Abortion and Women's Rights

Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights.  Murder is not a right. 

If women didn't want to have a baby, they shouldn't have had sex to begin with.  They need to start taking responsibility for their actions. 

If they have been raped, or if need be for specific medical circumstances, they should be allowed an abortion for the sake of preserving their own health.

Many republicans take this viewpoint, and I think it's ridiculous that extremist feminists are opposed to them saying things like "republicans are against women's rights!".

Even with republicans controlling our government at almost every level, abortion is still legal, so this seems kinda redundant...

Her body, her choice, you faggots.

Abortion is a terrible thing and I wish people didn't do it, however, they should have every right to do it.  You can't force a person to bring a child into the world if they don't want it or can't/won't take care of it.

>>3

Seriously. Murder is a right. We exercise the right kill with every dead civilian in Lebanon. We exercise the right for humans to murder humans when we execute a rapist, a child molestor or an actual murderer.

The question here is whether or not there should be consequences for exercising that right.

It simply must be understood that having an abortion is apart of being a responsible woman. Telling women when they can and when cannot fuck is an infringement of their personal physical rights.

Stupid fucks, show at least some ability to distinguish between a cluster of cells and a living sentient human.

http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1153966199/

>>5
If they wanted to have sex they should have had some birth control pills, condoms, morning after pills, or any of the other fifty million various methods of easy contraception on hand.  When you use a combination of them, you can easilly reduce the chance pregnancy to less than one percent.  There is no need to have an abortion, even if you have sex regularly, if you are acting responsibly. 

Of course, in the event you are raped, there should be exceptions made.  Otherwise, 99% of the time, it's because the woman was acting irresponsibly.  Just take the god damn pills instead of killing fetuses you bitches.

>>7
That would be the sensible idea, that makes people accountable to their actions, but welfare-statist liberals and their socialist bretheren are against making people accountable for their actions. 

>>8 Perhaps because their elemantary understanding of environmental determinism allows them to understand that an unwanted pregnancy is not a failure of the woman but the environment and culture that didn't build her character, rationality and independence towards pushy men. There is actually such a thing as collective responsibility.

>>9
No there isn't.  It's basic stuff really.  You don't want a baby? Use birth control.  There's no need for abortions at all. 

>>10 Birth control is so easy to get, there's really no excuse for abortions outside of the obvious (rape for ex).

>>9  People should be held accountable for their actions.  The fact that you are saying they shouldn't just shows that you are a Socialist/Communist.

"Accountable for their actions"?

Why do you feel you have a right to say when a woman should and shouldn't spread her legs? And before we continue...can you please tell me if you're a virgin or if you happen to be in the habit of dating women? Also: Are you a woman or a man?

>>13 You shouldn't ask for things like that until the discussion actually requires it. I think it would only harm the debate. My argument is that if individuals of a society are too lazy to change their culture in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they should pay to help those that have been negatively influenced by said defect society.

>>13
I don't think I would be doing so in asking her to use some method of birth control, or to have the baby normally.  She can still have sex whenever she wants, she just has to use some birth control. 

Again, I don't think it's asking too much that she either: 

1.  Use birth control, so the question of whether or not to have an abortion never comes to the table in the first place

or

2.  Have the baby normally.


There are so many methods of birth control, and hell, some you don't even need to wear protection to use.  It's really not that hard.  There is no longer a need for abortion in society anymore, now that we have birth control. 

Of course, there should be exceptions.  I'm not sure what all of them should be, but rape is obviously one of them. 

Does this seem unreasonable? Why?

>>15

If doesn't want to use birth control = her choice.

If she doesn't want to go through the whole bother of labor = her choice.

If man wants to fuck other men = his choice.

If man wants to start family with another man via adoption = his choice.

Better question: What do you have against freedom and liberty?

>>16
What do I have against killing fetuses? Well, the fetus is a developing human being.  So, I'd say that it has some rights to existance as an individual, but not as many nor as much as a full, self-reliant and sustaining human being. 

Thus, it seems a reasonable solution to allow abortions when necessary, and outlaw them when not.  If the woman doesn't want to have a baby, all she needs to do is to use birth control. 

What is so damn hard about using birth control?

>>17
>What is so damn hard about using birth control?

It's not 100% reliable and some forms of it take away the fun.

>>18
Using multiple kinds of birth control at once makes the chance of pregnancy go down well below 1%.  For all argumentative purposes, this is effectively not considerable. 

"and some forms of it take away the fun."

Condoms? Condoms are only one method of birth control, and there are plenty of alternatives if you have an aversion to condoms. 

>>19 We don't care about the availability of birth control. The only issue I am ready to flex on is whether it should be state-funded or not. Considering how gender inequality is actually heavier in pro-'life' areas (Taxachussets have 32nd highest taxation yet have least teen pregnancies) I think the notion of collective responsibility is applicable. Apart from that- abortion isn't murder, so its being a right is simply not questionable. We do not need more humans, especially not those that aren't set out for a healthy, provided upbrining. Perhaps if you actually were allowed to stay around with your baby after giving birth, or at least get the same pay as men, or at the very fucking least have an acceptable minimum wage (A worrying amount of minimum wage takers are single mothers). Meanwhile, the right talk about how women suffer due to emancipation and how families are so important. They, as always, are talking about the families with purchasing power and the families that like to live in homophobic, inequal solitude.

>>20
Why don't you care about birth control? Are you saying it doesn't bother you a bit to have a fetus killed? Even the slightest?

...

If so, you should realize that the woman (and the man, for that matter) is perfectly able to use birth control.  I honestly don't see why this is an issue except in the case of rape.

>>20
No defender of individual liberty would support state-funded (taxpayer funded) abortions.  That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of.  Can you imagine putting a gun to the head of a pro-lifer, and telling him he is going to have to fork over cash to fund what he believes is MURDER?

It is one of the worst violations of liberty to force an individual to do or fund something that is diametrically opposed to their views and value systems. 

Forcing pro-lifers to fund abortions is like forcing animal rights activists to fund cruel animal research and testing, or to subsidize factory farms.  It is blatantly wrong. 

Is there anything more evil than forcing a person to live and work for something they not only don't believe in, but are diametrically opposed to?

Only victims of crime should get free abortions. Adults should be more responsible.

>>23
I sure hope you don't mean tax-funded abortions...

Tax funded doesn't = free.  People have to pay for it, and too often, those tax payers are pro-life. 

>>24
If a pro-lifer believes their tax dollars should not have a cluster of cells surgically removed from a 9 year old rape victim then they can go fuck themselves.

>>25 They don't want that, and those that do are ostracized by the rest. Take it easy, for hell's sake.

"It is one of the worst violations of liberty to force an individual to do or fund something that is diametrically opposed to their views and value systems. " No, not per se. People who oppose capital punishment pay so that society can take revenge on those that lived in the shadow of american affluence and prosperity.

>>27
I never said I agreed with capital punishment, but this is beside the point, of course.  Capital punishment is something that is reserved solely for the lawbreakers, whereas tax-funded abortions hit EVERYONE, pro-life, pro-choice, and the law abiding from both groups. 

>>25
If it's such a just cause, why don't you fucking pay for it yourself?

People are all too god damn ready to spend OTHER people's money to achieve goals THEY want. 

>>25
She wouldn't even become pregnant by then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menarche

>>28 I wonder who pay for the wingnut populist idea that all criminals should be subject to more-expensive-than-treatments sentences and that marijuana users should have their lives ruined. Who pay for the crime-raising usage of capital punishment? Via tax? Oh, yeah, those that oppose the crusade on drugs, the tough on crime policies and capital punishment. This is quite a case for the libertarians, even though they scare me.

>>31
What about the libertarians scares you? They are for human rights...

>>32
He is a liberal, everything scares him, they are even scared of other people being scared.

>>31
The "War on Drugs" is an obnoxious (not to mention expensive) violation of human rights.  Vote libertarian, so we can end it. 

The democrats certainly won't. 

>>34
How do you stop people from selling poison to kids?

>>35
How do you stop them now? Please don't say "... the FDA", that's complete horse shit.  The FDA is a corporate whore who can be bought at any time by the corporations. 

Anyways, even if the libertarians got elected, and were in the majority, the moderates would make sure that your shitty and corrupt FDA stayed, so your argument is really redundant. 

>>35
Integrity.  Businesses compete in the market for reputation, just like they compete for everything else.  Obviously, most large corporations who do the majority of business aren't going to be tempted by the idea of selling someone a potentially harmful substance, and tainting their hard earned reputation. 

>>36
Wrong, if they get elected and start getting corrupt then the public would vote for someone else especially when having to compete with the reps and dems.
You are a senior policeman, drugs are legal, kids die every day from drug abuse. How do you stop people from selling drugs to kids?

>>35
If a company sells poison to children and the children dies, the company is obviously going to be dragged into court and prosecuted. 

>>36
Who the hell cares if the public knows they are corrupt if some corporation just payed them off a couple million dollars? They are fucking set for life.  The next people can similarly be bribed out whenever they want to regulate the business. 

Take a look at eminent domain, if you want to see a classic example of the mixed economy failing miserably.  The law-which was designed to benefit the public, winds up benefitting large corporations and the super-wealthy by destroying the property rights of small business owners.  Large corporations and developers use power and influence over officials to get them to abuse eminent domain powers and evict small businesses/the little guy from premises so that they can use the area for developing, building a wal mart, whatever. 

>>38
It's not like it'd be that to stop them when they are illegal as it is now, when they are legal.  In fact, I think the fact that they are illegal, if anything, makes kids want to go use drugs outside of supervision. 

Many people start taking drugs because of a sense of rebellion.  Americans are very rebellious people.  During the prohibition era, many Americans started drinking - on principle. 

>>39
What if we are talking about a person who has committed the crime covertly, not a company which allows regulation of it's use of the narcotic? How do you prevent the crime from taking place in the first place?

>>41
You will never have absolute safety in any system, yours, mine, socialist, communist, fascist, or mixed economy.  I am not going to try and promise you absolute safety, because it just doesn't exist. 

Of course, the government will be there in my system to protect your other freedoms, and keep you safe from reasonable threats. 

>>42
Yes, but you have to do something. You can't just say "we'll never stop all crime so why bother?".

>>43

"Yes, but you have to do something."

Something stupid, wasteful, ineffective, and expensive, such as the FDA, that, in the end, serves nobody but those whom it was supposed to be regulating in the first place?

Look, I already offered you a solution.  My solution is far superior to the FDA.  My solution is to have consumers judge for themselves.  Let the free market, and the other, often non-considered "market force" known as integrity keep us secure.  This force, combined with good judgement in purchasing, is what will keep people safe. 

The FDA could be worse than my suggestion.  If the FDA is presented with a bad product, and the FDA is 'influenced' shall we say, by corporate business interests, the FDA will of course rule favorably upon the new product. 

People have misguided and misplaced trust in the FDA to protect them.  They then trust the FDA and just eat whatever it is, not considering the thoughts they would be entertaining had the market been truly free to begin with. 

At least in the first situation, they have a completely impartial, and fair shot at determining what the good products are. 

How about; If you dont want the baby you are pregnant with, you are able to sell/donate it for stem cell research? OWAIT~ George W. Bush would rather WASTE that perfectly good fetus.

Gay-org W Bust

>>44
Think of something else then.

>>21
>Why don't you care about birth control? Are you saying it doesn't bother you a bit to have a fetus killed? Even the slightest?

No, most people would agree that a fetus is not a complete human being. It doesn't bother me the slightest.

>>47
If it is 20 weeks or older it is human.
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1153966199

>>47
Proof abortion should be illegal except within certain specific confines.  People have no respect for life or it's dignity whatever. 

>>48 Do not care. Remove gender inequality first - then we can talk about abortion. And, once again, I do not care about this type of murder. It is removal of a baby made by the one single person who would normally have the strongest emotional attachment. I think abortion is a legitimate strike back against society, a refusal to contribute your sons and daughters until your parenthood can be facilitated and your children won't have to suffer the indignity of being treated inequally - the same mistreatment that caused your abortion in the first place. Decry it as much as you want, I wouldn't even raise an eyebrow if the mother blew the baby to smithereens within, say, 48 hours of delivery.

>>33 D: A witty generalization! As for my politics, I have the strongest respect for libertarianism even though I don't think it provides enough answers. Hence, I try to find themselves and until I am somewhat convinced of where I stand I agree with the democrats in order to take a stand against evangelicals and neocons.
>>34 No, unfortunately. I blame the American public for that somewhat.
>>37 The goal of all companies is to become so powerful or so nebulous that consumer subjectivity and scrutiny is not a factor for them.

>>50
OR, you could take the time to make sure you use a fucking condom...

Abortions are not caused by inequality either.  Society is fair right now, with the exception of reparations, gay marriage bans, and a few other things. 

Women, however, are not oppressed in the USA.  That's bullshit.

>>51
Consumers will always be a factor to companies.  Especially with the creation of the internet, companies are fearing angry consumers more and more.  There was an article about this on CNN the other day, but I'm too lazy to go look it up, sorry. 

>>52 Inequality doesn't mean oppression, dude. All organisms are naturally oppressed by their environment, the crux is that all organisms try to change their surroundings for the better, learn lessons from what happens when they do that and this interaction with the environment is * itself* shaped by past experiences. My point is that if unwanted pregnancies occur then the relationship between men and women -and the way we shape them via our prejudicion and mores- obviously needs to change. Until that happens removing the babies is justified, bith control or not Oh yeah, and the politicians you people side with in order to oppress women further are usually the kind who support abstinence programs in high schools and in Africa - and those things work out great, right? Then again, handing out condoms to teenagers (Project X) didn't work out to well either. For any reasonably intelligent person sex education would be the answer but I guess that's still a fucking issue in the states for some reason.

>>51
I blame people who vote democrat instead of libertarian thinking it'll make a difference.

"A witty generalization! "
Not to be an ass, so please don't take offense, but it's a very true generalization.  Democrats have shown they are very frightened people.  They want to ban every other activity based on irrational fears.  (Take a look at the debate over firearms ownership if you want an example).

"My point is that if unwanted pregnancies occur then the relationship between men and women -and the way we shape them via our prejudicion and mores- obviously needs to change."

The relationship between men and women doesn't need to be changed.  What are you suggesting? I think birth control is the right answer. 


 "Until that happens removing the babies is justified, bith control or not"

Birth control is so easy to use, and just plain accessable, if the woman doesn't want to use it to prevent an abortion, she is just being a bitch and should be forced to have the baby anyway. 

 "Oh yeah, and the politicians you people side with in order to oppress women further are usually the kind who support abstinence programs in high schools and in Africa"

How do my politicians work to oppress women in the USA further?  I don't support abstinence programs, but so what? People are always whining about "women's rights", and "feminism", and I don't see any recent significant invasion of women's rights. 

Granted, in the past, there have indeed been significant invasions of women's rights.  They gained the right to vote in the last century, if I'm not mistaken.  I agree with this.  I am for equal rights under the law for everyone, including women.  If this makes me a bigot or "not for women's rights", well so be it. 

Pointedly, however, there aren't really any to speak of now, so there is really no reason to be bitching about it. 

>>54

"For any reasonably intelligent person sex education would be the answer but I guess that's still a fucking issue in the states for some reason."

Because parents should educate their children about sex, not bureaucrats. 

Bodies are not property of the state and they should not be subject to the being controlled by the state. Born or unborn.

>>58
That's the strongest argument for being pro-choice that I've seen so far, in my opinion.  I'm definitely going to think on this. 

>>57 I trust common sense to deliver the basics via schools, and I don't want to live in a society where people can tell their kids whatever without there being buffers from education. If I am an elightened and sensible parent I think it is fair to demand of others that they teach their children equally well so that my children won't have to fear sexual morons or having to watch their drinks when they are at a party.
>>56 "The relationship between men and women doesn't need to be changed.  What are you suggesting? I think birth control is the right answer."              I am suggesting a nearly complete rejection of gender roles and the ensuing demands for cosmetical and behavioral conformity.
>>55 "Not to be an ass, so please don't take offense, but it's a very true generalization.  Democrats have shown they are very frightened people.  They want to ban every other activity based on irrational fears.  (Take a look at the debate over firearms ownership if you want an example)." Democrats are too doubtful and regulating, but republicans rely too heavily on naivity towards people. It's as if the don't relize that people are shaped by the environment.
>>58 "Bodies are not property of the state and they should not be subject to the being controlled by the state. Born or unborn." The issue isn't whether it is born or not, since that is largely a physical state (inside/outside). And women are not controlled by the state per se, so that is argument is moot.

Abort more foetuses. As many as women deem neccesary. And then when we've sucked the stem cells out of them, put them in water balloons and throw them at the teary-eyed waste of human components that try to harm the practice. Death death death vacuum vacuum vacuum.

>>60

Xel, you missed the point of what I'm saying. Illegalizing abortion and banning the practice outright is an infringement on the soverignity and liberty of another human being. It means implies that the person is a property of other persons and subject to their rule, in this case, the state. That too close to what is expressed outright in communism.

I'll take freedom, thanks.

>>61 Aha. Agreed.

>>48
Because Anonymous says so?

>>49
You advocate war even though you know the children of enemy civilians are going to die. Don't be a hypocrite. You don't give a fuck about life.

women should have the right to abort babies. if the parents are unfit, the child should be unborn.

"If the parents are unfit, the child should be unborn."
Oprah, you get me a tee with that quip on it and I'll give you $ 12.50.

>>65
What if the child is sentient?

>>67 It is not to any sufficient extent, and even then there is still such a thing as collective responsibility. Want to stop abortion? Change your culture until unwanted pregnancies, demonizing of the cesarian procedure and destructive gender roles are a thing of the past. I think secularization, smarter alchohol habits and feminism would sort that out nicely. Until then; kill kill kill chop chop chop vacuum vacuum vacuum silentshout silentshout silentshout dumplings dumplings dumplings.

Children suck; first they just lie there and scream and shit and then they learn how to walk and you need to worry about that then they pick up a crayon and even though they can't even draw inside the lines of the Spongebob drawing book you still have to squeal in appreciation and put that shit on the refrigerator like they own the place and then they want beyblades or princess dresses and hate you because they are not allowed to stay up/show their bellybutton and they want to cheerlead and wonder why "our car isn't as nice as Anita's parents' car" and then they become 15 and if they are dudes they show up with shitty clothes shitty music shitty values and thin mustaches and hate your guts or they are girls and they have sex with frat boys and die of Stoli poisoning just because they want to be mature divas and live like Carrie Bradshaw adn then there's college and NO SEX AT ALL EVER. Shortly put, fuck kids. How my parents have refrained from commiting suicide is unfathomable.

>>60
"I am suggesting a nearly complete rejection of gender roles and the ensuing demands for cosmetical and behavioral conformity."

Maybe the communist party is for you.  Are you just anti-family? Guess what? I like women with long hair, and that's  fucking that.  Tough shit, there's gonna be that much pressure on women to have long hair.  Boo fucking hoo, they are so 'oppressed,' I pity them... lawl.

>>68
"kill kill kill chop chop chop vacuum vacuum vacuum silentshout silentshout silentshout dumplings dumplings dumplings."

You have successfully reminded me of one damn good reason why people vote republican.  Congrats. 

>>68
You are glamourising abortion to piss off christians! Wow, that's really controverrsial, but what does this have to do with the argument? Do you think my motive or religion reflects on my argument? I don't matter, only my argument matters. Try again.

If it is just a cluster of cells, fine, by all means suck it out.
If there is the slightest chance it is sentient, no, just no.

>>70
I'm not a Christian.  I read what he wrote there pro-choice, and came out pro-life.  I'm an athiest. 

What a disgusting show of disrespect for human life..

>>69 They have long hair because of a thing called genes, we descend from apes and aquatic origins, and the kids need something to hold onto. I like women with long hair too but that is subjective aesthetics.Lawl @ you. I also happen to think families are great, but as with capitalism I'm not ready to take its current iteration and the enforcing of it at all times for granted or as an innate positive.
>>70 "If there is the slightest chance it is sentient, no, just no." When a society and those that shape it have done their best to dismantle the factors that cause unwanted pregnancies, then they have the moral liberty to ban abortion. Until then, no, just no.
>>71 "What a disgusting show of disrespect for human life.." I'm ready to recognize abortion as immoral, destructive or philosophically wrong, but a potentiality is not an actuality. Also, a clear majority of abortions occur when foetuses are between the sixe of a coin or an A5-size paper.

I stand for the liquifying and rejection of defenseless humans. So sic that cognitively challenged evangelical of yours at me.

>>72
"They have long hair because of a thing called genes, we descend from apes and aquatic origins, and the kids need something to hold onto. I like women with long hair too but that is subjective aesthetics.Lawl @ you."

If you weren't bitching about women being pressurized to have long hair, what did you mean when you were referring to cosmetic pressure or whatever? I'm aware of genetics.  Women can get their hair cut, you know. 

Lawl @ me? I lawl at anyone who thinks women are oppressed in the USA on any kind of regular or systematic basis that warrants political action..

Equal rights under the law, and regulated abortion sounds fine to me. 

I'm a femininist in the sense of the word that I favor equal rights under the law for women.  That's all.


"but as with capitalism I'm not ready to take its current iteration and the enforcing of it at all times for granted or as an innate positive."

What does this have to do with me, or my post? I'm talking about abortion, not Capitalism.  Yeah, I talked about communism because that relates to the family/abortion debate.  I wasn't talking about economics at all. 


"When a society and those that shape it have done their best to dismantle the factors that cause unwanted pregnancies, then they have the moral liberty to ban abortion. Until then, no, just no."

What factors cause unwanted pregnancies? I'll give you a clue in the form of one word:  "irresponsible." It has nothing to do with all your anti-family crap, it's about people who are just irresponsible. 

"I stand for the liquifying and rejection of defenseless humans."

As long as people like you exist who think things like this are ok, abortion should be banned, for the same (or similar) list of reasons that murder should be banned.  Abortion is not "murder."  It's more like half murder, or partial murder, or however much development the fetus has gone through. 

However 'human' the fetus is, is to the extent that it's murder. 

"I stand for the liquifying and rejection of defenseless humans. So sic that cognitively challenged evangelical of yours at me."

I'm an athiest.  Nice try though.

>>73 "Lawl @ me? I lawl at anyone who thinks women are oppressed in the USA on any kind of regular or systematic basis that warrants political action.." That is a tad naive, unfortunately.
"I'm a femininist in the sense of the word that I favor equal rights under the law for women.  That's all." That is not enough, considering those that come under jurisprudence have been subject to very different expectations, systems and shaping.
"What does this have to do with me, or my post? I'm talking about abortion, not Capitalism.  Yeah, I talked about communism because that relates to the family/abortion debate.  I wasn't talking about economics at all. " Communism wasn't feministic in the slightest, and I wasn't bringing in the economics either. I failed to express my views here.
"What factors cause unwanted pregnancies? I'll give you a clue in the form of one word:  "irresponsible." It has nothing to do with all your anti-family crap, it's about people who are just irresponsible. " Uh-duuuuuuh. What caused the irresponsibility in the first place?
"I'm an athiest.  Nice try though." I was lambasting half of america's excuse for a commander in chief, not semantically implying you stick with him.

"That is a tad naive, unfortunately."

Are you going to explain why?

"That is not enough, considering those that come under jurisprudence have been subject to very different expectations, systems and shaping."

Uh-oh...  I feel affirmative action, reverse discrimination, in general, larger government, and dissolution of the family coming on.

"Communism wasn't feministic in the slightest, and I wasn't bringing in the economics either. I failed to express my views here."

It is.  Feminism also relates to communism/socialism/leftism as well.  For affirmative action, for example, you require more government intervention into the economy, which is a distinctively leftist trait.  Consider and note the fact that Betty Friedan, widely regarded as one of the creators of the feminist movement, or of feminism in general, was, herself, a staunch leftist.  According to several sources, she bought into Marxist/socialist ideas from a very young age.

"Uh-duuuuuuh. What caused the irresponsibility in the first place?"

They took an action.  They arrived at the decision to take that action after thinking about it (assuming they think about their actions.)  They should now suffer the consequences.  This is a classic example of leftists thinking people shouldn't be accountable for their actions. 

"I was lambasting half of america's excuse for a commander in chief, not semantically implying you stick with him."

I see.

>>75
>government intervention into the economy, which is a distinctively leftist trait.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>76
It's true. 

>>77 The right interferes with the econoomy too, they just pretend they don't.
>>75 "Are you going to explain why?" Women have lower self-esteem and are made to believe that taking cesarians and sedatives during birth is selfish. They are not allowed to be rash, are taught to keep their voices down and are given different priorities that ultimately make them dependant on men.
"Uh-oh...  I feel affirmative action, reverse discrimination, in general, larger government, and dissolution of the family coming on." Nope, my solution is larlgely cultural and psychological, and I have stopped believing in almost all forms of government meddling. I don't know what type of family you are talking about, but I see a world were biological differences and preferences aren't overprojected on reality. If my girlfriend stays at home with the baby, it will be because she make less money and that will not be a result of her having her self-esteem stripped via a sociocultural status quo. Take heed, people in the real world, there are still people out there who consider feminism to be incompatible with some arbitrary version of a family.
"It is.  Feminism also relates to communism/socialism/leftism as well.  For affirmative action, for example, you require more government intervention into the economy, which is a distinctively leftist trait.  Consider and note the fact that Betty Friedan, widely regarded as one of the creators of the feminist movement, or of feminism in general, was, herself, a staunch leftist.  According to several sources, she bought into Marxist/socialist ideas from a very young age." You fail here, because my mission regarding all this doesn't require a government.
"They took an action.  They arrived at the decision to take that action after thinking about it (assuming they think about their actions.)  They should now suffer the consequences.  This is a classic example of leftists thinking people shouldn't be accountable for their actions. " This is getting tiresome. You really talk like a christian on moral issues, are you sure you don't have some reverend's spunk slooshing around in you at least?

ALL OF YOU WHO OPPOSE ABORTIONS IN THIS THREAD ...

ARE YOU GOING TO PAY ANYTHING TO TAKE CARE OF THE UNWANTED CHILD?
ASK YOURSELF HONESTLY, DO YOU REALLY WANT TO?

NO?

THEN SHUT UP, YOU DO NOT CARE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CHILD... ...

>>79
"ALL OF YOU WHO OPPOSE ABORTIONS IN THIS THREAD ...

ARE YOU GOING TO PAY ANYTHING TO TAKE CARE OF THE UNWANTED CHILD?
ASK YOURSELF HONESTLY, DO YOU REALLY WANT TO?"

Maybe she should have asked herself that question before she got pregnant. 

"THEN SHUT UP, YOU DO NOT CARE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CHILD... ..."

I'm not going to shut up until people like that are held accountable for their actions. 

Ehem. An embryo cannot retain memories until it is in about the 3rd trimester. No memorites = no memetic makeup = no unique memtic makeup = no "self" = not a person. Not a person = not murder.
Killing an unborn fetus is the same as shooting a corpse. Dont give me shit about "potential for life" - by that logic every time you have your period you are "killing" a "potential" life.

I always love the argument that the pre-trimester fetus is somehow just a lump of flesh, a benign cancer, or a "corpse"; it makes me laugh. Primarily because the human body (the mother) wouldn't sustain and feed the flesh if it were a corpse or cancer.

>>81 Wahey. Win.
>>82 Cancer cells get nourishment to, they just escalate their division. Fail.

>>80
YES, SO THEN LET THE WOMAN GET RID OF IT, AFTER ALL, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBLITY FOR THE KID.  YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE KID.  NO PRO-LIFER IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF ANY KID EXCEPT THEIR OWN, THEREFORE, IT IS ONLY THEIR OWN CHILDREN THEY SHOULD TRY TO EXERT CONTROL OVER AND NO ONE ELSES.  A WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED JUST BECAUSE SHE WANTS SEX AND ACCIDENTALLY GETS PREGNANT.  A WOMAN'S LIBIDO SHOULD STAND OF EQUAL RIGHT TO A MAN'S AND NOT HAVE TO UNDERGO TORTURE OR DISRESPECT JUST BECAUSE SHE CAN GET PREGNANT.  

IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PAY FOR THE KID, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT'S LIFE.

>>81
So if you get amnesia or have less memories you are less sentient? Does that mean it is ok to enslave stupid people?

>>85

As long as profits turn up!

>>83

Wrong. They don't get nourishment. Cancer cells absorb other cells. The mother's body actually DELIVERS nutrients to the fetus.

I was pretty sure the thread ended with my post. What is wrong with letting the states decide?

In 1984, the socialist constituence let Big Brother decide everything.

I think we all know where that went.

>>89
? big brother isn't "the states"

"YES, SO THEN LET THE WOMAN GET RID OF IT"

What you are saying is "YES, SO THEN LET THE WOMAN KILL IT".

Killing developing human beings should be illegal unless it is necessary for the health of the mother to do so, or in special circumstances such as rape.  I see nothing wrong with this.  If she didn't want to have the baby, she should have used birth control, and in general, been a more responsible person. 

"AFTER ALL, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBLITY FOR THE KID."

Apparently you don't want her to have to, either.  I think she should, and I intend to vote as such. 

"YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE KID."

It is an affront to human dignity.  I'm going to oppose it.  I do care about the kids. 

"NO PRO-LIFER IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF ANY KID EXCEPT THEIR OWN"

This isn't true, or proven.  I myself know pro-lifers who adopt many kids. 

"THEREFORE, IT IS ONLY THEIR OWN CHILDREN THEY SHOULD TRY TO EXERT CONTROL OVER AND NO ONE ELSES."

The woman doesn't own the child.  The child is an individual, who owns his/her own body.  Should parents be charged for murder if they kill their own children? I think so...

"A WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED JUST BECAUSE SHE WANTS SEX AND ACCIDENTALLY GETS PREGNANT."

Birth control is easy as fuck to use.  "Accidentally"? You can reduce the chances of getting pregnant to well under one percent by using multiple methods of birth control at once.  If people get pregnant, it is their own dumb fault, and they were being irresponsible.  They should be held accountable for their actions. 

"A WOMAN'S LIBIDO SHOULD STAND OF EQUAL RIGHT TO A MAN'S AND NOT HAVE TO UNDERGO TORTURE OR DISRESPECT JUST BECAUSE SHE CAN GET PREGNANT."

What the hell are you talking about? If she doesn't want to become pregnant, she should use birth control.  That's it. 

"IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PAY FOR THE KID, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT'S LIFE."

That's like saying if I'm not going to care for homeless people, I shouldn't pass laws preventing you from murdering them. 

>>90

My point was that the US could eventually evolve (or "de-evolve" as the case may be) into an Orwellian paradise.

Every fucking person discussing the abortion debate is completely ignoring the distinction between a non-sentient fetus and a sentient fetus.

I'm as confused as fuck. If it is sentient, you can't kill it, even if it helps overpopulation problems or if it doesn't affect the fabric of society. Anyone disagree?

>>93

I think one of the greatest confusions of the debate ANYWHERE is that no one is 100% sure that either explanation is the truth.

This is exactly why abortion should be illegal: It is because we know we'd be putting kids' lives at RISK that we shouldn't take the chance in the first place.

>>93
"Every fucking person discussing the abortion debate is completely ignoring the distinction between a non-sentient fetus and a sentient fetus.

I'm as confused as fuck. If it is sentient, you can't kill it, even if it helps overpopulation problems or if it doesn't affect the fabric of society. Anyone disagree?"

I absolutely agree. 

Whats with this accountable for actions shit?
If you crash your car into a house,your responsible for it.
But a kid isn't property,its a real thing, that if is raised into a mother that never wanted it, a "accident",it will become a druggy,a felon, and ruin part of soceity. Abortion has decreased crime rates

>>96
Yes, that's right.  And if you engage in the actions necessary to produce a child without taking the actions necessary to prevent producing a child, you should be held accountable.  That means women should have to give birth if they didn't take their birth control pills, and/or use any of the other various easy-to-use methods of contraception. 

>>97 No, because this would disrupt society and is a concesseion to the people who'd like to make women pay for what society has already done to them. Change fertilizer, don't cut the leaves, doye.

>>98
Society isn't doing anything to women.

Making abortion illegal with the exception of a few circumstances wouldn't disrupt society.

Assuming we are talking about a non-sentient fetus.

Since it's not sentient the woman can abort if she wants, but has to include it in her health insurance or pay for it herself since it is unfair to charge people for your own unresponsibility. If the woman was raped of course, the government will pay for it. If in a court of law the woman was found to be lying about the rape she will owe the government for the abortion. If the rapist is caught the rapist will be forced into labour to pay for what he owes society. If the rapist is not caught, other criminals will have to work a little harder to pay for however much criminals owe victims in total.

This is the most logical course of action.

>>98

If you're talking about rape victims, that's fair enough...For now. However, the system shouldn't abide the murder of children for ALL women who've 'made mistakes' simply because there's a ratio who've had the decision forced on them.

>>100

Perhaps you should outline what your standards for "sentience" are. Because aside from arguing that pre-trimester babies are unable to think or act for themselves, there hasn't been any proof displayed here that shows their existence as being anything less than "sentient."

>>101 I'm talking about the psychological and mental differences that have been imposed on men and women by scoiety, and that is something else. If it is murder (it is not) I sanction it because of utilitarian principles, not moral ones.
>>99 See above.

I am not afraid of tiny corpses, I am not afraid of the implications of the procedure I condone. You can't change my mind with the "it's murder" angle, because a potentiality is not an actuality, and I will never base any of my decisions or expressions on morality if I can help it. I don't want to live in a world were slavery is illegal one day and not so the next, but abortion is not a philosophical issue per se, it has to do with facts. Plus, most politicians who oppose abortion want to throw in the death penalty and anti-gay sentiments into the mix, so my hands would be tied even on a philosophical level.

Continue making smoothies out of them. My gut will not twitch.

All of this is still irrelevant. Outlawing abortion would be nationalizing women's bodies like the Sex laws in Communist China.  You can't do that in a capitalist democracy. The best you can hope for is that we let the states decide. The whole country isn't going to just go along with you because you're shouting "Save da Kids" the loudest. Get a fucking grip already.

>>102
Who cares about psychological and mental differences? The facts are they could have used birth control, and they didn't. 

It's not rocket science.

>>104 It's not "See Dick run" either, yet some of us are still tugging our mother's skirts asking why it's harder to breathe when you're on a mountain or why the Israelis and the Palestinians can't share.

>>105
If you are trying to suggest it's not simple, I have to say I disagree.  It's very simple:  use the birth control to avoid the pregnancy. 

Birth control and the various methods of contraception are not generally prohibitively expensive, and certainly not comparable in expense to having an abortion. 

So why don't women just use birth control instead of having abortions?

Good question.

>>106 Abortions are kind of simple too. Shclourp scoop deposit and that is it.

>>106
It's because they are bitches.  We have to ban it.

>>102

You haven't even proven abortion to be a "utility." Just as Pol Pot would never be able to prove that torturing and executing 7 million Cambodians was useful for his cause. There's a very specific relation between him and mothers who have abortions: They don't want to deal with something, so they eliminate and pay no mind to the possibility that it might be counter-productive or even wrong (I'm sure that word scares you) in the process.

What you frequently disregard in your crusade against morals is ethics. The very thing that allows our society to survive. There's a reason we don't allow other people to murder; it would cause society to break down. The tolerance and legalization of abortion is the first step en route to a reality where society would sanction the execution of people who "aren't useful" as opposed to just people who pose a danger to its well being (see also: Charles Manson, see also: Jeffery Dalhmer).

You have not proven that a fetus doesn't live and yet you would choose to abort one anyway. Your faith alone that the fetus isn't alive doesn't abstain you from being a murderer. Even if you did turn out to be right, that doesn't excuse the fact that you'd tolerate the risk.

"You can't change my mind with the "it's murder" angle, because a potentiality is not an actuality"

The hell it isn't.

When the situation is referring to an unconfirmed possibility, you have to treat it as if it IS actuality because, in the end, you don't know for sure that it isn't. Better safe than sorry.

It doesn't matter if it is alive or not. Humans don't belong to other humans just because they are alive. Morality is subjective, convienant and too easily thrown away when it suits us. You cared about life, (War, Poverty) you would care about it in it's totality. And not only when it came to the possible death of an unborn child.

>>107
Yeah yeah yeah, you hate christians and fetuses, we get it. Now explain to us what you think justifies murder. Explain why you think a woman should be able to kill a fetus that can survive outside the womb for instance.

>>110

Again, you focus on your hang ups with morality and avoid previous points about law and ethics. And what exactly is this "humans don't belong to other humans" diatribe? This isn't about slavery, it's about ceasing the tolerance of murder and making people take responsibility for their actions.

>>110
"Morality is subjective, convienant and too easily thrown away when it suits us. You cared about life, (War, Poverty) you would care about it in it's totality."
Since when did anyone here support war and poverty? It seems you care war and poverty, but throw away morality when it comes to abortion, maybe morality is a convenient method for me to issue justice, but for you it is an incovenience it seems. As a muslim I give 3% of my income to charity even though I probably pay that much in tax through corrupt welfare schemes anyway, how much have you done to help people sufferring in war and poverty exactly?

There's no such thing as the 'right' to murder.  Or... there shouldn't be. 

>>109 Torture of dissenters is not universalizable. Abortion of unwanted foetuses is. I tolerate the risk of being a murderer by proxy - the baby is either too small or too hidden from my view by the woman's tummy to pose any estethical problems, which is the only real reason most people oppose abortion anyway. I'm can see myself becoming a proffesional abortionist when I grow up. Or at least I'll guard the clinics.
>>110 I care more about quality of life than actual life. Therefore I find poverty (a cause of unwanted pregnancies) to be worse than abortions.
>>111 Most abortions occur when the baby can not survive, and the woman has all the philosophy on her side anyway. Why? Because society, and all it's inhabitants, are collectively responsible for what everybody else does.
>>112 All this jive about responsibility. I think people should worry about why people commit "sins" rather than the fact that they do. I've said this before; sort out the causes of unwanted pregnancies first, then you can talk about limiting them legally. I stand firm.
>>114 This is getting laughable, people. I find no argumentation that I respect or consider complex. All liberties that do not harm others should be allowed, and if that was followed we would not have the abortions anyway, so there.

Stab scoop - in the mixer - paper bag and then find a sleeping pro-lifer you can feed it to while it sleeps. N P for me. Abortion may not lack a victim, but if you ask me it lacks a singular perpetrator.

>>115
"I care more about quality of life than actual life. Therefore I find poverty (a cause of unwanted pregnancies) to be worse than abortions."

Poverty is something controllable by the people in question.  If they didn't want to be poor, they should have acted differently. 

"Most abortions occur when the baby can not survive, and the woman has all the philosophy on her side anyway. Why? Because society, and all it's inhabitants, are collectively responsible for what everybody else does."

So if a murderer who isn't me kills someone, I'm responsible? Good thing you sound so fucking unbelievable, nobody will listen to this shit. 

"All this jive about responsibility. I think people should worry about why people commit "sins" rather than the fact that they do."

They made a choice to commit them.  By tightening up the penalties on making certain choices, people will have to act in a more responsible way, or suffer the consequences.  We have laws for reasons. 

"I've said this before; sort out the causes of unwanted pregnancies first, then you can talk about limiting them legally. I stand firm."

The cause of unwanted pregnancies is irresponsible people.  Birth control has widespread availibility.  There is absolutely no reason why your average person can't use it, and thus there's no reason to allow abortion.  It's an affront to human life in general, and should be banned except in certain specific circumstances. 

"This is getting laughable, people. I find no argumentation that I respect or consider complex. All liberties that do not harm others should be allowed, and if that was followed we would not have the abortions anyway, so there."

How, if this was followed, would we not have the abortions anyway?

All I've been hearing from you, is that you are trying to blame ME for someone else's irresponsibility. 


"Stab scoop - in the mixer - paper bag and then find a sleeping pro-lifer you can feed it to while it sleeps. N P for me."

No comment should be necessary on this sick shit. 

"Abortion may not lack a victim, but if you ask me it lacks a singular perpetrator."

I guess that's a valid statement.  It's partly the woman's fault for paying for and asking for one, and it's parly the doctor's fault for committing the actual act. 

Xel has gone bat shit fucking loco.

"I guess that's a valid statement.  It's partly the woman's fault for paying for and asking for one, and it's parly the doctor's fault for committing the actual act." All citizens in a society have varying degrees of responsibility for the state of their society. Acting on society acts on the people, acting on other people as deterrance doesn't work (capital punishment springs to mind)
"he cause of unwanted pregnancies is irresponsible people.  Birth control has widespread availibility.  There is absolutely no reason why your average person can't use it, and thus there's no reason to allow abortion.  It's an affront to human life in general, and should be banned except in certain specific circumstances." What is the cause of irresponsible people?
"They made a choice to commit them.  By tightening up the penalties on making certain choices, people will have to act in a more responsible way, or suffer the consequences.  We have laws for reasons. " Well, capital punishment is a wonderful detterant isn't it? Okay, I can't possibly equate DP with having to give birth, but the very reason America's prison situation is so bad is because people tried to deter criminals.
"So if a murderer who isn't me kills someone, I'm responsible? Good thing you sound so fucking unbelievable, nobody will listen to this shit." Neither you nor I wanted that murder to occur, so we are free of hostile intent towards the victim. If we tried to remove the perpetrator or the means of the perpetration we would have to harm principles of freedom in order to wipe our hands of bad conscience and then we are not innocent anymore.
"Poverty is something controllable by the people in question.  If they didn't want to be poor, they should have acted differently." That is a very common view in the land of the free* (*potsmokers, alleged terrorists and 233 others classified as 'unamerican' not applicale). What an odd coincidence that America is less meritocratic than my good old *Sweden* (one of the worst examples of statism available).

>>112
>>113

What I'm saying is- you can't just keep repeating that it's murder and that it's wrong over, over and over when it's already been proven that it isn't murder up until a certain point (3rd trimester).

You can't insist that a child is any one person's responsibilty when that "person" hasn't even exited the womb, yet. If this was truly about ethics and morals, you would be able to examine the reasons for unwanted pregnanices (poverty, uneducation, certain culture's views on sex, the psychology of sex) and seek to utterly eliminate those reasons. If you actually cared about life or the potentiality of life, you would be able to examine and express a will to eliminate anything that infringes on that right to life- whether that person is a newborn or a 32-year old arab that crashed a plane in a building (or thousands of dead palestinians, or millions of dead ANYONE).

Your attitude toward women is entirely fucked up. Referring to her as "An irrsponsible bitch" is very telling of the kind of sexually repressed world you live in. And this repression is directly related to superfluous reproduction (SEE: CATHOLICS) and is also related to the psychological drive behind RAPE.

Also, your comment in regards to abortion being "the easy way out" shows an ignorance and a common misconception that abortion is easy. No one who I know that has had an abortion has termed it as "easy", or acted as if it was this "fix it, quick" procedure that you seem to think it is. And if that is your experience, then the woman was probably just trying to piss you off because she knows that you become such an asshole when it comes to abortion. You're desperately trying to make abortion itself seem irresponsible, when abortion itself IS, in fact, part of "taking responsiblity". Even so, you act as if women can just have babies by themselves. You make no mention of the fact that men have every same bit of birth control as women. You also make no mention of the fact that many time women get abortions at the goading of MEN. But, hey, whatever right? Those're just details to you.

Finally, you keep arguing this in the direction of "I'm more right then you are". When all I'm saying is that humans have a choice between right and wrong. I think the reason you don't want the states to decide is because you secretly know that your zealous attitude doesn't really fly here in America anymore. It doesn't matter if you're religious or not or whatever. You will never be able to ignore the implications of an anti-abortion law. It is immediately giving jurisdiction of the unborn, and of women's sex lives over to the state. That just not what we do in a democracy unless there's an actual crime involved.

CUE: It is a crime! It's murder!

Yeah, we hear you.

We just don't believe you, anymore, and furthering that we find your zealotry to be disingenuious of your position.

lol nigger nigger nigger

P.S. Vote democrat folks!

"What I'm saying is- you can't just keep repeating that it's murder and that it's wrong over, over and over when it's already been proven that it isn't murder up until a certain point (3rd trimester)."

Review. It hasn't been proven. That makes it murder.

"You can't insist that a child is any one person's responsibilty when that "person" hasn't even exited the womb, yet."

Could this reasoning be anymore scattered? If it's in the womb of SOMEONE, then it's logically concluded that it's said SOMEONE's responsibility.

"Your attitude toward women is entirely fucked up. Referring to her as "An irrsponsible bitch" is very telling of the kind of sexually repressed world you live in."

But it IS the case. I'm sorry if you're such an over the top feminist that you can't see it, but one who has sex without the intent of having children should make sure they won't have them as an end result. No amount of 'your hate for women disgusts me,' will deflect the fact that she wasn't being careful. You can only operate on the assumption that a child doesn't live for so long until you realize that abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control for someone.

"Also, your comment in regards to abortion being "the easy way out" shows an ignorance and a common misconception that abortion is easy. No one who I know that has had an abortion has termed it as "easy", or acted as if it was this "fix it, quick" procedure that you seem to think it is."

What are you trying to accomplish with this? Are you going to try and say that they go through so much pain to get rid of the fetus and thus they shouldn't be yelled at? Well I know many mothers who've gone through infinitely more pain than they have throughout their lives of having kids. Perhaps you should take them into mind before you try to use abortion as a comparison of hardship.

"Finally, you keep arguing this in the direction of "I'm more right then you are". When all I'm saying is that humans have a choice between right and wrong."

Yes yes, I know, "morals aren't the issue." Perhaps you'd prefer living in an anarchy, but I sure as hell don't. The legalization of abortion and the logic behind its process is a clear cut violation of the foundation of ethics that this country is built--You may want to associate those ethics with religion if you wish, but that will just show how ignorant you are and how much you want to go out of your way to pull the "zealot" card. Political ethics aren't morals.

"All citizens in a society have varying degrees of responsibility for the state of their society. Acting on society acts on the people, acting on other people as deterrance doesn't work (capital punishment springs to mind)"

Bull. Whenever society's thriving, it's the people who are responsible. On the other hand, when it's crumbling, it's still the people. Thus, focusing on their attribument is the logical thing to do. Do you really want mass murderers cluttering up the prisons when the tolerance of their incurable animosity is a risk of more death?

"What is the cause of irresponsible people?"

Oh, there's many sources of carlessness these days. Socialism, modernist feminism, etc.. But that's pretty much irrelevent in light of the relativity throughout the respective characters of society. The only thing that needs to be noted is that they have the ability to be more disciplined and responsible and yet they aren't doing anything of the sort. The funniest part of all this is that you want to tolerate it.

"but the very reason America's prison situation is so bad is because people tried to deter criminals."

Wow. I'd really love to hear your reasoning behind this.

"Neither you nor I wanted that murder to occur, so we are free of hostile intent towards the victim. If we tried to remove the perpetrator or the means of the perpetration we would have to harm principles of freedom in order to wipe our hands of bad conscience and then we are not innocent anymore."

I'd be more apalled by this statement if I wasn't totally convinced you were a lunatic. Apparently, I was right the first time around; you're an anarchist.

"That is a very common view in the land of the free"

Perhaps because it's true.

Only problem with it is that when a country lives free too long, the let it go to their head and they take everything for granted. You and all of the women who abort their children for example.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by America not being "meritocratic." If anything, this is the most meritocratic country in the world. For more than a century, it's been rewarding people for their abilities. Capitalism's history in North America is the greatest example of this.

>>118
Americas prison system is bad because of the drug war, and the prison-industrial complex. 

Review. It hasn't been proven. That makes it murder.

Yes it has. And even if it hasn't that wouldn't make it murder. Sorry. You lose again.

Could this reasoning be anymore scattered? If it's in the womb of SOMEONE, then it's logically concluded that it's said SOMEONE's responsibility.

Right. Someone, being: Not you. Not the state. Not the government. Abortion is responsibility.

But it IS the case. I'm sorry if you're such an over the top feminist that you can't see it, but one who has sex without the intent of having children should make sure they won't have them as an end result. No amount of 'your hate for women disgusts me,' will deflect the fact that she wasn't being careful. You can only operate on the assumption that a child doesn't live for so long until you realize that abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control for someone.

Once again: Shit happens and men are everybody bit as responsible for birth control as women are. Most abortions take place at the request of the male or at the inate fear that the male wouldn't accept his responsiblity to raise the child, or society or the government would remove it's responsiblity to assist through welfare. Since, you know, that government is so dead set on the woman having the baby-  even the though the child will be raised in an environment where he'll be more likely to become a criminal and subject to capital punishment or be impoverished to the point of joining the army and being killed in a war.

I'm not a feminist, because the term itself is pretty stupid. I just think equality, liberty and fairness are more important than treating women like "irresponsible bitches". You're basically trying to legislate vaginas, meanwhile you do nothing to address the numerous of condomless cocks that help make those babies. It's this one sidedness that is show is shown in Chinese, Muslims and Catholics. All have overpopulation problems. I don't think this is coincidence and I think you know this. This is why you continue to not address this point.

