[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]He invalidated your point.[/QUOTE]

No, he didn't. Why should the irresponsibility of someone else take away my right to have a say in what happens to my child?

And my point was that, if the father ditches, punish the father. Not the child.

As Kieran already said, how do you expect the government to differentiate between those cases? Especially the 'concraceptive failure vs. no contraception'. Get real.

The same way it can tell if I murder people or not, evidence.

Ok let me try something slightly different then... now we would all agree that killing a baby is bad. Now go back 9 months and destroying this group of cells, so it can't develop into this baby, seems just as wrong to me. Either way the person will not exist in the future.

Rob, it's impossible to find evidence that a couple didn't use contraception. Why? Because, generally, there will be no witnesses. I think you're literally insane, still defending your indefensible viewpoint.

I'm sure there would be some way to test for the use of birth control pills, patches and shots, but that'd only cover some instances. Use of other forms uf contraceptivs would be impossible to proove.

You´re kinda supposed to make the choice before you end up pregnant, not after. Just my thoughts...

Can someone please provide a solid argument as to why someone should NOT be able to control their own reproductive functions at any time?

I'm going to break down the way you argue.

PersonA: Point

Freelancer: OMFG! I MADE A POINT NOW, THAT MAKES YOURS INDEFENSIBLE AND INVALID.




That said, I'll move onto my argument.

Who said there are witnesses when people are murdered?

Anyhow, that point is moot, It's not my job to decide how the government wants to screw over irresponsible people. As long as they keep doing it I'm alright.

I'm against abortion but for killing babies.

Support the Regressive Party.

Fabulous, an ad hominem followed by a veiled recession. Are you trying to look like a hypocrite or are you just trying to confuse everybody?

Hmmmm.

It's kinda that I don't care.

Why should anyone need a reason for abortion?

Either it is legal for everyone to make that decision for themselves.. or it isn't. Does it actually matter whether the fetus is a result of rape, or whether it is recreationally aborted? The fetus is exactly the same, the abortion is exactly the same.


What exactly is so great about 'sexual responsibility'? How would society be destroyed if we eliminated sexual responsibility? Or just chipped away at it slowly?

The whole point of all technologies is to free us of responsibilities. My PDA has freed me of the responsibility of having to remember dates of various events.

As sexual technologies improve, we are reaching the point where we can simply have sex for fun. Sex feels good, sex is enjoyable, so if you want to feel good and enjoy yourself with someone else, have sex. Go see a movie, have dinner, have sex. Excellent evening.

Before contraception, it was that sex => baby. With contraception, we are freed of that sexual responsibility 98.5% of the time (or whatever the success rate of condoms is). Abortion is just making that 100%.
Contraception, abortion and other disease-related technologies are providing us with these freedoms - the freedom to have sex, when we want, how we want and with whom we want. This should be celebrated (with sex!), not condemned.

I think you're essentially confusing 'sex' with 'love'. The two are completely unrelated. You can have sex without love (sex for fun), you can have love without sex. Of course, love with sex is the best, because you're getting the best of both. But these technologies are giving us the freedom to explore all sorts of different types of sex at our own leisure.
That is the choice I support.

But it shouldn't matter. The choice should still be available.

What about the morning after pill then?

...because it would have prevented the epidemic of STDs among homosexual men?

Actually, yes. It does matter. Despite the fact I'm for abortion, the fetus is still a possible life. It has the possibility to be a whole other person, and people don't have the right to drag someone else's life into their own bull. That means people should not be allowed to have sex negligently. You want to have sex with a contraceptive? Go through the whole kama sutra and then some for all I care. But those who screw around and don't use contraceptives? That's just bull - unless of course one or both were fixed.

How would the government decipher between who's contraceptive failed? As Rob pointed out: evidence. DNA tests, actually having the contraceptive, etc. could be presented as evidence. Of course there should be some leniance, as long as the stories match and such between partners.

But that should only be good for at least one abortion, they should go in a registry and blackflagged though, as in if they try to get another without any evidence they would be punished.

Though mostly I think people should have to register to breed. You have to have a license to catch a freaking fish, why shouldn't you have a license to create another life you are responsible for? Granted I don't think there should be alot of limitations that people would have to jump through in order to be able to have a kid, but they could only be acquired by a couple and if either person doesn't match the ones listed on the registry then it's revoked.


This would be basically to enforce stupid teenagers and adults from hooking up with some one-night-stand and not using a contraceptive. People caught pregnant within around the first month without a license would be forced to have an abortion and both them and the partner would be jailed.

It's not like it's difficult to get an effective contraceptive device and people should learn to realize this. Mostly what this all would sovle is-

When you consider the results of pro-life is unwanted children ending up in orphanages that can hardly support them.

The results of pro-choice is people taking abortion for granted and continually not taking responsibility.


The idea of encouraging responsibility in society just sounds really good to me for some reason.

You're missing the point; that's just not possible. You people keep droning on and on about what ought to be when you are fully aware that what ought to be will never be.

Why do so many Christians in the US seem to oppose abortion, but support the death penalty?

There's that thou shalt not kill thing in the Bible somewhere...or is it "I wish you guys didn't kill anyone...if you think they deserve it, though, go ahead"?

As for abortion, I think further research needs to be done to accurately determine when the fetus starts feeling emotions, no matter how primitive, and suffer from pain.

[QUOTE=The Mega-ZZTer]Ok let me try something slightly different then... now we would all agree that killing a baby is bad. Now go back 9 months and destroying this group of cells, so it can't develop into this baby, seems just as wrong to me. Either way the person will not exist in the future.[/QUOTE]

So is oral sex a form of cannibalism then?

