abortion

Hobart

Originally posted by newband
how is saying that abortion is wrong is an unimformed opinion, i dont have to experience anything to know if it is wrong or not in my opinion, killing someone is wrong, most people have never experienced it but yet still know that its wrong..

Because, like many reactionists in this thread, it is a simple answer to a complicated question. There are many facets to termination. I have yet to see a comment on the fact that pregnancy may cause the mother to die. How would you feel in a situation like that? What if your partner was bearing a child which had no chance of surviving and would spend it's short time in this planet in constant pain and suffering? there are many situations. these are just 2 examples wher I would 'consider' abortion to be an option. Just saying "abortion is wrong" is silly.

first of all i was never even asked this question..

My apologies. I did not ask you a question on rape. However I did asked you the questions here (notice I used the plural) which you did ignore. Maybe you could address them aswell.

and the answer is no, and i think the reasons are obvious

They are not obvious to me. Why don't you spell them out? What difference, to the unborn child, is there? Is abortion right in these circumstances so? Are you contradicting yourself? Which is it?

i wouldn't 'donate' my sperm in the first place, and if someone was to go to a sperm bank for it then i guess they're not really planning on having an abortion now are they?

Ok then. Put yourself in the third person and imagine it's not you, for a moment. What if the person who recieved yours/any sperm from a sperm bank decided to have an abortion for reasons of her own. Would you still try to exact your 50% threat on them? If not. Why not? Biologically the child is as much yours as the "potential" child in your gf's womb.

Originally posted by newband
oh ffs, i merely used it as a figure of speech, but if u really are the kind of person who wouldn't talk to someone because of their religious beliefs then i'm sorry, but u are a muppet

Read the charter, or get yourself banned, attack the post not the poster.:rolleyes:

amp

Newband. Either debate in a civil fashion or stop posting here.
Replying to this warning or continuing to flame people will get you banned.

Amz

Originally posted by Typedef
Amz, I like you, but, that's a sexist and ignorant thing to say.

Perhaps it is sexist Typedef, but my understanding of sexism is when there is clear discrimination or prejudice against a person of the opposite sex in a situation whre ideally things should/could be equal. Obviously due to biological constrains men cannot bear children and until science or nature sees fit to change that I don't believe that men and women can be equal in this area.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Hobart
Because, like many reactionists in this thread, it is a simple answer to a complicated question. There are many facets to termination. I have yet to see a comment on the fact that pregnancy may cause the mother to die. How would you feel in a situation like that? What if your partner was bearing a child which had no chance of surviving and would spend it's short time in this planet in constant pain and suffering? there are many situations. these are just 2 examples wher I would 'consider' abortion to be an option. Just saying "abortion is wrong" is silly.

i never said abortion is wrong ALL the time, i agree that there are times when it is condoned, i said abortion is wrong when people use it as a way out of dealing with their own mistakes.

Originally posted by Hobart
My apologies. I did not ask you a question on rape. However I did asked you the questions here (notice I used the plural) which you did ignore. Maybe you could address them aswell. They are not obvious to me. Why don't you spell them out? What difference, to the unborn child, is there? Is abortion right in these circumstances so? Are you contradicting yourself? Which is it?.

to be honest yes i am contradicting myself, i dont see why a man who physicaly abuses other women for his own satisfaction should have any say on the matter when he obviously doesn't care, and i have also said that rape is one reason where i except that it is a plausable reason to abort, it may not make any difference to the child during pregnancy but i know i wouldn't like to find out now that the only reason i'm in exsistence is because my 'father' raped my mother.

Originally posted by Hobart
Ok then. Put yourself in the third person and imagine it's not you, for a moment. What if the person who recieved yours/any sperm from a sperm bank decided to have an abortion for reasons of her own. Would you still try to exact your 50% threat on them? If not. Why not? Biologically the child is as much yours as the "potential" child in your gf's womb.

if i or anyone else gave donated sperm then i would expect that a child would be produced as a result of it, if the woman decided to have an abortion for no reason wot so ever except ''i've changed my mind'', and the donar doesn't agree with the abortion then why the hell should he not have a say, he didn't donate his sperm just so some woman can change her mind!

