Abortion

[Bells]

Nothing. Literally.

I honestly don't see the relevance of your question to my initial observation. And that was that abortion has implications for the healthcare workers, as they are the ones terminating a life.

As they do when they follow DNR orders in allowing someone to die or turning off the ventilator to allow a brain dead person to die as per the family's wishes. So, what exactly are the implications?

Yes. It is a Homo sapien in Trimester 1, and a Homo sapien at 80 years of age.

Interesting point. I shall come back to this soon.

An elder can (usually) survive outside of another adult's care. Can a born baby do the same?

But we aren't talking about a born elderly human or a newborn baby, are we? Granted, refusing to feed a newborn baby can result in criminal charges against the parents or guardians of said newborn baby. Just as charges can be laid if you fail to feed or abuse an incapacitated elderly person. Now, lets say a woman is 12 weeks pregnant and she starves herself and the foetus dies. She will not be charged for having killed or ended a life. Why do you think that is Mordea?

Aka. Such distinctions are rather arbitrary. An unborn baby relies on another human for nourishment. A born baby relies on another human for nourishment. The means by which they obtain that nourishment change.

Refer to above.

Why wouldn't I? If you tout your position as being 'pro-choice', then you should be for *all* choice. No ifs or buts.

There is a fairly wide difference between being pro-choice and wanting to fuck your 3 year old daughter. I will leave it to you to figure it out.

Ergo. Just as you demand consistency from pro-lifers, I demand consistency from pro-choicers.

What consistency? Is there consistency in wanting to terminate a pregnancy at 12 weeks for example, and having sex with a child? You consider terminating a pregnancy at 12 weeks as being the same as sticking your penis in the vagina of a 3 year old?

How exactly is it the same? Where do you see a consistency there? Does the 3 year old choose for you to abuse her? No. It is her body. She does not have the capacity to consent to your depraved desires to have sex with her. So where exactly do you expect consistency?

Well done. Gold star.

Again, we shall come back to this in a very short time.

What you implied was that I held the view that a 12 week old foetus is the same as a born child. That is a misrepresentation.

Ah yes. Here we are.

"Yes. It is a Homo sapien in Trimester 1, and a Homo sapien at 80 years of age."

-------------------------------------------

"Fetus. Born baby. Toddler. Child. Teenager. Adult. Elder. All human."
"​

Those were your words, were they not?

Tell me, how exactly have I misrepresented you?

As I demonstrated above, you actually never asked me a question in an attempt to clarify my position. Instead, you presumptiously assigned a position to me which I do not hold.

Well, lets look at above shall we. You have accused me of misrepresenting you because I assumed from your words that you considered a 12 week old foetus to be the same as an 80 year old. Your words were precise. "Fetus. Born baby. Toddler. Child. Teenager. Adult. Elder. All human."... A direct quote of your words.

So I have assigned what position to you again?

In this thread, you have demanded that to be pro-choice should allow you to have sex with your child. You have declared that a foetus and an elderly person to be equally or "all human", you even went so far as to say that it is a "Homo sapien in Trimester one and is a Homo sapien at 80 years of age". At this point in time, I don't know whether to assume that you have strange desires for small children or what. You see Mordea, I will take you at your word and I will assume based directly off your words.

If you say "Yes. It is a Homo sapien in Trimester 1, and a Homo sapien at 80 years of age." and "Fetus. Born baby. Toddler. Child. Teenager. Adult. Elder. All human."... how exactly are we to look at such comments? Should we use some magic voodoo to try to determine your exact meanings? Is one actually less "human" than the other? If that is the case, why use the words "all human" and include "fetus" through to "elder"?

So tell me Mordea, how exactly have I misrepresented you?

Actually, I pointed that out to you in one of my previous posts, when you attempted to use the law to justify immorality.

Actually no, you did not. You made a vague open statement about the law prohibiting abortions in certain circumstances. For example, the law states that you cannot perform an abortion on someone against their wishes. Next time, be clear.

In conclusion, you really need to actually read what other people post *before* responding.

I could give you the same advice. I would also advise you to be very careful about how you word yourself. Because as is demonstrated above, you are misrepresenting yourself in trying to accuse others of misrepresenting you. In short, read and remember what you write.

 

[mordea]

As they do when they follow DNR orders in allowing someone to die or turning off the ventilator to allow a brain dead person to die as per the family's wishes. So, what exactly are the implications?

