from starting. Easy enough, right? (not to agree with, just to understand - i'm not getting in another abortion debate)

matthew330 · 02-10-2004, 06:28 PM

maybe not easy enough - i have to learn to use punctuation and not just type streams of thought.

Paq · 02-10-2004, 07:35 PM

hey, i'm with you, but, that's what she told me. "You're no better off using birth controll pills than having an abortion, it's god's will if you get pregnant or not"

89transam · 02-10-2004, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paq
hey, i'm with you, but, that's what she told me. "You're no better off using birth controll pills than having an abortion, it's god's will if you get pregnant or not"

Some people...geez

I was just discussing abortion with my GF (not about having one) just the concept as a whole and how we thought that 50 or so years down the road we are going to look back at abortion much in the same way that we look back on slavery "WTF were we thinking?". It seems illogical that you can abort (Kill) a baby 1 day before it is natrally born but 1 day after it is born you would be all over the news as some horrible monster of a baby killer. It seems illogical that murderers get charged with 2 murders when they kill a pregnant mother but if the mother dosent feel like carrying the baby to term then thats just dandy. The fact is wiether it be through a failed condom or pure carelessness there were actions that led up to the pregnancy that could be avioded, (like keeping your pants on as another member put it) .

I would bet also that most people dont realize how much of a problem abortions really are. Some people dont even use birth control, if they get pregnant, they simply have an abortion. Most of the time they get pregnant again within a few months. And shockingly 1 out of 4 babies , thats %25, have been abortred since roe wade.

Now I used to be "pro-choice" but truly, abortion just dosent make sence to me anymore.

Rape throws a huge wrentch in the whole thing though....gatta think some more about that.

Paq · 02-10-2004, 09:15 PM

well, i don't think it will be like slavery. I'm pretty sure we'll have better birth control, but it's a matter of getting people to use it. Religion, culture, societal standards tend to stand in the way of rational thought when ti comes to fornication...

that said, i still think that the gov't should keep its nose out of woman's vagina. Think about it, if a woman is pregnant and she is not going to carry the child to term, then she is going to find a way to abort. One way or another. I would prefer that method to be a safer, sterile way vs the "Hey, lemme stick a coathanger up there" method.

as i recall, Roe V Wade wasn't followed by an onslaught of abortions, just that the number reported by doctors went up, as they weren't allowed to disclose otherwise..

89transam · 02-10-2004, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paq

that said, i still think that the gov't should keep its nose out of woman's vagina. Think about it, if a woman is pregnant and she is not going to carry the child to term, then she is going to find a way to abort. One way or another. I would prefer that method to be a safer, sterile way vs the "Hey, lemme stick a coathanger up there" method.

Granted, thier would be more unsafe abortions. But the wole thing is that they should not be able to decide wiether or not to carry the child to term.

I t would be interesting if there was some way to poll all the women that have had abortions and ask them if looking back they think it was a good idea and it worked out for the best. All the people I ave ever heard from regret it.

I would bet in thier heart of hearts %90 of women that aborted wouldent do it again if they could go back.

Lebell · 02-10-2004, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 89transam

I would bet in thier heart of hearts %90 of women that aborted wouldent do it again if they could go back.

*edit to say, I'll take that bet.

I know women who have had them and regret them, and women who don't.

It isn't anything like 90% regret.

Paq · 02-10-2004, 11:33 PM

not really, i've known several who were relieved and continue to be relieved that they had an abortion. Also, current studies have been done and they do show a majority of women would choose the same decision they did before. i'll look up the stats when i get a chance if you want. If you don't wanna wait, look at masters and johnston pages for links to current studies

And they should decide whether or not to carry a baby to term. I think this boils down to a fear that men will lose control over child bearing. I mean, we have very little to say on whether or not a girl gets pregnant and i think a lot of people want more control over the whole birth process. I don't, and i don't think we should force our children upon women who do not want them. Abortions are horrible, yes, and that is a life, yes, and if i have a gf or wife that gets pregnant, i would like to be involved in the decision for or against an abortion, but ultimately, it's her body and until that child is no longer connected, he/she will stay under the classification of her body. I just think the whole anti abortion movement is tied to who has control over bringing children into this world and the fact is, women have that ultimate control and men want to take it away.

So yeah, it's a heated subject and yeah, I'll agree that abortions are NASTY, HORRIBLE, VILE, and i wish, unnecessary, but the fact is, they happen and for some, they are the best option, sad as that is. I think the majority of women that have one do so only as a last option and i'll begrudge that there are a few that use them as a backup to birth control and i find that disgusting, but those same people would be the ones who would jam knitting needles into themselves or would starve themselves enough to force an abortion. It's sick and sad, but it's true, and again, I dont' have a vagina, so i should not be able to dictate how a woman goes about her pregnancy unless it is my child and then, at most, i just want my opinion heard in that particular case. I want all women to have the same options and i would prefer to keep knitting needles out of vaginas...I think that will be my new slogan: "No Needles for Vaginas" ...ok, so it's not as catchy as "Keep your Bush out of my bush" (sorry, trying to lighten the mood)

at any rate, i understand your arguments and i will agree almost totally wtih them, BUT, i'm not in that position and i do not think we, as men, should force our views on women who are in whatever position.

