YOU laid out the fucking criteria! YOU said: "EVEN if one day science can conclusively prove that a fetus is living being with feelings, emotions, and whatnot, the question still stands unanswered. DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN A WOMAN'S CHOICE OF HER OWN BODY?"
LIVING BEING WITH FEELINGS, EMOTIONS AND WHATNOT. Those are the criteria YOU provided. Now you come back with some "potential child" bullshit.
Abortion debates are fucking stupid!
its hard to have a respectful debate if ure gonna behave this way.
You answered my initial question abt whether the state had a right to intervene. You said yes, to which I enquired the basis of those beliefs. I asked, is it because once a women engages in sex through choice, she gives up her body to the State's mercy, if she becomes pregnant.
To which u respond in a very childish manner.
If its so stupid why did u get involved in the first place?
Some people here are downright rude.
I've seen so many people try and copy Eddie Vedder's voice. It's as if if you don't sound like him you're not a man. - Emmett Roslan
interesting. hadn't thought of it in exactly those terms before.
i think the difference would be in the choice contained in the actions that lead to the pregnancy. a woman who is impregnated during rape did not choose to engage in said activity, and not allowing her to abort in that case would in fact be controlling her reproductive freedom. it's forcing her to become pregnant in the first place, and then forcing her to suffer the consequences of someone else's actions, not her own.
so it IS ok to murder innocent life, but only under circumstances that YOU find acceptable or excusable?
becoming pregnant during consentual sex, even if pregnancy is not intended and birth control measures are employed, is part of the risk of engaging in the behavior. the risk is a known factor going in. birth control only reduces the risk, not eliminates it. this is where i think we're dealing with a personal responsiblity issue. there's a risk something unintended might happen. you don't intend to get herpes, but you might. and if you do? you'll have to deal with it. you can't just take a pill or stop by the doctor's office and have yourself absolved of the consequences of your actions. you can take measures to lessen the risk that you'll pass it on, but there's still a risk that you will. for example, you owe it to anyone else that you are exposing to this risk the right for them to decide whether or not they want that exposure by telling them what the risks are and letting them decide for themselves. if they know the risks, and still get herpes from you....that's something they've got to live with, right? they can't say "oh, wait. i got herpes. it's your fault, not mine, even though i accepted the risks." having an abortion after knowing the risks and engaging in the activity anyway is akin to blaming the fetus...
imho, of course.
why can't you say she chose to go into the bar and get drunk and accept a ride home from her good friend, then he raped her. being raped while you are drunk and alone with a boy is part of the risk of engaging in that behavior. she should bear the responsibility for putting herself in a position where there might be consequences. you don't intend to get raped, but it might happen. statistically, it's even more likely than getting pregnant while on the pill. so shouldn't she bear the consequences of taking that risk?
Am i ticketed for being at fault, because, if so, i gotta say... yeah.
can you point to any cases where somebody who hit another person in their car was forced to give them their blood or a kidney to remedy the damage done?
its hard to have a respectful debate if ure gonna behave this way.
You answered my initial question abt whether the state had a right to intervene. You said yes, to which I enquired the basis of those beliefs. I asked, is it because once a women engages in sex through choice, she gives up her body to the State's mercy, if she becomes pregnant.
To which u respond in a very childish manner.
If its so stupid why did u get involved in the first place?
Some people here are downright rude.
Oh, please.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
it seems also that anti-choice (I use anti-choice because I feel using the term pro-life a shame) displays few, if any, considerations about the child bearer.
Even in a normal situation of 2 people being together, and in love, there might be other concerns to decide wether to keep a child or not. It might still be unwanted, it might still be an accident, it might still not be the right time.
And I'm talking about experience, even a woman who decided to have an abortion don't come out after it jumping around and singing. I know a few people, and it seems to be very often a very difficult choice to make.
can you point to any cases where somebody who hit another person in their car was forced to give them their blood or a kidney to remedy the damage done?