The first scenario has no implications. The second does, as it involves health workers withdrawing health services that are keeping a human alive.

Of course, I'm still not sure what you are getting at.

But we aren't talking about a born elderly human or a newborn baby, are we?

No. But I cited that example in an attempt to explain why I feel your distinctions between a fetus and a born baby are arbitrary. Granted, a fetus younger than 27 weeks probably isn't viable outside the womb, but I don't see why this makes it any less deserving of life than a baby.

Granted, refusing to feed a newborn baby can result in criminal charges against the parents or guardians of said newborn baby. Just as charges can be laid if you fail to feed or abuse an incapacitated elderly person.

*Precisely*

Now, lets say a woman is 12 weeks pregnant and she starves herself and the foetus dies. She will not be charged for having killed or ended a life. Why do you think that is Mordea?

I think it highlights a glaring inconsistency in the way many human beings regard abortion. If criminal charges can be laid for starving a baby or dependent elder, then one must wonder why the same does not apply for a fetus, which is also human.

There is a fairly wide difference between being pro-choice and wanting to fuck your 3 year old daughter.

Again, if you call yourself pro-choice, then you should support *all* choice. Right?

What consistency? Is there consistency in wanting to terminate a pregnancy at 12 weeks for example, and having sex with a child? You consider terminating a pregnancy at 12 weeks as being the same as sticking your penis in the vagina of a 3 year old?

Do you consider the termination of a fetus as the same thing as executing a serial killer? If not, why do you expect pro-lifers to be against capital punishment?

How exactly is it the same? Where do you see a consistency there? Does the 3 year old choose for you to abuse her?

Does a fetus choose to be killed?

"Yes. It is a Homo sapien in Trimester 1, and a Homo sapien at 80 years of age."

-------------------------------------------

"Fetus. Born baby. Toddler. Child. Teenager. Adult. Elder. All human."
"​

Those were your words, were they not?

Tell me, how exactly have I misrepresented you?

I've already explained (twice now), how you have misrepresented me.

Well, lets look at above shall we. You have accused me of misrepresenting you because I assumed from your words that you considered a 12 week old foetus to be the same as an 80 year old.

Yes. I never said that they were the same.

Your words were precise. "Fetus. Born baby. Toddler. Child. Teenager. Adult. Elder. All human."... A direct quote of your words.

Yes. I said that they were all human. Not that they were all the same. You attributed a belief to me which was not my own. Ie. You misrepresented me.

You see Mordea, I will take you at your word and I will assume based directly off your words.

If you make assumptions based directly off my words, you would not have attributed a position I did not hold to me.

If that is the case, why use the words "all human" and include "fetus" through to "elder"?

Because they *are* all human. That's a statement of fact.

Actually no, you did not. You made a vague open statement about the law prohibiting abortions in certain circumstances.

That's not a vague open statement, it's a fact. Abortion is prohibited in some circumstances.

For example, the law states that you cannot perform an abortion on someone against their wishes. Next time, be clear.

I am clear and concise. Unfortunately, that does not stop other from misrepresenting me. Which is quite frustrating, as the very reason I keep my posts so short is so that no confusion occurs.

I could give you the same advice. I would also advise you to be very careful about how you word yourself. Because as is demonstrated above, you are misrepresenting yourself in trying to accuse others of misrepresenting you.

I am not misrepresenting myself. You are misrepresenting me. As you do with many others who disagree with you.

I re-iterate. Respond to what others write, instead of what you would like them to say.

 

[Bells]

The first scenario has no implications. The second does, as it involves health workers withdrawing health services that are keeping a human alive.

Of course, I'm still not sure what you are getting at.

I am sure you are clever enough to figure it out.

No. But I cited that example in an attempt to explain why I feel your distinctions between a fetus and a born baby are arbitrary. Granted, a fetus younger than 27 weeks probably isn't viable outside the womb, but I don't see why this makes it any less deserving of life than a baby.

I will address this point shortly.

*Precisely*

Bravo.

I think it highlights a glaring inconsistency in the way many human beings regard abortion. If criminal charges can be laid for starving a baby or dependent elder, then one must wonder why the same does not apply for a fetus, which is also human.

So a foetus is a human. Correct?

Again, if you call yourself pro-choice, then you should support *all* choice. Right?

Not if it impedes on the rights of a person over their own body.

