Abortion and Women's Rights

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

>>476
"You don't hear Canadians complaining."

Actually, yes I do.  Go to a more conservative area of Canada.

"Aint advocating jiminy. Soc Sec works -and will work- well and privatization would ruin it and its appliers completely."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-24-retiree-taxpayers_x.htm
So much for Social Security 'working well.'

"As for health-care, the current system is run by mercantile laws and it is fucked up. We'll see how it goes in Mass. and Cal."

Sure.  You still evade the point that any problems we are having with market health care are due to regulations imposed by the dems.

"We'll see about that. Regarding the Infamous Deal, I approve of it on principle but it was poorly executed."

If you agree with the infamous New Deal on principle, you aren't a libertarian, you are either a socialist or an advocate of a mixed economy.  The principles it was done under were collectivist ones, not libertarian ones. 

Now we are starting to foresee the effects of the new deal - Social Security is growing more and more out of balance every year, and we have a looming financial crisis. 

Social Security and the New Deal was something done to get us out of the Great Depression.. which was initially caused by government intervention into the economy (the Federal Reserve).  Market-run health care needs to be fixed - but definitely not socialized.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-24-retiree-taxpayers_x.htm

"It is interesting to see how the worst excesses of left-wing statism usually stems from situations of extreme economic inequality caused by poorly planned capitalism."

'Poorly planned'? Capitalism doesn't involve central planning, sorry.  You can thank the government for 'poorly planned' capitalism.

"Well I AInt damn ready to damn let an entire damn culture mistreat a damn half of its population damn."

If you follow libertarian principles, it is not your decision to make.  All you are showing is how truly inconsistent and intolerant you are.

"I wonder how amny women there are in South Dakota..."

15,500 live human beings being denied their right to live is far worse an offense than women not being allowed to make smoothies out of unborn children, *especially* considering that it was the woman's actions that put them in the position they are in anyway.

"The road to hell is paved with a) x < 8 b) good intentions c) chair"

The road to hell is paved with socialism/fascism/statism, all of which entail the denial of basic human rights.  I intend to support and defend these rights, thanks. 

The government that no longer has a duty to defend the right to life, or that erodes this right in any form, approaches atrocity.

"LIfe is redundant and useless without the liberties that follow *in time*."

The lack of the right to make smoothies out of fetuses and embryos is something we can live without.  The right to life is not.

"He is transferring diploids, and he is using the egg of the woman to prolong his genes."

No, the property rights to the semen have been transferred from the man to the woman.  Following this, the man does absolutely nothing.  Of course, the woman does not necessarilly have to accept them if she doesn't wish to become pregnant and have a baby (use contraceptives, or abstain).

"Since it is then the woman's property, what develops of it and of her body is also her property *up until* it becomes a human life, at which point it gains rights to both life and self-ownership... and becomes a seperate entity."

"And the limit of life is at the point where a unique expression of humanity has developed, which comes kinda late."

Ok, good.  'And', so you agree then, it is the woman's responsibility. 

"Since most pro-lifers are retards, unlike you, I'll battle them until I am dead, and will resort to arms to defend my fellow female citizens."

But you wouldn't do so to defend the unborn, whether they are alive or not.  How compassionate of you.

>>478 & >>480

A grand idea.  I happily second this idea. 

>>477
"Your view of sex is completely fucked up. Please tell us that you're a virgin already so that the rest of us *adults* can move on."

Convincing argument you got there. 

"Even worse is that it's under this rediculous impression of sex that you make decisions regarding abortion."

Since you never offered a refutation of his view of sex... your next statement (right above this sentence) is also invalid since, according to you, it is based on this that he bases his views on abortion.

"Two seperate sets of DNA, regardless of where they "meet" equal responsibility for both owners of DNA if a life is born."

Where they meet is not what is relevant.  What is relevant is whose strands they are.  Who owns said strands? Since they are both owned, and possessed by the woman, it is obviously hers.

"This is how we got the concept of marriage and the family with the parents at the head. This is how you get a fully functioning adult life that contributes to society."

There's a viable alternative that has been posted which is compatible with liberty.

"This is proven through society, science and culture."

It isn't proven through science.  The fact that half the DNA comes from the man is irrelevant, since it is owned and possessed by the woman at the time of conception.  It is the woman's property at this time, not the man's.

As for 'proof' coming from society and culture? This would only be 'proof' as near as I can tell if the consensus by society as to what is politically correct equated to truth, which doesn't, necessarilly. 

A simple example for you:  it can be held as the general consensus of society that 2+2=5, but this obviously does not make it so.  Likewise, your argument that society and culture dicatates it (if this is what you were trying to say), and that it is therefore truth, is composed of fail for the same reason(s).

"Anonymous, how dare you try to deny this?"

Yeah anonymous, how dare you hold views that run contrary to what is generally percieved as correct by culture and society?

"intellectual property" Genetic property. Also, the idea of people sitting down to write contracts in the heat of the moment is inplausible by the current cultural standards.
"http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-24-retiree-taxpayers_x.htm
So much for Social Security 'working well.'" Well, rebound. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061606N.shtml
"Sure.  You still evade the point that any problems we are having with market health care are due to regulations imposed by the dems." Proof here. The problems are FDA and inequities for example. Prove that the dems have caused the problems.
"Social Security is growing more and more out of balance every year, and we have a looming financial crisis." caused by the populist decision to cut taxes and go bazookas with spending at the same time.
"Market-run health care needs to be fixed - but definitely not socialized." I think a single-payer system would be best.
"'Poorly planned'? Capitalism doesn't involve central planning, sorry.  You can thank the government for 'poorly planned' capitalism." What governments are poor at handling capitalism? last time I checked the economy and the stock market seems to enjoy democrats in charge.
"All you are showing is how truly inconsistent and intolerant you are." Moderate libertarian,bub.
"15,500 live human beings being denied their right to live is far worse an offense than women not being allowed to make smoothies out of unborn children, *especially* considering that it was the woman's actions that put them in the position they are in anyway." And the non-existant men. All liberties or no liberties.
"The road to hell is paved with socialism/fascism/statism, all of which entail the denial of basic human rights.  I intend to support and defend these rights, thanks." And in trying to protect them you fail to do so.
"The lack of the right to make smoothies out of fetuses and embryos is something we can live without.  The right to life is not." Body. Right of body. Don't try to make this an esthetical issue again.
"No, the property rights to the semen have been transferred from the man to the woman.  Following this, the man does absolutely nothing.  Of course, the woman does not necessarilly have to accept them if she doesn't wish to become pregnant and have a baby (use contraceptives, or abstain)." The man is using the womans egg, even though she is the incubator of both he shouldn't let his genetic material go wayward unless he is ready to pay all consequences.
"Ok, good.  'And', so you agree then, it is the woman's responsibility." If a society offers contraceptives, guaranteed sex education and enough abortion clinics per sq. mile, then it may be allowed to ban abortions. Quid pro quo.
"But you wouldn't do so to defend the unborn, whether they are alive or not." They not humans be.
"Since they are both owned, and possessed by the woman, it is obviously hers." Well, since it is but an outgrowth of her until a certain limit, she may discard it at any one time. States that dislike abortions really seem to like unwanted pregnancies to crop up. This inconsistency must be resolved until I treat pro-lifers with respect.

