Everyone has one and everyone has a right to one but, do men have a right to weigh in on laws concerning abortions? They don't have a uterus. They can't be a mother. I simply think a man voicing an opinion which doesn't include a statement that he will, in fairness, abstain from voting on anything concerned with abortion is grossly over stepping his bounds.
Forget that men appear to think sexual activity is the mark of a man. Forget that they take no responsibility for promiscuity and even brag about it. Forget that if they impregnate a woman they often take no financial responsibility for raising the child and, more often than not, don't assist in raising the child.
I think our culture unfairly puts the burden on the woman at every turn, if a casual encounter is had. Do men have the right to then go further and force the woman to pay the price, alone, for an act that took two? If that is not her choice? What makes a man completely ignore everything and insist women have no right to make decisions which they believe are in their best interests?
I sometimes wonder if we attempted to pass laws to sterilize men until they were married, or somehow could castrate them until they were given permission to have sex would they be offended? Maybe we could just fine them the cost of raising a child with each prescription of Viagra filled.
They not only have a right but are usually the ones making the laws!
I'll get back to you after the explosion.
I'm afraid to ask. What explosion?
You're right that they are usually the ones making the laws. That's my point. They don't have the right. They aren't women. They don't know what they are talking about.
They do have the right, must chap your ass too.
Are you starting a war on men or just the pro-life men.
So male scientists don't know what they are talking about, its just the women?
No sense in continuing this, have fun.
Do scientists attempt to force others to live by their views? No. There is no hypocrisy in science.
And I have no idea what the chap your ass comment means. Unless it means it bothers me. It doesn't bother me any more than the rest of the ignorant things politicians do.
Who is forcing you to live by their view, limits are put on abortion its not outlawed.
I'm not even pro-life, I'm just tired of hearing how women are so mistreated while telling me I have no right to an opinion!
Its a two way street.
You aren't infringing on my rights. I don't believe in abortion. But, I do believe in the right for women to make their own decisions. And, no, it isn't a two way street, unless you can tell me what laws are on the books that inhibit a man from making decision for himself and his own body.
A man can't put heroin into his body!
Let me put it this way.
Men are making laws governing your body all day long!
And you can't do a thing to stop it.
So keep talking, they ain't listening and they will get reelected.
Abortion is the liberal assertion that poverty is a fate worse than death.
No, it's not. I grew up in poverty, and my parents still managed to give us a happy childhood. Money isn't everything.
So all the world should think like you?
Have you encountered any situation where your parents had to forgo their and your siblings food, to feed you?
"Money isn't everything"
So you don't or have money?
Who said money is everything? Is air or water "everything"?
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000-Emile R, right as usual. Men have NO no say as to whether a woman has an abortion or not. Men DON'T get pregnant so they have no cogniznace regarding the scenario at hand. Many men do not use protection while having sex, of course, the burden is placed upon the woman to secure the protection.
Most men are irresponsible in terms of sexual behavior. Most of the responsibilities regarding contraception are indeed placed upon the woman. So that being said, if a woman gets pregnant, it is SHE who should decide whether or not to obtain an abortion. NO MEN should have any say as to this scenario as many of them did not assume contraceptive responsibility. It takes TWO to tangle;however, such is SELDOM the case in the sexual arena. Now I have SAID my piece for today.
I can give you this one. But this does not change the fact that I as a father should definitely have a say so as to if the child I partially helped to make lives or dies.
Fallacy. Men do use protection while having sex because since a lot of them are asual about it they don't want to catch a disease.
Yet women still spread their legs for them.. Sounds wayyy more responsible to me
Actually, it is the responsibility of BOTH to practice safe sex.
So my response being said, If a woman makes the decision to lay down and sleep with someone that is irresponsible and not really caring much as to whether she wants to be safe or not, then whatever happens after that is the product of jointly irresponsible decisions. But the life created as a result after a point is another human being and should not be killed simply because the mother doesn't want to own up to the responsibility of her irresponsible actions.
YOU have SAID your piece for today and we disagree so we can move forward to something else agreeing to disagree
That would be funny if not so obviously and obnoxiously sexist.
Because we know, don't we, that our extremely low unwanted pregnancy/abortion rates are because the woman, unwilling to take birth control herself, looks at the male and, not seeing any birth control, immediately says "Oh, we have to wait until we have birth control"? NOT.
If you think it doesn't take two to tango in the sexual arena you are sadly mistaken. Just as you say, many men have unprotected sex; approximately as many as women. For you don't (except in rare cases) find pregnancy the result of protected sex; it requires TWO people, both unprotected, to make a baby. If either one bothers to use protection pregnancy is pretty rare.
+1.. This also doesn't take into account the women that also decide that getting pregnant might be the way to trap the man into staying so they poke holes in the condom or "forget" to take their pill then having an abortion when he still leaves her. It is absolutely a two way street. The burden is on both men and women for safe sex, but ultimately (as it has been pointed out) women are the ones that have to deal with most of the side effects of this choice so why would the woman NOT take every precaution to avoid this consequence (even if it means keeping her legs closed)?
Couldn't agree more. And I find it hilarious that men ignore the obvious nature of reality. One poster said Viagra was a necessary drug and birth control wasn't something insurance should be expected to cover. We need to make sure men are as virile as possible, but make a woman pay the price. I'm beginning to think there is still a hope to put us barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Just not their kitchen. Get women pregnant and force them into poverty where they don't have the ability to get am education because they are too poor and too busy raising a child alone.
And if a woman stands against them they scream murder.
Forget that a man doesn't own a uterus any more than a women owns testes. Forget that he can't be a mother any more than she can be a father. Forget that nature (not culture - nature) put most of the burden on the woman. Forget that the fetus is half male - the gamete from the man. Forget all of that.
The ONLY pertinent question is "When does human life begin?" Everything else except the very, very rare case where the woman's life is in real danger as a result of the pregnancy is pure window dressing and emotional appeal. Rape doesn't matter. Incest doesn't matter. Mutated, abnormal or deformed fetuses don't matter.
Only "When does human life begin?" Any killing after that point is murder; any destruction of parasitic organic cells prior to that point is immaterial.
If instead you are really suggesting that a woman be given a "bye" on murder because she voluntarily cooperated in the formation of a human life and now doesn't want the responsibility for that person, I feel very, very bad for you.
OK. I'll grant you that the OP is a bit of an 'in your face' post. But, are you serious? How dare you accuse women of murder. I thought you, of all people, would be a little more sensitive to the rights of others to make decisions for themselves.
I will admit that I don't think they should have the right to abort after a certain time, but this ridiculous belief that abortion should not be legal; this disgusting habit of referring to those women as murderers; this insane desire to stop the morning after pill from being freely available to women is saddening. And, I feel bad for you that you would post such drivel that would allow the conservative right to feel justified in continuing their attacks on the personal liberties of others. Good for you that you got a +1 from one of them.
And, in closing, since you are a guy it really isn't any of your business.
Looks like men are gonna have to start picketing in the streets for their civil rights!
How very hostile to civil rights that you'd tell a man it's "none of (his) business"! either personally like you've made it here, or men in general. Amazing how audacious liberal women are!! Who the hay do you think fathers a baby? Women by themselves? LOL. Uh....no.....I've got some facts of life for ya---------it takes a male as well as a female to produce a baby.
And honestly, I think it's time men started taking their share of the responsibility AND the rights that they have where babies are concerned. This crap about it being just the woman's right is foolishness. AND the whole thing is folly compared to the rights of the persons whose rights really ARE being taken from them------------the children!
Its the lefts war on men!
Were just to busy laughing and making laws to be concerned.
It's starting to look like a war on men!
Leave it up to the liberals to make war about everything they can.
You aren't making laws. You are as much a slave to the system as I am.
It doesn't take a male and a female to raise them. Sorry Brenda, but men are not, by law, expected to be fathers. And they use this freedom to their advantage. Have you ever noticed that Viagra is always covered by insurance, but birth control isn't? Why is that, do you think?
As I stated previously, I don't believe in abortion. But, I also don't believe that a woman should be forced to have a child if it is not her wish. Don't give me any crap about them keeping their legs together. As you said, it takes two. If you aren't going to push for the laws that force men to be fully responsible for their actions it is very unfair to expect women to carry all of the weight of your need to judge them, the weight of their actions and the actions of others.
What in the world does viagra have to do with abortion?
But I'll answer you anyway. Viagra is covered as it is used to restore normal bodily functions lost to age, accident or illness. Very similar to the artificial lenses I recently had implanted to correct poor vision from cataracts. Or to the drugs I take to help prevent heart attack.
Birth control pills, on the other hand, are used to disrupt normal bodily function. The restore nothing to normal operation or use. Very similar to wearing earplugs when noise levels are normal and not obnoxious.
And there are already laws in place to force men to be fully responsible for their children. Or at least as much as women are - adoption is always an option for women if not equally so for men.
Yes. 80 year old men need hard on.that's so very normal. Guys think that is all life is about. You do realize those things hunt down something to use it in? If you think Viagra is necessary, then you should think birth control to fend off the results of lechery would make sense.
Your entire line of argument has been a real eye opener. I find it backward and sexist, to say the least.
There is indeed a great deal of sexism apparent in this thread, but you won't find it from my posts. May I provide a few quotes?
"Yes. 80 year old men need hard on"
"Guys think that is all life is about"
"You do realize those things [80 year old men] hunt down something to use it in?"
"And they [men] use this freedom to their advantage."
"And, in closing, since you are a guy it really isn't any of your business."
"And I find it hilarious that men ignore the obvious nature of reality."
"... men appear to think sexual activity is the mark of a man. "
"[men want to] Get women pregnant and force them into poverty..."
"They [men] don't have the right. They aren't women."
"They [men] don't know what they are talking about."
"Forget that they [men] take no responsibility for promiscuity and even brag about it."
Yeah, there are some unwarranted sexist generalities being thrown about, aren't there?
Perhaps you don't understand how the body works; what evolution has designed it to do. Well, I personally don't see much difference between one organ and another that isn't working properly, be it an eye, a heart, the sexual system as a whole or something else. And maybe you believe that society needs to pay to disrupt the bodies natural functions and enable safer recreation. I do not.
Whether it be a condom, a pill or something else entirely any birth control used is the responsibility of the individual, not some stranger. You want to play, pay the tiny cost of playing safely and that includes any viagra user. They can pay the same cost of safe sex as anyone else.
Let's get one thing straight. Viagra is designed for a specific purpose. It has very negative side effects possible, but that doesn't deter men in the least. Because they want that part to function. Whatever the cost. Because that is how men define themselves; and you can't argue that honestly.
