Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

tnphydeaux · Oct 15, 2003, 07:36 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
Can I rant about overcrowded orphanages, single mothers and the lack of child care, now, along with rape, poverty, and religion?<hr size="1" /></blockquote> You may rant all the Ad Mod will allow, but you've offered mostly bankrupt reasons to embrace serial killing of innocent fellow human beings. Try applying your examples to the following sentence: a woman should have the right to kill an alive individual who came into existence because of her chosen behavior because ___________. It works like this: a woman should have the right to kill an individual who came into existence because of her chosen behavior because she's a single woman; a woman should have the right to kill an alive individual who came into existence because of her chosen behavior because she's poor; etc. The only reasons that have any merit is the case of rape, where a woman's life is increased in danger due to pregnancy by no choice of her behavior, thus she has a right to defend her life; or, when continuing a pregnancy will threaten to end her life even though she chose the behavior that caused the second alive individual to exist ... but neither of those examples ought have an automatic right to a dead second individual patient of the physician if the physician may save the life of that little one while saving the life of the woman.

tnphydeaux · Oct 15, 2003, 07:47 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (TwoShanks,)
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). <hr size="1" /></blockquote> You're absolutely wrong regarding 'when the life of a baby' begins. If you wish to assert such a falsehood, post your proof and we'll discuss it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (TwoShanks,)
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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> You are confusing birth control with contraception. Abortion is 'a method' of birth control. Abortion is not contraception. Ask yourself, 'What is conceived if contraception fails?' Then ask yourself why 'something' has to be killed if the contraception fails.

Waychel · Oct 15, 2003, 09:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually, I would say you are contrary to science and embryology. We are not "implanted" into our mother's uterus, because "we" are not sperm. If that were the case, we would retain none of the genes or traits of our mother, but only of our father. "We" begin to develop only after conception and even then, one must question, "when did I become me?" Conception sets the events of the development of the embyro into motion, but development (obviously) is not instantaneous. Until a brain fully develops, or even begins to develop at all, that embryo is still alive but no different than any tree, plant or flower.

The argument that life begins immediately after conception and not later during the pregnancy process is an entirely speculatory philosophy. One might as well argue that every time I go through my menstrual cycle, I am committing murder by not impregnating myself and allowing that egg to develop into an embryonic form to later become a child.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I'd like to know where you get your supposed facts and statistics. I do not doubt that there are 1.2 million abortions a year, but I do doubt that 15,000 range to being on fully-developed babies. =P

As for ignoring the religious or moral, I do not have your religious beliefs and I'm sure a great number of people in the US don't either. I have morals and values, but then again our difference here is not one of morals, but a difference in when we believe life to begin.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I don't need a lesson here on conception and embryonic development, thank you.

Selfish? I do not believe you are one to judge me or my speculatory decisions being that you know nothing about my life. I already take care of my father who is disabled and has Parkinsons disease, and I practically don't have any sort of life as is due to work.

Assuming I were to miraculously have a sex life right now and somehow get pregnant, I wouldn't be in the position to care for a child at all. I suppose I could, but I would end up sticking it in a day care center all day for the most part, and that is no way to raise a child IMO.

If adoption agreed with me, I suppose I could go through a pregnancy and give birth to the child, but then I would have to live for the rest of my life dealing with having given up my child. My child, too, would have to live their life under the impression that I "didn't want them."

This, however, is all assuming I would have the time to BE pregnant, which I would not. At this point in time my father is relying on me to run his practice for him for the most part, so everything would shut down if I were to take leave to be pregnant.

My only real option would be abortion if this were the case. You seem to forget that for every person that gets an abortion, thats every person with THEIR OWN LIFE, which comes first. I'm sorry, but I already have the responsibility of my father right now, I would not be able to handle being pregnant or having a child. Taking that into account, I can easily see how other people with their own lives and own circumstances choose to have an abortion when faced with an un-planned pregnancy.

Do you want to know what is selfish? Thinking that you know what is best for everybody else's lives that are already in motion.

Waychel · Oct 15, 2003, 09:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tnphydeaux,)
You're absolutely wrong regarding 'when the life of a baby' begins. If you wish to assert such a falsehood, post your proof and we'll discuss it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Oh, is that so? Could you please enlighten me then? I'm so stuck on, "I think, therefore I am."

Waychel · Oct 15, 2003, 09:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tnphydeaux,)
The only reasons that have any merit is the case of rape, where a woman's life is increased in danger due to pregnancy by no choice of her behavior, thus she has a right to defend her life; or, when continuing a pregnancy will threaten to end her life even though she chose the behavior that caused the second alive individual to exist ...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Please explain to me how threatening a woman's life physically, and threatening a woman's life as it is lead and lived every day, are of any more or any less seriousness by comparison to justify abortion?