Originally posted by Hobart
I'm interested to know how you would overcome this..

this is the somethin the law should take into consideration, but i guess if i was in this situation then the only thing i could do is take her to court and try to win the baby's right to live, i cannot answer if i would be successful or not, the truth is i probably wouldn't be, but this is one of the points made in this thread, that a man should have a say.. have i answered your questions now

dr_manhattan

dear, dear, newband:

"but if u really are the kind of person who wouldn't talk to someone because of their religious beliefs then i'm sorry, but u are a muppet"

Very mature. What I said was I choose not to debate abortion with anyone who believes in "god given rights" or indeed "god", because there is no point: they believe in things which have NO bearing on the life of anyone, let alone a child. I could just as easily say "I big lump of quartzite gives me the right to eat grannies"

As regards me hating "the english"? My lady is english. My father was a british soldier. And damn straight, if an englishman calls me a paddy, I want to know why he thinks it's okay, just like if a man called his woman a bitch I'd require an explanation from him.

I don't use history as a lazy excuse to hate anyone: you think I hate men? I am one. However your twisted and immature ideas about abortion seem to be enough for you to piss all over the motiviations of those who have to have experienced by saying they "took the easy way out" and that you don't care how much it hurt them.

History may be the past, but if we don't learn from it, we repeat it. Every single point I made there details a history of murderous opression of women, and all you have to say is "IT'S IN THE PAST!"? You're what's known as an apologist, newband.

Every holocaust, ethnic cleansing, war you'll ever hear about was worse for women than anyone else. Rape and infanticide were the weapons of men, and they used them indiscriminately: just as they used women to torture and harm the men they wished to dominate. You can ignore that if you want, but you would think twice before you said to a jew that the holocaust is "IN THE PAST! GET OVER IT! WHO EVER OPRESSED YOU?"

But as I say, I've nothing more to say to you on the subject, you just want to have tantrums and call names - do yourself a favour and go live for a few years, and when you see things around you, don't put them into boxes, try *thinking* about them instead. Might even improve things.

And btw, I notice this forum is about 80% OK with abortion - so believe it or not, you're in the minority.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by ixoy
Pictures of aborted foetuses are disgusting and far too zealot like.

What disturbs me though, is that these foetuses are the exact same thing in another pregnant woman and are left to grow into a new born baby.
Deciding who should live and die is to take on the role of a God and is just plain wrong in my humble opinion.

To be Pregnant in biblical speak is to be with child .
Pregnancy in my view is what nature intended when that sperm and egg sucessfully meet.
To put it bluntly animals in the wild carry out their maternal duties, and nurture and care for their young both born and unborn, it is only us humans who intentionally destroy potential babies.
By saying that I am referring to the deliberate decision to terminate the life of an unborn child as opposed to a medical reason for such a killing or in the case of rape.
It is no different to any other murder to my eyes, plain and simple.

Lemming

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Deciding who should live and die is to take on the role of a God and is just plain wrong in my humble opinion.

As others have pointed out elsewhere, people "'play God" all the time. Everytime someone gets killed. Everytime someone gets sentenced to death etc etc etc.

I don't see the pro-life people out there campaigning against military force, or telling people to stop killing each other on teh streets.

By saying that I am referring to the deliberate decision to terminate the life of an unborn child as opposed to a medical reason for such a killing or in the case of rape.
It is no different to any other murder to my eyes, plain and simple.

OOOO the hypocrasy ...... over .. whe.. lmi.. ng . me. must ....

So why is abortion not murder in the case of rape or a medical reason then? Please, indulge us as to your logic. You're still (in your opinion) doing the same thing. Just under a different pretext. Please, elaborate for the rest of us ...

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Deciding who should live and die is to take on the role of a God and is just plain wrong in my humble opinion.

[...]

By saying that I am referring to the deliberate decision to terminate the life of an unborn child as opposed to a medical reason for such a killing or in the case of rape.

This is the stuff that really freaks me out. I mean, "THOU SHALT NOT PLAY GOD! unless she was raped, of course" - wooly thinking and dogma in the same breath? I just don't get it.

