Political Crossfire Forums

[Sailor Moon]

Stygma wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Yeah the worst thing about being pregnant is the temporary morning sickness (which only affects less than half of all pregnant women) and for me, the charlie horses on the nights that I didnt eat a banana before going to bed. (potassium issue, pregnant women need alot of potassium to avoid leg cramps at night)...well, the tooth problems that resulted from the morning sickness were horrific, I will admit freely- I just had another rotten tooth pulled this week.. yay.... because my dentist post partum stunk at his job, and my 19 fillings fell out, all because of friggin morning sickness... but my family has horrible dental genes as it is..so there is usually some horrible dental story going on for us...

Otherwise, it was quite blissful, really. I could name a million wonderful things about carrying another life inside of me.. but the most wonderful thing was just the single, simple fact, that I was doing something extraordinary- Helping to create a whole life! That... was just... AWESOME. I cant describe it any other way. It was magnificent! And my son, on his sonograms, was just so handsome, and smiling at the camera!! What a cutie pie...

I love my baby boy! (well, my 7 year old baby boy, hahahaa)

What about the part where the pregnant woman screams at her husband/boyfriend to get her the pickles and ice cream right f***ing now godammit! :(

Oh cravings are neat... Its never pickles and ice cream together, though.. you just crave certan things more.. like pickles, and like ice cream.. but not pickles and ice cream, hahahahaha I was hooked on black olives, and I couldnt go near fish or macaroni. (I LOVE fish and macaroni) and I HAD to have shellfish (wasnt supposed to, but I couldnt always resist) and yes.. ice cream was very good. Oh and pickles, too. Sweet ones. Yum. We are never as cartoonish as the sitcoms make us out to be, though, LOL!

[Mycroft147]

the_doctor wrote: Quote:
Im not missing the point. I know its up to the woman, and im saying it shouldnt be because then she is allowed power over somoen elses life. For Catholics the solution is not contraception, but that would be a better option than abortion. You are arguing as if you dont realize that i think abortion should be illegal. Give me some reasons why it should be legal, not just statements about the laws.

For Catholics, well that is a problem and something they need to think hard and long about.

Reasons for abortion been legal. Ok how about this for starters...

1. Age e.g. Teenage pregnancy as in under 16 or 18
2. Rape
3. Medical reason, either the mother will die during child birth or the baby will shortly after birth.
4. Psychological fear of pregnancy.
5. Financial circumstances.
6. Divorce

And heres the reasons why your arguments are worthless:
1. Age of parent has nothing to do with whether or not the baby has a right to life.
2.You are saying that a baby concieved by rape has less rights than one concieved consensually. This is discrimination.
3.You are giving the woman more right to life than baby. Discrimination. If the woman dies it is sad but natural. The other choice is murder.
4.Fear of pregnancy does not justify murder.
5.Financial problems still do not justify murder. If you are poor and have a 5 year old kid who you cant support, you dont kill him, do you? also there is adoption.
and 6. Divorce still doesnt justify murder. Half your reasons would be considered ridiculuous by any pro-choicer.

[Sailor Moon]

the_doctor wrote: Quote:
Im not missing the point. I know its up to the woman, and im saying it shouldnt be because then she is allowed power over somoen elses life. For Catholics the solution is not contraception, but that would be a better option than abortion. You are arguing as if you dont realize that i think abortion should be illegal. Give me some reasons why it should be legal, not just statements about the laws.

For Catholics, well that is a problem and something they need to think hard and long about.

Reasons for abortion been legal. Ok how about this for starters...

1. Age e.g. Teenage pregnancy as in under 16 or 18
2. Rape
3. Medical reason, either the mother will die during child birth or the baby will shortly after birth.
4. Psychological fear of pregnancy.
5. Financial circumstances.
6. Divorce

1- vast minority of abortions (majority are over 25)

2- VAST VAST minority of abortions, so this is kinda off topic. This is like, less than .5% of all abortions.

3. Oh so like 1.5 percent of all abortions? This is a doctors choice, usually, BTW.. and typically ectopic, and typically ectopic pregnancies are a big risk after having an abortion. Next.

4. Psychological fear of pregnancy usually happens to women who have aborted in the past.

5. Welfare/ free college through grants, etc...

6. Adoption/ shared custody/ family.

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Stygma wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Yeah the worst thing about being pregnant is the temporary morning sickness (which only affects less than half of all pregnant women) and for me, the charlie horses on the nights that I didnt eat a banana before going to bed. (potassium issue, pregnant women need alot of potassium to avoid leg cramps at night)...well, the tooth problems that resulted from the morning sickness were horrific, I will admit freely- I just had another rotten tooth pulled this week.. yay.... because my dentist post partum stunk at his job, and my 19 fillings fell out, all because of friggin morning sickness... but my family has horrible dental genes as it is..so there is usually some horrible dental story going on for us...