As long as the insurance companies make sure that part works in men but they have no interest in the needs of women when men are wantonly running around attempting to use that body part, you are being two faced and hypocritical. You can't see it because, well you know.
I'm afraid when we are on the conversation of abortion you can't accuse me of sexism. Since this is a woman's issue and only a woman's issue only women should be discussing it and we can't be sexist against each other.
Can't accuse you of sexism?
"Because that is how men define themselves"
"that part works in men but they have no interest in the needs of women"
"men are wantonly running around attempting to use that body part"
"only a woman's issue only women should be discussing it"
Sure. There's nothing sexist about your posts. Nothing except men are animals only interested in sex and women have the right to murder as they choose because...because...because they have a uterus. Or something, anyway. Nothing sexist there at all.
I give, Emile, for you aren't interested in a discussion/debate on abortion. You're only interested in what you perceive as "women's rights" (but isn't) and hang the rest of the world. That and bashing men at every opportunity.
Men are not animals only interested in sex; but they do separate their basic desire to have sex from their responsibilities that may come from the act of sex. Women are no different from men. They have the same needs men have. However, the fact that they have this need puts them in jeopardy of finding themselves in a situation they hadn't planned or prepared for. When a man finds himself faced with this news, they have the option to walk away. Men are attempting to force women to mop up the mess they both made. To live with the act they both did. For the rest of their lives. While men simply wash their hands of it and then have the audacity to voice an opinion opposed to a woman having any other choice. It's pathetic.
Do you not find it incredibly unfair that men would not address the basic human needs when attempting to determine how a woman is to address the aftermath of those needs, if something unplanned happens? If one won't own up to the obvious nature of reality, how in the world does one find yourself justified to comment on it?
You know, if we simply made a law that men were tied to the act as much as the woman was, then guys might have a say. And, I'm not talking financially. I'm sure some idiot will chime in and say men do always help out financially. I'm talking emotionally, physically and in all other ways. For the rest of their lives. I doubt any man would support such a law. They'd rather simply attempt to keep women down.
It's not about 'women's' right but about a humans right to do whatever one wants with ones own body. It doesn't matter that the fetus is a potential human, as long as it is inside a body it is part of that body. You were saying that science can now make even 6month gestation survive. Science can develop to make every human cell(even cancer cell) develop into a human(cloning/tissue culture), does than mean one should not amputate or do surgeries?
Can I tell you what to do with your body?
Are you kidding me?
That idea you mentioned about women keeping their legs together would actually work! LOLOL.
You make it sound like women can't keep from having sex!
And while I do indeed understand the hormone levels and the strength of sexual desire, especially when a person is young, it is also true that people are responsible for their actions. That includes young women who get pregnant, unless they're raped, or in the case of underage girls, seduced.
A female's responsibility is the same as the male's responsibility. As you said, it takes two.
Don't need a Man to have children, sorry, Bro,
Check out this article, the More You Know:
http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk/stem- … ction.html
It's quite amusing really.
The populace is up in arms about GM food but don't mind if their children are genetically modified!
I'm not a Bro.
And that article's talking about a theory; and an experiment that supposedly produced sperm from stem cells in one case and hasn't been successfully replicated (if we even are to believe the first part anyway).
At any rate, going by that article, the whole premise is just wrong, period, because of it's intent and its targets.
Emile, why is the following quote from Wilderness controversial or offensive to you? It seems both sides would be fine with it. One side will argue life begins at conception, the other that it begins at birth, or two or three.., anyway it seems to leave the debate open while establishing a ground rule everyone could more or less agree on.
You are right. There is room for reason in his post. But, the use of the word murder is offensive. I don't think any of us has the right to use it if we are considerate. I took a woman to an abortion clinic once when she asked me. I don't know if she felt bad. I don't know if she thought about the decision. I didn't talk to her about it because, really, what can you say? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It was a decision she had to make for herself.
I don't know what she thinks of it now. But, I would be surprised if she has forgotten about it. Women who have had them don't appear to ever forget. That word is so horrible. I don't know any statistics but I would think maybe 20% of the women I know openly admit it. Maybe that many more have done it and won't admit it freely. I would think that every time we use the word murder when discussing abortion there are a lot of women who get stabbed by the pain of being judged harshly.
You find the word "murder" offensive; so do I. I find the act of murder to be far more offensive than a mere word, and in particular a word that has a specific legal meaning. So yes, I used the word and used it intentionally to describe a most offensive act. Being considerate of someone by trying to hide the vileness of the act of killing a human being, a helpless child, is not something I'm interested in doing, and would hope that no one else is either.
On the other hand, the morning after pill is not murder, and neither is extracting a small handful of parasitic cells from the uterine wall. And I would never, ever use the term to indicate any such action because it is NOT murder. It isn't even "killing" in the accepted sense of the word any more than removing or "killing" a cancerous growth is.
You did not bother to read very closely, did you?
Not a single word in that post indicates abortion is wrong. Not a single word supplies any idea of when that all important "when" occurs. All it does is say that the argument isn't about women's rights; it's about murder.
And murder it is, murder most foul as it is completely premeditated and carefully planned and carried out against a completely helpless child, once that point of "humanity" is crossed. Let me ask you, all bent out of shape that someone should dare to violate "women's rights" - you yourself indicate that the right to abort ends at a certain time. Why?
Just maybe because it becomes murder then? Because that collection of cells has become a person, and deserving of the same rights you yourself (or the woman getting the abortion) has?
So sit back and understand how a mere man can (and should) have concern about the murder of the helpless children in our society. Those two gametes don't become human only when able to support themselves (legally, 18) and they don't become human only with the first breath of air. They also aren't human as a fertilized egg nor when it implants into the uterine wall.
No, somewhere between implantation and that first breath those cells cross an invisible line into humanity - the line that I notice you recognize but carefully declined to define yourself. And once that line is crossed, even a disgusting male has a very definite say whether that now person can be killed or not, and make no mistake that the killing of a person is murder. A woman can do whatever she wants to her body, or the parasitic growth inside it. She can remove her uterus. She can cut off her leg, she can blow her brains out for all I care. What she cannot do is kill a child simply because it is dependent on her for support and she doesn't want to be bothered.
Now if you want to discuss just where that point of "humanness" is I'm up for discussion because I don't know where it is. Otherwise I'll shut up and let you stew in your own juices about men, conservatives or anyone else who would dare to suggest that we should protect our children in opposition to what that all important woman wants.
I find it both fascinating, and troubling, that frequently this imaginary line is established based on if the baby is "wanted" or convenient.
Case in point; abortions are allowed pretty late in some states, but federally isn't causing the death of a child at ANY stage of development from conception forward, considered murder if the mother didn't want it to occur, (such as due to trauma in a car accident, accidental fall, assault, etc)?
How do we justify the arbitrary assignment of the titles "life" and "murder", not dependent on science or the child's progress, but rather on how valued they were to the grieving, (or not), would-be parent(s)?
It IS troubling that the line is based on convenience in some cases. The problem, I think, is that the radical right refuses to consider any but their own definition; it won't compromise on even such a thing as a definition. Under those circumstances no agreement is possible, and so we continue the fight with no end in sight.
I confess that I'm not up on the laws of different states or even the intricacies of federal law. I don't see that a fall, outside assault or other accident is considered murder, though, unless you mean assault of the mother of the unborn child, and that is being addressed in a few places now. Even the cases of Mom or Dad leaving the infant in a hot car to die generally isn't considered first degree murder.
I don't know that we can, as a society, "justify" defining when human life begins. But in a way that is irrelevant as we are not out to please God; we are out to form a compromise that the country can accept.
That many of those shouting that life begins at conception can back off in cases of rape, incest, etc. is a case in point. I don't understand their thinking (they realize it could happen to them maybe?) but in such cases murder suddenly isn't murder. Neither legally nor ethically, even though the child involved is no different than any other child.
With that kind of rationalization, why can't we find an acceptable compromise?
Wilderness, I was referring to instances where an unborn child dies because the parents were hit by a drunk driver, or perhaps the mother and child are killed in a robbery attempt or home invasion, that sort of thing. I've heard of cases where a baby died because the mother was punched, and charges such as involuntary manslaughter were brought.
I guess it would be either as the result of criminal activity, recklessness or negligence and a murder or manslaughter charge is levied on behalf of the unborn child, (even with a very early pregnancy). I, too, can't claim direct knowledge of those laws. Is this just my impression from too much TV, or is this actually the case? If so, how do we justify the double standard?
Yeah, I thought of that halfway through my response. I think the term "child" threw me off - to me a 3 week fetus is not a child.
I'm not up on those laws, either, but have seen reports and news stories where it is being addressed in some state legislatures. I'm not sure of the charge, but it goes far beyond simple assault if the unborn "child" dies, and I don't even know if the age of that child is considered.
Because of that I can't really address your question as to the double standard. If there is no age limit there is a double standard, but there are also parents that most definitely do NOT consider the fetus to be anything other than a child and that should be considered.
So, another thorny question. I might leave the charges up to the parents, although many would make them as severe as possible whether they actually wanted the child or not. Thorny indeed.
Reading through the thread saddens me. Not one poster really cares about the woman involved. Few take into account the fact that these women are thinking, feeling and intelligent human beings. Everyone wants an opinion and their opinion should take precedent over the opinion and emotional well being of the individual we know can hear us. The individual we know feels and thinks. The individual we know is truly an individual. The individual who will be forced to live with your decision should laws be put into place which mirror your preference. Slavery persists in America, it appears. And until such time as you can force others to live by your beliefs you will make sure you beat them down with emotional words so that they know they are heinous in your sight.
Will the world every change for the better? No time soon, it appears.
The world will never change for the better whilst people (men and women) are not prepared to take responsibility for their actions.
I completely agree. But, what we are seeing in this thread are multiple individuals who won't consider the ramifications of their own opinions. Were action taken to force women into a position where the option of abortion was denied not one of these individuals would lose a moment of sleep worrying about that woman or her child. They would wash their hands while thinking they had the moral high ground. It's sickening to read comments whose sole result is to hurt others.
That's what we say about believers who rarely if ever do. They constantly shift the burden of responsibility over to third party invisible entities who allegedly control our world and everyone in it.
So you don't think it should be a personal responsibility then?