You'll notice that the admirable Dean Baker says that health care needs far more change than Soc Sec does. What a shame Bush uses the FDA to prevent Americans from challenging big pharma in court :c

>>485 The economy has not found light at then end of the tunnel either. http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/08/what_inning_are.html#more

""The Guttmacher Institute says that most malformations and fetal problems are caused from a man whose sperm is infected or dulled down from drugs/alcohol/smoking. "

That's bad too.  Not relevant though." - Don't tell me it's not relevant when the far by greater chance of the fetus catching a disease or being harmed is from the man's messed up sperm. Stated by the Guttmacher Institute. This still shows your one-sidedness to this entire ordeal.
"No, not for raising a family, for taking actions that will knowingly put their childrens lives, health, and well being at risk for selfish desires." - Oh by far, the woman is MORE at risk than the poor wittle fetus.
"What causes people to kill people? What causes people to steal? What causes people to break the law? Should murderers be held responsible for their actions? Should anyone be responsible for their actions, or can we just blame it all on their environment, and on society?" - This is all irrelevant to the choice of irresponsible sex. I'll ask AGAIN. What causes people to make irresponsible choices in the first place?
"Yes it does.  Nobody should be getting welfare, period.  The whole program should be incrementally removed as quickly as possible." - Expect a lot of women and the poor to be hurt. It's not cool to play around with women's lives and poor people's lives.
"Sure.  And they support gun control, the gun registry, the drug war, NSA spying, etc as well.  If you are sick of this, then vote libertarian." - Too many people bitch about gun control. They should know there's more than one amendment. Or maybe they are just obsessed with fire power.
"I never said we should do that.  Furthermore, many of the people in congress want to fix our government.  I think we should just vote out all the liberals, and vote in libertarians.  Take people off the dole, and give em back their personal freedoms." - LMAO. The effin Republicans/Neo-Cons are sure screwing things up more than the Dems. The entire effin government should be cleaned out, then replaced with Libertarians-Utilitarians.
""- I'm talking about when the child is already here. If the man didn't want to become the father of a child and pay child support he wouldn't have acted 'irresponsible.' "

Wrong.  It is not the responsibility of the male to keep women from getting pregnant.  This effects them, not men.  If women don't want to get pregnant, they need to take responsibility and make sure contraceptives are used." - Child support sure the hell does affect men. If they didn't want to become a father and pay child support they should've played their part in taking responsibility. Here's your one-sidedness again. Sex is a two-way street. You are always in favor of men and fetuses.
"I never said this.  I have no issue with responsibility.  You are trying to push the responsibility nature gives to women onto men, however." - Right...nature created child support laws. Right right right.
"Says she who thinks women should be allowed to use force and violence to violate the rights of employers to their property? I think yours is the fucked up attitude." - I haven't advocated violence and force for this matter. Your attitude is by far more fucked up for your assumptions and blatant common sense to most issues.
"I didn't refer to *all* women as irresponsible bitches.  I said women who do 'insert irresonsible bitchy activity here' are irresponsible bitches.  You are took what I said entirely out of context.  Way to go!" - Notice that I never said 'all' to begin. You took what I said way out of context and stretched it. -claps- Stop defeating yourself already.
"Those men are right, more or less." - Chauvenist pig.
"Actually, there is.  Its called child support laws." - Now you finally wake up to child support laws. If the man didn't want to pay child support, he wouldn't have acted irresponsible. He helped create that child just as much as the woman.
""But responsibilty is a violation against male human rights, right?"

I never said this." - By the way you're speaking, you'd like men to be void of any responsibility.
""What about the 'irresponsible' men whose condomless cocked helped create that pregnancy."

What about the women who let them put their condomless cocks inside their vagina? Did they not know that they would be spewing out babies in another 9 months if they didn't use contraception?" - Believe it or not, it is more the man's decision than the woman's. A lot of men try coercing women into having unprotected sex with threats such as, "If you don't have sex with me I'll leave you! Prove to me that you really love me."
"lol.  Give me an example of how men are legislating vaginas." - Banning abortion, making contraceptives more expensive and more scarce, denying sterilization to women whom want it, pharmacists' malpractice of denying legal prescriptions of Plan B from their beliefs (they shouldn't be pharmacists if they're gonna let their beliefs rule over them), laws allowing insurance companies to not cover contraceptives and sterilization procedures for women, the gag rule, forcing Abstinence-only education (which highly fails), taking out comprehensive sex-ed, enforcing gender stereotyping and gender roles to make women subserviant as back in the 50's, etc.
"Men don't have a responsibility for unwanted pregnancies." - Yeah they do, if they didn't want to become a father in the first place. Men goad women into having abortions since they didn't want to be a father and take care of the child. "Please have an abortion! I'm not ready to be a father!"
"100% of those against abortionists will never become pregnant? I doubt that." - So you're saying men are able to become pregnant? LOL. Can't you comprehend what I just said?! LOL. 90% of anti-abortionists are men, 100% of them will never become pregnant. Notice the focus on the men?
"No it isn't.  Women should not have the right to murder other human lives." - Here we go again with the same crap. Abortion isn't murder. It's a part of taking responsibility.
"Redundant.  The baby grows inside her, and comes out of her.  If she doesn't want this to happen, due to the fact that it is her body, she has to use contraceptives or abstain." - Redundant, if he didn't want the pregnancy to happen, he would've be responsible.
"Yeah - a baby in *her* body, not his.  It is not the man's responsibility to prevent an unwanted pregnancy from growing within the woman.  It is the *woman's* responsibility to prevent this occurrence in *her* body." - It is his responsibility if he didn't want the woman to become pregnant.
"Saying the man is responsible for a baby that comes out of her body when she voluntarilly takes in his sperm by not using contraceptives is like saying the food industry is responsible for shit we poop out after voluntarilly eating their food." - Very bad analogy, comparing babies to poop. LOL.
"We have no natural responsibility to kids that grow in women's bodies, thus we aren't evading responsibility, since there was never one to be evaded." - But you do have responsibility to prevent an unwanted pregnancy if you don't want to be a father.

