Matsu you have no feelings and no compassion; your way is to insult or trash people.
Abortion is not a convenience, it might be for you but it is not for the majority of women who have it. If you would talk to any of these women it would be obvious.
As for abstinence it does not work when you are with a person you love; you guys assume by your comments that a woman does not have a strong sexual appetite and that it is easy for her to say no. It does not depend only on us if the only object of sex is to procreate but mostly up to the man.
Full proof, condoms plus the pill plus gel and in many cases the female condom. But, you still take the risk to contract AIDS so you have to know your partner.
I guess for right winger you would say that the woman who gets AIDS deserve it as she deserves a life of painful memories by being forced to go through a pregnancy and give it up for adoption.
You always get upset about feelings and compassion or people picking on you, but why don't you try to make an argument instead of lashing out with the ussual, "You can't understand me, you're a bad person, they're all like you, etc etc..." You don't make sense.
On this point at least, it's not your fault. They whole pro-'choice' spin obscures the issue. I'm pretty sure I didn't say whether I support or oppose abortion. I just want to clear up some language, and some ideas. Your feelings and mine have nothing to do with whether or not this is a convenience. If abortion is so hard, why do people choose it? Because the alternative is harder. Access to an expedient is convenience. We can accomodate you. Don't want this preganancy? We can make it go away. This is the very prototype of convenience.
Convenience doesn't make things wrong. We live with many conveniences generally seen as good. But, the unwillingness of abortionists to accept this term tells me something about their psychology (and yours). Still that would not lead me to any direct evalution of the relative morality of abortion -- you have to make a few important stops before you get that far.
Yes, the choice is cruel, I am merely honest.
You might be surprised by what I support (probably to the mutual dissatisfaction of both sides in this debate).
To engage this debate properly and completely takes more time than I'm willing to spend in a medium where I'd rather **** all over the place for the sake of my own sanity than put more than two coherent sentences together, especially since the chances of you 'getting it' are nil or worse.
Are you a giraffe? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
No, I'm not a bigot. Why would you get that from what I wrote?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In that case writing such an evidence like : the best way to not be pregnant is abstinence, is as good than write
- if you don't want car accident do not take a car
- if you don't want to divorce dont be married ...
Following the same way of thinking, i should understant that if somebody has a car accident it's is fault : he should not be in a car.
I don't know if you were a bigot , it's why i ask you the question because many bigots will say that abstinence is the only contraception permitted and that relations sexual should be only reserved for procreation.
I franckly disagree with that conception of sexuality.
Abortion is not a convenience, it might be for you but it is not for the majority of women who have it. If you would talk to any of these women it would be obvious.<hr></blockquote>
You always assume that everyone is just like you. It is not the case. Sorry.
[quote]As for abstinence it does not work when you are with a person you love; you guys assume by your comments that a woman does not have a strong sexual appetite and that it is easy for her to say no. It does not depend only on us if the only object of sex is to procreate but mostly up to the man.<hr></blockquote>
This is the weakest argument you have made so far. Abstinance does not work if you love a person? So the assumption made here by you is that if you love someone you are going to jump into bed with them and have sex. that is all love is to you? Sounds like the word lust is more appropriate. What is being assumed by many of these statements is that you do not want to get pregnant and so to avoid that the ony 100% foolproof way is not to have sex in the first place. Nowhere was it said that this was easy. In fact most have said that this is much tougher than just wearing a condom or taking a pill.
[quote]Full proof, condoms plus the pill plus gel and in many cases the female condom. But, you still take the risk to contract AIDS so you have to know your partner.<hr></blockquote>
Sorry, you still have a chance of getting pregnant, very small, but it is there. The only foolproof method is to not have sex. Don't kid yourself.
[quote]I guess for right winger you would say that the woman who gets AIDS deserve it as she deserves a life of painful memories by being forced to go through a pregnancy and give it up for adoption.<hr></blockquote>
Matsu a right winger?!? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> that is hilarious. He is hardly a right winger. But I agree with most of what he said. It was only common sense. (I bet I don't get to say that too often. )
[quote]This choice is very cruel.<hr></blockquote>
No more cruel than killing a child because it is inconvenient. It is just that the person who suffers is different. With abortion the child dies. With Adoption you may have more emotional attachment as you actually see the child and it is not just this thing growing inside you that you cannot see and may be causing discomfort to you.