RebelWithanAK · Oct 15, 2003, 10:56 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
"Unborn baby" is a contradiction in terms. The reason the baby isn't born 20 weeks into the pregnancy is because it isn't a baby then. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

no, but that doesn't mean it is not alive. a toddler isn't a toddler until he/she reaches that stage. a baby isn't a baby until they reach that stage. That holds no bearing on weather or not they are alive, however. Weather or not they are living on their own is a seperate debate, why don't you call it a parasite and suck the shit out of its brain or something eh? ....great idea......<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually, I already did say it was alive (tho before the brain forms, it's a really grey area of "alive") as well as call it a parasite (since a 20 week old fetus cannot live on its own), but that's besides the point. It's not a baby. It's not an independent being. It doesn't fall under our statutes. I don't see people walking down the street with strollers full of translucent fish-like things showing them off to their friends. You REALLY gotta get off the "it's a potential human life" thing. That's like saying every sperm I spill is a life wasted (which is what JFK said at one point, being a devout catholic and staunt proponent against abortion. Another analogy he used is that every aborted fetus could have been a rocket scientist, which is an even more tenuous argument, but that's going off on a tangent). It's fucking ridiculous to argue such blind ideology in the face of where our society stands now.

That said, The mother does fall under our statutes. And there are many physical and socio-economic reasons not to force her into pregnancy and motherhood, not least of which is poverty - and the lack of federal funding for midwiving, prenatal care, day care, schools... you know, what normal, healthy families with two parents that are already well-established with decent wages are supposed to deal with - rape, physical trauma, teen pregnancy, overcrowded orphanages and a host of other problems that are evident and quite rampant in our 'enlightened' society. I don't see you dealing with those properly, so get off the moral high horse already.

Waychel · Oct 15, 2003, 11:35 pm

Question: If they're so against abortion and so eager for women to choose adoption, then why don't they adopt those children? =D I don't see any of the people on these moral high-grounds standing in line at adoption agencies.

So many advances have already been made in modern medicine - many of which affect people with Parkinsons and other diseases - thanks to stem cell research carried out on aborted fetuses too. So for all those "deaths" as some choose to consider them, there is some benefit to life already in existence. I'm not meaning to justify abortion with this, I'm just saying that some good does come from abortion being legal aside from women continuing to pierce their innards with coathangers.

tnphydeaux · Oct 16, 2003, 12:41 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
Actually, I would say you are contrary to science and embryology. We are not "implanted" into our mother's uterus, because "we" are not sperm. If that were the case, we would retain none of the genes or traits of our mother, but only of our father. <hr size="1" /></blockquote> Here's how it works, really. Conception usually takes place in the fallopian tube, when sperm penetrates the ovum. Within six days from that conception event, the zygote has swollen to more than one-hundred cells, with an outer encapsulation that is the earliest evidence of the organ called the placenta, and an inner cell mass and yolk sac. The inner cell mass is the framework that develops the tissues and organs you will need when you exit the water world of your self-constructed placenta, into the air world. The swollen embryo is called a blastocyst at the age when it reaches the uterus because it sends out chemical signals that trigger the woman's uterine vasculature to allow it to burrow into the endometrial lining and then her body begins to form blood vessels that will bring noourishment and oxygen to the dependent embryo.

The embryo of a hundred or more cells with continguous inner mass and outer encapsulation can be conceived and supported in a petri dish, then 'implanted' into the uterus of a woman where it may be able to burrow into the endometrial lining. The process of burrowing into the lining of the woman's uterus is called implanting.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
The argument that life begins immediately after conception and not later during the pregnancy process is an entirely speculatory philosophy.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> No, that is incorrect. You may want to believe that, but you are mistaken. It is not speculation by any measure.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
One might as well argue that every time I go through my menstrual cycle, I am committing murder by not impregnating myself and allowing that egg to develop into an embryonic form to later become a child.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> That's quite a red herring you're slinging about! The ovum is a sub-unit of an organ, and the organ is the subunit of an organism. An embryo is an organism, with sub-units of stem cells, stem cells that differentiate into the tissues and organs of your air-world body.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
I'd like to know where you get your supposed facts and statistics. I do not doubt that there are 1.2 million abortions a year, but I do doubt that 15,000 range to being on fully-developed babies.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> Two sources: the centers for disease control and Guttmacher Institute, the statistical arm of Planned Parenthood. (As to my religious beliefs, well, you don't know since I haven't shared them with anyone at this board.)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
Assuming I were to miraculously have a sex life right now and somehow get pregnant, I wouldn't be in the position to care for a child at all. I suppose I could, but I would end up sticking it in a day care center all day for the most part, and that is no way to raise a child IMO.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> I would respond to that by asking if killing an alive individual human being already in existence is the 'choice' you believe to be superior when that individual is an inconvenience to your lifestyle?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
Do you want to know what is selfish? Thinking that you know what is best for everybody else's lives that are already in motion.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> I speak out for the little ones because I consider them to be our fellow human beings ... and killing them to avoid responsibilities to them is a most uncivilized behavior.

tnphydeaux · Oct 16, 2003, 12:46 am

Rebel with, this is an astonishing mischaracterization: And there are many physical and socio-economic reasons not to force her into pregnancy and motherhood ... Are you referring to conception due to a rape crime, or trying to pass off upon us that the behavior a couple engages in that can cause pregnancy should be void of the natural, thousands of years old consequences thus serial killing of the alive unborn is enlightened social policy? Rape may force a woman into pregnancy--and if it does, her right of self-defense allows her to terminate the pregnancy, but voluntary sexual activity is hardly force.

tnphydeaux · Oct 16, 2003, 12:52 am

Waychel, you asserted, I don't see any of the people on these moral high-grounds standing in line at adoption agencies. Actually, Rachel, those 'religious' folks are the very ones who are adopting the babies, and many are being lifted from poverty in third world nations! It is the people who value the life of the little ones, those 'moral high-grounders', who are adopting, and because America kills 1.2 million already alive individuals in utero each year, there aren't enough children here to meet the demands for adoption so these 'dreaded moral high-grounders' are going to other nations for these children.