Emile, I don't really think it's so much of a matter of nobody caring about the woman involved. Wilderness made a valid point regarding having a clear definition of when the fetus is actually a human being that should have rights of its own. I agree with a woman's right to choose within a certain time period (What time, I don't know for sure, to be honest). I also agree with abortion in cases of rape (or other non-consensual sex) , incest, if the child's or the mother's lives are in danger, child molestation or maybe teen pregnancy. I'm even okay with abortion if all birth control efforts (viable birth control efforts like pills, shots, condoms.. all of the ones that have a high success rate. No, fellas, the "pull out" method does not count) fail. But if you are a woman who has made the decision to have consensual sex with no birth control during a time that it is highly likely that a child will be conceived as a result of said consensual act, then that's where my understanding and sympathy ends. Do not take your poor decision making skills in this area out on the child. Again, this is once there is an agreed upon period that the fetus is actually a child with rights of his or her own. It isn't that nobody cares about the woman. It's that people care about the human that the woman is carrying and whether or not it should have rights as well.
Good morning all, I am NOW going to weigh in. I vehemently believe that the ONLY person who is the determinant of abortion is the woman and/or girl involved. It is her womb and her body. Males are not allowed to weigh in whatsoever. Men do not control women's bodies. Most of the time, when a young girl and/or woman becomes pregnant as a result of unplanned sex, boys and men DON'T step up to the plate and assume responsibilities regarding the issue at hand. NO THEY DON'T do this-so BOYS and MEN have NO SAY/NO INFLUENCE whatsoever as to the woman's abortion decision. The decision to have the abortion is 100% up to the young girl and/or woman involved, no more, no less!
I can +1 this statement to a degree. Men do not control women's bodies at all, nor can a man force a woman to keep an unwanted baby because the woman has to be the one to make up her own mind. I absolutely also agree that more MEN and boys need to accept responsibility for their poor decision making as well and step up to the plate. HOWEVER, there are a few things I would like to point out. 1) MEN aren't the only ones making and passing these laws. There are women that have a vote and say so as well and there are a lot of pro-life women as well. 2) Men still have an opinion and a voice in these issues. To say that we don't have a voice (Especially those of us who do accept that we have a part in the creation of said child) is very much incorrect because Half of that child's DNA makeup is as a result of MAN (sorry if you hate that, but it's a fact of life). 3) Nobody truly has a right to tell another person what they can and cannot weigh in on and what decisions could/should be made PERIOD. If everyone listened to everyone else then the world will be a very quiet place.. So ultimately, until you can find a way to have a child WITHOUT man's sperm, Man will and should have as much of a voice in the welfare of another HUMAN BEING (Even if it has not been born yet)
Again, when a young girl and/or woman has an unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, MOST boys/men SCOOT. So DON'T tell me that boys/men should have a say in this. Most of all, THEY are not going to raise the child, it is the young girl/woman who is saddled with this responsibility. NO, I am sorry to say, that boys/men have NO influence as to whether a young girl/woman will have an abortion. It is HER decision and HERS alone. ENOUGH SAID!
You are correct to say that there are "women" who are pro-life. Such women are gender traitors who really do not care about women's rights at all. They, too, want to force women into having unwanted pregnancies and to be unwilling mothers. Pro-life women are the most dangerous women around. They are traitors to women and women's overall equality.
Gender traitors LOL.
Men have a say, but if it makes you feel better go ahead and deny it.
Next law coming soon.
No THEY DON'T. It is HER womb! My advice :stay out of woman's womb-HER womb, HER ultimate choice.
Ok, you must see the SCOTUS decision on Roe V Wade as bogus then.
Not a single woman had a say in that!
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
When will you start the screaming on that decision?
If you don't speak up for that 8 1/2 month old person inside the woman, who will? The woman who doesn't care about him/her? That made her choice to have sex and doesn't want the cost?
Hardly. Sorry, GM, but women aren't the only ones in this world that have a care for other people. And those that don't have a care need some help to understand that they should; that a few months of discomfort does NOT take priority over a person's life.
Please cite an instance where someone aborted a full term baby. Legally.
Either way, that isn't the point most women who find themselves pregnant and alone. Using that as an example is attempting to emotionalize the issue. Plus your statement about her needing to pay the price is telling. I'm beginning to think you are having some fun with us. This isn't your normal even handed approach. Sounds incredibly sexist and judgmental.
As a side note, I read recently that the state of NJ passed a law where they can clone an embryo and implant it in a woman, as long as they abort it at a certain point. I wonder how you feel about that.
This has to be one of the most ironic posts in the whole thread.
You think abortion isn't an emotional issue? That's what it is all about - the emotions raised over killing our children! I'm very sorry if you can't see that, but it is 100% true and you only have to settle down for a change and actually listen to the lifers to understand that.
I'm not being even handed. Yet from the very first post I have stated that the only real question is when human life begins. Not when female life begins, not when male life begins or anything else. Just when that fetus becomes human. You cannot possibly be more neutral on the women's rights vs religious ethics of murder than that.
In response you agree, but then you and GM promptly SHOUT TO THE HEAVENS that women, and ONLY women are fit to make that determination. Women are better than men and only women are smart enough, ethical enough or something enough to make the call. And you call me sexist! (Have you considered that women are so closely and virulently tied to their demand for their precious "women's rights" that their judgement may be not merely clouded but painted completely over in this regard?)
On the side note: I fully expect clones to become viable in the near future, and "test tube" babies that have never seen a womb are not far off. Possibly in my lifetime. It was my intent in discussing the beginning of human life (which you still decline to discuss) to bring that into play; to make the definition of humanness in such a way as to include both possibilities. As well as other farther out thoughts (can a gorilla serve as a host mother for a human fertilized egg and is a cetacean intelligent enough to be given the term "human" even though not a homo sapiens).
These are things that we will face in the near future, and that seem tied closely to the root of the problems we are having with abortion. Should we define that invisible line in such a way to cover as much ground as possible? Or just the immediate needs of the concept and ethics of abortion, leaving future fights to the future?
Right now, I could only answer the question of the NJ law to the effect that I am reasonably satisfied with the current laws on abortion (though they are being badly eroded by the lifers and their end runs around the intent of abortion laws) and if the NJ bill falls into that line then I think it is OK. Stupid, maybe, as it will probably harm the woman involved emotionally, but that is her choice and she has the right to make the call. Gotta wonder what would happen when they implant a clone and the woman decides she wants the child and simply walks away and disappears...
Okay, so people who hold a certain point of view that is separate from others or you feel infringe on rights is a traitor to their group? Interesting. So by this definition, a person who would infringe on the rights of a human's right to have a chance to live is a traitor to the human race, correct?
Question, as you seem to feel as I do that the key is humanity.
What is the difference between the child produced from rape or incest or the child that happened because birth control failed, and the child that did not result from such things? What is different that makes them inhuman and subject to casual killing?
The mother's feelings and emotions? Another person's emotional makeup defines the child as inhuman - just another animal or growth to be eliminated at will? If so, can you explain when and why that definition changes - we don't allow parents to casually kill their five year old, after all.
It's not that these things make the child inhuman and thus subject to casual killing
It's more than simply the feelings and emotions. Her total psychological state as a result of the rape is something to be considered. I knew a woman who was so against abortion that she did have a child that was a product of rape. Unfortunately, that woman basically relived that rape throughout her pregnancy as well as every time she looked at that child because the child looked like the father.. Her mind eventually snapped and she committed murder suicide because her mind could not heal from the horror of what had been done to her. there are other stories of women eventually killing their kids because of the hatred felt toward the child for the actions of the father. In this instance, Even you said that a three week old collection of cells doesn't count in your opinion. I agree there, but I also feel that this is an instance where psychological evaluation must also come into play.
+1.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000! Deepes Mind, beyond the example you have presented, there are children who are routinely abused by or abandoned by their mothers because they were unwanted. For example, my aunt had a child at 17, of course, her education was ruined as she had to go to work. She became embittered, taking out her frustration on the baby and me. She was a bitter woman. She never cared for the child, often leaving it in the care of my maternal grandmother. Even when she married and had two other daughters, this child NEVER lived with her and she seldom had contact with the child.
Of course, the child felt abandoned and unloved by her. Even the other two children scarcely acknowledged her presence. She NEVER wanted the child in the first place but was forced to endure the unwanted and unplanned pregnancy. She was angry and bitter to everyone because her youth was cut short. She took out her frustrations on me because I had more opportunities and a better socioeconomic life than she had. This aunt was an example for me not to indulge in irresponsible sexual behavior which I NEVER did for all my decades on this earth. Although I never had an abortion, from this example and many others, I staunchly support abortion rights and will do so until I pass from this earth plane.
I understand what you are saying, but if the pregnancy is unwanted, within a certain time frame I'm okay with it and even wilderness said a three week old collection of cells isn't big enough. But once you get further along and the baby starts looking more human then that should change things. There is a time frame to consider this decision.
I agree with that. If one is pregnant and wants an abortion, it SHOULD be AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. When the baby forms in later stages, abortion is murder and irresponsible.
Exactly what me and wilderness were basically saying all along (for them most part). but once you get to a certain point it should be illegal as it is murder. The laws in place should have a better idea of what constitutes murder. The debate is too wide. some says it starts at conception, others say it isn't a human until it leaves the womb..
To me, it is when the child is viable outside the womb, pure and simple.
With or without massive medical intervention? If with, that point continually changes, becoming ever earlier and will no doubt be at the point of fertilization when "test tube" babies become possible.
And what is "viable"? Every infant continues to need nurture for years...
So the child isn't a human child until it leaves the womb? No matter how developed they are? So a 9 month old fetus isn't fully human until it leaves the womb, do I have you correct?
Mental illness (and such a hatred can be called nothing else) is a forgivable excuse for murder in our society. It does, however, require treatment and it is not forgiven before it happens. We do NOT forgive murder because it makes the murderer feel better.
But, you know, there is the possibility of adoption. That the woman eventually murdered her child and herself simply means she should not have raised that child. Not that she should never have given birth.
And that still leaves the cases of incest and birth control failure. Either the child is human and abortion is murder or birth control failure means the child is inhuman and nothing more than a parasitic grown to be cut out.
It should not need reiteration, but I refer to, say, an 8 month old fetus, not a 3 week old handful of cells.
An actual fetus, we are in agreement in. But we have to define at which point in time is the child considered human
That's pretty funny, at what point of gestation did it go from being non-human to human?! Utterly absurd.
So what was going to be before it decided to turn into a human?
Around 7months of gestation.
For an uneducated believer, who believes priests may be.
A collection of self replicating parasitic cells that is organising itself to be human.
That's the question, all right - at what point does a fetus become a human being. Do you have an answer that might be generally accepted?
Disagree. While there are a couple of respondents that feel a womans feelings and discomfort are more important than a human life, they are in the minority. Most seem to recognize that the 9 month fetus has rights as well; that the woman wishing to commit murder to abrogate the responsibilities her own actions resulted in does not have the right to do so.
