Abortion

[GuidoNius]

Why do I get this awkward feeling it's an all-bloke discussion here.

All this abstract morality stuff, all this sanctified life stuff. You got to have a penis to discuss about children that way. It's not like men are volunteering to take most of the caring for children. So why can't they just be a little more screamerish on a topic like this?

Boys, you're acting like hysterical women with all your non-sequiturs. As if you're really interested in the subject other than as a way to show off verbal muscle and as far as verbal muscle goes - I've yet to see something that turns me on :)

Women get pregnant when they shouldn't. You'll all be assuming that if the women then give birth, they should be responsible for their children. You won't be giving a bit of your own time, you won't be happy to pay more taxes for it; now will you. It may befall your grace to argue that the men should also be co-responsible, but, in the end, you won't go to very great lengths to implement that responsibility. Better you don't because it's wholly impracticable.

There we have our little mother with her endearing little child. If the mother is rich maybe things can turn out well for the poo-poo-you-little-baby and that is probably fair enough for many of you because the mother was anyway either stupid or very sinful and in any case shouldn't whine about it too much.

But then again, unfortunately the majority of these mothers aren't very rich. When they were, they would be less probable to forget anticonception and less probable to be impressed by the pope's ban on anticonception. The majority of this majority will also not get very rich because, you know what, higher education isn't quite the easiest thing to do with a toddler on your hands.

Poor mother, poor baby. Because you sure as hell do not want to spend much tax on these poor little bastards, now do you.

Oh what fun it is to fly the flag of principle over these poor little people in all their misery. Ask the poor little bastards, check suicide & criminal statistics of the poor little bastards.

Choke in your own principles instead of making others swallow them.

For God's sake.

[Fallen Angel]

And they say females are more caring,
not this one thats for sure.
And get your silly head out of all those feminist hate books on how you think men behave, unless your one yourself you really havent got a clue.
We care just as much about child issues as women do( ones that place importance on defenceless human beings not being slaughtered for the sake of convienience that is, not you).
Abortion is a right thats true, but these days, and for some time now its been treated more as a rubbish tip.

[dannyp]

abstract morality? uhm ok. what sort of backwards ass term is that? or "sanctified life" -- "you've got to have a penis to discuss about children that way" -- wtf.. no you have to be a goddamn human. and what does 'screamerish' mean?

you're the one trying to show off retarded words, not us.

I think someones really pissed off because they can't get any.

[tnphydeaux]

Agnes Ostic, you offer a hate-dripping screed aimed at men (your preferences appear to color your perspective an ugly shade of bitter), implying all sorts of false assumptions you've become comfortable with (because they support your chosen hateful perspective) in order to argue that serial killing is the solution that best suits the realities. Your voice has merely joined the likes of Kate Michelman, Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, Teddy Kennedy, Howard Dean, bill clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton and others who dehumanize the prenatal alive individual human beings in order to champion killing them as a means of 'birth control'. Notice how many of your champions for killing the unborn are men? Yeah, you've a big bias!

If you represent today's feminist mystique, it's no wonder women are turning away from the NOW and NARAL ghouls and agreeing with the Feminist For Life Ladies like Pat Heaton, Kathy Ireland, and Jennifer O'Neil. Those Ladies don't insist on the ghoulish slaughter rites as a badge of feminism like you are championing. That really gets to you doesn't it ... that there are feminists who don't glory in killing unborn babies thus exposing your brand of the movement for the ghouls you are!

[TwoShanks]

Use of emotive language to illicit a desired response + vapid generalisations + personal attacks + strawman representations of the opposite arguments to your own = appalling debating.

Well done, you've made us all more stupid for reading this.

[tnphydeaux]

TwoShanks, you might want to address your assertion to the person for whom you took the trouble of responding.

[TwoShanks]

I was responding to the following people, and apologies if I may inadvertently miss anyone here:

tnphydeaux
dannyp
Fallen Angel
Agnes Ostic

[GuidoNius]

Oh deary me, it´s like pressing a button on a little teeny-weeny toy & getting that old predictable tune.

