What are your thoughts on abortion? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

What are your thoughts on abortion?

Gwennie
12-01-2002, 05:17 PM
i know how this is a controversial subject and all, but i'm doing a project on it for my civics class and i would like to know other people's opinions. you people seem like a happy bunch, so i figured i'd ask you too.:D oh and if its possible, could u have some reason behind your choice? you can pm me with your opinion if you would like to. i'd appreciate any answers. thank you.:)

dots
12-01-2002, 05:45 PM
well I think it's sad that a situation has to come down to an abortion, but the choice is up to the mother. It's her body.


sad topic though :( :( :(

Gwennie
12-01-2002, 05:51 PM
i'm sorry. im just doing research. thanx for your answer BTW. :)

Josh
12-01-2002, 08:11 PM
I agree with dots, it's the woman's body so she can decide what happens to it.

Mazza
12-01-2002, 09:04 PM
We were having a dissusion about this is health and my feelings towards abortion were I guess I am in a way against it but for it, depending on the circumstances.

I feel that it is murder, but I guess some people some people may not say it is, it depends on people's views on when they think life begins. I think that it begins at conception but some people may say it's way after that and see abortion as ok... also, reasons why women have abortions, I guess I can understand that if a woman was *****, that she would want to have an abortion, but if they just didn't want the child, then I would say that I am against it.

But, at the end of the day, like most people have said, it's up to the woman who decides weather she wants to go through it or not after weighing out thr pro's and cons and if they go through with it, weather they feel they can handle after effects.

Gwennie
12-01-2002, 10:20 PM
Thanx guys.:D i really appreciate your answers:) :cool:

Daniel
12-03-2002, 03:37 PM
yw

harry_potter
12-04-2002, 01:07 PM
u didn't even reply, daniel :rolleyes: ;) :p

to the question, i think that it's the mother's choice and i hate the way george bush is trying to ban abortion :fiery:

Daniel
12-04-2002, 01:18 PM
yw ;)

harry_potter
12-04-2002, 01:21 PM
haha very funny daniel *sarcasm* :rolleyes: ;)

Daniel
12-04-2002, 01:24 PM
indeed ;)

luvbadboys
12-05-2002, 05:25 AM
It's noone's business except the pregant mom and dad.
That means no gov't, no church, no family pressure to affect the decision. Though personally, I would never have one.

nevenez
05-15-2011, 04:32 PM
I believe abortion is no different than murder. I think it should be illegal, except in cases where the woman was ***** or has medical conditions that could endanger her health if she were to have the baby.

After all, she made the decision to have a baby when she decided to have sex. And if she and her husband/boyfriend really want to have sex but don't want a baby, than they should use birth control. And in that case abortion should still be illegal if Birth Control fails, which it sometimes does.

Filo V.
05-15-2011, 05:12 PM
You really like bumping old threads.

Filo V.
05-15-2011, 05:13 PM
Anyway, I don't think men should be telling women what to do with their bodies. That's the extent of what I think for the most part.

peribsen
05-15-2011, 05:33 PM
I dislike abortion, but still think that there are limits to our right to impose a world view on people who don't share it. I find abortion easier to accept in those very few occasions (****, risk for the mother's health, really serious malformations on the fetus) where I myself have doubts over what decision I would take if it were to happen to myself, and therefore completely refrain from judging the mother, whatever she chooses. In other less extreme situations, I definitely don't like it, but as I said before, society has to be ruled by laws that allow the coexistance of people with different mentalities, when ruling over shady areas (like when exactly does an embryo become a being with rights that must be upheld by society) around which a clear-cut stance that is accepted by all is imposible to be reached.

Abortion is always sad and always implies a failure. However, maximalist options, on both sides of the issue, would amount to tyranny: I don't think any sane person would defend that a mother has absolute, unbridled rights over the life of the foetus right up to the moment of birth; likewise, most sane persons would agree that forcing a mother to carry on with her recent pregnancy against her will does entail some innaceptable interference with such a private aspect of her life as to constitute a tyrannical invasion on her privacy. A consensus has to be reached somewhere between both extremes.

Lopez
11-08-2011, 04:51 PM
Was thinking about this today after hearing about Herman Cain's stance on the issue and thought I'd see if there's a thread about this subject :wavey:.

Any other thoughts?

Tommy_Vercetti
11-08-2011, 05:07 PM
It's entirely necessary and should be 100% legal.

As a side note, despite strongly supporting abortion, I deeply dislike many abortion rights activists themselves. First off, the terms like "pro-choice" and "woman's right to choose" instead of pro-abortion are cowardly. You are aborting a fetus, don't sugarcoat it. And like so many other reasonable political positions, too many disgusting people represent it. It sickens me how so many nasty man-hating leftist lesbians make up the leadership of abortion rights. It's like the beyond creepy Jack Kevorkian giving such a stigma to people supporting euthanasia or those arrogant atheists and agnostics who sue over the pledge of allegiance and making others look bad.

There's also a MASSIVE double standard here. A woman who doesn't want the child can abort, no matter what the man says. However, if she wants to keep the child and he doesn't, he still has to pay support with no say whatsoever. I love how people consider this the right to choose movement. It's more bullshit. Just like huge bias in custody disputes for women.

Naudio Spanlatine
11-08-2011, 05:07 PM
its the most disguisting and the most disgraceful thing anyone can EVER do, if you dont want to have a baby use a condom or jus dont have sex at all, its simple ppl:rolleyes:

Ilovetheblues_86
11-08-2011, 05:55 PM
I am against because I support Gaia, the mother earth and the fertility queen.

Also you can see why Hera was so ridiculous in ancient times: because she couldnt have a baby!

:mad:

jmjhb
11-08-2011, 06:07 PM
its the most disguisting and the most disgraceful thing anyone can EVER do, if you dont want to have a baby use a condom or jus dont have sex at all, its simple ppl:rolleyes:

What a load of shit.

JolánGagó
11-08-2011, 06:40 PM
an utter disgrace.

Certinfy
11-08-2011, 06:59 PM
It's disgusting.

However of course there are some exceptions where I do think it can be justified:
- As result of a r***.
- Mother's life is at risk
- Baby will be badly disabled (or similar)

Sapeod
11-08-2011, 07:08 PM
Abortion is fine, as long as it's before a certain time early in the pregnancy.

Sunset of Age
11-08-2011, 07:21 PM
Lots of folks posting an opinion on a matter on which they have obviously no clue.

Just one thing to think about: do you guys honestly think that there is ONE woman in the entire world who thinks, "oh lookies, I'm pregnant and I don't want the kid, let's just hopp over to the doc this afternoon and get rid of it"? :rolleyes:

In a massive majority of cases, it's a complete tragedy for all involved. There are plenty of situations where and when a woman gets pregnant by 'accident' (whatever that may be) and just cannot have a baby due to her personal circumstances.
Minimalizing abortion starts with proper education on all matters re: sex and anticonceptives to kids at a young age. It's no coincidence that the occurency of (legal or illegal) abortions is a lot, LOT higher in "prude" countries like the US (where there still seem to be a lot of areas where the naive and irrealistic concept of 'no sex till marriage' is taught :help:), compared to most countries in Europe where we think it's just a matter of proper sex education to youngsters in order to AVOID future abortions as much as possible.

Like I said, a tragedy indeed.

shiaben
11-08-2011, 07:22 PM
If there are emergencies, sure, go for it. But if people are going to use it as contraception because they are ridiculously irresponsible and lousy, I have no words.

Gagsquet
11-08-2011, 07:24 PM
Abortion is fine. Pro-life people are weird.

shiaben
11-08-2011, 07:27 PM
One of the biggest issues in recent times in regards to abortion involves its relationship to divorce or separations. In recent times I've been reading reports about couples who want to have a child in a relationship (married and none-married) Then at one point in the relationship, when the pair run into some conflict (altercation that leads to the couple splitting or even an emotional one), this situation ends up creating lots of tensions because the woman who originally wanted to have a child with that man, can end up changing her mind about the child, while some men at least, seemed to want the child (even if they have problems with the mate), but can't because of the laws. Thought that was an interesting read.

Sunset of Age
11-08-2011, 07:29 PM
If there are emergencies, sure, go for it. But if people are going to use it as contraception because they are ridiculously irresponsible and lousy, I have no words.

Abortion as a way of contraception is, of course, horrible.
But don't forget the factor of a lack of proper education. In my country, when a woman enters a clinic more than once in a short period of time, that woman will surely get to hear something from her GP - to inform her about, and persuade her to use proper contraceptives. But you just don't want to know how many completely ignorant young girls just don't seem to have a clue, even when you'd think they'd "know" - "education by MTV", as its called over here.

Abortion might be a "killer", IGNORANCE is a far greater - and nastier - one.

Sunset of Age
11-08-2011, 07:39 PM
One of the biggest issues in recent times in regards to abortion involves its relationship to divorce or separations. In recent times I've been reading reports about couples who want to have a child in a relationship (married and none-married) Then at one point in the relationship, when the pair run into some conflict (altercation that leads to the couple splitting or even an emotional one), this situation ends up creating lots of tensions because the woman who originally wanted to have a child with that man, can end up changing her mind about the child, while some men at least, seemed to want the child (even if they have problems with the mate), but can't because of the laws. Thought that was an interesting read.

Such happens, yes. But the opposite occurs just the same (and even quite more often I think): MEN not wanting the kid (or rather, the responsibility of becoming a dad) and 'suddenly' running away, as soon as their GF becomes pregnant.

Again, a tragic situation for all involved.

shiaben
11-08-2011, 07:44 PM
Such happens, yes. But the opposite occurs just the same (and even quite more often I think): MEN not wanting the kid (or rather, the responsibility of becoming a dad) and 'suddenly' running away, as soon as their GF becomes pregnant.

Again, a tragic situation for all involved.

Agreed

Lopez
11-08-2011, 07:56 PM
What I think is interesting is the relationship between abortion and crime rates: When the famous Roe vs. Wade case finally made abortion legal in the US, the crime rates 20 years later started dropping. It is easy to see why: In a situation where abortion is done, the possible child would not have had a very good future ahead and would likely have turned to crime.

solowyn
11-08-2011, 09:06 PM
Abortion is fine. Pro-life people are weird.
+1

I doubt I'll truly know my own feelings on abortion until I find myself pregnant one day, but I wouldn't dream of trying to stop another woman.

Tommy_Vercetti
11-08-2011, 09:19 PM
its the most disguisting and the most disgraceful thing anyone can EVER do, if you dont want to have a baby use a condom or jus dont have sex at all, its simple ppl:rolleyes:

Or take the other route like me. I got a vasectomy right after I turned 18, which was the minimum age that any of the doctors would do one (even with parental permission) or I'd have gotten one sooner. And even then, it was a hassle to get one of them to agree. That's another thing that needs changed.

LoveFifteen
11-08-2011, 09:32 PM
Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. It should be extremely easy to access so that people can get them very, very early in the pregnancy, and schools should educate people so that they know how to practice safer sex.

venky91
11-08-2011, 10:36 PM
I love abortions.

Sunset of Age
11-08-2011, 10:43 PM
^^ Agreed on most accounts, Verd - as you know as being a fellow biologist I would. ;)
Except for...