They understand that the individual DOES have rights, including the right to life and nurture, not just the right to DIE because their mother regrets her actions.
So will you nurture the child nobody wants? It's not only genes but also environment that has a say in human growth. And almost all scientists agree that a good household cannot be substituted if one want a healthy productive child? Simply bringing up a child is not enough(they are not robots, but humans with emotions and feelings), it should be cared too.
Nobody wants? Have you known anyone that has tried to adopt a US infant? There is a very long line of people begging to adopt infants. Older children not so much, but infants are very much in demand - to the point that millions are spent every year in "importing" such children.
Have you not seen infants not wanted? I do not know about America, but certainly in India,there are unwanted infants/childs. And as far as I know, Africa has too many of them.
They care about the infant. And, you could probably get the infant adopted in America. But, what about the neglected children? What about those in orphanages and the wards of the state? They don't look past the emotion of the argument. Forcing children into the world sets them up to be unloved and unwanted. It forces them to grow in, at times, heart breaking situations. But none of these pro lifers are pro quality of life. They are simply thinking in the moment with no regard for the well being of either party they are attempting to control.
Not all unplanned babies are immediately given up for adoption. It's like finding yourself the sudden owner of a puppy. It's cute and cuddly. Many of these girls and women have a sudden desire to try and raise them. But the realities of life eventually set in and they become disillusioned and bitter as they fall deeper into poverty and are trapped in the chains the pro lifers shackled them with. The child becomes a victim of a fate worse than death because they grow up in the slave system the pro lifers perpetuate. Then, it's too late. No one wants to adopt a kid. Just a baby. And then, they wonder why the state doesn't do a better job of mopping up the mess they helped create.
Emile R, you are speaking the truth. How does it feel to find out that your mother gave you up for adoption because she did not want you. Many unwanted children go through this. How does it feel to know that you are perfunctorily loved, knowing deep down that your mother NEVER wanted YOU in the first place. You never received the hugs and love that other children who were wanted by their parents received.
How does it feel to be cast off by relatives to raise YOU because your own mother did not want you but had you anyway. You have a mother; oh no, she is a mother in name only. You have little or no contact with her. How does it feel to be in deep, deep poverty without the basics because your teenage mother was forced to endure an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. You are doomed from the start.
These prolifers DON'T think. I odiously DETEST and HATE these people who just ramble on regarding that once a woman gets pregnant, the child should be born and/or she should be a mother. I believe in prochoice and the right to an abortion as I believe time and time again that ALL childlren should be wanted, loved, and brought up in the best of psychological, mental, emotional, and socioeconomic circumstances. There is a special place for prolifers and it isn't pretty!
Anybody who thinks and believes otherwise is a --------------------- and should be b---------- slapped into some sense! I,too, as an educated, liberal, feminist pro-choice woman feel that there SHOULD be always access to abortion and that young girls and women have the unmitigated right to their reproductive freedom. No woman should be forced to endure an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy. That is gender slavery to the utmost degree. Although I never had an abortion, I will FIGHT TO THE DEATH to $UPPORT every woman's right to choose. I have been pro-choice since the inception of ROE vs WADE. AMEN and POWER to ALL WOMEN! (feminist salute)
You bring up an interesting point. I, too, have never been in the position to have to consider abortion. Most of the more outspoken pro lifers I know are either women who have had abortions or the subsequent children they have had, or raised. They had a choice and now they victimize those who are in the same position they once were. The hypocrisy turns your stomach.
Change the system first, before you scream pro life. Protect the dignity of the lives of all before you change system. Otherwise, kids and women will remain the victims of the hypocrisy. I hope there comes a time where the holier than thou can feel the full extent of the pain they cause for others. The full extent of the hopelessness and the full extent of the lack of love by a child who desperately wants love.
Remember the saying, karma is a b------------ and what goes around, COMES around! There is also ANOTHER saying what is in the DARK shall come to the light. Yes, many pro-life women were not as pristine as one would have thought. They have been creeping, got pregnant, and took care of the situation.
They probably feel guilt as a result of some early religious inculcation or perhaps, they were "born again". Again, just because ONE doesn't believe in abortion, DON'T enforce THIS belief onto others. Have the intelligence to realize that EVERYONE is different and support a fellow sister's right and access to abortion. DON'T be selfish enough to proclaim that since ONE doesn't believe in abortion therefore ALL WOMEN shouldn't believe and have access to abortions.
It is for the women to decide because it is she who carry the burden. But abortion is to be discouraged after 7months of gestation as it can jeopardise the health of the mother.
I infer from your answer that, prior to 7 months, the life of the person growing inside is unimportant compared to the vast burden of pregnancy. Or is it not a person at all, but a collection of parasitic cells?
What makes a person 'person'? Is it the human chromosomes or the shape?
It is a parasite because it survives by taking food from the body in which it live on(against the wish, if the women wanted abortion). It is also a parasite which is evident by the myriad of diseases and even death that can (gestational diabetes, hypertension. ....) occur along with pregnancy.
I think calling the fetus a parasite is a bit outlandish. It isn't as if some other organism invaded a woman's womb and set up shop.
Technically it is a parasite. We don't consider it so because most of the time we want it, but we are not discussing a situation where a women want it but want to get rid of it.
Yes, technically and from a medical standpoint it is a parasite, right up to the point of birth.
Which really doesn't have much to do with anything except as an indication (which I have been using) that it is disposable. Inhuman.
But you didn't answer the question; is your opinion that the parasitic fetus becomes human at 7 months?
Human is a hard term. My only problem is that after 7 months one cannot abort without risking the life of the mother, but I'll say after birth irrespective of the gestational age.
Here we both are on slippery ground because we don't know when a human becomes human or what makes a human human.
A hard term, yes, but one that is the crux of the abortion debate.
We don't know, but we should and must. It is a defined term, after all, and not an absolute. We may define it any way we want - a matter of intelligence, genetics, species of mother, whatever we want - but have failed to make an honest effort to do so. Do that and the abortion debate very nearly dies, but fail to do it and we have what we see; a continual barrage of arguments and hate filled missives (and in some cases, missiles).
Parasites are another species. The behavior of a fetus may be parasitic, but it is not a parasite.
Parasites may not be another species because we harbour other species in our body that help us. The basic difference is whether we want it nor not (approve might be a better term).
1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
a. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
b. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
3. A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.
Nowhere do you find any requirement that a parasite be a different species than the host.
I looked it up in a science definition site and it did say a different species. I still say it doesn't qualify because the woman's body created the organism in the first place.
I agree to the most part except that we are discussing about a product that is NOT wanted.
It doesn't matter how you feel about it. It doesn't change the fact that it is created by your own body. Attempting to convince yourself it is a parasite is simply trying to create some emotional separation and probably not healthy. What happens when you remember that it really wasn't a parasite after all?
We humans generally agree that what is not ours but live in our household is a parasite. Studies prove that atrocities against kin is not against own children but "step" children(mostly not always).
We may disagree the term, but in a discussion we should not be emotional. To cease to be a parasite, it should be wanted.
Even dogs, you might throw a stone at a street dog, but keep your dog in your lap, species is the same, so what's the difference?
9 month fetus? Whoever you are, get off of wilderness's computer. You're creeping me out with these ridiculous posts. A baby at nine months is not a fetus.
You're right, or at least I agree with you although not everyone else will.
When did it change from a fetus to a baby?
A fetus /ˈfiːtəs/, also spelled foetus, fœtus, faetus, or fætus, is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate after the embryonic stage and before birth.
Yes, but wilderness is attempting to turn this debate into the ludicrous by insisting doctors would abort at the 8.5 or 9t month. Even partial birth abortion is done well before that stage. I don't think anyone could logically debate the benefits of aborting when the baby is fully developed and able to live on its own outside of the womb.
They use these tactics to attempt to gain a moral high ground when they argue against a woman having access to a morning after pill and choice in the first two trimesters. You can certainly argue against a tendency of the well to do wanting to get rid of an unhealthy or imperfect child, but what you do when you lump it together is hurt the poor who can be victims of circumstance and the young girls too immature to understand the ramifications of their actions. Neither of which have a fair and equal voice in the debate.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/28582 … -of-murder
Moral high ground, huh? This pathetic excuse for a human being is charged with 7 counts of murdering a newborn infant and one woman and there doesn't appear to be much doubt that he did it. Why the mothers weren't charged as well is beyond me - maybe because it was their body and they can murder as they wish.
You don't think anyone could logically debate the benefits of aborting when the baby is able to live on its own outside the womb? Somebody did (8 somebodies, in fact) and every one of them was a woman. Every one exercising her "women's rights" you scream so loudly about. Nor are they alone; I have seen posts right here in the HP forums declaring that human life begins only with the first breath of air drawn. I forget whether it was a pitiful man or a glorious woman making the statement, but don't care, either. It is wrong, and if you're willing to write it off to "women's rights" or "she can do with her body as she wishes" you are just as wrong.
The "moral high ground" isn't very high here, and if you find it objectionable that I and others take it, yours must be flat on the ground.
Or maybe not - you have finally thrown out a figure of two trimesters. Applause for finally at least mentioning the key issue - well done! Do you agree with that number or just pull it out of your hat? Have you, as that all important woman and the only sex capable of making such a call, determined that it is a reasonable point in development to go from abortion to murder?
Isn't this the believers turf, judging others(wrong and right) and telling them what to do?
Apparently only if you're a woman. Only then do you have the right to determine if others live or die.
For myself, well, I'm mostly interested in promoting a solution to the abortion matter that has become such a debacle in this country and I think the first step lies in understand the position others take. Society has always determined right and wrong - abortion is no different in that respect but neither side seems to care one iota what the other has to say.
So I ask the question, hoping to promote discussion, but all I get is WOMEN'S RIGHTS and MEN ARE STUPID AND HAVE NO SAY IN MORAL ISSUES. Which, IMHO, is quite descriptive of just why the issue never dies.
I never said men are stupid or have no moral issues. What I said is it is primarily for the women to decide for it is her body. But if it is a family, both husband and wife have a say in it. I have seen many Christian couples who got abortion because they didn't want to use contraceptives except abstinence which obviously failed. Only when the wife get pregnant they think about the burden of bringing up a child and want abortion. There is no point in bringing a human just because he is a human if one cannot provide for to bring the child up in human dignity.
I agree. In marriage, the man does have an equal right to voice an opinion. They belong to each other.