What are you trying to accomplish with this? Are you going to try and say that they go through so much pain to get rid of the fetus and thus they shouldn't be yelled at? Well I know many mothers who've gone through infinitely more pain than they have throughout their lives of having kids. Perhaps you should take them into mind before you try to use abortion as a comparison of hardship.

Why? They had a choice and made it. I find your willingness to eliminate this choice outright very suspicious, seeing as how we live in a democracy and all. The thing is liberty means being free to "fuck up" or be "irresponsible" in the eyes of others without some muslim or catholic fuck chiming in with this intelligence that has been formed directly from the bible. My point is that you make abortion to be this sinful, irresponsible , quick-fix kind of act. But it's not. Sorry if that destroys the entire premise for your argument. But you're still wrong.

Yes yes, I know, "morals aren't the issue." Perhaps you'd prefer living in an anarchy, but I sure as hell don't. The legalization of abortion and the logic behind its process is a clear cut violation of the foundation of ethics that this country is built--You may want to associate those ethics with religion if you wish, but that will just show how ignorant you are and how much you want to go out of your way to pull the "zealot" card. Political ethics aren't morals.

Exactly! You're slow starting to admit it, I see. Political ethics aren't morals. So "morals" shouldn't be DOGOMATICALLY enforced upon the masses via politics. It's a simple premise, one that has kept us from becoming communists or theocratic states. Stop ignoring the philosophical aspects of this debate. 

>>119
"What I'm saying is- you can't just keep repeating that it's murder and that it's wrong over, over and over when it's already been proven that it isn't murder up until a certain point (3rd trimester)."

I agree, it's not really murder.  But to the extent that the human has developed, is to the extent that it's murder.  If the human is 25% developed, they should be charged for murder to that extent.  Exceptions should be made in the case of obvious situations such as when it is necessary for the woman's health, or in situations like rape.  All I'm saying is that it should be regulated - rather than that you should be able to have an abortion whenever you feel like it. 

"You can't insist that a child is any one person's responsibilty when that "person" hasn't even exited the womb, yet."

It was their responsibility from the moment they had sex and didn't bother to use any of the many, easilly accessable methods of birth control availible. 

"If this was truly about ethics and morals, you would be able to examine the reasons for unwanted pregnanices (poverty, uneducation, certain culture's views on sex, the psychology of sex) and seek to utterly eliminate those reasons."

That's like saying I should examine the reasons why people are killing people rather than punishing people for killing people. 

So if some guy gets mad, and kills someone, we should "examine the reasons for unwanted murders and seek to utterly eliminate those reasons", rather than punishing for the actual crime committed. 

"If you actually cared about life or the potentiality of life, you would be able to examine and express a will to eliminate anything that infringes on that right to life- whether that person is a newborn or a 32-year old arab that crashed a plane in a building (or thousands of dead palestinians, or millions of dead ANYONE)."

I'm not pro-war, if that's what you are getting at. 

"Your attitude toward women is entirely fucked up. Referring to her as "An irrsponsible bitch" is very telling of the kind of sexually repressed world you live in."

If they are irresponsible and bitchy enough to have sex without using birth control and then just have abortions as they see fit, I think the term "irresponsible bitch" is fitting."

"Also, your comment in regards to abortion being "the easy way out" shows an ignorance and a common misconception that abortion is easy."

I never said it was the easy way out.  You must be quoting someone else. 

"if that is your experience, then the woman was probably just trying to piss you off because she knows that you become such an asshole when it comes to abortion."

As opposed to women who are too irresponsible to use birth control? LOL

"You're desperately trying to make abortion itself seem irresponsible, when abortion itself IS, in fact, part of "taking responsiblity"."

If they had "taken responsibility", they'd have used birth control in the first place, and the need for an abortion would be nonexistant.

"Even so, you act as if women can just have babies by themselves. You make no mention of the fact that men have every same bit of birth control as women."

The woman can check to make sure the man is wearing a condom.  The woman can take any of the god knows how many methods of birth control or contraception out there.  Why am I saying this? Because if she doesn't the consequences are HERS to deal with.  It's HER body, and thus SHE should handle it. 

"You also make no mention of the fact that many time women get abortions at the goading of MEN. But, hey, whatever right? Those're just details to you."

Why should it be mentioned? I don't care why she got it.  Irresponsible unnecessary abortions shouldn't be allowed.  Period. 

"Finally, you keep arguing this in the direction of "I'm more right then you are". When all I'm saying is that humans have a choice between right and wrong. I think the reason you don't want the states to decide is because you secretly know that your zealous attitude doesn't really fly here in America anymore."

That kind of zealous attitude is a large part of the reason the last set of candidates got elected.  I'd say that kind of "zealous attitude" actually DOES fly here in america. 

"It doesn't matter if you're religious or not or whatever. You will never be able to ignore the implications of an anti-abortion law. It is immediately giving jurisdiction of the unborn, and of women's sex lives over to the state. That just not what we do in a democracy unless there's an actual crime involved."

Now you get to an actual worry.  However, I see the developing human being as just that - a developing individual.  In my opinion, the rights involved here are not just the woman and her right to her body - but the right of the developing being to .. develop normally.  If the woman didn't want to be put in a situation where she had to give birth, she should have used birth control, or any of the other numerous safe and effective methods of contraception. 

>>123
"Once again: Shit happens and men are everybody bit as responsible for birth control as women are."

No they fucking aren't.  Whose body is it? Whose responsibility is it?

...

It's no more the man's responsibility to insure that she doesn't get pregnant than it is the man's responsibility to brush her teeth or wipe her ass after she takes a shit. 

It's her body, SHE should take care of it.

>>121 "Wow. I'd really love to hear your reasoning behind this." War on drugs. Capital punishment. Incarceration over treatment policies. Three strikes you're out for misdemeanors. All of these things were intended to deter crime. And they didn't work, it was just a way for unpatrotic, non-caring yet morally appalled Americans to feel better about themselves by cutting people out of society.
>>124 This is incredible. There is not an ounce of basic philosophy or constructive thinking here. You are kinda like a human except your mental pickup is jumping on the vinyl and some DJ is scratching all over the place and occasionally crossfading you with the voice of some insane misogynist. Hi-thrysting-larious.
>>123 >>122 Finally someone discussing besides me and Lester Maddox here.

>>125 You're one of those real, commonsensical men who are not afraid to speak his mind and doesn't care if some bi, knee-jerk, socialist, latte-drinking fruit gets upset. Kewl. If I get a daughter I should remember to teach her martial arts and handling a knife, considering there is a slim probability that you'll/have procreated (perish the thought) a son and given him your own values.

>>127
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that statement.  All you god damn feminists are always saying "MY BODY MY BODY I OWN IT I OWN IT" etc etc. 

Well guess what? If that's the case, it's YOUR job to take care of it. 

>>126
There's nothing wrong with incarceration.  Yeah, I'll agree, the drug war is bad.  As for real crimes though, like murder for ex, we should remain tough on the penalties. 

Another considerable option is restitution, if you understand & are familiar with that concept. 

Three strikes laws suck, Capital Punishment... hmm not sure.  Again, I think I'd prefer restitution as a victim as opposed to capital punishment.  Also, if we are going to incarcerate for crimes (i'm not saying this is bad) we should aim to prevent a lot of the abuses that go on in prisons, such as rapings, beatings (both between prisoners, and between cops and prisoners), etc.

>>123

"Yes it has. And even if it hasn't that wouldn't make it murder. Sorry. You lose again."

No. It hasn't.

No amount of saying, "It's been proven" is going to make you right. Perhaps you should take a few courses on the difference between "falsifiable" and "unfalsifiable" before you argue the subject.

"Right. Someone, being: Not you. Not the state. Not the government. Abortion is responsibility."

The people are the responsibility of the state just as the child is the responsibility of the mother. You are unable to prove the child does not live and thus the state must take the children into mind as actual people and tell them the mothers that they need to make sure the children are cared--Whether by her or someone else.

"Once again: Shit happens and men are everybody bit as responsible for birth control as women are."

Wrong. Women are holding all the cards in this arena. I agree with you that guys should be more abstinent(sp) and develop more discipline, but because women are the most affected in this regard, they're the ones who have to be the most careful. I mean, if a guy uses a condom and it's top of the line, which then breaks you're probably going to say it's his fault--Which is totally unreasonable. In which case, by your own logic, the girl would be more at fault for having sex in the first place (which is my entire view on the situation in general, but because you have a skewed idea of what "responsible" means, I'm forced to abide your ideas of normalcy for the sake of argument).

"Since, you know, that government is so dead set on the woman having the baby-  even the though the child will be raised in an environment where he'll be more likely to become a criminal and subject to capital punishment or be impoverished to the point of joining the army and being killed in a war."

It's really great to know that this is your entire criteria for mass murder. Seriously, it is....I mean, even though I was put up for adoption after my mother decided she didn't want me and didn't really end up commiting any crimes, but.....Still, it's good to know you think that way.

"You're basically trying to legislate vaginas, meanwhile you do nothing to address the numerous of condomless cocks that help make those babies."

Legislate vaginas? What does that even mean? I don't expect those babies to become government officials, I just expect them to have an opportunity. I'd rather women would just be more careful and decide not to be so stupid with said vaginas. Those "condomless cocks" you talk about for example: If you think guys are so stupid and women so smart and unblemished on this issue, then it only makes sense that they'd be the ones to make sure guys wear condoms. If they choose to risk the size of their euteris by not having protection on either side of the equation, then it's obviously their fault.

"Why? They had a choice and made it."

Uh huh, and the problem here is that you're trying to compare the hardship of that choice to the "hardship" of abortion, which doesn't even begin to make sense here.

"The thing is liberty means being free to "fuck up" or be "irresponsible" in the eyes of others without some muslim or catholic fuck chiming in with this intelligence that has been formed directly from the bible."

Yes, we already know that you hate religion, but you can't claim that freedom and liberty is all about "fucking up." In fact, I find that phrase to be a dramatic understatement in relation to the issue of abortion. Last I checked, people were allowed to suffer a few mistakes in the US, but that doesn't mean they're allowed to recoup their losses through unethical means. Just because a guy loses in the stock market, that doesn't mean he's allowed to rob a bank. Just because a woman has a baby she doesn't want or isn't prepared for, that doesn't mean she can just kill it.

"Exactly! You're slow starting to admit it, I see. Political ethics aren't morals. So "morals" shouldn't be DOGOMATICALLY enforced upon the masses via politics. It's a simple premise, one that has kept us from becoming communists or theocratic states. Stop ignoring the philosophical aspects of this debate."

What are you going on about now? What I said was that you're puting too much emphasis on what's not being said. No one here is talking about morals except for you simply because you want to go out of your way to play the "religous fanatic" card. You increasingly lecture us about the fruitlessness of morals and don't seem to realize that-that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about ETHICS, a secular concept use by any philosophy, including religion (but you don't understand that religion's not the issue here). It is unETHICAL to tolerate and/or allow abortion.

"I'm not exactly sure what you mean by America not being "meritocratic." If anything, this is the most meritocratic country in the world. For more than a century, it's been rewarding people for their abilities. Capitalism's history in North America is the greatest example of this." I think capitalism has made America what it is today, but America today is as such not the best PR for capitalism. It is not the most meritocratic country in the world either. If you are born in a certain quintile you are staying there. Also, Bush's appalling fiscal policy has caused a lot of economic volatility, which is not a good thing.

"
Wrong. Women are holding all the cards in this arena. I agree with you that guys should be more abstinent(sp) and develop more discipline, but because women are the most affected in this regard, they're the ones who have to be the most careful. I mean, if a guy uses a condom and it's top of the line, which then breaks you're probably going to say it's his fault--Which is totally unreasonable. In which case, by your own logic, the girl would be more at fault for having sex in the first place (which is my entire view on the situation in general, but because you have a skewed idea of what "responsible" means, I'm forced to abide your ideas of normalcy for the sake of argument)."

Thankfully there are still intelligent people in the world.  Dumb shits saying it's the man's responsibility... yet claim it's her body.  If it's her body, it's HER responsibility to take care of it. 

>>126

"War on drugs."

The war on drugs isn't a deterrent.

"Capital punishment."

You're kiddin me right? Most criminals nowadays realize that CP is impotent due to individuals like you who take away the power of state to execute people who execute others. Philosophies such as yours have tainted CPs statistic.

"Incarceration over treatment policies."

So you'd rather violent schizophrenics be put in a home that's easily escapable rather than cell where they're liable to not harm anyone? Treatment can only go so far in most case and you can only expect so much from it. It's like trying to raise a wolf you've known all your life that you expect to never bite you.

"Three strikes you're out for misdemeanors."

In SOME cases, I think the idea is bullshit, but it has been successful in putting away some truly dangerous people. Most often cops don't hand out strikes to criminals who they know don't really deserve it.

"All of these things were intended to deter crime. And they didn't work,"

It's really amazing to me that because you feel crime cannot be stopped that we should just stop caring...Of course crime cannot be stopped. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying. I think even you would realize the end result of that.

I lived in a terrible neighborhood once upon a time, which was just beginning to open up to drug dealers. Just when people were starting to buy into LSD and crack, a no tolerance policy was enacted and the most consistent drug dealers were forced out AWAY from my younger siblings. So, as you can imagine, the war on drugs "detterent," as you like to call, helped me and my family.

>>127
I won't have to worry, since your good ol' democraps will make sure that any knives long enough to worry about, weapons that look too scary, or guns that might protect her will be illegal. 

>>131
"If you are born in a certain quintile you are staying there."

Do you mean in a certain "class"? Yeah right.  America has the most & best rags to riches stories of just about any country.  They call this the "land of opportunity" for a fucking reason, you know. 

Taxes and recent big-government have been getting in the way of economic mobility recently.  Certainly, voting for the democraps isn't going to help this. 

Face it: You don't care about proof. If you haven't thought to seek that proof out, that's your problem. I'm not going to rail off a bunch of links just for you to tell me they're bullshit. This isn't LINK WARZZZ this is a debate.

That's like saying I should examine the reasons why people are killing people rather than punishing people for killing people. So if some guy gets mad, and kills someone, we should "examine the reasons for unwanted murders and seek to utterly eliminate those reasons", rather than punishing for the actual crime committed."

....and the problem with that is...what, exactly? Finding out the source of a problem and fixing it would take as much beaucracy as "fixing" the problem (in the way that you suggest) adnausuem. The difference here is that the "fix" would be permanent.

Wrong. Women are holding all the cards in this arena. I agree with you that guys should be more abstinent(sp) and develop more discipline, but because women are the most affected in this regard, they're the ones who have to be the most careful. I mean, if a guy uses a condom and it's top of the line, which then breaks you're probably going to say it's his fault--Which is totally unreasonable. In which case, by your own logic, the girl would be more at fault for having sex in the first place (which is my entire view on the situation in general, but because you have a skewed idea of what "responsible" means, I'm forced to abide your ideas of normalcy for the sake of argument).

Are you catholic, or perhaps muslim? From the east or raised in an eastern household? Just wondering. As for your points: Men have the option to not have sex in the first place just like women. Therefore, the condom breaking makes the woman just as "innocent" as the man. Women are not "the most effected". Both parents are needed to raise a rational, reasonable human being. I suppose your foster upbringing explains why you don't understand this.

It's really great to know that this is your entire criteria for mass murder.

Everytime you say something like this, it equals to extremism. Are you going to strap a bomb to yourself and blow us both up, next? I suppose my death wouldn't be a murder would it? Or how about yours?


Uh huh, and the problem here is that you're trying to compare the hardship of that choice to the "hardship" of abortion, which doesn't even begin to make sense here.

It doesn't matter. It's completely subjective as to which is harder. You and I, being men will never know anyway. Personally, I think there should be an end to "subjective laws", regardless.

Last I checked, people were allowed to suffer a few mistakes in the US, but that doesn't mean they're allowed to recoup their losses through unethical means.

But, the means aren't unethical. Prove that abortion will utterly destroy the fabic of society, please. If you can't then you fail.


You increasingly lecture us about the fruitlessness of morals and don't seem to realize that-that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about ETHICS, a secular concept use by any philosophy, including religion (but you don't understand that religion's not the issue here). It is unETHICAL to tolerate and/or allow abortion.

Re-Read please: "Political ethics aren't morals. So "morals" (<==== Note the sarcastic quotations) shouldn't be DOGOMATICALLY enforced upon the masses via politics.

REPEATING AGAIN.

Political ethics are not morals, nor are they ethics in a philosophical sense. That ends the moment it becomes policy or legislature. Therefore, these ethics (or morals) should not be dogmatically and unilaterally enforced upon a mass of logical and peaceful dissenters via POLITICS.

>>137
Fail.  Our laws are based on morals you dumb fuck.  Why is murder illegal? It's immoral.  Same with stealing, raping, and many other of the basic core laws. 

The debate should be on whether abortion is immoral. 

BTW, I'm an atheist, so lets not pull that "morals are for religious people, you are legislating your relgion on me!" card.

Abortion can be seen as morally dubious (at best) by people of just about any religion or mental variety.

if the parents are unfit, the child is unborn.

what part of this don't you anti-abortionists don't womb....oops ,  I mean, understand.

>>138

lol, you must be retarded.

Please re-read this again: Political ethics are not morals, nor are they ethics in a philosophical sense. That ends the moment it becomes policy or legislature. Therefore, these ethics (or morals) should not be dogmatically and unilaterally enforced upon a mass of logical and peaceful dissenters via POLITICS.

jesus fucking christ if you haven't been to college, you should not be on these forums, seriously. anti-chan is basically saying that the only thing that assuredly moral or ethical is freedom, liberty and choice. that means that anything taking away liberty from the entire american population is immoral. and that's all that matters in THIS country. (don't like it, go somewhere else). his stance isn't an anarchist one, it's libertarian

the only truly humane thing to do in this instance is to leave the choice to the individual and this "individual" can only be addressed fairly in this case by a state. it's humane for the child (alive or not), the woman (responsible or not) and most of all it doesn't run alien to democracy. if you think our country was founded on "political ethics" then you need to either stop trolling, stop failing or lurk moar. american slowly became this way, it was never meant to be this way. NEVER

>>141
What about the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the sentient fetus?

>>142
Precisely.

>>140
A fetus is a developing human being.  I'm for government protection of said developing human beings, just like I'm for government protection from murderers and rapists. 

The moment the fetus is sentient it should be protected by law. 

>>141
"the only truly humane thing to do in this instance is to leave the choice to the individual"

I don't think women who are too irresponsible to prevent pregnancy using birth control should be allowed abortions as solutions to their irresponsibility. 

"Humane"? You want to leave it up to the individual (who may or may not give a fuck about the developing fetus), whether or not to kill it? (regardless of whether it is sentient/can feel pain?

>>146
I guess the liberals are "bleeding hearts" about everything BUT developing human beings...

>>142

It still doesn't matter. Capital Punishment takes lives and there are people who don't like it. So that's why it's left up to the states to decide. I personally, don't think the state or society has a right to end the life of any human being under any circumstances what-so-ever. We do not have the right to end a life, we did not create. We do not have the right to control a life, we did not create.

So you're not going to see me out there protesting and becoming a zealot of internet message boards, nor start pointing fingers at "conservatives" or "liberals". The matter is left up to the states and that's the best option with Capital Punishment. Lack of liberty, freedom and choice are the only things that matter in this country and the only time this country (or the people in it) is acting immorally is when these three items are restricted or denied outright.

My advise to anyone pushing to illegalize abortion is to petition their states or to leave the country entirely. (This goes out especially to the Muslim guy, who posted earlier.)

>>148
Capital punishment is even up for debate only because of the fact that you are only doing it to proven criminals.  Abortion is destruction of an innocent. 

"Face it: You don't care about proof. If you haven't thought to seek that proof out, that's your problem. I'm not going to rail off a bunch of links just for you to tell me they're bullshit. This isn't LINK WARZZZ this is a debate."

Translation: I have no proof and, therefore, will not attempt to post any.

"....and the problem with that is...what, exactly? Finding out the source of a problem and fixing it would take as much beaucracy as "fixing" the problem (in the way that you suggest) adnausuem. The difference here is that the "fix" would be permanent."

That's the problem. You have a very warped definition of what "fixed" means. You think that the way to cure over-population is to downsize on said population even--And all of this is being said whilst quoting the law! Lawful ethics do not entail murder. Moreover, no one here has even bothered to prove that their is an over-population problem. All you've done is pointed out the existence of poor people. I didn't realize that being jobless equaled overpopulation. As a compliment to this farcical logic, you have still been unable to prove non-life of a fetus.

"Are you catholic, or perhaps muslim? From the east or raised in an eastern household? Just wondering."

Yes, I notice you like stereotyping religion quite a bit even though religion has nothing to do with this conversation.

I'm a theist. I do not, however, belong to any particular religion. I believe got the ball rolling an walked away. I also believe your retard if you base the validity of a person's arguments on their religion and not the arguments themselves.

"As for your points: Men have the option to not have sex in the first place just like women. Therefore, the condom breaking makes the woman just as "innocent" as the man."

Not if the woman knows it would be wiser not to continue. The male doesn't know everything that's going on with the female's body.

"Women are not "the most effected"."

So guys can give birth to kids too?

"I suppose your foster upbringing explains why you don't understand this."

I can see I'm wearing you down now that you're resorting to personal insults. Next time, be sure to type the word "fail" as an addendum to any comment you may have about my childhood. That way, I'll know I've made you have to use your trump card.

"Everytime you say something like this, it equals to extremism."

And your abondonment of secular ethics within law isn't a form of extremism? I've already shown you how your toleration of abortion is murder and aside from actually denying the truth, you've even bothered to say that population-control is an acceptable policy as a double front that hypothetically advocates the idea(fact) that killing fetuses is murder.

"Are you going to strap a bomb to yourself and blow us both up, next?"

Why would I do that exactly?

"I suppose my death wouldn't be a murder would it?"

Why would I think that exactly?

"Or how about yours?"

Why would I want to kill myself exactly?

"It doesn't matter. It's completely subjective as to which is harder. You and I, being men will never know anyway."

You say this after you've already attempted to derail the labors of a mother with the apparent hardship of an abortionist. And I'm not exactly sure how we'll "never know." Raising children is oviously harder than disposing of them.

"But, the means aren't unethical. Prove that abortion will utterly destroy the fabic of society, please. If you can't then you fail."

I've already proved that abortion destroys one of the main tenets of our society. And without it, it puts said society in danger of collapse. If abortion is murder (and it is), and murder is against the law, and law was their so we could live in peace with tolerating anti-life problems like murder, and the anathema of murder was exposed of, then we leave our principles of law to die--And this, in turn, leaves our society open to tolerating the downsizing of "unuseful" citizens.

"Re-Read please: "Political ethics aren't morals. So "morals" (<==== Note the sarcastic quotations) shouldn't be DOGOMATICALLY enforced upon the masses via politics."

I never said MORALS should be enforced. I said ETHICS should be enforced. If you're confusing "ethics" for "morals", then you have problems. And I'm not sure how ethics can inspire dogma.





Oh, right!

Fail.

"We do not have the right to end a life, we did not create. We do not have the right to control a life, we did not create."

Holy crap!

Are you inferring that a mother or father has a right to kill their kids anytime they want simply because they created them??

Forget zealotry. You're fucking crazy!

That ends the moment it becomes policy or legislature.

Where exactly do you the idea that a policy isn't ground in a particular philosophy?

>>130 "It's really great to know that this is your entire criteria for mass murder. Seriously, it is....I mean, even though I was put up for adoption after my mother decided she didn't want me and didn't really end up commiting any crimes, but.....Still, it's good to know you think that way." We are SO getting to the core of the issue.
"Legislate vaginas? What does that even mean? I don't expect those babies to become government officials, I just expect them to have an opportunity. I'd rather women would just be more careful and decide not to be so stupid with said vaginas. Those "condomless cocks" you talk about for example: If you think guys are so stupid and women so smart and unblemished on this issue, then it only makes sense that they'd be the ones to make sure guys wear condoms. If they choose to risk the size of their euteris by not having protection on either side of the equation, then it's obviously their fault." Hilarity. Men and Women are equally guilty and it's not the man who has to GIVE FUCKING BIRTH. I've said this before- sort out destructive gender differences, then we can talk.
"Thankfully there are still intelligent people in the world.  Dumb shits saying it's the man's responsibility... yet claim it's her body.  If it's her body, it's HER responsibility to take care of it." It's them man's responsibility and obligation to be a decent intruder.
"The war on drugs isn't a deterrent." Um, isn't the point with any punishment to harm those that are doing the same thing. It was MEANT to be a deterrent (like abortion laws will be to becoming pregnant, in your world) but it just didn't work.
"You're kiddin me right? Most criminals nowadays realize that CP is impotent due to individuals like you who take away the power of state to execute people who execute others. Philosophies such as yours have tainted CPs statistic." Once a again, come and say that when America has a better record for killing people that a bunch of college kids proved innocent. Idiot. DP is actually counter-efffective (probably the liberals fault) and is just a way for the morals n' values folks to extend a hand (voting slip) to the more murderous and undeveloped part of America.
"So you'd rather violent schizophrenics be put in a home that's easily escapable rather than cell where they're liable to not harm anyone? Treatment can only go so far in most case and you can only expect so much from it. It's like trying to raise a wolf you've known all your life that you expect to never bite you." Well, I'm not suggesting that treatment should be carried out in a greenhouse. Stop making strawmen out of everything. Treatment works better and is cheaper, but once again the isolated and quivering families (and the mythological 'utilitarian-libertarians') choose to rid themselves of their society's underside for as long as possible.
"It's really amazing to me that because you feel crime cannot be stopped that we should just stop caring...Of course crime cannot be stopped. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying. I think even you would realize the end result of that." All of these policies have either killed innocents, given the right to murder to the state, destroyed perpetrators of victimless crimes and costs America a lot more than a "bleeding-heart" stance would do. What type of libertarian are you?
"I lived in a terrible neighborhood once upon a time, which was just beginning to open up to drug dealers. Just when people were starting to buy into LSD and crack, a no tolerance policy was enacted and the most consistent drug dealers were forced out AWAY from my younger siblings. So, as you can imagine, the war on drugs "detterent," as you like to call, helped me and my family." As if your neighbourhood is the only front of the crusade on drugs. I wonder what is going to protect your siblings from all the crimes caused by alcohol consumption.
"Do you mean in a certain "class"? Yeah right.  America has the most & best rags to riches stories of just about any country.  They call this the "land of opportunity" for a fucking reason, you know. Taxes and recent big-government have been getting in the way of economic mobility recently.  Certainly, voting for the democraps isn't going to help this." What we have here are a bunch of total right-wingers who have inflicted insane hurt on the economy via misaimed tax cuts and are as we speak completing a war tribunal that could put american citizens in jail without trial. Is this a case against the left? Really? You're stretching so much I can see muscle tissue. The tax cuts have failed, privatization of Soc Sec will fail and the amount of people under the poverty level have risen since Bush took over. This is sad.
"Capital punishment is even up for debate only because of the fact that you are only doing it to proven criminals.  Abortion is destruction of an innocent." Uninformed. CP has been carried out on many innocent people over the years, and it does more harm than good.
"I don't think women who are too irresponsible to prevent pregnancy using birth control should be allowed abortions as solutions to their irresponsibility." Your syntaxial skills blow me away. Where did you go to school, Mexico?
>>148 Fail. If you can't allow abortions then you can't allow the DP. I'm all for DP, the states that you use it build up the crime rates in that state and that means more pro-lifers and DP-proponents dead.
>>149 Fail Fail Fail
>>150 "Not if the woman knows it would be wiser not to continue. The male doesn't know everything that's going on with the female's body." Oh holy shit. Are you real or am I having a nightmare?
"So guys can give birth to kids too?" No, which is the entire point here.
"I can see I'm wearing you down now that you're resorting to personal insults. Next time, be sure to type the word "fail" as an addendum to any comment you may have about my childhood. That way, I'll know I've made you have to use your trump card." The issue is that we just don't respect you. I know for a fact that adopted children fare just as well as any other kid. You are the exception that affirms the rule.
"I've already proved that abortion destroys one of the main tenets of our society. And without it, it puts said society in danger of collapse. If abortion is murder (and it is), and murder is against the law, and law was their so we could live in peace with tolerating anti-life problems like murder, and the anathema of murder was exposed of, then we leave our principles of law to die--And this, in turn, leaves our society open to tolerating the downsizing of "unuseful" citizens." Abortion helps society. We're going to see problems in South Dakota now that they are cutting the leaves without tending to the roots. We shall see, of course but I am hoping that they're all going to suffer.
"Holy crap! Are you inferring that a mother or father has a right to kill their kids anytime they want simply because they created them?? Forget zealotry. You're fucking crazy!" You inferred what you wanted to hear you undeveloped shitcrust.

*yawn*

Don't waste your time people, your words have no effect on the real world. Keep your answers concise.

"We are SO getting to the core of the issue."

This means what exactly? Are you gonna play the bias card now because I was adopted?

"Hilarity. Men and Women are equally guilty and it's not the man who has to GIVE FUCKING BIRTH. I've said this before- sort out destructive gender differences, then we can talk."

Thank you for that non-sequitur. Now what does your outburst have to do with the fact that women have the most reason to be careful and check themselves because they "give fucking birth"?

"It's them man's responsibility and obligation to be a decent intruder."

Yes. The guy shoudl ask the girl if she has any great risk of getting pregnant before they have intercourse. In which case, the girl needs to be the one to know since it's in here body that all the chemical reactions prelude.

"Um, isn't the point with any punishment to harm those that are doing the same thing. It was MEANT to be a deterrent (like abortion laws will be to becoming pregnant, in your world) but it just didn't work."

The war on drugs has more to do with sanctions than with punishment. Law enforcement was given more freedom to bust dealelrs and cartels. More time served for narcotics is just icing.

"Once a again, come and say that when America has a better record for killing people that a bunch of college kids proved innocent. Idiot. DP is actually counter-efffective"

SOoooooooo.....You're saying that every single individual that fries in the chair or gets put under the needle is going to be innocent?

I don't like innocents being executed anymore than you do, but chinks in the system are bound to happen, and because said system strives for perfection, even though it never will be, we have no choice but to tolerate the injustice that slips through it. That's why we reinforce the law as opposed to destroying one of its cornerstones (as you are suggesting).

"Stop making strawmen out of everything."

There's no strawman here. The logical conlusions of your assertion is to tolerate the imbalanced and almost certifiably incurable nature of psychopaths. There are select few rare occasions where sociopaths were actually able to grund themselves with ethics (although they have to struggle every day), but generally they're all dangerous.

Furthermore, last I checked it was your side of the argument that was making points for disposing of non-utilitarian sentients (see also: 'Abortion is better for society because the kids will only end up criminals anyway' argument"). What I find funny is that you're willing to dispose of them when they're not contradicting your self-righteous diatribe about rights to live and choose. However, now that they're not controversial lumps of flesh who's existence could diffuse your way of thinking, they're useful to you as mascots against the DP.

"Treatment works better and is cheaper,"

Oh my god, you are fucking cracked.

"All of these policies have either killed innocents, given the right to murder to the state, destroyed perpetrators of victimless crimes and costs America a lot more than a "bleeding-heart" stance would do. What type of libertarian are you?"

Window-dressing. What you haven't proven with the WAD, DP, and the Insanity Plea, you haven't even addressed for the 3 Strikes policy. I'm also pretty sure you mean drugs when you say "victimless crime." You've obviously never hung out in Hollywood or South Central LA.

As for what kind of Libertarian I am: I'm a practical one.

"As if your neighbourhood is the only front of the crusade on drugs. I wonder what is going to protect your siblings from all the crimes caused by alcohol consumption."

That's the way Xel! Change the subject! While you're at it, why don't you take about potheads who drive while they're high.

My living space may not have been the only front of the WAD, but the point is that it did save lives. Saying that couldn't save more is ignorant.

"The tax cuts have failed, privatization of Soc Sec will fail and the amount of people under the poverty level have risen since Bush took over. This is sad."

On the contrary, the tax cuts have been bringing in a cumulatively largeer amount of money each year. It's more than eaten away at the deficit caused by Clinton's reign (the man who turned me away from the left forever after 8 years of idleness and stupidity) and 9/11. The only reason Clinton was able to achieve a surplus towards the end of his terms was because the GOP pressured him to enact taxcuts in 97. Then, after he spent as much as he could on social programs, the debt immediately went up hill just as Bush took office. To add insult to injury, 9/11 happened:

Historically, the United States government has tended to spend more than it takes in, with national debt that was close to $1,000,000,000 at the beginning of the 20th century. The budget for most of the 20th century followed a pattern of deficits during wartime and economic crises, and surpluses during periods of peacetime economic expansion. This pattern broke from fiscal years 1970 to 1997; although the country was nominally at peace during most of this time, the federal budget deficit accelerated, topping out (in absolute terms) at $290 billion for 1992. In 1998 - 2001, however, gross revenues exceeded expenditures. Subsequently the budget has returned to a deficit basis; the estimated U.S. deficit for fiscal year 2004 was $412.6 billion.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_surplus](From Wikipedia)[/url]

Bush, quite frankly, didn't have a chance to spend anything. He was doing a lot of interesting, but small things, in attempt to help the economy.

Cutting taxes often leads to [url=http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=48]more[/url], not less, revenue for the government.

Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s. Aside from Reagan's first year of Reaganomics, which caused the economy to move very slowly, the last three years of his first term had the economy moving faster than it had in 30 years.

Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 25%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period).

Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.

Furthermore, there is a correlation between the Bush and Clinton tax hikes and a change in the revenue received by the Treasury. Martin Feldstien, professor of economics at Harvard, estimates that the U.S. Treasury would have collected two-thirds more revenue during the first three years of the Clinton presidency had his administration NOT raised taxes.

Finally: Poverty rates are the same as they ever were. Job rates, on the other hand, have been sky-rocketing lately.

Taxcuts work. Deal with it.

"Oh holy shit. Are you real or am I having a nightmare?"

That's not a response. Your snarkiness wins you no points. It doesn't even win you an internet.

"No, which is the entire point here."

So you understand that all of the general understanding about whether or not the female risks pregnancy is empirically on her observations and not the male who can't ovulate?

"The issue is that we just don't respect you. I know for a fact that adopted children fare just as well as any other kid. You are the exception that affirms the rule."

More snarkiness, but no substance.

"Abortion helps society."

I gotta give this a shot........Fale!

DAMMIT!

"You inferred what you wanted to hear you undeveloped shitcrust."

No. Anonymous clearly differentiates the right to kill based on the origin of what or who you're killing.

>>155 "This means what exactly? Are you gonna play the bias card now because I was adopted?" I'm implying that you are mentally ill and/or too emotionally involved in this discussion. I think that the fact that adopted kids fair as good as others is a point against abortion, but it's not strong enough.
"Thank you for that non-sequitur. Now what does your outburst have to do with the fact that women have the most reason to be careful and check themselves because they "give fucking birth"?" Both have equal responsibility because both provide half the material for the foetus. Also, if men can't provide condoms then everything else is moot. I guess that if women keep schedules it would also be great but since simplicity is so holy here I guess condoms is the best solution. Then you can say that women are dumb/drunk/irresponsible if they let a non-clad cock say hello to the cervix but then I can say that men shouldn't do that anyway if they had some moral fiber.
"The guy shoudl ask the girl if she has any great risk of getting pregnant before they have intercourse. In which case, the girl needs to be the one to know since it's in here body that all the chemical reactions prelude." I wonder how many dudes would ask that and refuse to hop in if the girl was not completely sure. You can't have kids without jizz (at least for now. But pretty soon we'll be able to make babies out of the gentic material of two eggs and then all the christians will be puking with horror)
"The war on drugs has more to do with sanctions than with punishment. Law enforcement was given more freedom to bust dealelrs and cartels. More time served for narcotics is just icing." It has also allowed them to go berserk on personal freedom, security, the right to fair scrutiny of the law, the sanctity of the American homes and property (what kind of libertarian approve of government forfeiture of property of people who has committed victimless crimes)raised penalties on crimes without victims (get stopped with Mary in Oklahoma and you get a longer sentence than for manslaughter), damaged the constitutional rights of people (in many states getting caught with minuscule amounts of dope strips you of more rights than the average rapist), has been used to damage the voting rights of minorities especially (oh no of course a black man getting caught with drugs has the same chance of prosecution and gets the same sentence as a white one, no really). You are further from libertarianism then the French.
"SOoooooooo.....You're saying that every single individual that fries in the chair or gets put under the needle is going to be innocent?" More strawmen. Did your lazy mother happen to be a relative of Ayn Rand? I'm simply saying that killing people when it only raises crime and has been proven to be the end results of very poor investigations and jurisprudence is symptomatic of the same vindictive, vengeful, selfish and lazy mentality you are so perfectly demonstrating.
"I don't like innocents being executed anymore than you do, but chinks in the system are bound to happen, and because said system strives for perfection, even though it never will be, we have no choice but to tolerate the injustice that slips through it. That's why we reinforce the law as opposed to destroying one of its cornerstones (as you are suggesting)." Well, one in a hundred is acceptable, but when a society can't provide adequate evaluations of cases, when college kids can, it has not deserved the privilege of killing people. Plus, racial profiling is damning when the end result could be death. There will be no perfection of the system until the people operating in it becomes better people. There are no examples of such improvement being made, especially in DP states.
"There's no strawman here. The logical conlusions of your assertion is to tolerate the imbalanced and almost certifiably incurable nature of psychopaths. There are select few rare occasions where sociopaths were actually able to grund themselves with ethics (although they have to struggle every day), but generally they're all dangerous." Where is you certificate that pro-choicers are psychopaths or that they share the same characterisitcs in their argumentation? We don't threaten abortionists, nor do we try to blow up the 'family first' organisations that try to destroy the effects of enlightenment.
"Furthermore, last I checked it was your side of the argument that was making points for disposing of non-utilitarian sentients (see also: 'Abortion is better for society because the kids will only end up criminals anyway' argument"). What I find funny is that you're willing to dispose of them when they're not contradicting your self-righteous diatribe about rights to live and choose. However, now that they're not controversial lumps of flesh who's existence could diffuse your way of thinking, they're useful to you as mascots against the DP." The approval of abortions are not based on utilitarian principles from my position (not that I doubt that the right to abortions help civilization). Plus, my position against DP is that american jurisprudence is composed of adults and proffesionals that should be prepared to make it very certain that the individual that may be killed is very very guilty. Unfortunately they either lack the resources or the moral fiber to do this, and until American society is capable of making its jurisprudence adequate the right to impose death should be taken from them. Until a society acknowledges the causes of unwanted pregnancies and aims its anger at them then they do not have the moral ground to ban the removal of unwanted pregnancies.
"Oh my god, you are fucking cracked." It is cheaper, since treatment limits the probability of relapses in criminals. I'll retract on the "better" claim for now.
"Window-dressing. What you haven't proven with the WAD, DP, and the Insanity Plea, you haven't even addressed for the 3 Strikes policy. I'm also pretty sure you mean drugs when you say "victimless crime." You've obviously never hung out in Hollywood or South Central LA." I'm simply saying that policies that ignore the actual, cultural and socio-economic causes of a problem and sometimes worsen them will either make things worse or do nothing at all. The reason gang wars exist is because the only people providing drugs are those that lack the moral fiber to breach the law, when these laws are not moral in themselves. It is a clause that works on guns and it works here.
"As for what kind of Libertarian I am: I'm a practical one." The main reason I'm pro-choice is that I take a far more pragmatic, utilitarian stance than you do.
"That's the way Xel! Change the subject! While you're at it, why don't you take about potheads who drive while they're high." I think DYI should be punished harshly, and that if you illegalize a drug then you should illegalize alcohol too, which is addictive, lowers self-consciousness and acts as a barbiturate. You can't have one without the other if you say you are a civilization.
"My living space may not have been the only front of the WAD, but the point is that it did save lives. Saying that couldn't save more is ignorant." The only reason drug trade spawns deaths is that competition is so lucrative and people who want drugs can only turn to people already entrenched in crime. The fact that these drug-dealers got put in jail isn't going to help when all the causes of their being able to make business still exist.
As for the tax cuts, I am temporarily stumped. You win for now. Take a bow for links and such. I don't liek Clinton either, the last three presidents have been the worst since Carter and Nixon.
Regarding me having no substance in my attacks against you I wasn't really making claims of substance.
Anonymous was making a strawman when he suggested that we pro-lifers approve of murder of born children. As soon as the foetus has achieved a unique consciousness he is his own and the fact that his body and brain is built by the blueprint provided by his parents does not necessarily allow them to kill him. It's consciousness, albeit minimal, is now an actuality rather than a potentiality. Now we look to the root causes of pregnancies, which you have failed to do.

I see alot of men that think that women should take responsibilty for theit actions and that abortion should be banned. The weird thing is that theres NO laws that forces men to take ANY form of responsibilty towards their kids. But responsibilty is a violation against male human rights, right? As long as you lazy fucks can't even take responsibilty for your selves, you have no right to tell other to to take responsibilty. YOU are the reason i think abortion should be every woman's right.

>>153
Hit enter/return once between their comment, and yours, or else I'm not even gonna bother reading this shit.  That is just too damn confusing.  Saying your writing lacks clarity would be a fucking understatement.  I get a headache just LOOKING at that fucking mess.

"It's them man's responsibility and obligation to be a decent intruder."

Men are not "intruders".  To intrude would be to enter forcefully, without consent, which is not being done. 

The definition of "intruder" is: 

"To put or force in inappropriately, especially without invitation, fitness, or permission"

To rape her would be an intrusion.  In this case, your point may be valid.  However, in the case of your average consensual sexual encounter, both invitation and permission have been given, it is not "innapropriate," and lastly, it was not forced in against the woman's will. 

Clearly, the man is not intruding, unless he is raping her.  Thus, in all other sexual encounters, the man is there only by the woman's consent, permission, and possibly invitation.  It is clearly up to the woman to take care of her own body.

>>158 Okay, semantically poor choice of words. Then again, since half a kid belongs to the fellow, and the foetus is taking the woman's nutrients not to mention coming out of her (80 % chance of tearing, weight gain, emotional upheaval), I still think that abortions are something civilization will have to settle with until it learns a few lessons. But, hey, my conception was unintended, it's just *I* wouldn't have been killed per se if my parents wouldn't have wanted me. I am a completely random landscape of intendations, traumas, memories and satan knows what else. Without these I have no unique personality, no sense of 'self' (the main reason babies touch stuff is to see what is 'me' and what is not) and no uniqueness at all. Then again, considering babies do move inside the womb if they are feeling uncomfortable, and that I did find silent shout quite a moodkiller (the infamous video, not the unbeatable techno album by The Knife) I do think there should be some kind of punishment for women who didn't care to investigate whether they were pregnant until their foetuses had nerves and what could be called consciousness.

>>157
"I see alot of men that think that women should take responsibilty for theit actions and that abortion should be banned. The weird thing is that theres NO laws that forces men to take ANY form of responsibilty towards their kids."

Yes there are.  It's called child support laws.  Not that I'm saying they should be there, as it's the woman's body, and it's her responsibility to take care of it. 

In having sex, the woman is taking an action.  In this case, that action is giving permission.  Thus, she is inviting the consequences, and should have to bear them.  Her body parts have the qualities necessary to produce children when this action has been taken, and sex had by both parties, not the man's. 

In taking this action, the woman invites the consequence of having children, or becoming pregnant, unless she is using some form of birth control to control the functions of her body. 

It is the woman's problem, not the man's.  It is her body, not his, and she should deal with it, not him. 


"As long as you lazy fucks can't even take responsibilty for your selves, you have no right to tell other to to take responsibilty."

How are males not taking responsibility for themselves?

"YOU are the reason i think abortion should be every woman's right."

So, because of a few people, whom you seem to think are being irresponsible, you think that destroying developing human beings  that they (the women) are responsible for creating should be every woman's right?

hahahah

So it has nothing to do with whether or not the fetus is a sentient developing human being that can feel pain or not, right? As long as us "lazy fucks" that are "irresponsible" exist, it should be her 'right' to destroy that developing being, that she clearly is responsible for creating?

Look, if I eat some food, my body will digest it, and produce shit and urine.  If I voluntarilly consume some food, and produce shit and urine, whose responsibility is it to take care of it? The company that sold me the food?

MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY, SCREAM THE FEMINISTS! Both the company that sold me the food to eat, and myself should be held responsible for the creation, handling, and disposal of my waste products!

>>159

"I do think there should be some kind of punishment for women who didn't care to investigate whether they were pregnant until their foetuses had nerves and what could be called consciousness."

Glad you are saying as much now.  That is a far more reasonable idea than what you were advocating earlier. 

>>161 And once they've aborted the foetus they should take a DNA test, and then the woman gets one (read 1) choice of what man should be tested to see if he was the one providing the other 23 'somes. If he is the other provider, then they share the punishment, because the dude created half of the baby and then stopped caring.
"It's called child support laws.  Not that I'm saying they should be there, as it's the woman's body, and it's her responsibility to take care of it." This is actually getting worse. You should put your powers to the aid of science, since you defy reality itself and could therefore do cool stuff like chill things below absolute zero or ignore inertia. Regarding who is doing what the man is the one responsible for his body, so he is the one supposed to prevent what malarkey his body gets up to. The woman is always taking a greater risk since she already is the one bearing the brunt of pregnancies and parenthood according to the current iteration of American 'civilization'.
"How are males not taking responsibility for themselves?" Do you want it... A-Z? Chronologically? Country by country? Year to year? Maybe I should point randomly on a map and then we can see how well anti-abortion countries are faring and how things like abortion rights go hand in hand with stronger equality and therefore affluence? Then you say that the woman is the sole creator of life and compare babies to poop. People like you make me want to buy throwing stars and shit. I guess your analogy isn't so poor as a first glance suggests, but unless your turds are as big as canteloupes, rip your perineum apart while exiting and you are expected to take extremely good care and provide for the turds once they're out, you can just pipe down. I'll remember this conversation, I need to be reminded of why I started of at the left and why the contemporary "pragmatic" "American" right simply won't do.

>>162
"I guess your analogy isn't so poor as a first glance suggests, but unless your turds are as big as canteloupes, rip your perineum apart while exiting and you are expected to take extremely good care and provide for the turds once they're out, you can just pipe down."

So basically, what you are saying, is that even though I'm right, I should just pipe down, since things are SOOOO hard for women already, right?

By the way, I'm not poster 161.

"Look, if I eat some food, my body will digest it, and produce shit and urine.  If I voluntarilly consume some food, and produce shit and urine, whose responsibility is it to take care of it? The company that sold me the food?

MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY, SCREAM THE FEMINISTS! Both the company that sold me the food to eat, and myself should be held responsible for the creation, handling, and disposal of my waste products!"

Comedy gold.  I agree btw.  The feminists are fucked up.

Look, if I eat some food, my body will digest it, and produce shit and urine.  If I voluntarilly consume some food, and produce shit and urine, whose responsibility is it to take care of it? The company that sold me the food?

If you eat some shit, your body will digest it, and produce this stupid ass fucking analogy you just tried to slide past us as "logic".

Eating is nothing at all like a man deciding he wants to put his dick in something (without a condom on) and then throwing 1000$ bucks in the woman's face and telling her to "take care of it". <====== This is scenario that leads to modern day abortions. But I don't see anyone arguing against this fact.

Wonder why?

>>165
I don't care who wanted the abortion.  It shouldn't be allowed.  Why would it be significant to me who wants the abortion most often? I could care less.  If the fetus is sentient, ban it, period. 

>>165
Way to go, resort to insults rather than use logic to dispute/disprove the validity of the analogy.

>>165
What if a woman hires a male prostitute to have sex with her, doesn't use protection, then gets pregnant.  Does the prostitute then have to care for the child?

>>168


It's funny when you have to resort to hyper-surreal scenarios in order to prove that the state has the right to take away simple liberties.

If abortion is murder (and it is), and murder is against the law, and law was their so we could live in peace with tolerating anti-life problems like murder, and the anathema of murder was exposed of, then we leave our principles of law to die--And this, in turn, leaves our society open to tolerating the downsizing of "unuseful" citizens."

First off, no one agrees with the premise that abortion is murder. The more you take that simple fact for granted the more irrational you look.

Second of all, what you've outlined here is an "idea of proof". I want to see proof that a past society collapsed because of abortion. Your answer is "How it might happen" not "How it did happen". Do you understand the difference, Mr. Theis?

FROM NOW ON ALL ABORTION TOPICS GO IN THIS THREAD.

It has nothing to do with the fact that she can't reproduce on her own.  She's engaging in intercourse with another person, and she knows that if she doesn't handle the birth control, that she may end up getting pregnant.  It's her body, she should care for it, period.  It's not the man's responsibility to do shit.  If she wants a condom on the man, she needs to make sure it's on there.  If she doesn't want to have a baby, then she should use birth control instead of "risking it" and having an abortion if she happens to get pregnant.