3. As a person who cares about facts, I find absolutely ridiculous the claim that women use abortion as a contraceptive method. My most militantly pro-choice friends are precisely the people who actually use birth control and minimize the chance that they would ever need to consider abortion as an option.

Sad as it is, I have actually known a woman who did exactly that. Refused to take any contraceptives as she claimed that "artificial hormones would do damage to her health" (yes, don't tell me, it's :o). And of course, her equally silly husby claimed that he was allergic to latex, i.e. condoms. Nice excuse for not having to use 'em, eh. :facepalm:
She had three abortions in a row. I kid you not.

I couldn't help myself and told her what I thought about that. Needless to say, I never saw her again. Perhaps better that way. :help:

Tommy_Vercetti
11-08-2011, 10:55 PM
Condoms are for losers. You might as well just jerk-off with a rubber glove.

shiaben
11-08-2011, 11:37 PM
^^ Agreed on most accounts, Verd - as you know as being a fellow biologist I would. ;)
Except for...



Sad as it is, I have actually known a woman who did exactly that. Refused to take any contraceptives as she claimed that "artificial hormones would do damage to her health" (yes, don't tell me, it's :o). And of course, her equally silly husby claimed that he was allergic to latex, i.e. condoms. Nice excuse for not having to use 'em, eh. :facepalm:
She had three abortions in a row. I kid you not.

I couldn't help myself and told her what I thought about that. Needless to say, I never saw her again. Perhaps better that way. :help:

That is one heck of a story. I hope such couples are rare :eek:

Sunset of Age
11-08-2011, 11:48 PM
That is one heck of a story. I hope such couples are rare :eek:

So do I. :tape:
The two were into some kind of ultra-alternative veganist cult, wherein about everything "non-natural", be it food, medicine or whatever, was regarded as 'unhealthy'.

There was no sensible talking to them possible, no explaining that 'artificial' and 'natural' progesterone are the same biochemical, let alone explain that having an abortion - a genuine operation, involving narcotics, hormones and whatnot (depending on the duration of the pregnancy of course) - isn't actually a 'natural', harmless process either.
I can only hope they have gotten back to their senses by now. :banghead:

Orka_n
11-09-2011, 12:02 AM
I am against it as long as the child does not pose a health risk to the mother. But I don't feel like discussing this here.

Topspindoctor
11-09-2011, 01:18 AM
Abortion should be legal all around the world. A woman should be free to choose to dispose of unwanted luggage, so to speak. Biologically and genetically, a fetus is not a human and does, therefore, not deserve human rights. Attaching moral and ethical values to every action is the cancer of our society. We should be more open minded and not burden females with unwanted burdens, should they choose not to have a child. Choosing to have an abortion is a choice that is to be celebrated, not shunned.

Aloimeh
11-09-2011, 02:43 AM
its the most disguisting and the most disgraceful thing anyone can EVER do, if you dont want to have a baby use a condom or jus dont have sex at all, its simple ppl:rolleyes:

Agreed 100%

Lots of folks posting an opinion on a matter on which they have obviously no clue.

Just one thing to think about: do you guys honestly think that there is ONE woman in the entire world who thinks, "oh lookies, I'm pregnant and I don't want the kid, let's just hopp over to the doc this afternoon and get rid of it"? :rolleyes:

In a massive majority of cases, it's a complete tragedy for all involved. There are plenty of situations where and when a woman gets pregnant by 'accident' (whatever that may be) and just cannot have a baby due to her personal circumstances.
Minimalizing abortion starts with proper education on all matters re: sex and anticonceptives to kids at a young age. It's no coincidence that the occurency of (legal or illegal) abortions is a lot, LOT higher in "prude" countries like the US (where there still seem to be a lot of areas where the naive and irrealistic concept of 'no sex till marriage' is taught :help:), compared to most countries in Europe where we think it's just a matter of proper sex education to youngsters in order to AVOID future abortions as much as possible.

Like I said, a tragedy indeed.

Most cases of abortion are due to the child being inconvenient for the woman and or other people associated with her. The cases of abortion due to fetal illness/defect, life of the mother being endangered, or **** are proportionately very rare.

What I think is interesting is the relationship between abortion and crime rates: When the famous Roe vs. Wade case finally made abortion legal in the US, the crime rates 20 years later started dropping. It is easy to see why: In a situation where abortion is done, the possible child would not have had a very good future ahead and would likely have turned to crime.

Gypsies in Eastern Europe and African Americans in the US are disproportionately involved in crime in those areas of the world. Does this mean we should go back to the tried-and-true eugenicist values of sterilizing these groups? Your post has no logic (not surprising given your standing on evolution), as it preemptively seeks to punish potential offenders (who are about as innocent of any wrongdoing as any human being can be) by killing them.

Abortion should be legal all around the world. A woman should be free to choose to dispose of unwanted luggage, so to speak. Biologically and genetically, a fetus is not a human and does, therefore, not deserve human rights. Attaching moral and ethical values to every action is the cancer of our society. We should be more open minded and not burden females with unwanted burdens, should they choose not to have a child. Choosing to have an abortion is a choice that is to be celebrated, not shunned.

Filthy. Nothing to celebrate about murder.

:silly: Lovely comments in this thread.

1. As a biologist, I consider the idea that a zygote, blastula, or early-stage embryo is equivalent to a human life to be a totally laughable concept, on par with the idea of Santa Claus being real or the earth being flat or a man murdering millions of babies every time he masturbates. If you want to believe that a hollow bubble of thirty-two cells or something that still has gills and yet no brain wave activity somehow takes precedence over the wishes of the woman whose body it inhabits, you are not even worth trying to reason with. :smoke:

2. As a person who cares about numbers, I find it ridiculous the way partial-birth abortions are brought up by anti-choice advocates as a scare tactic, when the absolute FACT is that only a fraction of a percentage point of abortions are late-term/partial-birth.

3. As a person who cares about facts, I find absolutely ridiculous the claim that women use abortion as a contraceptive method. My most militantly pro-choice friends are precisely the people who actually use birth control and minimize the chance that they would ever need to consider abortion as an option.

3a. As a person with women in my life, I know for a fact that women can still get pregnant despite the precautions of using the pill + condoms. Blaming women for being irresponsible is ridiculous and offensive unless you think that only the celibate are blameless.

3b. P.S. Several of the militantly pro-choice women I've known in my life have had abortions. Despite them being pro-choice to the extreme, they tell me that it was still by far the hardest decision they ever made. Stop perpetuating the myth that women saunter into clinics, whistle while they whip their feet up into the stirrups, and the go home and celebrate with a pre-chilled bottle of champers.

4. As a man, it's not my business what a woman chooses to do with her body, and it's my obligation to tell my fellow men to butt out. :ras:

1.) What a load of BS. You're a half-ass biologist if you can come up with this. It is precisely biology that tells us that a zygote (and blastula, embryo, fetus, etc.) generated by the union of human gametes is human. When two cats mate and their gametes unite, what we have - biologically speaking, is feline life. When two frogs undergo amplexus and the frog sperm fertilizes the frog eggs we get frog life.

Biologically speaking, life begins at fertilization. At the moment the nuclei fuse, the now fertilized egg ceases to behave like an integral cell of a multicellular organism (as it once was) and begins to take quite a different path. This new life is genetically distinct from both parents.

Having clarified that a zygote (and embryo, fetus, etc.) is the beginning of life, it is not difficult to infer that a life form belongs to the same species as the gametes from which it arose. Human gametes give rise to human life.

So your biological "expertise" is crap, hate to say it.

2.) Partial birth abortions have zero justification. At late term, if the mother's heath is endangered it is just as easy to induce labor or perform a C-section as to dismember a mature fetus in the womb or remove the body (keeping the head in the uterus) and suck out the brains with a vacuum. Partial birth abortions are always done because the mother want's to get rid of the fetus and never because of "her health."

3.) It's only normal that it was a hard decision because most people don't like murdering others, even if it helps them get ahead. Unless they are psychopaths, which most feminists fortunately are not.

4.) Who cares who you are? It's like saying that I as a man have no say in women serial killers because "I don't understand what women go through." BS, murder is murder. End of discussion.

Topspindoctor
11-09-2011, 03:02 AM
Filthy. Nothing to celebrate about murder.



Murder is when one puts a knife through your ribs or puts a few bullets into your skull just for fun. There is no murder involved when you're getting rid of unwanted genetic tissue, which is what fetus is. The need to attach political correctness, religious concepts and ethics to trivial things like abortion is disgusting. The females of today need not be burdened by unwanted children, because the technology allows us to relieve them of their mistakes. We should celebrate the fact the abortions are possible in today's era and give stupid young girls who made a mistake another chance to not ruin their life and career.

Abortion is a gift, not a curse. I wish more girls learned this.

Clydey
11-09-2011, 03:20 AM
Her body, her choice. It is that simple.

Clydey
11-09-2011, 03:22 AM
Abortion is fine. Pro-life people are weird.

I don't like the term 'pro-life'. It doesn't really define those morons. I prefer to call them 'anti-choice'. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... for zygotes. Once you are out of the womb, the right wing, religious lunatics have no interest in your rights.

There is no logic to their position. As Sam Harris pointed out, every time you scratch your nose you are committing a holocaust of potential human beings. Therefore, this whole argument about the rights of potential human beings is utterly absurd.

Aloimeh
11-09-2011, 03:59 AM
I don't like the term 'pro-life'. It doesn't really define those morons. I prefer to call them 'anti-choice'. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... for zygotes. Once you are out of the womb, the right wing, religious lunatics have no interest in your rights.

There is no logic to their position. As Sam Harris pointed out, every time you scratch your nose you are committing a holocaust of potential human beings. Therefore, this whole argument about the rights of potential human beings is utterly absurd.

Cells on the nose are not (yet) potential human life. They are component parts of a multicellular organism. Even if we were capable of cloning them into human beings, they still aren't potential human life, as such, because their developmental trajectory is to act as nose cells and then die. Removing their nuclei and injecting into human egg cells renders them something altogether different.

Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are human lire. They are not component parts of their mother or father, but rather distinct organisms. They are not potential human life, they are human life.

They are

1.) alive: meet all the major criteria of living things

2.) distinct: they're not clones of the parents or components of a multicellular organism or colony

2.) human: genetically they are not centipedes or oak trees, they're genetically human

Ask any biologist or botanist whether this:

http://www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb300/20100422/2f54Germinating-Acorn-1515966.jpg

or this:

http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/24911/530wm/B6010380-Oak_tree_Quercus_sp._seedling-SPL.jpg

is as much of an oak plant as this:

http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/o/oak_tree-11907.jpg

And he will laugh at you. The answer is obvious to any biologist or botanist.

It's only liberal liars/feminists who want to get rid of inconvenient people and slutty women and their male and female enablers that are all gung-ho about abortion.

Clydey
11-09-2011, 04:20 AM
Cells on the nose are not (yet) potential human life.

Yes, they are. Just because we do not have the means to put them under the correct pressure to fulfill that potential does not mean that the potential is not there.

