11/30/2007 2:18:47 PM

Quote :

"sex doesn't have to be about sticking a penis in anything whatsoever."

hmmm..................

ya it does.

maybe you feel asleep in FLEEBHS class or your parents forgot to have the "birds and the bees" talk

11/30/2007 2:44:27 PM

he is despicably in the wrong, but i don't think that he should be charged with murder (if she'd been further along in the pregnancy, it would be a different deal. it's a very slippery issue, legally). i don't know what he should be charged with, though.

Quote :

"Because I've come to the conclusion that abortion is murder. And I'm totally okay with letting the woman commit this type of murder."

i don't see how you rationalize this.

Quote :

"The women should be able to make the final decision on whether to have the baby or not, but she should also allow the father to fully surrender his rights before she has the child if things are not reconcilable. "

That's not really a solution, either. It isn't fair to completely hose the father because he wants to be there for his child, but cannot reconcile things with the mother.

Quote :

"If you address this, and assure that a woman doesn't get a free ride if she gets pregnant then you might see more discussions between couples before they get pregnant rather than in the courtroom."

shit, it's worse than a free ride! women can turn a handsome profit on you if they get pregnant.

11/30/2007 2:48:18 PM

Quote :

"ya it does."

Why?

Quote :

"maybe you feel asleep in FLEEBHS class or your parents forgot to have the "birds and the bees" talk"

Maybe so.

11/30/2007 2:49:51 PM

Quote :

""Because I've come to the conclusion that abortion is murder. And I'm totally okay with letting the woman commit this type of murder." i don't see how you rationalize this. "

It's easy.

It's just, IMO, like killing someone in a war zone or the death penalty. People view it is a necessary evil for some reason or another. I don't see why abortion can't be viewed from the same angle.

11/30/2007 2:52:40 PM

because an unborn child is completely different from a military combatant in war or a convicted violent criminal.

the abortion debate should center around at what point we have a human life on our hands--that's pretty much it (my personal belief is that it is at some point after conception, but pretty early on in the pregnancy).

murdering babies for the sake convenience is beyond despicable--particularly when you are fully aware and acknowledge what you're doing, but rationalize it.

11/30/2007 3:00:38 PM

Quote :

"murdering babies for the sake convenience is beyond despicable--particularly when you are fully aware and acknowledge what you're doing, but rationalize it."

couldn't have said it better....multiple instances from the same person even takes it to another level.

11/30/2007 3:02:49 PM

Quote :

"the abortion debate should center around at what point we have a human life on our hands--that's pretty much it (my personal belief is that it is at some point after conception, but pretty early on in the pregnancy). "

It can't center around this.

For one, this would be an exceedingly difficult, probably I think impossible, thing to define.

Secondly, the abortion debate, particularly for anti-abortionists, is not about the time that life begins. They sometimes argue to stay in the game, but realistically, it's about the concept of murder and what they perceive as a religious issue.

Quote :

"murdering babies for the sake convenience is beyond despicable--particularly when you are fully aware and acknowledge what you're doing, but rationalize it. "

Yeah, it's pretty bad, which is what you're suppose to think.

However, someone can easily completely be against people having abortions for convenience, and still be pro-choice. This is pretty much my view. I wouldn't encourage anyone to have an abortion if the mother's life wasn't directly at risk, but I don't think it should be illegal, and if someone even wants to have an abortion "for fun" they should have that right.

But, I highly doubt anyone has abortions for the hell of it, so its almost a self-correcting issue, if we trust women to make their own decisions.

11/30/2007 3:07:03 PM

Quote :

"For one, this would be an exceedingly difficult, probably I think impossible, thing to define."

It starts becoming a person at conception, but isn't fully one until near the end. During much of the time, it's in some intermediate stage. Because of that, I have a hard time considering most abortions murder. People rarely have funerals over miscarriages. But I have a similarly hard time endorsing the practice.