>>464
Finally.

>>466
"Legislating equality is not liberty." - It is liberty, give me a reason it wouldn't be.
"If it is his baby, and he must help care for it, then she is not allowed to abort it without his consent." - Then again, it's inside the woman's body, not his.
"Elaborate.  'Support the carrier'?" - He means the pregnant woman. Durr.
"But women are responsible for -accepting- his fluids.  It is then her fluids once she possesses it, not him.  Her property then, not his, which would be quite a crucial difference." - And the man knew that his fluids would cause a pregnancy. There should be a contract for this 'acceptance' crap if you want to make sperm property. Hell, then sperm can be used as collateral!
"Good point.  Again, if it is partly the man's child, then the woman cannot abort without mutual consent, since the child is both of theirs, as everyone loves to say." - The woman has more say than the man since it is growing inside her body and not his'.

>>469
"But women are responsible for -accepting- his fluids." And men are responsible for accepting her egg." - Win win win!

>>470
"Employers have the right to hire or fire whomever they please for whatever reason they please." - That's only if they are doing it on their property, and not their superior's.
"No, because the right to life is more significant than the right to kill fetuses, again, provided we are talking about your hypothetical example, in which it is all or nothing." - Redundant. Women are more important than fetuses.
""And men are responsible for accepting her egg."

Men don't accept her egg.. it is the reverse, women are accepting the semen." - The man really is accepting her egg and what happens when his sperm and semen join.
""Mind you, 90% of anti-abortionists are male, but get this, 100% of them will never become pregnant."

>>474
""Whether it does or it doesn't doesn't matter.  Employers have the right to hire or fire whomever they please for whatever reason they please.  There's no such thing as a right to a job.  Jobs are something given to people by employers, agreed upon by mutual consent, and unless there is some sort of binding contract, can be revoked at ANY time for ANY reason." Well, if a culture makes people less worthy because of their phenotype or natal conditions, that culture may have to be changed through arbitrary means." Honest truth, hot damn.
""Possession of the semen is being transferred from the man, to the woman.  The egg is not being transferred from the woman to the man." The fact that you started with making the holy procedure of consensual procreation of the species into a sort of competition is telling of how extreme one has to go to belittle women here. This is not possesion, here." - Thank you.
""100% of abortion advocates have never had to put up with the experiance of being aborted." First, a minute portion of fetuses "Experience" jack, and 100 % of pro-choicers also happen to have not experienced that. " - Win win win.
""Men don't accept her egg.. it is the reverse, women are accepting the semen." This is not about what occurs where, it is about cause and effect and as such men are equally responsible." - Thanks again.

>>475
"If I am giving out cookies on a streetcorner, and I own said cookies, and someone I just plain don't like for whatever reason comes up and wants one, I can refuse to give it to her.  (hello, they are *MY* cookies.)" - Lol sexist. You'd be a bad cookie seller. Your job is selling cookies, not discriminating on phenotypes.
"That 'minute portion' is a portion of a whole so large that that 'minute portion' happens to be around 15,500 *per year*.  Doesn't sound so fucking 'minute' any more, does it?" - It is minute compared to over 1.5mil. per year. And since those 15,500 per year are done out of medical reasons, I see no problem to it.
"My position *is* consistent.  I am not doing it 'to hang onto an argument', I am doing it because I think this is what is right." - Well, what you think is wrong.
"It is about a transfer of ownership..  if the man is transferring ownership and possession of the semen to the woman, then it is no longer his, and thus the child won't be his either - it would be the woman's.  (Yes, obviously it would be his genes, but that doesn't make it his property, since ownership was transferred via sex, in my view.)" - Umm, half of it is still his property, especially after 9 months when it is jettisoned from the woman, where it then would no longer be inside her. There's just a brief time lapse there.
"Since it is then the woman's property, what develops of it and of her body is also her property *up until* it becomes a human life, at which point it gains rights to both life and self-ownership... and becomes a seperate entity." - It's still half his property even up until then. His actions led up to what happened.

>>476
"Well I AInt damn ready to damn let an entire damn culture mistreat a damn half of its population damn." - Neither am I! Fight for what's right!  -shadow boxes-
""That 'minute portion' is a portion of a whole so large that that 'minute portion' happens to be around 15,500 *per year*.  Doesn't sound so fucking 'minute' any more, does it?  Sept. 11th was what, 2-3 thousand dead? I forget, something like that.  Well this is over 5 times that sum.  Considering that Sept.11th warranted various bits of legislation to be passed, I think it is *easy* to say that the same should be done for this 15,500, which is *far* from a 'minute' number, unlike 9/11." I wonder how amny women there are in South Dakota..." - Extreme burn.
"LIfe is redundant and useless without the liberties that follow *in time*." - True.. Quality of life is really important.
"And the limit of life is at the point where a unique expression of humanity has developed, which comes kinda late. Since most pro-lifers are retards, unlike you, I'll battle them until I am dead, and will resort to arms to defend my fellow female citizens." True again. Let's fight together! To arms to arms! Oh believe me, if this was the other way around, I'd fight for men as well. Hell, even men these days need help to destroy gender stereotypes and gender roles. To arms I say!

>>477
Wha-hey. Win win win win. Thank you. -passes cookies out to anti and Xel-

>>478
Extreme fail. There is no need of a contract. The man already authorized the woman to use his fluids when he ejaculated inside her. It's his fault there. If he didn't want the woman to use his fluids then he would've been responsible and used a condom and other contraceptives.

>>479
LMAO. To arms! Xel!

>>481
"15,500 live human beings being denied their right to live is far worse an offense than women not being allowed to make smoothies out of unborn children, *especially* considering that it was the woman's actions that put them in the position they are in anyway." - See above.
"The lack of the right to make smoothies out of fetuses and embryos is something we can live without.  The right to life is not." - Umm. I've never seen the fetus smoothie flavor..have you?
"But you wouldn't do so to defend the unborn, whether they are alive or not.  How compassionate of you." - But you never defend half the population of the US. How compassionate of you.