They are component parts of a multicellular organism. Even if we were capable of cloning them into human beings, they still aren't potential human life, as such, because their developmental trajectory is to act as nose cells and then die. Removing their nuclei and injecting into human egg cells renders them something altogether different.

Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are human lire. They are not component parts of their mother or father, but rather distinct organisms. They are not potential human life, they are human life.

No, they are potential human life. For them to become human, they must got through a long process. It certainly is not a given that this process will be completed.

Human:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4B6BR9aWHAk/S63S78JxspI/AAAAAAAAKio/9SXLRfPyp-M/s400/pregnancy_13.jpg

Not human:

http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/10/27/55025/zygote.jpg?t=20111027092220

Aloimeh
11-09-2011, 04:26 AM
Yes, they are. Just because we do not have the means to put them under the correct pressure to fulfill that potential does not mean that the potential is not there.



No, they are potential human life. For them to become human, they must got through a long process. It certainly is not a given that this process will be completed.

Human:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4B6BR9aWHAk/S63S78JxspI/AAAAAAAAKio/9SXLRfPyp-M/s400/pregnancy_13.jpg

Not human:

http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/10/27/55025/zygote.jpg?t=20111027092220

What a joke you are. Biologically they are BOTH human and they are alive. The embryo, the baby, the old woman - all human life.

Barnacle nauplius:

http://courses.washington.edu/mareco07/students/nina/web%20page%20pics/nauplius.jpg

the same barnacles as adults:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GM2YdV1L00g/TqlKhrV7I8I/AAAAAAAACK4/2r62HwhDacI/s320/goose-barnacless.jpg

Only an idiot would think that a stage in the life cycle that doesn't closely resemble the adult is not alive.

But then again, Clydey, I am not surprised...

Clydey
11-09-2011, 04:29 AM
What a joke you are. Biologically they are BOTH human and they are alive. The embryo, the baby, the old woman - all human life.



Biologically they are both human? What an absurd claim. In order for that to be the case, at the very least consciousness is required.

Aloimeh
11-09-2011, 04:34 AM
Biologically they are both human? What an absurd claim. In order for that to be the case, at the very least consciousness is required.

What the hell are you talking about? Is an anesthetized human being no longer human? What about a comatose human being?

Is a dead cat no longer a cat? Is a hibernating bear no longer a bear? Is a pupating moth no longer a moth?

When did consciousness ever become part of the criteria in determining 1.) species and 2.) alive/dead/inanimate status?

For that matter, when did brain activity or even the existence of a brain ever become part of the criteria in determining 1.) species and 2.) alive/dead/inanimate status?

It didn't. Consciousness and the brain have zilch to do with life status and species determination.

Clydey
11-09-2011, 04:50 AM
What the hell are you talking about? Is an anesthetized human being no longer human? What about a comatose human being?

You have completely missed the point. You are using the wrong definition of consciousness. I am referring to the awareness of one's own existence, not the state of being awake.

Is a dead cat no longer a cat? Is a hibernating bear no longer a bear? Is a pupating moth no longer a moth?

We don't know if those species are conscious in the more abstract sense of the word. However, I'll take the bait for the sake of argument. Just because something is dead does not mean it was never conscious. A dead human is a still a human because it was a conscious entity. You are arguing that those cells are living human beings, so the above questions simply are not relevant to what you are proposing.

When did consciousness ever become part of the criteria in determining 1.) species and 2.) alive/dead/inanimate status?

For that matter, when did brain activity or even the existence of a brain ever become part of the criteria in determining 1.) species and 2.) alive/dead/inanimate status?

Consciousness is something all humans have in common. It is obviously central to how we define what is to be human.

Do believe zygotes have a soul?

Aloimeh
11-09-2011, 04:54 AM
You have completely missed the point. You are using the wrong definition of consciousness. I am referring to the awareness of one's own existence, not the state of being awake.



We don't know if those species are conscious in the more abstract sense of the word. However, I'll take the bait for the sake of argument. Just because something is dead does not mean it was never conscious. A dead human is a still a human because it was a conscious entity. You are arguing that those cells are living human beings, so the above questions simply are not relevant to what you are proposing.



Consciousness is something all humans have in common. It is obviously central to how we define what is to be human.

Do believe zygotes have a soul?

This is philosophical bullsh!t. Consciousness has no relevance to the basic biological questions of whether something is alive and what taxonomic species we can classify it to.

An embryonic human may not resemble an adult human in its morphology, and it may not be conscious of itself (we don't know that for sure, do we?), but it's origins, genetics, metabolism, etc. absolutely confirm that it is human.

So it's a living human.

You may want to divide humanity into different categories of those who are worthy of living and those who aren't, but you can't lie about the biology.

Whether or not human zygotes have a soul is besides the point I was making. I was arguing purely from the standpoint of biology. And I think my arguments are sound.

Abortion is destruction of human life. End of story.

Clydey
11-09-2011, 05:05 AM
This is philosophical bullsh!t. Consciousness has no relevance to the basic biological questions of whether something is alive and what taxonomic species we can classify it to.

As I said, all humans have consciousness in common.

An embryonic human may not resemble an adult human in its morphology, and it may not be conscious of itself (we don't know that for sure, do we?), but it's origins, genetics, metabolism, etc. absolutely confirm that it is human.

We may not be able to prove definitively that they are not conscious, but common sense should really prevail on this point.

So it's a living human.

It is a potential human. If it is already a human it should be able to survive outside of the womb. We are not just talking aesthetics here, Aloimeh. Believe it or not, those 9 months have a purpose.

You may want to divide humanity into different categories of those who are worthy of living and those who aren't, but you can't lie about the biology.

I distinguish between human and non-human.

Whether or not human zygotes have a soul is besides the point I was making. I was arguing purely from the standpoint of biology. And I think my arguments are sound.

Biologically, they are not the same. See above.

I asked a simple question. Do zygotes have a soul, in your opinion?

Aloimeh
11-09-2011, 05:13 AM
As I said, all humans have consciousness in common.

A newborn has consciousness? How could you possibly know? They can't tell us how "self-aware" they are. As far as we know they are no more or less conscious than a kitten or a tadpole.

We may not be able to prove definitively that they are not conscious, but common sense should really prevail on this point.

Why should it prevail here and not when it comes to not killing a living human?

It is a potential human. If it is already a human it should be able to survive outside of the womb. We are not just talking aesthetics here, Aloimeh. Believe it or not, those 9 months have a purpose.

Wrong. Biologically it is human life. It is alive and it is Homo sapiens. A kangaroo joey after it is born needs to develop in its mother's pouch. It can't survive without this extra period of development. To claim that it is not alive or not a kangaroo is just...madness.

I distinguish between human and non-human.

Clearly you don't because you fail to recognize that organisms in different stages of a life cycle are still very much alive and retain their species identity throughout that cycle. A barnacle doesn't switch it's identity as a barnacle when it shifts from nauplius to adult.

Biologically, they are not the same. See above.

Biologically the zygote is alive and human.

Then again, what do you know about biology? You're supposedly a philosopher, and a bad one at that.

I asked a simple question. Do zygotes have a soul, in your opinion?

I refuse to answer the question because 1.) I don't know for sure and 2.) it's nothing but a pure derailment on this thread, just like you did on the evolution thread.

Biologically zygotes derived from human egg and human sperm are living humans. You can come up with all sorts of excuses but they are just as human as a caterpillar is a butterfly.

Clydey
11-09-2011, 05:29 AM
A newborn has consciousness? How could you possibly know? They can't tell us how "self-aware" they are. As far as we know they are no more or less conscious than a kitten or a tadpole.

Not being able to express consciousness does not mean that it isn't there. One major difference between a newborn and an embryo is a functioning brain. The origin of consciousness remains something of a mystery, but it is likely a product of the brain.

Why should it prevail here and not when it comes to not killing a living human?

Because many people do not share your definition of a 'living human'.

Wrong. Biologically it is human life. A kangaroo joey after it is born needs to develop in its mother's pouch. It can't survive without this extra period of development. To claim that it is not alive or not a kangaroo is just...madness.

That's great. A joey isn't a human, though. They are not defined in the same way.

Clearly you don't because you fail to recognize that organisms in different stages of a life cycle are still very much alive and retain their species identity throughout that cycle. A barnacle doesn't switch it's identity as a barnacle when it shifts from nauplius to adult.


Again, those 9 months have a purpose.

Biologically the zygote is alive and human.

Then again, what do you know about biology? You're supposedly a philosopher, and a bad one at that.

Social scientist, actually. Either way, you're bound to think I'm a 'bad' philosopher when we disagree about everything. We are fundamentally opposed.

I refuse to answer the question because 1.) I don't know for sure and 2.) it's nothing but a pure derailment on this thread, just like you did on the evolution thread.

Biologically zygotes derived from human egg and human sperm are living humans. You can come up with all sorts of excuses but they are just as human as a caterpillar is a butterfly.

You won't answer because you know it's an untenable position.

Aloimeh
11-09-2011, 05:41 AM
Not being able to express consciousness does not mean that it isn't there. One major difference between a newborn and an embryo is a functioning brain. The origin of consciousness remains something of a mystery, but it is likely a product of the brain.

As you have no more evidence that it is there than you have for the zygote, common sense would dictate that we can apply your logic for zygotes to infants as well. Ergo, infants can be killed if inconvenient.

It is not known where consciousness is seated, much less generated. Evidence exists that the brain is the terminal physical conduit through which consciousness proceeds and is evidenced to scientific inquiry, but there is no evidence that it is generated by brain tissue.

Because many people do not share your definition of a 'living human'.

It's the biological definition.

That's great. A joey isn't a human, though. They are not defined in the same way.

Actually, biologically they are defined in an exactly analogous manner. Humans have a genus and a species classification. This is something you evolutionists are very proud of. So the same criteria that apply to the kangaroo apply to us. A kangaroo joey is just as much a living kangaroo as the adult. By analogous reasoning, a developing human zygote or embryo or fetus is just as much a living human as an adult.

Again, those 9 months have a purpose.

We dealt with this before. You have no argument from biology why it is OK to kill a human embryo or fetus.

Social scientist, actually. Either way, you're bound to think I'm a 'bad' philosopher when we disagree about everything. We are fundamentally opposed.

No, I think you are poor at arguing. I have been giving biological arguments here because I wanted to refute Verd & Dutchie's assertion that they were speaking from the lofty heights of biology. They weren't and I called them on it. Biology dictates otherwise, which is that human life is human life regardless of the stage of development it is at. Biology also would say nothing about the value of human life, which is why it is unwise to apply the amorality of biology to questions of human existence in the first place, elsewise we might find that there is no biological foundation for our morals or our laws.

But speaking from biology alone, abortion is the killing of a distinct living human. You can say it isn't a person, it doesn't have consciousness, doesn't feel pain, etc. (all of which are controversial statements in and of themselves), but you cannot claim that it is inanimate or dead or a parasite or a tumor or an organ of the mother or that it isn't human.

Even uneducated people who don't know anything of biology see this to be true. And there's the rub with abortion.

You won't answer because you know it's an untenable position.