Otherwise, it was quite blissful, really. I could name a million wonderful things about carrying another life inside of me.. but the most wonderful thing was just the single, simple fact, that I was doing something extraordinary- Helping to create a whole life! That... was just... AWESOME. I cant describe it any other way. It was magnificent! And my son, on his sonograms, was just so handsome, and smiling at the camera!! What a cutie pie...

I love my baby boy! (well, my 7 year old baby boy, hahahaa)

What about the part where the pregnant woman screams at her husband/boyfriend to get her the pickles and ice cream right f***ing now godammit! :(

:lol: That's an urban legend. My then-husband kept his hands back though, because I broke one of the metal bars on the bed with my hand when I was pushing. :-D

My pregnancy was smooth as silk. No horror about it.

[Stygma]

Mycroft147 wrote: Stygma wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Stygma wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Stygma wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: If abortion was illegal then we wouldnt have to argue about the fathers rights.

And if we lived in a fascist state we wouldn't have to talk about rights at all! :roll:

Yeah, and the point i was making is that no one is gonna have equal rights when abortion is legal.

That's only if you accept the assertion that you have rights before you are born.

Mycroft147 wrote: Stygma wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: And by the way doctor, the woman doesnt have to have sex. she has a choice to go through all the horrors of pregnancy. If yout htink about it your reasoning is also an argument for infanticide. Wh yshould the parents have to go through all the agonies of raising a child and caring for it? they should just be able to kill it!



You're trying to draw a ridiculous conclusion based upon an extension of the reasoning behind his argument, but he ignore the actual reasoning. Abortion is an alternative to more children being born into lives that are terrible, being born into families where they'll be unwanted and unloved. The woman has the choice to not have sex, yes, but as sex is pleasurable and damn fun people will always seek it out, and there needs to be a second option.

Yes i am, yes he did.And yes abortion is an alternative, one that infringes on a humans right to life and should not be allowed merely because people will always want to have fun and pleasure without consequences.

No, before you are born you have no rights. The right to life is the right to the continuation of life, and the distinct style of life that humans have (rational thought being a big one) that give them rights begins at birth.

I agree, in the Us before you are born you have no rights. But i also say that should be changed. Yes the right to life is the right to the continuation of life, and since the embryo is alive since conception, it should be allowed to continuee to live. Duh. There are no logical reasons why someones rights should begin at birth. And if you define life by the ability to think rationally, you are arguing for infanticide, since many small children cant think rationally.

First off, you seem to be under the assumption that rights can be "changed" through legislation. No, they cannot. Rights cannot be made to exist through force.

You seem to have misunderstood my post. Understandable. I was saying that rights are achieved at birth, with the sudden ability to think and to reason. Starting at birth, an infant begins to learn to reason, and undergoes amazing mental transformation. A newborn can think beyond instinct. The right to life as the continuation of life is only possible once you have achieved the mental status of a human, something a tiny cluster of cells does not have. This is the same reason animals do not have rights: they are not and will not become rational beings.

Ok, what i meant was that in the US their rights are ignored, not that they dont have any. And that CAN be changed by legislation. You knew what i meant. And where did you get the idea that babies suddenly start thinking and reasoning at birth? Lets see some scientific evidence for that. You also fail to define where human life begins if not at conception. If a tiny cluster of huma cells has no right to life, why do we big clusters of human cells have this right? You say animals will not become rational beings. True. Its also true that at conception embryos have the ability to become rational beings. So you actually have pro-life argument there. Nice.

Well, at only 15 days old an infant developes depth perception, which shows that it is starting to understand its own perceptions. A fetus is not advancing towards becoming a rational being at all, only moving towards the point at which advancement actually begins. A fetus also does not have the right to life yet because a fetus lives only as an extension of the mother, not a fully independant being yet. An embryo will become a rational being only once it changes the facts of its own existance and becomes an infant independant of its own body. Until then, it is merely an extension of the mother, a part of her body.

[Mycroft147]

Sailor Moon wrote: the_doctor wrote: Quote:
Im not missing the point. I know its up to the woman, and im saying it shouldnt be because then she is allowed power over somoen elses life. For Catholics the solution is not contraception, but that would be a better option than abortion. You are arguing as if you dont realize that i think abortion should be illegal. Give me some reasons why it should be legal, not just statements about the laws.

For Catholics, well that is a problem and something they need to think hard and long about.