Waychel · Oct 16, 2003, 12:54 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tnphydeaux,)
Are you referring to conception due to a rape crime, or trying to pass off upon us that the behavior a couple engages in that can cause pregnancy should be void of the natural, thousands of years old consequences thus serial killing of the alive unborn is enlightened social policy?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Again, I have to ask, how is abortion justifiable in the circumstance of rape yet not in the circumstance of an un-intended pregnancy resulting from consentual intercourse?

This is all not withstanding the fact that no counter-contreceptive measures are 100% failproof. Condoms break, birth control pills can't be taken continously because they cause too many health problems.. I suppose you think that the whole world should practice celibacy(sp) to not be at fault?

Waychel · Oct 16, 2003, 01:11 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tnphydeaux)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
The argument that life begins immediately after conception and not later during the pregnancy process is an entirely speculatory philosophy.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> No, that is incorrect. You may want to believe that, but you are mistaken. It is not speculation by any measure.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Okay, let me rephrase then since you seem to be misunderstanding me: Thought processes and functions do not begin at conception. At conception, there are no limbs, there is no brain. Even once the fetus is in its beginning stages, it cannot THINK. That's because it is not yet a baby, it is a glob of cells that is developing into one. Not everyone believes in "life upon conception," which is why this is acceptable. Removing a fetus to many is just the same as removing an appendix. Only personal philosophy brings this issue of "life" into it, and not everyone has your views - so why should your views regulate what they choose to do to their own body?

Nobody LIKES abortion. The bottom line is, should a woman under whatever circumstances have the choice to get an abortion or not. IMO they should have that choice because that's their choice to make, not anybody else's.

I'd also rather see a woman undergo an abortion in the sanitary confines of a hospital and have that fetus go to medical science, where it may improve many lives that already exist. The other option is to outlaw abortion and have women give birth to fully matured babies in public restrooms, then drown them in toilets.

tnphydeaux · Oct 16, 2003, 02:11 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
Okay, let me rephrase then since you seem to be misunderstanding me: Thought processes and functions do not begin at conception. At conception, there are no limbs, there is no brain. Even once the fetus is in its beginning stages, it cannot THINK. That's because it is not yet a baby, it is a glob of cells that is developing into one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> The brain is but one organ of the organism. The organism that is you was in evidence with the second cell division of you lifetime. And if you insist on attaching brain function to the right to life, know this, you are not fully functioning brain-body connection-wise until several months after your birth. This means you've chosen an arbitrary point at which you would convey right to life, and THAT IS a philosophical approach as opposed to a sceintific approach.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
so why should your views regulate what they choose to do to their own body?<hr size="1" /></blockquote> Rachel, I don't care what you do with your body, but you are ignoring the body of the other alive individual human being in this equation. It's going to be hard to give up the specious right to kill other innocent human beings, isn't it, because this serial killing has become so depended upon to relieve men and women of their responsibilities for their sexual behavior.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
I'd also rather see a woman undergo an abortion in the sanitary confines of a hospital and have that fetus go to medical science, where it may improve many lives that already exist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> Sounds a whole lot like the 'improve the species by cannibalizing some chosen members' argument. That's chilling, Rachel.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
The other option is to outlaw abortion and have women give birth to fully matured babies in public restrooms, then drown them in toilets.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> Oh really?... no other possibilities, just terminate the prenatals in sanitary hospitals or drown them in toilets?

You win, Rachel, I'll not bother you further. Happy trails ... watch out for those ricocheting red herrings and strawmen you keep tossing into the discussion.

Fallen Angel · Oct 16, 2003, 03:38 am

I can give only one word that should be mulled over by the femnasties on here, its called responsibility, yes that word you have been screeching at men for the last twenty years but can't seem to apply to an innocent life form that you are supposed to be nurturing.
Not throwing away because the condom broke, or my career is more important, or I don't know who the father is, thats your fault.
You are above all else the carriers of life, your womb is not some kind of toilet to be flushed when you feel like.
Please, do yourself a favor and the poor kid you kill and steralise yourself, if you are not up to the purpose of what God made you to be, then don't be it permanently.
On the other hand, a woman has every right to an abortion if raped( don't throw that date rape crap at me either) provided its early.
Also if for extreme medical reasons, like baby is incredibly deformed and will have a pain filled life, then a mercy aborting could be done.
I make no excuses for men who don't help out raising the child once proven it is theirs, they are just as guilty of not taking any responsibility.
I lived in one suburb where my female neighbor had four kids to three fathers, what a disqusting mess, this morally bankrupt society has created.