Again, you're trying to engage me into a maelstrom of religious argument even as I have strived to keep this discussion on biology alone. I know full well that I cannot wage arguments on the basis of religious belief with those who don't believe. Which is why I don't even try to do that. But I can discuss things from the biological perspective, especially when some pseudoscientists like Dutchie & Verd come on here, plaster their biology "credentials" all over the forum, and start spouting nonsense.

Clydey
11-09-2011, 05:59 AM
As you have no more evidence that it is there than you have for the zygote, common sense would dictate that we can apply your logic for zygotes to infants as well. Ergo, infants can be killed if inconvenient.

I have already stated the major difference between a zygote and a baby is a functioning brain, which is likely the source of consciousness.

It is not known where consciousness is seated, much less generated. Evidence exists that the brain is the terminal physical conduit through which consciousness proceeds and is evidenced to scientific inquiry, but there is no evidence that it is generated by brain tissue.

I did not say there was evidence. It is a best guess based on what we do know. You will no doubt cling to this lack of absolute certainty as if your life depends on it.

It's the biological definition.

No, it isn't. There are clear, practical differences. A functioning brain, respiratory system, etc. are not merely morphological differences.

Actually, biologically they are defined in an exactly analogous manner. Humans have a genus and a species classification. This is something you evolutionists are very proud of. So the same criteria that apply to the kangaroo apply to us. A kangaroo joey is just as much a living kangaroo as the adult. By analogous reasoning, a developing human zygote or embryo or fetus is just as much a living human as an adult.

They are not the same species, thus do not share a definition. A joey is a living, breathing entity. Not that it matters, since they are a different species. We are talking about human characteristics.

No, I think you are poor at arguing. I have been giving biological arguments here because I wanted to refute Verd & Dutchie's assertion that they were speaking from the lofty heights of biology. They weren't and I called them on it. Biology dictates otherwise, which is that human life is human life regardless of the stage of development it is at. Biology also would say nothing about the value of human life, which is why it is unwise to apply the amorality of biology to questions of human existence in the first place, elsewise we might find that there is no biological foundation for our morals or our laws.

But speaking from biology alone, abortion is the killing of a distinct living human. You can say it isn't a person, it doesn't have consciousness, doesn't feel pain, etc. (all of which are controversial statements in and of themselves), but you cannot claim that it is inanimate or dead or a parasite or a tumor or an organ of the mother or that it isn't human.

Even uneducated people who don't know anything of biology see this to be true. And there's the rub with abortion.

All dealt with above. If a baby and a zygote are biologically identical we would only see morphological changes. We see much, much more than that. We see changes that are necessary for survival.

Again, you're trying to engage me into a maelstrom of religious argument even as I have strived to keep this discussion on biology alone. I know full well that I cannot wage arguments on the basis of religious belief with those who don't believe. Which is why I don't even try to do that. But I can discuss things from the biological perspective, especially when some pseudoscientists like Dutchie & Verd come on here, plaster their biology "credentials" all over the forum, and start spouting nonsense.

This is exactly what you did to Peribsen. You cannot separate your religion from the views you are expressing. Your religious beliefs are fundamental to your views on abortion.

Bibberz
11-09-2011, 06:21 AM
I'm disappointed that all of you overlooked the only encouraging and positive post in this thread:

Or take the other route like me. I got a vasectomy right after I turned 18, which was the minimum age that any of the doctors would do one (even with parental permission) or I'd have gotten one sooner. And even then, it was a hassle to get one of them to agree. That's another thing that needs changed.

Clydey
11-09-2011, 06:25 AM
I'm disappointed that all of you overlooked the only encouraging and positive post in this thread:

The world cheered in unison.

acionescu
11-09-2011, 11:35 AM
I'm against

Sunset of Age
11-09-2011, 03:52 PM
No, I think you are poor at arguing. I have been giving biological arguments here because I wanted to refute Verd & Dutchie's assertion that they were speaking from the lofty heights of biology. They weren't and I called them on it.

Which is why I don't even try to do that. But I can discuss things from the biological perspective, especially when some pseudoscientists like Dutchie & Verd come on here, plaster their biology "credentials" all over the forum, and start spouting nonsense.

Want me to mail you my PhD? :wavey:
Don't worry, I won't, you'd probably dismiss it anyways. As you don't "believe". And that's all that matters, isn't it? :stupid:

Pirata.
11-09-2011, 04:19 PM
Men :rolleyes:

I'm sure if men were the ones getting pregnant, abortion would be legal the way erectile dysfunction is covered by insured but birth control isn't.

2. As a person who cares about numbers, I find it ridiculous the way partial-birth abortions are brought up by anti-choice advocates as a scare tactic, when the absolute FACT is that only a fraction of a percentage point of abortions are late-term/partial-birth.

As always, I agree with you and I just felt the need to point out, with regards to your second point, that probably 99.999% cases of late term/partial-birth abortions are done by couples where the child is WANTED but due to medical or life-threatening circumstances or either mother, child or both, delivering the child to full term would be borderline impossible. There are PLENTY of stories of couples who considered themselves pro-life, yet discovered at the end of the second or the beginning of the third trimester that the fetus was severely deformed and would either eventually die in utero, die shortly after birth, die during delivery or the mother AND child would die in delivery, etc.

Late term abortions are almost always done for medical purpose and almost always done by parents who have to make heart wrenching choices about terminating a WANTED pregnancy because the outcome of the pregnancy will have almost certainly fatal consequences for the child, mother or both.

Pirata.
11-09-2011, 04:29 PM
Gypsies in Eastern Europe and African Americans in the US are disproportionately involved in crime in those areas of the world.

2.) Partial birth abortions have zero justification. At late term, if the mother's heath is endangered it is just as easy to induce labor or perform a C-section as to dismember a mature fetus in the womb or remove the body (keeping the head in the uterus) and suck out the brains with a vacuum. Partial birth abortions are always done because the mother want's to get rid of the fetus and never because of "her health."

You are utterly disgusting.

Sofonda Cox
11-09-2011, 06:10 PM
I'm sure there was another thread on this here somewhere from a few years back. I'm pro abortion (in the very early stages), as I believe women should have the right to choose, and taking that away will end up with women either trying ways to abort the fetus themselves or going to backstreet 'doctors' who end up making a mess and killing them.

Ilovetheblues_86
11-09-2011, 06:12 PM
How about everyone in this thread that defends abortion go back in the time and abort themselves?

We could even make a movie of it, putting this as the front cover:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_r-IWwPwarKY/TJKII53L11I/AAAAAAAAAC0/P3y0ljYJArg/s1600/goya_cronos.jpg

Topspindoctor
11-10-2011, 03:44 AM
Men :rolleyes:

I'm sure if men were the ones getting pregnant, abortion would be legal the way erectile dysfunction is covered by insured but birth control isn't.

I am a man and I think abortion should be 100% legal and encouraged :shrug: Furthermore, I am far from a feminist, in fact I have been labeled a sexist pig more than once.

I think too many people are still clinging to religious beliefs that life is somehow "sacred". It isn't. Whether one more or one less person is born is of very little consequence when the world is severly overpopulated already.

Abortion may or may not be murder, depending on your particular religious or ethical view, but in the end does it really matter? We have overpopulated this planet already, so one more abortion is only to the benefit in the long run.

Pirata.
11-10-2011, 04:36 AM
^^
That's because guys like you and Verd have common sense about this issue, which sadly, other posters in this thread--and probably millions of men AND women worldwide, mostly religious, but not all--are lacking :o

@Sweet Cleopatra
11-10-2011, 06:15 AM
I won't do it unless in rap* or medical conditions cause I am not going to end my son/daughter existence, but it's up to every woman.

JolánGagó
11-10-2011, 10:01 AM
Yup. :yeah: If those who say they truly care about ~life~ and ending abortions actually want to help, they would be for free and easy-to-access contraception, free healthcare for all so that no woman would ever have to go into poverty to bring a child who wasn't 100% healthy into the world, and abolishment of corporal punishment. Then I might take these anti-choice cranks and their claims to be "pro-life" far more seriously :wavey:

What a huge amount of meaningless demagogery for dummies.

buddyholly
11-10-2011, 11:55 AM
I won't do it unless in rap* or medical conditions cause I am not going to end my son/daughter existence, but it's up to every woman.


Do we have an "r" word now? Is there no limit to Bowdler's influence?

Mae
11-10-2011, 12:06 PM
I'm disappointed that all of you overlooked the only encouraging and positive post in this thread:

I couldn't pick up the quote you were quoting, but the reason a lot of doctors won't do procedures like that when a person is very young is because later in life they may change their minds. That happened to a cousin of mine. My feelings on abortion is only if the mother's life is in danger and in the case of ****. The Forum rightly doesn't like that word, but I think all of you can figure it out.

buddyholly
11-10-2011, 12:08 PM
W**t the **** does **** mean?

Where is it ever stated that **** is a forbidden word on MTF? It surely has not sunk that low yet?

EDIT:I don't believe it. I can write fuck as much as I like and somehow when I write epar backwards it gets turned into ****. This indeed is MTF at the lowest point in its existence. Are adults forbidden to speak in here? Is it now a forum for pre-teens only? Utterly infantile behaviour by whatever child has decided to insult people for behaving like adults.

Whoever thought up this example of idiocy must surely be given the ass clown crown for all eternity. I still don't believe this is possible. FUCK FUCK FUCK **** **** ****

What dumb asshole has taken the responsibility to turn us all into simpering babies in a playpen? That person must go on the grounds of suffering from terminal political incorrectness.

The only thing that has been ***** here is common sense.

Can we have a thread to discuss why such babylike rules are imposed on the members? Will the person who decides these things step forward and explain the policy. Can he/she explain how the world is a better place by censoring simple nouns? Is the world safer now that we are forbidden to talk about a crime? Does not talking about it make it go away?

JolánGagó
11-10-2011, 12:33 PM
haha yep, that's MTF for you.

Mae
11-10-2011, 01:44 PM
I have read on other Forums that the Forums themselves are set up to do this **** to certain words. A poster was trying to post a story about a person with the last name Dick and the Forum put in ****. But see this Forum allowed the word Dick. I think you need to talk to the Mods/Admins. about this.

buddyholly
11-10-2011, 01:47 PM
If the mods are of a mindset that can not differentiate between the act of **** and the word ****, then talking to them would be a waste of time I think.

Mae
11-10-2011, 02:18 PM
It is built into the Forum and can be changed. At least in that other Forum it was because the poster finally got his story posted with the name Dick typed out in it.

shiaben
11-11-2011, 03:47 AM
lmao what's up with these controversial topics. Tomorrow it will be gun control, the day after gay marriage, and anything else that may involve passionate supporters or opponents :D. Well, as long as the arguments make sense, that's what should count.

