Absolute BS .. 1. No Abortion a baby is born .. as nearly a third of all pregnancies are mis-carried in the first 3 months this shows your lack of understanding 2. Yep, true .. because the woman exercises her right to choose 3. This shows only that the woman looks at all her options and makes the relevant choice to her circumstances, and if you want to be accurate the woman actually takes no part in the abortion process, she makes the decision to abort but the procedure is carried out by a qualified person (which in most cases is simply her taking a pill) Go away and actually find out a few facts before you spout of meaningless drivel.
Those comments are mine, so if its ok with you I'll put my opinion (backed up with a few facts) I don't believe that the fetus should have the right to life until it is capable of supporting its own life .. as in the ability to process its own oxygen, before that time the fetus etc is little more than a non-destructive parasite, in fact it displays numerous similarities to a parasite eg. a) it cannot survive without the host b) it takes its sustenance from the host c) it creates antibodies that suppress the immune system, stopping it attacking. Pro-lifers try to establish parallels with newborns and those who cannot care for themselves, but these parallels don't exist for one simply reason .. each of these has established the ability to process oxygen for themselves. Morals don't have a position in this debate, morals are subjective and although we each have a certain number of morals we pretty much all agree upon the way were interpret them is different for each person .. hence why I ask the question why are someone elses morals are more important then mine or better. For pro-lifers to say abortion is murder is fundamentally floored, in order to make that statement the pro-lifers would first have to establish that the fetus is an independent sentient life that has individual rights, which with the current knowledge we have they cannot prove .. if that knowledge were to change in favour then my own position on abortion would also change to suit the facts. I don't deal in opinions in these types of cases, opinions are nearly always loaded with personal bias and emotional content and as such are not really ideal in debating. Most of the pro-lifers I have ever had contact with base a lot of their opinions on religious doctrine, however in order for this to be relevant they would first have to establish that God exists and that the religious doctrine has not been motivated by personal bias of the people who wrote it. On the moral side of religious doctrine I would have to call into question following those morals given the lack of them in other instances. The problem with pro-lifers is that they use a very wide brush to paint all with the same colours, one only has to look at the comments here to substantiate that. To call all pro-choice people murderers or pro-abortion is factually incorrect as has been shown here and on other threads numerous times and yet pro-lifers continue to use terms that have no bearing on the actual debate .. this IMHO is to try and make up for the lack of real proof to support their argument, resorting to lies and shock-tactics in order to cover the flimsy argument they pursue, often going of on a tangent in order to "prove" their idea by creating parallels where none exist. All that being said, we are each entitled to our opinion and so I personally have no problems with pro-lifers having the opinion they do, what I disagree with is the continually promotion of inaccurate information and lies.
In reality it isn't the flesh and blood of the mother, pro-lifers seem to think that it is a separate living entity and as such cannot be flesh and blood of the host, at best it is 50% of the genetic material that makes up the mother .. yet another emotional outburst trying to raise a profile that doesn't have a bearing.
your argument is stale. when women start randomly becoming pregnant with no sexual contact at all, then your case for abortion might be on an even playing field. but these children are created as a result of the mother's actions 99% of the time. they are innocent of any crime, dont wanna get pregnant? practice safe sex or abstinence. but once your pregnant out of your own fault, the baby should not be executed.
and has been pointed out to you many times before 50% of woman who seek an abortion HAVE been practicing safe sex, they are not "children" simply because you believe that to be true doesn't make it a fact and no "baby" is executed .. instead of your usual emotional outbursts why don't you stick to provideing facts .. oh you can't because there are none that bolster your opinion.
So if a woman gets pregnant "through no fault of her own," as in rape, then it ISN"T a "baby" with a right to life? So now we know why you are really against abortion, and it isn't because you want to protect "innocent life." It's because you want to punish women. Very revealing post.
what are you talking about? i have and always have been against abortion even in the case of rape. im just saying that the only person to blame for the pregnancy is the woman in all cases except rape. even though rape is not her fault, doesnt give her the right to murder an innocent being....
can you read? 54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. i never realized if i used contraception on the 1st of the month, that it would still be in effect by the 29th and 30th lol
Can you see that this comes across as just so cold-blooded? I get that the 150 million plus (your mathematical position, since 1933) aborted human lives are a check off choice box for you (and others) but your statement brings to mind other voluntary examples. For instance the women who were raped and murdered or the men who were robbed and murdered within earshot of witnesses in apartments who couldn't even be bothered to call the police. But we only sometimes help those who are or become dependent, defenseless, injured or disabled? How would you choose who is helped, lives and dies? What of the Golden Rule? What of humanity? Really...no obligation? Chalk it up to hearts of stone?
