Political Crossfire Forums

[Baconstrip]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Also, why cant the man choose to abort their offspring? Or choose to stop an abortion from happening? Isnt that descrimination towards me too? Its just as much my child as it is hers.
Because it is in the woman's body, not yours. It is feeding off her body, not yours. She has to give birth to it, not you. No, it isn't as much your child while it is still inside as it is hers.

[Enoch]

Gilbert1908 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:

I'm sorry that you don't understand that a new born baby has all of their rights, even if they can't yet excercise them.

How is an unexercisable right a right?

How does a 2 year old child, who has NO legal standing in a court of law have any way of claiming a right????

You sound like you are making a MORAL argument, which, by the way we would agree on.
They have the right to free speech, but have not yet developed physically enough to excercise the right.

[Izzibeth]

Baconstrip wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Also, why cant the man choose to abort their offspring? Or choose to stop an abortion from happening? Isnt that descrimination towards me too? Its just as much my child as it is hers.
Because it is in the woman's body, not yours. It is feeding off her body, not yours. She has to give birth to it, not you. No, it isn't as much your child while it is still inside as it is hers.

yes. i'm sorry, but that is how it works. if it could be changed, women would probably be just as eager to change that fact as a number of men would. but it is the woman's body that holds, incubates, protects, feeds, nurtures, the growing fetus. not the man. it is all well and good that it takes two to make the child but it only takes one to "grow" the child. the child is inside of the woman's body. not the man's. giving 50/50 in the decision-making process when it comes to abortion does not work because it does not take 50% of a man's body to help the fetus grow while inside of the woman. your role is basically cut off until the child is born. it is unfortunate, but that is how life works.

[AllAmericanMan]

Izzibeth wrote: i'm sorry... i still am not seeing any females in these forums. where are all of you?


it IS MY BODY. and if i get pregnant and feel i am not ready for a child, if it is conceived through rape/incest, if carrying the child will kill me, if i just don't feel like having a baby, i WILL ABORT the pregnancy. and there is nothing you can do, short of strapping me to a bed for 10 months and depriving me of all MY rights, to stop me from doing so. because it is MY body. people act as if abortion is the decision of choice in these scenarios. i have not met a woman yet who has had an abortion who went all for it without hesitation. but it was her body and her choice. unfortunately the forming embryo could not make a choice but who is to say they would WANT to be born? we make that choice for them in conceiving and birthing. they don't have a choice in the matter. we make that choice.

it is MY body. Her choice of having sex resulted in the creation of a new body, a new human individual. Its no longer just her body at that point. No if abortion were illegal it wouldnt stop, but it would allow the justified punishment for such a heinous action.

[AllAmericanMan]

Izzibeth wrote: Baconstrip wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Also, why cant the man choose to abort their offspring? Or choose to stop an abortion from happening? Isnt that descrimination towards me too? Its just as much my child as it is hers.
Because it is in the woman's body, not yours. It is feeding off her body, not yours. She has to give birth to it, not you. No, it isn't as much your child while it is still inside as it is hers.

yes. i'm sorry, but that is how it works. if it could be changed, women would probably be just as eager to change that fact as a number of men would. but it is the woman's body that holds, incubates, protects, feeds, nurtures, the growing fetus. not the man. it is all well and good that it takes two to make the child but it only takes one to "grow" the child. the child is inside of the woman's body. not the man's. giving 50/50 in the decision-making process when it comes to abortion does not work because it does not take 50% of a man's body to help the fetus grow while inside of the woman. your role is basically cut off until the child is born. it is unfortunate, but that is how life works. Who the child grows in is a petty insignificant detail compared to the overall picture. It is my child. Its is my son or daughter, and the first stages of development do not change that fact. If someone ever killed my son or daughter, i would want to exact revenge on that individual, whether my child was born or not.