Aloimeh
11-11-2011, 03:52 AM
Want me to mail you my PhD? :wavey:
Don't worry, I won't, you'd probably dismiss it anyways. As you don't "believe". And that's all that matters, isn't it? :stupid:

Honestly, anyone who attempts to "refute" :tape: fact-based conclusions by using weasel words (e.g. describing a reliance on peer-reviews knowledge as "lofty" and elitist :spit: ) and trying to dress up a false analogy as a point isn't worth the time. :lol: Trying to compare concepts of humanity, sentience, human life, and a sentient woman's autonomy over her own body to the growth of acorns and oak trees? :spit: I must admit that is a new one. :lol:

Re. your hardcore alternative/vegan (ex-)friends, that was the first thing I thought myself: If they were so concerned about natural living and not putting anything "unnatural in their bodies," why on earth would such a woman choose a "contraception" route which ends up requiring her to be involved in an "unnatural" procedure in the end anyway? :confused: Some people :silly:

Bonnie: why do you think I care a mite for your "credentials." Defend your positions with arguments.

Abortion is clearly a moral issue, not one of biology.

The only thing biology can do is shed light on whether there is a moral question here at all. Biology tells us that a conceptus is a living human being. By that, I mean one of the life stages of the organism Homo sapiens. Biology is ignorant of whether or not a zygote/embryo/fetus is sentient.

The question of whether all human life - or only sentient life, intelligent life, life with voting rights and jobs, life that can contribute to an economy and culture, etc. - is worthy of being defended from intentional destruction, is a moral question.

I never once brought up moral arguments because I realize full well that they are predicated on one's morality and there is no universal standard on this forum, although I certainly believe there is a universal standard that should apply.

As for you, Verd, your post is nothing but a pure lie. I never initiated the discussion of women's "rights," autonomy, sentience, humanity, etc. I simply pointed out what biology says, which is that organisms belong to the same species as their parents and that a developing zygote/embryo/fetus of any mammal is considered to be a part of the life cycle of that mammal and thus alive.

You can take your moralizing wherever you like, for all I care. Just don't try to lie to everyone here. There are witnesses.

Aloimeh
11-11-2011, 03:56 AM
Men :rolleyes:

I'm sure if men were the ones getting pregnant, abortion would be legal the way erectile dysfunction is covered by insured but birth control isn't.

Stop turning a fundamental moral issue into one of women's "rights." It has nothing to do with women. Biology dictates that men produce motile gametes and inseminate women, who carry the pregnancy to term. Yes, that imposes certain heightened restrictions on female sexual behavior, but so what? Does that entitle them to murder inconvenient children willy nilly because they want to sleep around when they aren't ready to raise a child or it isn't socially acceptable (or the baby is female or has a hereditary illness or whatever other goofy excuse people will bring up for murder).

As always, I agree with you and I just felt the need to point out, with regards to your second point, that probably 99.999% cases of late term/partial-birth abortions are done by couples where the child is WANTED but due to medical or life-threatening circumstances or either mother, child or both, delivering the child to full term would be borderline impossible. There are PLENTY of stories of couples who considered themselves pro-life, yet discovered at the end of the second or the beginning of the third trimester that the fetus was severely deformed and would either eventually die in utero, die shortly after birth, die during delivery or the mother AND child would die in delivery, etc.

Late term abortions are almost always done for medical purpose and almost always done by parents who have to make heart wrenching choices about terminating a WANTED pregnancy because the outcome of the pregnancy will have almost certainly fatal consequences for the child, mother or both.

I am calling pure BS on this. Late term abortion is NOT done for the health of the mother. It is done because she doesn't want that child to live. Whatever her reasons may be - birth defect, divorce, ambivalence throughout the pregnancy - it is NOT the health of the mother that dictates that a 7 month old fetus needs to have its brains sucked out. That fetus can be successfully delivered with equal or less risk to the mother in the delivery process.

So please stop the lies.

You are utterly disgusting.

No, you are disgusting. You want to enable women to exterminate their children for no more reason than the fact that they don't want them. You are even OK with doing this when the child could survive outside the womb if it were to be removed by C-section or induced labor. It's you that's sick, not I.

Aloimeh
11-11-2011, 03:57 AM
Yup. :yeah: If those who say they truly care about ~life~ and ending abortions actually want to help, they would be for free and easy-to-access contraception, free healthcare for all so that no woman would ever have to go into poverty to bring a child who wasn't 100% healthy into the world, and abolishment of corporal punishment. Then I might take these anti-choice cranks and their claims to be "pro-life" far more seriously :wavey:

It doesn't surprise me that you are a fan of free and easy everything. What's next, zoophilia?

Aloimeh
11-11-2011, 03:59 AM
lmao what's up with these controversial topics. Tomorrow it will be gun control, the day after gay marriage, and anything else that may involve passionate supporters or opponents :D. Well, as long as the arguments make sense, that's what should count.

Mine are the only ones that have actually addressed biology on this thread.

The rest was rabid histrionics and poseur kabuki theater.

Dutchie:
http://www.georgejgoodstadt.com/goodstadt/t/kabuki_sugawara_thumb.jpg

Verd:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KMqOPeCgoT0/TTg91P8l7zI/AAAAAAAAKnk/5GnCF2MfMK8/s1600/lion%2Bdancer-Kabuki%2Btheater-1976.jpg

shiaben
11-11-2011, 04:01 AM
My views on abortion are mixed. I'm like one of those guys in the middle of the water.

But you should definitely be entitled to say what you want to say and people should be more respectful toward you as long as you've asserted your reasons (which you did on some of the biological posts).

Unfortunately though, attacks will come regardless, given people get frustrated over these issues and their way is the highway type of thing.

Topspindoctor
11-11-2011, 04:16 AM
Stop turning a fundamental moral issue into one of women's "rights." It has nothing to do with women. Biology dictates that men produce motile gametes and inseminate women, who carry the pregnancy to term. Yes, that imposes certain heightened restrictions on female sexual behavior, but so what? Does that entitle them to murder inconvenient children willy nilly because they want to sleep around when they aren't ready to raise a child or it isn't socially acceptable (or the baby is female or has a hereditary illness or whatever other goofy excuse people will bring up for murder).

It's not murder. It's getting rid of genetic material a particular female does not wish to nurture inside herself. Why should we burden females with potential children when the world has over 7 billion people already? It just doesn't make sense. Why should we ruin lives of children who will be born and unwanted, ultimately relegated to foster homes and asylums? Why should we ruin lives of dumb girls who got pregnant, but didn't know any better? You judge things from moral point of view. Learn a little pragmatism.



I am calling pure BS on this. Late term abortion is NOT done for the health of the mother. It is done because she doesn't want that child to live. Whatever her reasons may be - birth defect, divorce, ambivalence throughout the pregnancy - it is NOT the health of the mother that dictates that a 7 month old fetus needs to have its brains sucked out. That fetus can be successfully delivered with equal or less risk to the mother in the delivery process.

So please stop the lies.

If a potential mother does not want a child, then she does not want a child. Technology is a wonderful thing. It allows young would-be mothers to correct their mistakes. It is not your place to adopt holier-than-thou attitude and ruin lives of both females and their unborn babies by introducing absolutely pointless ethics into the discussion. Better to get rid of unwanted thing, than destroy the lives of both.


No, you are disgusting. You want to enable women to exterminate their children for no more reason than the fact that they don't want them. You are even OK with doing this when the child could survive outside the womb if it were to be removed by C-section or induced labor. It's you that's sick, not I.

Females should have a right to their own body, that includes abortion. Once again, I am tired of holier-than-thou attitudes in regards to abortion. We evolved to a level where we can give women freedom to choose whether they keep their potential child or not. Why follow medieval way of thinking that all life is sacred and abortion is murder? Honestly, I wish people freed themselves from such petty thoughts and became more pragmatic and logical, rather than religious and "ethical".

Sophocles
11-11-2011, 11:56 AM
My thoughts are that reading MTF makes it seem a somewhat better idea.

buddyholly
11-11-2011, 02:05 PM
Unfortunately though, attacks will come regardless, given people get frustrated over these issues and their way is the highway type of thing.

You have just described Aloimeh here, who insists that science must take a backseat to the Biblical highway.

jmjhb
11-11-2011, 02:14 PM
Reading Aloimeh's posts has actually increased my disdain for religion, something I previously thought was impossible.

Start da Game
11-11-2011, 05:09 PM
the decision has to be left to the woman......

Hian-GOAT
11-11-2011, 07:09 PM
The decision has to be taken from both man and woman.
If a couple doesn't want a child, abort is the only thing to do. No way a girl and a boy of 17 years have to destroy their lives and their dreams to grow up a creature they didn't even want.

Aloimeh
11-12-2011, 03:55 AM
:haha: Yes, saying that I support free contraception and free healthcare so as to help reduce the number of abortions brought about by lack of affordable access to both means I'm all for zoophilia. :silly:

Why should healthcare or contraception be free, any more than music lessons, language learning programs, art exhibits, or any other supposed "common good" which is really more a matter of election than of lubricating (pun intended) society and the economy. Contraception is something couples need to take responsibility for. If they are unwilling to shell out the money for condoms, jellies, foams, pills, or whatever else they use, then they shouldn't have sex. If they can't afford those things, they shouldn't have sex. Sex is not a right or a privilege. The state has no responsibility to encourage ANY sort of sex other than the one that leads to reproduction, because reproduction is essential for maintenance of a population, it's government and army, culture, etc. - in short, necessary for the survival of the state.

If it's not an issue of biology, then people on your side of the issue need to stop making claims that go against basic biological principles and asserting them as fact in order to bolster their case. :wavey:

What basic biological principles have I gone against? I have been affirming them all along. It's you and others here that introduce non-biological reasons why a developing zygote/infant/fetus is not worthy of having its life be protected from intentional destruction.

Aaaaaaand that's precisely the fundamental problem with your so-called argument. For you to think that humanity and the rights of the woman (which you helpfully put in quotes to show what little regard you have for the idea) has no place in a discussion over whether or not a single-celled zygote or a 128-celled embryo or early-stage blastula has rights that supersede those of the woman whose body it is inhabiting is a full crock:

The number of cells are irrelevant. We do not accord more fundamental human rights (e.g. the right to live and not get murdered) to bigger people because they weigh more or people who have more cells or adults over children. Well, other than abortion, where because a fetus has fewer cells and can't scream "Stop, I want to live!" and it's hidden behind the opaque walls of the womb, many think it's totally OK to do away with that human being.

The problem with people like you is that you misuse scientific rhetoric and twist it with fallacious reasoning to suit your own agenda. Are you genuinely so obtuse that you think the fact that a zygote and a living human being are "part of the same species" and "part of the same life cycle" that this somehow means that a zygote has a right to life? By your own fallacious reasoning, a man who masturbates is murdering millions of "babies" every time he does it. This means that roughly 90% of men are committing genocide on a regular basis, so where's your outrage? :spit:

No, I merely said that people who claim biology stands by them in the abortion debate are wrong. Biology says that zygotes/embryos/fetuses are living human beings/organisms. Now, you can say that that alone is not enough to protect them from being killed, that they need a certain IQ, brain mass, etc. But you can't claim they are tumors, "just tissue" or something else idiotic like that.

Masturbation involves ejaculation of a cell suspension. Those cells are part of a multicellular organism. Each sperm cell (or egg cell) is no more a living organism than a retinal cell or a skin cell or a muscle fiber. The zygote, on the other hand, is an independent single-celled organism, much like a paramecium or euglena.