GuidoNius · Oct 16, 2003, 04:16 am

tnphydeaux and Waichel,

(as you seem the active discussants driven by more than just the kick of seeing a string of your own words in print)

I have nothing, nothing at all, against people who are against abortion. We have a certain freedom to be against things. I am merely concerned with stating the case that life isn't very simple and in given circumstances:

1. banning abortion causes more human suffering than not banning it

2. some people shout against abortion from an ivory tower of moral absolutes and such shouting mainly creates a headache for those not in that ivory tower

3. violent intimidation of people involved in abortion when it is legal is not at all a road paved with much success

As to tnphy's point, yes, one should not be content just to accept a practical state of affairs where many people feel compelled to run for abortion. Most people that are actually involved in abortion would feel much better if it were performed much less.

However, in striving (against for instance some catholic moral knights) to avoid an unexpected pregnancy one effectively strives for the abolition of abortion - this is all fine and well but as long as one has not achieved success in this strive, one has to see the actual concrete suffering that is still produced by all this actual concrete unexpected pregnancy. Abortion has been legalized in this setting.

The same goes for striving to provide better care for single mothers, striving for a better network of adoptioners and so on and so forth.

Our human predicament is far from ideal, one should therefore not force an ideal standard on everybody involved.

Agnes Ostic

GuidoNius · Oct 16, 2003, 04:34 am

Twoshanks, all very well but "which personal insults?". If you find the power to go and condemn please reserve some energy for finding a quote. Agnes

GuidoNius · Oct 16, 2003, 04:37 am

Fallen Angel, you have the uncanny ability to make the point of your adversary. I salute your skill in pushing the feminist agenda. Luckily, I'm not a feminist because if I was, I would feel humbled by your argumentative power for feminism. Agnes

Fallen Angel · Oct 16, 2003, 09:54 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,)
Fallen Angel, you have the uncanny ability to make the point of your adversary. I salute your skill in pushing the feminist agenda. Luckily, I'm not a feminist because if I was, I would feel humbled by your argumentative power for feminism. Agnes<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well if your not a feminist what the hell are you?
And the last cause I would want to go out and bat for is one that hates men and children.

GuidoNius · Oct 16, 2003, 10:33 am

What a man wants and what a man gets are two different things alltogether.

I am Agnes, all stereotyping is fully and completely in your head.

Waychel · Oct 16, 2003, 02:04 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,)
I can give only one word that should be mulled over by the femnasties on here, its called responsibility, yes that word you have been screeching at men for the last twenty years but can't seem to apply to an innocent life form that you are supposed to be nurturing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Uhm, excuse me? Am I insulting you for being pro-life? So why do you stereotype me as being some kind of feminist and then call me a "femnasty" just because I believe nobody should dictate whether every woman regardless of circumstance should or should not go through pregnancy?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,)
Not throwing away because the condom broke, or my career is more important, or I don't know who the father is, thats your fault.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is pretty narrow minded of peoples' lives. As I said before, if I was in such a situation as to become pregnant, I would not be able to go through the pregnancy because I already have to take care of my dad due to his Parkinsons.

Everyone has a different life, different reasons, different situations. I mean no offense, but it is beyond ignorant to act omnipotent in your judgment and believe you know everyone's lives, everyone's reasons, and can judge them.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,)
You are above all else the carriers of life, your womb is not some kind of toilet to be flushed when you feel like.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Tell Aunt Flo that.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,)
Please, do yourself a favor and the poor kid you kill and steralise yourself, if you are not up to the purpose of what God made you to be, then don't be it permanently.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Just because someone may not be in the position right now to have kids, doesn't mean they may not want them in the future. Personally, I don't plan on ever having kids (If I ever get married and my husband wants kids, I will probably just adopt). But I can still understand that many other people want to have kids someday in their life - just not right now.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,)
On the other hand, a woman has every right to an abortion if raped( don't throw that date rape crap at me either) provided its early.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Again, please explain to be how it is justifiable to go through with an abortion early on if a woman is raped, yet not if a woman is forced with pregnancy un-planned?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,)
Also if for extreme medical reasons, like baby is incredibly deformed and will have a pain filled life, then a mercy aborting could be done.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What about if the child were to go through with a life with no love, no family? These are the very questions every woman who has ever put their child up for adoption has to struggle with every day of their life. That suffering would be just the same for a child as physical pain, disorder or deformity.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,)
I make no excuses for men who don't help out raising the child once proven it is theirs, they are just as guilty of not taking any responsibility. I lived in one suburb where my female neighbor had four kids to three fathers, what a disqusting mess, this morally bankrupt society has created.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Let's assume for a moment she had 15 children with a 16th on the way, would you say even then that she shouldn't go through with abortion?

Honestly, all these attacks are nothing but moral ones, and personal. Its pretty arrogant to judge all the women on the planet who condone, consider or will go through with abortion as all being loose women without a moral or responsible fiber in their bodies.

