Abortion

[DragonsGirl]

Originally Posted by the demon

I'm pro choice; but I do think a woman who has had more than one or two abortions needs to get her priorities straight. My wife worked with a lady who had went through 3 abortions, I hear she's pregnant with a 4th, not sure what she'll do with this one. She gave up her first child (she has been pregnant 5 times in all I think) and refuses to see it.

I kinda find this to be a bit disturbing. Despite this, it's the woman's choice, but it would seem some like her would at least try and take control. She doesn't give a fuck.

I'd be in favour of sterilization for "special cases"...

Originally Posted by MrsShrodingersBox

If abortion isn't killing a baby, then why do we as a society justify charging those who murder pregnant women with double homicide?

I imagine in those double homicide cases, the fetus had to be of a certain gestational age before it would grant such a charge...

And I'd guess it's the same gestational age where abortion does become illegal; varying from state to state, of course.

[SHUTUPANDTHINK]

Originally Posted by DragonsGirl

You can butcher your junk all you want. I'd opt for a tubal ligation personally. But again, these procedures are still not 100% effective.

My thoughts on vasectomies:

http://forums.liveleak.com/showthread.php?t=95994

Nothing is 100% except celibacy

When I say "forced to have the baby" I meant forced to go through an entire pregnancy and give birth.

I find the entire concept of a human having to be forced to have a child that their actions caused ridiculous. The point of life is to make more life, me and you would not be here if our parents didn't have sex and then take responsibility.

So you would force a woman who's used proper birth control methods and still ended up pregnant to deliver the baby because you think that is responsible?

99% of abortions more than likely don't fit into this category. I wouldn't force anything I would just not fund doctors that kill human life, for convenience.

Even if it was a 16 year old girl?
What about a 60 year old woman?
What if the woman was a drug addict or alcoholic?

Cave women and lunatics have all successfully raised children, life is not clean cut and pretty alcoholics have children on a daily basis. Life comes in all forms.

Yes; those are huge consequences.

And also, consequences like carrying to full term and child birth. Not a walk in the park for women.

This is why they must make the choice of if to have sex and who with wisely. Birth control is a mitigation tool not a sure thing.

It's not a child, it's a mass of living cells that are deemed insignificant by most people including myself.

Tell me the exact point that it becomes human life?

How is forcing a woman to give birth and over populating the earth with more unwanted children the responsible thing to do?

Of course the answer to the worlds problems, lets kill all unwanted children. I'd rather kill all the unwanted old people and save on not having to pay for their last few years of drugs and doctors everyday. Not to mention how much wealth would be passed down. It would probably save the planet far faster and balance the budget too.

[ericredbeard]

Originally Posted by figatova

We are animals, namely mammals. So yes we are talking about animal fetuses and your notion human fetuses but not the rest are more than a collection of cells.
So if you want to give that collection of cells special attributes, another meaning or a different set of morality you better justify it with something more tangible than 'is anyone aborting animal fetuses?'.

Just for you Fig, to sharpen up your obtuseness:

We eat other mammals, which is not considered comparable to cannibalism, even though humans are mammals. Eating human mammals is cannibalism. There is no moral equivalence between what goes on concerning humans and what conditions animals, mammalian or not, endure. Shall I ask you what the difference is between farming pigs for pork and slaughtering human beings for food? Get real Fig. There is obviously a huge schism between the morality surrounding humans and the morality governing mammals...fetuses and otherwise. When was the last time you saw a human in a zoo? Being hunted for sport? When did you last see a human wearing a human scalp, or a cloak made of human skin? When you walk by a pet store, are you ever faced with the choice between a puppy, a kitten, a hamster, a bushbaby, or a little pygmy child? They're all mammals, so why not?

Is that morality difference tangible enough for you, or would you like to suggest that humans have no "special moral attributes" compared to animals?

[figatova]

Originally Posted by ericredbeard

Just for you Fig, to sharpen up your obtuseness:

We eat other mammals, which is not considered comparable to cannibalism, even though humans are mammals. Eating human mammals is cannibalism. There is no moral equivalence between what goes on concerning humans and what conditions animals, mammalian or not, endure. Shall I ask you what the difference is between farming pigs for pork and slaughtering human beings for food? Get real Fig. There is obviously a huge schism between the morality surrounding humans and the morality governing mammals...fetuses and otherwise. When was the last time you saw a human in a zoo? Being hunted for sport? When did you last see a human wearing a human scalp, or a cloak made of human skin? When you walk by a pet store, are you ever faced with the choice between a puppy, a kitten, a hamster, a bushbaby, or a little pygmy child? They're all mammals, so why not?

Is that morality difference tangible enough for you, or would you like to suggest that humans have no "special moral attributes" compared to animals?