Do you consider the termination of a fetus as the same thing as executing a serial killer? If not, why do you expect pro-lifers to be against capital punishment?

What part of "pro-life" escapes you? It is the hypocrisy of pro-lifers who claim to be about saving human lives who then go on to cheer outside of prisons while a serial killer is being executed or support a war where thousands of innocent civilians will innevitably be killed and labeled as collateral damage.

Does a fetus choose to be killed?

A foetus also did not choose to be conceived. It is the mother who chooses to terminate a pregnancy. I would have thought that was quite clear by now.

I've already explained (twice now), how you have misrepresented me.

Actually no, you have not. You have deemed that.. "Fetus. Born baby. Toddler. Child. Teenager. Adult. Elder. All human."... And then you went on to say that.. "Yes. It is a Homo sapien in Trimester 1, and a Homo sapien at 80 years of age.".. Ergo, you attribute all to be classified as "human" and thus a "homo Sapien", be it in the first trimester or an 80 year old. But here is where you seem to attribute being human more to one than you do to another:

But I cited that example in an attempt to explain why I feel your distinctions between a fetus and a born baby are arbitrary. Granted, a fetus younger than 27 weeks probably isn't viable outside the womb, but I don't see why this makes it any less deserving of life than a baby.

You made the arbitrary distinction yourself. When you classified a foetus and an 80 year old to be "human" and when you classfied a foetus in the first trimester and an 80 year old to be equally "homo sapien".

Now, I would have misrepresented you if I had said that you considered a foetus to be less human than an 80 year old or a newborn. But I did not.

However, you then go on to say this:

Yes. I never said that they were the same.

So a foetus is not as human as an 80 year old or a newborn baby? Didn't you say before:

"Yes. It is a Homo sapien in Trimester 1, and a Homo sapien at 80 years of age."

-------------------------------------------

"Fetus. Born baby. Toddler. Child. Teenager. Adult. Elder. All human."​

Now, they are either as human as the other and as homo sapien as the other, or they are not. So which is it?

Yes. I said that they were all human. Not that they were all the same. You attributed a belief to me which was not my own. Ie. You misrepresented me.

I see. So they are all human but not all the same. Interesting. Granted, genetically they will not be the same, for obvious reasons. But how is a foetus not the same kind of human as an 80 year old?

I have not misrepresented you Mordea. I understand you feel this need to jump on the bandwagon along with Neverfly and portray yourself as a victim of misrepresentation. But you appear to be saying they are human and homo sapien, but somehow they are not "the same". You either consider a foetus to be as human as a newborn and thus, as deserving of a life and protection that a newborn has at law or you do not. So which is it? Is a foetus as alive and as human as a newborn and an 80 year old? Or is it not, in your opinion?

Because they *are* all human. That's a statement of fact.

So they are "all human"?

And yet, when I repeated your very words, you accused me of misrepresenting you. Now, unless you have attributed the term "human" to be vague and to cover all, or you recognise one as being more human than the other or "not the same", but somehow "all human". Which is it?

That's not a vague open statement, it's a fact. Abortion is prohibited in some circumstances.

In some, yes, it can be. Lets look at Australia for example. You cannot terminate a pregnancy after a certain period of time, unless the mother's health is at stake or the foetus has severe abnormalities and would not survive to term. In such cases, women do get abortions. Your statements, however, are vague in the extreme.

I am clear and concise. Unfortunately, that does not stop other from misrepresenting me. Which is quite frustrating, as the very reason I keep my posts so short is so that no confusion occurs.

Aww.. Somewhere a teenie tiny violin is playing a tune for you. I have not misrepresented you. In your zeal to claim misrepresentation, you have misrepresented yourself. I understand your desire to be a victim here, but in all honesty, the only victim you are is of your own eagerness to be a victim.

I am not misrepresenting myself. You are misrepresenting me. As you do with many others who disagree with you.

I re-iterate. Respond to what others write, instead of what you would like them to say.

How exactly have I misrepresented you?

You have come out and said that a foetus to an 80 year old are "all human" and all "homo sapian".. from the first trimester even. And then you come out and say "they're not the same". You even claimed them as being "all human" as a statement of fact. But you then say that a foetus is not the same as a newborn or an 80 year old.. but somehow they are human.. but not the same kind of human.

I have responded directly to what you have written. If you have written and confused yourself, you have only yourself to blame, not others. And claiming that I have misrepresented you? That is laughable at best.