Reasons for abortion been legal. Ok how about this for starters...

1. Age e.g. Teenage pregnancy as in under 16 or 18
2. Rape
3. Medical reason, either the mother will die during child birth or the baby will shortly after birth.
4. Psychological fear of pregnancy.
5. Financial circumstances.
6. Divorce

1- vast minority of abortions (majority are over 25)

2- VAST VAST minority of abortions, so this is kinda off topic. This is like, less than .5% of all abortions.

3. Oh so like 1.5 percent of all abortions? This is a doctors choice, usually, BTW.. and typically ectopic, and typically ectopic pregnancies are a big risk after having an abortion. Next.

4. Psychological fear of pregnancy usually happens to women who have aborted in the past.

5. Welfare/ free college through grants, etc...

6. Adoption/ shared custody/ family.

Even if the circumstances constitute a minority, it is still important to show why the abortion would be wrong. I for one am totally sick of people bringing up rape cases, but you still have to tell them why its still wrong to abort. Good point with the welfare and everyhting. You can tell that hes running out of arguments when he starts saying stuff like this.

[Mycroft147]

Stygma wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Stygma wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Stygma wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Stygma wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: If abortion was illegal then we wouldnt have to argue about the fathers rights.

And if we lived in a fascist state we wouldn't have to talk about rights at all! :roll:

Yeah, and the point i was making is that no one is gonna have equal rights when abortion is legal.

That's only if you accept the assertion that you have rights before you are born.

Mycroft147 wrote: Stygma wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: And by the way doctor, the woman doesnt have to have sex. she has a choice to go through all the horrors of pregnancy. If yout htink about it your reasoning is also an argument for infanticide. Wh yshould the parents have to go through all the agonies of raising a child and caring for it? they should just be able to kill it!



You're trying to draw a ridiculous conclusion based upon an extension of the reasoning behind his argument, but he ignore the actual reasoning. Abortion is an alternative to more children being born into lives that are terrible, being born into families where they'll be unwanted and unloved. The woman has the choice to not have sex, yes, but as sex is pleasurable and damn fun people will always seek it out, and there needs to be a second option.

Yes i am, yes he did.And yes abortion is an alternative, one that infringes on a humans right to life and should not be allowed merely because people will always want to have fun and pleasure without consequences.

No, before you are born you have no rights. The right to life is the right to the continuation of life, and the distinct style of life that humans have (rational thought being a big one) that give them rights begins at birth.

I agree, in the Us before you are born you have no rights. But i also say that should be changed. Yes the right to life is the right to the continuation of life, and since the embryo is alive since conception, it should be allowed to continuee to live. Duh. There are no logical reasons why someones rights should begin at birth. And if you define life by the ability to think rationally, you are arguing for infanticide, since many small children cant think rationally.

First off, you seem to be under the assumption that rights can be "changed" through legislation. No, they cannot. Rights cannot be made to exist through force.

You seem to have misunderstood my post. Understandable. I was saying that rights are achieved at birth, with the sudden ability to think and to reason. Starting at birth, an infant begins to learn to reason, and undergoes amazing mental transformation. A newborn can think beyond instinct. The right to life as the continuation of life is only possible once you have achieved the mental status of a human, something a tiny cluster of cells does not have. This is the same reason animals do not have rights: they are not and will not become rational beings.

Ok, what i meant was that in the US their rights are ignored, not that they dont have any. And that CAN be changed by legislation. You knew what i meant. And where did you get the idea that babies suddenly start thinking and reasoning at birth? Lets see some scientific evidence for that. You also fail to define where human life begins if not at conception. If a tiny cluster of huma cells has no right to life, why do we big clusters of human cells have this right? You say animals will not become rational beings. True. Its also true that at conception embryos have the ability to become rational beings. So you actually have pro-life argument there. Nice.

Well, at only 15 days old an infant developes depth perception, which shows that it is starting to understand its own perceptions. A fetus is not advancing towards becoming a rational being at all, only moving towards the point at which advancement actually begins. A fetus also does not have the right to life yet because a fetus lives only as an extension of the mother, not a fully independant being yet. An embryo will become a rational being only once it changes the facts of its own existance and becomes an infant independant of its own body. Until then, it is merely an extension of the mother, a part of her body.

So are yousaying an infant is a human at 15 days? you arent making sense. in The womb is when the fetus makes the most advancement in its growth. And no-one knows when actual rationalization begins, so thats not even an issue. A fetus is not part of the mothers body, it has its own DNA, seperate from the mothers. A siamese twin may be dependant on the other twin for its life, does that mean we can kill it? Some handicapped people cannot survive on their own, can we kill them becasue they are not independent? Your arguments have no logic.