So a marriage certificate gives the man half ownership (or is it less than that?) of the fetus, but without that piece of paper all the biology in the world (the same with or without the magical license) won't give the poor man any ownership?
A curious take on things...
How is that curious? Ever read the marriage vows? Anyway, the point is two people commit to each other and support each other. Your decisions affect the life of another. They have a right to help make decisions. But, as harsh as it sounds, it is still her body and she should have the right to make the final decision. The man can still legally divest himself of any responsibility for helping raise the child. Sure, he can be expected to contribute financially but I've never heard many court decisions insuring the man continues to be a part of the child's life. I know a lot of kids from divorce who never see their dads.
Thank you.. I'm glad to know I have a voice as a married man with my child. But there are unmarried men that want that option as well because they want to be fathers too
NO WAY, if a woman does not want the child, the male perspective regarding this issue is moot. Why should SHE endure an unwanted pregnancy and be an unwilling mother because HE wants to be FATHER. Nope, DOESN'T work like that!
Well, If SHE doesn't want to be a mother but he wants to be a father, then she can have it, then give up her parental rights, and walk away
Hell to the NO! Again, if MAN wants to be FATHER, he can adopt. No way would I endure an unwanted pregnancy because some selfish male wants to be the father. I'll go to court and have a restraining order against him for abuse. If I do not want to continue with the pregnancy, I'll abort, pure and simple. I am an old-fashioned 70s feminist and I do not play that!
You must be joking. Are you suggesting the 1% of men who might actually step up to the plate should be our sole consideration? So, the women impregnated by the other 99% should bow to their desires? I would suggest, if these guys want full rights they get married and have kids. That should solve the problem.
Na uh, not joking but deadly serious. Nope, does not go that way. Again for the millionth time, women's bodies, women's rights. If a man wants a baby THAT bad, let him adopt! If not, SU and MYOB!
Then the women who don't want to be mothers need to either have their plumbing removed or keep their legs closed.. That is a solution too!!
I suppose that would be a solution, however, is it realistic?
Every bit as realistic as the choice to not want to deal with the repercussions of what happens when a woman doesn't have preventive surgery or if she opens her legs voluntarily
Why, oh why, must we continue to deal with male bs. Do you guys think before you post? Do you think beyond the issue? Or, is it just so very important to give an opinion that you don't think it is necessary to offer anything that would actually be fair to these women.
Sheesh. I give up.
This goes both ways.. If a man doesn't want to be a father, he should either keep his snake in its cage or get a snip to avoid that
Who said "virginity is a lack of opportunity which is a rarity"?
Human emotions are easy to control while sitting in an arm chair but not in the field, so who said sex is "only" for procreation?
For those that want to get busy but don't want kids, there are ways to take care of that so the woman doesn't have to endure an unwanted pregnancy
Totally agree, children must have a high quality of life socioeconomically, psychologically, emotionally, and mentally in order to thrive. I do not believe in having children unless the socioeconomic, psychological, emotional, and mental aspects are in order! Why DON'T people get this? This is simple, elementary logic.
Only lower animal forms have children without thinking about the socioeconomic, psychological, emotional, and mental ramifications that having children have upon them and their family structure. That is why so many children suffer and grow up in disadvantaged circumstances, they are not planned for intelligently! I KNEW THIS from early adolescence that one DO NOT have children unless one can afford to provide them with the best possible socioeconomic, psychological, and emotional environment possible. Well, there are people who are as OBTUSE as a 140 degree angle who believe in bringing children in the world, even if it is in dire and abject poverty!
No you didn't, but others certainly have in this thread. I apologize if I wasn't clear there.
No one said men are stupid. If a man claims to be stupid, or shows himself to be stupid with his views, I'm sure people can make that judgment call for themselves. It needn't be pointed out.
I leave it up to those in the medical community who are impartial, with no hidden or stated agenda, to make that call. If anyone can prove earlier is the more appropriate point, then so be it. I would honestly think a woman should know she is pregnant and resolve the issue, if that is her wish, in the first trimester. But, again, that is a call science must find the answer to. Running our mouths and calling women murderers isn't the appropriate avenue.
In other words, you'd leave it up to (mostly) men, and men that are impartial and without a care as to women's rights.
I agree that it should be resolved in the first trimester - that is a point I'm most comfortable with - but would accept 7 months if pushed.
But I highly disagree with the idea that science or the medical profession is responsible for producing the answer. This is not a matter of science OR medicine - it is a definition call and a morality issue. If we are ever to make a call that can be accepted by the general population it is going to be by consensus, not some scientists making up his (or her ) definition while sitting on a lab bench somewhere. We all have a stake in this, just as we do in any other morals determination in the country. Men, women, doctors, mothers, fathers, scientists and priests; everyone has a voice and an opinion and none carries any more weight than any other in determining what we as a nation shall consider right and wrong.
I would very much like to continue this discussion, and have some (I think) interesting questions, but ONLY as a thinking, reasoning person and not as a mere man without brains or morals. Are you? Or did you start this thread only to trample any dissenter with a shout of WOMEN'S RIGHTS TRUMP ALL?
I disagree, to an extent, about who should decide. The medical community has a vested interest in human life. But, when discussing a woman and a fetus, they can step away from this belief that the entire thing is a moral issue. They can research and understand what the fetus is aware of, how it is aware, and how much that awareness is human. And ignore the religious crap. And the holier than thou accusations. Because there truly is no moral high ground.
If we call it a moral issue, we have to look at actions leading to that issue. We should condemn every step of the way, if we are going to condemn the one left standing with the end result. But we don't condemn the fact that sex sells. We don't condemn the fact that children are exposed to more at a younger age and become sexually active before they are old enough to think through what could happen. We don't condemn the fact that women do feel cornered into using their sexuality to get ahead and we don't condemn the men who take advantage. We don't condemn the man who helped put the woman into an untenable position. Why are we not calling everyone murderer at every stage? We aren't because many like the way things are and abusing a few women with emotional bullying is easier than accepting that the world we live in helped them get there. We all bear the brunt of responsibility and we should show some understanding and compassion.
I didn't start this thread to harass men. I did, however, start it because of a smarmy comment from a man in another thread. I have been shocked to find there were those I respected who have little thought for the women affected by the debate.
Disagree, in part because I don't see "human" as necessarily limited to homo sapiens.
The science fiction series "Enders Game" introduces the idea of a "hierarchy of foreignness", which includes both human and ET species of varying degree of foreignness.
Far out stuff of the imagination but...thought provoking. If "human" is primarily centered around intelligence (as I would define it) then is killing a cetacean "murder"? What about Koko, the gorilla that communicates with people via sign language? And, of course, a fetus; is a fetus without a forebrain "human" or is it subject to abortion (non murder killing) right up to (or past) birth? You mentioned clones, with only one parent, and test tube babies are a distinct possibility in the near future.
So "human" is not a matter of scientific definition, but one of morality, philosophy and other fields all mixed into one. It is not a matter of defining what "homo sapiens" is - that is purely the subject of biology and a "homo sapiens" begins at conception. But not necessarily "human" life. I do not see the two as identical.
The rest of your post, as far as I'm concerned, is irrelevant. That sex is used to sell, that women mistakenly feel "cornered" and in "untenable" circumstances (forcing unprotected sex); all these and the other complaints are irrelevant. All that matters is that some people (as seen in the link I provided) have no care for the human life they have produced and will do with it as they choose. This is unacceptable and clearly shows why the issue of abortion must be nailed down and not left floating as it is now.
Define "human" as a fetus of 7 months and there is no more reason or rationale to force women to view a sonogram at 3 months for an abortion for instance. No more reason to force the mother to be in a clinic to take the morning after pill. All these end runs around the intent of Roe vs Wade simply disappear, while at the same time supplying a very simple reason NOT to abort past that point.
All that is left of the entire issue are the mens rights (that you insist don't exist at all) to a fetus they helped create and I feel that that is an issue best left to the time after abortion is nailed down. I feel badly for the handful of fathers that find their "child" killed for the convenience of the mother that either doesn't want it or just wants to hurt the father, but am not prepared at this time to make an issue of it.
You were shocked to find sexist men that give no thought to the opposite sex; I was just as shocked at the declarations from otherwise intelligent women here that all men are nothing but a walking penis and have no rights to participate in moral life and death considerations. Neither view has a place in our society.
Humane and human are two different discussions. I think a determination should be made between when we should be humane and when we are dealing with a unique and individual human. Until that determination is clear cut, using the word murder is unfair. Until men are in a position where they don't choose to take an active role, but are automatically forced into an active role (with no chance of reprieve) your argument doesn't hold water. How incredibly miserable would society be if fathers had to be in the lives of children created unplanned? They will never be held accountable, we know this. So, again, you are being holier than thou with no thought for reality. And, saying the father finds their baby killed is pushing it further. For every woe is me complaint there are tens of thousands of men shirking responsibility. Millions of men snickering over drinks about their latest 'conquest'. Not in the least bit likely to step up to the plate were the woman they fed drinks to in order to loosen her judgment to miss her next period.
I didn't watch your link. I don't need to bother to see what is obviously going to be biased, judging by the bias of your posts.
You really couldn't have an intelligent debate on abortion. You try to sound reasonable, but you pepper reason with emotional appeals that don't have the desired effect. Men are not the victims. As long as you attempt to paint them that way you are living a delusion.
You should have looked at the link. It is a news report of a doctor being charged with murder for 8 deaths (7 infants and one mother) in extremely late term abortions. As in 8+ months.
But I'm outta here. Again with the men bashing:
("They will never be held accountable, we know this"
"For every woe is me complaint there are tens of thousands of men shirking responsibility"
"Millions of men snickering over drinks about their latest 'conquest'"
"...they fed drinks to in order to loosen her judgment to miss her next period")
You aren't interested in a discussion on abortion, but only in sexist man bashing and raising women to some esoteric and impossible level as the only people on earth with morals. Go back to the other thread with the smarmy comment; it can't be any worse than what you put here.
nope because the kid doesn't become a kid until the sperm fertilizes the egg
Depends on the cause of the miscarriage.
Anything that grows inside the womb of a human is the property of the human(women) and it is for the human(women) to decide what to do with it. Will anybody ask the consent of law/society before amputating ones limbs, so why should they do that when it is inside the womb(especially considering that the fetus is a parasite of the women)?
Apparently the law does not agree with you:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/28582 … -of-murder
A doctor is charged with murder for assisting 8 women in murdering their infants. They must not have had the legal right to do with those infants as they chose.
Apparently the law used not to agree with me some three hundred years before if I said 'there is no god', so what's your point?