[edit:] d'oh! Lemming got there first.

uberwolf

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
dear, dear, newband:

"but if u really are the kind of person who wouldn't talk to someone because of their religious beliefs then i'm sorry, but u are a muppet"

Very mature. What I said was I choose not to debate abortion with anyone who believes in "god given rights" or indeed "god", because there is no point:

NewBand has been reprimanded for that and bringing it up only antagonises, removing from the debate and making things more emotive than they already are.

As for newbands believes - he is entitled to them, no more so than you. By refusing to enter into debate with some1 of different views to you, you are essentially saying your views are steadfast and that you have nothing to learn from debating the point. If so why are you here? why not join the cranks who occasion our main streets shouting at people, they don't wish to listen either. This is esentially a debate of morals (at least i think so). You either believe it is ok/ sometimes ok or it isn't. At all. So where ever he gets his guidance from ought be irrelavant and you shouldn't disrespect that.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
History may be the past, but if we don't learn from it, we repeat it. Every single point I made there details a history of murderous opression of women, and all you have to say is "IT'S IN THE PAST!"? You're what's known as an apologist, newband.[/B]

you can ascribe everything a title. Proves nothing.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
But as I say, I've nothing more to say to you on the subject, you just want to have tantrums and call names

apologist?

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
And btw, I notice this forum is about 80% OK with abortion - so believe it or not, you're in the minority. [/B]

you ever engaged in a debate where everyone absolutely agreed with everything the others had to say? People look at you funny when you talk to yourself? thats clearly facetious, but I hope you get what I mean

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Lemming

OOOO the hypocrasy ...... over .. whe.. lmi.. ng . me. must ....

So why is abortion not murder in the case of rape or a medical reason then? Please, indulge us as to your logic. You're still (in your opinion) doing the same thing. Just under a different pretext. Please, elaborate for the rest of us ...

In the case of medical reasons eg an ectopic pregnancy, it's an accidental death brought about by medical intervention and not murder.

And in the case of Rape, I'm referring to the morning after pill.
Technically, a pregnancy hasnt been determined at that stage, it's no different in my view to any other form of contraception and should be subject to no moral hangups.
I couldn't in all conscience condone an abortion of a foetus , a number of weeks into its gestation in the case of rape and in that sense I am not being a hypocrite.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
As regards me hating "the english"? My lady is english. My father was a british soldier. And damn straight, if an englishman calls me a paddy, I want to know why he thinks it's okay, just like if a man called his woman a bitch I'd require an explanation from him.

this is where people over react on a daily basis, if an english were to call me a paddy, i'd laugh it off, because i dont give a ****, i sometimes call my gf(by the way, she is not ''my woman'') bitch as a joke, and she takes it as a joke. people need t lighten up and stop takin every little ****in thing so seriously!

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
I don't use history as a lazy excuse to hate anyone: you think I hate men? I am one. However your twisted and immature ideas about abortion seem to be enough for you to piss all over the motiviations of those who have to have experienced by saying they "took the easy way out" and that you don't care how much it hurt them.

how are my ideas about abortion immature, there are millions of people around the world who feel the same, are we ALL immature?? NO, you believe my views are immature because u do not share the same views.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
History may be the past, but if we don't learn from it, we repeat it. Every single point I made there details a history of murderous opression of women, and all you have to say is "IT'S IN THE PAST!"? You're what's known as an apologist, newband.

Every holocaust, ethnic cleansing, war you'll ever hear about was worse for women than anyone else. Rape and infanticide were the weapons of men, and they used them indiscriminately: just as they used women to torture and harm the men they wished to dominate. You can ignore that if you want, but you would think twice before you said to a jew that the holocaust is "IN THE PAST! GET OVER IT! WHO EVER OPRESSED YOU?".

if a jew were to discrimmate against a german just because he/she is a german than i am sorry, that person is a dumbass, just like irish people have no right to discriminate against english people just because they are english. If we all dwelled on the past then we would never have a future

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
But as I say, I've nothing more to say to you on the subject, you just want to have tantrums and call names - do yourself a favour and go live for a few years, and when you see things around you, don't put them into boxes, try *thinking* about them instead. Might even improve things.