I don't know if you were a bigot , it's why i ask you the question because many bigots will say that abstinence is the only contraception permitted...</strong><hr></blockquote>
He didn't say anything about what should or should not be permitted. And you still haven't explained what this has to do with bigotry.
[quote]<strong>... and that relations sexual should be only reserved for procreation. </strong><hr></blockquote>
He also didn't say that.
[quote]<strong>I franckly disagree with that conception of sexuality.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, disagree all you want. It's not that I don't understand why you'd disagree with CosmoNut but suggesting that the other side of the debate is bigoted because they see the issue differently is a rather intolerant perspective to have.
Okay, disagree all you want. It's not that I don't understand why you'd disagree with CosmoNut but suggesting that the other side of the debate is bigoted because they see the issue differently is a rather intolerant perspective to have.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps my english is so bad that you can't understand what i say or perhaps you put words on my mouth . (both ?)
I'll try to clarify :
i did not say that pro-life people are bigots, i just say that saying that abstinence is the only contraception permitted is bigoted.
You can be pro-life and Franckly disagree with this.
I just dont understand the interest to say such an evidence as " don't have sexe and you will not be pregnant". When i read this it comes to my mind that perhaps it was a way to say to us that abstinence was the best attitude, a common statement from bigots. This have nothing to do with pro-life : you can be pro-life and for contraception.
Perhaps my english is so bad that you can't understand what i say or perhaps you put words on my mouth . (both ?)
I'll try to clarify :
i did not say that pro-life people are bigots, i just say that saying that abstinence is the only contraception permitted is bigoted.
You can be pro-life and Franckly disagree with this.
I just dont understand the interest to say such an evidence as " don't have sexe and you will not be pregnant". When i read this it comes to my mind that perhaps it was a way to say to us that abstinence was the best attitude, a common statement from bigots. This have nothing to do with pro-life : you can be pro-life and for contraception.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps you misunderstood his post. he never said that Abstinence was the only acceptable contraceptive. He said that abstinence was the only sure method to prevent pregnancy.
But, even if he had said that abstinence was the only method you could use, that would not make him a bigot. Especially since he is not not opposing you religiously based on both his and your religious beliefs.
[quote] Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.<hr></blockquote>
First let me just say that I haven't read the whole thread yet, so if anything I say has already been addressed please excuse me.
Some of you are saying that "life" doesn't really begin untill 3, 4, or even 5 months. Others say that "life" begins at conception. All this debate is irrelevent. It cannot be proven when "life" begins. It could be at conception (my belief) or (for arguments sake) it could begin right at birth. But we should give life the benefit of the doubt. For example, say you are driving along the road and see a body of what looks to be a person who has been hit by a car, a "mass of cells". Do you just drive on and say, "Well since we don't know if he is alive or dead well just let him die". I hope not. A normal person would stop and try to get help. As it should be with abortions.
Regarding the rape issue, I think the woman should not be allowed to abort the baby. If she feels she cannot raise the child herself there are plenty of parents who would be willing to adopt. Just because the mother does not want the child does not mean she has to abort.
ok, im not going to bother on the whole thread but my comments on the first and last pages.
Im pro-choice. I simply can not see how any one could justify supressing the freedom of the mother. After all, it is her body.
Damn it, arguing on the internet is a naddiciton, no matter how hard I try to quit I always end up back at it
Also I think that it is NOT ok to abort when the embryo has taken on clear development of arms and legs, up to this point it is and undefined cell dividing and forming into a human form
All the stages are so close to one another that I dont htink that you can actually cut the line at a point like this. In fact I think that drawing hte line anywhere is unfair. Rather you must look at it as the right of the mother over her own body. I especially like Judith Thompsons "A Defence of Abortion" in which she makes some GREAT comparisons between bizzare circumstances and abortion.
Yes, but if you attack the source of the problem and not the symptoms you won't get results as quickly which will look bad politically
Ahem. Fight the symptoms and not the problem? That seems very backwards in thinking. Also what does politics have to do with it?
Yeah, I guess the baby doesn't count yet. After all it is just a mass of cells that cannot survive on its own.
No it doesnt really. It may be cold or mean to abort a fetus in certain situations, but it is no more a matter of being morally wrong then if you were to deny blood to a dieing man.
And what is up with this broad generalization that all men consider women to be baby factories?
Agreed! I dont get this one. There seems to be a lot of generalizations like this.