Recently an indian women died because the doctors(of the foreign nation they were residing in) were not willing to do abortion as theirs is a Catholic nation and is against abortion, against which there was an international outcry.
Although I can't decipher the meaning of your first sentence, the point is that no everyone (or US law) feels that any person is "property" OR that a fetus is not a person.
I heard that about the Indian woman, but unless you feel that India should adopt any abortion rules or laws the US does it is not truly germane. Very sad, very unfortunate and IMO quite immoral on the part of the doctors, but not relevant to a discussion of abortion requirements in the US.
Law is what the society agree upon. 300 years before heresy was punishable by death by law, so is it acceptable?
It didn't happen in india but a Catholic European nation, we have more liberal laws.
I didn't know that the discussion was only about America, I'm out of here then
Guess it was then, even though I personally find that the law is quite often "wrong" in the ethical sense.
Sorry - I had forgotten. Something else you said made me think it was India.
Don't know that the discussion is only about the US - seems to me that most nations will face the same thing one day if they aren't already.
The US may have a worse problem with it's large percentage of Christians and the legal power they wield.
Laws follow society and not the other way round. As society changes, the laws are also changed and the biggest job for the society is to keep its present(not future) members the best way possible even at the cost of some of them. What I say may be misconstrued as eugenics still,
An individual's law is not the same as that of the society, for example an individual cannot take revenge because it can destroy the society while the society has to revenge for the individual otherwise the society can be destroyed.
So if a child is born unwanted the society cannot bring it up normally(usually). The given individual may be a liability to the society and even to himself. So it is better to eliminate such individuals before they can realise the damage that is going to be done to them. It is the same reason we eliminate genetically or physically damaged fetuses (which is allowed by law[American law I am not sure]).
So who else is better placed than the parents(especially mother) to say that the given child is wanted, or will be provided for? And mothers opinion is more important as not only she alone take the burden of the pregnancy but also she has more emotional(and some times physical) trauma associated with pregnancy.
After 7 months we generally discourage abortion because 1) It can damage the physical and emotional health of the mother(most important reason) 2) the child has some thinking then 3) She had 7 months to think about it.
So my opinion is abortion should be allowed till 7 months atleast till 4 months(safety concern) if the women/parents want it, for after all it is them who have to bring up the child and the child requires not only financial support but also emotional support too.
If responding to this post, please stay focused on what I am about to say, which has nothing to do with the men vs. women debate some here seem to want to make this. If you want similar sentiments posted by a woman before you will consider them, please let me know, as there is no shortage of women who will agree with what I am about to say. Please also note, I am not speaking at this point on the legality of abortion, or even the point of a pregnancy at which it should be allowed.
Everyone has a conscience which must be silenced in order to be party in any way with promoting, having, or facilitating abortions. Semantics, apathy, misinformation and distraction are all employed to assuage the guilt and sere the conscience enough to allow this to take place. People can build a façade and try to fool themselves and others, but deep down, nobody doesn't know abortion is wrong. This is why it is so emotional on both sides, and why the huge efforts to downplay or ignore the reality are made.
Simply making it necessary for those involved in the decision to be fully informed, would likely eliminate most abortions. Often it is pro-abortion folks, the abortion industry, family or friends who don't have to live with the decision or a partner wanting to avoid responsibility, who encourage or even persuade women who are already confused or unsure, at such a stressful and difficult time, to have an abortion. It all happens so fast.
In order to help with the natural guilt they would feel, would be mothers may want to be, (and if so are), kept as much as possible from the reality of what they are about to do. For many, if not most, that shield works long enough to get the dirty deed done, but as they reflect on it later they realize what they did. Keeping it a secret, denying it, pretending it never happened, etc, may fool others, but at some point in their life, they will reflect and have to confront this. Perhaps they will channel the resulting emotion into strong advocacy against abortion as some sort of penance, or for abortion as some sort of validation. Many of the most impassioned on both sides, have an abortion story.
Is there a reason not to require the decision be fully informed? Is reality the problem? If after seeing photos of the development of babies from conception to delivery, and being shown reality of the process they are about to allow, and pay for, are they still willing to move forward? If so, then their conscience is likely sufficiently suppressed to keep them from the crippling regret many have later. If not, make it easy for them to change their mind and call it off.
"But you don't have to be informed about your appendix removal if you don't want to", is the cry I hear. Seriously? That is your moral equivalence? For those who feel such a requirement is grossly unfair, are you really that callous to the reality that a human life has been initiated, as proven by the fact that without intervention, what is growing will likely live another 80 years? Even if you want to tell yourself the child is not yet human, can you not respect that life enough, (and based on the emotional issues often experienced later by women who have abortions, also respect the mother enough at a very confusing and emotional time), to make sure she is truly aware prior to the decision, of the irrefutable, easily illustrated and demonsterative facts? Not propaganda. Not conjecture. Genuine cold, hard, scientific facts. Reality. Why is that unreasonable?
Unless you are trying to fool someone for some personal agenda, why would you not want to make sure they were fully aware and informed regarding what can be for the mother, (and certainly is for the child), a life defining decision? I thought about posting a pic of a child at 12 weeks gestation, and saw in my search, photos of all stages of development, as well as abortion photos. It is absolutely beyond my comprehension how an informed person could do this.
Obviously some can, and they or others will passionately advocate for a mother's right to remain as ignorant and disassociated to the reality of what they are about to do as possible, in order to spare her "unnecessary" stress. Will she always remain so ignorant and disassociated? Do you even care about that aspect, or is it all about making it as easy as possible for a woman to quickly exercise a "right" to what inarguably many, many women later view as the worst mistake of their lives?
I conclude that it is your opinion that a fertilized egg, or perhaps even a gamete, is a human life (otherwise you would understand the appendix equivalence). I conclude as well that you are unwilling or unable to understand that that is only an opinion, that there is nothing in nature that sets it to be fact. Either that you you are unable or unwilling to understand that your opinion is no better than anyone else's.
While I can respect your opinion (although not the declaration that it is the only one that counts), this is the attitude that is causing the tremendous dissension we are seeing in the US. Until we learn to understand and accept that others are different it will always be that way.
Wilderness, you are indeed an interesting fellow. Most of the time you say exactly what I expect you to based on what I have come to know from your previous posts. Other times you surprise me with some things out of left field, either to where you come up with them, or that they would come from you.
I do a post, basically saying that considering the seriousness of the stakes involved for both mother and child, I don't think it is too much to ask to make sure everyone involved in making a decision to have an abortion is properly informed about as many aspects and ramifications of such a huge decision as possible before they make it. Forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't really see you weigh in at all on the whole point of the post.
Instead I see lots of your "conclusions" about me and my views, and basically scolding and indicting me on my "attitude". I don't think anyone has scolded me on my bad attitude since I was seven. Perhaps that is my problem, do you suppose? Anyway, thanks for making me feel young again!
So let's have a look at your response.
Guilty as charged. You got me. A process of growth of a human has been initiated. If it isn't alive from the time it starts growing, I don't know what you would call it or when you would make the declaration "it's alive"! I suppose if someone doesn't want to own up to killing something it would be best if they could convince themselves and others it was never alive. As for being human, I am really not sure what else you would consider it to be, but little surprises me anymore so tell me, what kind of life is it? There too, I guess you must contend it is not a life at all, since if it were, it would have to be human.
Gotta love this. I admit to using it sometimes myself, but let's be honest...isn't "unwilling or unable" a pc way of saying "too stubborn or too stupid"? Okay, so at what point did I say this was more than my opinion? Is it because I state what I believe from a perspective of it being true? If I didn't believe it was true I wouldn't hold that opinion.
Hmmmm. Transposing it doesn't make it sound much better. So please show me again where I conveyed my opinion is better than anyone elses. It's that believing what I say is true thing again, isn't it? Do people really run around full of opinions and beliefs they have no confidence in and don't believe are true? Do you?
Funny, it doesn't feel respected, but again I know how it is pc to always say so. Regarding my "declaration that it is the only one that counts", would you please post my declaration back to me, because I missed it. People can have whatever opinion they want and trust me, if mine were the only one that counted things would look much different, much to the delight and horror of many, I am sure...just as it would be if yours, or anyone else's were the only one that counted.
A bit ominous. I had no idea I wielded this much influence, myself and "those like me", (not your direct quote, just seemed clearly inferred). What is this powerful attitude again? Standing by your convictions? Believing you are right and being willing to voice your opinions? Not believing everyone can be right at the same time? Not riding the fence and feeling strongly both ways, (or all ways, I suppose)?
Where did you get all this? How did my stating my opinion bring you to conclude that I don't understand or accept that others are different? Trust me, I understand that quite well, or there would be no need to bother expressing an opinion, we would already all agree! Accepting? If you mean not imposing my will on others, I don't. If you mean not expressing my opinion, I can't accommodate you there, because I am not going to be silenced simply because you don't like what I say. If by accepting you mean validating things I see as wrong to be right, it isn't going to happen, but if you mean allowing others to do things I believe are wrong, yes they are clearly free to do so if within the law.
It is possible I was a little strong, and if so please forgive me. This has been a trying thread.
I don't how much of the rabid screeching that only those in possession of a uterus are allowed to make any decisions concerning the abortion issue you managed to wade through, but here is my own take:
Killing a person, a human being, is murder. It is wrong legally and morally, and screaming to the heavens that a woman can do what she likes with an unborn child does NOT make it so. Outside of imminent deadly danger to the mother there are precious few instances where killing an unborn child is "right". Although I certainly haven't considered every possible scenario, I would go so far to say that there are NO instances (outside of that imminent danger) where it is all right.
However. While there can be no argument that a fetus is alive (or even a gamete, for that matter) it is not, IMO "human". We kill cancerous cells, we kill animals, we kill lots of things that are not human and find nothing wrong with that; until that fetus can be considered to be a person, it can be killed with impunity.
Why not "human"? IMO, there is more to human than genetics, birthing species or parentage. IMO, a fetus without a forebrain, for example, is not human. It may be able to survive indefinitely (particularly on machines), but the part of an organism that is absolutely necessary to be a human being, a person, is missing. It is still a homo sapiens but it is not human. Maria Schiavo is another example, albeit a fully grown one. Whatever it was that Maria a person was gone; it wasn't there anymore. The body was still a member of the species (albeit a damaged one), but the person called Maria was gone. A fertilized egg simply does not have the ingredients to be a person. While it has the potential, it is not there yet. It cannot feel, it cannot love, it cannot express itself, it cannot think.
At the same time, IMO, a 9 month old fetus is human. It needs only to be removed from the womb to begin exhibiting human characteristics to its surroundings.