[Plodder]

Quote: number of abortions or attempted abortions will not decline. it will only appear that way since the statistics will not be as readily available. and, just as there were before Roe v. Wade.. underground, illegal abortion clinics will be established and will have no shortage of women who require their services. the fight will go on in this country and this issue will be the type to go through many stages.. illegal one generation, allowable the next, illegal the next, and so on. but either way, abortions will continue as women are the only ones who can make the decision regarding the potential life/life of their unborn children. you know. this really all started when a guy called Kinsey published a false article on human sexuality. He basically said that people should have sex all they want. If you read the report its sickening.


You paint an auful picture. My co workers say that it sure as hell was never like that. I belive that all of your statistics are made up. Yopu pulled all that stuff out of your ***. Didnt you?

[Izzibeth]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Her choice of having sex resulted in the creation of a new body, a new human individual. Its no longer just her body at that point. No if abortion were illegal it wouldnt stop, but it would allow the justified punishment for such a heinous action.

correct. it is no longer just her body. but she still has rights over her body, even if her body is incubating another. and her rights SHOULD and DO outweigh the rights of the potential life. unless, of course, you would like to tell me that if a woman is pregnant and continuing with the pregnancy will result in her death... she should have to continue with the pregnancy and wait to die because the unborn child has a right to live too and would be deprived of that right if she aborts it to save her own. whose life is more important in that case? who has more of a right to live in that case? answer it for yourself. and before you say that is irrelevant because U.S. laws allow for abortions in the case of rape, incest or abortions to save the woman's life... look up Ohio Bill 228 (as i started another topic on in this section of the forums).

and again, people talk of punishments but when i asked what people thought would be a suitable punishment for a woman who has committed abortion, only you answered (and thank you) with an actual punishment. no one else had "thought enough about it" to come up with one.

which again, is why i say most people who believe that the mother should not be given a choice and should be punished for having an abortion are only saying so to make themselves feel better about the issue. making it illegal would make most who hold that position feel as if they have accomplished something when, in fact, they have accomplished nothing more than restricting the rights of other human beings without thinking out the consequences. the only kind of punishment i have seen was for the doctors. you don't have to be a doctor to perform an abortion. so, when people say there should be a punishment, where is it (for the mothers)? and if you start imprisoning women for having abortions... we will see a boom in the number of people in United States jails... as if there weren't enough already.

[AllAmericanMan]

Izzibeth wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Her choice of having sex resulted in the creation of a new body, a new human individual. Its no longer just her body at that point. No if abortion were illegal it wouldnt stop, but it would allow the justified punishment for such a heinous action.

correct. it is no longer just her body. but she still has rights over her body, even if her body is incubating another. and her rights SHOULD and DO outweigh the rights of the potential life. unless, of course, you would like to tell me that if a woman is pregnant and continuing with the pregnancy will result in her death... she should have to continue with the pregnancy and wait to die because the unborn child has a right to live too and would be deprived of that right if she aborts it to save her own. whose life is more important in that case? who has more of a right to live in that case? answer it for yourself. and before you say that is irrelevant because U.S. laws allow for abortions in the case of rape, incest or abortions to save the woman's life... look up Ohio Bill 228 (as i started another topic on in this section of the forums).

and again, people talk of punishments but when i asked what people thought would be a suitable punishment for a woman who has committed abortion, only you answered (and thank you) with an actual punishment. no one else had "thought enough about it" to come up with one.

which again, is why i say most people who believe that the mother should not be given a choice and should be punished for having an abortion are only saying so to make themselves feel better about the issue. making it illegal would make most who hold that position feel as if they have accomplished something when, in fact, they have accomplished nothing more than restricting the rights of other human beings without thinking out the consequences. the only kind of punishment i have seen was for the doctors. you don't have to be a doctor to perform an abortion. so, when people say there should be a punishment, where is it (for the mothers)? and if you start imprisoning women for having abortions... we will see a boom in the number of people in United States jails... as if there weren't enough already. You dont want to know my draconian beliefs on punishment. :wink:

There can be legislation against abortion for birth control while leaving clauses for rape and serious medical conditions. The health clause would have to contain wording however that would prevent the mother from just saying i have a headache kill my baby.

Bottom line as I see it: Abortion is the theft of an individuals entire existence. No punishment could possibly equal in severity to that heinous action.