Oct 15, 2003, 07:36 pm	#81 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) Can I rant about overcrowded orphanages, single mothers and the lack of child care, now, along with rape, poverty, and religion?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You may rant all the Ad Mod will allow, but you've offered mostly bankrupt reasons to embrace serial killing of innocent fellow human beings. Try applying your examples to the following sentence: a woman should have the right to kill an alive individual who came into existence because of her chosen behavior because ___________. It works like this: a woman should have the right to kill an individual who came into existence because of her chosen behavior because she's a single woman; a woman should have the right to kill an alive individual who came into existence because of her chosen behavior because she's poor; etc. The only reasons that have any merit is the case of rape, where a woman's life is increased in danger due to pregnancy by no choice of her behavior, thus she has a right to defend her life; or, when continuing a pregnancy will threaten to end her life even though she chose the behavior that caused the second alive individual to exist ... but neither of those examples ought have an automatic right to a dead second individual patient of the physician if the physician may save the life of that little one while saving the life of the woman.

Oct 15, 2003, 07:47 pm	#82 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (TwoShanks,) 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). <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You're absolutely wrong regarding 'when the life of a baby' begins. If you wish to assert such a falsehood, post your proof and we'll discuss it. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (TwoShanks,) 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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You are confusing birth control with contraception. Abortion is 'a method' of birth control. Abortion is not contraception. Ask yourself, 'What is conceived if contraception fails?' Then ask yourself why 'something' has to be killed if the contraception fails.