 

[Neverfly]

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/illustration-uk-93935b9cd6b6de1a4cba3d9559a34d99.html

LOL

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/illustration-uk-93935b9cd6b6de1a4cba3d9559a34d99.html

LOL

I know its brilliant isn't it! I thought you would get a good laugh from it. Kira is a good ole gal, a dear heart, she meant no ill intent when it was made, only poking fun at how the debate was going.

VI thank ya baby for inspiring such wonderful creative humor

 

[Neverfly]

I know its brilliant isn't it! I thought you would get a good laugh from it. Kira is a good ole gal, a dear heart and meant no ill intent when it was made, only poking fun at how the debate was going.

VI thank ya baby for inspiring such wonderful creative humor

Yes, I've noticed how the both of them often make the forum enjoyable.
It's why I can disagree with them, even, and still enjoy their presence.
I wish more members, self included, actively brought out the positives more than the negatives during debates.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Yes, I've noticed how the both of them often make the forum enjoyable.
It's why I can disagree with them, even, and still enjoy their presence.
I wish more members, self included, actively brought out the positives more than the negatives during debates.

Well I will put it this way, we have our warriors on the forum and then we have our dear hearts who deflate battles and bring harmony and humor to the table, both of them are examples of the dear hearts.

Never forget though that both groups are needed and fulfill their role

 

[Neverfly]

Well I will put it this way, we have our warriors on the forum and then we have our dear hearts who deflate battles and bring harmony and humor to the table, both of them are examples of the dear hearts.

Never forget though that both groups are needed and fulfill their role

I won't really comment on this too much.
Allow me this One Wee Bit of personal satisfaction... then my hijack ends.

I believe that a Warrior requires wisdom. It takes a bit of it to fight effectively and efficiently. A warrior that lacks wisdom is nothing more than a rabid dog. They do little good.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I won't really comment on this too much.
Allow me this One Wee Bit of personal satisfaction... then my hijack ends.

I believe that a Warrior requires wisdom. It takes a bit of it to fight effectively and efficiently. A warrior that lacks wisdom is nothing more than a rabid dog. They do little good.

Rabid dogs don't last long on this site. Trust me, they are either ostracized, banned, ignored or simply fade away into the ether.

In effect its the warriors who understand when to fight and when to show restraint that actually last.

Just ask Sam, she knows all about it

 

[mordea]

I am sure you are clever enough to figure it out.

I'd rather not second-guess you.

So a foetus is a human. Correct?

Correct. It is a human in an early developmental stage.

Not if it impedes on the rights of a person over their own body.

Ahh, so if a three year old *agrees* to have sex with an adult, then a pro-choicer would be OK with that?

What part of "pro-life" escapes you? It is the hypocrisy of pro-lifers who claim to be about saving human lives who then go on to cheer outside of prisons while a serial killer is being executed or support a war where thousands of innocent civilians will innevitably be killed and labeled as collateral damage.

I see no hypocrisy or inconsistency there. The beliefs of pro-lifers are simply far more sophisticated than you would like to think. After all, it's far easier to rebutt a dumbed down portrayal of what your opponents believe, rather than what they *actually* believe.

A foetus also did not choose to be conceived.

Nor did a two month baby choose to be born. Would you justify a mother murdering her newborn on that pretext?

If anything, the fact that a fetus did not choose to be conceived just makes it more the victim. What sort of world do we live in, where once can bring about human life, and then snuff it out whenever it is convenient to do so?

It is the mother who chooses to terminate a pregnancy. I would have thought that was quite clear by now.

Yes, the mother chooses to kill the fetus, without its consent. Not so pro-choice after all, are you?

Actually no, you have not. You have deemed that.. "Fetus. Born baby. Toddler. Child. Teenager. Adult. Elder. All human."... And then you went on to say that.. "Yes. It is a Homo sapien in Trimester 1, and a Homo sapien at 80 years of age.".. Ergo, you attribute all to be classified as "human" and thus a "homo Sapien", be it in the first trimester or an 80 year old.

Well done. Gold star.

[quote
But here is where you seem to attribute being human more to one than you do to another:
[/quote]

None are more human than the other. You are either a member of the human species, or you are not.

You made the arbitrary distinction yourself. When you classified a foetus and an 80 year old to be "human" and when you classfied a foetus in the first trimester and an 80 year old to be equally "homo sapien".