Because cannibalism isn't defined as animals eating other animals or mammals eating other mammals but animals from a particular species eating animals from that same species and capable of interbreeding.
You seem very confused.

The same confusion you display when you try to give special attributes to human cells and fetuses and go on a nonsensical rant to avoid answering the question I asked.

[DragonsGirl]

Originally Posted by SHUTUPANDTHINK

Nothing is 100% except celibacy


This is why they must make the choice of if to have sex and who with wisely. Birth control is a mitigation tool not a sure thing.

I do agree that people should choose a partner wisely, practice safe sex and take proper birth control measures.

But on the other hand, you're talking to somebody who is in agreement with Maslow's hierarchy of needs... at least in respect to the bottom portion of the pyramid, anyway. Celibacy is not an option. It's quite unhealthy, really.

I think if a woman doesn't want to reproduce, takes all measures and still misses a period and fears pregnancy after intercourse, she should consider a day after pill as the next option.

But again, some people see that as a form of abortion.

Where do you draw the line in terms of abortion? Is a day after pill an abortion by your definition?

Tell me the exact point that it becomes human life?

Honestly don't know. We all develop at different rates.

Not sure. I have expressed my thoughts on late term abortion already, which was "it sickens me".

Not sure where I'd draw the line, but I do believe abortion is a choice that should be made as early on as possible.

[HeroStar]

Originally Posted by figatova

Because cannibalism isn't defined as animals eating other animals or mammals eating other mammals but animals from a particular species eating animals from that same species and capable of interbreeding.
You seem very confused.

The same confusion you display when you try to give special attributes to human cells and fetuses and go on a nonsensical rant to avoid answering the question I asked.

What's the difference between killing a human and killing a chicken? Both are just a collection of atoms..

[faurkbeans]

Originally Posted by maltesefalcon

Make sure you wear protection and mix with the right girls, not all girls want to get preggie some actually want a career first and later on in life enjoy motherhood.

I like the 'wrong' girls, they're more fun and don't expect much in terms of commitment.

Of course some chicks want to have careers instead of going through some monotonous traditional lifestyle of a stay at home mother. I've never said otherwise and I fully support a woman that doesn't want children which is why I support abortion rights. Not everyone's meant to be a parent and if someone decides they don't want children then no one should force them to; and I mean that especially in the case of morality police completely detached from the pregnant person. Why they have a fixation on controlling the activities of others I'll never understand. Egoism perhaps? They know what's best for your life somehow even though they've never met you.

[SHUTUPANDTHINK]

Originally Posted by DragonsGirl

I do agree that people should choose a partner wisely, practice safe sex and take proper birth control measures.

But on the other hand, you're talking to somebody who is in agreement with Maslow's hierarchy of needs... at least in respect to the bottom portion of the pyramid, anyway. Celibacy is not an option. It's quite unhealthy, really.

I think if a woman doesn't want to reproduce, takes all measures and still misses a period and fears pregnancy after intercourse, she should consider a day after pill as the next option.

But again, some people see that as a form of abortion.

Where do you draw the line in terms of abortion? Is a day after pill an abortion by your definition?

Honestly don't know. We all develop at different rates.

Not sure. I have expressed my thoughts on late term abortion already, which was "it sickens me".

Not sure where I'd draw the line, but I do believe abortion is a choice that should be made as early on as possible.

I'm against any action a woman takes to knowingly abort a pregnancy. Other than as stated before, Rape or health issues. Where I draw the line is doing it for a reason other than those, Most are nothing but a convenience abortion. This is only my personal opinion, I would never force anything on any one. Your opinion seems reasonable, I just fundamentally disagree with it.

[faurkbeans]

Originally Posted by ericredbeard

No Republican is forcing anyone to have sex without contraception now are they?

Yeah, you guys just want to punish the naughty people who decide to. If you can logically explain to me how you have a right to deny an abortion to woman you don't even know then I'll become pro birth in a heartbeat.

[ericredbeard]

Originally Posted by figatova

Because cannibalism isn't defined as animals eating other animals or mammals eating other mammals but animals from a particular species eating animals from that same species and capable of interbreeding.
You seem very confused.

The same confusion you display when you try to give special attributes to human cells and fetuses and go on a nonsensical rant to avoid answering the question I asked.

Your derail is a fail Fig. You're not confused, I'm not confused, and neither is anyone else here on LL.

I can see how you might morally equate some random mammal fetus with a human one, and how you might reduce the sum total of a human being's worth down to the number of cells in its body---either before or after it is born.

Your position is that of a moral cannibal: if it fits into your mouth, you'll eat it, even if it's your fellow man.

Bon Appétit.