You are way too much for me brethren. I will go back to my little kitchen in a little while but please preach to me some more first, ye fine men of spirit.

So y´all (sorry, the Southern accent seems befitting, one needs always to be a bit forthcoming to one´s audience) do not dispute that rotten faith of all the poor little bastards, as I described.

So what did YOU do to alleviate the suffering that came from such highfalutin´ act of morally right behaviour? Did y´all offer to pay more taxes to care for them and for these fine women that did the right thing? Did y´all change the diapers? Feed a little bastard? Cared for him? Picked up tuition fees for the mother such that she´d have a better chance of paying the bastard´s tuition fees such that the bastard is a wee less likely to beget more bastards?

Now did you?

Or do you just prefer to verbally come over and over again on the kick of knowing what is right without feeling what are the consequences?

Ah yes, don´t assume too readily based on a pseudonym what kind of person is it hiding behind the pseudonym. Also, no, I ain´t getting any - I prefer to give & yes I did give a lot lately.

[GuidoNius]

Dear Twoshanks, could you be a bit more explicit on what it is with which I caused you so much pain. I believe the actual people impacted by banning abortion are of some relevance to the debate. Agnes

[tnphydeaux]

Nice try at ridicule, agnes. You don't have the stuff it takes to do a good, a really good job of it though.
[Incidentally, my stepdaughter turned up pregnant and would not tell us whom to contact. Rather than push an abortion, we have chosen to welcome the little one--our close relative. His name is Baylor Bradley, and he's a blessing to us all even in the massive changes due to his arrival. That is affirming life rather than using a serial killer to alleviate the 'inconveneinces'. You are one biotter puppy, agnes. Are TUMS or Digel your favorite candy for the bitterness?]

It is a spectacle to witness bitter people championing the killing of alive individual prenatals as the enlightened way to address 'unwanted' pregnancies. Ghoulish infact. So it isn't sophisticated to try and ridicule your way past that which you have only empty cliches to address.

[tnphydeaux]

Well, step right up here, twoshanks, and prove your own axiom of irrelevance by taking the trouble of posting an irrelevancy! How did your so important post add anything to the discussion? It didn't, but it apparently served your ego to condescend for us. You sad, hollow thing you. Have you any opinion or factual material to add to the discussion regarding abortion in America?

[Waychel]

I think some of us are forgetting here why abortion is legal in the first place. Abortion is legal because the Supreme Court ruled it was a matter of body and personal privacy over religious or moral views. To make abortion illegal would be overstepping bounds by the many (the country, or government rather) regulating the control of any one woman to make decisions regarding her own body. More or less, the woman comes first before the baby, so at conception it is the woman's choice if she wishes her body to go through with the pregnancy or not. Morality has nothing to do with it at all, it’s a matter of rights concerning body and putting those rights over morality. These are after all the Jeffersonian principles that our country was founded on.

In my opinion, "life" does not begin until the beginning of the third trimester, when the fetus is developing fully into a baby with a functioning brain. Most abortions however take place during the first trimester, when a fetus is forming and has not yet developed any real brain or limbs. So unless you believe in life upon conception due to religious views, the "life" of a baby doesn't really begin until sometime into the third trimester from a scientific perspective. Which, abortion has been illegalized to be carried on recently in the first place, if I recall correctly.

Abortion also offers closure. Many act like it is so easy for a woman to go through several months of pregnancy, only to give up what has developed into her own child, to complete strangers. Would you want to give up your own child? Would you want to live knowing that child may not ever have a family, may go hungry, may not have a life worth living at all? Personally, if I was in such a situation, I would rather choose to abort a fetus before it develops into anything rather than remember giving up that baby and being tortured with that every day of my life. Before you say adoption is everybody's option, I think you should have a child for yourself and see if you would choose to give it up in that scenario.