[Plodder]

Quote: correct. it is no longer just her body. but she still has rights over her body, even if her body is incubating another. and her rights SHOULD and DO outweigh the rights of the potential life how is an embryo POTENTIAL life? please can you give one oNE sceitific source for that? please?

[Izzibeth]

Plodder wrote: Quote: correct. it is no longer just her body. but she still has rights over her body, even if her body is incubating another. and her rights SHOULD and DO outweigh the rights of the potential life how is an embryo POTENTIAL life? please can you give one oNE sceitific source for that? please?

no. i will not attempt to give you a scientific source for that. it will just result in another 6 pages of deciding when a human being becomes alive. nothing that i could possibly show you would change your mind as to when you feel a life is achieved.. and that has been proven time and time again on the numerous threads on this issue. my goal is NOT to prove you wrong on that issue anyway. you can believe what you would like to believe. it is wonderful that you would like for every child to be given a chance to live and i would also love for that to be the case... but my point is that the rights of the woman carrying the child come first and she has the right to choose whether or not to carry that child.

if you would like me to rephrase my statement, i will.

"...and her rights SHOULD and DO outweigh the rights of the embryo growing inside of her."

[Gilbert1908]

Izzibeth wrote: Plodder wrote: Quote: correct. it is no longer just her body. but she still has rights over her body, even if her body is incubating another. and her rights SHOULD and DO outweigh the rights of the potential life how is an embryo POTENTIAL life? please can you give one oNE sceitific source for that? please?

no. i will not attempt to give you a scientific source for that. it will just result in another 6 pages of deciding when a human being becomes alive. nothing that i could possibly show you would change your mind as to when you feel a life is achieved.. and that has been proven time and time again on the numerous threads on this issue. my goal is NOT to prove you wrong on that issue anyway. you can believe what you would like to believe. it is wonderful that you would like for every child to be given a chance to live and i would also love for that to be the case... but my point is that the rights of the woman carrying the child come first and she has the right to choose whether or not to carry that child.

if you would like me to rephrase my statement, i will.

"...and her rights SHOULD and DO outweigh the rights of the embryo growing inside of her."

Why do you believe this to be true?

[RedSpectre]

Whilst I do not advocate the murderous slaying of every 'accident' that occurs, and I recognise the right to life of an unborn baby, I disagree with those who regard abortion as never being acceptable - the rights of the mother are important, too.

[Gilbert1908]

RedSpectre wrote: Whilst I do not advocate the murderous slaying of every 'accident' that occurs, and I recognise the right to life of an unborn baby, I disagree with those who regard abortion as never being acceptable - the rights of the mother are important, too.

So then when is abortion acceptable and why? Or under what circumstances should abortion be restricted?

[Snarf]

Plodder wrote: Quote: correct. it is no longer just her body. but she still has rights over her body, even if her body is incubating another. and her rights SHOULD and DO outweigh the rights of the potential life how is an embryo POTENTIAL life? please can you give one oNE sceitific source for that? please?
You have to make it out before we count you in. Life is a rough game. Getting here is even tougher.

http://www.epigee.org/pregnancy/miscarriage.html
http://www.epigee.org/pregnancy/stillbirth.html

It looks like we make two ‘babies’ (as in conceptions) for every one that becomes a known pregnancy. Even more are spontaneously aborted after that point. Making babies is a hit or miss thing that makes up for the brutality of the act in sheer number.

http://www.infertilitytutorials.com/miscarriage_members/incidence.cfm

It's a perfectly valid position to dislike induced abortion, as long as you have a rational answer for why natural abortion is okay but induced abortion is not? Either way, somebody didn't make it to the birthday parties, and to the Pro-life folks, that is a lot of souls flushed down the toilet...