if i were 40 and still had the same views you would not tell me to go ''live for a few years'', so cut the bs, my age and life experiences have nothin to do with my opinions and moral beliefs

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
And btw, I notice this forum is about 80% OK with abortion - so believe it or not, you're in the minority.

err, no, 40% of the people who voted agree with abortion IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, u seem to forget that i am one of these people. some 35% agree with it in any case, so my good friend, YOU are in the minority

Hobart

Originally posted by newband
i never said abortion is wrong ALL the time,

It's your contention of the 50% "control or say" in relation to abortion which worries me. What exactly are your concerns vis-a-vis abortion? Is it the fate of the unborn child? If so why should rape make a difference?

to be honest yes i am contradicting myself, i dont see why a man who physicaly abuses other women for his own satisfaction should have any say on the matter when he obviously doesn't care

so its' ok in this situation to "take the easy way out"?

, and i have also said that rape is one reason where i except that it is a plausable reason to abort, it may not make any difference to the child during pregnancy but i know i wouldn't like to find out now that the only reason i'm in exsistence is because my 'father' raped my mother.

So you would rather have not lived in this situation?

if i or anyone else gave donated sperm then i would expect that a child would be produced as a result of it, if the woman decided to have an abortion for no reason wot so ever except ''i've changed my mind'', and the donar doesn't agree with the abortion then why the hell should he not have a say, he didn't donate his sperm just so some woman can change her mind!

Because "some woman" might have reasons of her own, which have nothing go to do with you/the donor, for having an abortion. Such as her physical or mental health.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Hobart
It's your contention of the 50% "control or say" in relation to abortion which worries me. What exactly are your concerns vis-a-vis abortion? Is it the fate of the unborn child? If so why should rape make a difference?

because the potential mother has gone thru a traumatic, stressfull, emotionally and mentally damaging experience, in a rape case the well being of the woman must be thought of first, it is unfair to expect her to want to carry this child, it is possible that she may not even be able to carry it the full term because of the amount of stress she is under, i praise women who have been raped and still find it in their hearts to raise the child, but unfortunately some people just cant do it,,, where as couples who dont act respnsablly by using protection etc have no plausable reason to abort other than, ''we're not ready'', that is a poor excuse.

Originally posted by Hobart
so its' ok in this situation to "take the easy way out"? So you would rather have not lived in this situation??

i cannot answer this because it is impossible for me to imagine such a situation.

Originally posted by Hobart
Because "some woman" might have reasons of her own, which have nothing go to do with you/the donor, for having an abortion. Such as her physical or mental health.

i have already stated when there are risks involved with regards to the mothers health then an abortion may be the only option, like i said originaly, ''if the only excuse was 'i've changed my mind' then the donar should have a say

dr_manhattan

" laugh it off, because i dont give a ****, i sometimes call my gf bitch as a joke, and she takes it as a joke. "

your GF is like your non-stop prop for your opinions, isn't she?

I often call my GF the same as a joke, so what? That's not the point, and you miss the point deliberately on everything else, too: I am talking about interactions with strangers - if I don't know someone, and they are calling a woman a bitch, I think less of them.

You just dodge every question, don't you? I ask if you'd tell a jew to get over the holocaust, and you talk about if a jew discriminated against a german. You just avoid the question if you have no answer, it's utterly pointless discussing with you: or else you have abig hissy fit and start swearing at everyone...

"(by the way, she is not ''my woman'') "

what the hell are you referring to here?

And incidentally, I refer to your opinion as immature because of your inability to justify what you say. You've changed your position again and again, suddenly abortion is sometimes okay? A while ago you were saying it's always wrong, because killing people is always wrong. So is "wrong but okay" the new position?

Someone else summed it up: you're trying to answer a complex question with a simple answer, and so you simply cannot be right. You have this idea in your head of people who go "I've changed my mind" - who are these people? They are in your head, they do not exist! Nobody is that callous - there are the ignorant and selfish who might attempt to use abortion as contraception, but I have never encountered these people: despite the insistence by pro-lifers that they're everywhere

There's some kidn of idea that if abortion were to be legal, women would start running around throwing dead babies out the window or soemthing - it's such rubbish, really.