[Edited on November 30, 2007 at 3:29 PM. Reason : d]

11/30/2007 3:11:42 PM

Quote :

"the abortion debate should center around at what point we have a human life on our hands--that's pretty much it"

Well the fetus lacks a name, SSN, or any other traits that a baby has once it pops out if born.

I see abortion as a win-win. Usually the people that have them are the types that do not need to have kids anyway (either b.c they are too young or don't want them). popultion control, crime control, etc

11/30/2007 3:23:15 PM

Quote :

"and if someone even wants to have an abortion "for fun" they should have that right be shot on the spot. "

Quote :

"Well the fetus lacks a name, SSN, or any other traits that a baby has once it pops out if born. "

those are all man made traits.....how about something like a heartbeat?

[Edited on November 30, 2007 at 3:24 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2007 3:23:36 PM

^^^ I understand your position.

But what physical quality makes abortion at 1 week acceptable but abortion at 3 months unacceptable?

The only thing I can think of is whether or not the being is able to think, but this would be hard to define, at least with what we know now about biology.

11/30/2007 3:27:12 PM

I think it becomes less acceptable as the fetus seems more human. Before birth, it's all a continuum.

I don't like abortion, but I don't think it should illegal. (Of course, I'm not sure I believe in laws at all.) Either way, it's ridiculous how many abortions are being performed each year.

11/30/2007 3:34:33 PM

Quote :

"I think it becomes less acceptable as the fetus seems more human. Before birth, it's all a continuum. "

That's true.

But for the purposes of creating a policy around this, or explaining why it might not be murder, how do you define this?

11/30/2007 3:36:01 PM

heartbeat.

11/30/2007 3:43:57 PM

Why a heart beat?

11/30/2007 3:44:55 PM

Quote :

"those are all man made traits.....how about something like a heartbeat"

what is that 5 weeks??

I prefer if it is viable outside the mother. In other words mom no longer wants the baby; if doctor can remove the baby and it live w/o physical or mental damage then they should not be allowed to have an abortion

[Edited on November 30, 2007 at 3:53 PM. Reason : a]

11/30/2007 3:53:24 PM

Quote :

"Why a heart beat?"

someone is considered dead when their hear stops, why not the other way around? Imo its a concrete, measurable factor that happens at about the same time with every viable pregnancy.

Quote :

"prefer if it is viable outside the mother. In other words mom no longer wants the baby; if doctor can remove the baby and it live w/o physical or mental damage then they should not be allowed to have an abortion"

by that definition, a mother could kill her 6 month old if she wanted, as it can't survive w/o her (imo they're just as dependent then as they are in the womb)....not to mention, this would be a largely arbitrary immeasurable gauge, that could fluctuate significantly from case to case.

11/30/2007 4:49:36 PM

What is so bad about a woman choosing to not have her kid?

11/30/2007 4:56:28 PM

Quote :

"theDuke866: murdering babies for the sake convenience is beyond despicable--particularly when you are fully aware and acknowledge what you're doing, but rationalize it."

Get with the times. Murdering babies is what we're all about.

Shit, women may have two or three abortions because they aren't "ready yet." But once they get bored of raking in the cash, they start stuffing fertilized eggs up their vagges as fast as they can. Then you sit back to see which ones "take," pick one or two you like the best, off the rest, and call yourself Julia fucking Roberts.

America's sweethearts kill babies. And it would be rationalization for me to stall and quibble over when life begins. It's murder...and I'm okay with it...

11/30/2007 6:11:12 PM

Quote :

"by that definition, a mother could kill her 6 month old if she wanted, as it can't survive w/o her"

Not at all. If a mother is caught beating her baby; or if there is other reason for neglect social services can step in and take the baby. Social Services/ grandma/ an adoption family can not exactly sustain a 5 month old fetus whose lungs haven't even fully developed yet.

11/30/2007 6:15:27 PM

Quote :

"Why can't it just be unfair? If a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby, she can abort it. If the man doesn't want it, tough luck...you shoulda spent a dollar on a condom...now you gotta spend exponentially more for the next 18 years..."