If you don't want to get pregnant or get your mate pregnant, find a way so that it won't be an option.
If I were a woman Id say that thats a stereotypically male statment.
Its not always that easy. Maybe one day you forget to take the pill, it slips your mind due to some other drug (alchohol any one?) or maybe it doesnt work, or maybe a condom breaks.
Nothing is 100%
who's considering having an abortion made her choice when she had sex, whether protected or not (in most cases: rape and incest excluded).
See my previous statment. Because you leave a window open and a fly gets in does not mean that the fly is allowed to live there.
That paper by Thompson that I mentioned earlier made a great comparison to plants that drift in on the wind. Im butchering this a bit in my compression of it but... You can keep your windows closed all the time, and live with stale air and all the typical stuff that happens when you never open a window, or you can open a few windows and put up screens to make sure that nothing gets through. Lets say that one day the screen is faulty, or its put on badly and a seed drifts through and gets implanted in your rug and grows. No one would claim that its your fault and you must let it grow because you provided a rug that it can grow in, nor that its your fault for having windows open in the first palce. They would tell you to uproot the plant and toss it out.
this might sound callous, but so does telling a woman that she has to go through the pains and changes to her body and lifestyle that comes with having a chile, just because she followed a natural earge one night whille drunk or whatever.
My long (academic) history of embattlement with feminism and women's studies began over this point: Abortion IS a convenience.
Ok, lets take your point that its not due to extenuating circumstances or whatever.
Technically you are right in that being pregnant is less conveniant than not being pregnant, but not in the context that your using it (I assume). It is not some way to make your normal life easier, but a way to alleviate an extenuating circumstance.
if he can't keep his pecker put away, find someone else.
Im not even gonna TOUCH on whats wrong with that statment...
You always assume that everyone is just like you. It is not the case. Sorry.
Ok, lets say that your right and its not like that for all women. Does that mean, since its not like that for all women, that it should not be allowed?
Now, for those women whom it is this "uncomplicated" thing, read my previous arguments.
No more cruel than killing a child because it is inconvenient
You see this is the exact confusion. No, the woman may not have the right to demand the babys death, but it she chooses NOT to let it leech off of her, then how can you say that that is wrong? Yes, it can be seen a cold, but often theres a better reason than "convenience". But even if theres not, theres no morality that states that your immoral because you DIDNT give blood to a car crash accident, or because you unplugged the famous violinist from your system (see the Thompson paper that I mentioned) or that you didnt provide for the neighbors kid that was treated badly.
For example, say you are driving along the road and see a body of what looks to be a person who has been hit by a car, a "mass of cells". Do you just drive on and say, "Well since we don't know if he is alive or dead well just let him die". I hope not. A normal person would stop and try to get help. As it should be with abortions.
Ahh, but would it be right to make it illegal NOT to pick him up? That would be what we call "Karma Police"
(thanks to Radiohead for that term)
Or you could look to the "good samaritan" law in the last episode of Seignfeild. One could hardly see that as a postitive thing.
If she feels she cannot raise the child herself there are plenty of parents who would be willing to adopt
Again, she would still have to go through the physical, phycological, and lifestyle warp that happens with a kid. All of a sudden shes caring for two.
A similar thing would be the case of not taking care of your kid. It is illegal to mistreat your kid horribly, however it is NOT illegal to have him/her adopted, in other words to get rid of them.
In a late pregnancy a baby can survive in an incubator, and this point a direct killing of the fetus is indeed wrong. However up to this point its either that or have the mother give up her own freedom over her body.
Man what I really like though, are all these men saying how easy it is for women to have an abortion
Toolboi, there is so much that I disagree with in your previous post that I would not even know where to begin. Your entire post centers around the point that it is not a child. It is simply a disease to be dealt with however the mother sees fit. Or as one of your more callous points puts it. A plant growing in an area not wanted, or more generically, a weed.
The whole post was on the convenience factor. It is inconvenient for the mother to have this child, to have her body go through changes and so she should have the option to "get rid of it." Say what you are really saying, don't beat around the bush. She should have the option to kill it.
And to compare a child to a plant as if that is even the same thing, really reaching. If you believe a plant and a human have the same rights I suppose that would fly, but it gets no truck here. Plants are not sentient, will never be sentient and are only there to be eaten, look pretty and produce Oxygen. If you disagree then that explains a lot about your argument. And don't tell me how it was some authors argument and you just repeated it. You thought it was right enough to bring up in the first place.