It has everything to do with the fact that she can't reproduce on her own. The man is engaging in a sex where he knows that a baby might be the result. It's a two way street and generally speaking Abortion is a TWO-WAY decision. The instances where it's just the woman's decision are VERY fucking rare. Why this is so hard for you to understand, probably has to do with your lack of understanding when it comes to male/female relationships. Just a hunch. Result: Abortion is taking responsibility, the only people who don't see this are the one shouting "murder! murder!" at the top of their lungs.

"I think it's you who can't be reasoned with, and this seems pretty evident from the fact that you simply can't come to terms with the fact that when the woman is engaging in sex with another person, she is taking some risks, and it's her body she's risking.  It is her responsibility to care for that body, and to prevent from becoming pregnant if she doesn't want a child.  Birth control is not prohibitavely expensive, and it is readilly availible just about anywhere.  Abortion is almost always unnecessary.

I understand that aspect of it, I just ALSO understand that the same shit applies to male as well. The people who don't understand this are people who come from cultures that support superfluous reproduction, gut-thinking instead of brain-thinking,

"Fail. All you have to do is prove to me that abortion directly effects the stability of society. You don't need my stance to support yours, if what you say is the unadultered truth. I don't even really care about over-population, I care about liberty and human lives not being owned by the state (unborn or not)."

In making abortion illegal, the state is acting as another being's protector, not taking posession of its body.

#1 This doesn't prove that that abortion negatively effects society's stability.

#2 Protection is posession, when it's unwilling or unconsented.

>>171

"It has everything to do with the fact that she can't reproduce on her own. The man is engaging in a sex where he knows that a baby might be the result."

The baby grows out of her body, not his.  It is her body, and thus her responsibility to care for it, not the man's.  If she doesn't want to have a baby, that's just fine.  Use birth control, and the problem is solved.  It's readilly availible just about everywhere, and not prohibitively expensive.

"The instances where it's just the woman's decision are VERY fucking rare."

Whose body is it? The woman's.  Thus it is her say.  The male can't just have her detained and have an abortion ordered on her, LOL.  The bottom line is she consents to an abortion before it's done.  Why does this matter, anyhow? It has absolutely nothing to do with the original question: should abortion be allowed, should it be regulated, or should it be not allowed at all?

"Why this is so hard for you to understand, probably has to do with your lack of understanding when it comes to male/female relationships."

Yay for personal insults in arguments. 

"Just a hunch. Result: Abortion is taking responsibility, the only people who don't see this are the one shouting "murder! murder!" at the top of their lungs."

I'm not shouting "murder" at the top of my lungs, and abortion sure as hell is not taking responsibility for your actions.  Taking responsibility for your actions would be using birth control in the first place so an abortion is not necessary to begin with. 


"I understand that aspect of it, I just ALSO understand that the same shit applies to male as well."

Whose body is it? The woman's.  Thus, it is her responsibility to care for it, not his. 

"#1 This doesn't prove that that abortion negatively effects society's stability."

The proper role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property.  In protecting the individual, the state is performing one of its proper roles. 

"#2 Protection is posession, when it's unwilling or unconsented."

So because the government protects me from criminals, it possesses me?

Who's body is it? The woman's."

That's nice. But who's baby is it? Oh right. Not just the woman's. The man's as well.

So because the government protects me from criminals, it possesses me?

DUH. Especially if you don't consent to it.

>>163 "So basically, what you are saying, is that even though I'm right, I should just pipe down, since things are SOOOO hard for women already, right?" You are not right on child care. Half a kid is alwayd belonging to a man, and women are usually the ones that get the bum deal when it comes to kids.
"Comedy gold.  I agree btw.  The feminists are fucked up." Oh yes, class. The evangelicals are fucked up too, but they are not dangerous in the slightest, oh no.
>>165 Because they are stuck in a pragmatic, selfish and anti-feminist position.
>>168 Prove it. Letting bad eggs spoil the fun for everyone is dumb. "All women who get abortions are bad eggs!" I took it for granted I would hear something like this is in a retort so I answered it precognitively. Women want's to have sex. Women like to get drunk. So why should they have suffer so many indignities because they are the chalice and men are the springs?
>>171 Phew, some respite from the avalanche of gall being thrown here.
>>172 "Prohibitly expensive" Teenage pregnancies are usually more common in poor neighbourhoods, were boys will be boys, girls are invisible and non-heterosexuals inspire pitchfork mobs. Who get to pay for abortions and cleaning up the mess the white-trash makes for itself? The richer, left-wing states who pay more taxes to Washington than they get back for funding at the end of the year.
"I'm not shouting "murder" at the top of my lungs" You are doing the equivalent. "Whose body is it? The woman's.  Thus, it is her responsibility to care for it, not his." And she also provided all the genetic material of the baby, and the government will take care off her once she's given birth to it.
"The proper role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property.  In protecting the individual, the state is performing one of its proper roles." Here we have a libertarian principle, which could trample me. I mean, abortions, by your definition, are not victimless crimes. But, whose liberty should we protect? Hers or its? The actuality or the potentiality? Plus, a society that isn't ready to work on the factors that cause unwanted pregnancies doesn't deserve to ban it outright.

So because the government protects me from criminals, it possesses me?
DUH.

Gentlemen, critical thought is dead. Long live rhetoric!

>>174 The American society doesn't let it's pace outrun women who do the honorable thing and refrain from abortions. http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/073106WA.shtml   Society respects women for stepping back and letting men provide for a while. Becoming pregnant is a huge responsibility, and conservatives are the one that sanctify motherhood   http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/080206WA.shtml
I wonder if feminism becomes more common the higher up in educational levels you go...

I find it amusing that almost all followers of Ayn Rand are far more sensible and evolved than she was. Even though she relies on an odd definition of altruism, this impasse of one of her followers seals the deal for me http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/abortion.html

>>177
As much as I generally despise Objectivists, you sure that right. Ayn Rand put the "crazy" in "crazy bitch".

>>178 Nah, she was just mostly poor at philosophy. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jsku/objectivism2.html
I think most of her critics lack substance, whether they are right or left. I don't think she provides many answers, but maybe I should try to stomach her writings one day.

I should try to stomach her writings one day.
The fiction isn't worth bothering with. They're risible attempts.

>>180 I've kinda gotten that gist as of late. There are better anti-leftists out there, and far less vitriolic ones too.

Most people who don't like Rand are just biased.  She was a great author and her works are classic. 

I thought it was laughable that some stupid liberal compared her to some partisan hack on this board earlier. 

>>179
Maybe you should actually READ her stuff and make a judgement for yourself thereafter, rather than sit here and spout off crap about what someone else has said about it?

>>175

What was rhetorical about that? He asked a stupid fucking question. You can try and cover up that stupidity with snarky comments all you want, but he still didn't know that protection is possession. There are some parts of society, or the collective where we do need to protect and possess other people.

But this becomes immoral when we eliminate the possibility of choice. What you wish to happen is for abortions to be completely outlawed in the states...and I'm telling you that without compromise, meaning, letting the states decide, your zealotry is only going to win us a civil war. 

You're never going to force anyone to see abortion as murder if that's the way they don't want to look at it. You can't lock people up or strip them of their liberties because you think he's not living up to your "standard".

Oh Ethics! Oh Morality! I have news for you: No one cares. Rest assured everyone is going to go right on doing whatever they want and you're going to get increasingly bitter until no can stand to be around you and they'll end up moving to one of the cities (Blue states). Or would you put a law in place so that no one can ever leave North Dakota?

What was rhetorical about that?

Well, gee, let's see here... this is hard.

Oh, yes, "duh" is a retarded reply. The question asked was valid, even if you don't like it for whatever reason. "Duh" offers nothing of substance; it's just a knee-jerk assertion. I'd recommend you pull out a dictionary and look up the definition of "rhetoric" before asking obvious questions.

I'd also like to point out that I don't have an opinion about abortions, although I leaning more towards pro-choice. All your platitive cries about other issues won't change that >>173 is about as stupid a reply as you can get. As I said, critical thought is dead; when in doubt, attack attack attack a strawman!

>>174
"Here we have a libertarian principle, which could trample me. I mean, abortions, by your definition, are not victimless crimes. But, whose liberty should we protect? Hers or its? The actuality or the potentiality? Plus, a society that isn't ready to work on the factors that cause unwanted pregnancies doesn't deserve to ban it outright."

Yes they do.  That's like saying that society that isn't ready to work on the factors that cause murders, doesn't deserve to ban it outright. 

Again the government exists to protect life, liberty, and property.  This includes the life of the fetus, yet it also includes that of the mother.  Thus, I think it is reasonable to say abortion should be intensely regulated, but not outright banned in all circumstances. 

For example, it should be allowable in certain situations, if deemed medically necessary for the mother's survival.  It should not be allowed as a commonplace practice or alternative method of birth control. 

>>174
"Plus, a society that isn't ready to work on the factors that cause unwanted pregnancies doesn't deserve to ban it outright."

Here is another thing.  It is not society that is losing something it deserves.  In the case of abortion, the two whose rights should be in question are that of the mother, and that of the fetus. 

The question is not whether society should have a right to ban abortion or not, but whether or not the fetus has the right to live or not.  The fetus deserves to develop and continue living.  It has a right to life, and the government should be there to protect it. 

This has absolutely nothing to do with what 'society' deserves, it has to do with what the innocent developing being deserves, and that is life, at least.

The proper function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. 

I'm implying that you are mentally ill and/or too emotionally involved in this discussion. I think that the fact that adopted kids fair as good as others is a point against abortion, but it's not strong enough.

....That's stupid. You're essentially saying that arguments mean nothing in the face of the source when the only thing that matters is the reasoning of the individual. You're just trying to make me leave the conversation.

"Both have equal responsibility because both provide half the material for the foetus."

Just because I have the ability to erect a structure, that doesn't mean I know everything about the ground that I'm gonna build it on. I'll need a geologist for that. The man is the construction worker. The women is the geologist. Only the women can reveal what kind of resources are necessary here.

Also, if men can't provide condoms then everything else is moot.

Then again, if the woman abides the man without the condom, it's reasonable to assume there's no problem with her. Considering she's the one who would "give fucking birth," she'd best understand if there is a severity to whether or not the condom is necessary.

Then you can say that women are dumb/drunk/irresponsible if they let a non-clad cock say hello to the cervix but then I can say that men shouldn't do that anyway if they had some moral fiber.

Haven't you been reading? "Moral fiber" isn't apart of the discussion. If you haven't noticed, I've been giving women the benefit of the doubt in these hypothetical situations we've been thinking up and assuming that they're responsible enough to know what's what. You, however, are the one saying that she's totally dependent on the observations of the male to understand if she would get pregnant or not. So who's saying who is irresponsible exactly?

Your inability to accept the fact that the woman best understands the place where the baby would grow is either ignorance, stupidity, or denial.

I wonder how many dudes would ask that and refuse to hop in if the girl was not completely sure.

You'd be surprised to know (since it's your view that all responsibility is on the guy in regards to pregnancy) there's many males who wouldn't "hop in." Plenty of guys don't want to be stuck with a kid, so they just stay away. Perhaps this is too hard for your over-sexed mind to understand, but it's true.

It has also allowed them to go berserk on personal freedom, security, the right to fair scrutiny of the law, the sanctity of the American homes and property (what kind of libertarian approve of government forfeiture of property of people who has committed victimless crimes)raised penalties on crimes without victims (get stopped with Mary in Oklahoma and you get a longer sentence than for manslaughter), damaged the constitutional rights of people (in many states getting caught with minuscule amounts of dope strips you of more rights than the average rapist), has been used to damage the voting rights of minorities especially (oh no of course a black man getting caught with drugs has the same chance of prosecution and gets the same sentence as a white one, no really). You are further from libertarianism then the French.

Wow. Someone's a whiny little bitch.

Can't live without a fix can you. Probably why you sound so obsessively angry.

More strawmen. Did your lazy mother happen to be a relative of Ayn Rand?

You really have no idea what "strawman" means. You were implying that the state doesn't execute real criminals by only focusing on the killed innocents. I pointed this out. No strawman here.

Also, I'm celtic, not Russian. However, if you're asking me if I'm a Randian, then the answer is yes...Or is that another violation of Xel's standard for Libertarianism?

I'm simply saying that killing people when it only raises crime and has been proven to be the end results of very poor investigations and jurisprudence

Not only have you created a fantastical statistic for the effects of DP causing more crime (and actually had the gaul to say it was "proven"), but you also repeat your previous logical fallacy that because there will always be a margin of error in sentencing, there will never be a person who's guilty that goes to the chair.

is symptomatic of the same vindictive, vengeful, selfish and lazy mentality you are so perfectly demonstrating.

The only one of those adjectives that even remotely fits the context of your rage against me is "vindictive," which is way wrong. I'm guessing your "vengeful" comment has something to do with my childhood (meaning that you're on a fishing expedition). I'm sorry if you feel ire towards my wanting drug dealers and killers off the street or that you have a problem with me wanting to give kids who are forced upon irresponsible mothers a chance to live and not be stereotypes as "future criminals," but I really can't help having first hand knowledge of what you presume to know all the answers about.

Now I have absolutely no idea where you get your "lazy" and "selfish" terms from in reference to me. Perhaps you could explain your ramshackle argument.

Well, one in a hundred is acceptable, but when a society can't provide adequate evaluations of cases, when college kids can,

This is specious reasoning. If those very college kids you speak of were running the system and were advocating the DP, you'd still speak against it.

Whether or not those particular college individuals proved themselves more observant on a certain issue than other particular law enforcement individuals doesn't provide you with any proof that the person killed is one of many innocents that were put to death in the chair.

There will be no perfection of the system until the people operating in it becomes better people. There are no examples of such improvement being made, especially in DP states.

So you want perfection. Yeah, that's real reasonable.

This is the kind of rhetoric used by people who try to sound righteous while dismissing every single reinforcement of the system that comes along. All you have to do is say, "It's not good enough, people's lives are at steak here," and you've provided enough windo dressing to hide how full of shit you are.

Where is you certificate that pro-choicers are psychopaths or that they share the same characterisitcs in their argumentation? We don't threaten abortionists, nor do we try to blow up the 'family first' organisations that try to destroy the effects of enlightenment.

First of all: We were talking about the DP. Not abortion.

Second of all: I didn't say pro-choice people were psychopaths. I said they were murderers. Psychopaths' brains can't function correctly whereas murderers are totally sane when they off someone.

The approval of abortions are not based on utilitarian principles from my position (not that I doubt that the right to abortions help civilization).

You've just contradicted yourself right. First you say that your views aren't in allignment with the idea of selective birth and the you add a footnote that says you agree with its tenets. Whether or not it's your primary argument for the pro-abortion argument or not makes no difference in the presence of the fact that you're at least willing to tolerate the reasoning--If not totally believe it.

Plus, my position against DP is that american jurisprudence is composed of adults and proffesionals that should be prepared to make it very certain that the individual that may be killed is very very guilty. Unfortunately they either lack the resources or the moral fiber to do this, and until American society is capable of making its jurisprudence adequate the right to impose death should be taken from them.

I agree. But as I pointed out before, you're never going to be happy with it no matter how good it gets. You're only willing to tolerate the idea of a perfect DP enforcement in the hypothetical sense. In which case, your 'better' vision of what DP should be is never going to leave the realm of fantasy in your mind. Just like how I know that our future is not going to resemble Star Trek.

Until a society acknowledges the causes of unwanted pregnancies and aims its anger at them then they do not have the moral ground to ban the removal of unwanted pregnancies.

Society already has acknowledged the causes: Idiocy and irresponsibilty. Both of which can be remedied before conception.

It is cheaper, since treatment limits the probability of relapses in criminals.

No. Mental hospitals cost twice as much as prisons do since the patients need more care. Costs would sky-rocket if they actually became as big as the prisons. In addendum, patients who get released often stop taking their meds and become a menace to society once again.

The reason gang wars exist is because the only people providing drugs are those that lack the moral fiber to breach the law, when these laws are not moral in themselves. It is a clause that works on guns and it works here.

That's gotta be the stupidest thing you've said thusfar. Neither the Crips nor the Bloods fought over drugs--And they didn't even use guns either. The East/West coasts didn't fight over drugs either. In the case of gangs, drugs are the icing, not the motivation.

I think DYI should be punished harshly, and that if you illegalize a drug then you should illegalize alcohol too, which is addictive, lowers self-consciousness and acts as a barbiturate. You can't have one without the other if you say you are a civilization.

So, because alcohol is legal, you think drugs like LSD and heroin should be legal?

Maybe you're not aware, but too much of anything will kill you. The reason we put limitations on some substances is because for those particular substances, just one period of use is enough to fuck you up. This isn't the case with everything, and that includes alcohol, which takes more than just a couple drinks to turn you into an alcoholic. A drug like pot, which I'm sure you're holding a candle for contains TAC, which is a form of acid. A few shots of alcohol is nowhere near as potent as just one session with pot. Period of inebriation and addiction comes much quicker with the latter than with the former.

The only reason drug trade spawns deaths is that competition is so lucrative and people who want drugs can only turn to people already entrenched in crime. The fact that these drug-dealers got put in jail isn't going to help when all the causes of their being able to make business still exist.

Jebus! People shouldn't be turning to them at all for crying out loud!

Anonymous was making a strawman when he suggested that we pro-lifers approve of murder of born children. As soon as the foetus has achieved a unique consciousness he is his own and the fact that his body and brain is built by the blueprint provided by his parents does not necessarily allow them to kill him. It's consciousness, albeit minimal, is now an actuality rather than a potentiality.

This entire paragraph is just so insanely ludacris. By your standards, anyone who loses "consciousness" is free game to execute.

Now we look to the root causes of pregnancies, which you have failed to do.

Or you're just too pig-headed to understand that I already have demonstrated that 3 times over.

Without these I have no unique personality, no sense of 'self' (the main reason babies touch stuff is to see what is 'me' and what is not) and no uniqueness at all.

The causality of birth attributes to your personality just as much as those other defining moments do. It's called the Butterfly effect. So yes, if that baby was killed, you would be killed too.

If you eat some shit, your body will digest it, and produce this stupid ass fucking analogy you just tried to slide past us as "logic".

Eating is nothing at all like a man deciding he wants to put his dick in something (without a condom on) and then throwing 1000$ bucks in the woman's face and telling her to "take care of it". <====== This is scenario that leads to modern day abortions. But I don't see anyone arguing against this fact.

Wonder why?

Actually, because the obvious state of the waste product coencides irrefutably with your (uneducated) assumption that fetuses aren't sentient, the anaolgy applies perfectly. After the food distributer gives the food to the person, it's obvious he or she is going to eat it. But the distributer doesn't know how or where the buyer is going to unload the waste that was produced by the food that the distributer gave to the person. In which case, it would be the food vender's job to clean up the mess if it was dropped anywhere other than the toilet.

This is actually totally in sync with happened to the guy who got a blow job from a woman who saved the semen she recieved in her mouth and then inseminated herself with it. Afterwards, she forced him to pay child support. Technically, by your screwed up logic, because he donated the semen to her body, he's responsible for the baby.

First off, no one agrees with the premise that abortion is murder. The more you take that simple fact for granted the more irrational you look.

Actually, people do indeed realize that the fetus is alive and, as so many people like to word-whore, "sentient". Just because you don't view the individuals that disagree with you as actual people, that doesn't mean they aren't. It just means you're stupid. You're inability to prove non-life of a fetus just compliments that.

Second of all, what you've outlined here is an "idea of proof". I want to see proof that a past society collapsed because of abortion. Your answer is "How it might happen" not "How it did happen". Do you understand the difference, Mr. Theis?

It has nothing to do with how it "might" and everything to do with how it "will." Selective birth is exactly why France is in such bad shape. Their native population is at an all time low not only out of "fear" of overpopulation, but also of derelect citizens. As a result, its constituence is so low, they couldn't even fight a war if they found that they needed to.

>>178

Some people just can't stand intelligent and insightful women.

>>186 Can you... Ban murder? Did you know it is possible to work both at the roots and the leaves? Or that the tough-on-crime policies aren't the best way to go? Also, I am not talking about what government is allowed to do to, I am talking about what society demands, and society is not rigid nor is it capable of reason and self-scrutiny. It's as if the individual responsibility for the state of society is forgotten in America.

"#Just because I have the ability to erect a structure, that doesn't mean I know everything about the ground that I'm gonna build it on. I'll need a geologist for that. The man is the construction worker. The women is the geologist. Only the women can reveal what kind of resources are necessary here" And then leave the maintenance of the structure to society and the woman (the woman is economically screwed because American society doesn't care about single parents and the government has to enact institutions to help the two survive. What a patriot.)
"Then again, if the woman abides the man without the condom, it's reasonable to assume there's no problem with her. Considering she's the one who would "give fucking birth," she'd best understand if there is a severity to whether or not the condom is necessary." I can just swing right back and say that the man should understand the severity of labor and parenthood.
"Your inability to accept the fact that the woman best understands the place where the baby would grow is either ignorance, stupidity, or denial." So women should have to take responsibility to monitor their cycles, in order to make up for the fact that she isn't offering condoms to any potential partner.
"You'd be surprised to know (since it's your view that all responsibility is on the guy in regards to pregnancy) there's many males who wouldn't "hop in." Plenty of guys don't want to be stuck with a kid, so they just stay away. Perhaps this is too hard for your over-sexed mind to understand, but it's true." Of course all men aren't the same, but this is where you get some stats and support your claim about reality. Also, men are never really stuck with the kid, I just think half the responsibility is theirs. Your diametrical brain thinks that by saying that women shouldn't have full responsibility just because they provide the womb, that means I suddenly want to put all the responsibility on men. I haven't said that but your weak mind inferred it.
"You really have no idea what "strawman" means. You were implying that the state doesn't execute real criminals by only focusing on the killed innocents. I pointed this out. No strawman here." I was implying that when faced with the *fact* that so many innocents had been killed, the system should overlook it's nature if it was to keep the privilege of removing people. This is like me telling a cop he has forcefully arrested and traumatized people based on hearsay, prejudice and hunches, and when I point this out he says "So you are saying I shouldn't put the bad guys in as well?". The cop would be making a strawman of my position, so did you.
"Not only have you created a fantastical statistic for the effects of DP causing more crime (and actually had the gaul to say it was "proven"), but you also repeat your previous logical fallacy that because there will always be a margin of error in sentencing, there will never be a person who's guilty that goes to the chair." I am saying it is odd that you condone a government that has taken it's superiority for granted to the degree that it shouldn't change depending on the results of its actions. States with DP have higher crime rates ( http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169 ) but I guess the plebecite demands blood just to be on the safe side.
"This is specious reasoning. If those very college kids you speak of were running the system and were advocating the DP, you'd still speak against it." Um, because a government is supposed to prtoect life - oh that's right you are a "utilitarian-libertarian". Nice little loophole there. But then I have just offered support for my claim that more people suffer crime in a state with DP, so maybe the utilitarian solution doesn't require government murder?
"You've just contradicted yourself right. First you say that your views aren't in allignment with the idea of selective birth and the you add a footnote that says you agree with its tenets. Whether or not it's your primary argument for the pro-abortion argument or not makes no difference in the presence of the fact that you're at least willing to tolerate the reasoning--If not totally believe it." I said I believe the practice of abortion has a utilitarian effect, but that it isn't the main reason of my position. There is no dependence.
"I agree. But as I pointed out before, you're never going to be happy with it no matter how good it gets. You're only willing to tolerate the idea of a perfect DP enforcement in the hypothetical sense. In which case, your 'better' vision of what DP should be is never going to leave the realm of fantasy in your mind. Just like how I know that our future is not going to resemble Star Trek." What we have is not some imperfections that will balance out naturally. What we have is a self-righteous form of jurisprudence (and accompanying supporters) that don't believe there is a problem and take's its right over the individual for granted. No libertarian can accept such supremacy.
"Society already has acknowledged the causes: Idiocy and irresponsibilty. Both of which can be remedied before conception." What are the causes of Idiocy and irresponsibility? Feminists? Socialists? Pixies?
"No. Mental hospitals cost twice as much as prisons do since the patients need more care. Costs would sky-rocket if they actually became as big as the prisons. In addendum, patients who get released often stop taking their meds and become a menace to society once again." Okay, perhaps treatment isn't the best, but the DP is too expensive ( http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7#financial%20facts ). So, if you are ready to make people pay for these expensive trials, why shouldn't they be able to make you pay for abortions?
"That's gotta be the stupidest thing you've said thusfar. Neither the Crips nor the Bloods fought over drugs--And they didn't even use guns either. The East/West coasts didn't fight over drugs either. In the case of gangs, drugs are the icing, not the motivation." First, claims on reality requires support. Secondly my point stands; When laws are imposed on liberties (guns, drugs) then the people who use these liberties are probably going to lack morality (the law-abiding citizens stay away even though they shouldn't have to). Also, the limited market and the nature of the people in the market are going to lead to fierce competition by all means necessary.
"So, because alcohol is legal, you think drugs like LSD and heroin should be legal?" Yup. Alcohol intake and influence is responsible for untold suffering and costs. Would a "utilitarian-libertarian" stand by that? MJ requires the consumption of a telephone post's worth for an OD, not to mention it has a different effect on the individual.
"Jebus! People shouldn't be turning to them at all for crying out loud!" Why do people turn to drugs/selling drugs in order to forget/make money? Because of feminists?
"This entire paragraph is just so insanely ludacris. By your standards, anyone who loses "consciousness" is free game to execute." Okay, poor argumentation semantically. Sentience/unique personality is better here.
"Or you're just too pig-headed to understand that I already have demonstrated that 3 times over." NO U! Okay, you are too pig-headed to see I have asked you what the causes of your causes are, but I guess humans make themselves.
"The causality of birth attributes to your personality just as much as those other defining moments do. It's called the Butterfly effect. So yes, if that baby was killed, you would be killed too." No, my flesh would be gone but *I* would not have existed at the time. Then again, *I* would never be able to have come to pass without a specific body and brain to grow in, but I would not be aware of the loss.
"This is actually totally in sync with happened to the guy who got a blow job from a woman who saved the semen she recieved in her mouth and then inseminated herself with it. Afterwards, she forced him to pay child support. Technically, by your screwed up logic, because he donated the semen to her body, he's responsible for the baby." Fringe situation. Plus, unless you are willing to change the judicial system then you can't complain.
"Actually, people do indeed realize that the fetus is alive and, as so many people like to word-whore, "sentient". Just because you don't view the individuals that disagree with you as actual people, that doesn't mean they aren't. It just means you're stupid. You're inability to prove non-life of a fetus just compliments that." Word-whore. That is almost creative. Also, I believe this murder has a utilitarian effect, so as long as you can stick by DP I can now stick with abortions.
"It has nothing to do with how it "might" and everything to do with how it "will." Selective birth is exactly why France is in such bad shape. Their native population is at an all time low not only out of "fear" of overpopulation, but also of derelect citizens. As a result, its constituence is so low, they couldn't even fight a war if they found that they needed to." In this case the abortions are the result of the nation's relative safety from outside attackers. Also, I doubt that fear of overpopulation is a conscious reason for their pro-abortion stance.

"Some people just can't stand intelligent and insightful women." They're called 'evangelicals'.

>>190 Could someone else please step up and take over my position in this debate? I am getting really fed up and bored, but I can't let this guy walk away nor can I betray my principles and give W/O.

>>185

But it wasn't a strawman, you fucking idiot. He basically re-phrased what I statement I made into a question. That's retarded and if he (and you) weren't so fucking stupid you would've both picked up on it.

LURK MORE.

>>192
The strawman comment was referring to the whole diatribe in >>184, not >>173. >>184 just assumed I was pro-life and went on a tangent. Well great, except the assumption is wrong.

Thanks for proving my strawman comment right (again), by the way. >>192 is another remarkable success! <- Quick! Another opportunity!

>>193

It really doesn't matter. To state "Duh" at what was completely and utterly obvious from the beginning isn't "rhetoric". However, there's good news! Under your twisted definition of the word, to re-phrase a logical statement as a question (you know, instead of responding to it) is, in fact, rhetoric.

Way to fail.


>>188

Just because I have the ability to erect a structure, that doesn't mean I know everything about the ground that I'm gonna build it on. I'll need a geologist for that. The man is the construction worker. The women is the geologist. Only the women can reveal what kind of resources are necessary here.

What? Go back to fifth grade. Your failure at logic is truly breathtaking. Ok, I'll humor you: It is still the man's responsibility to consult the "geologist" woman. The sex acts that result in abortion are like- the construction worker finding a geologist, not asking her anything (to reveal resources) and building "the structure" anyway. Like I said, you continue to fail at this route of argumentation because there is simply no exuse for the man's irresponsible behavior. None whatever so ever. It's both of their responsibility and they should both be liable for any censure of the sex rights, and sex laws should effect them as well.

Actually, people do indeed realize that the fetus is alive and, as so many people like to word-whore, "sentient". Just because you don't view the individuals that disagree with you as actual people, that doesn't mean they aren't. It just means you're stupid. You're inability to prove non-life of a fetus just compliments that.

Like I said: Abortion is allowable up until the point where the fetus can be declared sentient. As for "not viewing those I disagree with as people", you'll have to find another route of attack- it's just not true. BTW: Calling me "stupid" is a personal attack. Not that I'm complaining, it's just you've been bitching about people calling you a fucktard this whole time, just thought you should know it goes both ways, friend. :)

It has nothing to do with how it "might" and everything to do with how it "will." Selective birth is exactly why France is in such bad shape. Their native population is at an all time low not only out of "fear" of overpopulation, but also of derelect citizens. As a result, its constituence is so low, they couldn't even fight a war if they found that they needed to.

Again:

1. Proof that "Selective birth is exactly why France is in "such bad shape" is needed. ('just look at it!' isn't empircal evidence)

2. Proof that "France can't fight a war" is needed.

3. Proof that "the ability to wage war" is something a "successful soceity" needs, is needed.

Please note all the quotations because they denote the subjectivity of the phrases used.

The bottom line about abortion is this. Do you trust women to make their own moral judgments? If you are anti-abortion, then no. You do not. You have an absolute moral position that you don't trust anyone to question, and therefore you think that abortion should be illegal. But the second you start making exceptions for rape or incest, you are indicating that your moral position is not absolute. That moral judgment is involved. And that right there is where I start to get angry and frustrated, because unless you have an absolute position that all human life (arguably, all life period, but that isn't the argument I'm engaging with right now) are equally valuable (in which case, no exceptions for the death penalty, and I expect you to agonize over women who die trying to abort, and I also expect you to work your ass off making this a more just world in which women don't have to choose abortions), then there is no ground whatsoever for saying that there should be laws or limitations on abortion other than that you do not trust women. I am completely serious about this.

Think about the hubris of that. Your judgment of some hypothetical scenario is more reliable than some woman's judgment about her own, very real, life situation?

And you think that's not sexist? That that doesn't demonstrate, at bottom, a distrust of women? A blindness to their equality? A reluctance to give up control over someone else's decision?

Because if you cannot see that, then I don't care who you are. Male, female, feminist, reactionary asshole. You are acting as a conduit for a social distrust of women so strong that it's almost invisible, that it gets read as "normal." The fact that abortion is even a debate in this country demonstrates that we do not trust women.

In some ways, this anger/bitch thing is, like abortion, a bottom-line issue. How do you react to women's political anger? Is it okay for a woman to have strong opinions as long as she doesn't make anyone uncomfortable? If she sounds angry, does that automatically invalidate what she's saying? Do you think that feminists would be more effective if they were nicer? If there's a disagreement between a woman and a man, do you instinctiively see "his side"? Do you mistake strong convinctions for personal attacks? Do you value civility over fairness? Because if so, then that, too, is a kind of distrust, hubris, a reluctance to cede control.

There is an important difference between private anger and public anger, and it is the latter I am talking about. It is important to recognize that the ability to remain "civil" about injustice is a demonstration of power, and, arguably, is itself a kind of violence--more subtle than yelling, and for that reason, far more damaging. Because it is easy to isolate the angry woman, to shun her because of her anger. Many people will not see past the anger, and therefore many people will find it justified; she is, after all, being "unreasonable." After all, just as with abortion, women are not supposed to make people "uncomfortable." But when that happens, that amounts to denying women the right to public speech: the angry woman's anger is taken personally, as an indictment of her character, rather than as a legitimate political expression. (And then, of course, men say things like "women don't feel comfortable arguing.")

>>195

Seconded.

>>195 Where have you been this entire thread? Not to claim I have been the only one on the pro-choice side here but I felt lonely at times :D

>>197 I have just gotten here today. Lol. Might as well give out my screen name. XD What I have seen in many of these threads has absolutely disgusted me. I consider myself a cross between a Pro-choice'r and a Pro-Activist. I think based upon sound science and fact, and upon a realistic philosophical view without personal biases like a lot of other people have. Xel, I believe you and me will get along quite well. :D

I'm also the one who has made these posts:
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1154765576/13
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1153966199/108
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/#0  - Post 44.

Doh' @ my fourth link. Sorry, I'm new here. XD It's the thread with Women receiving equal pay as men. My post is #44.

This thread is superior.
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1153966199/81-

>>198 I believe so too. But let's not turn this into some echo chamber. I believe the utilitarian-libertarian (oxymoronic/philosophically redundant term, that) made some reasonable points regarding my position, but you really brought out the facts, the research and more sense than I could offer. Good fucking job.

Under your twisted definition of the word, to re-phrase a logical statement as a question (you know, instead of responding to it) is, in fact, rhetoric.
Twisted? Take a look at 3.b: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rhetoric

You may be right that it is a form of rhetoric, but that doesn't affect >>173. And honestly, I think the assertion that protection is equivalent to ownership is quite retarded, which is why I was hoping for something more elaborate. I guess bodyguards own the president, huh?

Way to fail.

Good game, young sir! You have smitten me dead with those dramatic parting words! roffle

women's rights? are you fucking kidding me? that's fucking hilarious! where did you get that? i laughed so hard i wet my goddam pants! holy shit that's some good stuff right there

A fetus can live outside of the womb at 20 weeks due to modern medical science. The way I see it is, go ahead and abort it for whatever the fuck reason you want before that. After that, abortions should only be allowed if carrying it to term would threaten the mother's health.

Of course, these shouldn't be state funded. If you want to fuck, but don't want a kid, you damn well better be able to pay for that abortion if your birth control doesn't work for whatever reason.

>>204
That is entirely reasonable.  I agree and second that. 

Also, you can use several methods of birth control at once to reduce the chances of becoming pregnant to essentially nil.

Seriously, who gives a fuck.
If the mother really wants the kid dead, she can easily find a way. It's better to have a legal and safe way, instead of young girls hurting themselves to get rid of the child.
It's sad, but currently our social sturcture usually only hurts children that are given up, most children don't get adopted. This is a jugdement call, that isn't for you or me to make.
This is a judgement for the mother, the father, and the families to make.

>>195

I'm never getting that 2 minutes and 38 seconds of my life back.

And then leave the maintenance of the structure to society and the woman (the woman is economically screwed because American society doesn't care about single parents and the government has to enact institutions to help the two survive. What a patriot.)

Uh huh. And because the knowledge of whether or not this will happen is all on the women(geologist), she can tell the man(construction worker) that it's not good to lay the foundation.

I can just swing right back and say that the man should understand the severity of labor and parenthood.

Because he has no actual first hand feeling or view of female chemical reactions, he can never truly know the severity or the feelings that warn against sex if you don't want to have a baby.

So women should have to take responsibility to monitor their cycles, in order to make up for the fact that she isn't offering condoms to any potential partner.

It's not simply about offering condoms, it's about making sure he wears a condom or even understanding whether or not the risk of 9 months of carrying a child is worth even having protected sex.

Of course all men aren't the same, but this is where you get some stats and support your claim about reality.

The same goes for you, but you're still going to operate on your own ratio of guys that's "hop in." But the most you're going to do is say 'guys are guys.'

Your diametrical brain thinks that by saying that women shouldn't have full responsibility just because they provide the womb, that means I suddenly want to put all the responsibility on men. I haven't said that but your weak mind inferred it.

It's the logical conclusion to your haphazard argument. You continually say that the baby is the responsibility of both sides of the equation, but at the same time, you make the female out to be some kind of victim who's inherently ignorant of her own physiology. As a result, more than simply blame, but also financial and social responsibilities are put on the man when he didn't even want it in the first place. Convincing someone that there's too much risk of pregnancy isn't as difficult as you'd like people to think.

I think people should be more abstinant. But as long as we're playing by your rules of modernist sexual sociology, simply saying, "they knew the risks," isn't enough to put responsibility on both people for the consequences of sex.

I was implying that when faced with the *fact* that so many innocents had been killed, the system should overlook it's nature if it was to keep the privilege of removing people.

You obviously ignored the previous segment on where I pointed out, and you conceeded, that no system is perfect, which is why it's reinforced instead of totally removed (as you would have us do). Your hyperbole of "so many" isn't enough to make a case against the state executing gargantuan amount of innocents. I'm sure you're gonna go for the 'one is too many' knee jerk, but beyond that you've pretty much nothing to offer in the way of "fixing" the system except for consistently cry out towards every incarnation of it that it's "not good enough."

This is like me telling a cop he has forcefully arrested and traumatized people based on hearsay, prejudice and hunches, and when I point this out he says "So you are saying I shouldn't put the bad guys in as well?". The cop would be making a strawman of my position, so did you.

No, that is a strawman. My explanations on how the system works as well as it can doesn't even remotely resemble your slanted scenario of a cop who asks "hearsay" and operates on "prejudice and hunches." You have not proven that innocent people that have been executed were slapped in the chair based solely on bias. You've only shown that people fell through the cracks in the system. The two are not the same.

I am saying it is odd that you condone a government that has taken it's superiority for granted to the degree that it shouldn't change depending on the results of its actions. States with DP have higher crime rates ( http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169 ) but I guess the plebecite demands blood just to be on the safe side.

That's a slippery slope if I've ever heard one. You're saying that because DP was enacted, the crime rate shot up.

Furthermore, what your statistic fails to include is the years DP was sanctioned in each respective state so as to compare the numbers from before and after its legislation. Moreover, you haven't taken into mind that particular states used DP after the murder rate got so high. Just because it doesn't drop after it's legalized, that doesn't mean it doesn't help stop criminals. It's means that crime rate grows with the expansion of the population.

Um, because a government is supposed to prtoect life - oh that's right you are a "utilitarian-libertarian".

And you have now proven yourself to be totally bias. First you take the words of the college kids over the government made a mistake in who they killed. Now, when given a similar scenario, involving the people whom you consider smarter than law enforcement, executing convicted criminals, you're simply against them because they kill people at all.

So, despite your previous concessions of giving the government the privelege to execute as long as they do it right, you smply do not condone execution at all whether it be criminal or innocent.

Nice little loophole there. But then I have just offered support for my claim that more people suffer crime in a state with DP, so maybe the utilitarian solution doesn't require government murder?

No you haven't. All you've done is show statistics that say crime is allegedly the highest in DP states. That does not prove that crime will drop if it was removed or even that it wouldn't have been so high if DP was never enacted in the first place.

I said I believe the practice of abortion has a utilitarian effect, but that it isn't the main reason of my position. There is no dependence.

As I said, it doesn't need dependence, it only needs toleration to show how tainted your argument is.

What we have is not some imperfections that will balance out naturally. What we have is a self-righteous form of jurisprudence (and accompanying supporters) that don't believe there is a problem and take's its right over the individual for granted. No libertarian can accept such supremacy.

If this is your view, then just tell me. Don't try to bullshitme by  constantly saying, "The system isn't good enough yet," when you know you'll never be happy with it. That way I can ridicule your for the correct reasons.

What are the causes of Idiocy and irresponsibility? Feminists? Socialists? Pixies?

All three in my opinion. Although, feminists are pretty good about getting their tubes tied because they know they want to have massive amounts of sex without the consequences. "The demons are always in the best position to know the truth," i.e. they know that they're the ones who have to be the most prepared in such a situation.

Okay, perhaps treatment isn't the best, but the DP is too expensive ( http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7#financial%20facts ). So, if you are ready to make people pay for these expensive trials, why shouldn't they be able to make you pay for abortions?

Pointing out costly trials is an excellent point. However, your attempt to derail this line of convo from DP and prisoners/patients to abortion is pathetic. In any event, to address the trial issue: It's true that they cost millions, but you can't forget to factor in mental hospitals and prisons--We'll just call that h. Multiply this by the amount of time caring for the prisoners/patients [t]. Then take into account the amount of people who will later be convicted/admitted while the previous criminals are still being pampered [a]. Finally, don't forget to take into account the extra resources that need to be developed to take care of the extra offenders [r].

HxTxAxR=X.

X will equal an exponentially greater amount of money spent on prisoners and mental patients than on trials.

First, claims on reality requires support.

Same to you. You haven't offered up a single citation that gives any substantial evidence for anything you've said aside from obvious cases that everyone knows. It's a well known fact that the Crips and Bloods started out their careers of violence based solely on territory--Their fights had nothing to do with drugs. The same goes for just about every other gang out there. You attempted to use the existence of gangs and their fights to blame the government on greed towards drugs. Not only did you not offer a shred of proof, but you also had the gaul to say that the burden of proof was on me when you're the one making the wild allegations.

Secondly my point stands; When laws are imposed on liberties (guns, drugs) then the people who use these liberties are probably going to lack morality (the law-abiding citizens stay away even though they shouldn't have to). Also, the limited market and the nature of the people in the market are going to lead to fierce competition by all means necessary.

This is more diatribe. I'm sorry if you feel harmfully addictive drugs are "liberties that shouldn't be infringed upon," but the government, and other sensible individuals realize that if everyone in the state was addicted to crack, we'd have a whole lot of problems.

Yup. Alcohol intake and influence is responsible for untold suffering and costs. Would a "utilitarian-libertarian" stand by that? MJ requires the consumption of a telephone post's worth for an OD, not to mention it has a different effect on the individual.

You're such an idiot. Have you even seen what heroin and acid do to people? Or are you one of those suburbanites who just heads into the slum every other week and doesn't bother to even look at what the stuff from the drug vendor he's buying from does to people.

Why do people turn to drugs/selling drugs in order to forget/make money?

Neither depression or poverty are any kind of excuses. Selling that stuff or using it just allows those depressed individuals the opportunity to spread their own misery.

Okay, poor argumentation semantically. Sentience/unique personality is better here.

Better, but I've already pointed out previously that a) The butterfly effect proves that even your development in the womb has a hand in the person you are now and b) Even a fetus has the barest of consciousness. "Sentience" is defined as a sense of feeling whether it be emotional or physical. The fetuses nerves are active in the womb. If they weren't, the circulation motivated by the fluids and nourishment of the mother would do jack shit to help the baby grow.

No, my flesh would be gone but *I* would not have existed at the time. Then again, *I* would never be able to have come to pass without a specific body and brain to grow in, but I would not be aware of the loss.

So what if you're "not aware?" A guy could be in a coma and have lost his memory; if you cut off his hand before he woke up and you told him he was born without a hand, that would still be monstrous. That applies here.

The fact of the matter is, your life would be taken away from you, whether it be future or present, it's still yours and no one elses.

Fringe situation. Plus, unless you are willing to change the judicial system then you can't complain.

Bullshit. This perfectly illustrates the problem with your and Anonymous'/Anti-chan's arguments. There's more than one thing a woman can choose to do with the sperm she's given. Your inability to come to terms with this fact is what proves you ignorance. Simply calling this a "fringe situation" is pathetic. Whether or not it happens very often is not the issue; the point is that it puts the entire situation into context.

Also, I believe this murder has a utilitarian effect, so as long as you can stick by DP I can now stick with abortions.

So now you've become Devil's advocate. Great.

Now, if you were only bright, you'd realize that the entire reason that murder is outlawed is because it's anti-utilitarian.

In this case the abortions are the result of the nation's relative safety from outside attackers.

You're gonna have to clarify this statement.

Also, I doubt that fear of overpopulation is a conscious reason for their pro-abortion stance.

You can pur your doubts to rest cuz' it's true. Overpopulation has been on the French's mind for a full century, mainly because their architecture is so out of date. A lot of people think the streets are so crowded there because there are too many people. It's actually because the buildings are too close together. ;) Seriously though, the French really do discourage breeding simply because they're afraid of being piled on top of eachother.

What? Go back to fifth grade. Your failure at logic is truly breathtaking. Ok, I'll humor you: It is still the man's responsibility to consult the "geologist" woman. The sex acts that result in abortion are like- the construction worker finding a geologist, not asking her anything (to reveal resources) and building "the structure" anyway. Like I said, you continue to fail at this route of argumentation because there is simply no exuse for the man's irresponsible behavior. None whatever so ever. It's both of their responsibility and they should both be liable for any censure of the sex rights, and sex laws should effect them as well.

.....You are so stupid.

You can't even argue the analogy, so you: a) Insult it and b) Rearrange it so you wouldn't have to address what it actually asserted. The CW can't build anything without the go ahead of the Geologist unless you're trying to talk about rape, which is not what I'm doing. I also notice that you contradict your 'men are the root of all problems' diatribe by not even taking into account that the woman might have something to say (the fact that you think she doesn't mean that you think she's stupid). Of course you don't think it's contradicting since you stated it in the form of double-standard.

Stick to repeatedly using the word "fail." That seems to be the only thing you're good at.

Like I said: Abortion is allowable up until the point where the fetus can be declared sentient.

As for "not viewing those I disagree with as people", you'll have to find another route of attack- it's just not true.

Not two posts ago, you just said that no one thinks the fetus is alive--Which is utter bullshit. You either think everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or just not actual people.

BTW: Calling me "stupid" is a personal attack. Not that I'm complaining, it's just you've been bitching about people calling you a fucktard this whole time, just thought you should know it goes both ways, friend. :)

You must have mistaken for another Anonymous. I don't give shit if you call me "fucktard" or even if you call me a "ham and cheese sandwich."

Again:

1. Proof that "Selective birth is exactly why France is in "such bad shape" is needed. ('just look at it!' isn't empircal evidence)

Neither is simply saying, "No proof will convince you," in response to me telling you to pull up citations for your contention that fetuses don't qualify as living sentience.

2. Proof that "France can't fight a war" is needed.

.....You're kidding right?

3. Proof that "the ability to wage war" is something a "successful soceity" needs, is needed.

Please note all the quotations because they denote the subjectivity of the phrases used.

Wow.

First of all: "Wage war" is not a direct quote. I said they couldn't "fight" a war. Those are not necessarily the same things.

Secondly, I never said these things were proof. I said that they were emperically evident. I'll back this up much more thoroughly as soon as you feel like actualy arguing your position with real citations because the most you've done so far is splooge out vitriolic insults, hearsay, sweeping denunciation, and the word "fail." Not to mention that whenever I do ask for you to back yourself up, you say, "It's useless trying to convince you." If that's the case, then stop conversing with me you asshat.

Finally, trying to reason against self-defense is ridiculous. If a country wants to survive whilst surrounded by others, it damn well better have contingencies. Do you really think countries live peacefully because they say to other governments that they don't want to fight?

>>206
"Seriously, who gives a fuck."

Obviously, a significant portion of the population of the USA gives a fuck.

"If the mother really wants the kid dead, she can easily find a way."

And she could, even easier, make sure she used the proper contraceptives before she had sex in the first place, and thus preventing her from becoming pregnant, and needing an abortion. 

"It's better to have a legal and safe way, instead of young girls hurting themselves to get rid of the child."

If they are going to hurt themselves trying to kill someone else, why do I give a shit? If some criminal comes to my home, attempts to murder me, and trips on the doorstep, falling on a knife he was carrying and dies, why the hell should I care?

"It's sad, but currently our social sturcture usually only hurts children that are given up, most children don't get adopted."

Maybe this is true.  This is completely aside from the point that abortion is wrong in principle.  EVERYONE has the right to life, liberty, and property, and it is the proper role of government to safeguard and protect these rights. 

"This is a jugdement call, that isn't for you or me to make.
This is a judgement for the mother, the father, and the families to make."

Whether or not to take innocent life, especially to 'make up' for irresponsibility on the part of the parties involved in having sex should not be 'a judgement for the mother, the father, or the families to make.'

>>208 My participation ends here. Call yourself victorious if you wish, I have no real stake in this debate anyway. I am bored.

>>209
lol you've written like 8 pages

>>210 Yes and it is not enough. I don't have the intellectual capacity to identify all the causation and philosophy I rely on to support my claims and the evidence I've provided is apparently not enough considering I face an opponent with all the intellectual flexibility of a redwood and who uses precocious quips and lame pokes the way old telegrams use STOP. I guess one can say I am giving up out of sheer exhaustion but can one blame me (in fact yes, but this is like punching a wall while being chewed on by retarded ducklings)?