Knowledge, help, education, resources will deter FAR more abortions than just "Oops, you can't get one, it's illegal bc we don't want you in control of your body"

Kadath · 02-11-2004, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paq
I want all women to have the same options and i would prefer to keep knitting needles out of vaginas...I think that will be my new slogan: "No Needles for Vaginas" ...ok, so it's not as catchy as "Keep your Bush out of my bush" (sorry, trying to lighten the mood)

Maybe you should just adapt(or adopt) "No wire hangers EVER!" from Mommy Dearest.
Having volunteered for Planned Parenthood, having done candlelight vigils in front of my local courthouse regarding the importance of Roe v Wade, having pushed since I was old enough to understand it for a woman's right to choose, I say fuck you to anyone who would try to take that right away. What really chaps my ass is when the same idiots who rail against abortion are staunchly against sex education in the classroom. It's cause and fucking effect, people.

Mehoni · 02-11-2004, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 89transam
It seems illogical that you can abort (Kill) a baby 1 day before it is natrally born but 1 day after it is born you would be all over the news as some horrible monster of a baby killer.

Where the hell do you live where abortion is legal in the 39th week?

matthew330 · 02-11-2004, 05:33 AM

yeah - cause: handing condoms to school children, effect: more kids having sex. Cause, telling children "hey don't worry about it if you do get pregnant, you can abort and won't even have to tell you mommy, effect - well, whaddya think?

matthew330 · 02-11-2004, 05:35 AM

and just to put the "back alley abortion" argument into perspective http://tennesseerighttolife.org/huma..._and_myths.htm

Quote:

One of the most common arguments abortion advocates make in defense of legal abortion is that making abortion illegal will cause women to go to the "back alleys" and obtain unsafe abortions. They cite how thousands of women died as a result of unsafe abortions before abortion was legalized through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.

We already know legal abortions are not safe - they can and do cause women to lose their lives and harm women physically and emotionally. So let's address some other issues.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League, admits his group lied about the number of women who died from illegal abortions when testifying before the Supreme Court in 1972. "We spoke of 5,000 - 10,000 deaths a year.... I confess that I knew the figures were totally false ... it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?"

That claim of thousands of maternal deaths due to illegal abortion doesn't measure up when compared with other statistics. About 50,000 women of child-bearing age die each year -- from all causes combined. To suggest that 10,000 of these deaths were from illegal abortion would make that the cause of one out of every five deaths, or twenty percent. This would have made illegal abortion the leading cause of death among women in that age group

What, then, did cause abortion-related deaths due to illegal abortions? According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, the legalization of abortion was not responsible for reducing abortion-related deaths. This discovery of antibiotics in the 1940's did that by providing effective treatment for infections.

The National Center for Heath Statistics reveals that before 1941, there were over 1,400 abortion-related deaths. Yet after Penicillin became available to control infections, the number of deaths was reduced in the 1950's to approximately 250 per year. By 1966, with abortion still illegal in all states, the number of deaths had dropped steadily to 120. The reason? New and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population.

Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicaps or deformities, and when the pregnancy jeopardized the life of the mother (all of which constitute only 5% of the abortion cases today). There were two notable exceptions - California in 1967 and New York in 1970 legalized abortion on demand.

Legalizing abortion should have eliminated some deaths related to illegal abortions. That is not the case. In the years from 1963-1969, there were an average of approximately 55 deaths per year due to illegal abortions. In 1970, after this initial wave of laws legalizing abortions, there were 109. Deaths from illegal abortions increased.

By the year before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision allowing legal abortion on demand in all fifty states, the death rate for illegal abortions had fallen to 24 in 1972 (with 25 additional deaths as a result of legal abortions). Now abortion was legal in all fifty states and back alley abortions eliminated with their alleged total of maternal deaths. In 1973 there should have been a sharp drop in abortion-related deaths if abortion advocates were right that legalizing abortion would make abortion safe.

Yet abortion-related deaths increased again with 25 deaths resulting from legal abortion in 1973, 26 in 1974 and 29 in 1975.

Some have claimed that the number of illegal abortion-related deaths were not reported accurately or underreported. Yet, when a woman was seriously injured by an abortion, she went to another doctor for care. The abortion practitioner was rarely involved at that point. The new doctor in many cases had to attempt to save the mother's life. In cases of maternal death, this new doctor was required to report, and falsification of the death certificate was a felony. Therefore, prior to legalization of abortion, it's safe to say deaths from illegal abortions were rarely covered up.

Yet, even if the case can be made that deaths resulting from illegal abortions were underreported, it is equally safe to say that deaths resulting from legal abortions are underreported. In Maryland in 1991, there were four women who died from legal abortions that year. None of the four were reported to the Federal Centers for Disease Control for its statistics. Whereas prior to the legalization of abortion a second doctor, with little or no reason to cover up a death for which he or she was not responsible, was involved in an attempt to save the mother's life; with legalized abortion the abortion practitioner is usually the one attempting to save the mother's life when the abortion threatens her life.

Other specific instances help us see how reporting for the number of deaths related to illegal abortions may be low: In 1977 an Ohio doctor noted that while the official statistics showed no abortion-related deaths in Ohio that year, he personally knew of two. If one doctor knew of two cases, how many were there really?

Abortion was legalized in California in 1967. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times in 1972, official records showed four legal abortion-related deaths in the entire country from 1967 to 1972. Yet a reporter for that paper uncovered three deaths only in Los Angeles in just one month in 1972.

A reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times uncovered 12 legal abortion-related deaths in that city in 1978. The government statistics show only 16 deaths for the entire country in that year.

Another important point is that many of the abortion practitioners performing abortions after Roe v. Wade were the same people performing illegal abortions. In the July 1960 edition of the American Journal of Public Health, an article by Dr. Mary Calderon, then medical director of Planned Parenthood, which stated:

"90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; ... They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is... Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians."

Here is a candid admission that not only are illegal abortions not being done by quack doctors but that the death rate from illegal abortions was "low." This flies in the face of claims of several thousand women losing their lives to illegal abortions and the claim that illegal abortions were performed by quack doctors and not by physicians.