>>483
"Where they meet is not what is relevant.  What is relevant is whose strands they are.  Who owns said strands? Since they are both owned, and possessed by the woman, it is obviously hers." - It's still half the man's responsibility. It's just like a man parking his car is someone else's garage. It's still his property.

Holy hell, Kumori. Have an internets. Props for taking the time. But don't call him a chauvinist pig. It is not applicable (I prefer "precocious, powerless little whiner" because he really deserves dismissal more than aggressiveness).

Also, legislating liberty isn't liberty. There is an excellent editorial cartoon where someone has painted "DO NOT DESECRATE OR BURN" on the American flag with splodgy black paint. It's a bit like that. I believe people need to be devoid of prejudice before we give them the right to discriminate, and I'm not sure punishment and coercion is the way here.

SHUT THE FUCK UP, SERIOUSLY, THIS THREAD IS SO BORING AND GAY

"You'd be a bad cookie seller. Your job is selling cookies, not discriminating on phenotypes." Well, by turning away consumers or discriminating affiliates and employees because of phenotype he would be at a loss to those other cookiesellers who weren't bigotted cunts, and hired on qualifications. This is the ideal result of a libertarian solution and I hope it is as probable as the propagandists say it is. This is the equivalent of a democratic economy; the business men are politicians, the consumers are voters. Money are votes, but you can't use these votes to ask an arbiter to give you the upper hand. The problem is that in such a system the 'voters' would have to be very very alert, very very aware that their money could do harm and very very scrutinizing of the 'politicians'. This is very very not the case, and while the dems are poor at preparing people for a completely private economy and even idiotically battles the notion, the American conservatives can't privatize for shit, have poor social programs and they do like their lobbyists and corporate friends don't they?

>>490 And you are so 'amusing' and no doubt heterosexual.

"But you never defend half the population of the US. How compassionate of you." But women have equal damn rights so therefore calling feminists damn bitches and letting the damn American culture be what it damn is is perfectly justified. Also, whether birth control, sex education to prepare men and women for HOLY DAMN VIRTUE OF RESPONSIBILITY, morning-after pills, non-retaded damn gender roles and abortion clinics  damn exist and aren't guarded by religious fanatics is completely damn irrelevant all the damn time because birth control is so damn easy and cheap damn and skin ce - I mean fetuses must be protected or there will be no damn civilization in 200 hundred damn years. *shakes stick*

>>488
I thought I was pretty much dismissing him then and there. Although, "precocious, powerless little whiner" has more oomph to it. Hmm. *takes Internets*

>>491
Hmm true there. He caused his own demise. The Invisible Hand weeded him out. I also won't buy his cookies even if he did let me buy them as a form of boycotting.

>>493
No one shakes a stick at me! *bites the Discriminating Bigotted Stick of Society and snaps it in half with her jaws*

>>492
I DONT GIVE A FUCK, THIS IS SERIOUSLY GAY NOW STFU

"I also won't buy his cookies even if he did let me buy them as a form of boycotting." And all consumers with a sense of responsibility would help you in the boycott. The problem is that it takes a particular cultural status quo to prepare people for that type of undertaking, and until then I don't want humanity thrown into whatever. Perhaps one could argue that a free economy will force people into responsibility, but this is a gamble that should be rejected in favor of an incremental dismantling of government that always makes sure humanity is ready for the next step. Government should not work against itself, like the conservatives want. It should not make itself cyclical, like the socialists want. It is supposed to make itself useless by creating a culture that makes every individual perfectly self-governed. This, of course, will take a shitload of time but I want the first step taken before I die.

Colombian Catholic Church Excommunicates All Involved in 11-year-old Rape Victim’s Abortion

By Gudrun Schultz

BOGOTA, Colombia, August 30, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Cardinal Alfonso Llopez Trujillo announced Tuesday that the Colombian Catholic Church has excommunicated all persons involved in obtaining an abortion for an 11-year-old girl, who became pregnant after she was raped.

The order includes the judges, politicians and legislators involved in the decision, as well as the doctors, nurses and the girl’s parents, the Manila Bulletin Online reported today.

Under excommunication, all those involved in the abortion are banned from receiving the sacraments, except the sacrament of confession, and may not perform a ministerial role in the Liturgy or other worship ceremony.

Participating in abortion carries the automatic penalty of full excommunication, under the Catholic Code of Canon Law.

Cardinal Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, has been very clear on the application of excommunication in cases of abortion. In a June interview with Famiglia Christiana magazine, Cardinal Trujillo said the doctors, nurses and the mother involved in abortion all incur excommunication, as would the father if he supported the abortion decision.

Colombia bowed to internal and international pressure earlier this year by allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest, in a Constitutional Court decision. Bogota’s Achbishop, Cardinal Pedro Rubiano Saenz responded to the decision by stating, in an interview with El Tiempo newspaper, “All those who commit the crime, the sin of abortion, will be excommunicated immediately. This applies as well to those who foster or assist abortion.”

Archishop Luis Augusto Castro, president of the Bishops’ Conference of Colombia, spoke out against the Court’s decision to accept abortion in difficult cases involving rape or incest, saying “The child is innocent…the criminal should be punished and put in jail for a long time, but the child should not have to pay for the sins of another. He is an innocent baby.”


So much for a forgiving "God". God doesn't exist. Forget about the innocent child that was brutally raped.

>>497
That's just sickening.

An 11 year old girl was raped and the Colombia Catholic Church wants to add to her misery by forcing her to carry her rapist’s child at the expense of her health and life ahead of her with the threat of excummunication of her supporters.

http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/PubArticleTX.jsp?id=1135332307106
http://www.unknownnews.net/vaticanpedophilesclub.html

All corruption.

Catholic church itself even prides in making nine year old girls carrying pregnancies to term.. I'd be so fucking scared if I was one of those girls..

The Catholic Church has time and time again proved that it’s more interested in controlling people’s bodies - especially but not only women - and in ideological purity than in helping people.

No decree on or suggestion of constructive human behavior may be justified by, strengthened by or argumented for via a supernatural dimension. Everybody who says otherwise are humanity's enemies. Since reality is probabilistic, all evidence and opinions are to be based on finding recurring causation in the chaotic froth of human history and testing for as many conditions as possible. http://www.mega.nu/innovism.html  I am of the opinion that this fellow owns.

>>497
>>498
I knew the Catholic church was bad, but not THAT bad. Omg.

Welp, I'm off for a weekend vacation with my hubby. *tag-teams Xel* It's all up to you now and any random help from our allies you may get.

