Sorry to say

Well, I stand corrected. Is it not remarkable the baby is clapping in the womb at 14 weeks?!!! As for controlling women....hogwash! It's about the rights of the child either born or unborn. Their is reason for birth control and that I have no problem with BC being inexpensive or subsidized by the federal government but I have a problem paying for abortions! Can you look your brother, sister, son, or daughter in the eyes and say they don't have a right to exist. As for the gender of the posters...I imagine that most people in this forum are male!

Murder is wrong at a fundamental level of humanity! I do agree with Tenshinia that this is a very complex issue and their is some room for compromise. The facts are that is illegal to fund abortions under Federal law. The Obama administration continues to thumb is nose at laws not policies that he disagrees with. That is why this is has been a state issue where the voters can decide whether to have abortions or what restrictions should be in place. Some states were super restrictive and some states not!

At its core the question of abortion comes down to weighing the mother's inconvenience to a child's life. I fully accept that at some point the dreadfully painful inconvenience of a pregnancy is greater than the value of a child's life. Rape, incest and health issues come to mind. Yet, so many pro-choicers adamantly assert that any level of inconvenience trumps the Child's life at any stage of pregnancy short of the first breath.

If someone doesn't want to be pregnant, take precautions. If the precautions fail, yes abortion is on the menu of options. Yet, I pray that the woman considers the unique of the human life in her hands and weighs that against her convenience. Thinking about abortions as anything other than the termination of human life and all its potential cheapens every human life.

Most pro-life proponents view our position as fighting for the civil rights of any child to life. Contrast that to the anti-death penalty position of most pro-choicers. Pro-lifers fight for the pure life of children pregnant with the promise and potential for greatness. Anti-death penalty advocates fight for the life of people who have squandered their potential in brutally vicious ways. Yet pro-lifers are castigated for their fight for civil rights.

I always find the contrast worthy of contemplation. Are there deeper parallels? I believe there are.

smr wrote:Well, I stand corrected. Is it not remarkable the baby is clapping in the womb at 14 weeks?!!! As for controlling women....hogwash! It's about the rights of the child either born or unborn. Their is reason for birth control and that I have no problem with BC being inexpensive or subsidized by the federal government but I have a problem paying for abortions! Can you look your brother, sister, son, or daughter in the eyes and say they don't have a right to exist. As for the gender of the posters...I imagine that most people in this forum are male!

PeterZ wrote:At its core the question of abortion comes down to weighing the mother's inconvenience to a child's life. I fully accept that at some point the dreadfully painful inconvenience of a pregnancy is greater than the value of a child's life.

Inconvenience.

INCONVENIENCE?

Having your body used as an incubator against your will for a nine month period followed by the rather physically traumatic process of giving birth ALSO against your will... and you want to trivialize it as an "inconvenience"? Are you out of your mind?

Let's see if we can get through to you what an incredibly contemptible thing you just said:

Rape, incest and health issues come to mind.

Well hey, what's the big deal with rape. It's just a little sex. What's so bad about sex right? Most people are perfectly happy to have sex, what difference does it make if it's against your will?

I mean it generally last minutes or possibly hours, not, oh say, nine months. So if a nine month long involuntary use of your own body is an "inconvenience" then rape must be... well, nothing at all right? Barely worth mentioning?




Are we seeing where our reasoning falls off a cliff yet? Are we? Women's bodies are not community property. You are not borrowing (well, since it's involuntary, stealing) their car for nine months and sticking them with the inconvenience of the bus, IT'S THEIR FREAKING BODY. YOU DON'T GET TO INVOLUNTARILY APPROPRIATE IT FOR THE PURPOSES YOU HAVE DECIDED YOU PREFER IT BE USED FOR AND THEN TRIVIALIZE IT AS AN INCONVENIENCE.



Holy shit...

You are a frothing at the mouth <delete> <delete> <delete>. Pregnancy for the most part is begun with a voluntary act. The results are a consequence of a voluntary action. Rape of course is a horrendous exception.

So a pregnancy that IS NOT caused by rape is not involuntary.

That said, the choice still remains a matter a human life compared to the time to bring a pregnancy that was voluntarily courted (again not including rape or incest) to term.

That abortion is available under certain circumstances is the law of the land. That folks believing as you do wish to force everyone to support your view of the value of a human life with their tax dollars is to my way of thinking despicable.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:At its core the question of abortion comes down to weighing the mother's inconvenience to a child's life. I fully accept that at some point the dreadfully painful inconvenience of a pregnancy is greater than the value of a child's life.

Inconvenience.

INCONVENIENCE?

Having your body used as an incubator against your will for a nine month period followed by the rather physically traumatic process of giving birth ALSO against your will... and you want to trivialize it as an "inconvenience"? Are you out of your mind?

Let's see if we can get through to you what an incredibly contemptible thing you just said:

Rape, incest and health issues come to mind.

Well hey, what's the big deal with rape. It's just a little sex. What's so bad about sex right? Most people are perfectly happy to have sex, what difference does it make if it's against your will?

I mean it generally last minutes or possibly hours, not, oh say, nine months. So if a nine month long involuntary use of your own body is an "inconvenience" then rape must be... well, nothing at all right? Barely worth mentioning?




Are we seeing where our reasoning falls off a cliff yet? Are we? Women's bodies are not community property. You are not borrowing (well, since it's involuntary, stealing) their car for nine months and sticking them with the inconvenience of the bus, IT'S THEIR FREAKING BODY. YOU DON'T GET TO INVOLUNTARILY APPROPRIATE IT FOR THE PURPOSES YOU HAVE DECIDED YOU PREFER IT BE USED FOR AND THEN TRIVIALIZE IT AS AN INCONVENIENCE.