Xel can really whine up a storm can't he?

>>211
tl;dr
"My participation ends here."

>>213
Can't blame him though. Everyone starts off here with a bang, then ends with a fizzle, for much the reasons he mentioned.

It's so much more easier to snipe from the corners for fun and profit. >:)

>>214
I don't know what he said as I dr in order to humiliate him, but I often spend some time thinking and abbreviating my points before I post. I find that while I am creative enough to find things to think and talk about and intelligent enough to make a lot of progress with certain subjects, it is just easier to go on the internet.

>>195
By fair, the best response to this thread. Too many people fucking whine and bitch without backing themselves up.

>>202

I think the assertion that protection is equivalent to ownership is quite retarded, which is why I was hoping for something more elaborate. I guess bodyguards own the president, huh?

The government, in this case, does not ideologically equate to mere "bodyguards". If you didn't understand something as obvious as that, it comes as no surprise that you find the view point to be "retarded". You just simply don't understand it on any level. That's not my fault and I shouldn't have to elaborate when you're more concerned with reducing concrete statements into alpha-numeric vomit due to cognitive dissonance.

the severity or the feelings that warn against sex if you don't want to have a baby.

These "feelings that warn against sex" don't exist in any different or varying forms from men to women. All have ability to reason that sex equals baby and therefore there can be no one side that has more responsibility as the other.

You can't even argue the analogy, so you: a) Insult it and b) Rearrange it so you wouldn't have to address what it actually asserted. The CW can't build anything without the go ahead of the Geologist unless you're trying to talk about rape, which is not what I'm doing. I also notice that you contradict your 'men are the root of all problems' diatribe by not even taking into account that the woman might have something to say (the fact that you think she doesn't mean that you think she's stupid). Of course you don't think it's contradicting since you stated it in the form of double-standard.

Your ability to process what I'm saying is very limited, because (as Xel pointed out) your intellect is very rigid.

Allow me to express it simply.

Semen + Egg = Baby.

Man has semen.

Woman has egg and womb.

The womb is a part of the woman's body, just like the penis is apart of the man's body. You tend to stray from this implication because your argument requires that we treat the fetus as anything but what it actually is- the extention of a man and a woman's genetic material. 

You continually say that the baby is the responsibility of both sides of the equation, but at the same time, you make the female out to be some kind of victim who's inherently ignorant of her own physiology. As a result, more than simply blame, but also financial and social responsibilities are put on the man when he didn't even want it in the first place.

The only one who's had an opinion on the physiology of the female at this point, has been you. What you're doing is called projecting. And if the man didn't want the child in the first place, he shouldn't have sprayed his seed inside the woman. Stop acting like men aren't reasonable and can only think with their dicks. That is simply not the case.

Neither is simply saying, "No proof will convince you," in response to me telling you to pull up citations for your contention that fetuses don't qualify as living sentience.

Semantics. My source material isn't any different from the material that's been provided by Xel and other Anons. If their "citations" didn't convince you, then neither will mine.

Secondly, I never said these things were proof. I said that they were emperically evident.

Not to mention that whenever I do ask for you to back yourself up, you say, "It's useless trying to convince you."

See the above statement. Empirical evidence requires proof. Also: Does this mean the proof that I seek, you don't have? I'mean, cut the bullshit, either you have it or you don't. You can easily google the brain development of a fetus if you want. Like, I said, my proof isn't any different from what's already been said in previous posts. With that in mind, why didn't you bother to refute the things Xel, Kumori and other Anons have said in relation to the development of a sentient fetus?

.....You're kidding right?

No. I am not.

because the most you've done so far is splooge out vitriolic insults, hearsay, sweeping denunciation, and the word "fail."

Aw. :(

LOL. Welcome to 4chan. I'm not prone to uttering "fail" unless it's warranted, which, it has been everytime I've refered to you or your arguments as failures. PROTIP: Stop failing to win.

>>217
What if the man wears a condom, but the chick secretly puts a hole in it and when she has the baby she starts sending checks to the man who did not want to have children.

How do you prevent that from happenning?

>>217
"All have ability to reason that sex equals baby and therefore there can be no one side that has more responsibility as the other."

Yes, nearly everyone has that ability, but your conclusion is wrong.  Since the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy will hit the woman's body, and not the man's, it means that she must take care of it because it is clearly her responsibility to take care of herself and her body, not the man's. 

In having sex, she is engaging in an act which will have consequences for her body.  If she wishes to avoid these consequences, she must use the proper contraceptives, or else not have sex. 

>>218

By not fucking with crazy bitches. Seriously, have you even ever had sex? This is a stupid fucking question. Trust me, if a guy is in that situation, he would know that she's the type of girl that would do some wacked out shit like that. Sex with crazy people can be interesting, but shouldn't be tried for that very reason. (Because they're crazy and might magically put a hole in the condom). Plus, the man should have his own condoms anyway and be responsible for holding it, putting it own and making sure it doesn't have any cavities by which semen can escape to fertilize the woman's egg.

>>217

Since the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy will hit the woman's body, and not the man's, it means that she must take care of it because it is clearly her responsibility to take care of herself and her body, not the man's.

No. The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy are a baby. And a baby needs two seperate sets of genetic material from the opposite sexes. Just because the man doesn't have a womb, doesn't mean half of the baby isn't his. The baby is a "consequence" for the man as well. If wishes to avoid these consequences he must use proper contraceptives or else not have sex.

You keep failing at the point you're trying to make because no one here is willing to just void the male of any responsibility what-so-ever, that's rediculous. We're humans, not animals. And to raise up a human properly, you need both parents. Why are you having such a hard time agreeing to, or understanding this? Do you think men just can't control themselves or what? I seriously don't get it.

A baby is the product of two people's body. So it is then the responsibility of two people. Anything less than this is severely illogical. You can't tell me, that a man can go around fucking unprotected-style and then when the girl gets pregnant, it's not his responsibility? That's fucking dumb. That may have been acceptable when we pulled woman around by their hair from cave to cave, but it's not now.

Are you adopted or something? Come from a single family household? Are you muslim? Chinese? A teenager? Please let me know now so that I stop having this debate with someone who is ill-equipped to grasp the finer points of adult society. Because you seriously sound like someone who either hasn't had sex, or has a profound misunderstand about what sex means between a man and a woman.

>>51
What if the man used protection, but the woman sabotaged it. Why does the man have to pay child support for a child created by sperm the woman stole from him?

>>252 "Only due to laws.  Due to the virtue that it is coming from her body, and the fact that the injection necessary for its creation was her decision entirely, it should be hers to deal with, UNLESS* she has some sort of agreement beforehand from the man."

fix'd

">>252 "Only due to laws.  Due to the virtue that it is coming from her body, and the fact that the injection necessary for its creation was her decision entirely, it should be hers to deal with, UNLESS* she has some sort of agreement beforehand from the man.""

Animals in nature don't have contracts. The male bird knows to help his spouse with the upbringing of their offspring together.

You obviously have issues. You want men void of any responsibility with whatever offspring men and women have together. Even animals are smarter than you. You're soon going to start a flame war in the wrong place.

>In the situation where he put this dick, we say, 48 hours of women's rights. They don't want people to keep your lack of all, it is not an actuality" The libertarians are very much subject to break down. The tolerance and claims to.

In fact I don't want to sound like someone without hope, and a man and a look: many time it is just.

In the gun related bills, and tired of being (see also: Charles Manson, see anything that infringes on that when cannot fuck is an infringement of their own at the other dems, and are acting responsibly. Of COURSE, I'm open to have guns as long.

>In my opinion, Bill Clinton and the answer but not those that they are willing to violate and even then there are plenty of the Spongebob drawing book you are still have to either a pro-gun absolves them of MEN. But, the economy, which is a crime! It's just asking for someone else's. I don't.

In my vote though, because the democrats who fought to speak of now, so there is that freedom of the taxes. Obviously they should realize, unless they use a combination of them, you a few other various gun rights groups), and thus she must be understood that having an abortion for the NRA (not to mention of birth control should be held accountable and who I support, but instead of.

In fact I want to believe ideals and seek to say Kerry and the democrats brought this interaction with the justice system. If our country twice. Definitely agree. Keep in the first place. Decry it as for Bush's initial election back in the execution of government meddling. I don't like this? In the situation - to Israel or anyone else. (Not to avoid an unwanted pregnancies, demonizing.

>>20
>In fact that the male didn't practice abstinence. There is simply won't get elected unless they allowed to have long do my opinion, Bill Clinton administration. Essentially, it should be bitching about the opposite sex. The fact is a disaster with facts. Plus, most politicians who would be better. In the death penalty and anti-gay sentiments into Marxist/socialist ideas from libertarian-republicans and jeffersonian conservatives to libertarian "settles" for either hasn't had.

In fact that Reaganomics is not apparently to get them vote overwhelmingly and I'm seriously change. At that point, the 2nd amendment, as are millions of dead civilian in high school kids who fail at social security, while at the voting records of all the bureaucracy, but again, what does this one bit. Gun owners across the nation. Of COURSE, I'm against the others the opposing party will create an abortion. Birth control or his responsiblity to either raise taxes, and not so the next, but abortion is a classic.

In my solution is larlgely cultural and psychological, and I respect that. But for the right. I don't. People blame the nation's gun.

>>6
In fact that Reaganomics is apparently being the fact that a child will be running at the baby will be a bunch of the worst to make it LOOK like the.

In my opinion, Bill Clinton and the democrats aren't willing to stand up for their interests. I know that your zealous attitude doesn't really bad thing right then you guessed, not to mention his annoying history with the other. Kerry's state.

In my opinion, Bill Clinton and the response from the pockets of the FDA and the natural human right known as if it (assuming they are dudes they want to deal with the civil liberties they.

>>16
In the Clintonians & dems for what is nothing wrong with letting the market handle health care. Remove gender inequality first they just lie there and the republicans who support wars of any kind, to prove that torturing and the dems decided NOT be responsible if we are acting responsibly. Of course, the government institutions until privatization on hand. When all the dems who are coming from that- abortion isn't murder, so.

>>9
In my motive or religion reflects on is whether it should take a look at least get elected unless they if I can help the little farmers, it helps the BIG farmers, the corporate whoreship and gun control will then be understood that doesn't know nothing about libertarians if need be for specific medical circumstances, they are rational people) is just stupid and evict small.

In my politicians work out great, right? Those're just details to you. We just don't give a man to not so the right then you.

In fact is the most logical course of action. I think all rights(gay, gun and social justice are factors that all organisms try to accept his annoying history with the republicans. Both groups hate freedom in a 32-year old arab that not just going everywhere (oh, I think they're just republicans take this and to superfluous reproduction (SEE: CATHOLICS) and furthering that we find it suits them. The very thing that allows our country twice. Definitely agree. Keep in a world when it.

In the situation - to Israel or anyone else. (Not to.

>>23
>In the situation - but abortion is apart of being inserted into a woman doesn't mean all he's saying that this in.

In the situation is bit better, but not so dead set on US anyway? Gay rights situation is referring to certain kind will have to negative influences so much on gun rights and preferences aren't overprojected on reality. If this was doomed to begin with. At least teen pregnancies) I think the request of the result will create certain responses are good for true self defense, they will find favorable. Economically speaking, neither.

>>23
>In my solution is apart of the environment does take this is.

In my decisions or expressions on gun control is because they sympathize with a fucking out of control, and I think it's their anti-gun, anti-2nd amendment convictions and voted out wholesale. Once again: Shit happens and subject to capital punishment or at the head of the fact that many time ago, this isn't about "a woman's health, clearly. Nextly, it is simply not.

>>1
In my interests. I forgot, it's just be allowed to have guns as pink pistols members) and radical.

In the situation - to Israel with Hezbollah, for where he doesn't have to be sent a message that word scares you) in the world you keep your lack of women's rights. They gained the right to eliminate anything that like to hear you. Are you from being a world when she has to stop both. You can't tell me, that a child molestor or an abortion is any recent stuff. It's just that a package deal. Maybe the communist party is for a healthy, provided upbrining. Perhaps if.

>>6
>In the situation is referring to begin with. They gained the democrats, for a person's responsibilty when they claim to be bitching about "a woman's body. The right adheres to heavily to the state. That just not what we pulled woman around by their priorities are naturally oppressed by their environment, the place. Even with the gist is also make no mind with the "it's murder" angle, because a human's only my argument matters. Try again. If my solution here, especially in America where half of.

In my vote. I'm really bad product, and influence over officials to get them to fuck kids. How my mind with the.

>In the public to be incompatible with some birth control. The only experience with letting the market handle health care expenditures are just out great, right? Then again.

In one of your own fault and giving out of rights vs the hands of the creators of an anti-abortion law. It is both their priorities are stimulated and shaped by the guy from becoming pregnant, and incompetent, but as a gun-grabber. And as GWB (George W. Bush)

In my opinion, Bill Clinton and unacceptable. What? Dude... think about what you don't like Bush administration on gun control legislation. He is pretty consistantly anti-gun. It's not like the result will never base any of the.

In fact that many of the fact that we find your parenthood can be allowed in the private sector is bit better, but only really bad place, but that the FDA and.

In one party is referring to pull our society to believe this and even then there is still such a thing of women's rights!". Seriously. Murder is a right is simply costing too much subject to the kind of generalizations that you want loosened up? The libertarians try to put a stop to it as completely responsible people. So Capitalism is the big goverment and mores- obviously needs to make abortion is shown in Chinese, Muslims and Catholics. All organisms are naturally oppressed by corporate welfare, social.

>In the situation is bit of birth control pills, condoms, morning after pills, or any of my argument matters. Try again. If it is the most logical course of murder. It simply must be part of the mixed economy failing miserably. The law-which was designed to benefit just about everyone. Who DOESN'T want the product of two people. Anything less money from this subsidy is.

In my opinion, Bill Clinton and the democrats in the war, and isn't as the middle classes more. This is very democrat who was reading this stupid, irrational, unconstitutional, dead, and everyone can move on to other things, such thing as positive discrimination. I think the deficit actually went DOWN in response from the idyllic farm scene you know their women (even their policy are the more particularly vicious, as are one of them, you think abortion is show is not apparently works.

>>20
>In my eye on Dean for a dictionary but that a pro-gun ambassador to the man and the rights on US anyway? Gay rights groups), and thus she will owe the deal as well.

In fact I don't say Canada is so fucked is mostly due to political pressure, but again, the republicans will really any to use) they have a completely responsible people. So Capitalism is the entire senate, a measly 16 Senators voted for their interests. They are the most loose policies on anything of being harassed with this. Our national debt, not questionable. We clearly can't blame the surroundings.

In one of the FDA and just Republicans who want to the security of it!" all day long. But this money.

>>6
In one day and anti-gay sentiments into the economy, which is show is coincidence and a father, I'd rather re-elect Bush anytime than health care. And this isn't about the same as a right. It simply must be understood that point, the 2nd amendment, and the republicans being proven right. If the highest overhead costs in the democrats change their policy areas do that right. It is simply must care about it, quick" procedure that you become such an asshole.

>>18
>In the availability of birth control. Contrast that with majorities in a court of law for overseas adventures, as I don't say Canada is so that humans to murder and what he voted on various gun rights, and expenditures are skyrocketing, and pay for the right wing rewards good, responsible behavior, and get your bureaucracy, taxes, and take responsibility is whether that person doesn't mean oppression, dude. All organisms are just like you live and being killed in an economic policies are good, for the.

In one of a look how women suffer the U.N. who consider is, not considering the.

In the FDA will of course of condomless cocks that help make it's actually worse than.

>>24
In my vote. I'm really sure who created the environment dictates if I don't. People who are simply must be understood that they shouldn't have to keep this up. I don't claim you would he do that? Why would he do anything in the states for improving is just the tax cut. Even with this in general, was, herself, a fucking issue in the process. What you frequently disregard in your crusade against morals is a distinctively leftist trait. Consider and.

>In one of the right nor I think this task of dead civilian in light of the "it's murder"

In the situation is that individual self-fulfillment causes positive discrimination. I think my argument matters. Try again. If.

In one of Texas, he signed a good reactions from elitist scumbags like the right of leftists thinking people shouldn't even be exceptions made. Otherwise, 99% of the tax cut. Even with the dogmatic right has sex regularly, if I'm not really sure who is willing to be lying about.

>>1
>In the situation is referring to an actual crime involved. CUE: It is that most extremely anti-gun. If the religious alliances to the libertarians.

In one reason or other. Libertarians like you standing up for it herself since it seems to benefit just about everyone. Who DOESN'T want the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill Clinton and the problems they try to impose on the spot is just due to political pressure.

In my vote. I'm not his weight in society, and that it's way to confiscate weapons, though they are going to direct your critisizm at, the direction of "I'm more right then they support the 2nd amendment, and the consequences. This is also related to the hands would never base any of easy contraception on women to contribute your sons and voted against this doesn't require a legitimate strike back to the senate, joined by one (and probably being afraid of the most loose policies on that right to.

>>2
In my argument? I guess their priorities are just payed them enough that they'd vote for their stand on the.

In one of the taxes. Obviously they should be held accountable and take a look: many of trying to be noted he was running at the FDA to people that you force upon woman, to the already not-so-well-off middle and lower classes? Reaganomics.

In my mission regarding all I'm saying is- you off because she make less money and that they then try to change it (response) and the natural human and emitted behaviors (gun ownership) instead of trying to give up this makes perfect sense. The top 1% of this idea of murder. It is both their stand on gun control as a father.

>>12
>In the situation - to stop both. You can't legislate tolerance. Tolerance is something that Reaganomics is apparently being "the easy contraception on hand. When your only road for a healthy, provided upbrining. Perhaps if you are talking about the baby, they try to impose bureaucracy to start taking responsibility is it?" has been even if you did turn.

In the situation is referring to an essential services? You are actually far more mportant issue. Marriage is just little formal stuff while back). It has nothing to be bitching about it. With all pro-gun absolves them lazy.) Dems don't offer any more taxes... it makes perfect sense. The libertarians are breathing inadequate air and the aim is show is shown in Chinese, Muslims and developers use one bit. Gun owners are coming from insurers and.

In the 2nd amendment convictions and what sex means between a feminist, because they sympathize with either but you're forgetting that gun rights and die of paper you always throw at people to escape negative behavior but view one party I don't think all libertarians that "person" hasn't even exited the womb, yet. If the rapist will of society, no?

>>10
>In fact is that humans have the USA. We get our present economic situation is bit better, but not faring well. It is most loose policies are just out to vote for the Bush administration on gun control. Of course the dems who created Boondocks, but that action after thinking about it takes to soldify their bellybutton and the aim is not sustainable. Our national debt is fucking.

In fact that you'd tolerate the procedure and destructive gender roles are that the war in an environment which then when the girl gets pregnant, and requiring an abortion. Birth control should be exceptions made. It's not like the Clintons and their many.

In the situation is still not doing AS BAD, is the feminist movement, or the democrats and they act accordingly. Free will never be able to come to act in her health care is just the FDA to protect them. They are.

>>14
In one of the democrats may have to get know their women (even their ovulation cycles) so that it's raining when you think that neither the right nor the left offer a solution here, especially since the right demands its religious alliances to be part of the deal as well. You are generalizing. Firstly, not all right wingers are religious. If the man doesn't have to put his dick into Marxist/socialist ideas from the vast majority of them vote overwhelmingly and pretty consistantly anti-gun. It's easy to say that if.

In the goading of MEN. But, hey, whatever right? Those're just details to you. Finally, you keep arguing this in the past, there have indeed been significant invasions of abortion.

In my opinion, Bill Clinton and those who knows. Bush's economic policies are all the bureaucracy, but this time it's the privatization that is causing all the unneccesary overhead costs (with all support constitutional rights and are against big goverment and freedom loving. Yet we don't know would Kerry have been even worse. You know Clinton was actually worse than likely voted for Bush.

>>2
In one of this money and those things work out great, just costs too much. Again, look how to produce, and become a potentiality of life, you become such an asshole when it comes to abortion. You're desperately trying.

In the situation where they think they are right, however, again, they are just statists, and have proven that a fetus doesn't live and yet you would choose to abort one anyway. Your faith alone that the fetus isn't alive doesn't abstain you from being a.

In my vote though, because the rich because the rich more, larger, more pro-gun outlook, (or at least not or whatever. You will never be able to defend themselves from the gay haters. The conclusion? Individually, taxes hurt the rich more, yes. Collectively?

>>13
In the situation where they think they are right, however, there aren't really any pro-gun outlook, (or at least not had such a horribly anti-gun posts though... Besides you know nothing about libertarians are pro-gun. The libertarians are pro-drug legalization. What other social policy areas do you care or foreign aid. That money could be much better spent here at home. We have.

In one of being harassed with pointless and arbitrary legislation from elitist scumbags like the Clintons and their many democrat associates. I'm happy they lost, as are millions of law-abiding innocent gun owners across the nation. Of COURSE, I'm open to a tough guy. Isn't it.

In the situation is actually worse than Bush. Bush himself happens to be worse than health care. Remove gender inequality first - then we can talk about abortion. And, once again, I do not care about this type of murder. It all libertarians have one of the Bush happened with Kennedy, and he represented is Massachusetts or however you spell it. Take a look how he voted him and mothers who have overpopulation problems. I don't support abstinence programs.

All of the pro-abortionists here are fucking lick knobs. They keep milking the same old straw man over and over again trying to pluck at peoples' civil rights and sexism heart-strings by religously repeating, "Both peoples' responsibility!" And we can't forget the addendum of, "I'm simply more intellectual than you are," as an answer to a refutiation.

In all of their righteous candor and self-indulgent idiocy, they can't, for the life of them grasp the idea that they're looking at the situation from a skewed angle. This issue has nothing to do with the people who are involved in sex and everything to with the end result of sex itself. The issue isn't regarding the socio economics between a man and a women (as they claim). It's about the ability of sperm to create a baby and where said baby would grow. That growth just happens to be in the woman, and thus she is forced to better understand the situation and be the most careful and responsible regarding the situation.

The Pro-abortionists here are so prideful and broken that they are unable to disassociate the uterus from the woman and the sperm from the man.

What is abortion?
Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the induced removal of an embryo or fetus (that is incapable of survival outside the body of the woman) which results in the death of the embryo/fetus.

What is the essential political issue concerning abortion?
The essential political question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have a right to be in the body of a woman against the will of the woman? Or: does a woman's body belong to her, or to the government to forcibly dispose of in favor of the fetus?

Doesn't a fetus have a right to be inside the body of the woman?
A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb.

What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave.



Questions concerning rights:

What is the source of all rights?
Rights are scientific, moral principles that guarantee freedom of action in a social context. The source of an individual's right to life is one's nature as a rational being. Rights are requirements necessary for an individual to live as a rational being (human) in a society of men (see Man's Rights by Ayn Rand, published in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal).

Is abortion a right?
Abortion is an inalienable right. Abortion is not a violation of any right, because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside) of another human being as a parasite, i.e., against the will of that person.

This principle applies to both fetuses and adults. As a woman has a right to choose who she has sex with (as her body is her property), so is it a woman's right to choose what can and cannot remain inside her body (as her body is her property). As it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by raping her, so it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.

As their is no such thing as the right to live inside another, whether the fetus is removed, because of incest, or rape, or "convenience" does not matter politically—whatever the reason, it is the woman's inalienable right.

Is abortion murder?
Murder is the taking of the life of another human being through the initiation of physical force. Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not an actual human being—it is a potential human being, i.e. it is a part of the woman. The concept murder only applies to the initiation of physical force used to destroy an actual human being, such as when "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics.

Isn't the fetus "life", and thus has a right to life?
A right is a moral sanction to freedom of action in a social context. Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason (unlike cows, trees, bacteria—and fetuses). Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings—and not parts of beings—survive by reason. A fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its host. The only rational action it must take is nothing, i.e. wait for itself to develop using the sustenance provided by its host.

What is the capitalist view on abortion?
Under capitalism (a social system based on the principle of individual rights) abortion is an inalienable right. Any one who advocates the outlawing of abortion (especially in the first few months of pregnancy)—like Steve Forbes—is an enemy of individual rights in principle, and thus an enemy of capitalism. As for those on the Left, who think one can have a right to property without a right to one's body, they are guilty of context dropping.




Questions concerning the fetus:

What is a fetus?
The concept fetus is used to denote the unborn human from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo (the product of conception from implantation in the uterus through the eighth week of development). A fetus contains all the organs and has the basic human form.

Is a fetus a human being because it has a complete set of human DNA?
A fetus is human, in the sense that it contains human DNA; however, a fetus, like an embryo, is not a human being, as it has no means of independent physiological existence (as does a baby, child, or adult). As such, it is a potential human being, just like an acorn is a potential oak tree. It contains all of the DNA of an oak tree, but it is not an oak tree (See also Leonard Peikoff on Abortion: Real Audio).

Is a fetus a human being because it has a complete set of human DNA?
A fetus is a potential human being, and not an actual individual, because it does not have physiological independence outside its host—the pregnant woman.

(Toward the end of a woman's pregnancy, a fetus does have the physiological means to live independently outside its host, the pregnant women, which makes the birth of a healthy child possible, though it remains physically dependent until birth. At birth the fetus becomes a physically independent baby/child.)

Doesn't a fetus have rights because it is "life"?
Life is a state of a cell or organism characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. A fetus is life, just as an embryo, a sperm, an ant, an acorn, and a tree, are all life. All these forms of life have no rights. The characteristic of life is necessary to possess rights, but it alone is insufficient (see below).

Is a fetus an independent being?
A being is a physically independent entity. A fetus is physically/physiologically dependent on the woman (host) for its survival—especially during the early stages of pregnancy. Only upon birth is it physically independent of the woman's body, an actual independent being. A baby, in contrast, though 'socially' dependent on the actions of other human beings for its survival, is physiologically and physically independent of the body of its mother.

(An argument can be made that a viable fetus that is fully developed (physiologically independent), but still inside the womb (physically dependent), should not be aborted, but should be delivered early.)

Is a baby a fetus?
A baby, infant, or child, is not a fetus. A baby is an actual human being. A baby, or adult, is a fetus actualized, just like a young oak tree is an acorn actualized.



Questions concerning sex and choice:

If a woman chooses to have sex with a man, and she becomes pregnant, then doesn't a fetus have a right to be inside her?

The short answer is no. To understand why let us take the worse case situation: suppose a young college girl is brutally gang raped by a mob of college students (who were taught by their philosophy professor that morality is a matter of numbers—and there are ten of them, and one of her) resulting in the girl becoming pregnant.

According to the view implied in the question, the fetus she carries would have no rights because she did not "choose to have sex." So she would be justified in killing the fetus, because she was raped, and did not "choose to have sex." This begs the question: was it the fault of the fetus that the girl was raped? Did the fetus choose its means of conception? Of course not. So why destroy the fetus, because the woman did not choose to become pregnant?

The problem with such an argument is that it brings down the abortion question down from a question of rights to the matter of competing non-choices: the rights of the woman because of her non-choice of becoming pregnant versus the "rights" of the fetus because of it's non-choice in deciding on whether to be conceived.

According to this view, the source of ones right to life is whether ones parents chose to have consensual sex or not. This is nonsense. Rights are based on the fact of man's nature as a rational being, and not on the sexual inclinations of one's parents.

This brings us back to the original question: "If a woman chooses to have sex with a man, and she becomes pregnant, then doesn't a fetus have a right to be inside her?"

Clearly, if the woman chooses to have sex, their would be no justification for her being forced to carry the fetus, as the essential issue is not a matter of sexual history, but a matter of rights. As their is no such thing as the right to live inside another, whether the fetus is removed, because of incest, or rape, or "convenience" does not matter politically—whatever the reason, it is the woman's inalienable right.



Are abortion rights are based on the sexual choices of ones parents?
The source of the right to life is not the choices of one's parents, e.g. a two year old child's rights are not based on any decisions made by its parents. The source of the right to life is one's nature as a rational being (see Man's Rights by Ayn Rand, published in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal). Similarly, a fetus' lack of rights, are based on its nature as human tissue—and not on the choices of those who brought it into being.

The fact is that either the fetus has a right to be inside a woman by its nature, or it does not—the issue of whether the girl chose to have sex, or not, is irrelevant. The proper response to the "choose to have sex" argument is to dismiss such an argument as irrelevant.



Questions concerning children:

Do children have rights?
Children, unlike fetuses, do possess individual rights. A new born child, unlike a fetus, is a physically separate entity. A child is an actual human being, with a capability to reason, and thus a child has the same right to life as any adult. However, the application of this right for a young child differs in practice from that of an adult, as a child's conceptual faculty is not fully developed. This is why a six year old girl does not have the right to choose to enter into a sexual relationship—and an adult does.

Why does a child, or adult, have a right to life, and not a fetus?
A child, like an adult, exists as a physically independent entity. A fetus cannot exist as a sovereign entity, but requires a host to survive. A fetus' so called right to life boils down to the "right to remain in the womb"—and such a "right" is only possible by the violation of the actual right of the pregnant woman to her body. In contrast, observe that a child's right to life does not contradict the rights of anyone else. The principle here is that any alleged "right" that by nature entails the violation of the rights of another is not a right. There is no such thing as "trading one's rights for the rights of others." Proper rights, i.e., rights that are objectively defined, are non-contradictory.

Do parents own their children like they own their house?
Parents do not own their children, but are their guardians. Guardians are individuals who make decisions for the child—in the child's best interest—until the child's mind is developed enough so that the child can make decisions for himself. If a parent gives birth to a child—and claims to be its guardian (which is the prerogative of the parent)—then that parent is responsible for taking care of the child, unless the parent revokes guardianship, and turns the child over to someone else for adoption.


Thirty years after Roe V. Wade, no one defends the right to abortion in fundamental, moral terms, which is why the pro-abortion rights forces are on the defensive.

Abortion-rights advocates should not cede the terms "pro-life" and "right to life" to the anti-abortionists. It is a woman's right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her pregnancy.

Nor should abortion-rights advocates keep hiding behind the phrase "a woman's right to choose." Does she have the right to choose murder? That's what abortion would be, if the fetus were a person.

The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.

We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.

If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.

That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman's body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual.

("Independent" does not mean self-supporting--a child who depends on its parents for food, shelter, and clothing, has rights because it is an actual, separate human being.)

"Rights," in Ayn Rand's words, "do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."

It is only on this base that we can support the woman's political right to do what she chooses in this issue. No other person--not even her husband--has the right to dictate what she may do with her own body. That is a fundamental principle of freedom.

There are many legitimate reasons why a rational woman might have an abortion--accidental pregnancy, rape, birth defects, danger to her health. The issue here is the proper role for government. If a pregnant woman acts wantonly or capriciously, then she should be condemned morally--but not treated as a murderer.

If someone capriciously puts to death his cat or dog, that can well be reprehensible, even immoral, but it is not the province of the state to interfere. The same is true of an abortion which puts to death a far less-developed growth in a woman's body.

If anti-abortionists object that an embryo has the genetic equipment of a human being, remember: so does every cell in the human body.

Abortions are private affairs and often involve painfully difficult decisions with life-long consequences. But, tragically, the lives of the parents are completely ignored by the anti-abortionists. Yet that is the essential issue. In any conflict it's the actual, living persons who count, not the mere potential of the embryo.

Being a parent is a profound responsibility--financial, psychological, moral--across decades. Raising a child demands time, effort, thought and money. It's a full-time job for the first three years, consuming thousands of hours after that--as caretaker, supervisor, educator and mentor. To a woman who does not want it, this is a death sentence.

The anti-abortionists' attitude, however, is: "The actual life of the parents be damned! Give up your life, liberty, property and the pursuit of your own happiness."

Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the "right-to-life."

The anti-abortionists' claim to being "pro-life" is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue.

Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life--lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings.

Pro-abortion all the way.

The major reason why people support "pro-life" is that they have no experience or conception of suffering.

There are several arguments for Pro-abortion-

1) A woman's body is her own. She is already in this world, alive, breathing and conscious, and has already lived long enough to become pregnant. The fetus is NOT conscious, and has NOT been in the world at all. Simply put, the woman was there first. If she wants abortion, so be it.

2) Circumstances make abortion both practical and important. Consider the following:
a) A woman gets raped. The most commonly used argument. How many pro-life women have gotten raped and gotten pregnant? How many pro-life men understand what it means for such a thing to happen? There are many reasons in this scenario why the woman would want to get an abortion. One, she is not ready for a child. She does not yet want the responsibility. Does anyone think a child would be happy to be born into such a family? That child is a bastard, born into a world where his or her mother is not ready to give the care a child needs. Two lives are ruined Pro life? Abortion could have saved the happiness of both the woman and the child.

b) The child is diagnosed with a crippling disease. Take a look at this: (http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=3995).
A child brought into the world with *perfectly normal* intelligence looking like this. Would the child be happy? Would YOU be happy to be the parents of such a child? Even though the parents surely found love for that child, the fact is that her appearance condemns her to the life of an outcast, of someone who is different, a life of loneliness. Would YOU want to be brought into the world like this?

3) The child cannot choose who its parents will be, and to a certain extent the parent cannot exactly what they want their chid to be, but the parent can control when the want the child. Thus, the child is vulnerable and rather on the disadvantaged. To want an abortion is not murder, but a sign of responsibility, that one acknowledges one's inability to bring about the full attention a child requires.

While the argument for pro-abortion is wide and varied, that for pro-life is simply to accuse murder based upon arbitrary opinions of whether or not a child's life starts at fertilization.

The world can be a horrible place to bring a child into, and there is no room for ignorance when the futures of someone else's life is at stake.

Woman's bodies abort zygotes, and Embryos all the time.  Why is it okay for the body to abort on it's own, but the mind cannot?

>>242
"To want an abortion is not murder, but a sign of responsibility, that one acknowledges one's inability to bring about the full attention a child requires"

Couldn't have said it any better my friend.

>>241
"The essential political question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have a right to be in the body of a woman against the will of the woman? Or: does a woman's body belong to her, or to the government to forcibly dispose of in favor of the fetus?"

Wrong.  The essential political question concerning abortion is:  does the fetus have a right to continue development after the woman's actions have 'invited' it inside her.  The fetus has no choice whether or not to be inside her.  The woman's actions, in having sex, will create a developing fetus inside her.  The question is not whether or not she has a right to her own body.  The question is whether or not the fetus has the right to continue development into a full human being once the mother has initiated its development through sex.

"Doesn't a fetus have a right to be inside the body of the woman?"

The issue is not whether or not it has the right to be inside the body of the woman, the issue is whether or not it should have that right once the woman has created it, since after that point we see a 'point of no return', i.e., that thereafter, unless she continues development, her actions will afflict another individual - the fetus.  Considering the fact that her actions more or less invited it there (yet it didn't come there of it's own choice, and obviously couldn't have DECIDED to), you can't blame the fetus for being there, and in any instance in which it can be shown that the fetus is sentient or can feel pain, it is wrong for abortion to be allowed since it was ultimately the woman's decision which got it there to begin with.  Essentially, we have women who want to make up for the mistakes they made (such as using inadequate contraception while having sex), by having abortions, which come at the expense of the rights of another individual, the fetus.

"A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission."

The fetus is there entirely due to her actions, in accepting the man's seminal fluid without using adequate means of contraception.  Thus, a woman who has an abortion is infringing on another individual and its right to life, so that she can make up for her mistakes she has made in the past without screwing up her personal life.

"This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body."

No, because once she has initiated the creation of the individual, it has the right to life, and more particularly, the right to continue developing and be born, since to have it removed would be to kill it.  She is entirely responsible for the fact that it is there, and she must allow the individual to continue to grow and be born, as aborting it would be an infringement upon its right to life.

"There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave."

The fetuses life is dependent upon the woman continuing to allow it to develop.  If the woman decides not to allow it to continue developing, and to have it aborted, it will obviously die.  Since the woman is responsible for bringing the individual into being in the first place, and initiating this development, she should not be allowed to indirectly murder it by removing it from her body.  If she didn't want it there, she should have used adequate methods of contraception in the first place.

"Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved)"

They are called "pro-lifers" because they recognize that life begins at conception.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=pro-life

Though there are various degrees of pro-lifeness, yet that is the bottom line.

"a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church)."

This has entirely nothing to do with whether or not the woman owns her body, this has to do with whether or not she can deny life to a developing individual once she has initiated its creation, effectively denying it its right to life.

"Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb."

The fetus has a right to continue to develop and reside there until being born, as the woman's actions are responsible for its creation, and once this process of development has began, it cannot be stopped without destroying the second life created by the woman with the man's seed.

The fetus has no choice whether or not to begin developing in the first place, the responsibility to keep it from developing and becoming a live, seperate individual is the woman's because it is her body, and thus her responsibility to take care of it, not the man's. 

If the woman does not keep it from beginning development, she has issued an 'invitation' undeniable to the fetus, afterwhich the fetus begins development, and after which to abort it would be destruction of life.

"What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to."

That is different, because the welfare recipient is there due to the consequences of their own actions.  The fetus ( a developing human life ) is not in the woman due to voluntarilly committed actions.  To deny it the right to continue to develop at that point would constitute a violation of its right to life, and to continue development into a full human being.

"There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave."

The fetuses actions were not what resulted in its being there, the woman's were.  Once the woman has begun this process of life development, she must not be allowed to stop until giving birth, as to do anything else would be to penalize another individual, taking away its rights, at its expense, for irresponsible actions committed by the woman.

"Abortion is an inalienable right."

The right to violate the rights of others is not, and cannot be a right.

"Abortion is not a violation of any right, because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside) of another human being as a parasite, i.e., against the will of that person."

Abortion is a violation of the fetus' right to life.  It is not against the will of the woman, since her actions are responsible for it being there.  If I could drag an individual from society into a submarine, and somehow he would have no choice to follow, then dive down far under water, would I have the 'right' to throw him out of the submarine, even though doing so would obviously result in his death? I have the right to my submarine, and I can throw him out of I want to, right?

Such is the nature of abortion.  The fetus is inside a vessel (the woman's body), not resulting from its own voluntary choices, but from the choices made by the vessel owner, and to expel him from said vessel at this point would destroy his life.

"This principle applies to both fetuses and adults. As a woman has a right to choose who she has sex with (as her body is her property), so is it a woman's right to choose what can and cannot remain inside her body (as her body is her property). As it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by raping her, so it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.

As their is no such thing as the right to live inside another, whether the fetus is removed, because of incest, or rape, or "convenience" does not matter politically—whatever the reason, it is the woman's inalienable right.


"Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not an actual human being—it is a potential human being, i.e. it is a part of the woman."

This depends on when you think life begins, at birth, at conception, or possibly somewhere in between, such as at sentience, consciousness, or at the time the baby begins able to feel.

"The concept murder only applies to the initiation of physical force used to destroy an actual human being, such as when "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics."

Or when an abortionist dismembers a developing human being inside a woman's body.

I'm not gonna respond to the rest of your post because it is too damn long and I just don't feel like it. 

I've sat back and observed this thread for the pass two weeks. And the thing that irks me most about the anti-abortionist is their implication that abortion is an easy process and their constant insistance that everyone live up to their standard. My abortion was the hardest decision I ever had to make, but it definately was the right choice at the time. There are many who didn't like the choice I made, but my choice is something I have to live with. Not them.

And see...it is this concieted, this overbearing sense of moral correctedness (rooted in ignorance) that is at the very heart of facism. The inability to see that not all men (or women) and not all society live via the same circumstances or same rules of ethics.

With people this inflexible in their idealism, even in the face of truth and scientific facts that run alien (and correctly so) to their dogmatic idealism, I begin to wonder what is the point of debate. How far is anonymous willing to go to enforce their illogical idelogy on a society that is operates on wisdom and reason.

>>246
BABY KILLER

Oh wait, you admitted it

>>246
"I've sat back and observed this thread for the pass two weeks. And the thing that irks me most about the anti-abortionist is their implication that abortion is an easy process and their constant insistance that everyone live up to their standard."

Laws against murder require people to live to a certain standard as well.  Should we remove those?

"My abortion was the hardest decision I ever had to make, but it definately was the right choice at the time."

I disagree, but anyway, wouldn't the better choice have been to take responsibility, and use adequate contraceptives in the first place so an abortion would never have been 'needed'?

"There are many who didn't like the choice I made, but my choice is something I have to live with. Not them."

That's like murdering someone, and then saying 'There are many who didn't like the choice I made, but my choice is something I have to live with.  Not them.'  The issue is about whether or not the fetus has the right to life.

"And see...it is this concieted, this overbearing sense of moral correctedness (rooted in ignorance) that is at the very heart of facism."

Laws against murder don't = fascism.

"The inability to see that not all men (or women) and not all society live via the same circumstances or same rules of ethics."

What does this have to do with whether or not murder should be outlawed?


I think you fail to see the heart of the debate.  The debate obviously has nothing to do with whether or not I am pushing my morals on you, unless you think murder laws should be done away with as well.  The debate is centered around whether or not the fetus has the right to life or not, and when 'life' really begins.  Clearly, if the being is 'alive' and it is a developing human being, it is murder to 'abort' it at some point. 

Likewise, all the stupid feminists screaming "MY BODY, MY CHOICE LOL LOL LOL" are failing to see the remaining question the debate centers around:  what about the fetus, its body, and its life?

The question is whether or not the human fetus has the right to life or not.

>>248

Laws against murder protect PEOPLE from being denied the right to life, not what equates to a parasite infringing on the rights of the woman whos choice it is todecide whether or not she wants it.

If you'd take away the right of woman tochoose abortion, would you take away the right of men to hunt, or fish, or scratch their skin, or masturbate (millions dead in man's sexual kill frenzy!)

Ignorance is funny. contraceptives TOTALLY work 100% of the time... idiot, never mind that abortion in many cases IS taking responsability, instead of raising a child one cannot afford or care for.

facist pig.

>>249
"Ignorance is funny. contraceptives TOTALLY work 100% of the time... "

No they don't.

Failure rates (per year)
Perfect use 2%
Typical use 15%

">>246
BABY KILLER

Oh wait, you admitted it"

Troll, a fetus isn't a baby. She just terminated an insignificant fetus. Whoopey-fucking-do. Go hug a fetus. Don't worry, you're not missing out on much, a woman has more than one potential to produce a fetus. Then again, that talk is just subjugating her to being nothing but an incubator with legs.

Laws against murder require people to live to a certain standard as well.  Should we remove those?"

Abortion isn't murder, plain and simple.

"I disagree, but anyway, wouldn't the better choice have been to take responsibility, and use adequate contraceptives in the first place so an abortion would never have been 'needed'?"

She was being responsible by having the abortion, since she obviously wasn't ready. A woman wants what is best for any child that she is willing to bring to this world. A woman is unique in the sense that she may bring a new generation, therefore, abortion is a choice that a woman must have. I dunno about you, but I believe things would be entirely different if men were the ones able to conceive and give birth. If men had that ability then most likely, abortion would be alright to them, this is a patriarchial society.

"The question is whether or not the human fetus has the right to life or not. "

The fetus doesn't have the right-to-life because it is not an ACTUAL human being, it is a POTENTIAL human being. Rights only pertain to those whom are already here, whom are ACTUAL human beings.

>>The fetus doesn't have the right-to-life because it is not an ACTUAL human being, it is a POTENTIAL human being. Rights only pertain to those whom are already here, whom are ACTUAL human beings.
Rights protect the future. Although not yet a human being, only a fetus can become one. This is an exceptional circumstance

Rights protect the future. Although not yet a human being, only a fetus can become one. This is an exceptional circumstance.


"Rights protect the future."

LOL! No shit, George. Are you going to make a bumper sticker? Remember: Two can play at the catchphrase game.

The right of abortion secures the future of liberty in America. If an AMERICAN man can do whatever he wants with his dick, then an AMERICAN woman can do whatever the fuck she wants with her vagina- and everything contained within, on, or around the general area of the vagina.

It doesn't matter if the fetus turns into Jesus Christ, himself. If "Jacob" and "Mary" decide that now is probably not the right time for the second coming, then she should have the right to veto the embryo.

You like that?

"Veto the embryo"

...it's catchy.

this thread is made of lose and fail

>>249

"Laws against murder protect PEOPLE from being denied the right to life, not what equates to a parasite infringing on the rights of the woman whos choice it is todecide whether or not she wants it."

The fetus isn't infringing on anything.  The fetus is there due to YOUR ACTIONS.  You practically invited it in there.  Once you have done this much, the fetus has the right to continue to develop until birth.  If you didn't want to have a baby, maybe you should have taken responsibility and used adequate birth control so you wouldn't have to kill a developing human being in order to make sure your personal life isn't inconvenienced with having to take care of it. 

"If you'd take away the right of woman tochoose abortion, would you take away the right of men to hunt, or fish, or scratch their skin, or masturbate (millions dead in man's sexual kill frenzy!)"

No, because men hunting is a totally natural activity that doesn't involve killing other human beings, be they developing ones or developed ones.  Abortion does. 

As for the masturbation, or skin scratching comment, this is just ridiculous.  A fetus has relatively humanoid form, is conscious, and can feel.  It has all the organs of an ordinary human being.  This is obviously an entirely different issue than the skin scratching or masturbation example. 

"never mind that abortion in many cases IS taking responsability, instead of raising a child one cannot afford or care for."

Taking an action at the expense of another human being, most particularly a defenseless human being, in order to prevent inconvenience to your personal life, is not taking responsibility.  Taking responsibility would have been using adequate birth control to begin with so you wouldn't be in said situation in the first place. 

"facist pig."

Irresponsible murdering bitch. 

What about rape though. I'd think that warrents abortion if all else doesn't.

"Facist pig" is worst than irresponsible murdering bitch. She's comparing you to Stalin. You're comparing her to every bitch off of Degrassi Junior High.

>>253
"Emancipate the embryo." is catchier.

>>255
"The fetus isn't infringing on anything."

The fetus is infringing on the woman's body and is hijacking her blood/nutrients and shitting in her bloodstream.

"The fetus is there due to YOUR ACTIONS."

You mean to the actions of both the man and woman. Women can't reproduce on their own.

"the fetus has the right to continue to develop until birth."

Rights only pertain to ACTUAL living human beings, not POTENTIAL life forms. A fetus is POTENTIAL.

"No, because men hunting is a totally natural activity"

Sex is a natural activity for men and women as well.

"A fetus has relatively humanoid form, is conscious, and can feel."

Troll. A fetus isn't concious and it can't feel because it doesn't have a cerebral cortex. A cerebral cortex is required to interrept feelings and have thought perception.

"It has all the organs of an ordinary human being."

Only until the last two months does it have so. The brain doesn't develop until late in the third trimester, and even after birth, the brain is still underdeveloped.

"Taking an action at the expense of another human being, most particularly a defenseless human being"

An embryo/fetus isn't an actual human being, it isn't a person. It isn't truely a BEING like you or me or a baby or a child or your father or mother, etc.

"Irresponsible murdering bitch."

(I had to laugh when I read that.)

Abortion isn't murder since an embryo/fetus isn't an ACTUAL PERSON.

Ignorant troll. Go back under the bridge where you came from and profess your balant, ignorant 'morality' to the fish in the stream.

You are all terrible at discussion. The limit of your skills is to yell at one another. Few have any good points and those who do are obscured by the nonsense spewed by everyone else.

I LOVE W4CH

>>257
Wanting to outlaw something he considers murder doesn't make him a fascist.  If it did, we would all be fascist ourselves since we have laws against murder ourselves. 

>>256
"What about rape though. I'd think that warrents abortion if all else doesn't."

We've already mentioned this.  Exceptions to the law would be made for obviously justified cases.

>>258
>>253
"Emancipate the embryo." is catchier.

>>255
"The fetus is infringing on the woman's body and is hijacking her blood/nutrients and shitting in her bloodstream."

Saying the woman should have the right to kill a live human fetus for taking her nutrients and shitting in her bloodstream is like saying if I invited my friend over to my house, and he ate my food, and took a shit in my bathroom, I should then have the right to kill him.  The point is, of course, the fetus has been invited by the woman's actions.  To remove it at this point would be essentially murder.  If she didn't want it there, she should have taken the steps necessary to prevent it from forming in the first place.  It isn't difficult.  Just use adequate contraceptives and you won't need an abortion to begin with. 

"You mean to the actions of both the man and woman. Women can't reproduce on their own."

No, I mean due to the actions of the woman.  This is entirely irrelevant, however, since the fetus is innocent, and has a right to live regardless of what bullshit is going on outside, except in obvious situations that were unavoidable to the woman, such as rape, or to abort if NECESSARY to preserve the woman's life, as when medically necessary. 

"Rights only pertain to ACTUAL living human beings, not POTENTIAL life forms. A fetus is POTENTIAL."

The fetus is not a 'potential' life form.  The fetus is alive.  Pro-life means you think life begins at conception (or possibly if you are 'moderately' pro-life, that it simply can begin before birth).  This is all sensible anyways, as I'm sure not even you radical liberals would advocate aborting a fetus the day before it could be born normally...