>>502 AROUND CATHS NEVER... Let your guard down.

>>504
AROUND POPES, KEEP YOUR SOAPS!

>>487
"- Don't tell me it's not relevant when the far by greater chance of the fetus catching a disease or being harmed is from the man's messed up sperm."

You are a dipshit.  You initially claimed that women who attempted to become pregnant and had children regardless of serious health disorders that might jeopardize their children's future health, life, and well being were 'brave' and acting in 'good conscience,' which is what my entire refutation of said comment was about.  This is what we are talking about now.

I said they were 'irresponsible uncompassionate bitches' which evidently ticked you off, regardless of the fact that it is *true.*

*YOU* then went on talking about how 'well, *men's* actions deform fetuses a lot more! LOL!'  - as if that had anything at all to do with my refutation of your original comment.

Which, as I said before, is entirely irrelevant, since it isn't a contest between men and women, it is about whether or not your comment you exclaimed in that post was valid, which it clearly was not, since it didn't relate at all to the discussion. 

My point is not that 'men are better than women,' my point was that those whom you have called 'brave' and 'acting in good conscience', or whatever, are irresponsible uncompassionate bitches.

"- Oh by far, the woman is MORE at risk than the poor wittle fetus."

It doesn't matter.  If the woman wants to risk her life, I could care less.  But when she does *this*, she is risking the life, health, well being, and future of another to come.  Way to go.

"What causes people to kill people? What causes people to steal? What causes people to break the law? Should murderers be held responsible for their actions? Should anyone be responsible for their actions, or can we just blame it all on their environment, and on society?"

"- This is all irrelevant to the choice of irresponsible sex. I'll ask AGAIN. What causes people to make irresponsible choices in the first place?"

I'll ask again, what causes people to make any irresponsible choice? What causes people to murder? If people think they can get away with it, and they really want to do it, some people will.  Making a law against murder would help alleviate the murder rate, and hiring more cops and such might be a step in the right direction as well.

You want me to say: 'its allllllll the environment's fault, lol! Nothing is anyone's fault, its all the environments fault.' -Which is complete bullshit. 

"- Expect a lot of women and the poor to be hurt."

Only if they make bad decisions.  Anyhow, Xel agrees with me here as well.  Even he wants public programs phased out slowly and incrementally.  Libertarianism ftw.

"It's not cool to play around with women's lives and poor people's lives."

Taking away welfare incrementally doesn't mean we are playing around with their lives.  Taxing some people to then give money to others constitutes playing with people's lives.  *That* is not cool.  That's what I like to call 'stealing.'  People are often only poor or hard off due to their decisions. 

"Too many people bitch about gun control. They should know there's more than one amendment. Or maybe they are just obsessed with fire power."

Too many people bitch about abortion 'rights' and feminism. 

"- LMAO. The effin Republicans/Neo-Cons are sure screwing things up more than the Dems."

Your opinion.

"The entire effin government should be cleaned out, then replaced with Libertarians-Utilitarians."

Says she who thinks welfare and social security are a good thing? Hahaha.  I agree with this phrase, its just funny that it is coming from you, considering your apparent opinions on welfare.

"- Child support sure the hell does affect men."

You fail.  I never said child support does, I said it doesn't naturally.  You are trying to legislate natural equality between the sexes that never existed to begin with naturally. 
"- Right...nature created child support laws. Right right right."

If the child is *both* of theirs, than you can't abort it without the man's consent, ever, since it is his child as well.  If you are going to claim mutual responsibility, that means mutual *rights* as well.  It also means responsible men shouldn't be deprived of their children so regularly in custody battles.
"- I haven't advocated violence and force for this matter. Your attitude is by far more fucked up for your assumptions and blatant common sense to most issues."

Oh really? What happens if I refuse to give you irresponsible fucks welfare money? The government comes up to my house, sticks a gun in my face, and takes it.  That's the bottom fucking line.  Extortion/stealing.  Similarly, its the same with legislating equality in the workplace as well.  If workplaces don't conform to your government standards, you are going to *force* your standards on them.

"- Notice that I never said 'all' to begin. You took what I said way out of context and stretched it. -claps- Stop defeating yourself already."

When you say 'you think 'women' are irresponsible bitches', that implies I think that women are *generally* irresponsible bitches, which is flat out not true. 

"- Chauvenist pig."

Typical response from a pissed off feminist.  That made me laugh, haha.  I guess people who are pro equal rights are 'chauvinist pigs'. 

"- Now you finally wake up to child support laws."

I knew they were there, I just didn't like them.

"If the man didn't want to pay child support, he wouldn't have acted irresponsible. He helped create that child just as much as the woman."

And, if its partly his, then you aren't allowed to abort it without his consent. 

"- By the way you're speaking, you'd like men to be void of any responsibility."

If men have a responsibility to the kid, and it is partly theirs, you can't abort without their consent.  (not saying I agree with you, btw, but this end is logical.)

"- Believe it or not, it is more the man's decision than the woman's. A lot of men try coercing women into having unprotected sex with threats such as, "If you don't have sex with me I'll leave you! Prove to me that you really love me."

And, ultimately, the decision to allow him to give the woman his sperm was whose?  And yes, he is giving it to her.  It is then hers.

"- Banning abortion,"

Banning abortion isn't 'legislating vaginas' it is 'protecting human life' from irresponsible lazy pieces of shit who didn't bother to get an abortion until it was so late in development the baby could be considered a 'life'.  If they waited that long, tough shit I say.  Sucks for them.

"making contraceptives more expensive and more scarce,"

Which entails 'legislating vaginas' how? That entails legislating contraceptives and peaceful trade - something I'm against.  Obviously, I am not for 'legislating vaginas'.

"denying sterilization to women whom want it, pharmacists' malpractice of denying legal prescriptions of Plan B from their beliefs (they shouldn't be pharmacists if they're gonna let their beliefs rule over them),"

Ha.  So if I'm selling cookies on the street, I can't not-sell cookies to someone for some reason? (maybe I just don't like them).  Face it, pharmacists have the right to not sell you things or work for you if they don't want too.  You don't have a right to their labor without their consent. 

"laws allowing insurance companies to not cover contraceptives and sterilization procedures for women,"

Ensurance companies have the right to offer whatever plans for coverage they wish.  If you don't like it, don't buy from them.  You can't force someone to offer something to you for trade.  You are attempting to force legislation and your will on the market for your convenience - which is anti-liberty, and inevitably violates someone's basic human rights.