Perhaps my english is so bad that you can't understand what i say or perhaps you put words on my mouth . (both ?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't put words in your mouth. I quoted your post. You did ask if he was a bigot there's no getting around that.
[quote]<strong>I'll try to clarify :
i did not say that pro-life people are bigots...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now where's this coming from? Where did I say you said this? You asked CosmoNut if he was a bigot. I don't know if he's pro-life or not. But even if he is, that still doesn't mean that he said that abstinence was the only method of contraception that should be allowed. He simply pointed out that it was the only fail safe method of avoiding pregnancy. And it is.
[quote]<strong>... I just dont understand the interest to say such an evidence as " don't have sexe and you will not be pregnant"...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because it is true!!!
[quote]<strong>When i read this it comes to my mind that perhaps it was a way to say to us that abstinence was the best attitude, a common statement from bigots...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think he was saying that but what's so bigoted about that?
[quote]<strong>... This have nothing to do with pro-life : you can be pro-life and for contraception.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm both a Christian and a Medical student. I believe that life is precious, but also that this is not a perfect world. Therefore, I would be in support of allowing abortions, but only within the first two months of gestation, unless the fetus has a severe genetic or congenital problem, or the mother is at risk.
I'm both a Christian and a Medical student. I believe that life is precious, but also that this is not a perfect world. Therefore, I would be in support of allowing abortions, but only within the first two months of gestation, unless the fetus has a severe genetic or congenital problem, or the mother is at risk.
Regarding the rape issue, I think the woman should not be allowed to abort the baby. If she feels she cannot raise the child herself there are plenty of parents who would be willing to adopt. Just because the mother does not want the child does not mean she has to abort.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I frankly disagree with that, if someone rape my wife (god and all saints prevent this horror), and she get pregnant : do you think that she will support this in her body, and do you think i will support that. I am peacefull in nature, but i think if somebody oblige my wife to keep the fetus i'll turn mad
Here a true story related by my wife : this is a story of a father who rape his own daughter and who get pregnant : does she have to keep the baby ?
However,it's nothing more than a quote, i can not be furious with a man called golferguy.
Comments
Abortion is not a convenience, it might be for you but it is not for the majority of women who have it. If you would talk to any of these women it would be obvious.
As for abstinence it does not work when you are with a person you love; you guys assume by your comments that a woman does not have a strong sexual appetite and that it is easy for her to say no. It does not depend only on us if the only object of sex is to procreate but mostly up to the man.
Full proof, condoms plus the pill plus gel and in many cases the female condom. But, you still take the risk to contract AIDS so you have to know your partner.
I guess for right winger you would say that the woman who gets AIDS deserve it as she deserves a life of painful memories by being forced to go through a pregnancy and give it up for adoption.
This choice is very cruel.
On this point at least, it's not your fault. They whole pro-'choice' spin obscures the issue. I'm pretty sure I didn't say whether I support or oppose abortion. I just want to clear up some language, and some ideas. Your feelings and mine have nothing to do with whether or not this is a convenience. If abortion is so hard, why do people choose it? Because the alternative is harder. Access to an expedient is convenience. We can accomodate you. Don't want this preganancy? We can make it go away. This is the very prototype of convenience.
Convenience doesn't make things wrong. We live with many conveniences generally seen as good. But, the unwillingness of abortionists to accept this term tells me something about their psychology (and yours). Still that would not lead me to any direct evalution of the relative morality of abortion -- you have to make a few important stops before you get that far.
Yes, the choice is cruel, I am merely honest.
You might be surprised by what I support (probably to the mutual dissatisfaction of both sides in this debate).
To engage this debate properly and completely takes more time than I'm willing to spend in a medium where I'd rather **** all over the place for the sake of my own sanity than put more than two coherent sentences together, especially since the chances of you 'getting it' are nil or worse.
[ 03-02-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
<strong>
Are you a giraffe?
No, I'm not a bigot. Why would you get that from what I wrote?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In that case writing such an evidence like : the best way to not be pregnant is abstinence, is as good than write
- if you don't want car accident do not take a car
- if you don't want to divorce dont be married ...
Following the same way of thinking, i should understant that if somebody has a car accident it's is fault : he should not be in a car.