And btw, I'm not in the minority. The people who "don't know" are in the largest minority - the people who believe abortion is either fine or fine in certain circumstances are 80% - which, in case you haven't thought it through in terms of a hypothetical referendum, would mean that abortion should be legal in ireland: otherwise we're just exporting our mess to the british NHS, like we've always done.

uberwolf

Originally posted by newband
where as couples who dont act respnsablly by using protection etc have no plausable reason to abort other than, ''we're not ready'', that is a poor excuse.

myself and my gf use both condoms and the pill. So we're not acting irresponsibly. But if the worst happened and she got pregnant can we abort because we were responsible and just unlucky?

dr_manhattan

"where as couples who dont act respnsablly by using protection etc have no plausable reason to abort other than, ''we're not ready'', that is a poor excuse. "

What about couples that DO use protection because they're not ready? Like you, for example: there is no 100% method for contraception.

Or what about people who have terminal diseases, and use protection, yet conceive? There's no 100% certainty of transmission of hep C or HIV as far as I know: it's very likely, but not 100% certain - yet by the time anyone knows, the child is very much a child rather than a clump of cells: Should it live regardless, even though it may only have 5 years of suffering?

And if it should die, then what about handicapped kids? Personally I find the idea of terminating a foetus because it's handicapped abhorrent, but i do take seriously the argument that any handicapped kid will spend it's life living as a second class citizen, patronised and kept at arms length by a lot of people.

I know of a case where a woman, driven to serious problem drinking by an incredibly violent husband, got so smashed one night she slept with the most vile man imaginable, and got pregnant. Her husband had an infectious blood disease, so they hadn't had sex in over a year (part of the violence). She knew if he found out her life would be in danger, but as a non irish national had nowhere to go where he wouldn't find her: plus, never having reported his violence to the police, she'd have had a job getting a restraining order or the like.

Now, you can say what she "should" have done in order not to be in that position, you can say what she "shouldn't" have done in order to make it worse, but not everyone can be responsible in situations where they're being beaten black and blue every night: and she loved her husband very much. How does your black and white attitude help her then?

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
" laugh it off, because i dont give a ****, i sometimes call my gf bitch as a joke, and she takes it as a joke. "

your GF is like your non-stop prop for your opinions, isn't she?

I often call my GF the same as a joke, so what? That's not the point, and you miss the point deliberately on everything else, too: I am talking about interactions with strangers - if I don't know someone, and they are calling a woman a bitch, I think less of them.

so if i heard u call a woman a bitch then i should think less of u?

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
You just dodge every question, don't you? I ask if you'd tell a jew to get over the holocaust, and you talk about if a jew discriminated against a german.

ok if u want a simple answer to that question then the answer is yes, get over it, as i said earlier, if we dwell on the past we shall have no future

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
''(by the way, she is not ''my woman'') "

what the hell are you referring to here?

u reffered to ur gf as ''your woman'', when infact she is not ''your woman''

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
And incidentally, I refer to your opinion as immature because of your inability to justify what you say. You've changed your position again and again, suddenly abortion is sometimes okay? A while ago you were saying it's always wrong, because killing people is always wrong. So is "wrong but okay" the new position?

this is the 3rd and last time i'm teling you this, read ALL of my posts!, then u will realise i have ALWAYS said that it ok in certain circumstances, i have never said that it is ALWAYS wrong, at least get you facts right before posting

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
You have this idea in your head of people who go "I've changed my mind" - who are these people? They are in your head, they do not exist!

i used ''i've changed my mind'' as an example for a question that someone asked me regarding sperm donors, do u read all of wot i write or do u just read the first few lines of my post and then head straight to the reply button,,

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
There's some kidn of idea that if abortion were to be legal, women would start running around throwing dead babies out the window or soemthing - it's such rubbish, really.

i have never said this, nor have i even commented on whether it should be legalised, this thread is about abortion and if it is right or wrong, not the legalisation of it.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
And btw, I'm not in the minority. The people who "don't know" are in the largest minority

u just used two words in the same sentence that totally contradict one another

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by uberwolf
myself and my gf use both condoms and the pill. So we're not acting irresponsibly. But if the worst happened and she got pregnant can we abort because we were responsible and just unlucky?

well, as unlucky as that maybe, **** happens that ya just gotta deal with, protection is never 100% so there is always a risk, and most people take that risk including myself.. so unfortunately its just hard luck, ya just gotta face up to it imo

Rock Climber

Originally posted by uberwolf
myself and my gf use both condoms and the pill. So we're not acting irresponsibly. But if the worst happened and she got pregnant can we abort because we were responsible and just unlucky?