"Sex is a natural activity for men and women as well."

Sure.  Use adequate contraceptives then. 

"Troll. A fetus isn't concious and it can't feel because it doesn't have a cerebral cortex. A cerebral cortex is required to interrept feelings and have thought perception."

Actually, fetuses have all the organs of a normal human being. 

"Only until the last two months does it have so. The brain doesn't develop until late in the third trimester, and even after birth, the brain is still underdeveloped."

Underdeveloped doesn't mean nonexistant, and doesn't mean it can't function.  Children and teenager's brains don't develop entirely until they have been on the earth for a while, but you wouldn't claim that they are not sentient, and can feel. 

"An embryo/fetus isn't an actual human being, it isn't a person. It isn't truely a BEING like you or me or a baby or a child or your father or mother, etc."

If it has all the organs of a human being inside it, and is essentially a miniature human being, and is alive (not to mention sentient and has feeling and sense), it should be murder to kill it unless absolutely necessary for very valid reasons - and to prevent inconvenience to the mother is not one of them. 

"(I had to laugh when I read that.)"

Kinda like I laughed when you resorted to calling me a 'fascist' because I wanted to make laws against murder. 

"Abortion isn't murder since an embryo/fetus isn't an ACTUAL PERSON."

It isn't a person TO YOU.  Pro-life means you think life begins at conception, or if only 'moderately' pro-life, that it simply can begin before birth.  Birth is not the beginning of one's life.  If you say "yes it is", let me ask you, would you be ok with aborting a fetus the day before its scheduled, natural birth? Or would this be murder? 

...

"Ignorant troll. Go back under the bridge where you came from and profess your balant, ignorant 'morality' to the fish in the stream."

Many of our laws are based upon morality.  Why do you suppose we have laws against rape? It has nothing to do with the stability of society, it has to do with the fact that raping someone is a violation of their individual rights.  Laws exist to protect individuals from each other, and it is the proper role of a government to do this.  This is 'morally' correct, and it would be proper to protect a developing human fetus from a mother wanting to murder it, if necessary.

"Saying the woman should have the right to kill a live human fetus for taking her nutrients and shitting in her bloodstream is like saying if I invited my friend over to my house, and he ate my food, and took a shit in my bathroom, I should then have the right to kill him."

Irrelevant, it would more equate to this: Someone walked into your house, thrusted a pointed hose into your body, began syphoning/eating off your bodily fluids/blood, and then later took a shit into the tube and had the waste travel into your body.

"No, I mean due to the actions of the woman."

The actions of the man is needed as well in order to create another being. Then man is not exempt from his participation.


"The fetus is not a 'potential' life form."

It sure the hell is.

"Actually, fetuses have all the organs of a normal human being."

Not until later in the third trimester.

"Sure.  Use adequate contraceptives then."

Hard to find adequate contraceptives when conservatives are making it harder and harder to obtain them.

"Underdeveloped doesn't mean nonexistant, and doesn't mean it can't function."

It's actually pretty hard to function right with only half a brain.

"If it has all the organs of a human being inside it, and is essentially a miniature human being, and is alive (not to mention sentient and has feeling and sense)"

Again, not until real late in the third trimester. Which isn't a big deal, since third trimester abortions are extremely rare. Less than 1% of abortions are from the third trimester, which are done under medical reasons.

"it should be murder to kill it"

Killing a potential lifeform isn't murder.

"Kinda like I laughed when you resorted to calling me a 'fascist' because I wanted to make laws against murder."

I'm not the one whom called you a facist. Again, abortion isn't murder.

"If you say "yes it is", let me ask you, would you be ok with aborting a fetus the day before its scheduled, natural birth? Or would this be murder?"

It would be quite alright with me if it was under medical complications (stillborn, the woman having complications to her health, etc) or if it was deformed. It wouldn't be murder to me. But I haven't ever heard of a woman having an abortion the day before term. You shouldn't be worried about "what-if" situations that never happen. That's like how the conservatives were worrying about the HPV vaccine, worrying over idiocy that girls would become sluts, when studies have proven them wrong over and over.

Natural birth, c-section, what does it matter how birth goes? It depends on the woman and her immediate doctor.

"Why do you suppose we have laws against rape? It has nothing to do with the stability of society"

A rape doesn't just affect the woman herself, it also affects her family, her neighbors, and the entire community revolving around her. I believe rape does affect society.

"it would be proper to protect a developing human fetus from a mother wanting to murder it"

That's a very close-minded, rude comment. -tries imagining a woman with a shadowy face and a knife in her hand, stabbing herself in the abdomin to kill her fetus, saying "MURDER I SAY MURDER!- Do you really think that mothers are that selfish? Hell no. Women don't have abortions on a whim, they are well thought out. "A MOTHER WANTS TO "MURDER" HER FETUS OH GNOES AHHH AHHH!" It isn't murder since the fetus is only potential.

Please keep your nose out of women's uteri.

www.imnotsorry.net

>>262

"Irrelevant, it would more equate to this: Someone walked into your house, thrusted a pointed hose into your body, began syphoning/eating off your bodily fluids/blood, and then later took a shit into the tube and had the waste travel into your body."

Wrong.  The fetus doesn't do so by choice, firstly, and secondly, the woman practically invites the fetus into being through her actions. 

If you are some whiney feminist, you could say the man and the woman do; but this is entirely beside the point.  It is the fault OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED, not the fault of the fetus.  The fetus is innocent, and should have the right to continue to live.  It should not be held responsible for the actions of irresponsible people. 

"The actions of the man is needed as well in order to create another being."

This is entirely redundant. 

"Then man is not exempt from his participation."

Right.  The man is responsible for the effects having sex has on HIS body.  The woman is responsible for the effects having sex has on HER body.  As all you feminists love to preach:  It is the woman's body. 

Well, it sure is.  Thus, it isn't the responsibility of the man to keep it from becoming pregnant. 

"It sure the hell is."

No, it is a life form. 

"Not until later in the third trimester."

http://www.tennesseerighttolife.org/human_life_issues/human_life_issues_abortion_statistics.htm

"Hard to find adequate contraceptives when conservatives are making it harder and harder to obtain them."

I disagree.  Contraceptives are widely availible just about anywhere, providing you are willing to look, and to drive a bit. 

Anyway, if you don't have the right tools to have sex without having an unwanted pregnancy, then maybe you just shouldn't be having sex?

Also, finding contraceptives is easier than finding an abortion clinic in nearly every situation, so your point is really completely redundant. 

"It's actually pretty hard to function right with only half a brain."

http://www.tennesseerighttolife.org/human_life_issues/human_life_issues_abortion_statistics.htm

"Again, not until real late in the third trimester. Which isn't a big deal, since third trimester abortions are extremely rare."

Since they are allowed (evidently), and can be stopped, I would say it IS a big deal.  For those of you listening, watch, if he says it isn't, you just saw for yourself what an extremist we have here - he's willing to say it isn't a problem when it is legal to kill sentient human life. 

"Killing a potential lifeform isn't murder."

Right.  Killing a developing human life form is.  It is still partly human, and it is still a life form.  Thus, it is safe to say that it should be regulated, at the very least. 

"I'm not the one whom called you a facist."

I wasn't talking to you.  Why do you think I was?

"Again, abortion isn't murder."

Yes it is. 

"It would be quite alright with me if it was under medical complications"

I didn't ask you if under 'medical complications'.  I want to know if you think it should be allowed on demand, in an unregulated fashion.  Incidentally, this is all I am wanting for abortions - but at an earlier term;  that is, NOT an outright BAN, but REGULATION..  i.e. only when medically necessary, or when the woman has been raped.  ALL I am saying, is that this should be regulated - which is also what many more moderate conservatives are saying.  The only extremists are liberals who want to legalize abortion on demand, whenever or however late in development the baby/fetus is. 

"Why do you suppose we have laws against rape? It has nothing to do with the stability of society"

"A rape doesn't just affect the woman herself, it also affects her family, her neighbors, and the entire community revolving around her. I believe rape does affect society."

But that isn't why it is illegal.  It is illegal because the government is supposed to protect individual rights, not the stability of society.  The reason it should be illegal has nothing to do with the stability of society, it has to do with -morals-, and that it is proper -morally- for the government to defend individual rights, such as the natural human right to life.

"That's a very close-minded, rude comment."

Far less rude than a mother killing her unborn baby to keep her life from being inconvenienced. 

"Do you really think that mothers are that selfish?"

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.  Possibly (likely) they do it due to other reasons, such as pestering boyfriends.  If it was illegal, this would be out of the question, as it should be.  It doesn't matter whether they are doing it for a 'selfish' reason or not, it matters that they are DOING it.  I don't care why, honestly.

"Hell no. Women don't have abortions on a whim, they are well thought out."

This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the fetus has a right to live, and is entirely innocent. 

"It isn't murder since the fetus is only potential."

No.  Life begins before birth.  I won't say it begins at conception, because I don't suppose it does.  But abortion is a very important issue, and should be looked into and regulated.  Abortion on demand is an unbelievable violation of human rights.

"Please keep your nose out of women's uteri."

I'd be happy to - if you keep your hands off the unborn, and stop infringing upon their right to live. 

>>263

Unbelievably sick. 

>>261
But a fetus is a fetus. How it was concieved is not it's fault. If you are going to be anti-abortion, you have to be against abortion in all cases. Otherwise it's hypocrisy allowing the fetus to be murdered ( as you claim ) when it can done nothing wrong.

This thread is boring.

Right.  The man is responsible for the effects having sex has on HIS body.  The woman is responsible for the effects having sex has on HER body.  As all you feminists love to preach:  It is the woman's body.  Well, it sure is.  Thus, it isn't the responsibility of the man to keep it from becoming pregnant.

LOL! This isn't even about feminism, when are you going to get that through your fat skull, shithead? I don't give a fuck about "Feminism". This is just flat out biology and ethics. The only way this could work is if men didn't become fathers. Having a child IS an effect on the man's body. To believe otherwise is convienant semantical nonsense.

If the man doesn't want to become a father, what should he do? HOPE and PRAY the woman will use birth control? Again, SPERM + EGG equal baby and it takes TWO to bring those factors together. As long as men have sperm and women have egg/womb, both will be responsible. That's why we have parents and just MOTHERS.


Life begins before birth.

PROOF or you are a fucking retard. I'm really interested on how the fuck you figure life begins before birth, since cold hard objective science shits on the very notion.

But that isn't why it is illegal.  It is illegal because the government is supposed to protect individual rights, not the stability of society.  The reason it should be illegal has nothing to do with the stability of society, it has to do with -morals-, and that it is proper -morally- for the government to defend individual rights, such as the natural human right to life.

Exactly. It is proper MORALLY for a woman to not have her body owned by the state. It is proper MORALLY for a woman to remove any unwanted growth in her body.

>>265
No.  The fetus is a developing human.  I, personally, am against abortions in all cases.  I am for banning them, in all cases, with only a few reasonable exceptions, and I am perfectly prepared to provide a rationale for these exceptions.  The only one coming to mind right now, is if medically necessary for the woman's health. 

This is justified because the fetus is a developing human life form, yet is not entirely complete.  Thus there is some justification to be had in aborting the fetus when it is absolutely certain beyond all doubt that it is medically necessary for the continuation of the mother's life for it to be aborted.  In this rare instance, it should be done in the most humane manner possible.

>>266
Then don't read it.

>>267
"LOL! This isn't even about feminism, when are you going to get that through your fat skull, shithead? I don't give a fuck about "Feminism". This is just flat out biology and ethics."

Nope.  This is about logic, and morals.  It is morally right for each individual, regardless of race, gender, religion, color, etc, to be held responsible for the actions he takes.  This includes actions that he/she knows will effect his own body.  It is no more my responsibility to care for a child a woman has growing in her (regardless of the fact that it couldn't be there without me) than it is for me to make sure her teeth get brushed every day.  Her teeth, like her genitals and sexual organs, are her responsibility to take care of, and if she doesn't want to get pregnant, she can handle it. 

"The only way this could work is if men didn't become fathers. Having a child IS an effect on the man's body. To believe otherwise is convienant semantical nonsense."

No.  Having children effects the woman's body, not the man's.

"If the man doesn't want to become a father, what should he do?"

In my society, the woman would have both the rights, and the responsibilities associated with having children, as it should be.  It is her body, and it is thus her responsibility.  The fact that the semen must come from the man is entirely irrelevant.  If you would hold a man accountable for the semen a woman agreed to have inserted into her vagina, that then results in birth, would you hold the food industry accountable for crap I poop out after eating their food? Obviously not.  But it should be noted, just like the having children example, that poop that I'll eventually produce could not have been produced without the food provided for me by the food industry, much like the child produced by the woman couldn't be produced without the semen given her to allow for its production by the man. 

"Again, SPERM + EGG equal baby and it takes TWO to bring those factors together."

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with what I am saying, and with why it should be the woman's responsibility.

"As long as men have sperm and women have egg/womb, both will be responsible. That's why we have parents and just MOTHERS."

Again, the fact that both are necessary for the creation of the child is completely irrelevant.  See example given above.

No.  Having children effects the woman's body, not the man's.

You can keep saying this until you're fucking blue in the face, it does fuck all to dent the fact that to make a baby you need a man's sperm, it doesn't matter where the growth takes place. It could take place in a test tube for all I fucking care, regardless it's a two-person responsibility. Your point of view lacks the logic of biology.

Your food/company analogy fails in the real world where two parental units are need to create a stable adult. Half the genetic material of the fetus belongs to the man, regardless if the woman allowed it inside her or not. Half the baby and it's well being will always belong to the man, to believe otherwise is a step backwards in the progression of humankind. I'd rather not have a society where kids are raised to be a bunch of mother-hating jerkwads who simply use women for breeding and fuck men. Remember: Sparta fell.

Your view of breeding has been tried already and it failed miserably.

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with what I am saying, and with why it should be the woman's responsibility.

LOL. I know that you stupid fucking teenager. That's because what I'm saying is backed by science and you are 100% wrong in your assertion.

Again, the fact that both are necessary for the creation of the child is completely irrelevant.

And again, you're continuing to downplay this little factiod as "irrelevant" out of convience for your own foolish idealism, which is all well and good if this shit could be applied in reality. Ah! But it can't so that's an automatic lose, right there.

It's not ONLY that both are nessacary for creation it's (and pay attention) that BOTH ARE NESSACARY FOR THE MAINTIANCE AND UPBRINGING OF THE CHILD. Do you understand that yet, you unwanted psychopathic piece of shit? This is where man's responsibility comes in. If you had parents, you'd know this.

>>270
"You can keep saying this until you're fucking blue in the face, it does fuck all to dent the fact that to make a baby you need a man's sperm,"

Entirely irrelevant.

"it doesn't matter where the growth takes place. It could take place in a test tube for all I fucking care, regardless it's a two-person responsibility."

This is why we don't see eye to eye.  It does matter where the growth takes place, since that is the key to whose responsibility it then is to handle birth control.  Since, if an unwanted pregnancy occurs, it will effect the woman and her body, not the man & his, it is first and foremost, her responsibility to ensure she doesn't have to deal with it - for her own bodies' sake, if for no other reason. 

"Your point of view lacks the logic of biology."

No, I understand what you are saying, it is just completely redundant.

"Your food/company analogy fails in the real world where two parental units are need to create a stable adult."

My analogy is accurate.  I don't agree that two adults are needed to create a stable person/child, though.  I know plenty of children who grew up with only one parent, and sometimes just grandparent(s), and they all turned out fine. 

"Half the genetic material of the fetus belongs to the man, regardless if the woman allowed it inside her or not."

Yes, it does.  But since it is the woman's body, it is her responsibility to keep things from growing in it that she doesn't want, such as gum disease, cancer, or fetuses.

"Half the baby and it's well being will always belong to the man, to believe otherwise is a step backwards in the progression of humankind."

More like a step backwards in the radical socialist-feminist agenda, but whatever.  In terms of 'progress,' if you want to look at 'progress' as having equal rights, we have that now. 

"I'd rather not have a society where kids are raised to be a bunch of mother-hating jerkwads who simply use women for breeding and fuck men."

This has nothing to do with how one feels about mothers or women, it has to do with simple logic.  If it is her body, it is her responsibility to care for it.  This also runs contrary to what you are saying above anyways, as the man doesn't 'use' the woman 'for breeding.'  The woman can always say no - it is fully within her legal rights.  The man can't 'use' her for shit if she doesn't agree first. 

"Your view of breeding has been tried already and it failed miserably."

Nope.

>>270
"LOL. I know that you stupid fucking teenager. That's because what I'm saying is backed by science and you are 100% wrong in your assertion."

You aren't backed by science.  You have scientific facts, but you are drawing conclusions with those scientific facts that are wrong.  Your facts are right, your conclusions aren't.  Just because you have perfect facts, doesn't mean the conclusions YOU draw with them will be right. 

"And again, you're continuing to downplay this little factiod as "irrelevant" out of convience for your own foolish idealism, which is all well and good if this shit could be applied in reality. Ah! But it can't so that's an automatic lose, right there."

There is no reason it couldn't be applied to reality.  All you need to do is dump child support laws.  Society existed for a long time with no child support laws, and we got along fine. 

"It's not ONLY that both are nessacary for creation it's (and pay attention) that BOTH ARE NESSACARY FOR THE MAINTIANCE AND UPBRINGING OF THE CHILD."

Again, completely irrelevant.  I don't agree that it is necessary, in the first place, as I know plenty of children who grew up with only one, or no parents (some living with their grandparent(s) and they turned out fine, all of them. 

"Do you understand that yet, you unwanted psychopathic piece of shit?"

Firstly, I'm not unwanted.  I have a loving family, and plenty   of friends.  Secondly, the fact that your arguments are so emotionally-driven is showing through now.

"This is where man's responsibility comes in. If you had parents, you'd know this."

I have parents, and a normal family. 

"Wrong.  The fetus doesn't do so by choice, firstly, and secondly, the woman practically invites the fetus into being through her actions."

And the actions of the man.

"As all you feminists love to preach:  It is the woman's body."

You don't know who I am. Welcome to the Internet.

"http://www.tennesseerighttolife.org/human_life_issues/human_life_issues_abortion_statistics.htm";

This site has grotesquely false medical information on it. If you want to prove a point, you'll have to use a neutral site, one that isn't pro-life or pro-choice. This site is obviously in favor of the right wing. One example of an error on this site: "Do You Know? At 6 weeks, brain waves can be measured." False, genuine brain waves don't occur until the seventh month.

"For those of you listening, watch, if he says it isn't, you just saw for yourself what an extremist we have here - he's willing to say it isn't a problem when it is legal to kill sentient human life."

Will you stop getting on that person's ass?

""Hell no. Women don't have abortions on a whim, they are well thought out."

This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the fetus has a right to live, and is entirely innocent."

It may not, but that guy was just proving you wrong and you decided to step out of it.

"If you would hold a man accountable for the semen a woman agreed to have inserted into her vagina, that then results in birth, would you hold the food industry accountable for crap I poop out after eating their food?"

It's the man's fault for ejaculating inside her, the same as it is your fault for eating the food in the first place..which really is a bad example.

>>272 "There is no reason it couldn't be applied to reality.  All you need to do is dump child support laws.  Society existed for a long time with no child support laws, and we got along fine." Correlation equality symbol slash equality symbol causation. LAst time I checked all decades before this one sucked perineum so yawn. More common-sensical and basic argumentation.

I really don't understand why that dummy keeps sputtering all this bullshit about "socialist feminism" and shit. It's like someone took CNN and implanted directly into his mishapen turd-like head.

This isn't a "feminist" issue. It's not like men have the right to an abortion and women don't. The dignified right of an abortion has nothing to do with 'equal rights among the genders'.

So why? Why does he persist with this fuckstorm of bullshit? Can anyone tell me why he keeps bring up feminism or socialism as a defense? Please? Because I get the feeling I'm being trolled here and I just want to know for sure.  

While politics and media like to divide the world into neat bundles of opposites-pro choice vs. pro life-the reality of women's lives simply doesn't fit these patterns. For example, it is widely known that women who profoundly oppose abortions still sometimes have abortions.What is rarely discussed is the fact that most women who have abortions are already or will someday become mothers. In other words, the overwhelming majority of women who have abortions also have children they will raise and spend a lifetime worrying about. They have pregnancies they carry to term and, like other pregnant women, they hope their birthing experiences will be respectful, healthy, and supportive.

The abortion issue divides us and distracts us from common threats and threads. For example, we tend to think of laws restricting access to abortion and attacks on abortion providers as unique intrusions on women’s reproductive lives. But women who want to have doulas present at their deliveries, or who prefer midwives to ob-gyns, also find that their choices are under attack—their providers are portrayed as dangerous, prohibited from being in the delivery room, or arrested for practicing without the right kind of license.

Today, even pregnant women who vehemently oppose abortion are finding that they are hurt by claims of fetal rights that are being advanced as part of the campaign to outlaw abortion. Amber Marlowe, a deeply religious woman who is profoundly opposed to abortion, found this out when she went to deliver her seventh wanted child. Marlowe did not believe she needed a C-section and did not want to subject herself or her unborn baby to unnecessary surgery. The hospital disagreed, and, relying on the anti-abortion argument that fetuses are legal persons with rights separate and hostile to those of the pregnant woman, got a court order giving it custody of the fetus before, during, and after delivery-and the right to force Marlowe to undergo the procedure.

While still in labor, Marlowe fled to another hospital. There, she delivered a healthy baby-naturally.

Angela Carder was not so lucky. Based on the argument that a fetus is a separate legal person, she was forced to have a C-section: Both she and her baby died.

Anti-abortion and fetal-rights arguments have also been used to justify the arrest of hundreds of pregnant women who used an illegal drug, drank alcohol, or disagreed with their doctor's advice.These are not women who intended any harm to their fetuses; most personally oppose abortion, and most found that the health services they needed were simply not available to them. A Missouri woman who admitted smoking marijuana once while pregnant was arrested for child abuse. Women in Oklahoma,Tennessee, and South Carolina who suffered stillbirths have been arrested as murderers.

While abortion issues are used to divide the electorate, pregnant women and mothers are united by the fact that America is one of only three industrialized nations that does not require any paid parental leave. Similarly, millions of pregnant women, especially those who work part time or for small companies-and regardless of their views on abortion-lack legal protection from workplace discrimination based on pregnancy.

Other threats to bearing and raising healthy children persist as well. Consider that while President George W. Bush was signing the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law and declaring his commitment to a "culture of life," he was deregulating coalburning power plants. Such plants release mercury into the environment, creating health hazards that are most dangerous to pregnant women, fetuses, and children. And while President Bush was reinterpreting the Children’s Health Insurance Program to allow states to cover "unborn" children, 43 million Americans, including 8.5 million actual children, were without health care coverage.

Regardless of their views on abortion, women are likely to spend significant time working as mothers and homemakers.This labor makes up a huge part of U.S. gross domestic product, yet it is ignored or trivialized. A recent New York Times story, Survey Confirms It: Women Outjuggle Men, reported that the average working woman spends about twice as much time as the average working man on household chores and child care. According to this headline and the political culture it represents, child care and homemaking are what clowns do, requiring some skill at balancing but no real work.

Birthing rights activists and abortion rights activists, pro choice and pro life, Republicans and Democrats all need to work to change the conversation. We will continue to disagree about abortion, but together we must acknowledge that anti-abortion laws are being used to hurt women to term and that all of us are harmed by an overriding U.S. policy that fails to value mothers and families.

What would it look like to really turn the abortion debate on its head?

What would it mean to ask “pro-life” and “fetal rights” activists why their alleged concern for the health and well-being of women and children ends at the clinic door? To ask legislators why their focus on women’s health care rarely goes beyond restricting access to abortion services?
 Advertisement 
The right’s gift for nomenclature as policy (as with “pro-life,” doesn’t calling it a “war on terror” make it so?) has paid off generously from a public relations standpoint, and has been hard to challenge.

This past September, however, Lynn Paltrow, Executive Director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), had the guts to pose hard questions and clear challenges to the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion (SDTFSA) when she gave testimony before them. In doing so, she silenced the room — and laid out a way to put the right on the run.

Paltrow’s presentation offers a glimpse of a reframed abortion debate in the US — a debate that can be turned into a larger, broader, and farther-reaching discussion about how best to recognize, respect, and meet the needs of all pregnant and parenting women and their families.

The SDTFSA hearings were the doing of anti-choice activists who had convinced the South Dakota legislature to consider the question of whether or not abortion in America today is voluntary and informed. But the activists had not counted on Paltrow, whose numerous commentaries and articles have appeared in medical journals and the popular press, and who is a frequent lecturer to medical and public health organizations and health care providers. Her fans include Nation columnist Katha Pollitt, who referred to Paltrow as “brilliant” in a piece earlier this year.

“Of course, abortion is both [voluntary and informed],” Paltrow said firmly. “But by asking such questions, anti-choice proponents create doubt and put pro-choice supporters on the defensive.” She explained that anti-choice activists often use state legislatures as a laboratory for new restrictions on abortion: "The new restrictions — whether on ‘partial birth abortion’ or ‘fetal pain’— also provide vehicles for inflaming and organizing opposition to abortion and support for broader economic and political agendas.”

Paltrow was a South Dakota anti-choice activist’s nightmare — a polished expert witness who has worked on many cases involving women who wanted to continue their pregnancies to term, but were denied the freedom to decide how by “pro-life” policies. So she had quite a bit to say on the topic of what is and is not a voluntary or informed medical procedure.

From these cases, Paltrow offered a grim assessment of the harm that “pro-life” legislation has done in the name of “protecting” the “unborn.” She outlined three actual cases in which hospitals successfully advocated for a cesarean section over the objections of pregnant women and their families by using the anti-abortion argument that fetuses are separate legal persons with independent rights.

The first case ends tragically, with the death of the mother and the fetus; in the second, the forced surgery turns out not to have been necessary; and the couple in the third scenario — devout Christians who are expecting their seventh child — leave the hospital that is trying to force a cesarean section on the mother and successfully have their baby elsewhere, through vaginal delivery.

Having eviscerated the argument that “pro-life” policies support the health, well-being, and autonomy of women who want to carry their pregnancies to term, Paltrow turns to the larger task of outlining genuine protections and supports for pregnant and parenting women.

But there’s just one small problem: the South Dakota legislature, despite its alleged interest in the health and welfare of women and their children, has never convened a task force to explore any of the issues she raises, let alone approved any of the measures she suggests.

This, of course, is Paltrow’s point.

“The leading cause of pregnancy-related deaths in American today is murder,” Paltrow coolly informs the SDTFSA. Perhaps “a Task Force to examine why men commit violence against women…would reflect true valuing of mothers, pregnant women and their families, and life itself.” How about “legislation that might protect the 10 to 20 million women, including those who work part-time or for small companies, who are not protected from discrimination based on pregnancy, but must work in order to feed and house their children”? Or legislation that would “grant new mothers or fathers paid parental leave”?

What might the world look like if our elected officials and “pro-life” activists devoted the time, energy, and funding they currently spend on restricting abortion to helping women to care for their families? Or to ensuring that pregnant women live in a country where they need not worry that their children will survive infancy or go without health care, food, shelter, a good education, and a safe and healthy environment?

If only that were really their agenda.

>>276 >>277 But birth control is easy and cheap and Clinton got a blowjob and Hilary wears pants sometimes and  birth control is easy and cheap and lumps of cells are special and Clinton had sex and Carter and birth control  is easy and cheap and feminists are shrill and unnecessary and irresponsible bitches and women do all the mistakes because of feminism and birth control is easy and cheap and there are no gender inequalities and Clinton got a blowjob and this is America not Russia so people should take responsibility and abstinence and Hilary wears pants and birth control is easy and cheap. Don't you see how I moot your points by being so mature and rigid?

boring fail

>>273

"And the actions of the man."

No.  The man puts something in the woman's body (NOTE:  WITH THE WOMAN'S CONSENT) which will then make the woman pregnant, supposing she doesn't take the actions necessary to prevent pregnancy from happening (contraception).  Since it is the woman's responsibility to care for her body, and not the man's, it is her responsibility to make sure she handles birth control, just like it isn't the man's responsibility to buy her toothpaste to make sure she doesn't get cavities.

This thread was supposed to be about abortion, and whether or not it is right, not about whose responsibilities it is to handle birth control, anyhow.  If you think abortion is wrong, but you aren't willing to jump on the 'pro-life' bandwagon simply because you don't want women to have the responsibility to care for their own vaginas and genitals, you are one stubborn piece of shit.

"If you want to prove a point, you'll have to use a neutral site, one that isn't pro-life or pro-choice."

I see, so we should judge the website based on the fact that it is a pro-life and thus 'biased' website, rather than judging whether or not the actual content submitted is valid or not.  LOL!

"This site is obviously in favor of the right wing. One example of an error on this site: "Do You Know? At 6 weeks, brain waves can be measured." False, genuine brain waves don't occur until the seventh month."

What the site says is true. 

"Will you stop getting on that person's ass?"

Sure.  Right after he stops attempting to justify killing to meet his ends.

"It may not, but that guy was just proving you wrong and you decided to step out of it."

This topic is about abortion, not who is at fault for unwanted pregnancies. 

"It's the man's fault for ejaculating inside her, the same as it is your fault for eating the food in the first place..which really is a bad example."

LOL, so, you intend to hold the food industry accountable for the waste products our bodies produce from eating the food it sells us, which we voluntarilly consume, thereafter? And yes, it is just like the situation between a woman and a man. 

The woman accepts the semen being ejaculated into her vagina.  If she doesn't accept it, and the consequences it produces, the options are clear: 

1.  use contraceptives

or

2.  have a baby


If she isn't ready for having a baby, it is her responsibility to make sure her body does not produce a baby from the semen. 

>>279

You are wrong. That was...*checks*....yeah, I think everyone is going with "Ultimate Win."

>>278

That was so masterfully done that for a second there I thought that was one of >>255's replies. The guy thinks the reason people are pretty much tired of "debating" with him is because he's making "valid points". But the real reason is that it's like discussing "The theory of a Nanomachine Jesus" with an AIM bot. (completely makes no sense)

Face it, guys: This thread has started to fail because we've failed ourselves. Look at the opposition; did we really have a right to expect >>255 NOT to copy paste copy paste his entire argument? He's a mindless fuckwaste who should be eating our shit. I'm tired of trying to having civil discussions with born failures.

That's it. Here's the deal, >>255: For every one of my rights you try to take away, I kill one of your kids. Then I invite you and your parents and everyone who keeps vomiting dogmatic bullshit into some elaborate deathtraps where I'll take great satisfaction in slitting their throats with the ancient toenails of velociraptors.

Time for talk is over; the time for a civil war- for our civil liberties is now. "Bayonett to the face"-TIME, faggots! I say we rise up now; before the wrong side Globalizes us. I don't even want to live with people like >>255 and that may sound fucked up but just look at this thread and you know I'm right. This thread turned from potential win to colossal fail, and it was thanks to the overwhelming faggotry >>255 perpetuated on all of us.

He's either the best troll ever or the worse huamn alive. Either way: He cannot be left alive.

Anonymous does not forgive.

>>278
"But birth control is easy and cheap"

It is.  Women who don't take the time to use it and have an abortion are irresponsible bitches with no respect for human dignity or human life.  I laughed when I saw this: 
http://www.imnotsorry.net/

"and Clinton got a blowjob and Hilary wears pants sometimes"

This has absolutely nothing to do with the abortion debate. 

"and  birth control is easy and cheap"

It is.  Women who don't take the time to use it and have an abortion are irresponsible bitches with no respect for human dignity or human life.

"and lumps of cells are special"

Human beings could be called 'lumps of cells', but I don't think even YOU would attempt to justify killing a born human being.  What is so special about being 'born' that makes you a human being?  So you are not a human being until you happen to be born? Why is it just a 'lump of cells' until it has been born, at which point you will finally give it the rights human beings deserve?

"and Clinton had sex"

Totally irrelevant.  Why do you assume I give a shit about this?

"and birth control  is easy and cheap"

It is. 

"and feminists are shrill and unnecessary and irresponsible bitches"

Just the ones who want the rights to their own bodies with none of the responsibilities. 

"and women do all the mistakes because of feminism"

I never said this. 

"and birth control is easy and cheap"

It is. 

"and there are no gender inequalities"

In the USA, each individual has the same legal protection under the law.  What more do you want? Men will always have penises, women will always have vaginas.  I am for equal rights under the law for men and women.  I don't view this as feminism, and I'm certainly not 'pro-choice'. 


"and Clinton got a blowjob"

Again, why do you think I care about this? Why are you bringing it up? It really has nothing to do with the discussion.  I guess you just have some messed up right wing steriotypes.  Perhaps you are prejudice?

"and this is America not Russia so people should take responsibility"

People should take responsibility for themselves because it is the right thing to do.  It has nothing to do with where we happen to live.  It is right that people shouldn't have the responsibility to care for others.  Charity should be voluntary.

"and abstinence"

What of it? I never advocated abstinence.

"and Hilary wears pants"

So? I don't like Hillary because I disagree with her policies.  It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she wears pants. 

"and birth control is easy and cheap."

It is. 

"Don't you see how I moot your points by being so mature and rigid?"

Don't you see how you are just as (if not more) prejudice against right wingers as your steriotypical racist is prejudice against someone of a given race?

>>282 I keep on forgetting that parody always expresses the generalizations of the creator. Thanks for setting me straight honey. Speaking of the casus belli that is birth control... How come the same people you turn to to ban abortions are the ones that fuck up sex education and the sale of birth control? Or are you expecting people to gain responsibility and sufficient information all by themselves? Yes of course you are, that is the basis of your argument. Also, I've already made it quite clear that unless a foetus has accumulated the basis of a unique persona, it is no more special than any other cell, and therefore removing it is universalizable. If it wasn't, then me scratching myself or combing my hair would be genocide. When so many (most) abortions occur when this is not the case or debatable, we pro-choicers are in a better position. If we should ban abortions simply because some women aren't up for the privilege (and the main reasons abortions sommetimes occur after the critical point is because they fear social reprisal, the cost of the practice, the scarcity of 'morning-after pills', scare tactics, vitriol outside clinics, the rising cost of contraceptives and relevant medication, the fact that conservatives make clinics scarce [most women who don't have abortions are poor, thereby continuing the cycle], religious/ethical guilt and all the other things right-wing society and pro-lifers are responsible for) then we may also ban corporations because Coca-Cola and Pepsi are fucking with Kerala. Again. THAT is a fucking analogy right there.
As far as I know you haven't yet regressed to using the "breast-cancer" angle either, but if anyone has then I can refute that. The scientific consensus agrees that this is nothing but scare tactics pro-lifers resort to.
Then there is the reduced crime rate that follows the *availability* of abortions, giving me the utilitarian edge: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/ResponseToFooteGoetz2006.pdf Oh yes, the red states ban abortions, crime goes up and the more affluent blue states have to pay more into the treasury than they get back (http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2003/05/red-vs_15.html), because the white trash get more money than the ghettos. Like pedophilia, the cycle continues.

"No.  The man puts something in the woman's body (NOTE:  WITH THE WOMAN'S CONSENT)"

Then she wanted to be pregnant in the first place. You defeated yourself here.

""This site is obviously in favor of the right wing. One example of an error on this site: "Do You Know? At 6 weeks, brain waves can be measured." False, genuine brain waves don't occur until the seventh month."

What the site says is true."

http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1154765576/13 - Refuted by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

>>281
Yeah I'm tired of him too. His flawed logic is basically this:

Woman < Man
Woman < Fetus
Woman < Fetus < Man
and/or
Woman < Fetus = Man

But Fetus = Man = Funny.

>>276
>>277
Win. Thank you.

>>283
Truth. Thank you.

stfu faggits

>>284
>Then she wanted to be pregnant in the first place. You defeated yourself here.

Yes, everybody who has sex does it because they want to have kids. Good job, virgin failure. This is why you don't have friends.

>>286 Lol @ Troll Failure. The woman consented to wanting to be pregnant in the first place. Notice the word 'consent.' Failure to read and understand.

>>284 Then again, you don't have to stoop to his level by assuming he thinks that men are superior, because I don't think he does so. But it may be the implications of his demands.

>>287 A standing riposte. Good shit.
>>284 Scrumptuous. Seconded.

>>288
Just what I was going for.

I have still yet to see an anti-abortionnists who doesn't rely on the same, repeated argument of "possible outcome to an action = full consent" that gives as much protection to a fetus than to venereal diseases or a smoking cancer.

Or the exact same protection to someone who knock down people in a theater and harvest their organs.  Not trying to pull a strawman, just mentionning how acceptable or sane the basic logic actually is for their very central argument.

The fuck is wrong with murder? Morality is outdated and stupid. Get your head out of your ass and quit crying. A living woman > A fetus. Any fucking day of the week.

This thread made me hate fetuses with a passion, and I will dedicate a significant part of my life to having as many as possible of these disgusting clumps of meat aborted.

Thank you, newpol!

>>283

"Or are you expecting people to gain responsibility and sufficient information all by themselves?"

If you are going to commit an action, yes, I expect you to be ready to deal with the consequences of that action.  At the very least, I'm not going to help you out when you fuck yourself up due to personal irresponsibility.

"Also, I've already made it quite clear that unless a foetus has accumulated the basis of a unique persona, it is no more special than any other cell, and therefore removing it is universalizable."

'Universalizable' isn't a word, firstly.  Also, it is not the personality that makes a human being.  There is something distinctly special about humanity.  If it is entirely personality, then what if a baby was born, put inside a dark room for its entire life, and somehow sustained without ever meeting anyone, doing anything, etc, for the entirety of its existance up until say - age 21.  Would killing it be fine with you? There is more to what constitutes a 'human life' than just personal experiances.

"If it wasn't, then me scratching myself or combing my hair would be genocide."

Why do you keep bringing this up? There is obviously a difference between a partially developed human being and a skin or hair cell.  Many of these fetuses have all the standard human organs as everyone else has, developed.  Abortion is a morally questionable procedure, at best.

"then we may also ban corporations because Coca-Cola and Pepsi are fucking with Kerala."

Abortion, Coca Cola, and Pepsi are obviously entirely different subjects.  What Coca Cola does in other countries has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not abortion should be regulated or not.

"Then there is the reduced crime rate that follows the *availability* of abortions,"

Completely redundant.  You are talking about killing innocents before they have committed a crime.  I thought liberals would be against this kind of thing..  Until an individual actually commits a crime, he is innocent.  This 'well they are just going to grow up and become criminals anyway' argument is complete bullshit. 

"Oh yes, the red states ban abortions, crime goes up and the more affluent blue states have to pay more into the treasury than they get back"

More conservative areas of the country have lower crime rates than liberal areas, just fyi.  Probly has nothing to do with abortion, and more to do with that conservatives are tough on crime, and pro-self defense (lowers crime rates).  The liberal gun-control havens of the USA have the highest crime rates, whether they are pro-choice, or not.

"because the white trash get more money than the ghettos."

This has nothing to do with whether or not abortion should be regulated. 

>>291
"I have still yet to see an anti-abortionnists who doesn't rely on the same, repeated argument of "possible outcome to an action = full consent" that gives as much protection to a fetus than to venereal diseases or a smoking cancer."

No, the argument is that if she didn't take the actions necessary to prevent the forming of an developing human inside her, she should have to bear the consequences.  It is easy to prevent it, so there is really no reason why she shouldn't be held responsible.

"Or the exact same protection to someone who knock down people in a theater and harvest their organs."

How is an innocent fetus anything like someone who knocks down people in a theater and attempts to harvest their organs? How does this relate to the abortion debate in any way?

"Not trying to pull a strawman, just mentionning how acceptable or sane the basic logic actually is for their very central argument."

The logic is fine.  I have yet to see a good refutation for it.  If the woman didn't want the baby, she should have used birth control.  Simple stuff, really.

>>292
"The fuck is wrong with murder? Morality is outdated and stupid."

I wonder what would happen if people like this guy set up the country.

"A living woman > A fetus. Any fucking day of the week."

I never said a 'fetus > a woman'.  Why does this shit keep coming up? It really doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand. 

>>284
"Then she wanted to be pregnant in the first place. You defeated yourself here."

Sure.  So if she wanted to be pregnant in the first place, she obviously doesn't need to be having an abortion.  I don't see how I 'defeated myself' here.

">>281
Yeah I'm tired of him too. His flawed logic is basically this:

Woman < Man"

I never said this.  I'd like to hear how you came to this conclusion.

"Woman < Fetus"

No idea where you got this one.  Whether or not a fetus should be allowed to live or not really has nothing to do with whether or not it is 'better' than a woman.  Keeping the woman from killing the baby doesn't kill her, unless it is necessary for some medical reason, but we've already talked about this, and I don't have an issue with this, so why bring it up?

"Woman < Fetus < Man"

I never said this. 

"Woman < Fetus = Man"

I never said this.

"But Fetus = Man = Funny."

I never said this either.

">>283
Truth. Thank you."

Wrong.  See >>294

By the way, Xel is really the most pathetic "man" I've ever seen. Bet he's already looking forward to his castration.

lol @ liberals that attempt to justify killing sentient human life

"Sure.  So if she wanted to be pregnant in the first place, she obviously doesn't need to be having an abortion.  I don't see how I 'defeated myself' here."

You said with CONSENT. Consent = wanting to get pregnant. Dur dur dur.

>>297
Sad to see that one has to right down personal with this topic. Insults are reserved for moronic children.

>>298
A fetus isn't sentient. It doesn't even gain a FRAGMENT of a concious until the seventh month in the third trimester. A fetus isn't even a human 'being', it is only potential, and being potential isn't enough to declare sentience.

Lol @ uneducated conservatives playing politics with women.

>>299
"Sad to see that one has to right down personal with this topic. Insults are reserved for moronic children."

Um, sorry to burst your bubble, but it seems like the pro-choice crowd seems to be doing most of the insulting. 

>>299
"You said with CONSENT. Consent = wanting to get pregnant."

I see.  So, she didn't want to be pregnant, but doesn't want to go through the time of using an extra method of birth control to make sure it doesn't happen, then expects to be able to kill the living result to insure it doesn't inconvenience her personal life? LOL

>>292
"The fuck is wrong with murder? Morality is outdated and stupid. Get your head out of your ass and quit crying. A living woman > A fetus. Any fucking day of the week."

lawl@liberals

>>281
Political extremist alert.

>>300
"Pro-life" insults > "Pro-choice" insults.

Both names are hella wrong. The 'pro-life'rs aren't for life, maybe for fetuses, but not for those whom are already here. They contradict their very name by supporting the death penalty, the war with Iraq, and by making it more difficult to obtain contraception and Plan B. The 'pro-choice'rs are for life, since they care for life that is already here. Most 'pro-choice'rs are actually pro-activists.

>>301
If she didn't want to get pregnant, she wouldn't have consented to have the man ejaculate inside her and thus would have use birth control, along with the man using a condom. When she consents to have the man ejaculate inside her, she is wanting to get pregnant, and thus become a mother of a child. Not having an abortion in the end. So. "LOL2u2"

>>302
Lawl @ hypocritical/contradicting pro-lifers supporting ONLY potential fetuses whilst leaving the ones already here suffer.

>>303
Troll alert.

>>276
>>277
Win.

>>295 No, the argument is that if she didn't take the actions necessary to prevent the forming of an developing human inside her, she should have to bear the consequences.  It is easy to prevent it, so there is really no reason why she shouldn't be held responsible.

What do you mean when you said "no" right away, do you think it means anything to lie like this? Do you think people can't read? It IS the argument. The argument IS that if the woman let herself in a situation where there is a chance for a pregnancy to happen, then it is considered that she gave her consent and must support the pregnancy.  Anti-abortionists are forced to use this argument because when they are asked to explain themselve, they find that they cannot produce any reason for allowing a fetus to intrude in a woman's body.  This is why they try the argument that there is no intruding being done. This is done by saying that consent (that isn't consentual, lol?) is considered given because of the girl's actions. This is the stance. Do not say "no" and then say the exact same thing.

You did not comment how it protects venereal diseases exactly as much as fetuses. Important information must fades from your mind.

>How is an innocent fetus anything like someone who knocks down people in a theater and attempts to harvest their organs? How does this relate to the abortion debate in any way?

You are using the word "innocent" to make a contrast with the criminal activity of an organ steal to try to make the comparision invalid without having to address it. Genius stuff.

How does this relate? It was just said that it relates because it's based on the exact same logic. The logical base that "If something happen to you during something you do, by deciding to do it you accept any outcome, so it means you allowed it, it means you are forced to give consent to it and support it if it happens". 

Based on this, anything that can happen to you while you "engage in an activity" has your consent. That includes being mugged if you take a walk. That includes having your body parasited after having sex. That includes having your internal organs being forcefully extracted during any recreational activity such as going in a theater. "If it can happen while you do something you decided to do, you're giving your consent to it". In fact, I remember that you even use the expression "wanted it" in this situation.

>The logic is fine.  I have yet to see a good refutation for it.  If the woman didn't want the baby, she should have used birth control.

The logic is not fine from any social point of view because it is entirely based on a concept of "forced consent due to causality". Let me repeat your last sentence: If you didn't want to have your organs harvested in a theater, don't let it any chance to happen, you should buy a gun or stay inside your house.

>>295

Is a fucking idiot. The point he continues to glare over is that our country could never ban abortion in principle because it would run alien to the general premise of democracy and capitalism.

It doesn't matter how you slice it- a fetus isn't a whole human being and it is not as sacred. You're not going to convince people to give up their right to make principal decisions regarding their sexual. Whether or not they were irresponsible is irrelevant. The government has every right to preserve it's population, but not this way, by breaking it's own social contract.

Banning abortion would be the final blow to America. The line would be crossed and not for the better. The government can't own and has no right to protect the innocent, unborn, soverign, sacred fetus in the first place. It doesn't matter if it's alive or dead. Children are products of parents.

>>294 even if universalizable isn't a word the comparison is not moot. Humans are what they learn; without the sensory apparati AND relevant cerebral centers cooperating, the foetus is just a cluster of cells, without any uniqueness to it. It's genetic code is brimming with life-giving information, and so are my follicles and skin cells. You creating an extreme situation only raises further questions. Should that dude be alive? Would he choose death himself? Who would take care of him, Mr. "Fuck Child support laws and the nanny state!"? He has experienced more than a foetus and the only important part of him, his brain, is probably functioning still. Do you have any idea how similar we are to animals, or how much of their interior resembles ours? What makes us humans is our brains and what it is given to process. Then there is a true Difference, maybe even soemthing resembling a 'soul'.
You not understanding the analogy with good corporations (majority)/bad corporations (minority) and women who get abortions early enough (majority)/women who get abortions once foetus has developed unique personality (minority) makes me wonder what your mental rigidity has done to your thought processes.
And we are not killing innocents before they commit a crime; we are preventing them from experiencing things that will eventually make them burden to societies, refuting your claim that abortions will lead to civilization's downfall. These children are not determined to commit crimes, but they will be. This doesn't mean that we should forbid poor/slightly unstable people from getting kids (the limits on allowing parenthood are set in stone and should be), it means that we should allow abortions to be an option, because it has a utilitarian effect with all the ethical implications of one scratching oneself.
Perhaps one of the reasons crime is higher in blue states is because of the illegalization of drugs and a higher amount of victimless crimes there. What I do know is that all the red states (save one, I think) do worse economically and get money from the blue states, who could use it more considering the higher crime rate in total. San Fransisco didn't need to get tough on crime or allow guns, but I guess they're a unique case.
>>297 Men of little mental caliber, self-esteem and openness of mind often uses a man's dick as the only defining characteristic. It is predictable, non-threatening and unbelievably sad
>>301 The result isn't always "living" in a critical sense of the word, and the pro-life crowd is the one voting to make sex education worse, harm women's rights and make birth control less common. A bit counter-productive, that.
I love my dick, am not pleased with all feminist rethoric, have never heard of pro-choicers assaulting priests or vandalizing 'family first' organizations (probably because we are slightly better humans overall), believe men and women are more than their sexes and will defend the right to abortions to my last breath if I have to.

>>306
"Is a fucking idiot. The point he continues to glare over is that our country could never ban abortion in principle because it would run alien to the general premise of democracy and capitalism."

No it wouldn't.  Whether or not abortion is justifiable from a capitalist (individual rights oriented) viewpoint depends on how you view the fetus.  If it is a human life, it has rights, and it is thus right for the government to perform the function of protection.  If it is not a human life, it then abortion should be allowed. 

Abortion is easilly justifiable from a capitalist viewpoint.  All you need to do is accept the fact that the human fetus is indeed a human life, and that it is thus the proper function of government to protect its right to continue to live. 

"It doesn't matter how you slice it- a fetus isn't a whole human being and it is not as sacred."

This depends on what your viewpoint of a 'whole' human being is, and on what constitutes a 'human being'.