Oh, I dunno, maybe that whole "Equal Protection Under the Law" thing, or whatever. Nah, fuck the Constitution.

Quote :

"No abortion. If not that, let dudes force abortions/miscarriages on women just to avoid some seeming hypocrisy?"

False dilemma. There IS a middle ground, and that's what the original poster was getting at.

Quote :

"I don't get the feeling that you're concerned about this because of hypocrisy. You just oppose abortion..."

And you aren't concerned about the obvious hypocrisy because you SUPPORT abortion. Your point?

Quote :

"you are incorrect sir. until the last trimesterat least 6 or 7 years of age the baby embryo or fetus a child is completely reliant on the women's bodyhis parents and basically an appendage. Without the motherhis parents the fetuschild would not be viable; thus it should be up to the womenparents at this point on how to treat her bodytheir checkbooks."

I think you can agree that this argument doesn't hold much water, just like the original one...

Quote :

"Basically they're saying in this case it was murder, but if the woman would have decided to abort, it would not have been."

Or, more aptly, it's only murder if the person is wanted. If you go out and "abort" a homeless man on the street, that shouldn't be murder, either. Right, Bridget?

Quote :

"The other thing is there is a perfectly sensible and cost-effective way for men to prevent pregnancy via vasectomies and freezing their semen at a lab. Only idiots with hangups about "not being a real man" could really object to that."

Wow. So in order to protect a woman's "right" to make decisions about her body and to give the man "equality," we should suggest that men be persuaded to make a certain decision about their bodies? Pure genius...

Quote :

"This seems like a good solution though: Quote : "he should be charged with practicing abortion without a licence, assault, and maybe breaking and entering.""

Really? What about a woman taking the morning after pill? Isn't that tantamount to "practicing abortion without a license?"

Quote :

"What is so bad about a woman choosing to not have her kid?"

What is so bad a parent deciding not have his kid and thus no longer feeding it?

Quote :

"Not at all. If a mother is caught beating her baby; or if there is other reason for neglect social services can step in and take the baby. Social Services/ grandma/ an adoption family can not exactly sustain a 5 month old fetus whose lungs haven't even fully developed yet."

You could also theoretically transplant the embryo into another woman. Why don't we force a woman to do that? (I hope you see how ridiculous a notion this is. Thus, your point is equally useless)

11/30/2007 6:44:37 PM

you use great strawman and unfortunately blinded by puritanical beliefs forced onto you by the Christian church

11/30/2007 7:50:05 PM

Quote :

"Why can't it just be unfair? If a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby, she can abort it. If the man doesn't want it, tough luck...you shoulda spent a dollar on a condom...now you gotta spend exponentially more for the next 18 years..."

Actually, there's a perfectly fair solution here, or at least as fair as you can come for most outcomes. No marrige = no child support. With this solution, most outcomes are roughly fair:

Man wants child, woman doesn't: Tough luck buddy, shoulda got married to a woman who would want your child.

Woman wants child, man doesn't: Fine, woman gets to keep her child, man gets his legal "abortion" (and just as a note, the reverse is true, no marrige means no legal claim on the child for the father)

On the plus side, this also should solve the religious problem too, as the only people who for religious reasons would oppose abortion should also for religious reasons be waiting till marrige for sex anyway.

11/30/2007 8:04:09 PM

Quote :

"Really? What about a woman taking the morning after pill? Isn't that tantamount to "practicing abortion without a license?""

No, because those pills only prevent pregnancy and are no good if the woman is pregnant.

11/30/2007 8:22:28 PM

Quote :

"On the plus side, this also should solve the religious problem too, as the only people who for religious reasons would oppose abortion should also for religious reasons be waiting till marrige for sex anyway."

that's quite a generalization.

11/30/2007 8:26:43 PM

Perhaps, but sufficient enough for law. The fringe cases can be handled case by case.