As we can see, "Never again" never was. There were not several thousand women losing their lives due to illegal abortions performed by quack doctors. Effective medical treatments helped reduce abortion related deaths and the legalization of abortion never played a significant role (and never will) in affecting the numbers of women who died from legal or illegal abortion-related deaths. That women continue to die from so-called "safe, legal" abortions (perhaps in greater numbers than we know) is a clear indication that abortion is unsafe and hurts women - legal or otherwise.

matthew330 · 02-11-2004, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Where the hell do you live where abortion is legal in the 39th week?

This was an actual case. The woman was scheduled to go in for an abortion. The day or two days prior, she had a premature delivery and killed the baby and was charged with murder. The argument that "life begins when the umbilical cord is cut" just doesn't make any sense.

arch13 · 02-11-2004, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
yeah - cause: handing condoms to school children, effect: more kids having sex. Cause, telling children "hey don't worry about it if you do get pregnant, you can abort and won't even have to tell you mommy, effect - well, whaddya think?

Mat, I have some news that may come as a shock to you. You better sit down.

Kids have sex anyway. you can't stop it and never will. The average age at which an adolescent loses their virginity hasn't changed in nearly 90 years despite the changes in society that have happened in that time.
If they are going to do it, they should do it safely. I'm all for giving kids in high school condoms. better safe than sorry with one extra mouth to feed and a burden to bear.
So i'm afraid i won't buy your line about more kids having more sex if we give them condoms. The amount of kids engaging in sex act's and the age at which they start hasn't signifigantly changed since the great depression.
Besides, I don't have a moral issue with adolescents having sexual relations. Their exploring and always have in that subject.
I don't see sin in "pre-marital" sex but i'm not chirstian by your definition either so perhaps i'm a hopless sinner in the eyes of some here who view all those not of their religion to be someone to convert or lost causes doomed to hell.
If and when you have a duaghter, you should be so lucky as to find condoms in her purse, because that will mean she's educated and being safe. A really good parent would teach their duaghter about condoms and how to use one and help her to understand never to depend on a guy to have or use one.
No parent has ever stopped their child from exploring their sexuality, so you need to be proactive in making sure she makes good descions when she does explore.

matthew330 · 02-11-2004, 06:48 AM

...and yet more news that may come as a shock to you. I'm not christian and never attempted to define what it meant to be christian and as such never implied that you were a "hopeless sinner." Being pro-life doesn't make you religious.

and i respectfully am not buying your line "kids are going to do it anyway so lets make it safe." Why stop at condoms, let's hand out clean needles at school, too.

You may not have a moral issue with adolescents having sex, but I do - and i will make sure my kids understand that. The public school system is the last place that should be undermining that effort. That doesn't mean keeping them in the dark about what sex is. That means keeping them informed about it's implications. Though the pregnancy rates may not have changed much, the rate of teen STD's and condom usage are directly proportional. Both have been rising since the early 80's. It's a PDF file if interested: http://www.projectreality.org/std.pdf .

arch13 · 02-11-2004, 07:17 AM

Actually Mat, the christian part was a counter to someone else i suspect will be posting in response to my post. I'm sorry if it seemed like i was cynicaly addressing you as that was not my intent.

I agree with you that std rates have gone through the roof, and nothing will stop those that experiment sexualy from contracting them besides condoms. they are a safe and cheap solution that has a proven effectivness.
I'm sorry to say that your children will have sex before marriage statisticly and that given that the average age has stayed at 15-16 for nearly a century, the chances are good that no matter what you teach your children they will experiment.
At the same time as std's have risen with condom distrabution, teen pregnancy has actually fallen in the last decade despite what the news may say for shock value. It's a conundrum with no answer.
I hope as a parent you will not be angry or upset if your son or daughter is engaged in intercourse before marriage, but rather simply concerned that they do it safely if they are doing it.

Kadath · 02-11-2004, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
and i respectfully am not buying your line "kids are going to do it anyway so lets make it safe." Why stop at condoms, let's hand out clean needles at school, too.

This is a strawman. Intravenous drug use is ILLEGAL. Sex is NOT, except in circumstances where age is wildly disparate. It is NOT illegal for two 16-year-old kids to engage in sex. Your argument is ludicrous.

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330

You may not have a moral issue with adolescents having sex, but I do - and i will make sure my kids understand that. The public school system is the last place that should be undermining that effort. That doesn't mean keeping them in the dark about what sex is. That means keeping them informed about it's implications. Though the pregnancy rates may not have changed much, the rate of teen STD's and condom usage are directly proportional. Both have been rising since the early 80's. It's a PDF file if interested: http://www.projectreality.org/std.pdf .

Well as I open this pdf I'm going to take a stab and say project reality is a morality-based organization. Survey says...wow, I was right. Leaders in abstinence-centered education since 1985? I wonder if they have any reason to present false statistics. Oh, but they cite the CDC! They must not have skewed the results. Example: "Condoms are ineffective in preventing the spread of STDs" From a study at the CDC entitled "Determinants of gonorrhoea infection among STD clinic attenders in Trinidad--II: sexual behavioural factors" from 2002, published in the International Journal of STD & AIDS:

Quote:

The results indicated that females whose steady partners did not use condoms consistently had an 80% increased likelihood of being infected compared to those who used condoms all the time. Males who did not use condoms consistently with their steady partners had a 40% increased likelihood of gonococcal infection.