[Mycroft147]

i think the point you are trying to make is that a fetus is not human until it gets a personality. This is illogical since babies do not even have noticeable personalities until much later than birth. Nothing changes for a fetus at birth, it still relies on the care of the mother to live. Stop skipping aorund so much and stic kto one argument.

[the_doctor]

Mycroft147 wrote:

And heres the reasons why your arguments are worthless:
1. Age of parent has nothing to do with whether or not the baby has a right to life.
2.You are saying that a baby concieved by rape has less rights than one concieved consensually. This is discrimination.
3.You are giving the woman more right to life than baby. Discrimination. If the woman dies it is sad but natural. The other choice is murder.
4.Fear of pregnancy does not justify murder.
5.Financial problems still do not justify murder. If you are poor and have a 5 year old kid who you cant support, you dont kill him, do you? also there is adoption.
and 6. Divorce still doesnt justify murder. Half your reasons would be considered ridiculuous by any pro-choicer.

I stand by my opinions. But...

1. Yes it does. You may think its fine for pregnant minors to be compelled give birth to children but I think they deserve the choice.
2. No it isn't discrimination and a whole lot of issues come into play if a woman becomes pregnant due to a rape.
3. A woman should not be forced to give birth if its going to kill her, yes she comes first over a foetus.
4. Its not murder, end of.
5. Financial circumstances are a large factor in the decision whether to keep foetus or not, and kill a 5 year child - unrelated.
6. Again its not murder. Divorce, in circumstances yes.

To sum up, yes its womans right as to whether have or not have the child and its up to them.

[the_doctor]

Sailor Moon wrote: the_doctor wrote: Quote:
Im not missing the point. I know its up to the woman, and im saying it shouldnt be because then she is allowed power over somoen elses life. For Catholics the solution is not contraception, but that would be a better option than abortion. You are arguing as if you dont realize that i think abortion should be illegal. Give me some reasons why it should be legal, not just statements about the laws.

For Catholics, well that is a problem and something they need to think hard and long about.

Reasons for abortion been legal. Ok how about this for starters...

1. Age e.g. Teenage pregnancy as in under 16 or 18
2. Rape
3. Medical reason, either the mother will die during child birth or the baby will shortly after birth.
4. Psychological fear of pregnancy.
5. Financial circumstances.
6. Divorce

1- vast minority of abortions (majority are over 25)

2- VAST VAST minority of abortions, so this is kinda off topic. This is like, less than .5% of all abortions.

3. Oh so like 1.5 percent of all abortions? This is a doctors choice, usually, BTW.. and typically ectopic, and typically ectopic pregnancies are a big risk after having an abortion. Next.

4. Psychological fear of pregnancy usually happens to women who have aborted in the past.

5. Welfare/ free college through grants, etc...

6. Adoption/ shared custody/ family.


1. with the creeping rise of under 16 pregnancies, this can change. But figures don't really matter. Even if its one out of a billion. Ultimate solution, contraception.

2. I'd would tend to say its a pretty good reason for many women to have an abortion and therefore pretty much on topic (as a reason alone - not as a subject).

3. Never mind figures, its still a very valid reason. Particularly in a life or death situation.

4. If I was a woman it would scare me to death, so therefore I would say there is more reasons than that of women who had previously aborted foetuses.

5. Welfare? Hmmm, not exactly generous is it.

6. True, thats a valid alternative if point 4 isn't an issue. But what if she has no family or willing partner?

[Sailor Moon]

the_doctor wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: the_doctor wrote: Quote:
Im not missing the point. I know its up to the woman, and im saying it shouldnt be because then she is allowed power over somoen elses life. For Catholics the solution is not contraception, but that would be a better option than abortion. You are arguing as if you dont realize that i think abortion should be illegal. Give me some reasons why it should be legal, not just statements about the laws.

For Catholics, well that is a problem and something they need to think hard and long about.

Reasons for abortion been legal. Ok how about this for starters...

1. Age e.g. Teenage pregnancy as in under 16 or 18
2. Rape
3. Medical reason, either the mother will die during child birth or the baby will shortly after birth.
4. Psychological fear of pregnancy.
5. Financial circumstances.
6. Divorce

1- vast minority of abortions (majority are over 25)

2- VAST VAST minority of abortions, so this is kinda off topic. This is like, less than .5% of all abortions.

3. Oh so like 1.5 percent of all abortions? This is a doctors choice, usually, BTW.. and typically ectopic, and typically ectopic pregnancies are a big risk after having an abortion. Next.