"You're not going to convince people to give up their right to make principal decisions regarding their sexual."

All you are saying, is 'you're not going to convince people to give up their right to violate the rights of others.'

"Whether or not they were irresponsible is irrelevant. The government has every right to preserve it's population, but not this way, by breaking it's own social contract."

Actually, this is relevant.  Many would argue that the woman has the right to remove the fetus from her body.  At this point, we can recognize that this means death for the human fetus.  The fact that the mother is responsible for the fact that this life is there and dependent upon her is thus important to note in considering some aspects of the abortion debate. 

"Banning abortion would be the final blow to America."

Not-banning abortion would be the final blow to America, imo.  It would be the recognition, in the most basic forms, that the government's primary duty is no longer to preserve the lives of its human constituents.  The notion that government's proper duty is to protect human life is at the very foundation of good government. 

"The government can't own and has no right to protect the innocent, unborn, soverign, sacred fetus in the first place."

I never tried to argue that the government owns the human fetus.  The argument is not that the government owns the human fetus, the argument is that the human fetus has the right to continue to develop and live, and that it is the proper function of government to protect these rights.  This has nothing to do with ownership.

"It doesn't matter if it's alive or dead. Children are products of parents."

So if you took a baby, stuffed it in isolation for 20 years, making sure it had sustenance, but nothing outside of that, would it then be OK to kill it, since, according to you, experiance supposedly makes the human being?

Experiance is not the only thing that makes a human being, and that is why it would obviously be wrong.

>>307
"even if universalizable isn't a word the comparison is not moot."

Yes it is.

"Humans are what they learn;"

So humans are nothing more than bundles of experiances? So if you took a baby, stuffed it in isolation for 20 years, making sure it had sustenance, but nothing outside of that, would it then be OK to kill it then, since, according to you, experiance supposedly makes the human being?

"without the sensory apparati AND relevant cerebral centers cooperating, the foetus is just a cluster of cells"

Wrong.  There is more to human beings than this. 

"Do you have any idea how similar we are to animals, or how much of their interior resembles ours? What makes us humans is our brains and what it is given to process. Then there is a true Difference, maybe even soemthing resembling a 'soul'."

I don't believe in 'souls' in a religious sense, but this is beside the point.  You are getting to the right area of the conversation now, though, which is 'what constitutes a human being'.  If the fetus is too 'human', abortion should obviously be intensely regulated, if not outright banned. 

"You not understanding the analogy with good corporations (majority)/bad corporations (minority) and women who get abortions early enough (majority)/women who get abortions once foetus has developed unique personality (minority) makes me wonder what your mental rigidity has done to your thought processes."

It is the duty of our government to protect our citizens, not citizens of foreign countries.  Your corporation analogy is beside the point - it is their responsibility to worry about themselves, and it is our responsibility to worry about ourselves.  Our government is there to protect our citizens first and foremost, and we have no 'duty' to protect those of other countries.

"And we are not killing innocents before they commit a crime; we are preventing them from experiencing things that will eventually make them burden to societies,"

So, hypothetically, if there was a born baby (not an unborn baby, mind you) who would grow up in such a way that /might/ incite him to live a life of crime, would you kill him before he has actually committed any crimes? It is wrong to punish someone for something they didn't do, period, even if there is a 90% chance they will do it.  The facts are it has not happened yet, and it is thus wrong to punish them for something they might/or will do in the future.  Have you seen Minority Report?

"refuting your claim that abortions will lead to civilization's downfall."

I never said abortions will lead to civilization's downfall.

"These children are not determined to commit crimes, but they will be."

'but they *might* be'

fixed

"it means that we should allow abortions to be an option, because it has a utilitarian effect"

No.  Sacrificing the rights of the few for the benefits of the many is not right.  Each individual should have the inalienable right to LIFE, liberty, and property.

"Perhaps one of the reasons crime is higher in blue states is because of the illegalization of drugs"

? Blue states are generally the ones favoring legalization.  They have higher crime rates.  They also support stricter gun control.  Conservative areas (note: I say 'conservative areas', not 'red states') tend to have lower crime rates than liberal areas.  Most of the United States' crime comes from liberal areas of the country.  Most conservatives live in rural areas, and these areas have very, very low crime. 

"What I do know is that all the red states (save one, I think) do worse economically and get money from the blue states, who could use it more considering the higher crime rate in total."

The red states shouldn't have to pay for extra police officers for the blue states to use to lower the crime rates that are resultant from their stupid liberal governments.  It doesn't matter if the blue states could use it more or not.  The blue states can unfuck their own areas.

"harm women's rights"

The right doesn't harm women's rights.  Women have equal freedom in this country, last I checked.

"and will defend the right to abortions to my last breath if I have to."

'and will defend the right of women to violate the rights of others to compensate for their irresponsibility to my last breath if I have to'

fixed

>>304
"Both names are hella wrong. The 'pro-life'rs aren't for life, maybe for fetuses, but not for those whom are already here. They contradict their very name by supporting the death penalty, the war with Iraq, and by making it more difficult to obtain contraception and Plan B. The 'pro-choice'rs are for life, since they care for life that is already here. Most 'pro-choice'rs are actually pro-activists."

I'm pro life, and I don't support the death penalty, the war in iraq, or the idea of making contraception less availible.  I am for the preservation of the right to life of all humans or human fetuses that are here.  So much for your stupid right wing steriotypes.

>>308 Corporatism is a practice that can be good or bad. Abortions can be good or bad, depending on when the foetus is aborted. When a minority of corporations and a minority of women can't handle the responsibility and the privilege then an outright ban of abortions is exactly like banning corporations because of Pepsi and Coke messing up India. Were it takes place and whose jurisdiction they are under is irrelevant here. A minority of abortions take place when sentience and a state above that of meat has been achieved. Abortions pay off to society, and until a foetus has achieved a human consciousness removing it is nothing more controversial than a woman flushing some accidental semen out of her canal. I can stand firm and there are no immoral ethical implications of my stance, because the alternative is collective punishment, a betrayal of liberty. Human life is nothing without cerebral processing, so removing a foetus is not murder.
>>309 A person refuting a claim of being a right-wing stereotype while misspelling 'stereotype'.

Also, if liberal states need more unfucking than conservative ones, why do they apparently get less money than the tough, sustainable, hard-working, self-determining heartlanders? And why do the anti-statist government hating paranoid redneck politicians gladly gobble money, shouldn't they set an example, i.e. put up or shut up?

>>310

"When a minority of corporations and a minority of women can't handle the responsibility and the privilege then an outright ban of abortions is exactly like banning corporations because of Pepsi and Coke messing up India."

Wrong.  It is the responsibility of our government to protect its citizens and lives /here/, not in India.  India can unfuck its own problems, its not our responsibility. 

"Were it takes place and whose jurisdiction they are under is irrelevant here."

Wrong.  It isn't the duty of our government to police the world, and to make sure everything is dandy everywhere, it is the duty of our government to handle and make things dandy /here/.  We aren't global police.

"A minority of abortions take place when sentience and a state above that of meat has been achieved."

And these should obviously be banned right away, with the exception of those medically necessary for the mother's life.  The others are up for debate.

"Abortions pay off to society,"

Totally irrelevant whether or not they 'pay off' to society.  It might 'pay off' to society to kill Bill Gates, take all his money, and dole it all out to ourselves, but we don't do it.  Why? This would be murder and theft.  Sacrificing the rights of a few innocents for the sake of the rest of society is wrong. 


"and until a foetus has achieved a human consciousness removing it is nothing more controversial than a woman flushing some accidental semen out of her canal."

I don't think so.  Destroying fetuses with all the organs of a normal human being is morally dubious, at best. 

"I can stand firm and there are no immoral ethical implications of my stance, because the alternative is collective punishment, a betrayal of liberty."

Kindof like punishing all human fetuses (denying them their RIGHT to life), due to the fact that a portion of those born would grow up to become criminals. 

"Human life is nothing without cerebral processing, so removing a foetus is not murder."

I disagree. 

"A person refuting a claim of being a right-wing stereotype while misspelling 'stereotype'."

I'm sure you have never misspelled a thing. 

"Also, if liberal states need more unfucking than conservative ones, why do they apparently get less money than the tough, sustainable, hard-working, self-determining heartlanders?"

The need for unfucking is not represented by the amount of funding the states get.  The liberal states have the most obvious need of unfucking, and they tend to get less money.

"And why do the anti-statist government hating paranoid redneck politicians gladly gobble money, shouldn't they set an example, i.e. put up or shut up?"

Congratulations, you've found an inconsistency within the position of a handful of politicians.  What a rarity this is!  Want a gold star?

I'm not saying all republicans, conservatives, or any politician for that matter is going to be entirely philosophically sound.  Unless you find one who agrees with you on everything, you vote for and support those who you think will do the least damage.  Simply because I would support conservative candidates doesn't mean I agree with everything they do, and thus doesn't mean you can use this in the argument claiming I am 'inconsistent'.  MY political positions are indeed consistent, though my favored  group of politicians MAY, or MAY NOT be, depending on the politician.  

>>308

"No it wouldn't.  Whether or not abortion is justifiable from a capitalist (individual rights oriented) viewpoint depends on how you view the fetus.  If it is a human life, it has rights, and it is thus right for the government to perform the function of protection.  If it is not a human life, it then abortion should be allowed. 

Abortion is easilly justifiable from a capitalist viewpoint.  All you need to do is accept the fact that the human fetus is indeed a human life, and that it is thus the proper function of government to protect its right to continue to live."

Clearly you don't have a fundament grasp of democracy nor capitalism. First off: The human fetus being a human "life" is FAR from fact and it's time you accepted it. This is getting fucking retarded already. You keep saying that all valid scientific evidence is hogwash without offering ONE fucking iota or factiod unrefutably stating otherwise. How can you expect anything but massive failure in your argument is insane.

America's social contract isn't just about mere protection. I think you've got it twisted. America in it's most unpolluted form is about protecting that freedoms and liberties of the individual WITHOUT using law to needlessly nationalize and communize the population.

That is the key difference you're not getting- when it comes to sex laws- that's pure ownership of the person for the state. So you see, it's entirely irrelevant if the fetus is human or not- if the right to delete a fetus is revoke then you are fundamentally going against liberty, PERIOD.

"All you are saying, is 'you're not going to convince people to give up their right to violate the rights of others.'

No, fuckbrain. That's what you heard. What I said was that you're going to convince people to give up their right to do whatever the fuck they want with their own sexual organs. Children are product of DNA, the opposite sexes fucking. End of discussion.

"Whether or not they were irresponsible is irrelevant. The government has every right to preserve it's population, but not this way, by breaking it's own social contract."

At this point, we can recognize that this means death for the human fetus.

No. You're wrong. Give it up. You keep setting this shit up for me and I keep kicking it back into your face. Stop using "WE". Obviously there is a point where a fetus can't feel or think and that's what makes it human. NOT just 'existing'. If that's the case- then all the animals in the animal kingdom are infact HUMAN. I mean- they exist right? Sure, they can't fend for themselves and are reliant on nature's food cycle...so they must be human!!! 

"Not-banning abortion would be the final blow to America, imo.  It would be the recognition, in the most basic forms, that the government's primary duty is no longer to preserve the lives of its human constituents."

That's not America, though, child. You really need to pick up a fucking history book. You're making this country out to something it never was and NEVER was meant to be. The government primary duty IS NOT to preserve the live of it's "human contituents". It's to preserve their LIBERTIES and FREEDOMS. Do you understand the difference?


"The government can't own and has no right to protect the innocent, unborn, soverign, sacred fetus in the first place."

I never tried to argue that the government owns the human fetus.  The argument is not that the government owns the human fetus, the argument is that the human fetus has the right to continue to develop and live, and that it is the proper function of government to protect these rights.  This has nothing to do with ownership.

Like it or not, protect in this regard is not only ownership of the fetus, but OWNERSHIP OF THE WOMAN. Seriously, fuck the fetus. I'm talking about the AMERICAN, VOTING, LAW ABIDING and otherwise healthy couple that should be free to releave themselves of ANY sex related burder they see fit. The government has NO right telling people what to do with their penises or vaginas or the PRODUCTS of the penis and vaginas. They just don't. If you disagree: Move to China.

So if you took a baby, stuffed it in isolation for 20 years, making sure it had sustenance, but nothing outside of that, would it then be OK to kill it, since, according to you, experiance supposedly makes the human being?

Your analogies are making less and less sense. You should really look into lurking moar, seriously. I think it could help you out in the long run. I stand by what I say. Come for my right to reproduce (or not reproduce) and you'll be staring down the barrel of a gun. I'm going to let America be over run by dogma spewing facists.

"I'm sure you have never misspelled a thing." Of course I do, I wanted to point out lulz.
"Wrong.  It is the responsibility of our government to protect its citizens and lives /here/, not in India.  India can unfuck its own problems, its not our responsibility." Then replace Coke/Pepsi with some government that is screwing with American people (Bechtel) if you can't get you head around the analogy.
Those abortions that occur once sentience can be CAST-IRON PROVEN should be banned, those that occur before are not under debate, and shouldn't be. Also, we are not punishing the foetuses for maybe becoming criminals, we are 'punishing' them because we can and they are not sentient. Getting pregnant is not a contract, preserving a foetus until its sentient is. And even then the real reasons that women pass the limit is the doings of the right-wing.
I'm pointing out that no right-wing politicians are allowed to blame the left for statism/big gov when they increase government spending more than the left and take more of it too for their single mothers and shitty sex education. This is major hypocrisy that spans the conservative movement. I don't think you agree with everything they do, but a vote is a vote and everything that occurs because of the vote is your doing. You voted for Clinton? There are some aspirin-factory employees and assassinated people that would like to have a chat. Voted Reagan? Say hello to the spirits of dead homosexuals and people who lost almost everything by union busting. Voted Bush? Well... Looks like your calendar is full of appointments.

"No it wouldn't.  Whether or not abortion is justifiable from a capitalist (individual rights oriented) viewpoint depends on how you view the fetus.  If it is a human life, it has rights, and it is thus right for the government to perform the function of protection.  If it is not a human life, it then abortion should be allowed. 

Abortion is easilly justifiable from a capitalist viewpoint.  All you need to do is accept the fact that the human fetus is indeed a human life, and that it is thus the proper function of government to protect its right to continue to live."

A fetus is 'human life' then again, so is sperm and an ovum. But a fetus isn't a human 'being', therefore, it has no rights.

"Not-banning abortion would be the final blow to America, imo.  It would be the recognition, in the most basic forms, that the government's primary duty is no longer to preserve the lives of its human constituents.  The notion that government's proper duty is to protect human life is at the very foundation of good government.


No.  Sacrificing the rights of the few for the benefits of the many is not right.  Each individual should have the inalienable right to LIFE, liberty, and property"

I agree there, but a fetus isn't an individual on the base that it isn't a human being, it has no rights.

>>313
"Those abortions that occur once sentience can be CAST-IRON PROVEN should be banned"

Be careful, that is a double-edge sword. Lemme give an 'if' scenario:
If it is proven that a fetus experiences pain during birth from being squeezed through a tight vagina... then that'll condone the eviseration of pregnant's women's bellies during forced and unnecessary c-sections, just on the bases that the fetus may feel pain. They won't give a damn about the woman herself, and they won't give a damn that she knows what is best for her.

Without a doubt, 'pro-life' laws will harm women who want to have a child as well.

More explained here:
>>276
>>277

"The first case ends tragically, with the death of the mother and the fetus; in the second, the forced surgery turns out not to have been necessary; and the couple in the third scenario — devout Christians who are expecting their seventh child — leave the hospital that is trying to force a cesarean section on the mother and successfully have their baby elsewhere, through vaginal delivery.

Having eviscerated the argument that “pro-life” policies support the health, well-being, and autonomy of women who want to carry their pregnancies to term, Paltrow turns to the larger task of outlining genuine protections and supports for pregnant and parenting women."

GET BACK IN THE FUCKIN' KITCHEN, BITCH.

>>314 But birth control is easy and cheap and all feminists aren't perfect in their reasoning. So we should ban child support legislation.

>>31
"A fetus is 'human life' then again, so is sperm and an ovum."

No.  Sperm and ovums are not 'human lives'.  A human is created when the two are joined, and a real human life begins to grow.  I am for the protection of this human life, as it is the proper function of government to do so.

>>314
"A fetus is 'human life' then again, so is sperm and an ovum."

No.  Sperm and ovums are not 'human lives'.  A human is created when the two are joined, and a real human life begins to grow.  I am for the protection of this human life, as it is the proper function of government to do so.

(I left out the '4' on '314' so reposting..)

"No.  Sperm and ovums are not 'human lives'.  A human is created when the two are joined, and a real human life begins to grow.  I am for the protection of this human life, as it is the proper function of government to do so."

Sperm = Life + Part of a Human = Human Life
Ovum = Life + Part of a Human = Human Life
Fetus = Human Life
Fetus =/= Human 'Being'
Fetus = Potential
Fetus =/= Actual

Fetus =/= Person
Woman = Person
Man = Person
Child = Person
Baby = Persn

>>319
I'm not even gonna take the time to read all that shit.  This isn't math class, this is political discussion.

Sperm/ovums aren't human lives.  When they are joined, and a human life begins to grow, it becomes a human life.  To the extent that it is developed, is to the extent that it is a human life, and to the same extent that abortion should be discouraged.

>>320
A fetus isn't a person, and it doesn't have personhood. A fetus is only a shell of human life. A fetus isn't like you or me, it is only a potential life.

>>321
I disagree.  Would you say a human fetus isn't 'human' enough to be protected by law the day before it can be naturally born?

Life does not begin at birth.

>>322

You can't merely "disagree" without facts that refute hard earned fully-empirical scientific evidence. Ideas aren't facts.

>>323
You can't merely 'disagree' without proving to me that 'life' doesn't begin before birth, either.  I don't see what is so special about the act of being 'born' that makes a person a human being suddenly.  Is there really that much difference? Would it be OK with you to abort a baby the day before it could be born naturally? Clearly life does not begin at birth - it can and does begin before the mother simply gives birth.

>>324

Explain to me, how and why you think life begins before the development of the brain? I don't understand how you can confuse sperm, ovum and the act of conception for a living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being.

Your line of thinking literally translates out into: "Every time you whack off or have your period- you're killing a human life."

Are you referring to their souls or something? Because that's the only way I can see you "logically" coming about this notion.

I mean, you do realize that the very notion of the soul is religious in nature, right?

You do realize that the idea of a soul's existence is completely subjective and unproven, right?

And you did say that you weren't religious, right?

AND you do understand that lying isn't a good way to win a debate or woo people over to your position, right?

RIGHT?

>>325
"Explain to me, how and why you think life begins before the development of the brain?"

Explain to me, how and why you think the brain doesn't develop until the second the baby happens to be squeezed out of the woman's body?

I'm not 'pro-life' as the dictionary's definition of 'pro-life' would lead you to believe.  'Pro-life', according to this dictionary I have here, says that 'pro-life' people simply believe that life begins at conception.  I do not believe life begins at conception, but I don't believe it doesn't begin until birth either, which seems to be the standpoint of many liberals.

Where I stand on abortion is somewhere in between.  In other words, I don't believe life begins at birth, but nor do I think it begins at conception.  Saying I am 'pro-life' might be quite a bit of an overstatement.

Conception is just a turning point at which the creation of life begins.  When the sperm and ovum are seperate, it obviously doesn't constitute a human being.  I don't think life begins RIGHT at conception, but I certainly don't agree with women's supposed 'right' to kill a human fetus at any time, between conception and birth, if they please. 

I DO want oversight (not an outright ban), and regulation into abortion.  At some points, it may be ok, and at others, it may not.  But this stand that many liberals have that:  'MY BODY, MY RIGHT, NO COMPROMISE' is complete horse shit to me, since once you have a developing human fetus on your hand, there is another human whose rights are to be considered.

I DO NOT WANT any kind of regulation on contracpetives (such as condoms, or any of the other standard methods of birth control), so long as 'abortion' isn't considered a 'contracpetive', which some liberals seem to think it should be.  (Yes, I realize that at this point conception has occurred, so it is kindof redundant to refer to abortion as a possible 'contracpetive', but I think you see what I mean.  If not, ask, and I'll clarify, if you like.)

"I don't understand how you can confuse sperm, ovum and the act of conception for a living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being."

I don't confuse sperm, ovum, and the acto of conception for a living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being.  I think you are confused if you think that I think that.

"Your line of thinking literally translates out into: "Every time you whack off or have your period- you're killing a human life."

See post/comment above.  In fact, see all my previous posts, since I have talked about this so many times before, and you apparently still have no idea what I'm talking about.

"I mean, you do realize that the very notion of the soul is religious in nature, right?"

I'm not religious, and I don't believe in 'souls'.  I'm a pretty materialist atheist.

"You do realize that the idea of a soul's existence is completely subjective and unproven, right?"

You do realize I don't believe in souls, right? Why are you bringing this up? I said I wasn't religious.  Religion or belief has nothing to do with my stand on abortion.

"And you did say that you weren't religious, right?"

Correct.

"AND you do understand that lying isn't a good way to win a debate or woo people over to your position, right?"

I'm not lying.

"RIGHT?"

Right.

Explain to me, how and why you think the brain doesn't develop until the second the baby happens to be squeezed out of the woman's body?"

That's irrelevant. We happen to think that the acceptability for abortion gets less and less as the fetus grows more sentient. The science of fetal development isn't "until the second the baby happens to be squeezed out"--- there's a limited window. We've been over this a million times already.

But this stand that many liberals have that:  'MY BODY, MY RIGHT, NO COMPROMISE' is complete horse shit to me, since once you have a developing human fetus on your hand, there is another human whose rights are to be considered.

The rights of a fetus do not come before the rights of the parents. Because in this case you are violating the rights of the already born (and voting) female and male, and more important, going against the premise of democracy and capitalism. You simply have to understand that the regulations and laws you wish to see in place can only apply in a country where capitalism and democracy aren't at the core of it's ideals.

Truth hurts.

>>327
"That's irrelevant."

No it isn't.  The liberal position seems to be:  'MY BODY, MY CHOICE, I HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION WHENEVER I WANT, NO MATTER HOW LATE IT IS', and that's something I just don't agree with.

"We happen to think that the acceptability for abortion gets less and less as the fetus grows more sentient."

Who is this 'we'? I haven't heard something this sensible from the liberal crowd my entire life.

"The rights of a fetus do not come before the rights of the parents."

I think this depends on how late in development the fetus is - at which time certain parental rights ARE to be subjugated before the right of the fetus to live - such as the right to abort unnecessarilly. 

Of course, the woman's life comes first - so abortion should be permitted at any time if NECESSARY for the woman to continue living - so long as it is done in the most humane manner possible. 

"Because in this case you are violating the rights of the already born (and voting) female and male, and more important, going against the premise of democracy and capitalism."

Capitalism is also founded around self-ownership, and american capitalism is based around limmited government.  The proper functions of this limmited government are to protect and defend LIFE, liberty, and property.  Depending on how old the fetus is, and when you consider it 'alive' is what your capitalistic-american justification for abortion legislation would rest upon. 

"You simply have to understand that the regulations and laws you wish to see in place can only apply in a country where capitalism and democracy aren't at the core of it's ideals."

Wrong.  Pure capitalism? Yes, in that case, you are right.  Limmited government american-style capitalism? You are wrong.  In this setup, we sacrifice some degree of property rights to form a government (though it is supposed to be small), for the sake of defending all the other rights from various threats, such as enemy governments, or threats from criminals.  The proper functions of government are to protect life, liberty, and property.  Passing regulating legislation on abortion activities could be very easilly justified depending on when you believe 'life' begins. 

If life begins at conception, the government would obviously be performing its proper duty in banning it entirely. 

If life begins sometime between conception, and birth, government would be performing its proper role in REGULATING abortion, to be sure that no human fetuses which could be considered 'lives' are destroyed.

If life begins after birth, no abortion legislation at all would be justified. 

Of these viewpoints, I think life begins somewhere between conception and birth.  Thus, I think it is entirely within reason for the government to protect human fetuses after a certain period of time, and in general, to look into this practice to see if it is morally sound, and if government regulation would be consistent or inconsistent with the values our country was founded upon (that government should defend life, liberty, and property). 

Women should certainly NOT have totally unrestricted access to abortions regardless of how long the human fetus has developed.  This is just reckless disregard for unborn life.

The only thing that distances a human from a lump of flesh is a level/faculty of sentience that only - I mean only- can be found in humans. When so few of abortions take place once this may be a possibility, I think pro-choicers have less to be ashamed of than pro-lifers, whose hard-assed, almost always diametrically opposed stance has made feminists et al. completely incpacitated to budge on theirs. I agree that abortions should not take place once a foetus has been developed to a limit I've defined now (human life has nothing on human being, of which human-only cerebral faculties are a prerequisite), but the outright ban most pro-lifers suggest tie my hands; that alternative is an attack on civilisation. The debate on abortions is so nebulous and incremental, so I think this is what should be reached; a ban on abortions after a certain time, coupled with complete lack of regulations before a certain duration. This is quid pro quo, a compromise through gritted teeth both for those completely espoused with ultra-feminist rethoric and religious/ethical snafu. However, education regarding intercourse and gestation must improve substantially, the cultural view of teenage sexuality, especially the difference in perception of male/female sexuality, must change. Birth control and morning after pills must improve in quality and accessability, and politicians on both sides should follow suit and welcome these changes.
This is what I want, but since you, dear Anon, are not representaive to your crowd, I can not approach it at all, because a mixture of acceptable/non-acceptable abortions is preferrable to no abortions at all, and that is what most of the pro-lifers want.

>>329
"The only thing that distances a human from a lump of flesh is a level/faculty of sentience that only - I mean only- can be found in humans."

If it is technically 'human', and it is alive, it is the proper function of government to protect it, regardless of whether or not that faculty is what distances a human from a lump of flesh. 

"When so few of abortions take place once this may be a possibility, I think pro-choicers have less to be ashamed of than pro-lifers, whose hard-assed, almost always diametrically opposed stance has made feminists et al. completely incpacitated to budge on theirs."

There's a lot more abortions happening than you think.  I think pro-lifers have quite a lot more reason to be angry than pro-choicers. 

As for stem-cell research, being a libertarian, I would obviously vote against any kind of government funding for it. 

Whether or not it should be legal or not for the private sector is something different entirely.

"I agree that abortions should not take place once a foetus has been developed to a limit I've defined now (human life has nothing on human being,"

That isn't relevant.  If it is the proper function of government to defend human life, then the government should do so.  If one human life is 'more important' than another, then all that means is that the life of lesser importance should be protected UNLESS a choice must be made between losing the one of lesser importance, or losing the one of greater importance (the woman's).  This means that abortion should be banned once the fetus can be seen as a separate life, unless necessary for the mother's health.

"but the outright ban most pro-lifers suggest tie my hands"

See comment above this one.

"I think this is what should be reached; a ban on abortions after a certain time, coupled with complete lack of regulations before a certain duration."

Quite a different tone taken than that which you took earlier.  I would agree with this - it is philosophically sound, so long as the turning point between the two starts at the time the fetus/embryo becomes a distinct 'life.'

"However, education regarding intercourse and gestation must improve substantially, the cultural view of teenage sexuality, especially the difference in perception of male/female sexuality, must change."

That education should be in voluntary, private situations.  Private education > public education.

"Birth control and morning after pills must improve in quality and accessability,"

They will improve faster if you let the free market run its course (support the libertarian party).

"This is what I want, but since you, dear Anon, are not representaive to your crowd, I can not approach it at all, because a mixture of acceptable/non-acceptable abortions is preferrable to no abortions at all, and that is what most of the pro-lifers want."

Err... I don't understand you.  If this is what you, AS WELL as what most of the pro-lifers want (as you say), what is stopping you from approaching this situation in this light?

BOOOORRRRIIINNNNGGGG

"The debate on abortions is so nebulous and incremental, so I think this is what should be reached; a ban on abortions after a certain time, coupled with complete lack of regulations before a certain duration."

holy fuck!

"If it is technically 'human', and it is alive, it is the proper function of government to protect it, regardless of whether or not that faculty is what distances a human from a lump of flesh." So you have the education to say when it is technically a human? Listen, I don't think I can set that limit just yet, but I will not budge when I say that the foetus is only a person when it's *mind* is as unique as its genetic code. Otherwise we would have to ban menstruations too. Its up to scientists to discern when this is the case. Human life =/= human being, since the former is nothing without auto-recognition from the latter. Who feels the organs take form and pulse? No one, before a certain time. Uptil then abortions are a-okay.
"There's a lot more abortions happening than you think.  I think pro-lifers have quite a lot more reason to be angry than pro-choicers." Number of abortions are irrelevant ethically. See above.
"That isn't relevant.  If it is the proper function of government to defend human life, then the government should do so.  If one human life is 'more important' than another, then all that means is that the life of lesser importance should be protected UNLESS a choice must be made between losing the one of lesser importance, or losing the one of greater importance (the woman's).  This means that abortion should be banned once the fetus can be seen as a separate life, unless necessary for the mother's health." Human life is nothing compared to the sanctity of the mind and the magnificence of cerebral processing. There is no life without a unique persona that can experience the existence.
"Quite a different tone taken than that which you took earlier.  I would agree with this - it is philosophically sound, so long as the turning point between the two starts at the time the fetus/embryo becomes a distinct 'life.'" Good, common ground. I think so too, but this is something that should take shape from a current situation, not a compromise that should be eked out of a situation where abortions are banned.
"That education should be in voluntary, private situations.  Private education > public education." I think that a sensible society makes sure that people are aware and comfortable with the most fundamental part of their persona. I wouldn't want my daughter to date a boy without any idea of gender equality who thinks that sex is 'filthy-dirty'. I think this is a cultural, not academical, problem.
"They will improve faster if you let the free market run its course (support the libertarian party)." It has not been the governments job so far, and the free market is very free in America already (it is not free enough).
"Err... I don't understand you.  If this is what you, AS WELL as what most of the pro-lifers want (as you say), what is stopping you from approaching this situation in this light?" Not making myself clear, I guess. The situation in South Dakota is not sound, not utilitarian, not ethically, not morally, not philosophically and not sociologically sound. Yet that is what most of the the pro-lifers want and I've established that a society can't have that. A mixture of abortions, ethical and unethical, are more acceptable than no abortions at all. Keep at it, Cecilia Fire Thunder. Fuck them up.

>>332
"Otherwise we would have to ban menstruations too."

We've been over this already.  There is a huge difference between an egg, a sperm, an embryo, and a developing human being (fetus).  We wouldn't need to do anything about menstruations. 

"Who feels the organs take form and pulse?"

Yes, human organs forming would be a huge step toward becoming 'human'. 

"Human life is nothing compared to the sanctity of the mind and the magnificence of cerebral processing."

This is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter what 'human life is compared to...blah'  whatever human life is, it is the proper function of good government to defend it.  The only room for debate lies in the question 'when does life begin'.  At that point, that life gets government protection, period. 

"There is no life without a unique persona that can experience the existence."

I disagree.

"I think that a sensible society makes sure that people are aware and comfortable with the most fundamental part of their persona."

Sensible societies don't extort money from their neighbors at the point of government guns and bayonets for programs which are of debatable value.  The proper function of government is to defend life, liberty, and property.  If, for whatever reason, pro-lifers have moral qualms with these programs, as they aren't necessary for the furtherance of life, liberty, and property rights, it is not within the functions of a good government to have these programs.  This isn't to say said programs wouldn't exist - they would just be handled by the private sector. 

"I wouldn't want my daughter to date a boy without any idea of gender equality who thinks that sex is 'filthy-dirty'."

Were you talking about your daughter, or the boy?

If you were talking about your daughter, then send her to a private school so she gets a superior education, or you can always educate her yourself. 

And if you were talking about the boy...

It isn't right for you to determine what ideas are acceptable for others to hold.  The boy should be allowed to view sex as a filthy activity if he wants.

"It has not been the governments job so far, and the free market is very free in America already (it is not free enough)."

I agree.  The liberals won't help here.  Support the libertarians, if you really want this end, since they are the only party that supports it as well.  The market in the USA is only 'free' relative to other nations and countries of the world.  We are far, far from being 'libertarian', though we once were.. more or less.  Right now, the USA is a mixed economy at best, and a socialist economy at worst. 

"A mixture of abortions, ethical and unethical, are more acceptable than no abortions at all."

I guess this is where we disagree then.  If I had the choice of all abortions allowed or none, I'd take none in a heartbeat.  It isn't right to penalize the human fetuses involved in unethical abortions - sacrificing their right to live for the sake of allowing some other abortions that could have been prevented cheaply and easilly had certain preventative measures been taken.

"We've been over this already.  There is a huge difference between an egg, a sperm, an embryo, and a developing human being (fetus).  We wouldn't need to do anything about menstruations." Only difference is number of chromosomes.
"The only room for debate lies in the question 'when does life begin'.  At that point, that life gets government protection, period." But life lies not in the activity of organs, but in the mind.
"I disagree." Then we are currently irreconcilable.
"It isn't right for you to determine what ideas are acceptable for others to hold.  The boy should be allowed to view sex as a filthy activity if he wants." Good idea. I'll tell my daughter to shun such retards, and I'll fight tooth and nail to make the democrats give her the liberty to arm herself, despite their current position.
"I guess this is where we disagree then.  If I had the choice of all abortions allowed or none, I'd take none in a heartbeat.  It isn't right to penalize the human fetuses involved in unethical abortions - sacrificing their right to live for the sake of allowing some other abortions that could have been prevented cheaply and easilly had certain preventative measures been taken." But the only people that shun all abortions are those that make unwanted pregnancies more common and harm many liberties. That does not compute with me.
I guess it is my lot to try to reconcile the left with libertarianism in the future, but it will be a difficult transition.

>>334
"I'll tell my daughter to shun such retards, and I'll fight tooth and nail to make the democrats give her the liberty to arm herself, despite their current position."
OH GOD NO, DON'T BORE HER TO DEATH PLEASE, DON'T SPREAD THE HORROR

>>335 So telling my daughter to be wary of guys who don't have common sense about their dicks and trying to make the democrats better make me a shrill feminist evil manipulator who hate men or something? Get a grip.

>>334
"Only difference is number of chromosomes."

Are the chromosomes not different that come from men and women? Well, whatever, it is quite redundant, since it is not technically 'human' life, and thus it is not the duty to protect it.  Once joined, the debate over life begins.  This 'we should ban menstruation and scratching off skin cells' bit is just ridiculous.  Even if the difference WAS just number of chromosomes, it is clearly a significant difference, because the difference is enough to create a living, sentient, individual life.  Again, anyhow, since it isn't technically 'human' then it isn't the government's duty to 'ban menstruation' as you say. 

"But life lies not in the activity of organs, but in the mind."

Debatable.  This would depend on what your concept of 'life' is.

"Good idea. I'll tell my daughter to shun such retards, and I'll fight tooth and nail to make the democrats give her the liberty to arm herself, despite their current position."

And I'll back you 100%.

"But the only people that shun all abortions are those that make unwanted pregnancies more common and harm many liberties. That does not compute with me."

If you recall, the question was whether or not I would ban all abortions, or ban none, provided those were my only two options.    The right to life is just as essential and to be protected as the right to liberty. 

"I guess it is my lot to try to reconcile the left with libertarianism in the future, but it will be a difficult transition."

Voting for the libertarian party will encourage the liberals to adopt a more 'libertarian' outlook.  As soon as the liberals see that there is votes to be had in the ideas of liberty, they will change their party position on liberty, unless they don't care whether or not they get elected.

Doing so will also encourage the republican party to adopt a more 'libertarian' outlook.  Double win.

"Would it be OK with you to abort a baby the day before it could be born naturally?"

Your use situations that NEVER happen causes your own defeat. There is NO SUCH THING as an abortion occuring the day before the fetus is born. Abortions before the day it is born NEVER HAPPENS.

"Explain to me, how and why you think the brain doesn't develop until the second the baby happens to be squeezed out of the woman's body?"

It already has been scientifically proven that the cerebrum (the area of the brain responsible for thought and conscious) doesn't start developing until the seventh month in the third trimester (third trimester abortions count for less than 1% of abortions in America, and are only done under medical circumstances). Even then, it is only a VERY small fragment of a concious, even after birth the brain is still highly undeveloped. I'm not advocating my abortion position, I'm just laying out the cold, hard facts.

"there is another human whose rights are to be considered."

A fetus isn't an actual human 'being', potential life doesn't have rights. Rights pertain to what is already here, living and breathing. Like you or me. If you are going to give rights to the potential, then you are essentially giving sperm and ovums rights as well, as they have the ability to become potential fetuses when joined.

"at which time certain parental rights ARE to be subjugated before the right of the fetus to live"

A woman's rights superceed that of the fetus' - which has no rights.

"If it is technically 'human', and it is alive, it is the proper function of government to protect it, regardless of whether or not that faculty is what distances a human from a lump of flesh."

It still isn't an actual human 'being' or person like you or me. What separates those whom are already here, and potential fetuses is personhood. A fetus doesn't have personhood, it has no concious. It is a lump of flesh and tissue until it develops the necessary thought processes for personhood, which doesn't develop as I said until the seventh month in the third trimester when it even gets a fragment of a cerebrum.

"There's a lot more abortions happening than you think.  I think pro-lifers have quite a lot more reason to be angry than pro-choicers."

The vast majority (93%) of abortions occur during the embryo stage before it becomes a fetus (at 23 weeks). An embryo is indeed no more than a lump of flesh. Nothing to worry about.

>>276
>>277
Pro-lifers have a lot to worry about than what you think.

"The situation in South Dakota is not sound, not utilitarian, not ethically, not morally, not philosophically and not sociologically sound. Yet that is what most of the the pro-lifers want and I've established that a society can't have that. A mixture of abortions, ethical and unethical, are more acceptable than no abortions at all. Keep at it, Cecilia Fire Thunder. Fuck them up."

Cecilia Fire Thunder is an awesome name..

"If you recall, the question was whether or not I would ban all abortions, or ban none, provided those were my only two options.    The right to life is just as essential and to be protected as the right to liberty"

What about the woman's right to her own life? The woman's right-to-life superceeds that of the fetus', which again, has no rights since it isn't an actual person. Also it is the woman's right to her own life that allows her to have an abortion if she feels the need to. You are subjugating women to be nothing more than incubators and will let those with complications die. Killing a woman just for the sake of the fetus is utterly absurd. Then again, there's a great chance that the fetus will die along with the mother. So you'll have two deaths on your hands..not really 'pro-life' if I must say. Nulling abortion entirely fails.

"It already has been scientifically proven that the cerebrum (the area of the brain responsible for thought and conscious) doesn't start developing until the seventh month in the third trimester (third trimester abortions count for less than 1% of abortions in America, and are only done under medical circumstances). Even then, it is only a VERY small fragment of a concious, even after birth the brain is still highly undeveloped. I'm not advocating my abortion position, I'm just laying out the cold, hard facts." Well, then that is settled, and this shows that most pro-lifers value an uncommonly complicated and intricate facility of cells over a human with a MIND, that unfathomably intricate process and state that is required to experience the corporal, physical world, i.e. life.
"A fetus isn't an actual human 'being', potential life doesn't have rights. Rights pertain to what is already here, living and breathing. Like you or me. If you are going to give rights to the potential, then you are essentially giving sperm and ovums rights as well, as they have the ability to become potential fetuses when joined." My skin cells have the same genetical complexity of an entire foetus, so I would not be able to scratch myself if life begins at conception. However, if the foetus has gained a unique persona, neither I nor the mother can claim superiority. Saying that the foetus is a leech of nutrients, not giving anything to society or not having advanced faculties is not sufficient, because if you universalized that we would have to kill the mentally challenged and all hobos we can find.
"A woman's rights superceed that of the fetus' - which has no rights." Up until the foetus has a human mind. I know the woman is the one offering the nutrients, but then she shouldn't have waited that long. On the other hand, the politicians who are against abortions are usually the ones that make abortion clinics, sex education and birth control so scarce, so it's not surprising that there are so many poor single mothers. Maybe we could raise the minimum wages? Nah, then we'd all die and the muslims would win.
"The vast majority (93%) of abortions occur during the embryo stage before it becomes a fetus (at 23 weeks). An embryo is indeed no more than a lump of flesh. Nothing to worry about." Finally. Facts. 338 > me.
"Cecilia Fire Thunder is an awesome name..." So is Rebeykah. And Marlon. And Iesaiah. And Quentin. So many cool names to choose from. I actually want to get a kid just so I can give it a sweet name (kidding).
"What about the woman's right to her own life? The woman's right-to-life superceeds that of the fetus', which again, has no rights since it isn't an actual person. Also it is the woman's right to her own life that allows her to have an abortion if she feels the need to. You are subjugating women to be nothing more than incubators and will let those with complications die. Killing a woman just for the sake of the fetus is utterly absurd. Then again, there's a great chance that the fetus will die along with the mother. So you'll have two deaths on your hands..not really 'pro-life' if I must say. Nulling abortion entirely fails." I still think that if a woman waits until the seventh month she has to suit herself... But I too think that nulling it is vile and stupid, because that is collective punishment, an insult to liberty of equal immorality *but greater scope* of having some bad abortions along with the acceptable ones. 7 % of abortions killing unborn human beings is nothing comparable to half of America's population being dehumanized. Especially when these 7 % occur in a nation where men have the upper hand, and most conservatives make decisions that make pregnancies, getting an abortion at embryonic/pre-cerebrum stages and the task of motherhood harder.

>>336
NO IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS INCREDIBLY BORING DISCUSSION, IT'S JUST SO FUCKING MIOSERABLY BORING SHE WOULD DIE OF BOREDOM AND BE LIKE ALL FUCKING GREY AND BORED TO DEATH OH MY GOD

>>338

"Your use situations that NEVER happen causes your own defeat."

It is a hypothetical situation which was used for the sake of driving home the point that life does indeed begin before the simple act of birth.  Whether or not it could happen or not is entirely beside the point, since it was a hypothetical situation used to exercise a point.

"There is NO SUCH THING as an abortion occuring the day before the fetus is born. Abortions before the day it is born NEVER HAPPENS."

Oh my god..

"It already has been scientifically proven that the cerebrum (the area of the brain responsible for thought and conscious) doesn't start developing until the seventh month in the third trimester"

Way to entirely dodge my question, yet make it seem like you answered it.

"Even then, it is only a VERY small fragment of a concious, even after birth the brain is still highly undeveloped. I'm not advocating my abortion position, I'm just laying out the cold, hard facts."

So, supposing 'life' was based on the brain to you, in these cases, it would only constitute partial-murder.  Well, I understand, that's not bad at all I guess.  Lets use 'em for crop fertilizer LOLOLOL!

"A fetus isn't an actual human 'being',"

It IS** an actual human 'life'.  It is the proper function of government to defend life**, liberty, and property.

"potential life doesn't have rights."

Whether or not it is a 'life' or not depends on what you define as 'life'.  The whole abortion debate stems from the question of when life begins. 

"Rights pertain to what is already here, living"

Human fetuses are already 'here'.  Unless to you life doesn't begin until the baby happens to be squeezed out of the woman's body? Get real.  Ok, so I guess fetuses/babies/whatever just suddenly come to life like a light turns on at the flick of a switch as soon as they are jettisoned from the woman's body.

"Like you or me. If you are going to give rights to the potential,"

I'm not giving rights to the potential.  I'm giving rights to the actual.

"then you are essentially giving sperm and ovums rights as well,"

Go read my previous posts.  Are you trolling, or just trying to make this discussion last longer than it has to? This has been discussed enough.  Sperm and ovums aren't human lives.  Fetuses, depending possibly on how late in development they are, are.

"A woman's rights superceed that of the fetus' - which has no rights."

As soon as the fetus becomes 'alive', it has the right to live, period.  It is the proper function of government to defend this right.  The only room for debate lies in the question of 'when does 'life' begin'?

"It still isn't an actual human 'being' or person like you or me."

Totally irrelevant.  If it is a human life, it is the proper function of government to protect it.

"it has no concious."

I'm fairly sure this depends on how late in development it is.

"Nulling abortion entirely fails."

No, you fail.  Read what I said again - it is only provided I was given the choice between all abortions legal and unrestricted or no abortions legal period.  I wasn't advocating banning abortion entirely.  I was saying that - given the choice between a completely pro-life situation, and a completely pro-choice situation, I would take the former.

>>339
"It already has been scientifically proven that the cerebrum (the area of the brain responsible for thought and conscious) doesn't start developing until the seventh month in the third trimester"

Whether or not an abortion at a given point in fetal/embryonic development should be allowed or not should be dependant upon when you think life begins.  If you think that life begins when it is 'conscious' then up until this point, abortions would possibly be reasonable.  If not, they wouldn't be.

"Even then, it is only a VERY small fragment of a concious, even after birth the brain is still highly undeveloped."

It is present, and consciousness has been attained.  What are you asking for now, the ability to kill already-born babies on the grounds that their brains are 'still highly undeveloped'? Considering the position of many liberals, this wouldn't surprise me.

"Well, then that is settled, and this shows that most pro-lifers value an uncommonly complicated and intricate facility of cells over a human with a MIND"

Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception, by definition.  From this standpoint, banning abortion entirely is justified.

"A fetus isn't an actual human 'being',"

But if it is a human 'life', it is the proper function of government to protect it. 

"Rights pertain to what is already here, living and breathing. Like you or me."

The USA was founded upon a few principles and ideas; one of which was that the proper function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property.  Those who advocate the government fullfills these roles in their entirely are advocating good government.  Whether or not the 'life' is inside, or outside of the woman, is completely redundant.

"My skin cells have the same genetical complexity of an entire foetus, so I would not be able to scratch myself if life begins at conception."

Irrelevant.  Skin cells don't = developing human lives with consciousness.

"Saying that the foetus is a leech of nutrients, not giving anything to society or not having advanced faculties is not sufficient, because if you universalized that we would have to kill the mentally challenged and all hobos we can find."

This has been discussed as well.  You are wrong.  The facts are that the actions of the woman put the fetus in the situation it is in in which it cannot be removed from her body without dieing.  Saying you can remove or abort it before it can survive on its own is like saying I should be able to drag a friend of mine onto a ship against his will, sail off into the ocean, and then throw him off my ship.

"Up until the foetus has a human mind. I know the woman is the one offering the nutrients, but then she shouldn't have waited that long."

Thank you!

"On the other hand, the politicians who are against abortions are usually the ones that make abortion clinics, sex education and birth control so scarce, so it's not surprising that there are so many poor single mothers."

Simply because they are scarce does not mean they are unattainable.  I don't care how scarce abortion clinics are.  There have been many opportunities to prevent this situation.  If handled in the first place with adequate contracpetion, it would be handled in the cheapest and most convenient manner.  If you were irresponsible enough to screw around and put yourself in jeopardy of becoming pregnant due to not using adequate contraceptives, you put yourself in that situation... and then to further suggest that there is any justification AT ALL in allowing women late-term abortions as they please even after the fetus has become sentient is just ridiculous to me.  They have been given so many opportunities to handle the situation up until that point, and if she didn't do it by then, tough shit.

"Maybe we could raise the minimum wages?"

Inconsistant with the ideas of proper government and liberty.

"The vast majority (93%) of abortions occur during the embryo stage before it becomes a fetus (at 23 weeks). An embryo is indeed no more than a lump of flesh."

This depends on when 'life' begins.

"I still think that if a woman waits until the seventh month she has to suit herself..."

Agreed.

"But I too think that nulling it is vile and stupid, because that is collective punishment,"

You offered the situation - all abortions or none, and in the same way collectively punishing women is wrong, collectively punishing live fetuses is wrong as well.  I went with the protection-of-fetuses route because the fetus had no choice whether to be there or not.  The woman did.  So thus, while collectively punishing the women is wrong as well, collectively punishing the fetuses by allowing all abortions is worse, since the fetuses had no say in their situation and the women did.  For clarity, I am not advocating this, nor is it my actual position on abortion.  This has been discussed already, and this is my response to a *hypothetical situation* offered me by Xel, unless I'm mistaken.

"7 % of abortions killing unborn human beings is nothing comparable to half of America's population being dehumanized."

I fail to see how you can say it is better to kill a huge number of human lives than to 'partially dehumanize' a segment of the US population.

"Especially when these 7 % occur in a nation where men have the upper hand,"

We have equal rights in the USA.

"and most conservatives make decisions that make pregnancies, getting an abortion at embryonic/pre-cerebrum stages and the task of motherhood harder."

Irrelevant.