"the gag rule, forcing Abstinence-only education (which highly fails),"

But you would support a gag rule making teachers unable to discuss religion in the classroom? I'm not saying they should be allowed to discuss religion, I am merely pointing out that there is a reason they have these rules, and unless you will let teachers discuss religion as well if they like, you will be being incredibly inconsistent. 

Furthermore, 'gag rules' don't 'legislate vaginas.'  You fail for redundancy.

"taking out comprehensive sex-ed,"

Deciding I don't want to pay for sex-ed doesn't entail 'legislating vaginas', sorry.  That's about property rights - my right to do with my money, my personal resources, earnings, and rights, as I please.

"enforcing gender stereotyping and gender roles to make women subserviant as back in the 50's, etc."

Women aren't subservient.  I also don't advocate 'enforcing gender stereotyping and gender roles' either. 

"- Yeah they do, if they didn't want to become a father in the first place."

If men are responsible for the baby, the baby is the right of *both* parents, and abortion should not be allowed *at all* without the consent of *both parents.* 

"Men goad women into having abortions since they didn't want to be a father and take care of the child."

Which has something to do with whether or not abortion should be allowed or not because....?

"100% of those against abortionists will never become pregnant?"

"100% of those against abortionists will never become pregnant? I doubt that.  There are no female anti-abortionists who wish to have kids then? I doubt that."  -ME

"- So you're saying men are able to become pregnant? LOL."

Yay for taking what I said completely out of context and confusing the hell out of me, and everyone who was reading it.  Ok, lets go over this slowly, and carefully.

Here is an exact quote from my post that you pulled this garbage out of: 

"but get this, 100% of them will never become pregnant." -Kumori

(talking about anti-abortionists)

You were saying 100% of anti-abortionists will never become pregnant.  My reply to this reads: 

'100% of those against abortionists (anti-abortionists) will never become pregnant? I doubt that.  There are no female abortionists who wish to have kids then?'  -My response

Notice that I never said men would be able to become pregnant, as you claimed just now.  If I was saying that men were able to become pregnant, then wouldn't this imply that *ALL* anti-abortionists were men, when in reality, that is certainly *not* the case?

"Can't you comprehend what I just said?! LOL. 90% of anti-abortionists are men, 100% of them will never become pregnant. Notice the focus on the men?"

lol.  90%=all.  Way to go.

"- Here we go again with the same crap. Abortion isn't murder."

That depends on how late in development the human fetus is.

"It's a part of taking responsibility."

Nah, its a way to avoid responsibility for not using adequate contraceptives, and furthermore, to not get the embryo removed for such a long period of time that it became a sentient fetus.   Abortion at this point and time is near-murder.

"- Redundant, if he didn't want the pregnancy to happen, he would've be responsible."

Supposing he *is* responsible for the situation, and it is partly his, this means you are not allowed to abort without his permission.
"- It is his responsibility if he didn't want the woman to become pregnant."

If the man jacks off into a jar, and gives the semen to the woman, who then inserts it into her vagina, who is responsible for the kid? (I'm just curious what you'll say, I'm not trying to exercise a point.)

"- Very bad analogy, comparing babies to poop. LOL."

LOL, THE ANALOGY IS BAD BECAUSE IT COMPARES BABIES TO POOP, LOL.

If it is bad, how about we try giving a reason why it is bad? -- A good reason this time.

"- But you do have responsibility to prevent an unwanted pregnancy if you don't want to be a father."

Not one that occurs without legislation.  It is a legislated responsibility... kinda like legislation banning abortion, that wouldn't be there naturally, but was stuck there by people who want other people to be more responsible.

>>466
"- It is liberty, give me a reason it wouldn't be."

Because it infringes upon that person's liberty in an unjust manner.

"- Then again, it's inside the woman's body, not his."

Too bad.  If its his, she can't kill it without his consent.

"- And the man knew that his fluids would cause a pregnancy. There should be a contract for this 'acceptance' crap if you want to make sperm property."

Something like this has been suggested already.  I guess you support it then.

"- The woman has more say than the man since it is growing inside her body and not his'."

Nope, if you want *mutual* responsibility, that means the man has *mutual* rights to that being as well.  No aborting without his permission, if this is the case.

"- Win win win!"

Nope, fail.  Men don't 'accept' her egg, women 'accept' men's sperm.  It is then her sperm, ownership and possession having been transferred from the man to the woman. 

On the flipside, if the fetus is indeed half the man's, and he must then pay child support, the woman can't abort it without his consent.

"- That's only if they are doing it on their property, and not their superior's."

Their superior gives them the authority to do so.  They have the right.

"- Redundant. Women are more important than fetuses."

Not redundant.  As soon as the fetus is old enough to be considered a human life, no more abortions, period.  In the hypothetical example, it is all or nothing.  The right to life is inalienable and uncompromiseable.

"- The man really is accepting her egg and what happens when his sperm and semen join."

The man doesn't accept squat.  He is giving the semen to the woman.

""Mind you, 90% of anti-abortionists are male, but get this, 100% of them will never become pregnant."

100% of abortion advocates have never had to tolerate being aborted.

"Honest truth, hot damn."

No.  Said solution to a nonexistant problem is a violation of property rights, and is anti-liberty.

" - Win win win."

Fail fail fail.

"- Lol sexist. You'd be a bad cookie seller. Your job is selling cookies, not discriminating on phenotypes."

They are my cookies after all, not yours.  Whether I am a 'sexist' or not is irrelevant.  Property rights entails the rights to both use and disposal as I please.  You have no rights to my products, my property, or my labor without my voluntary uncoerced consent.

"- It is minute compared to over 1.5mil. per year. And since those 15,500 per year are done out of medical reasons, I see no problem to it."

It doesn't matter what it is compared to, the fact is the number is large, and warrants legislative action since it is the proper  function of good government to defend human life.

"- Well, what you think is wrong."

Fails for not explaining why.

"- Umm, half of it is still his property, especially after 9 months when it is jettisoned from the woman, where it then would no longer be inside her."

Redundant.  It was given to the woman, and it is then her semen, not the man's.  Whether it has his genetic code in it or not is completely beside the point.  She owned it at that point, and it was her semen, not his. 

"There's just a brief time lapse there."

Nope.  The woman owned and had possession of both the semen and the egg prior to embryonic and fetal development.  She is responsible for the outcome of what happens with her property, not the man.

"- It's still half his property even up until then. His actions led up to what happened."