And with about 7 seconds of searching I refuted a claim made, apparently, by the CDC. What the hell? Further, I don't buy your argument that the rate of STDs and condom use are proportional. According to the PDF, they have both increased most at the same time. That doesn't indicate a link. It's what's called specious reasoning. By that argument, I could say the downturn in the economy was due to my presence in the work force, since I was working at the same as the economy went downhill.

matthew330 · 02-11-2004, 07:50 AM

Quote:

This is a strawman. Intravenous drug use is ILLEGAL. Sex is NOT, except in circumstances where age is wildly disparate. It is NOT illegal for two 16-year-old kids to engage in sex. Your argument is ludicrous.

Yeah and we all know kids only expirement in those behaviors that are "legal." Kids experiment - and there's nothing you can do to stop it, so lets make it safe, that was the argument, right?

The fact of the matter is condom's are effective in preventing some STD's and completely ineffective at others. I won't get in a googling contest with you. The statistics are just that, statistics. You are free to interpret them in any way you want. You are free to tell your kids "they have an agenda, and are making inferences about those statistics to suit it, so here are your condoms - go have fun"

My point is I am free to do the opposite. It's a fact that the safest behavior is abstinence. This is how i would like to raise my chldren, and a public school system should not make this impossible. I am responsible for my children and I will raise them.

Mehoni · 02-11-2004, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
This was an actual case. The woman was scheduled to go in for an abortion. The day or two days prior, she had a premature delivery and killed the baby and was charged with murder. The argument that "life begins when the umbilical cord is cut" just doesn't make any sense.

Okay, so that it happend in one case means everybody is doing it?

Abortions are still not LEGAL after a certain amount of time. That some crazy woman killed her baby has nothing to do with that topic.

matthew330 · 02-11-2004, 10:18 AM

It has to do with the point he was trying to make. One day made the difference between being charged with murder (and you calling her crazy), or having her make a responsible "choice", and letting a doctor do essentially the same thing legally.

Lebell · 02-11-2004, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
It has to do with the point he was trying to make. One day made the difference between being charged with murder (and you calling her crazy), or having her make a responsible "choice", and letting a doctor do essentially the same thing legally.

I'm sorry, but I need some more information before I believe this.

matthew330 · 02-11-2004, 11:03 AM

i'll see if i can find it for you....would it change any opinion you had if it were true?

Lebell · 02-11-2004, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
i'll see if i can find it for you....would it change any opinion you had if it were true?

It would depend on the facts of the case.

Without seeing it, I can't form an opinion one way or another.

Paq · 02-11-2004, 11:24 AM

1st off: I was taught that drugs were illegal. I never experimented with them, even cigarettes. They were bad, they could damage my health and there was no way i could make them any safer...so, i didn't do them. Why..bc i was educated on the matter.

with sex..i was taught that there were risks, STD's, Pregnancy, etc. but i was also taught that it was natural and that there were ways to lessen the risks, std tests, condoms, birth control pills, foam, cream, whatever. As a result of my learning about these risks and ways to overcome, i have avoided any std's and any pregnancies. I admit that i would probably have had sex at the same time with or without this education, hard to tell, but at least i knew what i was getting into in both instances.

So to say condoms=fornication is ludicrous, and i'm not talking about a rapper with HUGE hair...Condoms=fornication with less risks...sure...Heck, i carried a condom for 4 months on my body at all times...did i use it? Hell no...why? bc...well, bc i was a loser at the time and had no partner

(gotta laugh at yourself) But seriously, a lot of people forget that you really do need 2 people for sex. Anyway, I don't know how you can even rationalize that condoms are going to make people have sex. "Oh dear, there is a condom in my pocket, let me go use it"..sorry, doesnt' happen. However, "Oh dear, That guy/girl is HOT...and they are looking at me, lemme go talk to them" has a better chance of ending in coupling and i'd prefer one of those people to be carrying a condom so i don't have to listen to someone bitch that either there is another teenage pregnancy or another teenage abortion.

next up: You really can't have an abortion in the 3rd trimester. At least not from what i've seen/read. At that point, the risk is too high for complications. Your doctor can abort that late only if there is a serious problem that will likely kill the mother, but that choice is up to the mother and doctor or husband/next of kin, depends on who is there. A lady just cant walk into an abortion clinic/doctor's office at 7 months and say, "Hi, i want an abortion" Just not going to happen.

As for the backalley abortion and the stats on clinic abortions as well: Umm..that article was basically saying that legalization doesn't affect the amount of deaths either way:

"As we can see, "Never again" never was. There were not several thousand women losing their lives due to illegal abortions performed by quack doctors. Effective medical treatments helped reduce abortion related deaths and the legalization of abortion never played a significant role (and never will) in affecting the numbers of women who died from legal or illegal abortion-related deaths. That women continue to die from so-called "safe, legal" abortions (perhaps in greater numbers than we know) is a clear indication that abortion is unsafe and hurts women - legal or otherwise."

Ok, it's not safe, neither is lyposuction, breast implantation, or going to a hospital to treat a cold (you'll catch something else in the waiting room) but if its' going to be risky either way and we can keep women in "proper" health clinics, etc, then why would we force them AND THEIR DOCTORS to perform something illegally. I think you just made an outstanding case for why they should be legal. I'd prefer not having my cousin go see a doctor and try to convince him to perform an illegal abortion, or to go see a doctor who performs them on the side. It's just more sanitary, easier to keep track of, and less risky either way. you say 90% of illegal abortions were performed by doctors...make it 99% (1% at least, will still not go) I'd prefer no women went, but i think it is absolutely INSANE to say that they would have to obtain one through a doctor that is working outside the law.