[Izzibeth]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Why do you believe this to be true?

i believe it to be true for many reasons but i will give one that is easiest for me to explain.

if a woman were to get pregnant and somewhere along the way she is told that continuing with her pregnancy will (or is extremely likely to) result in her death but perhaps not the life of her unborn child, she is given the option to abort that pregnancy. if the woman's rights are not more important than or are equal to the rights of the child growing inside of her, why is she given a choice and even urged to abort the pregnancy to save her life? that child has a right to life. as does the mother. and some would say they even have an equal right to that life. yet, the mother would be putting her life first in killing that child growing inside of her if she had an abortion. she is even urged to do so. some women choose to continue with the pregnancy and take that chance and some are forced to abort.. and in other cases the body eventually does it for them.

my rights as a mother carrying a growing fetus inside of me outweigh the right of that fetus.

that is just one of many reasons why i believe that statement to be true.

[Plodder]

Quote: no. i will not attempt to give you a scientific source for that. it will just result in another 6 pages of deciding when a human being becomes alive. nothing that i could possibly show you would change your mind as to when you feel a life is achieved.. and that has been proven time and time again on the numerous threads on this issue. my goal is NOT to prove you wrong on that issue anyway. you can believe what you would like to believe. it is wonderful that you would like for every child to be given a chance to live and i would also love for that to be the case... but my point is that the rights of the woman carrying the child come first and she has the right to choose whether or not to carry that child.

if you would like me to rephrase my statement, i will.

"...and her rights SHOULD and DO outweigh the rights of the embryo growing inside of her." if you refuse to provide scientific evidence then why do you wish to dehumaniz the baby,

[Izzibeth]

Plodder wrote: Quote: no. i will not attempt to give you a scientific source for that. it will just result in another 6 pages of deciding when a human being becomes alive. nothing that i could possibly show you would change your mind as to when you feel a life is achieved.. and that has been proven time and time again on the numerous threads on this issue. my goal is NOT to prove you wrong on that issue anyway. you can believe what you would like to believe. it is wonderful that you would like for every child to be given a chance to live and i would also love for that to be the case... but my point is that the rights of the woman carrying the child come first and she has the right to choose whether or not to carry that child.

if you would like me to rephrase my statement, i will.

"...and her rights SHOULD and DO outweigh the rights of the embryo growing inside of her." if you refuse to provide scientific evidence then why do you wish to dehumaniz the baby,

i do not "wish to dehumanize the baby". i am not a baby-hater who does all she can to make sure that women have abortions and children are never born. i have a different view of when the child ceases to be a clump of forming cells (though, as i have said before, none of that really matters to a pregnant woman. when you're pregnant you're pregnant and the choice to have an abortion has very little to do with how far along you are except for the question "is it too late?")and then moves on the stage of fetus. i have a personal view about which point an abortion should not be legally allowed as i have a different view of when you are aborting a potentiallife and when you are cutting off an actual life. this coincides with my view of a woman's right to choose to abort her pregnancy over-ruling the 'right' of a clump of cells growing inside of her (which, given time, would form a human child) to continue with the process.

and i already explained why i will not provide 'scientific' evidence. which never seems to matter 'in the eyes of God' anyway as is often the response i get (not saying from you.. just in general) and is not backed up by any scientific evidence whatsoever.

[Gilbert1908]

Izzibeth wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Why do you believe this to be true?

i believe it to be true for many reasons but i will give one that is easiest for me to explain.

if a woman were to get pregnant and somewhere along the way she is told that continuing with her pregnancy will (or is extremely likely to) result in her death but perhaps not the life of her unborn child, she is given the option to abort that pregnancy. if the woman's rights are not more important than or are equal to the rights of the child growing inside of her, why is she given a choice and even urged to abort the pregnancy to save her life? that child has a right to life. as does the mother. and some would say they even have an equal right to that life. yet, the mother would be putting her life first in killing that child growing inside of her if she had an abortion. she is even urged to do so. some women choose to continue with the pregnancy and take that chance and some are forced to abort.. and in other cases the body eventually does it for them.

my rights as a mother carrying a growing fetus inside of me outweigh the right of that fetus.

that is just one of many reasons why i believe that statement to be true.

I think it is interesting that you pick the ONE situation on which virtually everyone would support the decision. Self defense the perservation of one's own life is not opposed by nearly ANYONE including the majority of pro life people.