I don't know if you were a bigot , it's why i ask you the question because many bigots will say that abstinence is the only contraception permitted and that relations sexual should be only reserved for procreation.
I franckly disagree with that conception of sexuality.
[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
Abortion is not a convenience, it might be for you but it is not for the majority of women who have it. If you would talk to any of these women it would be obvious.<hr></blockquote>
You always assume that everyone is just like you. It is not the case. Sorry.
[quote]As for abstinence it does not work when you are with a person you love; you guys assume by your comments that a woman does not have a strong sexual appetite and that it is easy for her to say no. It does not depend only on us if the only object of sex is to procreate but mostly up to the man.<hr></blockquote>
This is the weakest argument you have made so far. Abstinance does not work if you love a person? So the assumption made here by you is that if you love someone you are going to jump into bed with them and have sex. that is all love is to you? Sounds like the word lust is more appropriate. What is being assumed by many of these statements is that you do not want to get pregnant and so to avoid that the ony 100% foolproof way is not to have sex in the first place. Nowhere was it said that this was easy. In fact most have said that this is much tougher than just wearing a condom or taking a pill.
[quote]Full proof, condoms plus the pill plus gel and in many cases the female condom. But, you still take the risk to contract AIDS so you have to know your partner.<hr></blockquote>
Sorry, you still have a chance of getting pregnant, very small, but it is there. The only foolproof method is to not have sex. Don't kid yourself.
[quote]I guess for right winger you would say that the woman who gets AIDS deserve it as she deserves a life of painful memories by being forced to go through a pregnancy and give it up for adoption.<hr></blockquote>
Matsu a right winger?!? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> that is hilarious. He is hardly a right winger. But I agree with most of what he said. It was only common sense. (I bet I don't get to say that too often.
[quote]This choice is very cruel.<hr></blockquote>
No more cruel than killing a child because it is inconvenient. It is just that the person who suffers is different. With abortion the child dies. With Adoption you may have more emotional attachment as you actually see the child and it is not just this thing growing inside you that you cannot see and may be causing discomfort to you.
<strong>
I don't know if you were a bigot , it's why i ask you the question because many bigots will say that abstinence is the only contraception permitted...</strong><hr></blockquote>
He didn't say anything about what should or should not be permitted. And you still haven't explained what this has to do with bigotry.
[quote]<strong>... and that relations sexual should be only reserved for procreation. </strong><hr></blockquote>
He also didn't say that.
[quote]<strong>I franckly disagree with that conception of sexuality.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, disagree all you want. It's not that I don't understand why you'd disagree with CosmoNut but suggesting that the other side of the debate is bigoted because they see the issue differently is a rather intolerant perspective to have.
<strong>
Okay, disagree all you want. It's not that I don't understand why you'd disagree with CosmoNut but suggesting that the other side of the debate is bigoted because they see the issue differently is a rather intolerant perspective to have.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps my english is so bad that you can't understand what i say or perhaps you put words on my mouth . (both ?)
I'll try to clarify :
i did not say that pro-life people are bigots, i just say that saying that abstinence is the only contraception permitted is bigoted.
You can be pro-life and Franckly disagree with this.
I just dont understand the interest to say such an evidence as " don't have sexe and you will not be pregnant". When i read this it comes to my mind that perhaps it was a way to say to us that abstinence was the best attitude, a common statement from bigots. This have nothing to do with pro-life : you can be pro-life and for contraception.
<strong>
Perhaps my english is so bad that you can't understand what i say or perhaps you put words on my mouth . (both ?)
I'll try to clarify :
i did not say that pro-life people are bigots, i just say that saying that abstinence is the only contraception permitted is bigoted.
You can be pro-life and Franckly disagree with this.
I just dont understand the interest to say such an evidence as " don't have sexe and you will not be pregnant". When i read this it comes to my mind that perhaps it was a way to say to us that abstinence was the best attitude, a common statement from bigots. This have nothing to do with pro-life : you can be pro-life and for contraception.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps you misunderstood his post. he never said that Abstinence was the only acceptable contraceptive. He said that abstinence was the only sure method to prevent pregnancy.
But, even if he had said that abstinence was the only method you could use, that would not make him a bigot. Especially since he is not not opposing you religiously based on both his and your religious beliefs.