:spit: Are you kidding me? Enjoy this break-down on late-term abortion and Dr. George Tiller's clinic, put out by that classic example of flaming hippie "liberal mainstream media," the Wall Street Journal:

:wavey: Saying others are lying while propagating lies of your own isn't the right way to convince people. But I realize that's the only real strategy the anti-choice side really has. :hug:

Tiller was a baby killer and nothing more. He's roasting in hell right now for the genocidal campaign he unleashed on the unborn innocents of America.

Aloimeh
11-12-2011, 04:27 AM
You have just described Aloimeh here, who insists that science must take a backseat to the Biblical highway.

Right, because I've been quoting the Bible left and right when discussing the biology of a developing human being. :stupid:

Aloimeh
11-12-2011, 04:29 AM
The decision has to be taken from both man and woman.
If a couple doesn't want a child, abort is the only thing to do. No way a girl and a boy of 17 years have to destroy their lives and their dreams to grow up a creature they didn't even want.

Too bad, so sad. Maybe these lovely 17 year olds should keep their genitals away from each other if they don't want children, the murderous f*ckers.

Topspindoctor
11-12-2011, 04:32 AM
Too bad, so sad. Maybe these lovely 17 year olds should keep their genitals away from each other if they don't want children, the murderous f*ckers.

Are you for real?

Some kids can be very intelligent, but not wise in life. Punishing them and their unwanted children that would be ultimately neglected or relegated to foster homes is stupid.

Sunset of Age
11-12-2011, 04:40 AM
My thoughts are that reading MTF makes it seem a somewhat better idea.

Reading Aloimeh's posts has actually increased my disdain for religion, something I previously thought was impossible.

the decision has to be left to the woman......

:yeah:

Reading Aloimeh's posts over here makes me hope he'll never find a woman to spend his life with at all. It may well bring along major damage to that poor woman. :o

Aloimeh
11-12-2011, 04:49 AM
Are you for real?

Some kids can be very intelligent, but not wise in life. Punishing them and their unwanted children that would be ultimately neglected or relegated to foster homes is stupid.

I'm always serious. Sex is not just some fun casual thing. Unless you are ready to deal with all the consequences of consensual sex, you are not ready to have it. That might mean pregnancy, even if you are using contraception (which fails from time to time).

The fact that 17 year olds have the lust for sex but lack the emotional and socioeconomic wherewithal to raise children doesn't absolve them of the responsibility of dealing with those children in a humane way. If they cannot take care of them, they can give them up for adoption to parents who do want children.

Irresponsible sex is not a license for murder.

MaxPower
11-12-2011, 10:36 AM
Last thing this planet needs is bringing more unwanted children into the world. It's overpopulated already and we are just decades away from a 1-child policy globally.

Life for life itself has no meaning. Humans are not a virus. The most basic thing for all living organisms is to reproduce. We are supposed to be beyond that. We are playing with nature everyday anyway. Contraceptive methods and you trick nature. Save those children born way too early and you trick nature. Abortion and you trick nature.

We are doing it all the time in all different aspects of biology. Why o why would abortion be anything more vile than any other medical procedures that override natures own mechanisms? Some people want back to the stone age? Humans choose because we can choose. Thank you medical science.

clandis
11-12-2011, 07:38 PM
I have had an abortion. My birth control failed. The embryo was a potential human. I did not want to have a baby, for myself, or for my boyfriend. Zero regrets. Mind your own business.
if i am going to your hell, my problem, not yours. Shut up.

Aloimeh
11-12-2011, 07:52 PM
I have had an abortion. My birth control failed. The embryo was a potential human. I did not want to have a baby, for myself, or for my boyfriend. Zero regrets. Mind your own business.
if i am going to your hell, my problem, not yours. Shut up.

No, the embryo was human. No more "potential" than you are potentially human. In fact, your viciousness and callousness would make you less human in my book than that embryo.

Whether or not you have regrets over your killing of your own progeny is your problem. Killing human beings is not your own business, even if the state allows you to do it when they are hidden in your uterus. Murder is murder. I'm merely discussing it here, haven't gone out to lobby or protest at abortion clinics, which perhaps I should be doing.

And yes, you are going to hell as things stand, but not because of your abortion (alone).

And I won't shut up about the murder of millions of humans in our midst. You ought to shut up out of shame.

buddyholly
11-12-2011, 08:46 PM
Right, because I've been quoting the Bible left and right when discussing the biology of a developing human being. :stupid:

No, when you run screaming from any discussion of the scientific age of the earth and say it can't be that old, because the bible puts it at 6000 years.
If you will reject the science of age dating you will reject anything, no matter how certain.

And having read your venom here, you are not even a real Christian, but seem to be more aligned with those pathetic "God hates fags'' scum.

Pirata.
11-13-2011, 01:39 AM
Why should healthcare or contraception be free, any more than music lessons, language learning programs, art exhibits, or any other supposed "common good" which is really more a matter of election than of lubricating (pun intended) society and the economy. Contraception is something couples need to take responsibility for. If they are unwilling to shell out the money for condoms, jellies, foams, pills, or whatever else they use, then they shouldn't have sex. If they can't afford those things, they shouldn't have sex. Sex is not a right or a privilege. The state has no responsibility to encourage ANY sort of sex other than the one that leads to reproduction, because reproduction is essential for maintenance of a population, it's government and army, culture, etc. - in short, necessary for the survival of the state.

:facepalm:

Pirata.
11-13-2011, 01:46 AM
And I won't shut up about the murder of millions of humans in our midst. You ought to shut up out of shame.

If you care so much about the murder of millions of humans, then why aren't you also speaking out on the crisis in the Middle East or the abduction/murder of the child soldiers in Rwanda? You say healthcare isn't a right, so what happens when a woman has a miscarriage because of poor medical conditions where she lives? Oh well, at least it was capable of a few weeks of "life" right?

Or are the lives of these people not as important to you as protesting the survival of a clump of microscopic cells? Because you seem really focused on this issue. How much time have you spent volunteering your time in a soup kitchen to help feed the homeless? Do you donate to cancer and AIDS foundations? Why aren't you advocating for the people already on this earth who are suffering?

And don't give me that bullshit about how every life is sacred, otherwise you would be advocating for people in war torn countries like Southern Sudan as much as you seem focused on an embryo.

Topspindoctor
11-13-2011, 01:51 AM
Contraception and abortion should be free because there are too many fucking people in the world already. People are not the most important thing on this planet. We fucked it up by breeding like rabbits. 7billion = way too many, whether you think abortion is murder or not. If I had a choice to murder a few billion unborn babies just to preserve a few animal species who are counted in the hundreds, I would happily take the choice. It's sick how some think we should destroy everything just to follow some arbitary ethics and morals.

Pirata.
11-13-2011, 01:58 AM
If Aloimeh had his way, everyone would be like the Duggars

http://cdn.babble.com/famecrawler/files/2011/06/duggar-family-picture.jpg

jmjhb
11-13-2011, 02:04 AM
And yes, you are going to hell as things stand, but not because of your abortion (alone).



:lol:

Gotta love that get-out-of-hell clause.

Clydey
11-13-2011, 02:04 AM
No, the embryo was human. No more "potential" than you are potentially human. In fact, your viciousness and callousness would make you less human in my book than that embryo.

Whether or not you have regrets over your killing of your own progeny is your problem. Killing human beings is not your own business, even if the state allows you to do it when they are hidden in your uterus. Murder is murder. I'm merely discussing it here, haven't gone out to lobby or protest at abortion clinics, which perhaps I should be doing.

And yes, you are going to hell as things stand, but not because of your abortion (alone).

And I won't shut up about the murder of millions of humans in our midst. You ought to shut up out of shame.

It's strange how concerned you are with 'humans' inside the womb, yet seem indifferent to those outside the womb. If only the likes of you valued people as much as embryos, everyone in the USA would have access to healthcare.

Joolz
11-13-2011, 02:24 AM
If you care so much about the murder of millions of humans, then why aren't you also speaking out on the crisis in the Middle East or the abduction/murder of the child soldiers in Rwanda? You say healthcare isn't a right, so what happens when a woman has a miscarriage because of poor medical conditions where she lives? Oh well, at least it was capable of a few weeks of "life" right?

Or are the lives of these people not as important to you as protesting the survival of a clump of microscopic cells? Because you seem really focused on this issue. How much time have you spent volunteering your time in a soup kitchen to help feed the homeless? Do you donate to cancer and AIDS foundations? Why aren't you advocating for the people already on this earth who are suffering?

And don't give me that bullshit about how every life is sacred, otherwise you would be advocating for people in war torn countries like Southern Sudan as much as you seem focused on an embryo.


Aloimeh has made it clear before that his views on matters like evolution and abortion are derived from his interpretation of Christianity.

According to which almost everybody on this planet (as well as almost everybody who has ever lived on it) will go to hell, anyway. Simply for not adhering to the right kind of faith and regardless of their actions, background or culture.

Therefore, whether you're an Israeli or an Iraqi, who gets killed in a suicide bombing, whether you're a civil war victim in Rwanda or Sudan, or whether you're a woman who, faced with a difficult decision, chooses to have her child but not as a Christian in Aloimeh's sense - it doesn't matter. Eternity in hell fire is what awaits you.

It's just so very easy to paint things in black and white, from a safe enough distance away.

buddyholly
11-13-2011, 03:18 AM
If you care so much about the murder of millions of humans, then why aren't you also speaking out on the crisis in the Middle East or the abduction/murder of the child soldiers in Rwanda?

Because this is a thread on abortion, maybe? We had lots of Middle East threads. As far as I remember abortion was not mentioned as a contributing factor to the crisis.

But Aloimeh is partly right, abortions should not be billed to the taxpayer, unless it is a medical emergency.

buddyholly
11-13-2011, 03:25 AM
If Aloimeh had his way, everyone would be like the Duggars

http://cdn.babble.com/famecrawler/files/2011/06/duggar-family-picture.jpg

Looks like a happy family to me! Is there something wrong with that, if they are happy?

Pirata.
11-13-2011, 03:36 AM
Because this is a thread on abortion, maybe? We had lots of Middle East threads. As far as I remember abortion was not mentioned as a contributing factor to the crisis.

But Aloimeh is partly right, abortions should not be billed to the taxpayer, unless it is a medical emergency.

Where was I saying abortion was part of a crisis in the Middle East? :confused: I asked since he's so concerned about embryos and fetuses, whether or not he is also concerned about other problems affecting humans.

You act as every abortion is being billed to every single individual taxpayer. My taxes go towards schools, healthcare, transportation, infrastructure, military, etc. I sure as hell don't want to pay for men to get treatment for erectile dysfunction, but that's covered by most insurance companies.

Aren't you from the UK? Don't you guys already have some form of universal healthcare anyway?

Looks like a happy family to me! Is there something wrong with that, if they are happy?

Here are some articles from different perspectives, including a former Quiverfull mom and a Christian viewpoint.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/03/16/extreme-motherhood.html
http://nolongerquivering.com/
http://whynottrainachild.com/tag/quiverfull/
http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2011-05/quiver-full-controversy

Of course, considering your comments in other threads, I'm sure you wouldn't find any of this wrong at all.

buddyholly
11-13-2011, 01:10 PM
Where was I saying abortion was part of a crisis in the Middle East? :confused: I asked since he's so concerned about embryos and fetuses, whether or not he is also concerned about other problems affecting humans.