Oct 15, 2003, 09:28 pm	#83 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by 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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, I would say you are contrary to science and embryology. We are not "implanted" into our mother's uterus, because "we" are not sperm. If that were the case, we would retain none of the genes or traits of our mother, but only of our father. "We" begin to develop only after conception and even then, one must question, "when did I become me?" Conception sets the events of the development of the embyro into motion, but development (obviously) is not instantaneous. Until a brain fully develops, or even begins to develop at all, that embryo is still alive but no different than any tree, plant or flower. The argument that life begins immediately after conception and not later during the pregnancy process is an entirely speculatory philosophy. One might as well argue that every time I go through my menstrual cycle, I am committing murder by not impregnating myself and allowing that egg to develop into an embryonic form to later become a child. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by 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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'd like to know where you get your supposed facts and statistics. I do not doubt that there are 1.2 million abortions a year, but I do doubt that 15,000 range to being on fully-developed babies. =P As for ignoring the religious or moral, I do not have your religious beliefs and I'm sure a great number of people in the US don't either. I have morals and values, but then again our difference here is not one of morals, but a difference in when we believe life to begin. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by 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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don't need a lesson here on conception and embryonic development, thank you. Selfish? I do not believe you are one to judge me or my speculatory decisions being that you know nothing about my life. I already take care of my father who is disabled and has Parkinsons disease, and I practically don't have any sort of life as is due to work. Assuming I were to miraculously have a sex life right now and somehow get pregnant, I wouldn't be in the position to care for a child at all. I suppose I could, but I would end up sticking it in a day care center all day for the most part, and that is no way to raise a child IMO. If adoption agreed with me, I suppose I could go through a pregnancy and give birth to the child, but then I would have to live for the rest of my life dealing with having given up my child. My child, too, would have to live their life under the impression that I "didn't want them." This, however, is all assuming I would have the time to BE pregnant, which I would not. At this point in time my father is relying on me to run his practice for him for the most part, so everything would shut down if I were to take leave to be pregnant. My only real option would be abortion if this were the case. You seem to forget that for every person that gets an abortion, thats every person with THEIR OWN LIFE, which comes first. I'm sorry, but I already have the responsibility of my father right now, I would not be able to handle being pregnant or having a child. Taking that into account, I can easily see how other people with their own lives and own circumstances choose to have an abortion when faced with an un-planned pregnancy. Do you want to know what is selfish? Thinking that you know what is best for everybody else's lives that are already in motion. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 15, 2003, 09:34 pm	#84 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tnphydeaux,) You're absolutely wrong regarding 'when the life of a baby' begins. If you wish to assert such a falsehood, post your proof and we'll discuss it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Oh, is that so? Could you please enlighten me then? I'm so stuck on, "I think, therefore I am." Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 15, 2003, 09:37 pm	#85 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tnphydeaux,) The only reasons that have any merit is the case of rape, where a woman's life is increased in danger due to pregnancy by no choice of her behavior, thus she has a right to defend her life; or, when continuing a pregnancy will threaten to end her life even though she chose the behavior that caused the second alive individual to exist ...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Please explain to me how threatening a woman's life physically, and threatening a woman's life as it is lead and lived every day, are of any more or any less seriousness by comparison to justify abortion? Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 15, 2003, 10:56 pm	#86 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dannyp,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) "Unborn baby" is a contradiction in terms. The reason the baby isn't born 20 weeks into the pregnancy is because it isn't a baby then. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> no, but that doesn't mean it is not alive. a toddler isn't a toddler until he/she reaches that stage. a baby isn't a baby until they reach that stage. That holds no bearing on weather or not they are alive, however. Weather or not they are living on their own is a seperate debate, why don't you call it a parasite and suck the shit out of its brain or something eh? ....great idea......<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, I already did say it was alive (tho before the brain forms, it's a really grey area of "alive") as well as call it a parasite (since a 20 week old fetus cannot live on its own), but that's besides the point. It's not a baby. It's not an independent being. It doesn't fall under our statutes. I don't see people walking down the street with strollers full of translucent fish-like things showing them off to their friends. You REALLY gotta get off the "it's a potential human life" thing. That's like saying every sperm I spill is a life wasted (which is what JFK said at one point, being a devout catholic and staunt proponent against abortion. Another analogy he used is that every aborted fetus could have been a rocket scientist, which is an even more tenuous argument, but that's going off on a tangent). It's fucking ridiculous to argue such blind ideology in the face of where our society stands now. That said, The mother does fall under our statutes. And there are many physical and socio-economic reasons not to force her into pregnancy and motherhood, not least of which is poverty - and the lack of federal funding for midwiving, prenatal care, day care, schools... you know, what normal, healthy families with two parents that are already well-established with decent wages are supposed to deal with - rape, physical trauma, teen pregnancy, overcrowded orphanages and a host of other problems that are evident and quite rampant in our 'enlightened' society. I don't see you dealing with those properly, so get off the moral high horse already. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 15, 2003, 11:35 pm	#87 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Question: If they're so against abortion and so eager for women to choose adoption, then why don't they adopt those children? =D I don't see any of the people on these moral high-grounds standing in line at adoption agencies. So many advances have already been made in modern medicine - many of which affect people with Parkinsons and other diseases - thanks to stem cell research carried out on aborted fetuses too. So for all those "deaths" as some choose to consider them, there is some benefit to life already in existence. I'm not meaning to justify abortion with this, I'm just saying that some good does come from abortion being legal aside from women continuing to pierce their innards with coathangers. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 16, 2003, 12:41 am	#88 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) Actually, I would say you are contrary to science and embryology. We are not "implanted" into our mother's uterus, because "we" are not sperm. If that were the case, we would retain none of the genes or traits of our mother, but only of our father. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Here's how it works, really. Conception usually takes place in the fallopian tube, when sperm penetrates the ovum. Within six days from that conception event, the zygote has swollen to more than one-hundred cells, with an outer encapsulation that is the earliest evidence of the organ called the placenta, and an inner cell mass and yolk sac. The inner cell mass is the framework that develops the tissues and organs you will need when you exit the water world of your self-constructed placenta, into the air world. The swollen embryo is called a blastocyst at the age when it reaches the uterus because it sends out chemical signals that trigger the woman's uterine vasculature to allow it to burrow into the endometrial lining and then her body begins to form blood vessels that will bring noourishment and oxygen to the dependent embryo. The embryo of a hundred or more cells with continguous inner mass and outer encapsulation can be conceived and supported in a petri dish, then 'implanted' into the uterus of a woman where it may be able to burrow into the endometrial lining. The process of burrowing into the lining of the woman's uterus is called implanting. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) The argument that life begins immediately after conception and not later during the pregnancy process is an entirely speculatory philosophy.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, that is incorrect. You may want to believe that, but you are mistaken. It is not speculation by any measure. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) One might as well argue that every time I go through my menstrual cycle, I am committing murder by not impregnating myself and allowing that egg to develop into an embryonic form to later become a child.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's quite a red herring you're slinging about! The ovum is a sub-unit of an organ, and the organ is the subunit of an organism. An embryo is an organism, with sub-units of stem cells, stem cells that differentiate into the tissues and organs of your air-world body. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) I'd like to know where you get your supposed facts and statistics. I do not doubt that there are 1.2 million abortions a year, but I do doubt that 15,000 range to being on fully-developed babies.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Two sources: the centers for disease control and Guttmacher Institute, the statistical arm of Planned Parenthood. (As to my religious beliefs, well, you don't know since I haven't shared them with anyone at this board.) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) Assuming I were to miraculously have a sex life right now and somehow get pregnant, I wouldn't be in the position to care for a child at all. I suppose I could, but I would end up sticking it in a day care center all day for the most part, and that is no way to raise a child IMO.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I would respond to that by asking if killing an alive individual human being already in existence is the 'choice' you believe to be superior when that individual is an inconvenience to your lifestyle? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) Do you want to know what is selfish? Thinking that you know what is best for everybody else's lives that are already in motion.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I speak out for the little ones because I consider them to be our fellow human beings ... and killing them to avoid responsibilities to them is a most uncivilized behavior.

Oct 16, 2003, 12:46 am	#89 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	Rebel with, this is an astonishing mischaracterization: And there are many physical and socio-economic reasons not to force her into pregnancy and motherhood ... Are you referring to conception due to a rape crime, or trying to pass off upon us that the behavior a couple engages in that can cause pregnancy should be void of the natural, thousands of years old consequences thus serial killing of the alive unborn is enlightened social policy? Rape may force a woman into pregnancy--and if it does, her right of self-defense allows her to terminate the pregnancy, but voluntary sexual activity is hardly force.

