Abortion and Women's Rights

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

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.