What you acxtually asked is why he is not ''speaking out'' on the Middle East crisis, not whether he is concerned. Maybe because the protagonists in the Middle East are adults and have to solve their own problems, whereas embryos and fetuses can't speak or act for themselves.
His counterargument would be ''if you don't care about killing fetuses, why would you worry about the lives of Rwandan child soldiers?"

I couldn't care less about the Duggars. Religion leads people to do strange things. But when an article appears in the Daily Beast saying that having lots of children is ''anti-feminist'' behaviour, I have to laugh at the contradiction. ''Oh dear, the Duggars are not living a proper feminist lifestyle and actually seem to be a happy family. Shame on them.'' The article said nothing about whether the Duggar children are happy, nourished and loved. I guess those are not feminist concerns
Are they any more shameful than women who keep getting pregnant, but have no interest in motherhood?

If you are considering my comments in other threads as relevant, you should really quote them, otherwise you are just babbling.

merryploughbhoy
11-14-2011, 01:16 AM
Only an irresponsible idiot would need an abortion, contraception is made very easy in this age so why let life get to that stage in the first place - anyone carrying out this homicide deserves the criticism they get. The only time I would condone it is if it was due to raype and this would be an unlikely as the M.A pill should be used in that scenario. It is a form of murder and I don't care what the science/athiest/secularist over zealous brigade think, you freaks are worse than extreme religious people.

Pirata.
11-14-2011, 01:32 AM
The only time I would condone it is if it was due to raype and this would be an unlikely as the M.A pill should be used in that scenario.

:stupid:

Yes, because every single woman who is sexually assaulted (since we can't type the actual word) has access to contraceptives or morning after pills. I'm sure that nine year old girl in Brazil who was ***** by her stepfather and became pregnant with twins is a terrible person for pleading with her mother to allow her to terminate the pregnancy.

Yep, because every single woman on the planet, including a nine year old from a poor family who was ***** by a close family member, has the resources and access to contraception or a morning after pill.

How about people stop trying to police women's bodies. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. No one is forcing you to HAVE one, so it's not necessary to force people not to have one :shrug:

whereas embryos and fetuses can't speak or act for themselves.

Nope, but the women carrying them can speak or act for themselves and their feelings are more important than an embryo :wavey:

tripwires
11-14-2011, 08:13 AM
Why should healthcare or contraception be free, any more than music lessons, language learning programs, art exhibits, or any other supposed "common good" which is really more a matter of election than of lubricating (pun intended) society and the economy. Contraception is something couples need to take responsibility for. If they are unwilling to shell out the money for condoms, jellies, foams, pills, or whatever else they use, then they shouldn't have sex. If they can't afford those things, they shouldn't have sex. Sex is not a right or a privilege. The state has no responsibility to encourage ANY sort of sex other than the one that leads to reproduction, because reproduction is essential for maintenance of a population, it's government and army, culture, etc. - in short, necessary for the survival of the state.

...

Tiller was a baby killer and nothing more. He's roasting in hell right now for the genocidal campaign he unleashed on the unborn innocents of America.

Being unfamiliar with most MTF posters because I don't post here much or read anything outside of General Messages and the Federer Express forum, I followed your posts in this thread at first with interest and an open mind. That immediately stopped when I read the above-quoted post, especially the parts in bold.

It appears to me that your views on abortion is premised upon a very fundamental interpretation of Christianity that seems to reject even contraception. I don't understand this viewpoint: if you're against abortion, surely you should be interested in couples having adequate access to contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Or are you of the view that sex should only occur between married couples?

I do sympathise with your viewpoints to a certain extent, although I'm an atheist. I think people who view abortion as a form of contraception are irresponsible and shouldn't be having sex in the first place, and I do not share the pragmatic view put forward by Topspindoctor that abortions are necessary for population control. I can understand how a person would see abortion as murder or a wrongful termination of human life because, to some extent, there is something slightly abhorrent about terminating the start of a human life. It is for this reason that I highly doubt I would ever have an abortion if I find myself in a situation where I would have to contemplate it. (However, I find it hard to accept that an embryo is a human being.)

But you can't have it both ways, can you? On the one hand, you view abortions as murderous and "genocidal"; on the other hand, you don't support better access to contraception by way of the state handing it out for free, be it to people who can't afford it or people who can't be bothered to pay for it. Sure, sex isn't a right, but who is anyone to tell someone else that he/she shouldn't be having sex? The only thing that the state can do, really, in a secular society where religious and moral values differ, is to ensure, as far as possible, that unwanted pregnancies are prevented by encouraging contraception, not abstinence. Abstinence is a personal choice; contraception is a necessity. Sure, I would love to live in a world where couples who have sex are responsible for their actions, but the sad reality is that we live in a world populated by idiots. And so it seems only logical to me that anyone who opposes abortion on the basis that it's murder should, by logical extension, support measures that encourages contraception...unless the person is a fundamental Christian, in which case no logical argument is possible.

Sorry to say this, because I sympathise with you a little bit, but you sound like one of those fundamental Christians to me. The bit about Tilly roasting in hell, etc, did nothing to make you appear any less crazy.

tripwires
11-14-2011, 08:19 AM
Only an irresponsible idiot would need an abortion, contraception is made very easy in this age so why let life get to that stage in the first place - anyone carrying out this homicide deserves the criticism they get. The only time I would condone it is if it was due to raype and this would be an unlikely as the M.A pill should be used in that scenario. It is a form of murder and I don't care what the science/athiest/secularist over zealous brigade think, you freaks are worse than extreme religious people.

Sorry to break this to you, but it's the extreme religious people who are trying to dictate how other people live their lives. I, for one, know what I'm capable and incapable of doing, but I don't try to shove my own views down anyone else's throat. I can't say the same for the religious fanatics (such as yourself?).

buddyholly
11-14-2011, 01:23 PM
But you can't have it both ways, can you? On the one hand, you view abortions as murderous and "genocidal"; on the other hand, you don't support better access to contraception by way of the state handing it out for free, be it to people who can't afford it or people who can't be bothered to pay for it.

I can hardly believe I read this.

My weakness is foie gras, but if I can't be bothered to pay for it, should I be able to stop at a clinic on the way home for a free package of ''serves two''? Tell me where that service is offered and I'll emigrate right away.

tripwires
11-14-2011, 02:16 PM
The concern that the poster to whom I replied was that abortions are evil. The solution, to put it simply, is to encourage the use of contraception. The broad point that I made was the point, not the details.

But if you want to quibble over the details, perhaps there should be a monthly quota of free condoms that a person can get from state-sponsored clinics or something.

In any case, I don't have an opinion on whether the state should give out condoms/other forms of contraception (probably condoms, as they're cheaper than, say, the pill). I just did not understand the poster's logic: he's anti-abortion on one hand and seems to be anti-contraception too on the other hand. If you're anti-abortion, surely you would support some sort of measures by the state to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Like I said, sex isn't a right or a privilege, but restricting access to contraception on that grounds and opposing abortion at the same time doesn't sound right to me.

Sham Kay
11-14-2011, 02:26 PM
When it comes to abortion I usually agree with whatever the nearest woman believes. If there are two women with differing beliefs in close proximity, I fake a heart attack.

Aloimeh
11-14-2011, 03:01 PM
If you care so much about the murder of millions of humans, then why aren't you also speaking out on the crisis in the Middle East or the abduction/murder of the child soldiers in Rwanda? You say healthcare isn't a right, so what happens when a woman has a miscarriage because of poor medical conditions where she lives? Oh well, at least it was capable of a few weeks of "life" right?

Or are the lives of these people not as important to you as protesting the survival of a clump of microscopic cells? Because you seem really focused on this issue. How much time have you spent volunteering your time in a soup kitchen to help feed the homeless? Do you donate to cancer and AIDS foundations? Why aren't you advocating for the people already on this earth who are suffering?

And don't give me that bullshit about how every life is sacred, otherwise you would be advocating for people in war torn countries like Southern Sudan as much as you seem focused on an embryo.

Who said the lives of others are not important. But this thread isn't about the Middle East or Rwanda. And I try to keep my focus most strongly on what is most local to me. Abortion takes place all the time in the city, state, and country in which I live. I am very far away from the Middle East and East Africa and am in no position to do anything about those situations - either way - other than pray.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the fact that an embryo is a clump of microscopic cells is irrelevant. It changes nothing about their status as humans and it doesn't say anything about whether they're alive or dead. You are a cluster of microscopic cells. That - and the fact that you've been behaving like an asshole here - has nothing to with the question of what species you belong to and whether you are alive or not.

Contraception and abortion should be free because there are too many fucking people in the world already. People are not the most important thing on this planet. We fucked it up by breeding like rabbits. 7billion = way too many, whether you think abortion is murder or not. If I had a choice to murder a few billion unborn babies just to preserve a few animal species who are counted in the hundreds, I would happily take the choice. It's sick how some think we should destroy everything just to follow some arbitary ethics and morals.

Hello, Adolf Gore.

It's strange how concerned you are with 'humans' inside the womb, yet seem indifferent to those outside the womb. If only the likes of you valued people as much as embryos, everyone in the USA would have access to healthcare.

BS derail, just like most of the posts on this thread. Why should everyone in the US have access to healthcare? Why is the right to free healthcare something that takes precedence over the right to not be killed with impunity?

Where was I saying abortion was part of a crisis in the Middle East? :confused: I asked since he's so concerned about embryos and fetuses, whether or not he is also concerned about other problems affecting humans.

You act as every abortion is being billed to every single individual taxpayer. My taxes go towards schools, healthcare, transportation, infrastructure, military, etc. I sure as hell don't want to pay for men to get treatment for erectile dysfunction, but that's covered by most insurance companies.

Aren't you from the UK? Don't you guys already have some form of universal healthcare anyway?

Here are some articles from different perspectives, including a former Quiverfull mom and a Christian viewpoint.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/03/16/extreme-motherhood.html
http://nolongerquivering.com/
http://whynottrainachild.com/tag/quiverfull/
http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2011-05/quiver-full-controversy

Of course, considering your comments in other threads, I'm sure you wouldn't find any of this wrong at all.

Mother of all derails. I never said I supported Quiverfull. I never said I opposed contraception in principle. You are arguing against positions that were never advocated here in an effort to make me out to be an irrational fundamentalist who is beyond the pale.

What you acxtually asked is why he is not ''speaking out'' on the Middle East crisis, not whether he is concerned. Maybe because the protagonists in the Middle East are adults and have to solve their own problems, whereas embryos and fetuses can't speak or act for themselves.
His counterargument would be ''if you don't care about killing fetuses, why would you worry about the lives of Rwandan child soldiers?"

I couldn't care less about the Duggars. Religion leads people to do strange things. But when an article appears in the Daily Beast saying that having lots of children is ''anti-feminist'' behaviour, I have to laugh at the contradiction. ''Oh dear, the Duggars are not living a proper feminist lifestyle and actually seem to be a happy family. Shame on them.'' The article said nothing about whether the Duggar children are happy, nourished and loved. I guess those are not feminist concerns
Are they any more shameful than women who keep getting pregnant, but have no interest in motherhood?