Certainly you can uberwolf, it's legal up untill 12 weeks or so isn't it in the U.K

However as your girlfriend would know that she was carrying your unborn child at that point then in my book she would be committing a pre meditated murder.

If theres no God she should be ok as she won't be called to account for that, but if there is, there may be problems in the after life.
It would be your own choice, and the freedom is there to take it.
I doubt if I could ever forgive anyone that killed my unborn child whether it is inside or outside the womb.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
"where as couples who dont act respnsablly by using protection etc have no plausable reason to abort other than, ''we're not ready'', that is a poor excuse. "

What about couples that DO use protection because they're not ready? Like you, for example: there is no 100% method for contraception.

see above

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Or what about people who have terminal diseases, and use protection, yet conceive? There's no 100% certainty of transmission of hep C or HIV as far as I know: it's very likely, but not 100% certain - yet by the time anyone knows, the child is very much a child rather than a clump of cells: Should it live regardless, even though it may only have 5 years of suffering?

if a child will live in pain in sufferring for his/her whole life then it probably would be best to abort unfortunately

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
And if it should die, then what about handicapped kids? Personally I find the idea of terminating a foetus because it's handicapped abhorrent, but i do take seriously the argument that any handicapped kid will spend it's life living as a second class citizen, patronised and kept at arms length by a lot of people.

this is where people should be educated to know that it is wrong to treat people differently because of a handicap, but i for one am not one of these people to keep a person at arms length because of a handicap, so in turn you are asking the wrong person this question. but to abort just because of a handicap is wrong, just because u are handicaped doesn't limit wot u can achieve in life, stephen hawking is a prime example

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
I know of a case where a woman, driven to serious problem drinking by an incredibly violent husband, got so smashed one night she slept with the most vile man imaginable, and got pregnant. Her husband had an infectious blood disease, so they hadn't had sex in over a year (part of the violence). She knew if he found out her life would be in danger, but as a non irish national had nowhere to go where he wouldn't find her: plus, never having reported his violence to the police, she'd have had a job getting a restraining order or the like.

Now, you can say what she "should" have done in order not to be in that position, you can say what she "shouldn't" have done in order to make it worse, but not everyone can be responsible in situations where they're being beaten black and blue every night: and she loved her husband very much. How does your black and white attitude help her then?

we are ALL responsible for our own actions, she should have left the moment he first hit her, its as simple as

embee

Originally posted by ixoy
Whoa! So you admit there are two responsible for the child - just there. Then you suddenly disavow the man's responsibility?


Now, hold up again. Your argument implies, falsely, that the potential-baby has an equal chance of turning into a fatal cancerous tumour. That's a mis-step. The fact is that if those cells are left uninterrupted they will become a foetus that will, in turn, become a child. It is highly unlikely that these cells will become this tumour of yours, or mutate into a tertiary kidney.

Please then posit the logic of how you can justifiably remove cells that will, with a good degree of certainty, become a child? It may currently be the echo of a child, but that echo is just a future voice you could be silencing.

I said a man is there at point of conception. That is the fundamental and simplistic role of a male in the conception of any foetus. Afer that, responsibilty shifts somewhat.

I didnt imply that a foetus could turn into a cancerous tumour. I was comparing like with like. I was talking about the potential of cell clusters. The FACT is, those cells have the potential to become a foetus. Potential. It is not unknown for women to miscarry, and that is why I used the word potential. A degree of certainty is not 100% guaranteed. Nothing is. And the justification is something that would be individual to each woman.... be it rape, one night stand - whatever. Its not for you to ask any woman to justify her reasons for taking the abortion route. To me, it is perfectly justifiable. Its not your body, its not your life.