I didn't make any arbitrary distinction. I'm just going off the taxonomic organisation of species.

"Fetus. Born baby. Toddler. Child. Teenager. Adult. Elder. All human."[/FONT]

Now, they are either as human as the other and as homo sapien as the other, or they are not. So which is it?

They are all equally human. Belonging to a particular species isn't some sort of continuous variable. It's dichotomous: Eiither you are a Homo sapien, or you are not.

I see. So they are all human but not all the same. Interesting.

Not interesting. Obvious. I don't know why such an elementary concept is so hard for you to wrap your head around?

Granted, genetically they will not be the same, for obvious reasons.

Um. Genetically you remain pretty much the same throughout your entire development cycle, excluding some random mutations one acquires throughout one's lifespan due to random DNA copying errors and environmental carcinogens.

But how is a foetus not the same kind of human as an 80 year old?

Kind of human? Now *that* is rather arbitrary. Are blacks a kind of human? What about men?

I have not misrepresented you Mordea.

You have.

You either consider a foetus to be as human as a newborn

Which it is.

and thus, as deserving of a life and protection that a newborn has at law or you do not.

If being human is the measuring stick by which we determine if an organism has a right to life, then yeah, that's just being consistent.

Is a foetus as alive and as human as a newborn and an 80 year old? Or is it not, in your opinion?

A fetus is as alive and as human as an 80 year old.

So they are "all human"?

YES!

And yet, when I repeated your very words, you accused me of misrepresenting you.

For what must be the fourth time now. I said that all of those development stages I listed were *human*. I didn't say that they were all *the same*.

Men and women are human. But clearly they are not the same.

Blacks and whites are human. But clearly they are not the same.

An individual with Down Syndrome and a non-handicapped individual are human. But clearly they are not the same.

I and my white neighbour are human. But we are not the same.

A fetus and an 80 year old man are both human. But they are not the same.

Do I need to drum this simple concept in any more?

the term "human" to be vague and to cover all

It covers all aspects of the developmental cycle where the organism possesses a complete human genome.

 

[Bells]

I'd rather not second-guess you.

That's a first.

Correct. It is a human in an early developmental stage.

Hmmm..

Ahh, so if a three year old *agrees* to have sex with an adult, then a pro-choicer would be OK with that?

I know you're excited by the prospect, but there's this little thing called consent and capacity to give consent. Now, do you think a 3 year old can consent to sex with an adult?

I see no hypocrisy or inconsistency there. The beliefs of pro-lifers are simply far more sophisticated than you would like to think. After all, it's far easier to rebutt a dumbed down portrayal of what your opponents believe, rather than what they *actually* believe.

Excuse me while I have a quiet chuckle to myself at the notion of sophistication in pro-lifer's. Pro-life only up to a point.. I don't see how supporting the death penalty and war, which results in a massive loss of life, is "pro-life", do you? So a foetus is given a special protection, or they deem that a foetus should be given special protection. But once it's out, then it is no longer deemed worthy of any form of protection. Take Sandy for example. She is pro-life. Yet she supports the war. Justified the abandonment of a 7 year old by claiming him to be a demon seed and also supports capital punishment. She does represent the large majority of pro-lifer's out there. Do you view her beliefs as being sophisticated?

Nor did a two month baby choose to be born. Would you justify a mother murdering her newborn on that pretext?

If anything, the fact that a fetus did not choose to be conceived just makes it more the victim. What sort of world do we live in, where once can bring about human life, and then snuff it out whenever it is convenient to do so?

Women are often excused in the murder of their newborns if they suffer from post natal depression, for example. But I do not equate murdering a born child as being akin to an abortion at 12 weeks. If it was somehow the same, then women would have to report each time they had their periods, just in case they naturally aborted if they were a few weeks late.

You have admitted yourself, a 12 week old foetus is not the same as a born infant. Yet you seem to be implying that a 12 week old foetus should have the same rights as a born infant in protection from death. It does not work that way.

Yes, the mother chooses to kill the fetus, without its consent. Not so pro-choice after all, are you?

While it is in the mother's womb and not viable, the mother has the right to a choice.

None are more human than the other. You are either a member of the human species, or you are not.

But as you have stated, they are not the same.

Who should have more protection in your opinion? A 12 week old foetus or a born child?