Holy shit...

PeterZ wrote:You are a frothing at the mouth

Damn near, yes. That's what a contemptible disgusting thing you just said.

Pregnancy for the most part is begun with a voluntary act. The results are a consequence of a voluntary action.

So is a lot of rape. Hey she agreed to go out. Hey she agreed to go back to her place. Hey she agreed to be alone in these intimate conditions with me. Hey she agreed to make out a little...


Doesn't. Mean. Shit. At the point she says no it's fucking no.


That goes equally for sex or pregnancy. Any attempt to ague otherwise is beneath contempt.

So a pregnancy that IS NOT caused by rape is not involuntary.

If it isn't desired, it's not voluntary.

If she says "I don't want this" and you make her do it anyway it's the fucking opposite of voluntary.

You do not say people voluntarily got injured in car crashes just because they weren't forced at gunpoint into the driver seat.

smr wrote:Well, I stand corrected. Is it not remarkable the baby is clapping in the womb at 14 weeks?!!!

Per the linked article, it wasn't clapping as such, just a random movement.

As for controlling women....hogwash! It's about the rights of the child either born or unborn. Their is reason for birth control and that I have no problem with BC being inexpensive or subsidized by the federal government but I have a problem paying for abortions! Can you look your brother, sister, son, or daughter in the eyes and say they don't have a right to exist. As for the gender of the posters...I imagine that most people in this forum are male!

Except that it seems in the US a substantial portion of the pro-life camp is also opposed to birth control or comprehensive sexual education.

If its not desired then don't engage in activity that might result in it. We are not free from the consequences of our actions. Desired or otherwise.

Even so that desire to avoid the consequences of one's actions (not discussing rape here) is weighed against a human life. In that context, I think you are being callous beyond belief in your assertions.

We will likely not persuade the other, so this dead horse shall remain in the glue factory.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:You are a frothing at the mouth

Damn near, yes. That's what a contemptible disgusting thing you just said.

Pregnancy for the most part is begun with a voluntary act. The results are a consequence of a voluntary action.

So is a lot of rape. Hey she agreed to go out. Hey she agreed to go back to her place. Hey she agreed to be alone in these intimate conditions with me. Hey she agreed to make out a little...


Doesn't. Mean. Shit. At the point she says no it's fucking no.


That goes equally for sex or pregnancy. Any attempt to ague otherwise is beneath contempt.

So a pregnancy that IS NOT caused by rape is not involuntary.

If it isn't desired, it's not voluntary.

If she says "I don't want this" and you make her do it anyway it's the fucking opposite of voluntary.

You do not say people voluntarily got injured in car crashes just because they weren't forced at gunpoint into the driver seat.

PeterZ wrote:If its not desired then don't engage in activity that might result in it.

How are you still not getting this? Every word you type is an exact analog to advocating that rape victims are responsible for their own rapes.


If you didn't desired to get raped you shouldn't have been out alone with that guy...

If you didn't want to get raped you shouldn't have been dressed that way...

If you didn't want to get raped you shouldn't have engaged in any activity thatmight have resulted in it.


Contemptible.


How hard is this to get through your skull? Women have the right to have sex.

Women also have the right to not want to have a kid.

If the first *accidentally* results in conditions where the second might be going to happen, women have the right to say "nope" and put a stop to it. And any attempt to force them to do otherwise against their wills is EVERY GODDAMN BIT AS MUCH A VIOLATION OF THEIR BODIES AS RAPE IS.


Please, by all means, present any reasonable argument how forcing women to use their bodies to carry a pregnancy to term against their will is NOT such a violation... instead of just dancing around the issue and trying to excuse it by blaming the women for bringing it on themselves as if that would somehow make what you're advocating less monstrous.

We are not free from the consequences of our actions. Desired or otherwise.

And one of the possible consequences of getting pregnant when you don't want to be pregnant is getting an abortion. You're not talking about them having to deal with the consequences, women who get abortions are already doing that.

You're talking about YOU being able to IMPOSE consequences upon them against their will. Which is a very different thing indeed.

Bruno Behrends wrote:
I did write 'balance' for a reason, Tenshinai. Don't put anything in my mouth (like claiming I put this above that or so).

And you are making my point for me by mentioning the difficulties - medical, financial etc - that can arise. I believe I also wrote 'no easy solution', right?

There is no balance, either you are forcing someone to take a potentially lethal risk that will have lasting consequences and require spending vast amounts of energy, or you allow abortion.

I would really prefer if abortion never happened, but reality is not ideal, and i refuse to enslave anyone just because it would be nice if reality was more ideal.

Basically this issue is too polarizing to allow reasoned argument.

Having sex has two main risks, venereal ills and pregnancy. Other than sterilization no birth control method is 100% effective. Abortion has become just another form of birth control.

So you decide to have sex anyway and get pregnant and you want my tax dollars to finance your choice to murder another human being? It's my body my choice, says you. So how is this different from me getting drunk driving a car and accidentally killing an innocent person, it's my body my choice.

Then there is the other side, the woman decides to have the child, and the father is financially responsible for 18 years. No you can't force a woman to have an abortion. Or the woman goes on welfare and we all pay.

The whole thing is a mess, so why is it OK that the woman has a choice, but neither the man nor society does?

The whole thing is people not taking responsibility for their actions, and expecting others to pay for it, even innocent children. Yes a fetus is considered a person in many states murder a pregnant woman and get two counts of murder. Don't you just love the hypocrisy of the law?

Poker