So, the question becomes "When does a fetus become human?" Because at that point abortion becomes murder.
My take on your post:
"Everyone has a conscience which must be silenced in order to be party in any way with promoting, having, or facilitating abortions." This is not only offensive, it assumes that there is exactly one opinion on the beginning of life that is anywhere correct. Yours. Without the assumption that humanity begins at conception there is no need to silence a conscience.
"would be mothers may want to be, (and if so are), kept as much as possible from the reality of what they are about to do" Same thing, The reality is that an unwanted, inhuman, parasitic growth is being removed. Unless the opinion that humanity begins at conception is accepted as truth, anyway.
So tell me - on what do you base your opinion? What reasoning do you use? Is there any give, any question? Are you willing to compromise to end the "war" that is going on (literal in some cases)?
Or will you "stubbornly" hold to you opinion with nothing to back it?
Having said all that in the hopes you will put forth the effort to understand, do you wish to continue the discussion? Because I would really like a reasoning person, preferably with an opinion different than my own, to bounce thoughts off of. This issue is not one I feel comfortable with in making my own call.
(If you are interested, I promise not to make such long posts! )
I understand, as this is a highly personal issue to me.
I've read all the rants. They speak for themselves.
Complete agreement so far.
I find your perspective here surprising. Not the justification for killing the fetus as much as the philosophical perspective on humanity which seems more consistent with a spiritual one than a materialistic one. My impression from all I have seen from you before is solidly materialistic. Very interesting.
Stepping back for a moment and taking a deep breath here. Her name was Terri and I have never been more ashamed of America than the day her slow, cruel murder through starvation was approved. We wouldn't even do that to the worst criminal on death row. Trust me, as the parent of a tube fed child with a brain injury you really don't want to get me started on this one. I am familiar with this demographic and you couldn't be more wrong about Terri.
I understand the materialistic perspective here. Believing we are spirits driving machines I do not know at what time that assignment takes place.
Agreed. This, and even much earlier, when the baby is viable outside the womb, should be a real no brainer, but there are those who don't agree.
I agree for legal purposes this should be discussed in the hope of reaching a reasonable consensus.
This goes back to what I spoke of earlier. Do I believe my opinion is correct? Absolutely. Do you not believe your opinion is correct? Am I listening if you want to make the case I am not correct? Yes, but the default that I am remains until convinced otherwise. Are you different, or is it just that I don't take a PC enough approach and feign doubt?
Please consider I am not new to this issue. I haven't heard anything new that is significant on this topic for many years, so do I expect some revelation from science to come along that will pull the rug out from under my perspective? Even if I only considered the materialistic perspective, it would be highly unlikely.
I do understand clearly that my opinion is not going to be embraced by those on the other side, and I don't expect it to be. I know that if there is any hope of reducing this atrocity it will be through dialogue seeking compromise between the two sides. If such a compromise is reached, I don't expect the other side to embrace it as their new ideology...it is a compromise. So too, it will be with me. My opinion will be the same, but I would welcome the compromise.
I feel my post regarding informing folks about all aspects of the pregnancy, development and abortion was a very reasonable compromise. I realize it would need to be presented in a much more PC manner, and I could easily do that. In this forum, it was my intent to make an impact with the presentation, but as a campaign I would employ a different approach. This was just a concise presentation.
As far as what backs my views, isn't that part of the discussion you propose? You don't expect a quick easy answer to that here, do you?
I would be happy to have that discussion with you, although when I can post is inconsistent. I know I have mentioned that before and you don't mind. I realize my confidence and conviction confound and offend you to some degree, so I can try to tone it down, but tend to write what I think and expect others to do the same. To be honest though, regarding this topic, although our rationales may differ, I don't know that our conclusions will all that much.
"I find your perspective here surprising. Not the justification for killing the fetus as much as the philosophical perspective on humanity which seems more consistent with a spiritual one than a materialistic one. My impression from all I have seen from you before is solidly materialistic. Very interesting."
Materialistic, perhaps. I don't know that there is anything supernatural there - it may simply that we have a forebrain. Or brain tissue that does more than simply run the body. I don't know. I just know there is something that makes us "human" as opposed to animal. I think that one day we're going to need to classify some of what are not animals as "human", too. Cetaceans, maybe, or other primates. Maybe it's a matter of intelligence.
Whatever it is, though, we have it and a single cell does not. You seem to agree, yes? That a fertilized egg does not exhibit that trait of "humanness".
"I understand the materialistic perspective here. Believing we are spirits driving machines I do not know at what time that assignment takes place. "
A good description, although I don't know about the "spirit" part. Don't see that the terminology matters, or even the meaning of whatever word used; there is something driving the body and that something is what makes us human.
And I'll stop here, without trying to make a whole lot of points or questions before we understand and agree to this point.
I once ate a potato that looked like father Christmas. I peeled the skin off of it. Boiled it and ate it. That doesn't make me a cannibal.
I don't argue that, given time, the fetus will grow into a living human being with a separate intelligence and a separate personality. But that takes time. Without some evidence you can't convince me that a fetus in the first two trimesters is anything but a developing organism without any awareness. It's a seed in the process of sprouting.
I do believe any woman who has an abortion is likely to experience a what if moment. We all do that naturally from time to time. We all regret something for some reason. Women who have been in a position to have an abortion are no different. But we don't accuse each other of heinous crimes for making decisions we believed to be in our best interests. Why we feel compelled to do it to them is a mystery.
My conscience is clear on this. I'm not pretending in order to assuage my guilt. I actually care about human life. I don't pay lip service.
Hello Emile. Just curious, why did you use a potato in your example? To be relevant shouldn't it still be a zygote, embryo or fetus? Or are you telling me that left on it's own, without you peeling and eating it, that potato would have grown into father Christmas?
Doesn't that alone deserve the reverence and respect to at least make sure those wishing to kill the person under construction are fully informed?
It is my understanding it has been shown that the brain is for all intent and purposes, fully formed and the baby can feel and respond to pain at least as early as 12 weeks. If you do not believe that to be true, let me know and I will see about getting you some links you can review to back it up. Shouldn't we at the very least, not kill the baby when we know it can feel pain?
I do see this "what if moment" as more significant than "what if I had taken that job?", "what if I had dated or married that guy?", "what if I went to that other college?", "what if I had purchased the Corvette instead of the Prius?", or pretty much any other "what if?", since a life didn't hang in the balance of most of those regrets.
My post was about making sure they had to be fully informed as described in the post.
As for your conscience, that's great, but you have said yourself this is one "what if" moment you will never have to face.
Regarding the comment about caring about human life, not paying lip service, if that is to infer I don't care and do just pay lip service, you really don't know anything about me. I have posted enough personal things that you could have a pretty good idea, (in fact I have posted too much I expect), but perhaps you didn't read those or retain they were about me. It doesn't matter I suppose, as you have in other forums already judged me based on your disdain of my views, with no regard for how I actually live my life. For the most part, you have no way to know, so feel free to assume, I suppose. Clearly, I don't really know you either and will try to assume the best.
Ok. I eat eggs for breakfast every morning. As to the rest of your post, I stopped at the word kill. As long as you use terms such as kill and murder we can't have a meeting of the minds. You aren't interested in thinking about the needs of the human you know for a fact is aware. You don't care. I don't care to waste the time listening to you use language which I know will hurt them.
More "talk to the hand". I would have soft peddled for you to get you to read the post had I known your rules going in. I suspect you read it but have no response and this was the easy way out, but to mirror your response to me, "whatever", I guess.
Wouldn't have made any difference whether you soft peddled or not. You just got a sample of what has so frustrated me in this thread.
At least you weren't told your opinion is unacceptable because you don't have a uterus...
I did not say your opinion was unacceptable because you didn't have a uterus. Again, you are posting through your emotions. I merely stated that this is a woman's issue because it effects only women. It's like my opinion on Viagra. Sure, I think it is a vanity thing in most cases. But, I'm a woman. How in the world do I know? Right?
My primary objection to the pro lifers is that I doubt one of them abstained from sex. To say you never had premarital sex is a bit like saying 'I've never smoked pot.' It is a lie for a very large percentage of the population.
To say you never had sex outside of your marriage is a lie for a percentage of the population, although I would like to believe it is a much smaller percentage.
So, many come to the debate armed with at least one lie, many times two.
Then, many of those who are pro life have been in a position in their lives (either as men or women) advocating abortion when it was in, what they considered to be, their best interests. This little tid bit of information gets buried in their past and they don't reveal it when they are heinously using terms such as murder. Now, some are armed with multiple lies.
Those who honestly admit to premarital sex and honestly admit to having had an abortion are more inclined to be pro choice. They aren't hiding. They admit their behavior. They admit they used poor judgment and they admit that the decision was not an easy one, but they made the decision that they felt needed to be made at that moment in their lives. These are the women. As to the men, they admit they didn't want the baby also but their reasons are usually a little more vain. IMO. Because, they didn't want to be saddled with a relationship, a child. Although I have less sympathy for the male reasons, I can accept that is because I am not male. I can give them kudos for honesty.
So. On the one side, we have a holier than thou stance built on lies attempting to recreate a more acceptable past in order to control the present of others. They claim it is a 'moral issue' without revealing the fact that what they call immoral was a way of their life at one time. On the other side, we have honesty. People are accepting their past and sharing it; many times in hopes of helping young girls make more informed choices without the stigma of guilt the other side so fiercely attempts to saddle them with . In payment for their honesty and compassion, they are accused of murder. Those who use the term murder quite often have a bit of spittle flying when they use it. This bit of moisture attached to the pro lifer's lips is reflected in the tears of the person they are belittling.
Now you have those of us who are in possession of all of this information who have to look to one side to find reason.Because we haven't experienced the need to make a choice. In this category, I find that people who are openly honest about their own past tend to be pro choice. Those who work diligently to create a facade to hide their past or (when their past is revealed), jump through hoops to explain why their indiscretions weren't the same and/or were the same but are now forgiven, are more inclined to be pro life. I don't see fairness or compassion on the pro life side. I never have. That side is built on lies at every turn. It is not indicative of the way I react to life. I couldn't believe anything said from that side until that side honestly accepts their past and our collective present. Suggestions from the pro life side on how to address the problem we have in society at the moment are unrealistic, uncaring and harsh. (Just say no when they didn't. Have the baby no matter the cost when they didn't) That, also, is not an acceptable manner in which to resolve issues. IMO. The pro life side tends to, more often, resort to emotional appeals and shock tactics to force others to agree with them. That, also, is unacceptable. Simply because those tactics hurt living, breathing human beings. Those we know are immediately affected by our opinions are trivialized and treated with contempt in favor of a maybe. This is not compassion. This is bullying.