No, honestly, i can't. But we're speaking in analogies here, now, aren't we. Can you point to any cases where a woman became pregnant by accidentally runnung over a man's dick with her car... or something like that?
Honestly, though its never happened (the whole blood or kidney thing), who's to say it shouldn't? People would probably drive a lot more responsibly.
Look, you and i have been over this enough times. You know where i stand on the issue.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
If men could have babies, this wouldn't be an issue, because the human race would have gone extinct millions of years ago.
Abortion is a woman's right. Trying to ban it is just a man's way of showing a woman who's boss. Men want to control women, and abortion is a great way to do that. What better way to make a woman feel like a second class citizen than to take away the right to have control over her own body.
I love the ladies.
Admittedly, I don't know how I would feel if it were MY child that a woman wanted to have sucked out of her...but I hazard a guess that I would support her if that was her choice. That would probably be the end of our relationship, but I would respect her right to control her body.
In that regard, it's not a whole lot different than when I had a gf who got into drugs. I asked her to choose the drugs, or "us". She chose the drugs. I respected her right to do that, but I kicked her junkie ass to the curb the minute she made that choice.
i apologise if i touched a soft spot i had no idea about your child.
?
i've been a bit confused by this for a few hours now. i don't quite understand the appology, unless i implied something that isn't true. i think you may have missed the point just a little. My seven year old is quite normal. In fact he's very handsome and exceptionally bright for his age. Even so, he hasn't yet reached the cognitive abilities of a full grown human being. Very, very few seven year olds have. To say that abortion is ethically acceptable based upon the fact that an unborn child hasn't reached a level of full cognitive abilities is a bit absurd.
As far as physical pain is concerned, there are ways of killing fully developed adults that are completely painless. That doesn't make it ethical to do so. i don't see the point.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Abortion is a personal matter. We shouldn't need a law saying it's legal- how rediculous! It's not a life until born as far as I am concerned. I would say thought once you reach a certain point say the 7th month or whatever and it is formed and can function on it's own out of the womb then abortion would be a problem. By that point in time you may as well have it and put it up for adoption if you don't want it. And I am for the death penalty- some people will never be reformed!!
don't know about that. i am two years from 40, and no way would i want to be pregnant/have a child now, or at 40. yikes.
however, it is what it is......believe what you want.....just don't try to force your set of beliefs on others. sure, i have a hard time accepting people fighting over it, especially when i think 89% of abortions occur before the 12th week......and the arguement of multiple abortions, i have not seen convincing arguements of repeat offenders, not that it is anyone's business in the first place. bottomline, it IS legal, THANKFULLY, so yea...don't believe in it, don't do it...but don't try and take away the rights of others to do so.
i guess for me i see far worse things occuring in this world, causing living breathing people soo much pain, and you are going to argue over the 'rights' of a living thing, that has no conception of pain, no central nervous system....no idea that it exists...and why? to me, it is a complex of human life being superior above all else...but even that, some are pro-life and yet for the death penalty, etc....yea...i just don't get it. sure, i understand some have various definitions of when 'human life' begins...but if ALL human life is sacred to you, then it must be across the board. can't pick/choose in my opinion...and it can;t be about responsibility/consequences for your actions...abortion IS a viable responsibility/consequence for the action.
I still can't decide.. I still feel an instinct to protect a baby... I can't get myself to say I am ok with abortion. However, I do respect people that make that decision. I see so many children suffering.. So many people that should not be parents with multiple children.. so many poor and hungry children.. I also can't get myself to say its right to force someone to have a baby.
sigh... and I always have an opinion... Damn it!
I will say this though - I am against pro-lifers.. I believe they have priority issues... It seems if they cared so much about children - they would be as seriously against poverty - and shitty schools and unsafe streets - and the ridiculous heath care system... so many problems - and all of them are accepted as just the way it is - except for abortion - well to that I say horse shit!