""90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; ... They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is... Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians."
And this proves what? that illegal or not, women will try to obtain abortions. PERIOD. I'd much rather have them do it in the safest conditions possible, a full staff, etc, not just 1 doctor doing everything while no one else is there, etc. I don't see how saying, "Oh, if abortions are illegal, women will still be able to obtain one safely" is a good argument. Maybe it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside that you're preventing murder, proclaiming "there are no more abortion clinics!"...while you know they are still going on. (i don't mean 'you' personally, i mean you as a general statement of several random people)

matthew330 · 02-11-2004, 12:28 PM

no luck lebell, i knew it would be hard to find which is why i didn't bother in the first place. But i don't think that changes the point behind it. Abortions are legal at points where premature births can and do happen. There is physiologically zero difference between the being being legally aborted at this point or illegally murdered.

Paq, I can't do this anymore - i really had all intentions of avoiding this argument again. There is ALOT i would like to say, but alas i've learned it would be in vein. Tired of being misquoted, taken out of context, etc, etc. The easiest example, then i'm bowing out: I never said "having a condom in ones pocket will make them have sex." I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that if you take a 100 teenagers and throw condoms at them telling them it will make sex safer, then tell them if they get pregnant, they can get an abortion the incidence of sexual intercourse would be greater takening another 100 teenagers and articulating the implications of having sex, how it requires tremendous responsibility, there are condoms that can reduce certain risks - but those risks remain life threatening and/or life changing.

You totally missed the point of the article which was stated in the first sentence. It is a popular argunment on the part of pro-choicers to reference the thousands of deaths that will occur if back alley abortoins are made ilegal. This was contradicting that argument.

Lebell · 02-11-2004, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
no luck lebell, i knew it would be hard to find which is why i didn't bother in the first place. But i don't think that changes the point behind it. Abortions are legal at points where premature births can and do happen. There is physiologically zero difference between the being being legally aborted at this point or illegally murdered.

Well, there are a couple of things I want to say then.

First, in regards to the story, the reason I wanted to read it for myself is that it seems alittle suspicious and not beyond what some in the far right of the pro-life movement would invent or "embellish" and then tell and retell as a "SEE??? I TOLD YOU!!!"

Therefore, I don't think your story can really be brought into this conversation as proof of anything, since we can't even be sure it happened, and if it did, what the circumstances were.

Now to your other point,

After much thought (previous to this thread, btw), I've come to the conclusion that in the third trimester, it is reasonable to place some restrictions on abortions, such as only for the health of the mother. I've come to this conclusion because a) the woman has had 2 trimesters to REALLY consider her options and b) the fetus is getting closer and closer to the point that I would consider it a "person", so much so that I don't feel comfortable with a decision to abort it at this time due only to convenience.

If the mother doesn't want the baby at this point, I feel that adoption should be the option.

89transam · 02-11-2004, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paq
So yeah, it's a heated subject and yeah, I'll agree that abortions are NASTY, HORRIBLE, VILE, and i wish, unnecessary, but the fact is, they happen and for some, they are the best option, sad as that is.

I think if anything thats something people on both sides can definatly agree on .

Mehoni · 02-12-2004, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
no luck lebell, i knew it would be hard to find which is why i didn't bother in the first place. But i don't think that changes the point behind it. Abortions are legal at points where premature births can and do happen. There is physiologically zero difference between the being being legally aborted at this point...

I'm sorry, but unless you come up with some evidence, links, whatever, I can't believe you.

In Sweden you can get a medical abortion up until 9 weeks, between 9-12 weeks you need surgery.. anyhow, after 18 weeks you need to apply for a special permit from a special department. If they grant it, you can have an abortion.

Max 18 weeks. No permits are granted after 22 weeks.

I think there's a big difference between 18 weeks and 39 :P

Kadath · 02-12-2004, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by matthew330
The fact of the matter is condom's are effective in preventing some STD's and completely ineffective at others. I won't get in a googling contest with you.

Well, it seems like you're stepping back, which I respect, but in case you come back around, I only want to take issue with this statement: Condoms are more effective than unprotected sex. Period. No googling required. If you truly believe that condoms are "ineffective at stopping some STDs", then I am afraid you have been misinformed.

Prince · 02-13-2004, 11:09 AM

Well, here's my oddball take on it all.

To me, the question of "when life begins" is entirely irrelevant. That does not mean it IS, that is just how I find it. I don't know when life "began", but I do know that it did. And to me, the sperm I produce is alive. The "eggs" my wife carries, are alive. That is how I see it. So, summa summarum, to me the point that something is a "live human being" as soon as it is conceived, is irrelevant.

The way I - and only I, I'm sure - see it, is that the embryo/fetus is a human in the making inside the mother, and as such has little rights beyond what is granted for it by the mother, the "host" if you will. If the mother does not want to complete the pregnancy, I do not see that anyone has the right to demand that she do so.

As for a fetus being human, I agree. It IS a human...a human fetus. And no, nothing magical happens to it when it is born. However...while the fetus is still inside the host, it cannot live without it. Its life is dependent on the host, and that is the timeframe which works for me in determining how long the host should have jurisdiction over it.

You can claim that a four-year-old child also needs its parents, does this mean that the parents have the right to kill it? No. But to say that would be ignoring what I already said; the fetus cannot survive outside of the host body, at least not in the early stages. If the host does not want to carry it, then that's all there is to it. IF you can come up with a way to remove the fetus and give it to someone who can somehow keep it alive and help it grow, fine.

For the record, I do not approve of someone terminating a pregnancy because they find the pregnancy inconvenient. However, that is not my call to make, and not my authority nor anyone else's, in my opinion, to tell them not to.

There's no right slash wrong beyond our own personal morals and ethics.

[edited to include something that's ON-topic, as well]

I hope the pharmacist lost his job. It's his job to fill the prescriptions, not to question the doctors who write them. Customers shouldn't have to suffer from the fact that he couldn't get into medical school.