No. Put a sample of sperm in an environment that will satisfy its needs. What happens? They swim around until they die.

Put an ovum in an environment that will satisfy its needs. What will happen? It will become a child.



While I don't support the death sentence (simply on the matter of the fallibility of our justice system), there is a difference between killing a child and killing someone who is convicted of a crime that has been deemed worthy of execution.

Death rocks.

Wolfy, you could use a word other than child to make it les biased, you know. Like fetus. There's a difference.

Maybe I should've just left the abortion part out of that sentence as I meant it to be linked to the following sentence...but I couldn't since this thread is about abortion so I tried to make it seem at least slightly on-topic. :p

But I agree that there's a difference.

(Edit) How do they know God would deem those crimes worthy of execution, though? Especially when he doesn't want people to kill other people.

Thank you, that was the point I was trying to hit home. I still don't understand why the fetus doesn't get a chance because of someone else having an "excellent evening".

Because the mother is more important than the fetus, and the mother has the choice to do abort it. I've already explained why outlawing is a bad idea, and I've already explained why arguing about 'what ought to be' is futile. So why are you still talking?

It's not about punishing the child. The child doesn't exist yet.

Why is an unborn child so important, if the mother doesn't want it? It's not like their is a shortage of humans. It may sound heartless but if the mother doesn't want it, whats the point? To have another ****ed up kid growing up in orphanages or whatnot? And the sperm argument is valid. Either way contraception and abortion both have the same result. They end the possibility of a child being born.

But why not just allow teenagers to have all the sex they want, and let them abort the fetus as they choose? That way, teenagers are enjoying themselves, and we're preventing an unwanted child from being born - everybody wins (everybody that is actually alive, that is).

Of course, for sheer practical purposes, contraception is probably easier. But if it is early on, then aborting a pregnancy is nothing more than taking a pill. This does indeed have health effects and that needs to be considered. But as abortion technologies improve, the whole process will be quicker and easier.

The point is that people should judge their own actions and responsibilites based on the options and technologies available to them - rather than have those technologies banned and be told how they 'should' behave.


And anyway, historically, a mother that doesn't want a child can be quite inventive, throwing herself down stairs or something to abort the pregnancy. Simply allowing her to take advantage of the technology available is so much safer for the mother.

Just saying "ha ha you should have been more careful ha ha!" really doesn't help anything. at all.

Jews were unwanted, too. God I can't wait until abortion issues are revisted by the Supreme Court Bush will leave. I don't have a big problem with abortion when it is conducted in the earliest stages, probably in the seven week range but maybe less, but I have a huge problem with needless partial births and allowing minors to get them with out parental/guardian consent.

There are so many viable alternatives to abortion. Resources should be directed toward alternatives as well. I think woman should be counselled on what alternatives are available, shown an ultrasound of their unborn child, and informed that it will feel pain as it is killed.

<--- 'nuff said.

Of course. I'm sure you wouldn't want to ensure that women are making a fully informed choice.

Informed? Fetuses don't feel pain until late pregnancy.

How do you figure? Or maybe it's a problem of your definition of late. 12 weeks? 20 weeks?
http://www.gargaro.com/fetalpain.html

Close to 30. Not that I think it's relevant - if a baby is born into an environment that doesn't give a possibility for happiness, physical pain should not be looked into too much.

I'm pro-abortion, but probably limited to the first trimester. The debate should never be about 'no' or 'yes', but about 'yes, but how far can we go, in which situations, ....' noone is seriously gonna argue that a severly defective 5 week old fetus should be forced to be born.

Okay, you seem to be fairly rational on the issue. I disagree with your assessment of 30 weeks. I think a reasonable timeframe for a normal abortion should be within the first two months of pregnancy. The pain debate really wouldn't be an issue then. A woman should realize she is pregnant by that time and know whether or not bringing a baby to term is a legitimate option for her.

I would also encourage programs which fund the adoption process. There are so many people out there that would make good parents that are unable to have their own. Help finance the medical expenses and streamline and reduce the cost of the adoption process. A child is then allowed to be born and given a better opportunity than his/her natural parents or abortion might have given him.

Of course this issue is far more in depth than a short, simple two paragraph post can do justice to. However, I'm not interested in getting seriously involved in this emmotional debate at this time. That's why I avoided the thread for awhile. I think there is definitely room for compromise all the way around but what happens is you get the extreme ends of the spectrum unwilling to give any ground.

Child.



No, it doesn't. But it is true. They are a number of things that can be done (outside of abstinence) to prevent conception. Acting responsibly concerning sex is one of these things. Why follow such a wreckless, hedonistic lifestyle when one can still enjoy life and not suffer dire consequences?

There's a semantic difference and you know it.

As for you, Wookie. I am rolling my eyes in your general direction because of your ludicrous plan to indoctrinate every abortion patient with your political and religious agenda.

Hmm. Sorry, I missed any political or religious agenda in my post. Maybe you can point it out to me?

This is a complicated issue, but I find myself on the so-called pro-choice side of things. I believe that the vast majority of people who get abortions are irresponsible and idiotic, but that in itself doesn't mean that the government should be allowed keep people from making the wrong decisions, especially when it comes to their own bodies. At one time in my life, I toyed with the idea of state-sanctioned tube-tying for those types of people, but that may be a bit too far.

I find it funny that most of you who think abortion is right, and wrong, claim all this knowledge about "the fetus being alive" and blah blah, yet you've never taken an actual medical course on things and how they REALLY work. What you read ont he internet doesn't automatically make you an expert or make you absolutely KNOW what life truly is, it's all your personal classification.

Maybe you can expound and educate us.