I still can't decide.. I still feel an instinct to protect a baby... I can't get myself to say I am ok with abortion. However, I do respect people that make that decision. I see so many children suffering.. So many people that should not be parents with multiple children.. so many poor and hungry children.. I also can't get myself to say its right to force someone to have a baby.
sigh... and I always have an opinion... Damn it!
I will say this though - I am against pro-lifers.. I believe they have priority issues... It seems if they cared so much about children - they would be as seriously against poverty - and shitty schools and unsafe streets - and the ridiculous heath care system... so many problems - and all of them are accepted as just the way it is - except for abortion - well to that I say horse shit!
there is no 'baby' in this equation. a zygote, a fetus does NOT equate a baby. COULD be, if allowed to develop and no problems, natural or unnatural along the way...but nonetheless, still NOT a baby. just sayin'.....
there is no 'baby' in this equation. a zygote, a fetus does NOT equate a baby. COULD be, if allowed to develop and no problems, natural or unnatural along the way...but nonetheless, still NOT a baby. just sayin'.....
ahhh.. When they are two days old - they don't seem to be much of people - all goofy looking and floppy... But pretty important
ahhh.. When they are two days old - they don't seem to be much of people - all goofy looking and floppy... But pretty important
absolutely agree.
however, we're not discussing that, now are we? for me, i can differentiate the two, quite clearly. no matter what, it is always an important decision. however, there is a great distinction in my mind...and there are plenty of 'living things'...and being something 'alive'...in and of itself, does not afford special privileges to me. add the fact that such life cannot exist outside it's host/mother...all the more.........a woman's decision for what 'lives' inside her.
however, we're not discussing that, now are we? for me, i can differentiate the two, quite clearly. no matter what, it is always an important decision. however, there is a great distinction in my mind...and there are plenty of 'living things'...and being something 'alive'...in and of itself, does not afford special privileges to me. add the fact that such life cannot exist outside it's host/mother...all the more.........a woman's decision for what 'lives' inside her.
why can't you say she chose to go into the bar and get drunk and accept a ride home from her good friend, then he raped her. being raped while you are drunk and alone with a boy is part of the risk of engaging in that behavior. she should bear the responsibility for putting herself in a position where there might be consequences. you don't intend to get raped, but it might happen. statistically, it's even more likely than getting pregnant while on the pill. so shouldn't she bear the consequences of taking that risk?
so you're saying that it is HER fault if HE's not able to understand that a "no" is a "no" and not a "yes"?
so you're saying that it is HER fault if HE's not able to understand that a "no" is a "no" and not a "yes"?
no, im asking the pro-lifers to justify their arbitrary distinction between "responsible" behavior and irresponsible behavior. they say it's not ok to murder innocent life. then they go on to say that it is ok in the circumstance of rape. so basically, it IS ok to murder innocent life, but only under the circumstances they deem justifiable. they say a woman who has sex while on birth control is irresponsible if she has an abortion even after that birth control fails. if we're talking about forcing people to be responsible like the pro-lifers want, we can take it to ridiculous extremes. women are irresponsible for getting into situtations where they can be raped. people in car accidents are irresponsible for driving when they know it is a risk they will get hurt. you see how ridiculous that criteria is?
we dont deny people the ability to get insurance money after a car accident just becos they know that there are certain risks inherent in driving, nor do we jail people who kill others in car accidents if they were doing everything they could while driving to avoid that risk. so why deny women abortion just becos there are certain risks inherent in sex, even if they take reasonable steps to avoid those risks?
they will say it is becos killing a baby is diff from getting into a car accident. thus, we are back to protecting innocent life. but if that is the case, then they MUST be consistent in protecting innocent life and cannot justify saying abortion is ok in rape, becos it would still be killing an innocent baby. however, they make this concession for political reasons, becos they know the majority of the country finds their views unreasonable. thus, their "respect for life" is nothing more than a political ploy that is more open to compromise than they are willing to admit. it is NOT about protecting innocent life, it is about deterring sex. this is all just a matter of degrees... where do we draw the line? and i simply dont think the pro-life side is logical unless it is opposed to ALL abortion equally.
also, interesting side note learned in my criminal law class while discussing rape: 60% of women admit that they have said no when they meant yes, becos they feel they are expected to resist so they're not seens as easy or slutty. but that's a whole other thread
Americans are responsible, as a whole, for having Junior elected.