I'm not saying he should have his license revoked or anything...or his name announced everywhere to keep other employers from hiring him. It's not like he sold sedatives to teenagers under the table or something. But losing that particular could offer a lesson in business conduct.

Lebell · 02-13-2004, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince

I hope the pharmacist lost his job. It's his job to fill the prescriptions, not to question the doctors who write them. Customers shouldn't have to suffer from the fact that he couldn't get into medical school.

He did, and the three other guys with him that were refusing to fill these prescriptions.

02-09-2004, 02:10 PM	#81 (permalink)
Dostoevsky Psycho Location: Macon, GA	I'll tell you what pisses me off. It's when people, including the government, force their views and morals on others. I do not personally support abortion, but I am definetly pro-choice because other people have the right to decide what's right for themselves. America is a free country and people should be able to make decisions about abortion for themselves. Am I alone on this one? __________________ Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be earned. It is not advisable, James, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

02-09-2004, 09:38 PM	#82 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	nope, you aren't alone, i totally agree. not to mention, as i have said previously, most of the people arguing against choice in the matter don't have vaginas, so they never really are faced with that situation, except by proxy... So..yeah, i'm with you, Dostoevsky __________________ Live. Chris

02-09-2004, 11:09 PM	#83 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	dostoevsky, i share your desire for freedom of choice, but your argument is based on completely different premises than most pro-lifers base theirs on. so, it really is something very separate from addressing any of the pro-life viewpoints. It all lies in the your definition of human life: the majority of pro-life proponents would argue that when you abort a baby, you are taking the baby's ability of choice away. by choosing to end it's life, you are making a decision for another person that is unable to promote its own agenda. the ultimate in restriction of freedom. nearly everyone wants free-choice. the issue often boils down to the definition of a human life. no matter your stance, the fetus is just that... a small developing person. the beginning of a real human being, an entity that can sense its environment and feel pain. i realize that women are sometimes put into horrible situations. oftentimes an abortion is the only thing that rescues them from disgrace and/or ruin. but still, this isn't the same as a woman having the freedom to have plastic surgury or a piercing. there are many ethical considerations that must be taken. it is never as simple as either side would have you believe. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

02-09-2004, 11:52 PM	#84 (permalink)
nanofever Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe. Location: UCSB	The problem is that no 100% brightline exists to say where a fetus/zygote becomes a human, except for when the child can live outside the woman's body. Is it murder if someone has an abortion an hour/week/month/9 months before they birth the child ? Is using birth control to stop a pregency the same as an abortion ? How about if my hypo-wife and I decide not to have sex one night when a child would have been concieved if we had sex, is that killing a child ? The only brightline I see is when a child can survive outside the woman's body. That is why I think that third-trimester abortions are unethical while a first or second trimester are not. Edit: That being said, I don't believe that my morality is right for anyone else and that is why I won't consider imposing my beliefs on someone else. __________________ I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect. Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum: "Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt." Last edited by nanofever; 02-10-2004 at 08:34 PM..

02-10-2004, 12:49 PM	#86 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	So there Billy you KNOW when life begins then? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-10-2004, 04:04 PM	#87 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	Actuallyy, i know many people who refuse to use birth control saying it's akin to murder and abortion. Admittedly, these people are a bit to the right of UsTwo, but they vehemently denounce any form of birthcontrol including the pope's roulette..(withdrawal) saying that once intercourse begins, it should continue until done so that pregnancy is helped along. .... __________________ Live. Chris

02-10-2004, 04:28 PM	#88 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	So by that logic, does a women commit murder everytime she has her period? Just curious.

02-10-2004, 05:10 PM	#89 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	i've asked her and she just gave me that "Are you stupid" look... i do know she believes masturbation from male or female is a horrible sin. oh, she's a virgin too..the other 7 people i know that fit the descript aren't, but they are trying to have children.. oh goodie, the next generation gets to have people like this too __________________ Live. Chris

02-10-2004, 06:15 PM	#90 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	no, that's ridiculous. By that logic you would be commiting umm, sexualar homicide (i made that up just now, whatever) every time you had sex and it didn't result in pregnancy (or maybe that's a better metaphor for those who like to counter the pro-life argument with "am i committing murder every time i masturbate). The difference is that whether or not you want to call a fetus a "life" once fertilization has occurred the "life process" has begun. Stopping that process is in the eyes of the pro-lifers (i.e.-me) has significantly more implications than birth control. Ones taking a life, the others preventing life from starting. Easy enough, right? (not to agree with, just to understand - i'm not getting in another abortion debate)

02-10-2004, 06:28 PM	#91 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	maybe not easy enough - i have to learn to use punctuation and not just type streams of thought.

02-10-2004, 07:35 PM	#92 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	hey, i'm with you, but, that's what she told me. "You're no better off using birth controll pills than having an abortion, it's god's will if you get pregnant or not" __________________ Live. Chris

02-10-2004, 09:15 PM	#94 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	well, i don't think it will be like slavery. I'm pretty sure we'll have better birth control, but it's a matter of getting people to use it. Religion, culture, societal standards tend to stand in the way of rational thought when ti comes to fornication... that said, i still think that the gov't should keep its nose out of woman's vagina. Think about it, if a woman is pregnant and she is not going to carry the child to term, then she is going to find a way to abort. One way or another. I would prefer that method to be a safer, sterile way vs the "Hey, lemme stick a coathanger up there" method. as i recall, Roe V Wade wasn't followed by an onslaught of abortions, just that the number reported by doctors went up, as they weren't allowed to disclose otherwise.. __________________ Live. Chris