Oct 16, 2003, 12:52 am	#90 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	Waychel, you asserted, I don't see any of the people on these moral high-grounds standing in line at adoption agencies. Actually, Rachel, those 'religious' folks are the very ones who are adopting the babies, and many are being lifted from poverty in third world nations! It is the people who value the life of the little ones, those 'moral high-grounders', who are adopting, and because America kills 1.2 million already alive individuals in utero each year, there aren't enough children here to meet the demands for adoption so these 'dreaded moral high-grounders' are going to other nations for these children.

Oct 16, 2003, 12:54 am	#91 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tnphydeaux,) Are you referring to conception due to a rape crime, or trying to pass off upon us that the behavior a couple engages in that can cause pregnancy should be void of the natural, thousands of years old consequences thus serial killing of the alive unborn is enlightened social policy?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Again, I have to ask, how is abortion justifiable in the circumstance of rape yet not in the circumstance of an un-intended pregnancy resulting from consentual intercourse? This is all not withstanding the fact that no counter-contreceptive measures are 100% failproof. Condoms break, birth control pills can't be taken continously because they cause too many health problems.. I suppose you think that the whole world should practice celibacy(sp) to not be at fault? Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 16, 2003, 01:11 am	#92 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tnphydeaux) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) The argument that life begins immediately after conception and not later during the pregnancy process is an entirely speculatory philosophy.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, that is incorrect. You may want to believe that, but you are mistaken. It is not speculation by any measure.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Okay, let me rephrase then since you seem to be misunderstanding me: Thought processes and functions do not begin at conception. At conception, there are no limbs, there is no brain. Even once the fetus is in its beginning stages, it cannot THINK. That's because it is not yet a baby, it is a glob of cells that is developing into one. Not everyone believes in "life upon conception," which is why this is acceptable. Removing a fetus to many is just the same as removing an appendix. Only personal philosophy brings this issue of "life" into it, and not everyone has your views - so why should your views regulate what they choose to do to their own body? Nobody LIKES abortion. The bottom line is, should a woman under whatever circumstances have the choice to get an abortion or not. IMO they should have that choice because that's their choice to make, not anybody else's. I'd also rather see a woman undergo an abortion in the sanitary confines of a hospital and have that fetus go to medical science, where it may improve many lives that already exist. The other option is to outlaw abortion and have women give birth to fully matured babies in public restrooms, then drown them in toilets. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 16, 2003, 02:11 am	#93 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) Okay, let me rephrase then since you seem to be misunderstanding me: Thought processes and functions do not begin at conception. At conception, there are no limbs, there is no brain. Even once the fetus is in its beginning stages, it cannot THINK. That's because it is not yet a baby, it is a glob of cells that is developing into one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The brain is but one organ of the organism. The organism that is you was in evidence with the second cell division of you lifetime. And if you insist on attaching brain function to the right to life, know this, you are not fully functioning brain-body connection-wise until several months after your birth. This means you've chosen an arbitrary point at which you would convey right to life, and THAT IS a philosophical approach as opposed to a sceintific approach. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) so why should your views regulate what they choose to do to their own body?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Rachel, I don't care what you do with your body, but you are ignoring the body of the other alive individual human being in this equation. It's going to be hard to give up the specious right to kill other innocent human beings, isn't it, because this serial killing has become so depended upon to relieve men and women of their responsibilities for their sexual behavior. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) I'd also rather see a woman undergo an abortion in the sanitary confines of a hospital and have that fetus go to medical science, where it may improve many lives that already exist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Sounds a whole lot like the 'improve the species by cannibalizing some chosen members' argument. That's chilling, Rachel. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) The other option is to outlaw abortion and have women give birth to fully matured babies in public restrooms, then drown them in toilets.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Oh really?... no other possibilities, just terminate the prenatals in sanitary hospitals or drown them in toilets? You win, Rachel, I'll not bother you further. Happy trails ... watch out for those ricocheting red herrings and strawmen you keep tossing into the discussion.

Oct 16, 2003, 03:38 am	#94 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	I can give only one word that should be mulled over by the femnasties on here, its called responsibility, yes that word you have been screeching at men for the last twenty years but can't seem to apply to an innocent life form that you are supposed to be nurturing. Not throwing away because the condom broke, or my career is more important, or I don't know who the father is, thats your fault. You are above all else the carriers of life, your womb is not some kind of toilet to be flushed when you feel like. Please, do yourself a favor and the poor kid you kill and steralise yourself, if you are not up to the purpose of what God made you to be, then don't be it permanently. On the other hand, a woman has every right to an abortion if raped( don't throw that date rape crap at me either) provided its early. Also if for extreme medical reasons, like baby is incredibly deformed and will have a pain filled life, then a mercy aborting could be done. I make no excuses for men who don't help out raising the child once proven it is theirs, they are just as guilty of not taking any responsibility. I lived in one suburb where my female neighbor had four kids to three fathers, what a disqusting mess, this morally bankrupt society has created.