He is definitly a major threat to the world, so we have to do something about that issue
Next point is then, making americans illegal all over the world
also, interesting side note learned in my criminal law class while discussing rape: 60% of women admit that they have said no when they meant yes, becos they feel they are expected to resist so they're not seens as easy or slutty. but that's a whole other thread
I'd like to see a survey to address:
Women that have orgasms to those that don't and corresponding views on abortion.
and....weight of men and corresponding veiw on abortion...was trying how good looking they were..but too subjective.
Comments
its hard to have a respectful debate if ure gonna behave this way.
You answered my initial question abt whether the state had a right to intervene. You said yes, to which I enquired the basis of those beliefs. I asked, is it because once a women engages in sex through choice, she gives up her body to the State's mercy, if she becomes pregnant.
To which u respond in a very childish manner.
If its so stupid why did u get involved in the first place?
Some people here are downright rude.
http://theshahril.blogspot.com
London 20/04/2006
so it IS ok to murder innocent life, but only under circumstances that YOU find acceptable or excusable?
why can't you say she chose to go into the bar and get drunk and accept a ride home from her good friend, then he raped her. being raped while you are drunk and alone with a boy is part of the risk of engaging in that behavior. she should bear the responsibility for putting herself in a position where there might be consequences. you don't intend to get raped, but it might happen. statistically, it's even more likely than getting pregnant while on the pill. so shouldn't she bear the consequences of taking that risk?
can you point to any cases where somebody who hit another person in their car was forced to give them their blood or a kidney to remedy the damage done?
Oh, please.
Even in a normal situation of 2 people being together, and in love, there might be other concerns to decide wether to keep a child or not. It might still be unwanted, it might still be an accident, it might still not be the right time.
And I'm talking about experience, even a woman who decided to have an abortion don't come out after it jumping around and singing. I know a few people, and it seems to be very often a very difficult choice to make.
Honestly, though its never happened (the whole blood or kidney thing), who's to say it shouldn't? People would probably drive a lot more responsibly.
Look, you and i have been over this enough times. You know where i stand on the issue.
Abortion is a woman's right. Trying to ban it is just a man's way of showing a woman who's boss. Men want to control women, and abortion is a great way to do that. What better way to make a woman feel like a second class citizen than to take away the right to have control over her own body.
I love the ladies.
Admittedly, I don't know how I would feel if it were MY child that a woman wanted to have sucked out of her...but I hazard a guess that I would support her if that was her choice. That would probably be the end of our relationship, but I would respect her right to control her body.
In that regard, it's not a whole lot different than when I had a gf who got into drugs. I asked her to choose the drugs, or "us". She chose the drugs. I respected her right to do that, but I kicked her junkie ass to the curb the minute she made that choice.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
As far as physical pain is concerned, there are ways of killing fully developed adults that are completely painless. That doesn't make it ethical to do so. i don't see the point.
not so, at forty.
http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
don't know about that. i am two years from 40, and no way would i want to be pregnant/have a child now, or at 40. yikes.
however, it is what it is......believe what you want.....just don't try to force your set of beliefs on others. sure, i have a hard time accepting people fighting over it, especially when i think 89% of abortions occur before the 12th week......and the arguement of multiple abortions, i have not seen convincing arguements of repeat offenders, not that it is anyone's business in the first place. bottomline, it IS legal, THANKFULLY, so yea...don't believe in it, don't do it...but don't try and take away the rights of others to do so.