It isn't his property if it was given to her, and she accepted it. 

"- Neither am I! Fight for what's right!  -shadow boxes-"

Fight for the right to violate other people's rights! Yeah!!

"- Extreme burn."

More like 'extremely' irrelevant.

"- True.. Quality of life is really important."

Too bad it is redundant.  Just because someone has a bad quality of life does not give you the right to take it.

"True again. Let's fight together! To arms to arms! Oh believe me, if this was the other way around, I'd fight for men as well."

Yeah right. 



"Extreme fail. There is no need of a contract. The man already authorized the woman to use his fluids when he ejaculated inside her."

More like he gave her his fluids, which were then used to create a baby.

"It's his fault there. If he didn't want the woman to use his fluids then he would've been responsible and used a condom and other contraceptives."

No, if the woman didn't want to have a baby, she would have used contraceptives, or not accepted his fluids.  Just because the fluids came from his body does not change the fact that possession and ownership of said fluids are being transferred from the man to the woman, and they are then *her* fluids, not his.  The baby that results is *her* responsibility, not the man's.


"- See above."

Fails to address the fact that 15,500 live human beings being denied their right to live is far worse an offense than women not being allowed to make smoothies out of unborn children, *especially* considering that it was the woman's actions that put them in the position they are in anyway.

"- Umm. I've never seen the fetus smoothie flavor..have you?"

Sure thing.  There's this place down the road called 'Kumori's abortion clinic'... try it sometime.

"- But you never defend half the population of the US. How compassionate of you."

I certainly have.  I will stand up and defend for the rights to life, liberty, and property of anyone, regardless of race, sex, sexuality, religion, you name it. 

"- It's still half the man's responsibility. It's just like a man parking his car is someone else's garage. It's still his property."

No, the man is giving the woman his sperm.  When parking a car in someone elses' garage, he does not *give* the car to that person.  He never gives the car to said person.  In sex, the man gives the woman his sperm.  It is then *her* sperm, not his.

SHUT
THE FUCK
UP

>>507 LOL

No, the man is giving the woman his sperm.  When parking a car in someone elses' garage, he does not *give* the car to that person.  He never gives the car to said person.  In sex, the man gives the woman his sperm.  It is then *her* sperm, not his.

This is not the same as having a fucking baby. For your analogy to work the car and parking garage would have to create an offspring that is half-car, half-parking garage. In which, the car and the parking garage both take responsibility. Why are disagreeing with years and years and thousands of years of nature? I don't get it, are you just completely anti-facts, anti-science or are you just stupid?

>>496
"And all consumers with a sense of responsibility would help you in the boycott. The problem is that it takes a particular cultural status quo to prepare people for that type of undertaking, and until then I don't want humanity thrown into whatever."

This doesn't change the fact that you are violating the basic human rights of another human being to achieve your end. 

'The end justifies the means.' .......

"Perhaps one could argue that a free economy will force people into responsibility,"

That's a solid argument. 

"but this is a gamble that should be rejected"

Whether or not it is a gamble or not is completely beside the point.  There is no 'proper' or 'unproper' use of property unless that said useage violates the rights of another being.

"Government should not work against itself, like the conservatives want."

The liberals used the government to screw up an already good market-based health care system a long time ago in favor of the crap we have now - which they then want to completely socialize to solve the problem they created initially.

Coincidentally, something very similar happened with the Federal Reserve and Social Security/Roosevelt/The New Deal/The Great Depression.
http://www.policyreview.org/aug01/roberts.html
http://www.uaca.ac.cr/acta/1998nov/lreed.htm

>>484

"So much for Social Security 'working well.'" Well, rebound. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061606N.shtml";

You are for taxing the rich to fund these programs... I don't see how you are rebounding.  This is not a very libertarian policy.  Sure privatiziation is not good, but my hope is that privatization will be but an incremental step toward complete control of your individual income and funds - which is the way things should be.

>>484
"Genetic property. Also, the idea of people sitting down to write contracts in the heat of the moment is inplausible by the current cultural standards."

If they don't want to take the time to sit down and sign a contract, then it must not be important enough to warrant legislation.  Child support then fails.  If it *is* that important, then I fail to see what is wrong with the contract idea.

"Proof here. The problems are FDA and inequities for example. Prove that the dems have caused the problems."

I used 'dems' when I should have used the term 'liberals' or 'those who advocate state interference in the free-market'.

"caused by the populist decision to cut taxes and go bazookas with spending at the same time."

The Social Security Trust Fund is its own pot.  It is seperate from the other government coffers.  This has nothing to do with the looming Social Security financial crisis. 

"I think a single-payer system would be best."

Elaborate & explain.

"What governments are poor at handling capitalism? last time I checked the economy and the stock market seems to enjoy democrats in charge."

Simply having a democratic president amounts to what? What about the senate? The congress?

"Moderate libertarian,bub."

So you are inconsistently tolerant.  How then can you bitch at people for being intolerant to other groups of people then, when you are guilty of the same basic thing (intolerance) ? If you want other people to be tolerant, you have to be tolerant yourself.  You have to be the change you want to see in the world.

"And the non-existant men. All liberties or no liberties."

Yes, all liberties except those that cause direct injury to another human life.

"And in trying to protect them you fail to do so."

How so?

"Body. Right of body. Don't try to make this an esthetical issue again."

I don't know what you are talking about.  Simple stuff really, the right to life is the most important right.

"The man is using the womans egg, even though she is the incubator of both he shouldn't let his genetic material go wayward unless he is ready to pay all consequences."

So if he gave her is sperm in a jar, and then she inserted it into her vagina, it would still be his responsibility?

"If a society offers contraceptives, guaranteed sex education and enough abortion clinics per sq. mile, then it may be allowed to ban abortions. Quid pro quo."

The fetus is innocent, and its right to life does not depend on outside-world-activity.

"They not humans be."

Yes they are.  Not fully human, but if you would not defend them in the least, you are no less than uncompassionate.

"Well, since it is but an outgrowth of her until a certain limit, she may discard it at any one time."

Again, back to my analogy with my friend.  Since I dragged him into it against his will, I am not allowed to kill him by ejecting him from my ship.

"States that dislike abortions really seem to like unwanted pregnancies to crop up. This inconsistency must be resolved until I treat pro-lifers with respect."

I have yet to see an example of conservative american governments prohibiting sale of contraceptives entirely.  Link me if you can pls.

I have yet to see an example of conservative american governments prohibiting sale of contraceptives entirely.  Link me if you can pls.