4. Psychological fear of pregnancy usually happens to women who have aborted in the past.

5. Welfare/ free college through grants, etc...

6. Adoption/ shared custody/ family.


1. with the creeping rise of under 16 pregnancies, this can change. But figures don't really matter. Even if its one out of a billion. Ultimate solution, contraception.

2. I'd would tend to say its a pretty good reason for many women to have an abortion and therefore pretty much on topic (as a reason alone - not as a subject).

3. Never mind figures, its still a very valid reason. Particularly in a life or death situation.

4. If I was a woman it would scare me to death, so therefore I would say there is more reasons than that of women who had previously aborted foetuses.

5. Welfare? Hmmm, not exactly generous is it.

6. True, thats a valid alternative if point 4 isn't an issue. But what if she has no family or willing partner?

1- Wrong again. The teen pregnancy rate is at its lowest since the 70s.

2- Killing the infant exploits 2 people, the infant and the mother- a. by killing the infant, and b. by taking the evidence out of the crime scene. only 1 in 500 rapists actually go to jail, ya know..plus the actions of the kids male half (the father) doesnt justify its mother killing it, as well. Plus, if this was the only reason for abortion remaining legal, than women would wrogfully be accusing people of rape, anyways... incest, too...

3- the circumstances surrounding the life of the mother typically revolve around a previous abortion, so yes it is practically moot, at least for abortions that do not involve ectopic pregnancies.

4- Youre not a woman, so you dont know what would scare you, now would you- unless youre a psychic?

5- Welfare is quite generous. And School is covered by community funds as well, something that pro lifers typically push hard for.

6- Adoption. Motherhood, Single parenting. See 5. See also "feminism TODAY- empowering women to head family life" :lol:

[the_doctor]

Sailor Moon wrote:

1- Wrong again. The teen pregnancy rate is at its lowest since the 70s.

2- Killing the infant exploits 2 people, the infant and the mother- a. by killing the infant, and b. by taking the evidence out of the crime scene. only 1 in 500 rapists actually go to jail, ya know..plus the actions of the kids male half (the father) doesnt justify its mother killing it, as well. Plus, if this was the only reason for abortion remaining legal, than women would wrogfully be accusing people of rape, anyways... incest, too...

3- the circumstances surrounding the life of the mother typically revolve around a previous abortion, so yes it is practically moot, at least for abortions that do not involve ectopic pregnancies.

4- Youre not a woman, so you dont know what would scare you, now would you- unless youre a psychic?

5- Welfare is quite generous. And School is covered by community funds as well, something that pro lifers typically push hard for.

6- Adoption. Motherhood, Single parenting. See 5. See also "feminism TODAY- empowering women to head family life" :lol:

1 - Figures mean nothing when it comes to the rights of the individual. I had a look and found this article which I believe is to the contrary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_article_id=299691&in_page_id=1799

2 - There are other ways, the rapists DNA would be all over the woman.
3 - There can be a number of circumstances why a woman doesn't want to go through with a pregnancy.
4 - Well no nor am I telepathic/psychic but I would say I can put myself in the position of someone else.
5 - I find that hard to believe.
6 - That suits some but not all. Remember the rights of the individual and also one size doesn't fit all.

[Sailor Moon]

the_doctor wrote: Mycroft147 wrote:

And heres the reasons why your arguments are worthless:
1. Age of parent has nothing to do with whether or not the baby has a right to life.
2.You are saying that a baby concieved by rape has less rights than one concieved consensually. This is discrimination.
3.You are giving the woman more right to life than baby. Discrimination. If the woman dies it is sad but natural. The other choice is murder.
4.Fear of pregnancy does not justify murder.
5.Financial problems still do not justify murder. If you are poor and have a 5 year old kid who you cant support, you dont kill him, do you? also there is adoption.
and 6. Divorce still doesnt justify murder. Half your reasons would be considered ridiculuous by any pro-choicer.

I stand by my opinions. But...

1. Yes it does. You may think its fine for pregnant minors to be compelled give birth to children but I think they deserve the choice.
2. No it isn't discrimination and a whole lot of issues come into play if a woman becomes pregnant due to a rape.
3. A woman should not be forced to give birth if its going to kill her, yes she comes first over a foetus.
4. Its not murder, end of.
5. Financial circumstances are a large factor in the decision whether to keep foetus or not, and kill a 5 year child - unrelated.
6. Again its not murder. Divorce, in circumstances yes.

To sum up, yes its womans right as to whether have or not have the child and its up to them.