[quote] Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.<hr></blockquote>
Some of you are saying that "life" doesn't really begin untill 3, 4, or even 5 months. Others say that "life" begins at conception. All this debate is irrelevent. It cannot be proven when "life" begins. It could be at conception (my belief) or (for arguments sake) it could begin right at birth. But we should give life the benefit of the doubt. For example, say you are driving along the road and see a body of what looks to be a person who has been hit by a car, a "mass of cells". Do you just drive on and say, "Well since we don't know if he is alive or dead well just let him die". I hope not. A normal person would stop and try to get help. As it should be with abortions.
Regarding the rape issue, I think the woman should not be allowed to abort the baby. If she feels she cannot raise the child herself there are plenty of parents who would be willing to adopt. Just because the mother does not want the child does not mean she has to abort.
Im pro-choice. I simply can not see how any one could justify supressing the freedom of the mother. After all, it is her body.
Damn it, arguing on the internet is a naddiciton, no matter how hard I try to quit I always end up back at it
Also I think that it is NOT ok to abort when the embryo has taken on clear development of arms and legs, up to this point it is and undefined cell dividing and forming into a human form
All the stages are so close to one another that I dont htink that you can actually cut the line at a point like this. In fact I think that drawing hte line anywhere is unfair. Rather you must look at it as the right of the mother over her own body. I especially like Judith Thompsons "A Defence of Abortion" in which she makes some GREAT comparisons between bizzare circumstances and abortion.
Yes, but if you attack the source of the problem and not the symptoms you won't get results as quickly which will look bad politically
Ahem. Fight the symptoms and not the problem? That seems very backwards in thinking. Also what does politics have to do with it?
Yeah, I guess the baby doesn't count yet. After all it is just a mass of cells that cannot survive on its own.
No it doesnt really. It may be cold or mean to abort a fetus in certain situations, but it is no more a matter of being morally wrong then if you were to deny blood to a dieing man.
And what is up with this broad generalization that all men consider women to be baby factories?
Agreed! I dont get this one. There seems to be a lot of generalizations like this.
If you don't want to get pregnant or get your mate pregnant, find a way so that it won't be an option.
If I were a woman Id say that thats a stereotypically male statment.
Its not always that easy. Maybe one day you forget to take the pill, it slips your mind due to some other drug (alchohol any one?) or maybe it doesnt work, or maybe a condom breaks.
Nothing is 100%
who's considering having an abortion made her choice when she had sex, whether protected or not (in most cases: rape and incest excluded).
See my previous statment. Because you leave a window open and a fly gets in does not mean that the fly is allowed to live there.
That paper by Thompson that I mentioned earlier made a great comparison to plants that drift in on the wind. Im butchering this a bit in my compression of it but... You can keep your windows closed all the time, and live with stale air and all the typical stuff that happens when you never open a window, or you can open a few windows and put up screens to make sure that nothing gets through. Lets say that one day the screen is faulty, or its put on badly and a seed drifts through and gets implanted in your rug and grows. No one would claim that its your fault and you must let it grow because you provided a rug that it can grow in, nor that its your fault for having windows open in the first palce. They would tell you to uproot the plant and toss it out.
this might sound callous, but so does telling a woman that she has to go through the pains and changes to her body and lifestyle that comes with having a chile, just because she followed a natural earge one night whille drunk or whatever.
My long (academic) history of embattlement with feminism and women's studies began over this point: Abortion IS a convenience.
Ok, lets take your point that its not due to extenuating circumstances or whatever.
Technically you are right in that being pregnant is less conveniant than not being pregnant, but not in the context that your using it (I assume). It is not some way to make your normal life easier, but a way to alleviate an extenuating circumstance.
if he can't keep his pecker put away, find someone else.
Im not even gonna TOUCH on whats wrong with that statment...
You always assume that everyone is just like you. It is not the case. Sorry.
Ok, lets say that your right and its not like that for all women. Does that mean, since its not like that for all women, that it should not be allowed?
Now, for those women whom it is this "uncomplicated" thing, read my previous arguments.
No more cruel than killing a child because it is inconvenient
You see this is the exact confusion. No, the woman may not have the right to demand the babys death, but it she chooses NOT to let it leech off of her, then how can you say that that is wrong? Yes, it can be seen a cold, but often theres a better reason than "convenience". But even if theres not, theres no morality that states that your immoral because you DIDNT give blood to a car crash accident, or because you unplugged the famous violinist from your system (see the Thompson paper that I mentioned) or that you didnt provide for the neighbors kid that was treated badly.