02-10-2004, 11:33 PM	#97 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	not really, i've known several who were relieved and continue to be relieved that they had an abortion. Also, current studies have been done and they do show a majority of women would choose the same decision they did before. i'll look up the stats when i get a chance if you want. If you don't wanna wait, look at masters and johnston pages for links to current studies And they should decide whether or not to carry a baby to term. I think this boils down to a fear that men will lose control over child bearing. I mean, we have very little to say on whether or not a girl gets pregnant and i think a lot of people want more control over the whole birth process. I don't, and i don't think we should force our children upon women who do not want them. Abortions are horrible, yes, and that is a life, yes, and if i have a gf or wife that gets pregnant, i would like to be involved in the decision for or against an abortion, but ultimately, it's her body and until that child is no longer connected, he/she will stay under the classification of her body. I just think the whole anti abortion movement is tied to who has control over bringing children into this world and the fact is, women have that ultimate control and men want to take it away. So yeah, it's a heated subject and yeah, I'll agree that abortions are NASTY, HORRIBLE, VILE, and i wish, unnecessary, but the fact is, they happen and for some, they are the best option, sad as that is. I think the majority of women that have one do so only as a last option and i'll begrudge that there are a few that use them as a backup to birth control and i find that disgusting, but those same people would be the ones who would jam knitting needles into themselves or would starve themselves enough to force an abortion. It's sick and sad, but it's true, and again, I dont' have a vagina, so i should not be able to dictate how a woman goes about her pregnancy unless it is my child and then, at most, i just want my opinion heard in that particular case. I want all women to have the same options and i would prefer to keep knitting needles out of vaginas...I think that will be my new slogan: "No Needles for Vaginas" ...ok, so it's not as catchy as "Keep your Bush out of my bush" (sorry, trying to lighten the mood) at any rate, i understand your arguments and i will agree almost totally wtih them, BUT, i'm not in that position and i do not think we, as men, should force our views on women who are in whatever position. Knowledge, help, education, resources will deter FAR more abortions than just "Oops, you can't get one, it's illegal bc we don't want you in control of your body" __________________ Live. Chris

02-11-2004, 05:33 AM	#100 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	yeah - cause: handing condoms to school children, effect: more kids having sex. Cause, telling children "hey don't worry about it if you do get pregnant, you can abort and won't even have to tell you mommy, effect - well, whaddya think?

02-11-2004, 06:48 AM	#104 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	...and yet more news that may come as a shock to you. I'm not christian and never attempted to define what it meant to be christian and as such never implied that you were a "hopeless sinner." Being pro-life doesn't make you religious. and i respectfully am not buying your line "kids are going to do it anyway so lets make it safe." Why stop at condoms, let's hand out clean needles at school, too. You may not have a moral issue with adolescents having sex, but I do - and i will make sure my kids understand that. The public school system is the last place that should be undermining that effort. That doesn't mean keeping them in the dark about what sex is. That means keeping them informed about it's implications. Though the pregnancy rates may not have changed much, the rate of teen STD's and condom usage are directly proportional. Both have been rising since the early 80's. It's a PDF file if interested: http://www.projectreality.org/std.pdf .

02-11-2004, 07:17 AM	#105 (permalink)
arch13 Loves my girl in thongs Location: North of Mexico, South of Canada	Actually Mat, the christian part was a counter to someone else i suspect will be posting in response to my post. I'm sorry if it seemed like i was cynicaly addressing you as that was not my intent. I agree with you that std rates have gone through the roof, and nothing will stop those that experiment sexualy from contracting them besides condoms. they are a safe and cheap solution that has a proven effectivness. I'm sorry to say that your children will have sex before marriage statisticly and that given that the average age has stayed at 15-16 for nearly a century, the chances are good that no matter what you teach your children they will experiment. At the same time as std's have risen with condom distrabution, teen pregnancy has actually fallen in the last decade despite what the news may say for shock value. It's a conundrum with no answer. I hope as a parent you will not be angry or upset if your son or daughter is engaged in intercourse before marriage, but rather simply concerned that they do it safely if they are doing it. __________________ Seen on an employer evaluation: "The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead" ____________________________ Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11. -Nanofever

02-11-2004, 10:18 AM	#109 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	It has to do with the point he was trying to make. One day made the difference between being charged with murder (and you calling her crazy), or having her make a responsible "choice", and letting a doctor do essentially the same thing legally.

02-11-2004, 11:03 AM	#111 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	i'll see if i can find it for you....would it change any opinion you had if it were true?