1- no, if theyre old enough to procreate, then they can just as easily partake in childbirth. Plus, at this young age, theyre in better condition to anyways.
Killing is not a choice.
2- Sure its discrimination. What do you think? Dissolving the evidence will empower her somehow?
3- She sure does come first- but only when she cant make any choice herself. She darn well better be dying to have to have her life saved, rather than some speculative notion or misdiagnosis...
4- False. It is murder. It kills, and killing is murdering.
5- You say financial circumstances matter if shes pregnant, but not if circumstances cause her to be poor with a 5 year old. Why the hypocracy?
6- No- divorce is ending a marriage. Theres no need to end a life as well, just to have something to blame it on later.


All of these reasons you cite are nothing more than ridiculous excuses to be used in the future for killing your offspring, to help deny onesself the guilt and grief involved, afterwards. Why do you even make excuses? If you really thought it was a fundamental right, then you wouldnt need to do this. The purpose of citing "reasons" ties well into the term "justifiable homicide", but unfortunately, the only justifiable homicide that exists is when you kill to defend yourself from a life threatening situation, or someone else from a life threatening situation.

[Mycroft147]

so doctor, your whole argument basically comes form the point that its not murder. focus on that, tell me why its not murder. you havent given any reasons or facts or jusification. Why isnt killing something of the species homo sapiens murder?

[Mycroft147]

the_doctor wrote: Sailor Moon wrote:

1- Wrong again. The teen pregnancy rate is at its lowest since the 70s.

2- Killing the infant exploits 2 people, the infant and the mother- a. by killing the infant, and b. by taking the evidence out of the crime scene. only 1 in 500 rapists actually go to jail, ya know..plus the actions of the kids male half (the father) doesnt justify its mother killing it, as well. Plus, if this was the only reason for abortion remaining legal, than women would wrogfully be accusing people of rape, anyways... incest, too...

3- the circumstances surrounding the life of the mother typically revolve around a previous abortion, so yes it is practically moot, at least for abortions that do not involve ectopic pregnancies.

4- Youre not a woman, so you dont know what would scare you, now would you- unless youre a psychic?

5- Welfare is quite generous. And School is covered by community funds as well, something that pro lifers typically push hard for.

6- Adoption. Motherhood, Single parenting. See 5. See also "feminism TODAY- empowering women to head family life" :lol:

1 - Figures mean nothing when it comes to the rights of the individual. I had a look and found this article which I believe is to the contrary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_article_id=299691&in_page_id=1799

2 - There are other ways, the rapists DNA would be all over the woman.
3 - There can be a number of circumstances why a woman doesn't want to go through with a pregnancy.
4 - Well no nor am I telepathic/psychic but I would say I can put myself in the position of someone else.
5 - I find that hard to believe.
6 - That suits some but not all. Remember the rights of the individual and also one size doesn't fit all.

You dont get it, the right to life is more important than any other. You are justifying the violation of that right by saying the mother comes first, which isnt true. When two lives are in danger and the choice is let one die or murder one, the obvious choice is to let the one die. Nothing justifies murder.

[Sailor Moon]

the_doctor wrote: Sailor Moon wrote:

1- Wrong again. The teen pregnancy rate is at its lowest since the 70s.

2- Killing the infant exploits 2 people, the infant and the mother- a. by killing the infant, and b. by taking the evidence out of the crime scene. only 1 in 500 rapists actually go to jail, ya know..plus the actions of the kids male half (the father) doesnt justify its mother killing it, as well. Plus, if this was the only reason for abortion remaining legal, than women would wrogfully be accusing people of rape, anyways... incest, too...

3- the circumstances surrounding the life of the mother typically revolve around a previous abortion, so yes it is practically moot, at least for abortions that do not involve ectopic pregnancies.

4- Youre not a woman, so you dont know what would scare you, now would you- unless youre a psychic?

5- Welfare is quite generous. And School is covered by community funds as well, something that pro lifers typically push hard for.

6- Adoption. Motherhood, Single parenting. See 5. See also "feminism TODAY- empowering women to head family life" :lol:

1 - Figures mean nothing when it comes to the rights of the individual. I had a look and found this article which I believe is to the contrary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_article_id=299691&in_page_id=1799

Your stats are from London, and IN London. In the U.S. the teen pregnancy rate is at its lowest in decades. The article also shows that abstinence should probably be taught more. Bravo!

Quote: 2 - There are other ways, the rapists DNA would be all over the woman.

Not if he wore a condom, or she took a shower, or even waited a day or two (both are very common) before filing charges.

Quote: 3 - There can be a number of circumstances why a woman doesn't want to go through with a pregnancy.