Keep in mind that if a 12 week old foetus is given the same protection as a born child, then an investigation would have to be launched if the mother naturally aborted it and she could face a possible murder charge as a result of that miscarriage.

I didn't make any arbitrary distinction. I'm just going off the taxonomic organisation of species.

You did make a distinction.

Not interesting. Obvious. I don't know why such an elementary concept is so hard for you to wrap your head around?

Oh no, I have wrapped my head around it. But I find it interesting that you try to wrangle your way around it.

Um. Genetically you remain pretty much the same throughout your entire development cycle, excluding some random mutations one acquires throughout one's lifespan due to random DNA copying errors and environmental carcinogens.

No. Really?

Kind of human? Now *that* is rather arbitrary. Are blacks a kind of human? What about men?

I am merely asking you a question. How is a 12 week old foetus not the same type of human as an 80 year old? You have said they are all human but not the same.

You have.

This is just pitiful. I have not.

Which it is.

If being human is the measuring stick by which we determine if an organism has a right to life, then yeah, that's just being consistent.

Ahh. So a 12 week old foetus is just as human as a newborn?

Do you think a 12 week old foetus should have as much protection as a newborn? Should women have to account for their movements and what they have consumed if they naturally abort at 12 weeks, as one would in the death of a newborn? Should women be investigated if they naturally abort at 12 weeks as they would be investigated in the death of a newborn?

A fetus is as alive and as human as an 80 year old.

So if a 12 week old foetus is removed from the womb, it would be as alive as an 80 year old?

For what must be the fourth time now. I said that all of those development stages I listed were *human*. I didn't say that they were all *the same*.

Men and women are human. But clearly they are not the same.

Blacks and whites are human. But clearly they are not the same.

An individual with Down Syndrome and a non-handicapped individual are human. But clearly they are not the same.

I and my white neighbour are human. But we are not the same.

A fetus and an 80 year old man are both human. But they are not the same.

Do I need to drum this simple concept in any more?

In that case, do you advocate equal legal protection from the moment of conception?

It covers all aspects of the developmental cycle where the organism possesses a complete human genome.

And what of those that are incomplete? What of children born with a disability? I thought you said before that people with Down Syndrome are human.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Myself and Mordea are mammals. But we are not the same.

 

[Neverfly]

Mammals.

 

[Lori_7]

what about the fact that the vast majority of abortions are a product of profound irresponsibility? does that even matter at all to you people? if you're trying to tell me that giving birth to, and raising a child is just too hard, then maybe you're the one who needs to be aborted, because that's simply pathetic. and if it truly is such a hardship to be a good mother in this day and age, then it only goes to show what a fucking failure humanity and society are.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Yeah. It's too hard. And too annoying, and too messy, and I like my abdominal muscles the way they are. Cry me a fucking monsoon.

Sorry, Lori. Ya can't abort me. You could stick a needle in the base of my skull and try and do a retro-active partial birth abortion, but...yeah...I'm a 55kg human and I tend to get a little violent when people try and 'abort' me.

 

[Bells]

what about the fact that the vast majority of abortions are a product of profound irresponsibility?

You have proof of that? Statistics? Anything?

does that even matter at all to you people?

"You people". You know, there's not a term that grates me more than that.

That aside.. If the condom breaks.. if the pill fails (and it does).. If someone is raped.. If the mother or foetus is ill..

People seem to have this belief that women who get abortions do so because of "fact that the vast majority of abortions are a product of profound irresponsibility"..

if you're trying to tell me that giving birth to, and raising a child is just too hard, then maybe you're the one who needs to be aborted, because that's simply pathetic.

Oh ho ho..

So you have had children? You know how "easy" it is to raise a child? What about a 15 year old rape victim, for example? Should we tell her she should be aborted because she is not able to raise a child or because it will be "too hard" for her to raise a child? Should we tell her she is pathetic for wanting to get an abortion?

That aside, do you support the notion that people who believe in the right of free choice or the right to choose should be aborted? Is there a form of genetic screening for that? Not very pro-life after all, are you?

and if it truly is such a hardship to be a good mother in this day and age, then it only goes to show what a fucking failure humanity and society are.

Oh please. Can it.

I'm sorry, but this one just kills me.