02-11-2004, 11:24 AM	#113 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	1st off: I was taught that drugs were illegal. I never experimented with them, even cigarettes. They were bad, they could damage my health and there was no way i could make them any safer...so, i didn't do them. Why..bc i was educated on the matter. with sex..i was taught that there were risks, STD's, Pregnancy, etc. but i was also taught that it was natural and that there were ways to lessen the risks, std tests, condoms, birth control pills, foam, cream, whatever. As a result of my learning about these risks and ways to overcome, i have avoided any std's and any pregnancies. I admit that i would probably have had sex at the same time with or without this education, hard to tell, but at least i knew what i was getting into in both instances. So to say condoms=fornication is ludicrous, and i'm not talking about a rapper with HUGE hair...Condoms=fornication with less risks...sure...Heck, i carried a condom for 4 months on my body at all times...did i use it? Hell no...why? bc...well, bc i was a loser at the time and had no partner (gotta laugh at yourself) But seriously, a lot of people forget that you really do need 2 people for sex. Anyway, I don't know how you can even rationalize that condoms are going to make people have sex. "Oh dear, there is a condom in my pocket, let me go use it"..sorry, doesnt' happen. However, "Oh dear, That guy/girl is HOT...and they are looking at me, lemme go talk to them" has a better chance of ending in coupling and i'd prefer one of those people to be carrying a condom so i don't have to listen to someone bitch that either there is another teenage pregnancy or another teenage abortion. next up: You really can't have an abortion in the 3rd trimester. At least not from what i've seen/read. At that point, the risk is too high for complications. Your doctor can abort that late only if there is a serious problem that will likely kill the mother, but that choice is up to the mother and doctor or husband/next of kin, depends on who is there. A lady just cant walk into an abortion clinic/doctor's office at 7 months and say, "Hi, i want an abortion" Just not going to happen. As for the backalley abortion and the stats on clinic abortions as well: Umm..that article was basically saying that legalization doesn't affect the amount of deaths either way: "As we can see, "Never again" never was. There were not several thousand women losing their lives due to illegal abortions performed by quack doctors. Effective medical treatments helped reduce abortion related deaths and the legalization of abortion never played a significant role (and never will) in affecting the numbers of women who died from legal or illegal abortion-related deaths. That women continue to die from so-called "safe, legal" abortions (perhaps in greater numbers than we know) is a clear indication that abortion is unsafe and hurts women - legal or otherwise." Ok, it's not safe, neither is lyposuction, breast implantation, or going to a hospital to treat a cold (you'll catch something else in the waiting room) but if its' going to be risky either way and we can keep women in "proper" health clinics, etc, then why would we force them AND THEIR DOCTORS to perform something illegally. I think you just made an outstanding case for why they should be legal. I'd prefer not having my cousin go see a doctor and try to convince him to perform an illegal abortion, or to go see a doctor who performs them on the side. It's just more sanitary, easier to keep track of, and less risky either way. you say 90% of illegal abortions were performed by doctors...make it 99% (1% at least, will still not go) I'd prefer no women went, but i think it is absolutely INSANE to say that they would have to obtain one through a doctor that is working outside the law. ""90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; ... They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is... Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians." And this proves what? that illegal or not, women will try to obtain abortions. PERIOD. I'd much rather have them do it in the safest conditions possible, a full staff, etc, not just 1 doctor doing everything while no one else is there, etc. I don't see how saying, "Oh, if abortions are illegal, women will still be able to obtain one safely" is a good argument. Maybe it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside that you're preventing murder, proclaiming "there are no more abortion clinics!"...while you know they are still going on. (i don't mean 'you' personally, i mean you as a general statement of several random people) __________________ Live. Chris

02-11-2004, 12:28 PM	#114 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	no luck lebell, i knew it would be hard to find which is why i didn't bother in the first place. But i don't think that changes the point behind it. Abortions are legal at points where premature births can and do happen. There is physiologically zero difference between the being being legally aborted at this point or illegally murdered. Paq, I can't do this anymore - i really had all intentions of avoiding this argument again. There is ALOT i would like to say, but alas i've learned it would be in vein. Tired of being misquoted, taken out of context, etc, etc. The easiest example, then i'm bowing out: I never said "having a condom in ones pocket will make them have sex." I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that if you take a 100 teenagers and throw condoms at them telling them it will make sex safer, then tell them if they get pregnant, they can get an abortion the incidence of sexual intercourse would be greater takening another 100 teenagers and articulating the implications of having sex, how it requires tremendous responsibility, there are condoms that can reduce certain risks - but those risks remain life threatening and/or life changing. You totally missed the point of the article which was stated in the first sentence. It is a popular argunment on the part of pro-choicers to reference the thousands of deaths that will occur if back alley abortoins are made ilegal. This was contradicting that argument. Last edited by matthew330; 02-11-2004 at 12:33 PM..

02-13-2004, 11:09 AM	#119 (permalink)
Prince /nɑndəsˈkrɪpt/ Location: LV-426	Well, here's my oddball take on it all. To me, the question of "when life begins" is entirely irrelevant. That does not mean it IS, that is just how I find it. I don't know when life "began", but I do know that it did. And to me, the sperm I produce is alive. The "eggs" my wife carries, are alive. That is how I see it. So, summa summarum, to me the point that something is a "live human being" as soon as it is conceived, is irrelevant. The way I - and only I, I'm sure - see it, is that the embryo/fetus is a human in the making inside the mother, and as such has little rights beyond what is granted for it by the mother, the "host" if you will. If the mother does not want to complete the pregnancy, I do not see that anyone has the right to demand that she do so. As for a fetus being human, I agree. It IS a human...a human fetus. And no, nothing magical happens to it when it is born. However...while the fetus is still inside the host, it cannot live without it. Its life is dependent on the host, and that is the timeframe which works for me in determining how long the host should have jurisdiction over it. You can claim that a four-year-old child also needs its parents, does this mean that the parents have the right to kill it? No. But to say that would be ignoring what I already said; the fetus cannot survive outside of the host body, at least not in the early stages. If the host does not want to carry it, then that's all there is to it. IF you can come up with a way to remove the fetus and give it to someone who can somehow keep it alive and help it grow, fine. For the record, I do not approve of someone terminating a pregnancy because they find the pregnancy inconvenient. However, that is not my call to make, and not my authority nor anyone else's, in my opinion, to tell them not to. There's no right slash wrong beyond our own personal morals and ethics. [edited to include something that's ON-topic, as well] I hope the pharmacist lost his job. It's his job to fill the prescriptions, not to question the doctors who write them. Customers shouldn't have to suffer from the fact that he couldn't get into medical school. I'm not saying he should have his license revoked or anything...or his name announced everywhere to keep other employers from hiring him. It's not like he sold sedatives to teenagers under the table or something. But losing that particular could offer a lesson in business conduct. __________________ Who is John Galt? Last edited by Prince; 02-13-2004 at 11:28 AM..