"Doesnt want to" is no reason to stomp her feet like a 2 year old and refuse to.

Quote: 4 - Well no nor am I telepathic/psychic but I would say I can put myself in the position of someone else.

Not a woman or a fetus. Try again.

Quote: 5 - I find that hard to believe.

"hard to believe" or do you refuse to believe it?

Quote: 6 - That suits some but not all. Remember the rights of the individual and also one size doesn't fit all.

Yes remember that the rights of the individual preborn human are also at stake.

[Gilbert1908]

the_doctor wrote: Sailor Moon wrote:

1- Wrong again. The teen pregnancy rate is at its lowest since the 70s.

2- Killing the infant exploits 2 people, the infant and the mother- a. by killing the infant, and b. by taking the evidence out of the crime scene. only 1 in 500 rapists actually go to jail, ya know..plus the actions of the kids male half (the father) doesnt justify its mother killing it, as well. Plus, if this was the only reason for abortion remaining legal, than women would wrogfully be accusing people of rape, anyways... incest, too...

3- the circumstances surrounding the life of the mother typically revolve around a previous abortion, so yes it is practically moot, at least for abortions that do not involve ectopic pregnancies.

4- Youre not a woman, so you dont know what would scare you, now would you- unless youre a psychic?

5- Welfare is quite generous. And School is covered by community funds as well, something that pro lifers typically push hard for.

6- Adoption. Motherhood, Single parenting. See 5. See also "feminism TODAY- empowering women to head family life" :lol:

1 - Figures mean nothing when it comes to the rights of the individual. I had a look and found this article which I believe is to the contrary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_article_id=299691&in_page_id=1799

2 - There are other ways, the rapists DNA would be all over the woman.
3 - There can be a number of circumstances why a woman doesn't want to go through with a pregnancy.
4 - Well no nor am I telepathic/psychic but I would say I can put myself in the position of someone else.
5 - I find that hard to believe.
6 - That suits some but not all. Remember the rights of the individual and also one size doesn't fit all.

The rights of the mother are not absolute so says the Roe V Wade decision. Abortion can and is the province of the state in final trimester because the court recognizes that after two trimesters the state has an overiding interest in protecting the "potential" life (court's term not mine) over the mother's privacy.

Those of us who seek to restrict abortion further than it is presently or those of us who are pro life believe that the court got the principle right but the science and the timing wrong.

So the simple argument that the individual's rights are paramount depend upon which individual you are talking about and when.

If you agree with the supreme court ruling then the argument is not whether the right to life over rides the right to privacy but WHEN and WHY.

For example I am more than willing to stipulate that there be an exception for the mother's life and rape and incest.

The reason I am willing to do so is that would eliminate 90%+ of all induced abortions.

[Dezz]

Mycroft147 wrote: the_doctor wrote: Quote:
Im not missing the point. I know its up to the woman, and im saying it shouldnt be because then she is allowed power over somoen elses life. For Catholics the solution is not contraception, but that would be a better option than abortion. You are arguing as if you dont realize that i think abortion should be illegal. Give me some reasons why it should be legal, not just statements about the laws.

For Catholics, well that is a problem and something they need to think hard and long about.

Reasons for abortion been legal. Ok how about this for starters...

1. Age e.g. Teenage pregnancy as in under 16 or 18
2. Rape
3. Medical reason, either the mother will die during child birth or the baby will shortly after birth.
4. Psychological fear of pregnancy.
5. Financial circumstances.
6. Divorce

And heres the reasons why your arguments are worthless:
1. Age of parent has nothing to do with whether or not the baby has a right to life.
2.You are saying that a baby concieved by rape has less rights than one concieved consensually. This is discrimination.
3.You are giving the woman more right to life than baby. Discrimination. If the woman dies it is sad but natural. The other choice is murder.
4.Fear of pregnancy does not justify murder.
5.Financial problems still do not justify murder. If you are poor and have a 5 year old kid who you cant support, you dont kill him, do you? also there is adoption.
and 6. Divorce still doesnt justify murder. Half your reasons would be considered ridiculuous by any pro-choicer. 1 – I agree age has little relevance outside the extreme
2 – You are arguing that it is ok to force women to have children. I assume you think the rape is wrong…. but forcing them to have children even though they didn’t consent to sex…fine by you. Don’t worry about what they may be doing in life or how a pregnancy may affect their lives.
3 – You are arguing that it’s ok to force someone to give up their life for another. Do you think old people should be slaughtered if a younger person needs their heart to survive? How about being forced to donate marrow to cancer patients? You have two kidneys right? You only need one…. I don’t care if you don’t want to. Sorry but you can’t force people to die because you think it’s right.
4 – Fear is not a good reason, and IMO not a valid reason.
5 – I agree there are options including adoption.
6 – I agree divorce is not a valid reason IMO