11/30/2007 9:05:39 PM

Quote :

"Woman wants child, man doesn't: Fine, woman gets to keep her child, man gets his legal "abortion" (and just as a note, the reverse is true, no marrige means no legal claim on the child for the father) "

so this means that if a man decides during the pregnancy he doesn't want to pay for the kid, he doesn't have to?

does your plan also suggest that if two people aren't married, only a woman is responsible for the child (assuming that she doesn't want an abortion).

i guess i just need some clarification on what this "abortion" for the man is that you're talking about?

11/30/2007 9:11:43 PM

Quote :

"What is so bad a parent deciding not have his kid and thus no longer feeding it? "

thats murder

11/30/2007 9:27:08 PM

^^ Bingo. If the woman wants assurance that the child that she chooses to bear is paid for and cared for by its father, then she needs to get married to him. Elsewise, just as he has no right to force a child upon her, she doesn't have a right to force a child upon him.

11/30/2007 9:55:12 PM

Quote :

"No, because those pills only prevent pregnancy and are no good if the woman is pregnant."

Ummm. Morning After pill. Supposed to be use the MORNING AFTER. durrr...

Quote :

"thats murder"

And yet you say abortion is not. That's my point. Clearly, you are either drunk or loaded. Or maybe both.

11/30/2007 11:17:46 PM

Quote :

" Ummm. Morning After pill. Supposed to be use the MORNING AFTER. durrr... "

Within the first 72 hours I believe. They're mostly effective, but if a girl is already on birth control and something just fucks up then you're hardly going to know to use the morning after pill.


Plus the morning after pill has some nasty side effects for a few days.

11/30/2007 11:23:09 PM

Quote :

" And yet you say abortion is not. That's my point. Clearly, you are either drunk or loaded. Or maybe both."

or maybe he just doesn't think abortion is murder?

11/30/2007 11:23:43 PM

Quote :

" Ummm. Morning After pill. Supposed to be use the MORNING AFTER. durrr... "

right. that doesn't change my point. here you go:

Quote :

"but EC is not indicated for a woman with a known or suspected pregnancy because it is not effective in women who are already pregnant"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception

11/30/2007 11:29:23 PM

well, you "know" or "suspect" pregnancy long after the effectiveness of the drug, so isn't that kind of pointless to say it that way, anyway? It does raise an interesting question, though, of when a woman is actually "pregnant." At least, I would think it would

12/2/2007 2:37:44 AM

EC/Morning After prevents the egg from remaining attached to the uterine wall. the egg is eliminated before conception can occur.

its essentially no different than normal contraception (via birth control pills) except with different timing.

you can get the same effect by taking a large dose of regular birth control pills. The catch-22 of course is if a woman isnt taking BC pills, she most likely doesnt have any available to do this on her own.




[Edited on December 2, 2007 at 2:59 AM. Reason : ]

12/2/2007 2:57:18 AM

Yes, but at least we can agree that an abortion cannot technically occur before the act of the impregnating sex, which is when we typically think of birth control being used. And even though the woman might keep taking BC after the impregnating sex, she still was taking it before, and the decision to take it was made before the sex, which seems to be the difference to me. The decision to abort a pregnancy cannot occur before the pregnancy.

One can decide to abort any potential pregnancy before said pregnancy, but that is different, since is a plan of action for potential future events and not a plan of action for the result of a past event.

Damn it just got technical and grammar ninja-ish in here

12/2/2007 3:10:00 AM

i really cant understand what your point there is supposed to be, or what youre trying to say.


are you just posting to keep your name listed several times in sequence at the top of the TSB main page?

12/2/2007 3:32:09 AM

Quote :

"And yet you say abortion is not."

correct

12/2/2007 11:33:32 AM

^ cognitive dissonance is NOT a trait to be admired, DNL. neither is not being able to explain your opinons

12/2/2007 11:39:34 PM

what man, i just feel like starving a living child to death is a lot worse than a woman killing some thing in her stomach

12/3/2007 2:21:47 AM

^ I think most people would agree... but why would they agree?

12/3/2007 2:33:27 AM

because they have devalued one human for the sake of convenience?

12/3/2007 6:42:33 PM