For example, say you are driving along the road and see a body of what looks to be a person who has been hit by a car, a "mass of cells". Do you just drive on and say, "Well since we don't know if he is alive or dead well just let him die". I hope not. A normal person would stop and try to get help. As it should be with abortions.
Ahh, but would it be right to make it illegal NOT to pick him up? That would be what we call "Karma Police"
(thanks to Radiohead for that term)
Or you could look to the "good samaritan" law in the last episode of Seignfeild. One could hardly see that as a postitive thing.
If she feels she cannot raise the child herself there are plenty of parents who would be willing to adopt
Again, she would still have to go through the physical, phycological, and lifestyle warp that happens with a kid. All of a sudden shes caring for two.
A similar thing would be the case of not taking care of your kid. It is illegal to mistreat your kid horribly, however it is NOT illegal to have him/her adopted, in other words to get rid of them.
In a late pregnancy a baby can survive in an incubator, and this point a direct killing of the fetus is indeed wrong. However up to this point its either that or have the mother give up her own freedom over her body.
Man what I really like though, are all these men saying how easy it is for women to have an abortion
The whole post was on the convenience factor. It is inconvenient for the mother to have this child, to have her body go through changes and so she should have the option to "get rid of it." Say what you are really saying, don't beat around the bush. She should have the option to kill it.
And to compare a child to a plant as if that is even the same thing, really reaching. If you believe a plant and a human have the same rights I suppose that would fly, but it gets no truck here. Plants are not sentient, will never be sentient and are only there to be eaten, look pretty and produce Oxygen. If you disagree then that explains a lot about your argument. And don't tell me how it was some authors argument and you just repeated it. You thought it was right enough to bring up in the first place.
<strong>
Perhaps my english is so bad that you can't understand what i say or perhaps you put words on my mouth . (both ?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't put words in your mouth. I quoted your post. You did ask if he was a bigot there's no getting around that.
[quote]<strong>I'll try to clarify :
i did not say that pro-life people are bigots...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now where's this coming from? Where did I say you said this? You asked CosmoNut if he was a bigot. I don't know if he's pro-life or not. But even if he is, that still doesn't mean that he said that abstinence was the only method of contraception that should be allowed. He simply pointed out that it was the only fail safe method of avoiding pregnancy. And it is.
[quote]<strong>... I just dont understand the interest to say such an evidence as " don't have sexe and you will not be pregnant"...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because it is true!!!
[quote]<strong>When i read this it comes to my mind that perhaps it was a way to say to us that abstinence was the best attitude, a common statement from bigots...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think he was saying that but what's so bigoted about that?
[quote]<strong>... This have nothing to do with pro-life : you can be pro-life and for contraception.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. Neither CosmoNut nor I have said otherwise.
I'm both a Christian and a Medical student. I believe that life is precious, but also that this is not a perfect world. Therefore, I would be in support of allowing abortions, but only within the first two months of gestation, unless the fetus has a severe genetic or congenital problem, or the mother is at risk.
David
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: iMacfan ]</p>
<strong>Hi,
I'm both a Christian and a Medical student. I believe that life is precious, but also that this is not a perfect world. Therefore, I would be in support of allowing abortions, but only within the first two months of gestation, unless the fetus has a severe genetic or congenital problem, or the mother is at risk.
David
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: iMacfan ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
i am glad we share the same opinion.
<strong>Maybe I missed it, but why 2 months?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Two is a magic number.
<strong>I've always thought 3 to be more magical.</strong><hr></blockquote>
no dual ghz mac exist, but there is not trial ones
<strong>
Regarding the rape issue, I think the woman should not be allowed to abort the baby. If she feels she cannot raise the child herself there are plenty of parents who would be willing to adopt. Just because the mother does not want the child does not mean she has to abort.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I frankly disagree with that, if someone rape my wife (god and all saints prevent this horror), and she get pregnant : do you think that she will support this in her body, and do you think i will support that. I am peacefull in nature, but i think if somebody oblige my wife to keep the fetus i'll turn mad
Here a true story related by my wife
However,it's nothing more than a quote, i can not be furious with a man called golferguy.
<strong>
However,it's nothing more than a quote, i can not be furious with a man called golferguy.
I lie, i am furious against you because you play 1 :eek: , and me only 20