I really appreciate those facts which were presented. Thank you. Pro Lifers: Please work to back up your opinions with facts. We all want to hear everything and anything you have to say about this topic but we can't debate facts with opinions.
Post #46 - If your "fact" on post #46 is correct then please feel free to post your evidence to support it, otherwise it is your opinion and worthless.
1) Why would you make a decision if there is a 50% chance of an unwanted pregnancy? I do not advocate for the removal of granted rights I am trying to find out why a woman would take such a chance in the first place. 50% is horrible odds to bank the rest of one's life on. 2) There is only 1 situation with a good outcome for the child which is for both the man and woman to make the commitment to become 'Mommy and Daddy' before committing the procreational sex act. I have said repeatedly that I am NOT for removing anything from women. I just think it is immoral and irresponsible to kill a fetus for convenience sake. 1) I would rather live as a sentient human being than an animal thank you. 2) A baby is not a 'naturally occurring illness' Your moral relativity was the focus of my comment. I would not want the world to live by my morals just as I don't want to live by YOUR morals. Morality is the ability to recognize right from wrong and the ONLY way to have morality is for a society to agree on certain morals and values. Anything else breaks societal values down. Tell me, do you really think it is moral to kill a fetus just because you are inconvenienced? Really? And, BTW I advocate for MEN to be MORE responsible than women and keep their penises out of vaginas until they are ready to fully commit to a woman who also is ready to fully commit because women seem not to care too much about what they do with their bodies these days.
1. Well due to the legal status of abortion, the woman can make any decision she wants to and rightly so 2. Again it depends on how you see sex, is it purely for procreation or does it have a recreational purpose as well, I mean if God didn't want to us to like it why make it so good So if you are not for removing anything from the woman you support her right to have control over her body and as such your only objection to abortion should be on moral grounds .. not legal grounds. I don't quite understand how this fits into what were are debating .. but at a guess you are saying that only animals have multi-partner relationships .. got some news for you .. we are animals! Monogamy is not a "natural" human condition - "Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it's 'natural.'" - Jane Lancaster, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of New Mexico. A pregnancy displays all the symptoms of an illness for the woman and if its not naturally occurring what is it. No morality is making decisions based on what the majority perceive as right and wrong .. which is why morals are fluid and change, we once thought slavery was morally acceptable but we don't now .. moral decisions have no reflection on the goodness of a person and if as so many believe that morals stem from God then what if God told us it was morally acceptable to rape and murder a minor would we blindly accept that or if God were found to not exist would it then be acceptable to rape and murder a minor. morals are inherent in us .. but .. are shaped by outside influences. Whether I think abortion is moral is irrelevant, does my conscience become troubled by abortion .. no, it is troubled by the lack of sex education and the means to prevent fertilization being made freely available to ALL people of childbearing age (that's male and female). Then you are asking all men to rebel against their nature .. but I do agree men should take more responsibility, just because she says she is on the pill doesn't mean a man shouldn't wear a condom.
Are you ignorant? Ah! Yes Apologies I forgot youth for a minute If you are talking of the Guttmacher institute research on abortion and contraception then your interpretation is very wrong It merely reflects the fact that contraception is very very chancy except for a couple of options such as hormonal "depot" injections - but they are expensive and not all women can use them http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/summarychart.html
Lets say that the women in question is raped, is now pregnant, and is wanting an abortion. You think that the reason she should not be allowed to get an abortion is because the man that raped her doesn't get a say in the matter. For some reason the makes absolutely no sense to me. Also, my views on abortion are pretty simple, I think that abortion is wrong, and if I was in relationship with a pregnant girl I would try to convince her to not get an abortion, and instead to file for adoption. But at the same time I do not believe it is wrong enough to take away her choice in the matter. It is her body, it should be her decision.
Far be it from the y-man to deny that there are certain hominids for whom self-evident truths are imbecilities, and thank God I'm not one of them.
It is "cold blooded" and "hearts of stone" to make decisions based on reason rather than the emotionally laden clap trap that pro-lifers post? Sometimes it is more "cold blooded" or heartless to attempt to save a life that will never be near normal. Who is helped is based on individual circumstances.
Tell you what when you actually post something of meaning I'll applaud you, till then if it looks like crap, smells like crap the chances are it is crap.