It is a hardship for many women to be a "good" mother in this day and age. That you utterly disregard the economic and social situation of many women in the world in this day and age is quite astounding. Would you berate a woman for getting an abortion in a country that is seeing its population be decimated from starvation and she simply cannot feed another child, as she watches her other children starve to death? Which child would you choose in such a circumstance? How good a mother would you be, in this day and age.

Poverty is growing and there are many, many women who really cannot afford to feed another child in their family. It is easy to say what you say in the comfort of your home and in whatever wealth you may have. But not all women are as you are, with a roof over your head and caring support from family and friends.

 

[visceral_instinct]

So what if it is due to what Lori calls 'irresponsibility'.

It's her own body. A woman's wishes versus the hypothetical rights given to something that is still a fucking LUMP of JELLY and does not think or have emotions? Sorry. That's 1-0 to the living, breathing, real human being. The woman.

Women shouldn't have to claim hardship. It's about CHOICE. Not about whether you have a good enough excuse to be allowed to 'kill' your 'unborn baby' (I like the term 'parasite' myself, but it isn't medically accurate...) when you otherwise shouldn't.

 

[Bells]

So what if it is due to what Lori calls 'irresponsibility'.

It's her own body. A woman's wishes versus the hypothetical rights given to something that is still a fucking LUMP of JELLY and does not think or have emotions? Sorry. That's 1-0 to the living, breathing, real human being. The woman.

Women shouldn't have to claim hardship. It's about CHOICE. Not about whether you have a good enough excuse to be allowed to 'kill' your 'unborn baby' (I like the term 'parasite' myself, but it isn't medically accurate...) when you otherwise shouldn't.

My doctor used to call both my son's "little parasites" when I was pregnant. Granted, she also referred to her own 4 children as being feral devil spawn...

It is about choice, at the end of the day. Some people feel a sense of horror that women dare have a choice or a say over their reproductive organs. The horror..

Myself and Mordea are mammals. But we are not the same.

Mammals.

You could use that as a pick-up line Neverfly. Nothing says romance like telling a woman you want to do it with them like they do on the discovery channel.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Yeah, how dare I think of my body as mine, rather than an incubator? Shock, horror...I should go back to my cave, take off my shoes, bake some cookies, and give birth to a few babies...XD

 

[Lori_7]

You have proof of that? Statistics? Anything?

OH COME ON! do you ever leave your house? you don't know a bevy of women who've had an abortion? take your own statistical sampling. everybody got an excuse...a tale of woe. boo hoo.

"You people". You know, there's not a term that grates me more than that.

That aside.. If the condom breaks.. if the pill fails (and it does).. If someone is raped.. If the mother or foetus is ill..

People seem to have this belief that women who get abortions do so because of "fact that the vast majority of abortions are a product of profound irresponsibility"..

because it's true. "you pro-abortionists" always call upon the most detrimental tale or life and death situation to make an argument, and the fact is, that those situations are NOT the rationale for most abortions.

Oh ho ho..

So you have had children? You know how "easy" it is to raise a child? What about a 15 year old rape victim, for example? Should we tell her she should be aborted because she is not able to raise a child or because it will be "too hard" for her to raise a child? Should we tell her she is pathetic for wanting to get an abortion?

having a child is a blessing. *shock/horror* regardless of circumstance. after all, there are lots of people like me in the world who give a shit about women in hardship. but granted, it's easier to just kill the baby than to give a shit about that.

That aside, do you support the notion that people who believe in the right of free choice or the right to choose should be aborted? Is there a form of genetic screening for that? Not very pro-life after all, are you?

no, there's god and fate, and if you think for one second that the human race can go about doing the hideous things it does without consequence, think again.

It is a hardship for many women to be a "good" mother in this day and age. That you utterly disregard the economic and social situation of many women in the world in this day and age is quite astounding. Would you berate a woman for getting an abortion in a country that is seeing its population be decimated from starvation and she simply cannot feed another child, as she watches her other children starve to death? Which child would you choose in such a circumstance? How good a mother would you be, in this day and age.

Poverty is growing and there are many, many women who really cannot afford to feed another child in their family. It is easy to say what you say in the comfort of your home and in whatever wealth you may have. But not all women are as you are, with a roof over your head and caring support from family and friends.

thank you for expounding upon the point i'm making. humanity and society, for the most part, are failures in this day and age. and yes, i believe that those who don't believe in something better will stay in this hell forever. and apparently be very happy here. killing their offspring because it gets in the way of making money and procuring stuff.