Oct 16, 2003, 04:16 am	#95 (permalink) (top)
GuidoNius Molten Ash Posts: 51	tnphydeaux and Waichel, (as you seem the active discussants driven by more than just the kick of seeing a string of your own words in print) I have nothing, nothing at all, against people who are against abortion. We have a certain freedom to be against things. I am merely concerned with stating the case that life isn't very simple and in given circumstances: 1. banning abortion causes more human suffering than not banning it 2. some people shout against abortion from an ivory tower of moral absolutes and such shouting mainly creates a headache for those not in that ivory tower 3. violent intimidation of people involved in abortion when it is legal is not at all a road paved with much success As to tnphy's point, yes, one should not be content just to accept a practical state of affairs where many people feel compelled to run for abortion. Most people that are actually involved in abortion would feel much better if it were performed much less. However, in striving (against for instance some catholic moral knights) to avoid an unexpected pregnancy one effectively strives for the abolition of abortion - this is all fine and well but as long as one has not achieved success in this strive, one has to see the actual concrete suffering that is still produced by all this actual concrete unexpected pregnancy. Abortion has been legalized in this setting. The same goes for striving to provide better care for single mothers, striving for a better network of adoptioners and so on and so forth. Our human predicament is far from ideal, one should therefore not force an ideal standard on everybody involved. Agnes Ostic

Oct 16, 2003, 04:34 am	#96 (permalink) (top)
GuidoNius Molten Ash Posts: 51	Twoshanks, all very well but "which personal insults?". If you find the power to go and condemn please reserve some energy for finding a quote. Agnes

Oct 16, 2003, 04:37 am	#97 (permalink) (top)
GuidoNius Molten Ash Posts: 51	Fallen Angel, you have the uncanny ability to make the point of your adversary. I salute your skill in pushing the feminist agenda. Luckily, I'm not a feminist because if I was, I would feel humbled by your argumentative power for feminism. Agnes

Oct 16, 2003, 09:54 am	#98 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,) Fallen Angel, you have the uncanny ability to make the point of your adversary. I salute your skill in pushing the feminist agenda. Luckily, I'm not a feminist because if I was, I would feel humbled by your argumentative power for feminism. Agnes<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well if your not a feminist what the hell are you? And the last cause I would want to go out and bat for is one that hates men and children.

Oct 16, 2003, 10:33 am	#99 (permalink) (top)
GuidoNius Molten Ash Posts: 51	What a man wants and what a man gets are two different things alltogether. I am Agnes, all stereotyping is fully and completely in your head.

Oct 16, 2003, 02:04 pm	#100 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,) I can give only one word that should be mulled over by the femnasties on here, its called responsibility, yes that word you have been screeching at men for the last twenty years but can't seem to apply to an innocent life form that you are supposed to be nurturing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Uhm, excuse me? Am I insulting you for being pro-life? So why do you stereotype me as being some kind of feminist and then call me a "femnasty" just because I believe nobody should dictate whether every woman regardless of circumstance should or should not go through pregnancy? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,) Not throwing away because the condom broke, or my career is more important, or I don't know who the father is, thats your fault.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is pretty narrow minded of peoples' lives. As I said before, if I was in such a situation as to become pregnant, I would not be able to go through the pregnancy because I already have to take care of my dad due to his Parkinsons. Everyone has a different life, different reasons, different situations. I mean no offense, but it is beyond ignorant to act omnipotent in your judgment and believe you know everyone's lives, everyone's reasons, and can judge them. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,) You are above all else the carriers of life, your womb is not some kind of toilet to be flushed when you feel like.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Tell Aunt Flo that. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,) Please, do yourself a favor and the poor kid you kill and steralise yourself, if you are not up to the purpose of what God made you to be, then don't be it permanently.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Just because someone may not be in the position right now to have kids, doesn't mean they may not want them in the future. Personally, I don't plan on ever having kids (If I ever get married and my husband wants kids, I will probably just adopt). But I can still understand that many other people want to have kids someday in their life - just not right now. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,) On the other hand, a woman has every right to an abortion if raped( don't throw that date rape crap at me either) provided its early.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Again, please explain to be how it is justifiable to go through with an abortion early on if a woman is raped, yet not if a woman is forced with pregnancy un-planned? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,) Also if for extreme medical reasons, like baby is incredibly deformed and will have a pain filled life, then a mercy aborting could be done.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What about if the child were to go through with a life with no love, no family? These are the very questions every woman who has ever put their child up for adoption has to struggle with every day of their life. That suffering would be just the same for a child as physical pain, disorder or deformity. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,) I make no excuses for men who don't help out raising the child once proven it is theirs, they are just as guilty of not taking any responsibility. I lived in one suburb where my female neighbor had four kids to three fathers, what a disqusting mess, this morally bankrupt society has created.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Let's assume for a moment she had 15 children with a 16th on the way, would you say even then that she shouldn't go through with abortion? Honestly, all these attacks are nothing but moral ones, and personal. Its pretty arrogant to judge all the women on the planet who condone, consider or will go through with abortion as all being loose women without a moral or responsible fiber in their bodies. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.