Honestly, this is all blind to circumstance. Abortion costs money and likewise it is a dangerous procedure. Whether a woman chooses abortion or adoption, BOTH are emotionally wrenching decisions to make. They are also personal decisions to make. Try to think if you would be in the situation right now to stop working for several months and care for a child - alone. Try to think if you would be able to give up your child to an absolute stranger not knowing what would happen to them. Then think if you wouldn’t choose to instead undergo an abortion before that blob of cells began to develop into much of anything.

Everyone has different philosophies on life and nobody has the right to dictate another person's or regulate it for them. Especially when lifestyles and circumstances vary so greatly. Stop being so egocentric and judging the lives and circumstances of so many women who's stories and reasons you don't even know.

[GuidoNius]

tnphyd....,

It wasn´t just a nice try. It was damned good & no trying involved.

Anyway, all my applause goes to you for your decision. I am not advocating it, the world would be a better place if it were not necessary. I am merely defending that the world is not good enough a place for it to be unnecessary. (all these "it"´s are in reference to abortion)

You seem to be open to reason. You have to realize that your case is an exception and even if it is a fine one at that, there´s no merit in condemning mothers as well as children to misery just because in some cases it works out and just because for it to work out is really swell.

Agnes

PS: You should not think I am bitter because I really am not - how could you know what or who or how I am. Ah yes, I have three children.

[RebelWithanAK]

Just when I had given up hope, someone with more patience and reason than I ambles along. Coo'. Can I rant about overcrowded orphanages, single mothers and the lack of child care, now, along with rape, poverty, and religion?

[GuidoNius]

Rebel, come again? I don´t follow. Agnes

[TwoShanks]

Since I am not in America, my knowlege of abortion in America is not an issue. Personally I am wholeheartedly in favour of a woman's right to choose, or as you would likely put it, I am in favour of "the serial killing of innocent, defenceless children", until the third trimester. As pointed out by Waychel, this is the scientifically accepted point at which "life begins", regardless of religious views on the matter (which are an irrelevance in any case). Abortions after this stage would be acceptable only if there was serious medical risk to the pregnant woman.

Less abortions would be better from health and economic standpoints, since it's obviously not a preferred method of contraception. Better education about contraception is the key to reducing the number of abortions, rather than simply causing the return of "back street abortions" with a ban.

My earlier post was a complaint about the way in which you choose to conduct debate. Were you to have taken notice of some the points, I would say the post might have been worthwhile. Since you chose to ignore everything I said in favour of unfounded personal insults, I concede that it was probably a waste of effort on my part.

[GuidoNius]

[quote]My earlier post was a complaint about the way in which you choose to conduct debate.

That much you made clear. But what way you exactly complain about is still some sort of mystery to me. Aren´t the people directly impacted in banning abortion of some importance to the issue?

Were you to have taken notice of some the points, I would say the post might have been worthwhile.

Which points? Really, I´m not toying around here. I have no clue which points you talk about. You give me nothing concrete to agree with. You can´t well expect me, to agree that I don´t take notice of any point whatsoever.

Since you chose to ignore everything I said in favour of unfounded personal insults, I concede that it was probably a waste of effort on my part. [quote]

No it wasn´t, I´m trying hard for you not to conclude you wasted your effort. But you said precious little except that you don´t like the way I debate and that I have made personal insults. On the former, what can I do about what you like or dislike and on the latter, which personal insults?

Really, you barge in with meta-observations and believe that´s in and by itself of enough value to condemn with broad strokes everybody. Let me see the light.

[TwoShanks]

Most of the points referred to the other people I mentioned. Yours was only the personal insult stage, directed towards the anti-abortion crowd here. Insults have no place in debate.