"Entirely"

Nice choice of words. It means that any rollbacks that conservative american governments have made in the sale of contraceptives are fine, just as long as it's not done "entirely". WOW, ANONYMOUS, HOW DO YOU DO IT!?

I really can't wait for the next civil war to start, so I can shoot you fuckers in the face.

"People are often only poor or hard off due to their decisions." The US is not a very meritocratic society, so maybe hard work should be encouraged?
"Ha.  So if I'm selling cookies on the street, I can't not-sell cookies to someone for some reason? (maybe I just don't like them).  Face it, pharmacists have the right to not sell you things or work for you if they don't want too.  You don't have a right to their labor without their consent." Well, unwanted pregnancies and a lack of preventions of these harm society. It is in my interests to make sure women can strike back at such foolishness.
"If men are responsible for the baby, the baby is the right of *both* parents, and abortion should not be allowed *at all* without the consent of *both parents.*" Well, fortunately, men have been taught by society to not stick around after conception. Unless he signs a contract before conception, that little tumor belong completely to the woman.
"Nah, its a way to avoid responsibility for not using adequate contraceptives, and furthermore, to not get the embryo removed for such a long period of time that it became a sentient fetus.   Abortion at this point and time is near-murder." It's either murder or it aint.
"Too bad.  If its his, she can't kill it without his consent." Then he legally binds himself to care for that child 50 % until it's 18. If not, bring out the vacuum and the salt for all I care.
"No, if the woman didn't want to have a baby, she would have used contraceptives, or not accepted his fluids." If he didn't want to have a baby, he should have used contraceptives, and not given her his fluid.
"Fails to address the fact that 15,500 live human beings being denied their right to live is far worse an offense than women not being allowed to make smoothies out of unborn children, *especially* considering that it was the woman's actions that put them in the position they are in anyway." Nope, not having the right to do what you want with non-human outgrowths of your body is equal to not having the right to life. A fetus without a unique human conscience is a cancer. If we ban abortion because of 15,500 babies, we will have to ban chemotherapy.
"Sure thing.  There's this place down the road called 'Kumori's abortion clinic'... try it sometime." AAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA FUNNY!
"If they don't want to take the time to sit down and sign a contract, then it must not be important enough to warrant legislation.  Child support then fails.  If it *is* that important, then I fail to see what is wrong with the contract idea." If the man doesn't sign up for child support or equal parenting, the tumor (I'll refer to fetuses without a unique human personality as benevolent tumors from now on) is hers hers hers.
"This has nothing to do with the looming Social Security financial crisis." There is no looming Soc Sec financial crisis.
"So if he gave her is sperm in a jar, and then she inserted it into her vagina, it would still be his responsibility?" He shouldn't have to pay child support, no.
"Elaborate and Explain" http://www.pnhp.org/  What these guys want.
"The fetus is innocent, and its right to life does not depend on outside-world-activity." Beg to differ. Collective responsibility exists.
"Since I dragged him into it against his will, I am not allowed to kill him by ejecting him from my ship." Let's say you drag a rock onto your ship. After certain amounts of time this rock (it's magical) will become a living thing. If you wait until it is an organism, you are not allowed to throw it over board. Your analogies are still sub-par.
"I have yet to see an example of conservative american governments prohibiting sale of contraceptives entirely.  Link me if you can pls." Rural, socially conservative cultures cause unwanted pregnancies. The more of this, the more unwanted pregnancies. People's decisions are subject to environment, a molding of behavior that accumulates.
"I really can't wait for the next civil war to start, so I can shoot you fuckers in the face." Anonymous is not a threat. The christianists are. "They can be all about them prayers and making each other be shaking on the floor and drinking wine and what-not them fellows do, but if they be coming to our here cities trying to bash my gay friends or telling mah daughter to stay at the stove there will be hell -ah say, ah say- hell to pay."

>>513
You spend too much time on thie thread.

>>514 I try to cut off and they keep pulling me back in. If I don't resist these poor, rigid excuses for libertarians they may think their theories have a reason to exist.

>>512
"I really can't wait for the next civil war to start, so I can shoot you fuckers in the face."

And you call anonymous uncompassionate.  (lmao)

Just shows how 'compassionate' the 'bleeding heart' crowd is.

>>516

I have no compassion for those that shit on liberty and the ideas passed down by the founders. And I'm not a "liberal". Stop running to that word everytime you're confronted with your own inner failure. A shotgun shell has no political party.

>>517 "A shotgun shell has no political party." That belongs on a t-shirt. Abolutely FUCK YAH!

>>516, >>517
It does.  The Republican party.  Dumbfucks.

well, first of all, the fetus doesn't even get a nervous system till, like, 12 weeks into development (fact check that, i'm not sure, but it's well into it). any sane person would have aborted the fetus by then. if people abort in the right amount of time, the zygote should have only matured a week, maybe even two at the most. at that point, it's not really anything but a group of generic cells just starting to specialise. theoretically those cells could be placed in a liver and become liver cells if conditions were right (esp. for the zygote, which is a pluripotent cell, meaning it can become anything, even itself. that's how we get twins. that's natrual cloning for ya).

the only moral debate i see in this at all are those pretty much cutting up and scooping out fetuses after the second trimester. that shit is wrong. might as well chop off the head as it comes out.

people gotta be responsible first and formost, and nip this shit in the bud before it gets to be a real problem. sorry, but if i throw a seed into a fire, you can't say i just cut down a mighty 100 year old redwood. neither can you say aborting the very beginning stages of life (for anything) means you've extinguished a real human being. if that's the case, sperm and eggs are just a step below a zygote, and should be equally valid. without either there is no zygote, therefore no human, so therefore they must both count. meaning every period and every jerk off is an abomination to god and his creation(well maybe the jerk off thing, but not the period thing :P)

and stop any bullshit about 'you're making the child suffer for your mistake'. sorry, there's no suffering here, cause there's no pain, because there's no nervous system to know pain, let alone a conciousness attached to those nervs.

Pretty much, if you cant live outside the womb, and this is even with a lot of hightech medical equipment, you arent a human and shouldn't be one. not yet at least.

this debate is pretty much over. only the loonies who think life begins at cell division are still up in arms about this.

i seriously wanna see statistics for how many abortions are preformed at what point of the development of the fetus. i bet you any money they're all within at least the first month, with everything else being either a last minute ditch, or complications rising from something like a dad raping his daughter and the girl needs parental consent or something.