>>342 Unique persona = Human being. I'll take that to some gestation specialist and try to figure out when that is possible. Some neuronic communication between flesh and the proprioceptive center of the brain is nothing compared to the sense of 'I', a cerebral appreciation of the corporal self. Until I got that down, I'll side with pro-life because a few dead humans isn't as horrible as the devaluation of half of American life. If you can't factualize something you go for what gives a net gain, even though it is crude. I've sprung roots on this position, I'm afraid.
"Irrelevant.  Skin cells don't = developing human lives with consciousness." So it's all about resemblance, or what? We can't let outward appearance dictate this. That can be classified as a tumor until there is a mind that has amassed a unique experience of the ovarian circumstances. Unique genotype is not enough, nor is the shape of the body. A unique mind, a sliver of 'I' must be protected.
Also, the decisions of politicians and the availability of birth control/sex ed/nearby clinics is NOT irrelevant, because no matter how much rightwingers demand that anyone can do anything in America with a little hard work it is gooblygook. You are less meritocratic than SWEDEN at the moment, who have above 50 % taxation and a gigantic public sector, for two. Equal rights is something women had to fight for against heavy opposition and demonizing, but that is nothing compared to the barriers in people's minds. Gender oppression is not only domestic abuse, gender oppression are innumerable, accumuluated problems that becomes very large the wider your scope. Legal equality did not suffice.

I've read that the factors that form the unique individual are interior and exterior in nature, proving that at some point before birth the organ of the mind receives input from the sensory apparati. Still far from enough.

>>343
"Until I got that down, I'll side with pro-life because a few dead humans isn't as horrible as the devaluation of half of American life."

I think you mean you side with '/pro-choice/', not with 'pro-life' as you said in your post.  Is this a typo?

Assuming it is, women wouldn't be dehumanized or devalued significantly by removing abortion alltogether.  Anyhow, if losing rights is your criteria for devaluization, I'd think that a handful of individuals losing their right to life would be of far greater significance in terms of 'dehumanization' or 'devaluization' than any insignificant losses on behalf of women for the sake of protecting unborn human lives.

"So it's all about resemblance, or what?"

No, not outward resemblance anyways.  I think abortion is morally questionable /at best/ if the fetus has even a sliver of consciousness or feeling, has a heartbeat & similar functions in other organs running properly, etc.

"Also, the decisions of politicians and the availability of birth control/sex ed/nearby clinics is NOT irrelevant,"

It is irrelevant.  If it is a human life, it has a right to live, and this has nothing to do with the outside world, and decisions made by those in it.

"because no matter how much rightwingers demand that anyone can do anything in America with a little hard work it is gooblygook."

Maybe not anything, but within reason, its true.  America is far better country than you seem to think.  I suppose this may have something to do with your belief that free-will is non-existant.  Most americans don't share this view. 

"You are less meritocratic than SWEDEN at the moment,"

Who cares if you are a meritocratic country or not if your /rights/ are up in the air, so to speak? I firmly disagree with sacrificing freedom and rights for the sake of becoming more meritocratic, since even those who take advantage of the meritocratic values of a country wouldn't have the rights to that which they had worked for afterwards.  Property rights (human rights) are what we should be after, and meritocratic values should come second to that.

"Equal rights is something women had to fight for against heavy opposition and demonizing, but that is nothing compared to the barriers in people's minds."

Equal rights are already here.  The feminism movement is old, outdated, and needs to die - or at least to move to countries where women are /actually/ oppressed (note:  the USA isn't one of them.)

"Gender oppression is not only domestic abuse, gender oppression are innumerable, accumuluated problems that becomes very large the wider your scope. Legal equality did not suffice."

Abortion regulation doesn't = gender oppression.  In asking for unlimmited abortion rights, you'd be asking for the right to violate the rights of others, which is something that goes against the fundamental principles of liberty and justice. 

Feminism is justified still. I do not sway a micron on this.

>>346
There's a thread specifically for that.  Go post it there.

>>347 Anonny started that, actually.

>>346
>Feminism is justified still. I do not sway a micron on this.

Unless you can back it up already, you're only making an idiot of yourself.

>>349 Why do the American official seats have 15 % women, and Rwanda has 49 %. What is this the result of? This is not a dodge, because the answer one reaches by looking into this situation - is my answer.

"So, supposing 'life' was based on the brain to you, in these cases, it would only constitute partial-murder.  Well, I understand, that's not bad at all I guess.  Lets use 'em for crop fertilizer LOLOLOL!"

More so than just a mere brain, it also takes a MIND and a unique persona.

"It IS** an actual human 'life'.  It is the proper function of government to defend life**, liberty, and property."

Just the same as my skin cells are human life, so they should be protected as well from the government. But my skin cells aren't a human 'being', just as a fetus isn't a human 'being'. Protection comes for 'beings' with unique personas.

"Whether or not it is a 'life' or not depends on what you define as 'life'.  The whole abortion debate stems from the question of when life begins."

Wrong, abortion stems from the question of when 'personhood' begins.

"Human fetuses are already 'here'.  Unless to you life doesn't begin until the baby happens to be squeezed out of the woman's body? Get real.  Ok, so I guess fetuses/babies/whatever just suddenly come to life like a light turns on at the flick of a switch as soon as they are jettisoned from the woman's body."

But a human fetus isn't a human 'being', like you or me. Aside from that, to me, 'personhood', NOT life, begins when the fetus starts to develop a unique persona and personhood in the third trimester when the cerebrum begins to develop for thought processes. But even then, that's a very tiny fragment, even after birth the brain is still highly undeveloped.

"I'm not giving rights to the potential.  I'm giving rights to the actual."

A fetus isn't an actual human 'being'. It's a potential human 'being'. You are giving rights to the potential.

""A woman's rights superceed that of the fetus' - which has no rights."

As soon as the fetus becomes 'alive', it has the right to live, period.  It is the proper function of government to defend this right.  The only room for debate lies in the question of 'when does 'life' begin'?"

If you are speaking in terms of when it develops a unique persona, then read what I said above. The government may protect it then, but it also may not cause endangerment to the woman, whose rights superceed that of the fetus. A living, breathing, voting, woman's right to her own life always superceed that of the potential. You can't sacifice the rights of the woman in favor of a fetus with no unique persona. Unlike a fetus, the woman has a MIND.

"No, you fail.  Read what I said again - it is only provided I was given the choice between all abortions legal and unrestricted or no abortions legal period.  I wasn't advocating banning abortion entirely.  I was saying that - given the choice between a completely pro-life situation, and a completely pro-choice situation, I would take the former."
>>333
"I guess this is where we disagree then.  If I had the choice of all abortions allowed or none, I'd take none in a heartbeat."

" I wasn't advocating banning abortion entirely."

Right. LOL.

"I was saying that - given the choice between a completely pro-life situation, and a completely pro-choice situation, I would take the former."

Being in favor of a fetus over the well-being of a woman is entirely absurd. You aren't for 'life' if you're willing to sacrifice a woman's right to her life in favor of a potential fetus, which isn't a human 'being' like the woman is.

"It is present, and consciousness has been attained.  What are you asking for now, the ability to kill already-born babies on the grounds that their brains are 'still highly undeveloped'? Considering the position of many liberals, this wouldn't surprise me."

You said that, not me. I never even thought of such a thing. Aside from that, a baby is a human 'being', it has rights, and it has a unique persona, and it has a MIND. It would be murder to kill a baby.

"Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception, by definition.  From this standpoint, banning abortion entirely is justified."

Quite a fucking lame justification, to be in favor of a flawed ideological stance in place of a woman's right to her life. So I guess to you women are nothing more but mindless human incubators, which wouldn't surprise me from your position. So you're willing to let women and mothers die. LOL.

"Whether or not the 'life' is inside, or outside of the woman, is completely redundant."

This whole 'life' crap is getting redundant as well. What matters is personhood, a unique persona, and the mind and when it develops. Scientifically, this has already been solved, seventh month in the third trimester when fragments of the cerebrum finally starts to develop and emit genuine human brain waves.

"This has been discussed as well.  You are wrong.  The facts are that the actions of the woman put the fetus in the situation it is in in which it cannot be removed from her body without dieing.  Saying you can remove or abort it before it can survive on its own is like saying I should be able to drag a friend of mine onto a ship against his will, sail off into the ocean, and then throw him off my ship."

But the fetus doesn't have a will nor mind like the guy whom got thrown off the ship.

""Up until the foetus has a human mind. I know the woman is the one offering the nutrients, but then she shouldn't have waited that long."

Thank you!"

I have to agree here, unless the woman was having one hell of a time trying to find an abortion clinic, had to do lengthly travel, or had to face lengthly waiting periods that could've threw her into the next trimester. But from another standpoint, statistically, women who do have late abortions were expectant mothers, but whose fetuses developed a severe abnormality, or her health/life was in danger.

""On the other hand, the politicians who are against abortions are usually the ones that make abortion clinics, sex education and birth control so scarce, so it's not surprising that there are so many poor single mothers."

Simply because they are scarce does not mean they are unattainable.  I don't care how scarce abortion clinics are.  There have been many opportunities to prevent this situation.  If handled in the first place with adequate contracpetion, it would be handled in the cheapest and most convenient manner.  If you were irresponsible enough to screw around and put yourself in jeopardy of becoming pregnant due to not using adequate contraceptives, you put yourself in that situation... and then to further suggest that there is any justification AT ALL in allowing women late-term abortions as they please even after the fetus has become sentient is just ridiculous to me.  They have been given so many opportunities to handle the situation up until that point, and if she didn't do it by then, tough shit."

Thank you for admitting that your own 'pro-life' committee are the ones responsible making sex education and birth control so scarce. Thank you for admitting that your committee are also the ones responsible for making more unnecessary abortions due to the lack of availability of birth control and sex-ed.

"If handled in the first place with adequate contracpetion, it would be handled in the cheapest and most convenient manner."

Hard to find birth control in the when your own committee is making them so scarce and hard to obtain in the first place.

""I still think that if a woman waits until the seventh month she has to suit herself..."

Agreed."

Agreed as well, with input from above.

""7 % of abortions killing unborn human beings is nothing comparable to half of America's population being dehumanized."

I fail to see how you can say it is better to kill a huge number of human lives than to 'partially dehumanize' a segment of the US population."

52% is a rather large 'segment' if you ask me. A fetus isn't a human 'being' with a unique persona like a woman is. It would be slavery to dehumanize all women.

"We have equal rights in the USA."

By Federal level, yes. But there is still a lot more work to be done at the state level. Such as employers discriminating against expectant mothers.

"Assuming it is, women wouldn't be dehumanized or devalued significantly by removing abortion alltogether.  Anyhow, if losing rights is your criteria for devaluization, I'd think that a handful of individuals losing their right to life would be of far greater significance in terms of 'dehumanization' or 'devaluization' than any insignificant losses on behalf of women for the sake of protecting unborn human lives."

This guy just doesn't give a damn about women. I guess women aren't human beings but carriers by his standpoint.

""Also, the decisions of politicians and the availability of birth control/sex ed/nearby clinics is NOT irrelevant,"

It is irrelevant.  If it is a human life, it has a right to live, and this has nothing to do with the outside world, and decisions made by those in it."

It is relevant since your committee is making birth control and contraceptives harder to find and more expensive, thus in turn, there will be a rise in the number of unwanted pregnancies. Are you also saying that you're against contraceptives? Seems like it to me.
Also it is inside the woman, parasitically living off her nutrients and shitting in her bloodsteam. The women may decide what lives and what may not live inside her.

>>351 Seconded.

Oh, here are a bunch of pro-lifers who are infiltrating poor, black neighbourhoods with anti-condom, pro-abstinence propaganda. At the same time, they are trying to make sure the same black girls they are telling "Abortion is evul!!" don't have any institutions to help them in motherhood. That's nice for them and the kids. "Americans" like these make me even more pro-gun, because then there is a chance I'll meet them while carrying. And then I can murder them.

>>352 Oh fucks forgot link. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ABORTION_INNER_CITIES?SITE=MTBIL&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

>>350
I'm sorry, but you'll have to answer the question too. I'd say it's the result of women not having equal rights some decades ago and it will normalize over time, should women in the US be interested in becoming politicians, since they have equal rights now.

What's your answer?

Boring.

>>354 Today's girls are facing the same cultural and sociological borders, whether they are 45 or enrolling in high school. The problems decrease in size, but slowly and not in nature. Feminism should be very little about sweeping changes, because the situation calls for more specific, surgical alteration of culture. Shame many feminists don't follow that idea.

>>356
"Today's girls are facing the same cultural and sociological borders, whether they are 45 or enrolling in high school."

No they aren't.

"The problems decrease in size, but slowly and not in nature."

There aren't problems.  They have equal rights.

"Feminism should be very little about sweeping changes, because the situation calls for more specific, surgical alteration of culture."

There is nothing wrong with the situation we have now.  Women have equal rights.

"Shame many feminists don't follow that idea."

We have equal rights.  If they did, it would just be a whole lot of pointless bitching for nothing.

OH GOD THE BOREDOM, JUST STOP POSTING

>>358
I think a better solution would be for you to just stop reading it.

>>359
IM NOT SELFISH, I FEEL COMPASSION FOR THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE TYPING HUEG PARAGRAPHS LIKE XBOX ON THIS GAY DEAD SUBJECT THAT NO ONE CARES ABOUT

>>351

"More so than just a mere brain, it also takes a MIND and a unique persona."

It doesn't take a unique persona.

"Just the same as my skin cells are human life, so they should be protected as well from the government. But my skin cells aren't a human 'being', just as a fetus isn't a human 'being'. Protection comes for 'beings' with unique personas."

This has been addressed already.  Please stop bringing it up.  There are vast differences between your skin cells and nearly developed human beings (fetuses).  This skin cell comparison is redundant.

"Wrong, abortion stems from the question of when 'personhood' begins."

No, when 'life' begins.  Or, to be more specific:  'human-life'.  It is the proper function of government to protect human life, liberty, and property. 

"But a human fetus isn't a human 'being', like you or me."

It is enough like one to warrant banning it depending on how late in development is.  With this in mind, I firmly oppose you liberals wanting abortion on demand, regardless of how late in development the fetus is.

"Aside from that, to me, 'personhood', NOT life, begins when the fetus starts to develop a unique persona and personhood in the third trimester when the cerebrum begins to develop for thought processes."

Redundant.  It is the proper function of good government to protect LIFE, liberty, and property.

"A fetus isn't an actual human 'being'. It's a potential human 'being'. You are giving rights to the potential."

As soon as it can be considered a 'human-life' it IS an actual, and it is the proper function of good government to protect it.

"A woman's rights superceed that of the fetus' - which has no rights."

Unless the human fetus is considered to be late enough in development that it is a 'human-life' at which point it is the proper function of good government to protect it. 

"If you are speaking in terms of when it develops a unique persona, then read what I said above."

I am not.  I am speaking in terms of when it can be considered a 'human-life'.  At this point, it is the duty of good government to protect it. 

"A living, breathing, voting, woman's right to her own life always superceed that of the potential."

We aren't talking about the rights of the 'potential,' we are talking about the rights of the 'actual', so long as the human fetus is old enough and late enough in development that it may be considered a 'human-life', it is the proper function of government to protect it. 

"I guess this is where we disagree then.  If I had the choice of all abortions allowed or none, I'd take none in a heartbeat."

YES.  THAT was in response to a hypothetical situation offered me by XEL.  It has -NOTHING- to do with my position on abortion at all.  All it means, is that provided I was in that said situation, I would pick no abortions allowed, rather than ALL, due to the the number of innocent human lives that would be lost in the process of handing over 'rights' to women.  It is wrong to punish this minority of individuals.

"Right. LOL."

'LOL'? I guess you can't read, or have very poor comprehension.  I wasn't advocating the ban of abortions entirely.  I was saying that, put in a hypothetical situation where I was given the choice of being forced to choose between allowing ALL abortions, or allowing NONE, I would take NONE.  (NOTE FOR THE SLOW:  This only applies to this /hypothetical/ situation.)

It should be noted that nobody is jumping all over XEL saying he would allow ALL abortions ENTIRELY, because this is a hypothetical situation that has very little to do with his *actual position* on abortion that he takes *outside of this hypothetical situation*, claiming he wants total, unrestricted right to abortion even up until the baby is born, because again, this was a *hypothetical situation* and is not what he *actually wants* for the -=actual situation=-...

"Being in favor of a fetus over the well-being of a woman is entirely absurd."

I'm in favor of the defense of human life, as long as fetuses are old enough to be considered human lives, period.  Even XEL agrees with me here.

"You aren't for 'life' if you're willing to sacrifice a woman's right to her life in favor of a potential fetus, which isn't a human 'being' like the woman is."

If you are talking about the **hypothetical situation** kindly read my previous comments again.  If you aren't talking about that hypothetical situation, then you should note that I have *special exceptions* already laid out for late term abortions.  What is wrong with you? Is your comprehension this bad that you didn't pick up on this yet?  We aren't talking about a 'potential fetus', we are talking about -human lives-.  I am only talking about fetuses late enough in development that they are to be considered -human lives-.  If you advocate abortion even this late, that is just sick, and not even XEL agrees with you here, and hell, he was the one who came long with the whole 'continue making smoothies and crop fertilizer' out of them line of statements.  I can only wonder at how extreme you are.

"You said that, not me."

Since you advocate abortion even when the human brain is partially developed, and you are now making comments about how already-born babies brains aren't entirely developed, well... who knows. 

"Aside from that, a baby is a human 'being', it has rights, and it has a unique persona, and it has a MIND. It would be murder to kill a baby."

Good that you are at least willing to admit that.  I still fail to see what difference it makes whether that baby happens to be inside, or outside the womb, but OK. 

"Quite a fucking lame justification, to be in favor of a flawed ideological stance in place of a woman's right to her life."

It is flawed ideologically -to you- since you apparently don't think life begins at conception.  To them, it does though, so it isn't.

"So I guess to you women are nothing more but mindless human incubators,"

How did you arrive at *THIS* conclusion? I never said anything of the kind.  I have a mother, a sister, and female friends in my life whom I respect just as I do anyone else.

"which wouldn't surprise me from your position. So you're willing to let women and mothers die. LOL."

I never said that.  Put more words in my mouth plz! In fact, quite the contrary, I said abortions should be allowed when medically necessary, so long as they are done in a humane manner. 

"This whole 'life' crap is getting redundant as well."

No it isn't.  The proper function of good government is to defend life, liberty, and property.  It is only redundant if you don't think one of the proper functions of government is defense of life.

"What matters is personhood, a unique persona, and the mind and when it develops."

No, human life is what matters.  The proper function of government is to defend **LIFE**, liberty, and property. 

"But the fetus doesn't have a will nor mind like the guy whom got thrown off the ship."

You missed out on one small detail:  if it is alive, and it can be considered a 'human-life', then it is to be protected as said above, by law.  This is the function of a good government.

"I have to agree here, unless"

So humans have a right to live, to you, unless....

"the woman was having one hell of a time trying to find an abortion clinic,"

I see, so the right of humans to live is dependent upon whether or not the woman is able to find an abortion clinic or not. 

"had to do lengthly travel,"

LOL, you will even destroy the life of other humans to live if the woman had to endure 'lengthy travel' to an abortion clinic!  You must have quite low regard for human life.

"or had to face lengthly waiting periods that could've threw her into the next trimester."

The waiting periods were in place already.  If she waited long enough for a small waiting period to throw her over into the next trimester, and the baby comes alive in that period of time, that's tough shit.  If you waited that long, I blame you, period. 

"But from another standpoint, statistically, women who do have late abortions were expectant mothers, but whose fetuses developed a severe abnormality,"

I see, so we should kill people who are *already alive* who have severe abnormalities.  You must love cripples.

"Thank you for admitting that your own 'pro-life' committee are the ones responsible making sex education and birth control so scarce."

Thank you for admitting that you would remove the right to life of humans who have abnormalities.

Birth control is widely availible.  If it isn't, you shouldn't be having sex until you get your hands on some.

"Hard to find birth control in the when your own committee is making them so scarce and hard to obtain in the first place."

Whether or not the republicans make birth control difficult to find or not is besides the point that human life should be defended by the government, period.

"Agreed as well, with input from above."

Sounds like you are saying 'I agree human lives should be protected but......' which really doesn't mean much to me.

"52% is a rather large 'segment' if you ask me. A fetus isn't a human 'being' with a unique persona like a woman is."

The situation given involves all fetuses - including those that could be considered human lives who have the right to continue to live.  The question is whether or not to dehumanize a segment of the U.S. population, or to dehumanize **AND MURDER** another segment.  I'd pick the former, as it doesn't involve murder.

"By Federal level, yes. But there is still a lot more work to be done at the state level."

No there isn't.

"Such as employers discriminating against expectant mothers."

Employment should be entirely voluntary.  For someone who talks about liberty, freedom, and rights, to casually discuss forcing employers to hire mothers, is ridiculous to me.  Your ideas are absolutely inconsistent with freedom and liberty, and the foundation of America - freedom, liberty, and the right to life.  Employers have the freedom to hire or not hire whoever they want, for whatever reason they want.  This is as it should be.

"This guy just doesn't give a damn about women."

Yes I do.

"I guess women aren't human beings but carriers by his standpoint."

I never said this. 

"It is relevant since your committee is making birth control and contraceptives harder to find and more expensive,"

This has nothing to do with whether or not human lives have the right to government protection.  It is redundant.

"thus in turn, there will be a rise in the number of unwanted pregnancies."

Supposing people are irresponsible enough to have sex without finding contraceptives first.  If they are, its their fault.

"Are you also saying that you're against contraceptives? Seems like it to me."

No.  I never said I'm against contraceptives.  In fact, I've said I'm for them.  I am for no restrictions whatsoever on contraceptives. 

"Also it is inside the woman, parasitically living off her nutrients and shitting in her bloodsteam. The women may decide what lives and what may not live inside her."

My friend I dragged on my ship is parasitically eating the food I have on my ship, and shitting in my ship as well.  I guess I should have the freedom to throw him off into the deep sea.

"It is enough like one to warrant banning it depending on how late in development is.  With this in mind, I firmly oppose you liberals wanting abortion on demand, regardless of how late in development the fetus is"

I'm not a liberal, and I do not want abortion on demand.

"YES.  THAT was in response to a hypothetical situation offered me by XEL.  It has -NOTHING- to do with my position on abortion at all.  All it means, is that provided I was in that said situation, I would pick no abortions allowed, rather than ALL, due to the the number of innocent human lives that would be lost in the process of handing over 'rights' to women.  It is wrong to punish this minority of individuals."

I knew it was hypothetical, I just found it wrong and funny that you're chosing a fetus over a woman.

"Good that you are at least willing to admit that.  I still fail to see what difference it makes whether that baby happens to be inside, or outside the womb, but OK."

It is known as a fetus until birth. After birth it is then a baby.

""So I guess to you women are nothing more but mindless human incubators,"

How did you arrive at *THIS* conclusion? I never said anything of the kind.  I have a mother, a sister, and female friends in my life whom I respect just as I do anyone else.
"

I got it from this: "Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception, by definition.  From this standpoint, banning abortion entirely is justified."

"LOL, you will even destroy the life of other humans to live if the woman had to endure 'lengthy travel' to an abortion clinic!  You must have quite low regard for human life."

Women in rural and suburban areas do have an undue burden on them finding a clinic early enough.

"The waiting periods were in place already.  If she waited long enough for a small waiting period to throw her over into the next trimester, and the baby comes alive in that period of time, that's tough shit.  If you waited that long, I blame you, period."

It's even harder for a minor to find a clinic, due to legal process.

"I see, so we should kill people who are *already alive* who have severe abnormalities.  You must love cripples."

A severe, abnormal fetus is quite different from a cripple. Are you willing to let a mother give birth to a baby that will die moments later or harm her health/life? That'll be horrible for her to experience.

"Thank you for admitting that you would remove the right to life of humans who have abnormalities."

Irrelevant. A fetus isn't like an adult whose crippled/abnormal. Unlike the adult, who's already here and living, the fetus has a great chance of dieing from an abnormality and harming the woman.

"Birth control is widely availible.  If it isn't, you shouldn't be having sex until you get your hands on some."

It isn't that widely available. It also has grown more expensive and not all health insurance companies offer coverage for it. People are still going to have sex despite lack of availability and cost, it's just the way they are. The government should be responsible enough not to hinder availability in the first place, otherwise, it contradicts what they're doing. There will be more abortions.

"Whether or not the republicans make birth control difficult to find or not is besides the point that human life should be defended by the government, period."

Umm..wrong.. They don't want abortions, but at the same time they are making contraceptives harder to obtain and more expensive..which is what causes unwanted pregnancies, and thus more abortions. They are defeating themselves.

"Employment should be entirely voluntary.  For someone who talks about liberty, freedom, and rights, to casually discuss forcing employers to hire mothers, is ridiculous to me.  Your ideas are absolutely inconsistent with freedom and liberty, and the foundation of America - freedom, liberty, and the right to life.  Employers have the freedom to hire or not hire whoever they want, for whatever reason they want.  This is as it should be."

I'm talking about the women whom are already in the workplace, then became pregnant and wanted to become mothers. Employers discriminate against them.

"My friend I dragged on my ship is parasitically eating the food I have on my ship, and shitting in my ship as well.  I guess I should have the freedom to throw him off into the deep sea."

Then again, your friend isn't syphoning your nutrients from your body, then later, shitting into the same tube leading into your body.

>>362
"I'm not a liberal, and I do not want abortion on demand."

"I got it from this: "Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception, by definition.  From this standpoint, banning abortion entirely is justified."

What you apparently failed to realize, is that I am not pro-life, and don't believe 'human life' begins at conception.  This was another hypothetical for you.  Supposing life did begin at conception, banning abortion entirely WOULD be justified.  You seem to have trouble grasping the meaning of hypothetical situations, since you applied this to me, even though I've already said this has nothing to do with my *actual* position on the abortion issue, since I *don't* happen to believe life begins at conception. 

Furthermore, being 'pro-life' does not mean that one thinks of women as 'mindless human incubators.'  How would you come to the conclusion that the notion that the human lives of unborn humans must be protected from attack and violation by individuals entails thinking of those individuals as mindless incubators? Women are human beings with minds like everyone else.  This does not mean that they should have the right to destroy unborn human life as they please.

"Women in rural and suburban areas do have an undue burden on them finding a clinic early enough."

How on earth would the fact that they have an 'undue burden' placed upon them justify the destruction of another *INNOCENT* human's life?

"It's even harder for a minor to find a clinic, due to legal process."

You miss the point.  If she waited for a long enough span of time for a simple waiting period to throw her into the next trimester, that's too bad.  That's the result of *her* action, and at this point, violating the rights of the now-alive human fetus to continue to live is ridiculous and sick at best.

"I see, so we should kill people who are *already alive* who have severe abnormalities.  You must love cripples."

"A severe, abnormal fetus is quite different from a cripple. Are you willing to let a mother give birth to a baby that will die moments later"

You never specified that it will die moments later.  If proven that it will die moments later, it may be justified to kill it in the most humane manner possible.  However, this situation is different from your 'abnormalities' justification.  Yes, it could be considered an 'abnormality' but many other things could be considered 'abnormalities' as well, in which the killing would not be justified. 

"Irrelevant."

Not irrelevant.  You just admitted that you would be fine with removing the right to live of humans with abnormalities.  This is very discrediting to you and your positions. 

"A fetus isn't like an adult whose crippled/abnormal."

It is technically a human life, after it has developed to a certain point.  Call it like it is.  You just supported the killing of 'abnormal' human lives. 

"Unlike the adult, who's already here and living, the fetus has a great chance of dieing from an abnormality and harming the woman."

That depends on the abnormality, and you didn't specify any specific kind of abnormalities, so as a general rule, you just said it was just fine to kill it if it had a given 'abnormality.'  From this, I could interpret it to mean practically anything.  Hell, for all I know, if it was born with only four fingers on a hand, you'd be fine with killing it too.  That's an 'abnormality'.

"It isn't that widely available."

More availible than abortions.

"It also has grown more expensive and not all health insurance companies offer coverage for it."

Yeah condoms and birth control pills are real pricey.  I feel for you.  *sarcasm*

"People are still going to have sex despite lack of availability and cost, it's just the way they are."

No it isn't.  People can refrain from having sex.  You seem to think people are in no control of their actions, where they put their dick, or whether or not they let someone else put a dick in their vagina, which is absolutely ridiculous.  Are you saying abstinence is impossible? I could stop having sex for a year and prove to you it isn't.

"The government should be responsible enough not to hinder availability in the first place, otherwise, it contradicts what they're doing."

Availibility of contraceptives? If this is what you are saying, I agree, it shouldn't be irresponsible enough to hinder availibility in the first place.  HOWEVER, the fact that it has, or did, is no justification for killing human lives.

"There will be more abortions."

Not if we regulate it.  There will be *less.*

"Umm..wrong.."

No, *right.*  Human life deserves to be protected, and the right to life is an inalienable right that isn't dependent upon whether or not people have access to condoms or not.

"They don't want abortions, but at the same time they are making contraceptives harder to obtain and more expensive..which is what causes unwanted pregnancies,"

No.  If you live in an area and you don't get contraceptives, and you have sex anyway, *YOU* are causing the unwanted pregnancy.  The fact is is that the other factor is already in play, and you are committing an action that you *know* will result in an unwanted pregnancy.  The blame for unwanted pregnancies is to be placed upon irresponsible people.

"and thus more abortions. They are defeating themselves."

If they made abortion illegal, that would be that, and people would be forced to become more responsible thanks to the law, just like people are forced to not murder people, thanks to the law.  It is a deterrant.  While it doesn't prevent ALL murders, it *contributes* to keeping people from just murdering on a whim.

"I'm talking about the women whom are already in the workplace, then became pregnant and wanted to become mothers. Employers discriminate against them."

And it is their right to hire, or fire anyone they want, for whatever reason they want.  Anything short of that is a violation of their right to do as they wish with their property - one of the most fundamental human rights of all.

"Then again, your friend isn't syphoning your nutrients from your body, then later, shitting into the same tube leading into your body."

Allright, hypothetically, if I shot him with a tranquilizer, and using some magic made our bodies connected, strengthened my heart using some kind of magic so that it would have the strength to pump blood throughout our now connected bodies, and removed his heart, so he depended upon my vital organs for life, should I have the right to then remove him, killing him in the process?

Abortion is very similar, except it is done without magic.  The fetus is there due to the actions committed by those who agreed to have sex.  The fetus, like my friend in the example above, had no choice whether or not to be put in the situation it is now in, but is now dependent upon the person he/she is dependent upon due to the actions committed by the aforementioned people, like my friend. 

In either instance, it would clearly be wrong to give the person at fault the right to essentially terminate the other life that is effected. 

Last time I checked, procreation is the basis, no the actual goal of the human psyche. In a materialistic, sexualized country like America, people are going to have sex, it is a CONSTANT, not a variable, that can only be tampered with slightly. Drugs are a constant caused by many factors, and so is sex. When the right makes birth control harder to get to and say how abstinence is the key or else there will be STDs and whatnot, they presume it will have a dettering effect. Well, virginity pledges, the crusade on drugs and the Death Penalty was supposed to have that too. That worked out just swell! All those people in Africa are doing MINSTREL dancing of moral joy now that organisations that provide birth control and abortions are off America's foreign aid list! Sex will always be there, and the right is, as usual, making the results of this constant more negative and then blames it on Hollywood, feminism, secularism, i.e. the people. Americans are very stubborn; they started drinking despite all the ensuing social and medical problems simply in order to spite the government during the prohibition. They aren't consciously giving the finger to the government while fucking, but I believe the same sub-conscious factor applies.
Also, the government can't protect a woman's liberty and the baby's life at the same time, and the women outnumber the babies, resulting in a utilitarian choice (kill one dude, nine walk away or my execution squad will kill all ten) that I have already made. There is no agreed limit to when life starts, considering the many many parameters biologists use to evaluate life. If a fetus lacks some or many organic and biochemical facilities, it can not be classified as HUMAN life, or even life at all and limiting abortions then would mean valuing a technical animal (also a potential human if you consider that even a cat has the same biochemical foundation as us) over a living human being who will be mistreated by employers and financially disrupted once the child is born. You do not have the expertise to say when HUMAN life is cast-iron, but this means that I have pushed down the limit for abortions - from the onset of personhood to the onset of HUMAN life. That backfired on you.
America is not ready for single mothers now, and the influx that would result of a nation-wide ban would harm the economy. I've proven that a ban of abortions raise crime, so I still have the utilitarian edge. Then there is the fact that SD has banned abortions ENTIRELY, a breach of liberty and an all-or-nothing choice that will only make me more convinced that adequately sensible and compromising people like Anonymous are a minority of his side. If a victory for the pro-lifers means a situation like that for all America's women, then I will resort to protesting, extremism and, eventually, direct lethal force. The possibility of a nation-wide ban would force me to use my armaments against anybody who works to make that a reality; it would be like fighting off an invading, foreign force.

>>364
"Last time I checked, procreation is the basis, no the actual goal of the human psyche. In a materialistic, sexualized country like America, people are going to have sex, it is a CONSTANT, not a variable, that can only be tampered with slightly."

Bullshit.  People can stop having sex if they want.  You act like people have no will power or ability to exercise restraint, which is a joke at best.

"When the right makes birth control harder to get to and say how abstinence is the key or else there will be STDs and whatnot, they presume it will have a dettering effect."

If you are responding to my post, and my argument, again, I disagree.  It is possible for people to show restraint.  **If you aren't responding to what I said earlier, kindly ignore this.**

"Well, virginity pledges, the crusade on drugs and the Death Penalty was supposed to have that too."

The crusade on drugs is supported by the dems as well.

"That worked out just swell! All those people in Africa are doing MINSTREL dancing of moral joy now that organisations that provide birth control and abortions are off America's foreign aid list!"

First of all, foreign aid in general sucks, so this is good.  Secondly, tax-funded abortions are not in any way morally sound or in accordance with the values of liberty, whether they occur here, or in some country receiving our foreign aid money. 

"Sex will always be there, and the right is, as usual, making the results of this constant more negative and then blames it on Hollywood, feminism, secularism, i.e. the people."

What the hell do you mean by 'sex is a constant'? Sex is not something that is unable to be stopped.  People COULD practice abstinence.

"Americans are very stubborn; they started drinking despite all the ensuing social and medical problems simply in order to spite the government during the prohibition."

This kind of thing makes me damn proud to be an american.

"Also, the government can't protect a woman's liberty and the baby's life at the same time, and the women outnumber the babies, resulting in a utilitarian choice"

Fuck utilitiarianism.  Sacrificing the rights of one group for the benefit of another group is not justified.  If it was, why would we as americans not take all of Bill Gates' money? It would be beneficial in a 'utilitarian' sense, no? We don't do it because it is -=wrong=-.  Humans aren't sacrificial animals whose rights are to be sacrificed for the community.

Also note:  the right to live is fundamental and inalienable.  The right of the women you describe is a right that pales in significance to the right to life.  If the right to life is jeopardized, all humanity suffers, including said women.

"If a fetus lacks some or many organic and biochemical facilities, it can not be classified as HUMAN life,"

It is 'human', and it is 'alive', thus it is a 'human-life'.

"or even life at all and limiting abortions then would mean valuing a technical animal (also a potential human if you consider that even a cat has the same biochemical foundation as us) over a living human being who will be mistreated by employers and financially disrupted once the child is born."

So because the woman will possibly suffer discrimination, we are going to give her the right to destroy human life?

"You do not have the expertise to say when HUMAN life is cast-iron, but this means that I have pushed down the limit for abortions - from the onset of personhood to the onset of HUMAN life. That backfired on you."

I don't see how.

"America is not ready for single mothers now, and the influx that would result of a nation-wide ban would harm the economy."

I don't see how.  Even if it did, this is redundant, since the human life has a right to continue to live, free from interference. 

"I've proven that a ban of abortions raise crime, so I still have the utilitarian edge."

Utilitarianism and the 'utilitiarian edge' is no excuse to sacrifice the rights and liberties of the few for the sake of the many. 

"and an all-or-nothing choice that will only make me more convinced that adequately sensible and compromising people like Anonymous are a minority of his side."

I'm not 'crompromising.'  Sensible, yes.  Compromising, no.  If I thought life began at conception, I would settle for nothing less than a full ban.  That's not saying I do think that, but I just want to let you know that 'compromise' is not something I'm willing to do if I know I'm right.  Moderation or supporting moderate views just on the grounds that they are moderate is stupid.  If done, you will invariably fuck yourself up somewhat.  Rather, you should support ideas based on their merit, not whether or not they are 'moderate' or involve 'compromise'.

>>364
Seconded.

>>365
You assume that anyone giving birth will provide a life for the fetus. Many in say, Africa, cannot, assuming both mother and child survive birth. Pregnancy is not always something that happens to healthy people who can provide. Nor does it always happen to girls/women who have developed physically that EITHER one of them could survive. Plenty of third world shit-holes out there where a guy can rape an 11 year old and just walk away. You really think the moral thing to do is give her a speach and prayer and leave it at that?
What about the kids who get to look forward to a brief life of scavenging for rats and flies? Would they necessarily thank you for that, especially since every new mouth to feed puts a strain on the others that is likely greater than the sum of its parts?
That being said, I would agree that late-term abortions in developed nations are likely happening on the whims of people who had "an accident" that they want to cover up, which is abhorrent.

As for sex, yes people can show restraint. Access to birth control (pill/shots/condoms) should not be denied anyone, as unwanted pregnancies should be avoided, since those who don't want or can't afford children likely make terrible parents, and adoption is overrated anyways: there is already a massive backlog that would take years to dissipitate even if humans stopped giving birht all together.

>>365 "Secondly, tax-funded abortions are not in any way morally sound or in accordance with the values of liberty, whether they occur here, or in some country receiving our foreign aid money." You are of course speaking of the unfathomable evil of making people pay for what they believe is immoral. If pro-lifers don't want tax-funded abortions because some of those abortions may be unethical, then I don't want to pay taxes at all because some of the money will be used on the crusade on drugs or the war on bad.
"People COULD practice abstinence." But they DON'T despite every effort to make them!
"This kind of thing makes me damn proud to be an american." Fuck yes, I consider this to be one of the best facets of the American mindset.
"Fuck utilitiarianism.  Sacrificing the rights of one group for the benefit of another group is not justified." Here, we have to make a utilitarian choice, since we can't eat the cake and have it too.
"If it was, why would we as americans not take all of Bill Gates' money?" Not comporting with the situation. In the real world, we *can't* have fetal rights and women's rights at the same time, while in your overused analogy taking Bill's money would require the removal of his birthright. The number of fertile women in America outnumber the number of fetuses who have passed a certain limit (which is still not set adequately). Since not every fertile woman in America is pregnant at any one time, the women always outnumber the fetuses who can conceivably be considered humans with unique lives. Even if they all were pregnant a number of fetuses would not be humans, and since we can't give group A AND group B their complete rights at the same time, we have to go with the majority.
"It is 'human', and it is 'alive', thus it is a 'human-life'. Those apostrophes are more important than you think, bub. Biologically, not every diploid is human life.
"The right of the women you describe is a right that pales in significance to the right to life." Denying abortion from women just because some abortions will take place once the foetus is human life is like making appendix removal illegal. Collective punishment.
"So because the woman will possibly suffer discrimination, we are going to give her the right to destroy human life?" If a society can not allow a woman to become a mother without harming her liberties, it does not have the right to force her to become a mother. And even if adoptions is a good option labor is *intensely* painful and hormonally upsetting.
"I don't see how." You said personhood wasn't the first prerequisite for human life, and then I explained that now the prerequisites were biological. Since humans breathe oxygen and children do not do that until nativity, fetuses are not human life until they are outside.
"Utilitarianism and the 'utilitiarian edge' is no excuse to sacrifice the rights and liberties of the few for the sake of the many." Your Gates analogy was not equitable to the issue. If you have to choose between the rights of Group A and Group B, and Group A always will outnumber Group B, what do you choose?
"I'm not 'crompromising.'  Sensible, yes.  Compromising, no.  If I thought life began at conception, I would settle for nothing less than a full ban.  That's not saying I do think that, but I just want to let you know that 'compromise' is not something I'm willing to do if I know I'm right.  Moderation or supporting moderate views just on the grounds that they are moderate is stupid.  If done, you will invariably fuck yourself up somewhat.  Rather, you should support ideas based on their merit, not whether or not they are 'moderate' or involve 'compromise'." I have not promoted a centrist stance, and I guess compromising was a poor choice of words. Nevertheless, the state-wide ban put through in SD has proven to me that I am up against people that make you look like Janet Reno.

>>368
Makes absolute sense. A complete riposte to >>365 . Well done. And in the language of the Internet..ARSE-FUCKING PWNT LOLOL.

>>369 It's not a complete fisking. Far from it, in fact. This issue is still open. Thank you a lot though.

>>367
"You assume that anyone giving birth will provide a life for the fetus."

The parents/mother are to be held responsible here.  If they abandon their child or something, jail them for child abuse, and locate a foster home, adoption center, ophanage, or something similar.  Those who abandoned the child can be put to work and their earnings can be sent to care for the child.  Problem solved.

"Pregnancy is not always something that happens to healthy people who can provide."

See above.  If they weren't ready to have children, they should have taken the steps necessary to prevent production of children needing to be cared for.  Hold them accountable. 

"Nor does it always happen to girls/women who have developed physically that EITHER one of them could survive. Plenty of third world shit-holes out there where a guy can rape an 11 year old and just walk away."

We are talking about the USA, and american laws, or at least I was.  The USA isn't a 'third world shithole' and that kind of behavior is not accepted here, so this is redundant.

"You really think the moral thing to do is give her a speach and prayer and leave it at that?"

See above.

"What about the kids who get to look forward to a brief life of scavenging for rats and flies? Would they necessarily thank you for that, especially since every new mouth to feed puts a strain on the others that is likely greater than the sum of its parts?"

I am not talking about third world nations and their laws.  I am talking about the United States of America and its laws.  We are far, far from a 'third world nation.'

"That being said, I would agree that late-term abortions in developed nations are likely happening on the whims of people who had "an accident" that they want to cover up, which is abhorrent."

We see eye to eye on this then.

"As for sex, yes people can show restraint. Access to birth control (pill/shots/condoms) should not be denied anyone,"

I agree.

"as unwanted pregnancies should be avoided, since those who don't want or can't afford children likely make terrible parents,"

I agree.

"and adoption is overrated anyways: there is already a massive backlog that would take years to dissipitate even if humans stopped giving birht all together."

I'm not quite sure what you are saying, and I don't think adoption is the sole solution to everything, but there are lots of willing and able parents who will take foster children.  As a libertarian-conservative, in order to provide more people able to care for the unaborted children, there would be more homes availible for non-aborted children if homosexuals were allowed to adopt children, and this is a freedom I wholeheartedly support.  The child needs loving parents, and I believe that this need can be fullfilled by a homosexual just as well as by a heterosexual.

>>368
"You are of course speaking of the unfathomable evil of making people pay for what they believe is immoral. If pro-lifers don't want tax-funded abortions because some of those abortions may be unethical, then I don't want to pay taxes at all because some of the money will be used on the crusade on drugs or the war on bad."

Then support the libertarian party, not the liberals.  The liberals won't end the War on Drugs for you, and will then throw your ass in jail for not paying your taxes down to the last penny, and will then proceed to take away everyones gun rights so if they feel like violating everyone's rights, and it comes down to a tyranny somewhere down the road, there's nothing you or anyone else could do about it anyway.

"But they DON'T despite every effort to make them!"

Right.  So I blame them.  They made the choice not to take the right action, so they should be held accountable for the same set of reasons a murderer should be held accountable for not making the right choices.

"Here, we have to make a utilitarian choice, since we can't eat the cake and have it too."

I disagree.  The rights of a few humans to their lives outweigh the 'rights' of a majority of women to an abortion.  One freedom is obviously of far greater importance, even if its instances are much less significant in number. 

"In the real world, we *can't* have fetal rights and women's rights at the same time,"

To a reasonable degree we can.  Women have equal rights.  They have the right to decide to have sex or not, to use contraceptives or not, or in general to do things or not.  The situation is entirely avoidable, and I don't see how their rights are being infringed in any significant or noteworthy way, especially in comparison to the infringements (albeit few) of the right to live.

"while in your overused analogy taking Bill's money would require the removal of his birthright."

Right.  And this relates to the discussion because you are talking about just sacrificing the lives of a few humans for the sake of a majority of women.  If we were to impliment your morality on a consistent basis it would lead us to the conclusion that we should loot Bill Gates' property, and take his money for the benefits of a greater number of people.  We don't do this because human beings aren't sacrificial animals to be sacrificed in the name of the benefits of the majority.  Similarly, human lives are not to be sacrificed for the sake of a far less important freedom of a given group, even if that group is far greater in number.

"The number of fertile women in America outnumber the number of fetuses who have passed a certain limit (which is still not set adequately)."

See comments above.

"Since not every fertile woman in America is pregnant at any one time, the women always outnumber the fetuses who can conceivably be considered humans with unique lives."

Again, see above.

"Even if they all were pregnant a number of fetuses would not be humans, and since we can't give group A AND group B their complete rights at the same time, we have to go with the majority."

See above.

"Biologically, not every diploid is human life."

I'm not trying to make that claim.  There's more to 'life' if you ask me than a complete set of chromosomes, but that isn't to say that sperm, eggs, skin cells, or any other of these kinds of things are to be considered human lives.  As I said - that isn't the *only* thing.  There are other things that I take into consideration as well.

"Denying abortion from women just because some abortions will take place once the foetus is human life is like making appendix removal illegal. Collective punishment."

Right, and is not just.  But neither is denying all humans the right to live for the sake of one group if one injustice is worse, which would also qualify as collective punishment.  The argument is which is worse - and I think that denying the right to life is a worse thing than to deny abortion, even if those effected would be of a smaller group.  One right is more important, and that is life. 

"If a society can not allow a woman to become a mother without harming her liberties, it does not have the right to force her to become a mother."

And if society cannot give women the right to have abortions without preventing destruction of legitimate human life, it does not have the right to give her abortions.  As said before and above - this is a degree of judgement.  The question is which injustice is worse, and I firmly agree that injustice against life is the worse of the two.

"And even if adoptions is a good option labor is *intensely* painful and hormonally upsetting."

Right, but the human fetus is not in its situation due to its own choice - the woman is.

"You said personhood wasn't the first prerequisite for human life, and then I explained that now the prerequisites were biological."

If it is the example I'm thinking of, I only disagreed with it in the context in which it was used, as I define 'personhood' a little differently.

"Since humans breathe oxygen and children do not do that until nativity, fetuses are not human life until they are outside."

And here I thought we had finally come to agreement... more or less.  I don't think 'humans' always breathe oxygen, as I think the unborn can be considered 'human' as well, depending on how late in development it is.  Simply breathing does not make one human, in my opinion, and supposing one could live without breathing somehow, it wouldn't make his life significantly less 'human' in nature to me.

"Your Gates analogy was not equitable to the issue."

Yes it was.

"If you have to choose between the rights of Group A and Group B, and Group A always will outnumber Group B, what do you choose?"

That depends on the significance of the rights to be abused.  Clearly, some rights are more important than others, and I have a rather high opinion of the right to life.

"I have not promoted a centrist stance, and I guess compromising was a poor choice of words. Nevertheless, the state-wide ban put through in SD has proven to me that I am up against people that make you look like Janet Reno."

Did you mean this to be derogatory to me? Janet Reno was a bitch in my opinion, but maybe you don't know of her what I do.

Just when I thought this thread was dead and buried. Oh well, here we go again! :D

>>368
Win

>>371
Lose

I'll scratch at this when I get back from work and taking a break afterwards. -yawns and stretches-

This thread is so extremely boring I might have to shoot myself in the face.

>>372

">>368
Win

>>371
Lose"

Fails for not explaining why.

"Just when I thought this thread was dead and buried. Oh well, here we go again! :D"

Nope, had an internet outage.  I will fight this one out until my hands are cracked and bloody if necessary.

Drug companies making the pills ... run by men. Insurance companies covering Viagra but not birth control pills ... run by men. The majority of lawmakers trying to outlaw abortion and other birth control options ... men. The major heads of the religious right funding these politicians ... men. Sex of the shooters that have killed abortion docs and/or bombed their clinics ... men. The heads of drugstores and the majority of pharmacists refusing to fill BC scripts and morning after scripts ... men. As for the male birth control pill in testing right now ... I have heard of it actually. I also have seen the polls that say most men don't want to take a pill (lazy bastards), and I find it ironic that the length of time between development of a female pill and a male pill is almost 50 years. Why did it take so long? They developed a pill to help men get it up before they developed one to help them control what was coming out of it ... they put the cart before the horse don'cha think?

>>375
"Drug companies making the pills ... run by men."

So? You think men don't have the right to run drug companies? What's the deal?

"Insurance companies covering Viagra but not birth control pills ... run by men."

So? The men who own those companies have the right to run them any way they please.

"The majority of lawmakers trying to outlaw abortion and other birth control options ... men."