But these situations though more numerous than rape and incest, are still less than 5% of all reasons for abortion. Do you support abortion for ANY reason and at ANY time? If so why and if not why?

[Plodder]

Quote: i do not "wish to dehumanize the baby". i am not a baby-hater who does all she can to make sure that women have abortions and children are never born. i have a different view of when the child ceases to be a clump of forming cells (though, as i have said before, none of that really matters to a pregnant woman. when you're pregnant you're pregnant and the choice to have an abortion has very little to do with how far along you are except for the question "is it too late?")and then moves on the stage of fetus. i have a personal view about which point an abortion should not be legally allowed as i have a different view of when you are aborting a potentiallife and when you are cutting off an actual life. this coincides with my view of a woman's right to choose to abort her pregnancy over-ruling the 'right' of a clump of cells growing inside of her (which, given time, would form a human child) to continue with the process.

and i already explained why i will not provide 'scientific' evidence. which never seems to matter 'in the eyes of God' anyway as is often the response i get (not saying from you.. just in general) and is not backed up by any scientific evidence whatsoever.

even IF I dont buy your source, I want to know if there even exists a source that backs upo your belif.


You sayt a potential life. I have neer heard of a potantial life. If you have a source please provide it or drop the Potential baby stuff if it is absolute crap!

[Izzibeth]

Gilbert1908 wrote:
I think it is interesting that you pick the ONE situation on which virtually everyone would support the decision. Self defense the perservation of one's own life is not opposed by nearly ANYONE including the majority of pro life people.

But these situations though more numerous than rape and incest, are still less than 5% of all reasons for abortion. Do you support abortion for ANY reason and at ANY time? If so why and if not why?

i chose one scenario. whether or not "virtually everyone would support the decision" is irrelevent. i actually don't understand why in that ONE scenario, a woman's rights outweigh the rights of the unborn child and it's okay for her to "slaughter her baby". especially if the unborn would have a great chance of surviving if it is carried to full term. does it matter if only 5% of abortions are the result of rape, incest, or would save the woman's life? there are places that would like to and DO outlaw abortion ENTIRELY. i believe there are 4 states in the United States that ban all forms of abortion but, of course, i do not believe they stop a woman from leaving the state to have an abortion... only Ohio wanted to do that.

i support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion or to choose carry her baby for any reason and i do not believe that the government or any other human being should have the right to make a woman carry a child or make a woman have an abortion against her will... against her rights. in terms of "time" as in "how far along a woman is in her pregnancy", i do believe that there needs to be a cut-off point for abortions that are not the result of rape, incest, or to save a woman's life because i believe at approximately the end of the first trimester, the forming child has a brain which is operating at a low level and a working heart. at this point, it is a living human being (though still, without the mother it would not survive) and i agree with the current abortion practices that many states have (i grew up in MA which i believe does NOT have a 'partial-birth abortion ban' ... but should...) in which the end of the third trimester is the cut-off point. i believe there is a difference between stopping cells from continuing the process of forming into a sentient being and from breaking a child's skull, sucking out it's brains to kill it and discarding the body.

i do not "support" abortion as a form of birth control. i know a woman who had multiple abortions (maybe 3? or 4?) and viewed it as nothing more than birth control. i came to know her after-the-fact but it did not change the fact that when i found out i was pretty disgusted. in the same breath, i would not support any law to prohibit her from being able to make the choices that she did. she said at the time she "wasn't ready to raise a child"... so why wasn't she more careful? i don't know. because she is a human being and human beings are selfish? i couldn't tell you. but i she did what she did and she is the one who has to live with it. she eventually had a child, a girl, who is healthy and growing well.. but things could have easily been different. the body can only take so much abuse before it says "eff you!" and stops working properly. she could have ruined her chances at having children... and that would have been a consequence of the choices that she made in life. but things worked out and good for her.

i strongly believe that women in this country want to have a choice when it comes to this matter and while i would rather see women stop having abortions entirely, if the right to choose in this matter is attacked, i will, personally, do what i can to defend it as will many others (hence why it is not banned entirely in the United States.. and probably won't be again.)