i guess for me i see far worse things occuring in this world, causing living breathing people soo much pain, and you are going to argue over the 'rights' of a living thing, that has no conception of pain, no central nervous system....no idea that it exists...and why? to me, it is a complex of human life being superior above all else...but even that, some are pro-life and yet for the death penalty, etc....yea...i just don't get it. sure, i understand some have various definitions of when 'human life' begins...but if ALL human life is sacred to you, then it must be across the board. can't pick/choose in my opinion...and it can;t be about responsibility/consequences for your actions...abortion IS a viable responsibility/consequence for the action.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
sigh... and I always have an opinion... Damn it!
I will say this though - I am against pro-lifers.. I believe they have priority issues... It seems if they cared so much about children - they would be as seriously against poverty - and shitty schools and unsafe streets - and the ridiculous heath care system... so many problems - and all of them are accepted as just the way it is - except for abortion - well to that I say horse shit!
there is no 'baby' in this equation. a zygote, a fetus does NOT equate a baby. COULD be, if allowed to develop and no problems, natural or unnatural along the way...but nonetheless, still NOT a baby. just sayin'.....
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
ahhh.. When they are two days old - they don't seem to be much of people - all goofy looking and floppy... But pretty important
absolutely agree.
however, we're not discussing that, now are we? for me, i can differentiate the two, quite clearly. no matter what, it is always an important decision. however, there is a great distinction in my mind...and there are plenty of 'living things'...and being something 'alive'...in and of itself, does not afford special privileges to me. add the fact that such life cannot exist outside it's host/mother...all the more.........a woman's decision for what 'lives' inside her.
anyhoo.......have a great evening.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
You too
www.amnesty.org.uk
Juuust kiddin'
no, im asking the pro-lifers to justify their arbitrary distinction between "responsible" behavior and irresponsible behavior. they say it's not ok to murder innocent life. then they go on to say that it is ok in the circumstance of rape. so basically, it IS ok to murder innocent life, but only under the circumstances they deem justifiable. they say a woman who has sex while on birth control is irresponsible if she has an abortion even after that birth control fails. if we're talking about forcing people to be responsible like the pro-lifers want, we can take it to ridiculous extremes. women are irresponsible for getting into situtations where they can be raped. people in car accidents are irresponsible for driving when they know it is a risk they will get hurt. you see how ridiculous that criteria is?
we dont deny people the ability to get insurance money after a car accident just becos they know that there are certain risks inherent in driving, nor do we jail people who kill others in car accidents if they were doing everything they could while driving to avoid that risk. so why deny women abortion just becos there are certain risks inherent in sex, even if they take reasonable steps to avoid those risks?
they will say it is becos killing a baby is diff from getting into a car accident. thus, we are back to protecting innocent life. but if that is the case, then they MUST be consistent in protecting innocent life and cannot justify saying abortion is ok in rape, becos it would still be killing an innocent baby. however, they make this concession for political reasons, becos they know the majority of the country finds their views unreasonable. thus, their "respect for life" is nothing more than a political ploy that is more open to compromise than they are willing to admit. it is NOT about protecting innocent life, it is about deterring sex. this is all just a matter of degrees... where do we draw the line? and i simply dont think the pro-life side is logical unless it is opposed to ALL abortion equally.
also, interesting side note learned in my criminal law class while discussing rape: 60% of women admit that they have said no when they meant yes, becos they feel they are expected to resist so they're not seens as easy or slutty. but that's a whole other thread
Americans are responsible, as a whole, for having Junior elected.
He is definitly a major threat to the world, so we have to do something about that issue
Next point is then, making americans illegal all over the world
I'd like to see a survey to address:
Women that have orgasms to those that don't and corresponding views on abortion.
and....weight of men and corresponding veiw on abortion...was trying how good looking they were..but too subjective.