[the_doctor]

Sailor Moon wrote: the_doctor wrote: Mycroft147 wrote:

And heres the reasons why your arguments are worthless:
1. Age of parent has nothing to do with whether or not the baby has a right to life.
2.You are saying that a baby concieved by rape has less rights than one concieved consensually. This is discrimination.
3.You are giving the woman more right to life than baby. Discrimination. If the woman dies it is sad but natural. The other choice is murder.
4.Fear of pregnancy does not justify murder.
5.Financial problems still do not justify murder. If you are poor and have a 5 year old kid who you cant support, you dont kill him, do you? also there is adoption.
and 6. Divorce still doesnt justify murder. Half your reasons would be considered ridiculuous by any pro-choicer.

I stand by my opinions. But...

1. Yes it does. You may think its fine for pregnant minors to be compelled give birth to children but I think they deserve the choice.
2. No it isn't discrimination and a whole lot of issues come into play if a woman becomes pregnant due to a rape.
3. A woman should not be forced to give birth if its going to kill her, yes she comes first over a foetus.
4. Its not murder, end of.
5. Financial circumstances are a large factor in the decision whether to keep foetus or not, and kill a 5 year child - unrelated.
6. Again its not murder. Divorce, in circumstances yes.

To sum up, yes its womans right as to whether have or not have the child and its up to them.

1- no, if theyre old enough to procreate, then they can just as easily partake in childbirth. Plus, at this young age, theyre in better condition to anyways.
Killing is not a choice.
2- Sure its discrimination. What do you think? Dissolving the evidence will empower her somehow?
3- She sure does come first- but only when she cant make any choice herself. She darn well better be dying to have to have her life saved, rather than some speculative notion or misdiagnosis...
4- False. It is murder. It kills, and killing is murdering.
5- You say financial circumstances matter if shes pregnant, but not if circumstances cause her to be poor with a 5 year old. Why the hypocracy?
6- No- divorce is ending a marriage. Theres no need to end a life as well, just to have something to blame it on later.


All of these reasons you cite are nothing more than ridiculous excuses to be used in the future for killing your offspring, to help deny onesself the guilt and grief involved, afterwards. Why do you even make excuses? If you really thought it was a fundamental right, then you wouldnt need to do this. The purpose of citing "reasons" ties well into the term "justifiable homicide", but unfortunately, the only justifiable homicide that exists is when you kill to defend yourself from a life threatening situation, or someone else from a life threatening situation.

I think its a matter of choice and the ethic behind this this is cited here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/abortion/femsm_safety.shtml

http://www.womenshealthlondon.org.uk/leaflets/pregab/pregab.html

Women would contine to have abortions if it was criminalised and back to the bad old days of back street abortions. I think you are blurring the line between killing a born child and a fetus that isn't sentient as well as blurring the line between what is murder and an abortion.

To answer your points raised

1. No, a minor may well be able to give birth but is that the best thing long term also the right to choose would rest with the minor in question.
2. Thats not the point, to some seeing a child of someone who raped you may well be a permanent physical reminder.
3. Nope, sometimes she has to make the choice, usually on the advice of a doctor.
4. Again its not murder, how can it be when its legal to
5. Unfortunately, in such a capitalist society financial circumstances to matter - wish they didn't.
6. Not necessarily. It would depend on what stage the woman in question was pregnant and it depends on the nature of the break up.

In regards to that article about teenage pregnancies going on the up, I was merely using it as an indicator for the fact that teenage pregnancies are going up and yes it is in London. But indicative of other places in general.

Abstinence doesn't work, its not natural.

[the_doctor]

Mycroft147 wrote:

so doctor, your whole argument basically comes form the point that its not murder. focus on that, tell me why its not murder. you havent given any reasons or facts or jusification. Why isnt killing something of the species homo sapiens murder?

You dont get it, the right to life is more important than any other. You are justifying the violation of that right by saying the mother comes first, which isnt true. When two lives are in danger and the choice is let one die or murder one, the obvious choice is to let the one die. Nothing justifies murder.

First of all I thought I'd consolidate your two posts into one.

Why is abortion not murder? Hmm. Well to for starts here is something you ought to look at, you too Sailor Moon. This will provide the answers to both your questions.

http://www.abortionisprolife.com/faq.htm

As for letting the mother die for sake of an unborn fetus, I think you are completely wrong and that would be might constitute manslaughter to let the mother die for the sake of carrying the fetus. :-|