So. Call me sexist. I have made some harsh comments about the male attitude on what I believe to be a woman's issue. But, if the men voicing opinions in such a way as to emotionally torture women who have had abortions (or women in a position to ponder one) truly attempted to view the problem through the eyes of those affected by their opinions and truly attempted to think of ways to alleviate the problem without summarily dismissing the person affected by their opinions (and the subsequent life that will also be affected by their opinions) I might not be so harsh. Comments such as 'She should have her uterus removed if she doesn't want kids' or 'she shouldn't spread her legs if she doesn't want to live with the consequences' are far beneath a reasonable approach. That is delusional.
You can pay lip service to compassion all day long. But, if your solution does not address the subsequent years of the life of both parties all you are doing is contributing to the misery. I don't have answers any more than you do. But, I will not ignore the inequities of life which exacerbate this problem. I will not throw all of the blame for a problem our society has on the people who are, in their own way, victims. And, I will not build an opinion by accepting the opinions of liars and, unfortunately, that is the reality of a large percentage of the pro life camp.
LOL Go back and read the very first paragraph of the original post you started this thread with. The re-read the post this reply is to.
THEN tell us again how much a mere man's opinion is valued.
If a man has a valid point that can reasonably contribute to a solution it is a totally different scenario from dismissing the emotional well being of the woman involved. Your opening comments when you entered this thread proved which category your 'contribution' would fall into.
As did yours, and every subsequent post you've made.
I have not, to my knowledge, dismissed the emotional well being of the women involved. With the exception of starting this thread and giving those such as yourself a platform to scream murder. For that, all women adversely affected have my sincere apologies.
LMAO. Had you known my rules? You said you care about others. I would think, you would have been able to figure that out for yourself if you did. Without my having to list consideration as a rule.
Actually, knowing how you were offended at the term "murder", I was considerate by using the term "kill", which is commonly used in reference to irradiating cancerous cells. Does the fetus deserve even less respect than cancer cells? Is "kill" not an accurate description and if so, why should you be offended by it? Considering some of the things you say, including several that you have said to and about me, you seem inconsistently thin skinned here.
Let's go through a little recap so we can understand why responding to your question would be an exercise in futility.
These are just a few excerpts. I got bored going through the pages and decided to stop at this point. Because I think it showcased the hypocrisy of the following in regards to both stands. After all of this, you both had the unmitigated gall to say the following:
Telling, to say the least. You guys throw out emotionally charged accusations and then cry foul when you are responded to, in kind.Your own rabid screeching has been heard. Your rants have been duly noted. You guys cheer each other on now, as being so morally superior. I see no point in continuing in a futile attempt to understand why you and your kind feel your right to voice an unkind and harsh opinion that is not couched in any type of fact should trump the lives and emotional well being of others.
By your own accusations of others, you both negated your rights to request that you be given any courtesy in the conversation. You absolved me of any responsibility in considering how my words effect your ego. You can't have it both ways. You either show respect for those who are the topic of conversation, or get the same level of respect you show.
Standing by every word I've said, I consider your indictment an endorsement and thank you for that!
More's the pity. I sincerely hope the day never comes where you are treated with the same lack of respect you afford your fellow man behind their back, but well within earshot. That's a sharp knife you stab them in the heart with. How very compassionate of you.
Ironic to have you invoke the idea of respecting your fellow man while advocating the murder of the most innocent while still in the womb. Sad.
But, there isn't a general consensus that it is murder. That is your words. However, I don't think you'd be able to effectively argue that those who hear you aren't hurt by your unfair and unsubstantiated accusations. So. What we have is a fact and your assumption. In all other avenues, which takes precedent? When someone can be hurt. Fact or assumption? With me, the facts take precedent. How about you?
Considering your topic and OP, You had already done that to all men.
I would not attempt to argue that fact. But, I'm not asking that anyone respect me. I am asking that they show respect for those who the topic most closely affects. I could care less what anyone says about me. With the exception of the rant and screeching comments, but that was due to the hypocrisy involved.
I understand that, but considering the topic at hand, there are actually TWO people (realistically) that the topic affects. It affects the woman directly (I agree) because it her body that is being affected by whatever choice she makes, but it also affects the life inside of her because that life is also in the balance and is being taken too. It may not be a totally callous decision with no regard to the fetus, but still affects the fetus.
Look. The thought of abortion is heart wrenching. There is a potential human in the balance. But, until we reach the point where we know, for sure, when that fetus crossed the threshold into becoming a separate and unique individual what the hatred spewed does is hurt the one we know to be a unique and separate individual. I don't really understand how it is so difficult for anyone to accept this. People are emotionally scarring others for what? To scream 'I'm king of the moral mountain'? How can anyone claim the moral high ground here? I don't see any. Until we find it, I think those who claim it lost it when they opened their mouths.
"I am asking that they show respect for those who the topic most closely affects."
Ummm. That would be the unborn person inside who is being murdered, wouldn't it? Unless, of course, a consensus can be reached concluding that it isn't a person at all - something no mere man is competent to discuss.
Again with the murder comment. You really have an emotional dog in the fight. Sorry. I'm not going to take the bait. Prove to me an embryo is a person. Prove to me when the fetus can reasonably be referred to as a person. Until that point, you are simply bashing the emotions of others out of a hatred you need to come to an understanding of. I don't know what it is. I know what it isn't. It isn't a moral high ground you've made clear you believe yourself to have.
Thank you. You've just said the exact same thing that I, a mere man, have said in nearly every post I've made. That an embryo is not a person, and a fetus isn't necessarily either. That abortion is not murder until it IS a person.
Do you actually bother to read ANYTHING anyone says? Or just jump bad with feigned outrage when a truth you don't like is spoken?
Wilderness, you and I are IN AGREEMENT regarding this issue relating to abortion. I, too, believe that once the fetus become a person, it is MURDER.
Yes, we are in basic agreement. I disagree with your statement that a fetus "that is viable outside the womb" is human, but primarily because it is such a moving target if medical intervention is allowed to aid in the determination. And if it isn't, that puts the change to human very close to 9 months gestation; very few infants are "viable" without special care prior to what - 8 1/2 months?
IMO humanity begins before that point. It also begins long after the conception, yet we will, in the near future, have babies that never see a womb at all. "Test tube" babies that are cared for by machinery throughout the entire gestation period.
So I have some problems with the "viable outside the womb" theory. It sounds good, it sounds reasonable but it raises more questions than it answers. IMO.
You have repeatedly used the term murder for legal procedures. It doesn't really matter if you wax and wane between reason and rabid screeching. There is a lot of ambiguity in your posts. You appear to fall fairly strongly into the pro life camp, and you have also made it clear you have no consideration for the women involved. Actually, I would categorize some of your comments as contemptuous. I suppose it can be argued that I set the stage for you to say the things you did, to which I would be dishonest if I said that was unreasonable. However, if you claim this without also conceding that the women in the situation to contemplate abortion aren't also victims of a stage set by the way our society functions then you would be, imo, hypocritical.
The debate will rage for years to come. But stands such as the one you have displayed are the primary reason I've lost respect for pro life arguments. You don't possess a truth I don't like. You possess an opinion I find offensive. They are not one in the same.
I have most definitely NOT used the term murder for the legal procedure of abortion. You've apparently come to that conclusion several times because I don't have a uterus, but it is untrue.
I must have stated a dozen times in this thread that early term abortion is not murder. If you think I have stated that it is, show me.
On the other hand, you're right in that I have no consideration for women that commit murder. Not early term abortion - murder. As the women that hired the doctor in the link you didn't bother to read did.
You find if offensive to think that a mere man is competent to discuss abortion vs murder. Fair enough; I find it at least as offensive to declare that a man isn't. Or that a woman may commit murder (late term abortion at a time of her choosing) whereupon we all need to take care we don't offend her "feelings" as she has a complete right to do with her body as she wishes.
But at the top of the list is the barrage of comments that all men are interested in nothing but chasing women, especially if they're elderly and use viagra to restore lost functionality . That only a tiny percentage of men make good fathers. Perhaps the worst is that all men desire to make any woman they meet miss her next period.
And unlike your statement that I have declared all abortions to be murder, I can (and did) provide quotes from this thread of those obnoxious statements.
I avoided this thread for several days in order to gain perspective. I will say that your first post on this thread included the following statement: If instead you are really suggesting that a woman be given a "bye" on murder because she voluntarily cooperated in the formation of a human life and now doesn't want the responsibility for that person, I feel very, very bad for you.
This comment tainted your perspective, in my eyes, so I admit I didn't pay much attention to your subsequent posts. I think it can be said that we both agree that a woman has a right to decide for herself, within a reasonable amount of time. However, my problem with this assumption is that it leave the debate open to those who could never agree to define reasonable. Which is why I still believe that the parameters of 'reasonable' should be determined by competent and unbiased medical authorities.
My primary problem with the abortion debate is that morals, in my mind, are private. We have to function within the parameters of our own consciences, for our own existence. Once we attempt to expand our definition of morals onto the world stage, our actions can (quite often) result in what I perceive as unethical behavior toward others. If we can't have a balanced approach a lack of ethical behavior pretty much negates the value of our morals; which makes the conversation pointless.
I admit, my conduct on this thread was less than what I expect of myself so I'm guilty of allowing my opinion of what is ethically right to give the impression that what I consider to be morally right was not in line with where I stand on the issue, when it comes to behavior I expect of myself. The only thing I feel I have the right to expect of others is that they function within the parameters of the law. The rest is their own business.
Im used to agreeing with most every thing bBerean says... not so much Wilderness... Im a little shocked.
by Credence218 months ago
Based on the linked article, it appears that there was no such thing as the Supreme Court Decision entitled Roe Vs Wade. What was it, over 40 years ago, and we still deal with these RED retrograde states trying to chip...
by JOC7 months ago
With his numbers crumbling with women, the Republican Establishment realizes that there's no way they can give him the nomination of their party. He finally offended one group too many with his statements against...
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
There are women who do not believe that women should have equal rights as men do. They are strong proponents that the main roles and goals of women are to be housewives and mothers. They further believe that women...
by Gizmo Prodigy Publishing9 months ago
Its very stuck up when a lot of women put this image on a man thats hes always wrong and shes right.
by Michael Collins3 years ago
The tragic events that happened in Boston in a way proved the message that no amount of laws will prevent the will of a mad man. Crazy (whether in the name of his/her God or some other reason) follows no law, rhyme or...
by J.R. Smith6 years ago
what are your thoughts on this one?
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.