[tnphydeaux]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
In my opinion, "life" does not begin until the beginning of the third trimester, when the fetus is developing fully into a baby with a functioning brain. Most abortions however take place during the first trimester, when a fetus is forming and has not yet developed any real brain or limbs. So unless you believe in life upon conception due to religious views, the "life" of a baby doesn't really begin until sometime into the third trimester from a scientific perspective. Which, abortion has been illegalized to be carried on recently in the first place, if I recall correctly.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Your opinion appears to be based on some semblance of reason, but it is contrary to science, the science of embryology. Your lifetime began at conception, your Mother's pregnancy began when you implanted into her endometrial lining of her uterus. From the conception onward, you build all of your tissues and organs; your Mother build none of the tissues, organs, or structures that are you, including the placental sac (space capsule) in which your body grew. Of the 1.2 million ABORTED LIFETIMES each year in America, approximately 15,000 are terminated from the 22 week all the way to the 39th week. It is a proven fact (they're toddling and running around all over the country) that a 22 week aged individual human being can live outside its Mother's body, albeit often with near miraculous medical help. It's nice to have some basis for your beliefs, but if you choose to ignore the religious and the moral, it would behoove you to be more accurate and more thorough with the science you choose to rely upon.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel)
Abortion also offers closure. Many act like it is so easy for a woman to go through several months of pregnancy, only to give up what has developed into her own child, to complete strangers. Would you want to give up your own child? Would you want to live knowing that child may not ever have a family, may go hungry, may not have a life worth living at all? Personally, if I was in such a situation, I would rather choose to abort a fetus before it develops into anything rather than remember giving up that baby and being tortured with that every day of my life. Before you say adoption is everybody's option, I think you should have a child for yourself and see if you would choose to give it up in that scenario.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Your honesty is encouraging but frightening, because it belies a selfish perspective which allows you to dehuamnize the unborn regardless of the truth regarding those little ones. Again, the conceptus turns into an organism seeking to survive in the environment in which it comes to exist at the first evidence of mitosis. The first cell of conception (euphemistically called a fertilized egg0 divides to form two cells of distinct genetic identity, then one of those cells divides and the beginning of the construction process that will be the placental encapsulation has begun ... and this occurs whether in a petri dish or a body. In fact, in vitro fertilization labs will not seek to implant any alive embryo that has not accomplished its encapsulation, because that first membrane structure of the placenta acts to chemically instigate the implantation process, acts to protect the internal structures from rejection by the mother's body, take in nourishment and necessary gases ... the placental, built by the embryo, is the first organ you or I make for our own survival.


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Wychal)
Everyone has different philosophies on life and nobody has the right to dictate another person's or regulate it for them. Especially when lifestyles and circumstances vary so greatly. Stop being so egocentric and judging the lives and circumstances of so many women who's stories and reasons you don't even know.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> First of all, there are very real limits on the actions that effect others which you may take as a part of your philosophy of life. The unborn individual is a separate and unique human being on life support through no fault of its own and as a result of chosen (conception via free will, except in cases of rape) behavior that conceived that new individual. Science defines the newly conceived life as a human being, even in the early age of embryo. Embryo is as real an age along the lifetime continuum of the individual human as is toddlerhood or puberty. As to your last sentence, apply the same verbage to murderers and see how rational is your syllogism.

[tnphydeaux]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,)
I am not advocating it, the world would be a better place if it were not necessary. I am merely defending that the world is not good enough a place for it to be unnecessary.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Only a very small number of abortions are necessary to save a woman's life ... the principle of self-defense is the supreme reason to base a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy, but even that choice ought not carry with it the automatic 'right to a dead baby'; that our current laws grant that specious 'right to a dead baby' is our nations shame and that shame has many parameters we might address in this debate, sucvh as aid to pregnant women without the stigma, welcoming the new individual and embracing the woman who has given (that's right, given, not forced) life support to a fellow individual human being.

What you've offered as the reasons to kill other alive individual human beings fall far short of necessary, and a society that will take the serial killing route for the convenience and expedience of it falls far short of the founding principles and traditional founding values of America. So far you've offered not one legitimate reason to kill fellow innocent human beings.