Abortion shouldn't be considered a 'birth control option.' Taking the life of another human being for the sake of covering your own butt for irresponsible actions you engaged in is morally dubious at best.  The laws we have on the books right now concerning abortion are, if anything, not tight enough.

"The major heads of the religious right funding these politicians ... men."

So? They have the right to fund and support whatever politicians they like, just like you.  There's nothing wrong with this.

"Sex of the shooters that have killed abortion docs and/or bombed their clinics ... men."

So? What now, you think all men are criminals?

"The heads of drugstores and the majority of pharmacists refusing to fill BC scripts and morning after scripts ... men."

So? They have a right to not do business with you if they want.

"As for the male birth control pill in testing right now ... I have heard of it actually. I also have seen the polls that say most men don't want to take a pill (lazy bastards),"

So what? They don't have to if they don't want to. 

"and I find it ironic that the length of time between development of a female pill and a male pill is almost 50 years."

So? Oh shit, I feel another feminazi tirade coming on.

"Why did it take so long? They developed a pill to help men get it up before they developed one to help them control what was coming out of it ... they put the cart before the horse don'cha think?"

Assuming it was the man's responsibility to keep women from becoming pregnant, yeah. *laugh*

"Assuming it was the man's responsibility to keep women from becoming pregnant, yeah. *laugh*"

He does have a point. Instead of focusing on women all the time, what about the men? It would be his responsiblity if he didn't want to become a father.

>>374
"">>368
Win

>>371
Lose"

Fails for not explaining why.
"

Notice that I said: "I'll scratch at this when I get back from work and taking a break afterwards. -yawns and stretches-" I was gonna explain after I have returned.

You fail due to lack of reading ahead.

"So? What now, you think all men are criminals?"
Nah I dun. Butt hroughout history, all of the major screwups have been done from men.

Ahem. -cracks knuckles-  :D

>>368
If I was to state what I would all say about this, it would turn out just like Xel's. He took pretty much the words out of my mouth, so I second this.

>>371
"The parents/mother are to be held responsible here.  If they abandon their child or something, jail them for child abuse, and locate a foster home, adoption center, ophanage, or something similar.  Those who abandoned the child can be put to work and their earnings can be sent to care for the child.  Problem solved"

You are focusing on punishment instead of preventive measures, you are victimizing the parents as well. We need to focus more on preventive measures that would dwindle this down.

""Pregnancy is not always something that happens to healthy people who can provide."

See above.  If they weren't ready to have children, they should have taken the steps necessary to prevent production of children needing to be cared for.  Hold them accountable."

That doesn't stop women with diabetes, high-blood pressure, and other disorders from risking their health/lives to become a mother out of good conscience. They are brave.

""Nor does it always happen to girls/women who have developed physically that EITHER one of them could survive. Plenty of third world shit-holes out there where a guy can rape an 11 year old and just walk away."

We are talking about the USA, and american laws, or at least I was.  The USA isn't a 'third world shithole' and that kind of behavior is not accepted here, so this is redundant."

In America, you have minors ages 11-13 becoming pregnant as well which may jeapordize their health/lives, this seriously puts a dent in the Repubs' "abstinence-only" policy, children are still gonna have sex, it's a constant, not a variable. What needs to be augmented is comprehensive sex-ed.

""What about the kids who get to look forward to a brief life of scavenging for rats and flies? Would they necessarily thank you for that, especially since every new mouth to feed puts a strain on the others that is likely greater than the sum of its parts?"

I am not talking about third world nations and their laws.  I am talking about the United States of America and its laws.  We are far, far from a 'third world nation.'"

Believe it or not, there are some children in this nation whom scavenge in trash bins and what-not.

"Right.  So I blame them.  They made the choice not to take the right action, so they should be held accountable for the same set of reasons a murderer should be held accountable for not making the right choices."

Again, sex is a constant. What needs to be provided is comprehensive sex-ed and contraceptives, this would put a large dent in the number of abortions.

"I disagree.  The rights of a few humans to their lives outweigh the 'rights' of a majority of women to an abortion.  One freedom is obviously of far greater importance, even if its instances are much less significant in number."

The woman's right to her life outweighs the fetus'. The government doesn't just protect life, liberty, and property, but also the pursuit of happiness. "...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In fact, property isn't even mentioned there. The woman has a right to pursue happiness, and it is the government's job to protect that right as well. (Before you start assuming any shit, no, I'm not advocating abortion on a whim blah blah blah.)

"If we were to impliment your morality on a consistent basis it would lead us to the conclusion that we should loot Bill Gates' property, and take his money for the benefits of a greater number of people."

That analogy really sucks. Bill Gates isn't a potential fetus with no concious.

"Right, and is not just.  But neither is denying all humans the right to live for the sake of one group if one injustice is worse, which would also qualify as collective punishment.  The argument is which is worse - and I think that denying the right to life is a worse thing than to deny abortion, even if those effected would be of a smaller group.  One right is more important, and that is life."

Yeup, the woman's right to her life and pursuit of happiness must be protected.

"Right, but the human fetus is not in its situation due to its own choice - the woman is."

The woman didn't force implantation. It's the zygote/blastocyst's fault for hijacking another person's body without her permission.

""Your Gates analogy was not equitable to the issue."

Yes it was.
"
No it wasn't. :D

>>380 B-b-b-b-b-b-ut HILARY!!!!

>>381
LOL. :D

>>380

"If I was to state what I would all say about this, it would turn out just like Xel's. He took pretty much the words out of my mouth, so I second this."

Yes, because you are biased in favor of women.. a typical radical feminist.

"You are focusing on punishment instead of preventive measures,"

No, I am focusing on restitution, which is not punishment.  Yes, people would be deterred from committing this crime due to the fact that they would likely rather be free and support their children normally than support them through forced work from a prison cell, but the main point behind this idea is that we have an alternative solution to the typical right-wing solution to crime.  In this solution, we punish the offender, while simultaneously fixing the problem.  I see nothing wrong with this approach.  Following up thereafter with making contraceptives more prevalent and availible, while tightening up on law enforcement would give a final solution to this difficult problem.

 you are victimizing the parents as well. We need to focus more on preventive measures that would dwindle this down.

"That doesn't stop women with diabetes, high-blood pressure, and other disorders from risking their health/lives to become a mother out of good conscience. They are brave."

Erm? Assuming they put their babies at risk in this act of 'bravery', I don't think they are 'brave' so much as they are 'irresponsible.'

"In America, you have minors ages 11-13 becoming pregnant as well which may jeapordize their health/lives,"

You fail.  Your example entailed rape, which was not voluntary.  Now what you are talking about in the United States is voluntary sex, which is entirely different.  What goes on in other countries isn't what I'm talking about.  We are talking about the United States.  We aren't talking about rape, we are talking about irresponsible people who have consensual sex in a particularly irresponsible manner.

"this seriously puts a dent in the Repubs' "abstinence-only" policy, children are still gonna have sex,"

That is their fault then.  Too bad.

"it's a constant, not a variable. What needs to be augmented is comprehensive sex-ed."

People can show restraint, it is not a constant, it is a variable.  They are free to have sex or not if they choose.  However, if they do, and they do so in an irresponsible manner, they should be held accountable.

"Believe it or not, there are some children in this nation whom scavenge in trash bins and what-not."

Sure.  I probly did my share of playing around when I was a child, and there are probly many more opportunities to do this as a child in cities.  Redundant anyways. 

"Again, sex is a constant."

No it isn't.  People have the choice to engage in this activity or not.  Are you saying it is impossible to abstain? That's real funny.  What do you think ugly people do if nobody will have sex with them? People can obviously hold themselves back.

"What needs to be provided is comprehensive sex-ed and contraceptives, this would put a large dent in the number of abortions."

Sure.  You can pay for it though, keep your fingers out of my wallet.  Tightening up our laws and holding those responsible accountable would be a great addon, and this is something the left (and you) don't seem to be willing to do.

"The woman's right to her life outweighs the fetus'."

This wasn't what was being discussed.  You fail.

"The government doesn't just protect life, liberty, and property, but also the pursuit of happiness."

Right.  Two things to consider.  What about the happiness of the unborn? Further, what of their right to life? The unborn didn't put themselves in the situation they are in, they obviously cannot be held accountable.  On the other hand, those who engaged in sex while unprepared to deal with the consequences did, and can.


 "...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In fact, property isn't even mentioned there."

Fails for both redundancy, and innacuracy: 
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr10.html

You might find this interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

Also see 5th amendment of the Bill of Rights: 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

"The woman has a right to pursue happiness, and it is the government's job to protect that right as well."

Right.  She has the right to pursue happiness, as long as this is not at the expense of others.  Basic thoughts on liberty that I guess you missed or failed to understand.

"That analogy really sucks."

No it doesn't.

"Bill Gates isn't a potential fetus with no concious."

Ah! But we are talking about fetuses that are late enough in development to be considered human lives! We aren't talking about a 'potential fetus.' As we know, it is the proper function of a good government to defend said life.  We have the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, and it is the proper function of good government to protect and defend these rights from infringement by both other individuals, and other governments.

"Yeup, the woman's right to her life and pursuit of happiness must be protected."

Have you even been following along? The woman does indeed have a right to pursue happiness.. as long as in doing so she doesn't infringe on other's right to live, or their right to pursue happiness as well.  Late term abortions should obviously be banned due to the fact that they do indeed infringe upon these.   

"The woman didn't force implantation. It's the zygote/blastocyst's fault for hijacking another person's body without her permission."

Is this sarcasm? I kinda laughed when I read this.  It is clearly the fault of those engaging in sex.

"No it wasn't. :D"

Yes it was.  See above.

>>381
But nothing.  Hillary sucks, and even those who are pro-life and democrats know that, including the many feminists I happen to know.  If you are going to back Hillary (supposing she runs in 08), good luck, I doubt you win. 

>>383
"Right.  Two things to consider.  What about the happiness of the unborn? Further, what of their right to life? The unborn didn't put themselves in the situation they are in, they obviously cannot be held accountable.  On the other hand, those who engaged in sex while unprepared to deal with the consequences did, and can."

LOL, the left isn't real into holding people accountable for their actions, and for that matter, they don't really give a shit if a few people get knocked off in their quest to promote organized activity on behalf of women's 'interests.'

The social and economic programs of the left are all pretty much designed to allow massive evasion of responsibility.

>>379  *Nearly* everything good has come from men as well.

"Yes, because you are biased in favor of women.. a typical radical feminist."

I am? I never took notice. :3 You let your flawed judgement of me cloud your mind. Xel provides key facts, statistics, data, and links to these to support his claims. So I side with this.

"Erm? Assuming they put their babies at risk in this act of 'bravery', I don't think they are 'brave' so much as they are 'irresponsible.'"

The 'babies' aren't at risk, only the mother is. The mother is putting her life/health in jeapordy for the sake of having a child out of good conscience. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not the mother's fault if she has an ailment like diabetes. Hmm, you seem to want to punish mothers with ailments when they are pregnant. "Drop dead I say!"

""In America, you have minors ages 11-13 becoming pregnant as well which may jeapordize their health/lives,"

You fail.  Your example entailed rape, which was not voluntary.  Now what you are talking about in the United States is voluntary sex, which is entirely different.  What goes on in other countries isn't what I'm talking about.  We are talking about the United States.  We aren't talking about rape, we are talking about irresponsible people who have consensual sex in a particularly irresponsible manner."

I did say "America", and those 11-13 year olds are having consensual sex without having idea what it's all about and without the ammo to protect themselves. You are quite blind-sighted.

"People can show restraint, it is not a constant, it is a variable.  They are free to have sex or not if they choose.  However, if they do, and they do so in an irresponsible manner, they should be held accountable."

You are living in a fantasy world, that isn't ever going to happen.

"Sure.  You can pay for it though, keep your fingers out of my wallet.  Tightening up our laws and holding those responsible accountable would be a great addon, and this is something the left (and you) don't seem to be willing to do."

Hmm, both sides want the number of abortions to decline..but yet, your side (neo-cons/conservatives/Repubs) aren't willing to do anything about it for the sake of losing money. So they shouldn't really have any say.

"This wasn't what was being discussed.  You fail."

Wrong, wrong. Blah blah blah.

"Right.  Two things to consider.  What about the happiness of the unborn? Further, what of their right to life?"

The unborn isn't concious, and thus, doesn't have those feelings. Futher, their right-to-life doesn't supersede that of the woman's, along with her happiness. If the fetus (assuming seven months into pregnancy where the cerebrum starts developing) places the woman's health/life in jeaopardy or if it has a severe abnormality, then it should be terminated.

"http://lexrex.com/informed/foundingdocuments/declaration.htm";

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"

I believe I was right in the Declaration of Independence.

"Right.  She has the right to pursue happiness, as long as this is not at the expense of others.  Basic thoughts on liberty that I guess you missed or failed to understand."

Right. But a fetus isn't a person.

"Ah! But we are talking about fetuses that are late enough in development to be considered human lives!"

Assuming late in the seventh month and to term, then they may have a fragment of concious, a preresiquite for being a human 'being'. So, they may be protected, but not at the expense of the woman's health/life/well-being. But if fetuses in that stage of pregnancy are to be protected, it'll cause problems for both sides. >>276 >>277 Forced c-sections, and other dilemmas. In fact, abortions during this stage are extremely rare, < 1%. So it doesn't need regulation.

Here's an exerpt:

"Fewer than 1% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they are extremely rare after 26 weeks of pregnancy" [Ibid]. Typically abortions provided in the third trimester are limited to cases of severe fetal abnormalities.

One prime example was a good friend of mine who was pregnant -- and dearly wanted to have a baby -- and in the third trimester it was discovered that her future child had developed without a full spinal cord, so that the baby would die at birth. So not to undergo the agony of such a situation she had a late term "partial-birth" abortion. Unfortunately, the state of Florida where she lived prohibited such abortions, so she had to fly across the country at great expense -- and much harassment by idiotic "pro-lifers" -- to have the abortion."

"We aren't talking about a 'potential fetus.'"

A fetus is a potential life. It is not a human being like you or me.

""No it wasn't. :D"

Yes it was.  See above.
"
No it wasn't! :D

Hmm..

Anti-abortionists often claim that the fetus is a human being and, although within and part of the mother, it has individual rights. A consistent application of this view essentially makes the act of abortion an act of murder.

This view of the unborn fetus fails to make two vital distinctions-the metaphysical difference between the actual and the potential and between an entity and its parts. The anti-abortionist position also fails to recognize that human beings are granted rights qua man's status as a rational animal, not qua animal.

In reality, the potential is not the actual, nor is an entity's parts the same as the entity itself and rights can only be granted to actual rational entities. The potential of my financial success and making billions of dollars does not create the actuality of my purchase of Microsoft today. Likewise, the possession of a gun and an index finger to pull its trigger with which to potentially shoot my neighbor does not actually make me a murderer. The potential of my death does not permit my husband to now declare himself an actual widow and our daughter (if we had one) fatherless. Individual rights should not and cannot be granted to potentialities because they are metaphysically distinct from actualities. The potential and actual therefore have distinct moral and political implications.

Another flaw with the anti-abortionist view is the failure to acknowledge the proper metaphysical relationship between mother and the unborn fetus. The fetus is physically within the mother and connected to her via the placenta and umbilical chord. It is directly physically dependent on the mother for all of its life sustaining needs-oxygen, energy and safety from the external environment. The relationship between mother and fetus is not that of two distinct human entities, but rather that of an independent human being (the mother) with rights and a dependent physical appendage, something that is physically within and part of the mother and therefore cannot have individual rights.

Individual rights cannot be granted to the parts of human entities-to do so would make a surgeon a murderer when he removes a healthy kidney from a patient for an organ transplant, an internist a murderer when he poisons a tapeworm to achieve its removal from a patient's intestine, a dermatologist a killer when he removes a mole from a patient's face.

Anti-abortionists sometimes argue that within the womb, the unborn fetus moves and is capable of sensations. Because of this, the argument goes, the fetus is a living entity and therefore has a right to life. Even if the first premise of this argument is granted (the fetus is a living organism that moves and senses), man has individual rights qua "rational animal", not qua "animal." The essential distinction between man and all other animals is his rational faculty and it is this quality which confers political rights. In other words, man has rights by virtue of "rational living entity," not by virtue of "living entity."

Most (if not all) animals move and have sensations. The view that the unborn fetus has rights because of its ability to move and sense, by logical extension, is tantamount to arguing that all animals (and some plants) have rights. In other words, if you ate steak and potatoes yesterday you are a co-conspirator in murder and a cannibal.

The basis for individual rights lies in man's nature as a rational animal, as a living being with a volitional consciousness (free will). The concept of individual rights can therefore only be properly understood in the context of a rational independent entity, not in the context of a living thing with rudimentary sensations.

The metaphysical act of birth, when the unborn makes the transition from mere potential to an actual human being and successfully separates from the mother to become a separate metaphysical entity, an actual living being with a volitional consciousness, confers the moral and political concept of rights. The act of birth enables the proper context in which individual rights can be properly understood and rationally applied.

>>386 I approve, not that my approval is of objective value for anyone. Anyway, I want to supplement by saying that until a case for martial law, aka an extreme contingency can be proven, no human right can be valued over another - they are all prerequisites of another, and the denial of one for any individual is an attack for all her landspeople. Now, a woman's state as a human is a fact, while not all foetuses/embryos/cancers/what-EVUUURRRRs are humans. At any given time, there will be more women than foetuses, and we can't protect the rights of both nor can ve value one right over the other (there is no adequate human life without control of one's body). So we make a utilitarian choice - because we have to. Robbing Gates is also a utilitarian per se (but this would not be a choice forced on us), but because we don't *have* to make a choice between *his* birthright OR the birthright of *two or more* humans, we have to protect his birthright first and foremost. Your analogy just is not comporting with the choice we have to make here.

>>386
"I am? I never took notice."

Feminists don't generally tend to.

"You let your flawed judgement of me cloud your mind."

ASIDE from the assumption you are a liberal, I don't think my judgement of you is flawed. 

"Xel provides key facts, statistics, data, and links to these to support his claims. So I side with this."

Xel provides a utilitarian 'argument' for a hypothetical situation.  I guess you didn't notice, but as far as public policy goes, we came to some common ground.  You are the only one left whining over not having unlimmited abortion rights, whenever you want, no matter how old the fetus is.  Even Xel doesn't think you should be allowed to abort whenever you please after the fetus reaches the age at which it could be considered a 'human life'.

"Erm? Assuming they put their babies at risk in this act of 'bravery', I don't think they are 'brave' so much as they are 'irresponsible.'"

"The 'babies' aren't at risk, only the mother is."

Unhealthy people who can't provide shouldn't be having babies.  If they are, and they were knowingly unhealthy and unable to provide, and they decided to try and have a baby anyhow, I think this is irresponsible to say the least, and the developing life within them could possibly be put into jeopardy by this.

"The mother is putting her life/health in jeapordy for the sake of having a child out of good conscience."

I don't think attempting to have a baby/child in a situation in which you are not reasonably certain you will be able to provide for it is an act of 'good conscience,' but hey that's just me I guess, LOL.

"There's nothing wrong with that. It's not the mother's fault if she has an ailment like diabetes."

That's right, its not.  But it *is* her fault if she decides to have a baby regardless of the fact that, according to you, she is 'unable' to properly care for it, and give birth to a baby even in light of her inability to care for it properly, putting the baby's well being at risk.

"Hmm, you seem to want to punish mothers with ailments when they are pregnant."

I don't know where you get this idea.

"I did say "America", and those 11-13 year olds are having consensual sex without having idea what it's all about and without the ammo to protect themselves. You are quite blind-sighted."

I think it is common enough knowledge that the act of having sex produces a baby.  If they are going to fuck around and take risks with something this potentially life changing, oh well, that's their decision.

"You are living in a fantasy world, that isn't ever going to happen."

I guess you missed my point.  The decision to have sex or not is theirs to make, and is entirely voluntary.  Any consequences of this decision should be theirs to deal with, just like with other normal situations.  If I spend all my money in a particularly irresponsible manner, that was my decision, and I must then bear the consequences for doing this.  This is just.

The argument that people are physically incapable from abstaining or holding themselves back from having sex is ridiculous as well.  Many people can and do. 

"Sure.  You can pay for it though, keep your fingers out of my wallet.  Tightening up our laws and holding those responsible accountable would be a great addon, and this is something the left (and you) don't seem to be willing to do."

"Hmm, both sides want the number of abortions to decline..but yet, your side (neo-cons/conservatives/Repubs) aren't willing to do anything about it for the sake of losing money. So they shouldn't really have any say."

First off, I'm not a 'neo-con.'  If I don't feed a bum, am I then responsible for him trying to mug me, and should I have to put up with it? The bum, like the other irresponsible parties we are talking about, took certain actions that were irresponsible.  Now, they must deal with the consequences.  I have no responsibility to deal with them for them.  Anyhow, this really has nothing to do with whether or not the government should defend human life or not.

"Wrong, wrong. Blah blah blah."

No, I'm right.  We weren't discussing whether or not the fetus' life outweights the life of the mother in importance, we were discussing a hypothetical situation, and in said situation, this question is moot anyways due to other facts. 

"The unborn isn't concious,"

Consciousness begins before birth.  You fail.  Even Xel knows this.

"Futher, their right-to-life doesn't supersede that of the woman's, along with her happiness."

The woman's right to pursue happiness is not allowed to infringe upon their right to life.  Women should not be allowed to abort regardless of how late in development the fetus is.  Even Xel agrees with me here.

"If the fetus (assuming seven months into pregnancy where the cerebrum starts developing) places the woman's health/life in jeaopardy or if it has a severe abnormality, then it should be terminated."

I see, so due to the fact that you are the authority on what people have the right to live or not due to physical conditions they have, they 'should be terminated.'  I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you'd allow an abortion if the baby was missing a pinky finger, based on the attitudes you've shown me in the past.

"I believe I was right in the Declaration of Independence."

I don't believe I was talking about the Declaration of Independence.

"Right. But a fetus isn't a person."

Depends on how late in development it is. 

"a preresiquite for being a human 'being'."

If they are old enough to be consider 'human life,' they are to have government protection in my book.  This is the proper function of government anyway - defending human life and the right to it, among other things.

"So, they may be protected, but not at the expense of the woman's health/life/well-being."

Interesting.  That's pretty different from what you've been saying earlier.  Not saying I agree fully, but yeah. 

"But if fetuses in that stage of pregnancy are to be protected, it'll cause problems for both sides."

*Both* sides? How does this harm the fetus, if that was what you were implying?

"In fact, abortions during this stage are extremely rare, < 1%. So it doesn't need regulation."

Just because they are relatively small in number, does not mean that they do not deserve protection.  I stand firm here, and won't budge.  The right to life is not something to be eroded so carelessly, simply based on the fact that it isn't eroded or infringed often enough.

Here's an exerpt:

"Fewer than 1% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they are extremely rare after 26 weeks of pregnancy" [Ibid].

1,550,000 abortions anually (roughly), according to the CDC around the years of 1980-1990.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but 1% of this total would be 15,500 per year.  While this could indeed be considered 'rare' due to the fact that the total number of abortions that occur annually is simply staggeringly large, this is *not* good enough, considering that these are the 'late' pregnancies you speak of.  This is an annual number... 15,500/yr  is *far* from acceptable and warrants decisive and quick legislative action to prevent this loss of human life.

"Typically abortions provided in the third trimester are limited to cases of severe fetal abnormalities."

'Typically' isn't good enough. 

"A fetus is a potential life. It is not a human being like you or me."

Even Xel agrees that depends on how late in development it is.

"No it wasn't! :D"

You fail to explain why it wasn't.

Hmm..

"Anti-abortionists often claim that the fetus is a human being and, although within and part of the mother, it has individual rights."

To me, this is dependent upon how late in development the fetus is.  Life does not begin at birth, though I doubt (unlike many pro-lifers) that it begins at conception.  That said, I'd rather take a pro-life stand than a pro-choice stand, allowing all abortions in an on-demand manner, which is really nothing more than legalized murder.. since it encompasses even those fetuses that may be quite late in development and could thus be considered more or less human.

"A consistent application of this view essentially makes the act of abortion an act of murder."

Yep.. but embryos aren't fetuses, and some abortions occur in this stage.  I don't think all abortions are murder, but I think some most definitely should be considered as such.

"This view of the unborn fetus fails to make two vital distinctions-the metaphysical difference between the actual and the potential and between an entity and its parts."

How? One person just has a different view of when 'life' begins. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.   

"The anti-abortionist position also fails to recognize that human beings are granted rights qua man's status as a rational animal, not qua animal."

Oh god, I sense a Randroid! Anyhow, even if on a technicality, it is again the proper function of government, and I stand by that firmly.  The democrats are wrong on abortion.

"In reality, the potential is not the actual, nor is an entity's parts the same as the entity itself and rights can only be granted to actual rational entities."

Fail.  You are speaking in terms of when -you- think life begins.  You are arguing against someone elses' actions that they take based on when -they- think life exists.  You should not be claiming that the fetus is a 'potential' rather than an 'actual' since this is only in your mind - not in the mind of the person you are arguing with.  Your method of arguing on this subject is composed of massive fail.  If you want to convince me, you have to challenge my views about when life begins, not preach about why I am wrong based on when *you* think life begins.  The fetus isn't a 'potential' to me until you lead me to this conclusion, so this is all baseless.

"Individual rights should not and cannot be granted to potentialities because they are metaphysically distinct from actualities. The potential and actual therefore have distinct moral and political implications."

Nobody is talking about granting individual rights to potentialities... or at least I'm not.

"The relationship between mother and fetus is not that of two distinct human entities, but rather that of an independent human being (the mother) with rights and a dependent physical appendage,"

Your opinion.

"something that is physically within and part of the mother and therefore cannot have individual rights."

I don't see how merely because the fetus simply happens to be inside her deprives it of any rights.  Life begins before birth.

"Individual rights cannot be granted to the parts of human entities"

When said entity can be called a human life, I'm all for granting it protection.

"-to do so would make a surgeon a murderer when he removes a healthy kidney from a patient for an organ transplant,"

Assuming you thought a kidney was human life, yes.  I don't.  Not in the sense that late-term fetuses are, anyhow.

"an internist a murderer when he poisons a tapeworm to achieve its removal from a patient's intestine,"

I've never heard such ridiculous garbage in my life.  There is a huge difference between late-term human fetuses and tapeworms.

"a dermatologist a killer when he removes a mole from a patient's face."

More liberal crap.. comparing fetuses with moles. 

"Anti-abortionists sometimes argue that within the womb, the unborn fetus moves and is capable of sensations. Because of this, the argument goes, the fetus is a living entity and therefore has a right to life."

Yep, it is borderline human, and can feel.  Killing at this point should constitute murder.

"Even if the first premise of this argument is granted (the fetus is a living organism that moves and senses), man has individual rights qua "rational animal", not qua "animal."

It is genetically human in nature.  Science trumps Randian philosophy, sorry. 

"The essential distinction between man and all other animals is his rational faculty and it is this quality which confers political rights."

I disagree with the last statement.  If it is genetically 'human,' is conscious, or is able to feel and is capable of sensation, it should be protected.

"Most (if not all) animals move and have sensations."

And are not human.

"The view that the unborn fetus has rights because of its ability to move and sense,"

I am not saying that it is due to the fact that they can move and sense, I am saying it is due to the fact that they are 'human,' and can move and sense.

"by logical extension, is tantamount to arguing that all animals (and some plants) have rights."

Irrelevant due to the above.  I am not arguing that it is solely because of being able to move and sense that they have rights.  It is due to the fact that they are 'human' and can move and sense that they have rights, so your 'logical extension' is redundant.

"The basis for individual rights lies in man's nature as a rational animal, as a living being with a volitional consciousness (free will)."

OH! *Now* all a sudden we have free will..!  Coming from the person who says 'sex is a constant, nobody can be responsible for having sex!', this is pretty hilarious.  I guess you are a Rand-quoting free-will believer one second, and a 'nobody can be blamed for their actions - they can't control themselves!' liberal in the next.  Funny stuff.

"The metaphysical act of birth, when the unborn makes the transition from mere potential to an actual human being and successfully separates from the mother to become a separate metaphysical entity, an actual living being with a volitional consciousness, confers the moral and political concept of rights."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but consciousness begins before birth, and even you know that.

"The act of birth enables the proper context in which individual rights can be properly understood and rationally applied."

There is nothing that I can see that goes along with the simple act of being born that brings about 'life' as I see it, and moreover, science shows us that these things actually surface *before* birth.

>>388 I may recognize the humanity of the foetuseseses, but since the women who will be denied complete control of their bodies will always be greater than the number of saved foetuseses, and so few foetuses have a *human* mind at the time of abortion (humanity only exists in cerebral materia), I will always be on Kumori's side even if her argumentation is not always great (look who's talking). If we can then use the flesh and stem cells for something, why not?

>>389
"but since the women who will be denied complete control of their bodies will always be greater than the number of saved foetuseses, and so few foetuses have a *human* mind at the time of abortion (humanity only exists in cerebral materia), I will always be on Kumori's side even if her argumentation is not always great (look who's talking)."

Kumori and I were arguing about the *hypothetical scenario* thought up by you god knows how many pages ago.  Kumori falsely interpreted my comments about said scenario into meaning what I actually thought of the abortion issue, and what should be done in actual politics today. 

Kumori then persisted in bitching about this, claiming my stand on abortion was wrong, regardless of the fact that we were discussing a *hypothetical scenario*. 

Now again, about your argument here.  You are saying that the women who have rights being sacrificed are greater in number than the fetuses who are being killed, would then justify allowing all abortions. 

I am saying that certain rights are more important than others - note that I support GWB over John Kerry.  John Kerry will take care of more civil rights than I cherish than Bush, but Bush will take care of what I consider the more important civil right - the 2nd amendment. 

Life is *very* high ranked in the list of rights, imo, and to infringe upon *it* is an atrocity of far greater proportion than giving a minor infringement upon the freedom of action of a group of people (even if there is far more of them) than the minority who is losing their right to life.

I strongly believe in your hypothetical situation that it is not the *number* of rights to be considered, but the *significance* of the rights to be considered. Right to Life > right to kill embryos. 

"If we can then use the flesh and stem cells for something, why not?"

Ha.  Use them for what? Government funded research?

......



"even if her argumentation is not always great (look who's talking)"

If my argumentation is wrong, prove it.

"If my argumentation is wrong, prove it." If my argumentation is wrong, prove it. Once again, all rights are prerequisites of another, a diamond grid, unless the nation is endangered.

>388
"You are the only one left whining over not having unlimmited abortion rights, whenever you want, no matter how old the fetus is."

Please don't make me laugh. That's not what I'm advocating. No need to stoop down to a personal level with me.

"Even Xel doesn't think you should be allowed to abort whenever you please after the fetus reaches the age at which it could be considered a 'human life'."

Uhhh okay... I dunno what gives you the idea that I'm advocating abortions on a whim, unless you're just venting some steam out on me. If you are, please direct it somewhere else. Xel and I see eye-to-eye here.

"ASIDE from the assumption you are a liberal, I don't think my judgement of you is flawed."

I consider myself a libertarian/utilitarian. On another note..what does it matter what a person is? If the person is on a side that you don't like does that make what they invalid to you? You're being quite a Collectivist.

*sigh* Assumptions assumptions...

"Unhealthy people who can't provide shouldn't be having babies.  If they are, and they were knowingly unhealthy and unable to provide, and they decided to try and have a baby anyhow, I think this is irresponsible to say the least, and the developing life within them could possibly be put into jeopardy by this."

Those said people are also the ones generally able to provide for their offspring. No use jeaopardizing your health for something that you can't provide for in the end.

"I don't think attempting to have a baby/child in a situation in which you are not reasonably certain you will be able to provide for it is an act of 'good conscience,' but hey that's just me I guess, LOL."

See above.

"That's right, its not.  But it *is* her fault if she decides to have a baby regardless of the fact that, according to you, she is 'unable' to properly care for it, and give birth to a baby even in light of her inability to care for it properly, putting the baby's well being at risk."

Again, see above.

"I think it is common enough knowledge that the act of having sex produces a baby.  If they are going to fuck around and take risks with something this potentially life changing, oh well, that's their decision."

It really isn't common knowledge in this day and age.

"First off, I'm not a 'neo-con.'  If I don't feed a bum, am I then responsible for him trying to mug me, and should I have to put up with it? The bum, like the other irresponsible parties we are talking about, took certain actions that were irresponsible.  Now, they must deal with the consequences.  I have no responsibility to deal with them for them.  Anyhow, this really has nothing to do with whether or not the government should defend human life or not."

If I saw a bum I'd probably just buy him a load of bread out of good thought since I'm a nice person. Show some compassion. :/

""The unborn isn't concious,"

Consciousness begins before birth.  You fail.  Even Xel knows this."

Even I know that as well, I was speaking in the matter of more of a conscience.

"The woman's right to pursue happiness is not allowed to infringe upon their right to life.  Women should not be allowed to abort regardless of how late in development the fetus is.  Even Xel agrees with me here."

So...if there's a medical problem that threatens the woman's health/life/well-being or if the fetus has a severe abnormality she is denied an abortion in late pregnancy, nice going. Women do not have abortions on a whim in late pregnancy, statistical analysises prove that late abortions are done for the reasons I mentioned beforehand. (Stop holding Xel's hand, geez.) Xel agrees with me here. :3 -holds his hand- <3

""If the fetus (assuming seven months into pregnancy where the cerebrum starts developing) places the woman's health/life in jeaopardy or if it has a severe abnormality, then it should be terminated."

I see, so due to the fact that you are the authority on what people have the right to live or not due to physical conditions they have, they 'should be terminated.'  I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you'd allow an abortion if the baby was missing a pinky finger, based on the attitudes you've shown me in the past."

Now you are just being a spiteful ignoramous. Notice I said 'severe'. Geez.. I guess you'll let mothers whose fetuses are diagnosed with severe malformation watch their babies die in front of their eyes shortly after birth, or let them give birth to a stillborn. Congrats. -claps- You really gotta stop being prejudice against me.

""But if fetuses in that stage of pregnancy are to be protected, it'll cause problems for both sides."

*Both* sides? How does this harm the fetus, if that was what you were implying?"

It'll cause problems for both pro-choice and pro-life sides. One scenario.. Assuming that fetuses feel pain during the birthing process from being squeezed through tight vaginas, it'll make forced c-sections more widespread. It'll condone the evisceration of pregnant women's bellies. More info. >>267 >>277

"1,550,000 abortions anually (roughly), according to the CDC around the years of 1980-1990.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but 1% of this total would be 15,500 per year.  While this could indeed be considered 'rare' due to the fact that the total number of abortions that occur annually is simply staggeringly large, this is *not* good enough, considering that these are the 'late' pregnancies you speak of.  This is an annual number... 15,500/yr  is *far* from acceptable and warrants decisive and quick legislative action to prevent this loss of human life"

It is quite good, considering the number of abortions and the number of women in the United States. That's an excellent number. If you want to make that number go down, then you're gonna have to provide better education and pre-natal care for mothers.

""No it wasn't! :D"

You fail to explain why it wasn't."

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=904492
>>387

"To me, this is dependent upon how late in development the fetus is.  Life does not begin at birth, though I doubt (unlike many pro-lifers) that it begins at conception.  That said, I'd rather take a pro-life stand than a pro-choice stand, allowing all abortions in an on-demand manner, which is really nothing more than legalized murder.. since it encompasses even those fetuses that may be quite late in development and could thus be considered more or less human."

Then you and me see eye-to-eye here.

"Yep.. but embryos aren't fetuses, and some abortions occur in this stage.  I don't think all abortions are murder, but I think some most definitely should be considered as such."

Eye-to-eye here again..depending on what your stance is in the time of the pregnancy.

"How? One person just has a different view of when 'life' begins. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this."

Not until said person starts pushing it in other people's faces.

"Oh god, I sense a Randroid!"

-question mark pops out of head- ?

"The democrats are wrong on abortion."

That, and the Repubs are more wrong.

""In reality, the potential is not the actual, nor is an entity's parts the same as the entity itself and rights can only be granted to actual rational entities."

Fail.  You are speaking in terms of when -you- think life begins.  You are arguing against someone elses' actions that they take based on when -they- think life exists."

I was making a general, scientific statement. Not declaring my view on when 'life' begins.

"You should not be claiming that the fetus is a 'potential' rather than an 'actual' since this is only in your mind - not in the mind of the person you are arguing with.  Your method of arguing on this subject is composed of massive fail.  If you want to convince me, you have to challenge my views about when life begins, not preach about why I am wrong based on when *you* think life begins.  The fetus isn't a 'potential' to me until you lead me to this conclusion, so this is all baseless."

Jibba jabba. See above.

"I don't see how merely because the fetus simply happens to be inside her deprives it of any rights."

<sarcasm>
So it's alright if I live inside you? -moves inside and erases her memory of how she did it- Cozy, warm...and wet...eeek.
</sarcasm>

"More liberal crap.. comparing fetuses with moles."

More prejudice. Analogies, no comparisons. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

""Anti-abortionists sometimes argue that within the womb, the unborn fetus moves and is capable of sensations. Because of this, the argument goes, the fetus is a living entity and therefore has a right to life."

Yep, it is borderline human, and can feel.  Killing at this point should constitute murder."

Assuming 23 weeks in pregnancy. Said movements being only reactionary and not purposeful. Also, uncapable of being able to 'feel' due to lack of a cerebrum and 'mind.'

""The basis for individual rights lies in man's nature as a rational animal, as a living being with a volitional consciousness (free will)."

OH! *Now* all a sudden we have free will..!  Coming from the person who says 'sex is a constant, nobody can be responsible for having sex!', this is pretty hilarious.  I guess you are a Rand-quoting free-will believer one second, and a 'nobody can be blamed for their actions - they can't control themselves!' liberal in the next.  Funny stuff."

Statement showing that for acquiring human rights, you need a free will, which a fetus doesn't have. And I'll choose to ignore your personal note with me, since you're trying to annoy me.

""The metaphysical act of birth, when the unborn makes the transition from mere potential to an actual human being and successfully separates from the mother to become a separate metaphysical entity, an actual living being with a volitional consciousness, confers the moral and political concept of rights."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but consciousness begins before birth, and even you know that."

Yeup, but I decided to be more crude with that statement as a large example.

We see eye-to-eye on most things, but what I abhore about you is your prejudice against me and your notion of deciding to get personal to try to stir up my thoughts. Please refrain from doing so.

>>391
"If my argumentation is wrong, prove it."

I think I did.

"Once again, all rights are prerequisites of another, a diamond grid, unless the nation is endangered."

Not sure what you mean here.

>>392
"Please don't make me laugh. That's not what I'm advocating. No need to stoop down to a personal level with me."

See >>386. 

"Uhhh okay... I dunno what gives you the idea that I'm advocating abortions on a whim, unless you're just venting some steam out on me. If you are, please direct it somewhere else. Xel and I see eye-to-eye here."

See >>386.  Xel doesn't advocate abortion on a whim, with the exception of the *hypothetical* situation. 

"I consider myself a libertarian/utilitarian. On another note..what does it matter what a person is? If the person is on a side that you don't like does that make what they invalid to you? You're being quite a Collectivist."

Nothing wrong with viewing people as groups, if a reasonable number of outcomes support this, and provided you give people the chance to show that they are different on an individual basis. 

"Those said people are also the ones generally able to provide for their offspring. No use jeaopardizing your health for something that you can't provide for in the end."

'That doesn't stop women with diabetes, high-blood pressure, and other disorders from risking their health/lives to become a mother out of good conscience. They are brave.' -Kumori

'I don't think attempting to have a baby/child in a situation in which you are not reasonably certain you will be able to provide for it is an act of 'good conscience,' but hey that's just me I guess, LOL.'  -Me

Ok.  If the mother has a rather large number of health problems that might cause a risk to either herself or the baby, I don't think deciding to try to have children anyways is an act of 'good conscience', as said above..  If she dies, even if the child manages to survive, who will the child turn to? The father maybe, but family will be broken.  I don't see how this is an act of 'good conscience.'

'There's nothing wrong with that. It's not the mother's fault if she has an ailment like diabetes.'  -Kumori

'That's right, its not.  But it *is* her fault if she decides to have a baby regardless of the fact that, according to you, she is 'unable' to properly care for it, and give birth to a baby even in light of her inability to care for it properly, putting the baby's well being at risk.'  -Me

The mother is not at fault for having diabetes.  She *would* be at fault for attempting to become pregnant and give birth regardless of health problems, which would not only possibly effect the child, but would also possibly indirectly effect the child if the mother dies, leaving the child to a broken family.  I am saying that, assuming the mother knew in advance of attempting to become pregnant and bear children that she had diseases or health issues which may put her or her child in danger during pregnancy and birth that this is an irresponsible act, and doesn't show much regard for her future children for obvious reasons.

"It really isn't common knowledge in this day and age."

By the time you are old enough to have sex, it is common enough.

"If I saw a bum I'd probably just buy him a load of bread out of good thought since I'm a nice person. Show some compassion. :/"

I wasn't saying I wouldn't help out bums, jeez.  It was *just* a hypothetical situation used to support my argument. You weren't ready to say that it was my fault I got mugged for not helping the bum out, but you were ready to say unwanted pregnancies are my fault for my not helping out those people having those problems either.. which is logically inconsistent.

"Even I know that as well, I was speaking in the matter of more of a conscience."

No you weren't, you said they weren't conscious and thus couldn't feel, which is totally inaccurate in accordance with the exact definitions of the words you used.  You flat out said they weren't conscious, and proceeded to use this to support your conclusions. 

"So...if there's a medical problem that threatens the woman's health/life/well-being or if the fetus has a severe abnormality she is denied an abortion in late pregnancy, nice going."

That depends on the abnormality, and what constitutes an 'abnormality.'  I would never be ok with the abortion of a fetus if the only 'abnormality' it has is that it is missing a finger or two, or some minor thing like this.  However, if the fetus has an 'abnormality' such as was mentioned before, like being born without a spinal cord or some such, then I would again be fine with a late term abortion provided it is done in a humane manner. 

In the event that a disease springs upon the woman I have already said I would be fine with a late term abortion, so long as it is done in a humane manner. 

You should also note the wording in my reply: 'Women should not be allowed to abort regardless of how late in development the fetus is.'  This means that the woman should not be allowed to abort -as she pleases, even when the fetus is late in development-.  And note once more, I say -as she pleases-, by which I mean 'willy nilly', whenever she wants, for whatever reason she wants, etc.  I don't see how you pulled out of -this- wording that I was implying that abortion should be banned if it was -necessary- to preserve the mother's life.

"Women do not have abortions on a whim in late pregnancy,"

Redundant.  Whether they do or they don't, if it is murder, it should be outlawed, and I will tend to support those that will do as much.

"If the fetus (assuming seven months into pregnancy where the cerebrum starts developing) places the woman's health/life in jeaopardy or if it has a severe abnormality, then it should be terminated."

Only if done in a humane manner, and only if the woman's life is in very *serious* jeopardy.  No fucking around with innocent human beings. 

"Now you are just being a spiteful ignoramous."

Based on the things I've heard you say in the past, I don't think I should rule out that you might allow it in said case.  Many of your comments above advocate abortion in -any- instance, for -any- reason, claiming it is a -right- to do as much.  Drawing this conclusion from the overall body of your comments is not really overstepping things in my opinion. 

"Notice I said 'severe'. Geez.."

That time.

"I guess you'll let mothers whose fetuses are "diagnosed with severe malformation watch their babies die in front of their eyes shortly after birth, or let them give birth to a stillborn. Congrats. -claps- You really gotta stop being prejudice against me."

Are you joking? What about all the Randroid abortion arguments we had up there? I don't think what I said was inaccurate.  You have been like Dr.  Jekyll and Mr. Hyde on this page, advocating restriction and restraint in some cases, and in others acting like abortion at anytime prior to birth is a -right-.

"It'll cause problems for both pro-choice and pro-life sides. One scenario.. Assuming that fetuses feel pain during the birthing process from being squeezed through tight vaginas,"

I hate to do anything causing pain to an innocent, but sorry, this is natural.  Fetuses get squeezed through vaginas all the time.  I don't see what is so unusual about this, and I don't advocate 'forced c-sections' unless it is necessary for the baby to live and be healthy.

"it'll make forced c-sections more widespread. It'll condone the evisceration of pregnant women's bellies. More info."

I don't advocate 'forced c-sections' unless it is necessary for the baby to be born healthy/alive.  In other cases, if possible, I say let it be born naturally if that's what the mother/family prefers, as much as I hate to cause pain.

"It is quite good, considering the number of abortions and the number of women in the United States. That's an excellent number. If you want to make that number go down, then you're gonna have to provide better education and pre-natal care for mothers."

*OR* we could just toughen up the laws, and hold people accountable, not allowing them to have late-term abortions. 

This is just plain not acceptable.  Even Xel doesn't like this, and he's famous for hating fetuses.  Again, these are late-term...  with the exception of the named exceptions above, we need bans on late term abortions asap.

"http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=904492";

Yes, and I already refuted his refutation.


>>387

"Then you and me see eye-to-eye here."

Well good!  I wasn't aware, based on comments aforementioned above.

"Eye-to-eye here again..depending on what your stance is in the time of the pregnancy."

Not sure what you mean by this.  I don't really have a set of things that I call 'life' or a timeframe that I can point to right now and say 'life begins here, specifically.'  I don't think it begins at conception, and I don't think it begins at birth. 

I haven't given this aspect much thought.  When it is more 'human' than fetus, I think abortion should begin to be regulated, and the more developed it gets, the tighter the regulations, as it would be more and more human as time goes on.

Since I don't really know when this point begins, I can't really say when to begin the regulation, but I *can* say with certainty that aborting conscious, feeling fetuses is wrong, unless.. said exceptions noted above.

"Not until said person starts pushing it in other people's faces."

Ok, so what if I happen to believe 'life' doesn't begin until age 18? Should I then be able to say 'hey you cant shove murder laws in my face, I don't believe it, lol'?

"That, and the Repubs are more wrong."

Repubs are wrong on abortion too, but not as wrong as dems.  Plus, conservatism and libertarianism are very similar.  Interesting shit. 
http://reason.com/7507/int_reagan.shtml

Fail.  You are speaking in terms of when -you- think life begins.  You are arguing against someone elses' actions that they take based on when -they- think life exists."

"I was making a general, scientific statement. Not declaring my view on when 'life' begins."

Actually, it was not scientific.  'Rights can only be granted to/when....' is not scientifically proven.  Furthermore, when put in context, you were obviously talking about abortion. 

"Jibba jabba. See above."

I disagree.  See above.

"I don't see how merely because the fetus simply happens to be inside her deprives it of any rights."

"<sarcasm>
So it's alright if I live inside you? -moves inside and erases her memory of how she did it- Cozy, warm...and wet...eeek.
</sarcasm>"

So you *do* think that simply because the fetus hasn't been born that it isn't entitled to life (a right). 

"More prejudice. Analogies, no comparisons. Nyuk nyuk nyuk."

Fetuses are nothing like moles.  Fetuses have human form, human organs developed and developing, and even attain consciousness and have feeling in the fetal stage.  Moles? ...

""Anti-abortionists sometimes argue that within the womb, the unborn fetus moves and is capable of sensations. Because of this, the argument goes, the fetus is a living entity and therefore has a right to life."

Yep, it is borderline human, and can feel.  Killing at this point should constitute murder."

"Assuming 23 weeks in pregnancy. Said movements being only reactionary and not purposeful. Also, uncapable of being able to 'feel' due to lack of a cerebrum and 'mind.'"

I don't know when fetuses become able to feel, but you said they could in your example, and based on that, my answer was in the right place. 

"Statement showing that for acquiring human rights, you need a free will, which a fetus doesn't have. And I'll choose to ignore your personal note with me, since you're trying to annoy me."

I'm not trying to annoy you, I'm just pointing out the huge glaring inconsistency in your own argument, and for that matter, in the very same *post*!  You claim we have 'free-will', yet you are apparently unable to not have sex? Common.. What do you suppose ugly folks do? They obviously have to refrain from trying to have sex anyways.  All you need to do is exercise a little something referred to commonly as 'self-control'. 

"Statement showing that for acquiring human rights, you need a free will, which a fetus doesn't have. And I'll choose to ignore your personal note with me, since you're trying to annoy me.""

I also simply disagree with the basis upon which you are willing to dole out rights.

"We see eye-to-eye on most things, but what I abhore about you is your prejudice against me and your notion of deciding to get personal to try to stir up my thoughts. Please refrain from doing so."

My 'prejudice' is based on much of the crap you put in that post up there, which you *now* say you don't agree with.  Again, Dr. Jekyl/ Mr. Hyde.

Also, I was not the first to 'get personal.'

Further, many of the things you interpreted as getting personal, was my ridiculing your argument and its inconsistencies, which is not necessarilly personal if you ask me, but whatever.