If you are considering my comments in other threads as relevant, you should really quote them, otherwise you are just babbling.

Thank you, one of the few decent posts by you, buddyholly.

Aloimeh
11-14-2011, 03:05 PM
:stupid:

Yes, because every single woman who is sexually assaulted (since we can't type the actual word) has access to contraceptives or morning after pills. I'm sure that nine year old girl in Brazil who was ***** by her stepfather and became pregnant with twins is a terrible person for pleading with her mother to allow her to terminate the pregnancy.

Yep, because every single woman on the planet, including a nine year old from a poor family who was ***** by a close family member, has the resources and access to contraception or a morning after pill.

How about people stop trying to police women's bodies. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. No one is forcing you to HAVE one, so it's not necessary to force people not to have one :shrug:



Nope, but the women carrying them can speak or act for themselves and their feelings are more important than an embryo :wavey:

Please...stop this nonsense. All this screaming about **** and womens' bodies and patriarchy and contraceptives and blablabla....you are just obfuscating the issue. The vast majority of abortions are performed take place on pregnancies that arose out of consensual sex and then the mother or those around her (who pressure her) decide to get rid of the inconvenience.

Come out and be proud and say: "Yes, women should have the right to freely kill inconvenient human beings if they happen to be in their uterus."

Then we can discuss this honestly. While you scream the **** stories you are just plain lying about the reality of abortion.

Aloimeh
11-14-2011, 03:15 PM
Being unfamiliar with most MTF posters because I don't post here much or read anything outside of General Messages and the Federer Express forum, I followed your posts in this thread at first with interest and an open mind. That immediately stopped when I read the above-quoted post, especially the parts in bold.

It appears to me that your views on abortion is premised upon a very fundamental interpretation of Christianity that seems to reject even contraception. I don't understand this viewpoint: if you're against abortion, surely you should be interested in couples having adequate access to contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Or are you of the view that sex should only occur between married couples?

I do sympathise with your viewpoints to a certain extent, although I'm an atheist. I think people who view abortion as a form of contraception are irresponsible and shouldn't be having sex in the first place, and I do not share the pragmatic view put forward by Topspindoctor that abortions are necessary for population control. I can understand how a person would see abortion as murder or a wrongful termination of human life because, to some extent, there is something slightly abhorrent about terminating the start of a human life. It is for this reason that I highly doubt I would ever have an abortion if I find myself in a situation where I would have to contemplate it. (However, I find it hard to accept that an embryo is a human being.)

But you can't have it both ways, can you? On the one hand, you view abortions as murderous and "genocidal"; on the other hand, you don't support better access to contraception by way of the state handing it out for free, be it to people who can't afford it or people who can't be bothered to pay for it. Sure, sex isn't a right, but who is anyone to tell someone else that he/she shouldn't be having sex? The only thing that the state can do, really, in a secular society where religious and moral values differ, is to ensure, as far as possible, that unwanted pregnancies are prevented by encouraging contraception, not abstinence. Abstinence is a personal choice; contraception is a necessity. Sure, I would love to live in a world where couples who have sex are responsible for their actions, but the sad reality is that we live in a world populated by idiots. And so it seems only logical to me that anyone who opposes abortion on the basis that it's murder should, by logical extension, support measures that encourages contraception...unless the person is a fundamental Christian, in which case no logical argument is possible.

Sorry to say this, because I sympathise with you a little bit, but you sound like one of those fundamental Christians to me. The bit about Tilly roasting in hell, etc, did nothing to make you appear any less crazy.

Let me get this straight: I am not opposed to contraception in principle. Even in the case where I approve of it (married man and woman), I still would not want to pay for their contraception. Does someone pay for my food (which is far more of a necessity for life than sex or contraception)? Does someone pay my water bill for me (keeps me clean, hydrated, reduces risk of infection)?

I have issues with the notion that healthcare is a right and should be free, but I would even be OK with tax money being used to cover the woman with a skin infection, the child with lymphoma, the pregnant lady with pre-eclampsia, the man with appendicitis, etc. It gets dicier when the condition is due to irresponsible behavior: cirrhosis due to alcohol abuse, lung cancer due to chronic smoking, stroke due to cocaine abuse, etc. Am I OK with paying for the treatment of those conditions? Perhaps, but less surely than in the first case.

But now you want the general population to pay for contraception for "people who can't be bothered to pay," and my question to you is "Why"? Who pays for my life necessities? And if I don't want to pay for contraception for married male-female couples, why would I want tax money to go for 1.) condoms for gays; 2.) contraception for unmarried teenagers; 3.) contraception for adulterers, etc. I don't agree with these relationships and sex practices and you want me to pay to make so that these people can have sex more easily? :confused:

The concern that the poster to whom I replied was that abortions are evil. The solution, to put it simply, is to encourage the use of contraception. The broad point that I made was the point, not the details.

But if you want to quibble over the details, perhaps there should be a monthly quota of free condoms that a person can get from state-sponsored clinics or something.

In any case, I don't have an opinion on whether the state should give out condoms/other forms of contraception (probably condoms, as they're cheaper than, say, the pill). I just did not understand the poster's logic: he's anti-abortion on one hand and seems to be anti-contraception too on the other hand. If you're anti-abortion, surely you would support some sort of measures by the state to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Like I said, sex isn't a right or a privilege, but restricting access to contraception on that grounds and opposing abortion at the same time doesn't sound right to me.

No, it's completely coherent. I approve of one kind of sex. I approve of contraception used in the context of that kind of sex. I disapprove of the general population paying for any contraception, even the kind I approve of. The fact that people continue to have sex outside of marriage and continue to choose to kill the unwanted children that arise from that sex is their own moral problem. They are free to practice abstinence until they are ready and willing to have children, as abstinence is the only 100% effective contraceptive.

tripwires
11-14-2011, 03:33 PM
Let me get this straight: I am not opposed to contraception in principle. Even in the case where I approve of it (married man and woman), I still would not want to pay for their contraception. Does someone pay for my food (which is far more of a necessity for life than sex or contraception)? Does someone pay my water bill for me (keeps me clean, hydrated, reduces risk of infection)?

I have issues with the notion that healthcare is a right and should be free, but I would even be OK with tax money being used to cover the woman with a skin infection, the child with lymphoma, the pregnant lady with pre-eclampsia, the man with appendicitis, etc. It gets dicier when the condition is due to irresponsible behavior: cirrhosis due to alcohol abuse, lung cancer due to chronic smoking, stroke due to cocaine abuse, etc. Am I OK with paying for the treatment of those conditions? Perhaps, but less surely than in the first case.

But now you want the general population to pay for contraception for "people who can't be bothered to pay," and my question to you is "Why"? Who pays for my life necessities? And if I don't want to pay for contraception for married male-female couples, why would I want tax money to go for 1.) condoms for gays; 2.) contraception for unmarried teenagers; 3.) contraception for adulterers, etc. I don't agree with these relationships and sex practices and you want me to pay to make so that these people can have sex more easily? :confused:


No, it's completely coherent. I approve of one kind of sex. I approve of contraception used in the context of that kind of sex. I disapprove of the general population paying for any contraception, even the kind I approve of. The fact that people continue to have sex outside of marriage and continue to choose to kill the unwanted children that arise from that sex is their own moral problem. They are free to practice abstinence until they are ready and willing to have children, as abstinence is the only 100% effective contraceptive.

I'm sorry, but you just can't say that you only approve of contraception in a married heterosexual relationship in a secular society. You can be entitled to that opinion, but you can't apply your personal standards to the world and judge the world by those standards. I say this because it's just not based on what's happening in reality. I can see the premise of your viewpoint, that you disagree with pre-marital sex and/or gay sex, etc, and so you're opposed to any state-sponsored giving out of condoms and similar contraceptions.

But what I'm saying to you is that the reality of the world that most people live in is such that there are couples who regularly engage in pre-marital sex who are not ready to have a baby. For the non-religious and non-conservative, there's nothing wrong with such behaviour. There's no inherent sin in pre-marital sex. Unfortunately or not, this is the usual societal norm in most countries; certainly yours and mine. It shouldn't be about abstinence or contraception, because in situations where couples don't practise abstinence (which is probably the majority), the only way for them to prevent unwanted pregnanices and therefore to prevent abortions is to use contraception.

This is where I found your logic to be flawed, but I suppose we're coming from two different perspectives here. I definitely think it's irresponsible to use abortion as a form of contraception because I am intuitively uncomfortable with the termination of the beginning of a human life. But you're opposed to it resolutely, and yet you don't support contraception in non-marital and non-heterosexual relationships. It does not make sense because the reality of the world does not make your position tenable. You can't get people to practise abstinence if they don't think there's anything wrong with pre-marital or gay sex, etc. But you can get them to do the responsible thing by using a condom. That's why I'd think that staunch anti-abortionists would support some sort of state-level programme to encourage the use of contraception.

To repeat, I don't have an opinion on whether the state should give out condoms or whatever, and honestly I'm not interested in that issue at all. What I had problems with was your contradictory stance. I get it in a vague sort of way, I do, but I just don't think it holds up in reality.

Lastly, with regard to the bolded part of your post, I want you to pay so that these people can have sex more responsibly and hopefully lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies (in the heterosexual situations) and therefore fewer abortions. Or is your stance against any sex that isn't marital sex between a man and a woman stronger than your stance against abortion?

shiaben
11-14-2011, 06:05 PM
In regards to contraceptions. I think nowadays in America and even most of the world, for those couples that are financially tight, there are facilities that have bags full of them. I definitely know universities usually have them at healthcare centers for those that don't want to purchase them at the drug stores. There should also be organizations that have them as well.

Sunset of Age
11-14-2011, 07:20 PM
Only an irresponsible idiot would need an abortion, contraception is made very easy in this age so why let life get to that stage in the first place - anyone carrying out this homicide deserves the criticism they get. The only time I would condone it is if it was due to raype and this would be an unlikely as the M.A pill should be used in that scenario. It is a form of murder and I don't care what the science/athiest/secularist over zealous brigade think, you freaks are worse than extreme religious people.

I might be entirely mistaken, but wasn't it JESUS (pretty nice and wise guy btw, the same can't be said about a lot of his followers) who said, "Judge not, least you will be judged"? :o

Like I said before - no sane woman on this planet will ever have an abortion "just for fun". It shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

In regards to contraceptions. I think nowadays in America and even most of the world, for those couples that are financially tight, there are facilities that have bags full of them. I definitely know universities usually have them at healthcare centers for those that don't want to purchase them at the drug stores. There should also be organizations that have them as well.

Fortunately, yes. But still, they have to know about this, and get access to them. In other words: proper information and education, especially to the so-called 'lower classes'.
The main factor in having as much women/girls avoiding ever to get confronted with the nasty decision to perhaps having to undergo an abortion, is giving proper sex education to kids of both sexes at a young age, prefereably even before they become fertile themselves. Which, fortunately, is the case in my country and a lot of other European countries as well.
And proper sex education does NOT equal "abstinence only" - please. :help: :o