Also... playing the religion card (God will punish you/hold you to account/make you atone for your sins etc) is pretty redundant in this thread imo. Its not a debate on the theological aspect.. to bring religion into it is going slightly off topic.

embee

Originally posted by Ronaldo7
And may i ask who are the diseases who voted circumstances do not matter - heartless bastards.

Being pro-choice does not make someone a heartless bastard. Or a 'disease'.

bonkey

Originally posted by uberwolf
myself and my gf use both condoms and the pill. So we're not acting irresponsibly. But if the worst happened and she got pregnant can we abort because we were responsible and just unlucky?

Well, let me ask you this...

What is the difference between "responsible and really unlucky" and "irresonsible and unlucky" when the resultant action will be the same.

Or, put a different way, if you could abort for being responsible and unlucky, what difference does being responsible make??? You're still willing to make the decision to abort.

If you consider abortion to be acceptable (i.e. you're pro-choice, to borrow a label), then I can't see the logic as to why it should be only for those who have responsible sex.

Conversely, if you consider abortion unacceptable (i.e. you're pro-life, to borrow another label), then I can't see how someone having acted responsible makes the difference.

Finally....if you're a don't know, ask yourself this...

you're faced with two twin sisters, each of whom is pregnant. The fathers are twin brothers. Conception occurred at the same time. Why would the fact that one couple used protection and the other not make any difference in deciding whether or not you could accept them having abortions?

jc

Rock Climber

Originally posted by bonkey

Finally....if you're a don't know, ask yourself this...

you're faced with two twin sisters, each of whom is pregnant. The fathers are twin brothers. Conception occurred at the same time. Why would the fact that one couple used protection and the other not make any difference in deciding whether or not you could accept them having abortions?

jc

It should make no difference at all.
From my own perspective, responsibility only comes into the equasion as a method of reducing the incidence of having to make the choice of whether to abort or not in the first place.

I have no time at all forthe "bundle of cells" argument I've read in this thread either as one persons bundle of cells to be done away with is anothers potential bundle of joy.
Like someone else said, would someone with this bundle of cells inside them show a positive pregnancy test?
yes they would and yet they would justify killing that bundle.
Whilst another couple on hearing about the same bundle would be celebrating as they are now expecting a baby.
Elective abortion is wrong from what I can see for that reason.
no one can convince me , they are not killing a child.

ixoy

Originally posted by embee
I said a man is there at point of conception. That is the fundamental and simplistic role of a male in the conception of any foetus. Afer that, responsibilty shifts somewhat.

That's basely scientific isn't it? What about ethics? It's simple enough Man + Woman = Baby. Woman != Baby. Man is needed. No man, no baby., Surely this makes him responsible for more than just helping in the conception. Or do you believe a woman has a greater right to a child's life always than a man? That the father is the less important parent? Because your general disregard for the father in this would suggest so. If anything men need to be actively encouraged to take their full responsibility in the role of parenting but if all they're hearing is that they're just there to help make you a baby....

The FACT is, those cells have the potential to become a foetus. Potential. It is not unknown for women to miscarry, and that is why I used the word potential. A degree of certainty is not 100% guaranteed. Nothing is. And the justification is something that would be individual to each woman.... be it rape, one night stand - whatever. Its not for you to ask any woman to justify her reasons for taking the abortion route. To me, it is perfectly justifiable. Its not your body, its not your life.

Yes actually it damn well is up to others to ask for justification. Case: A couple. They decide to have a baby and the father-to-be is really looking forward to it. He's prepared to take full responsibility and look after his child. The mother changes her mind, aborts the baby. Are you supposing that she doesn't have to justify the joint decision they made? Are you saying she has no obligation in something she decided to do? Again, how can you expect the patriarhal role to be important when you elevate the matriarch so far above him?

Also... playing the religion card (God will punish you/hold you to account/make you atone for your sins etc) is pretty redundant in this thread imo. Its not a debate on the theological aspect.. to bring religion into it is going slightly off topic.

I neverr played the religion card and I'd appreciate you not implying I did as a method to try and disparage my comments.

Silent Grape

even if any of us HAS gone through an abortion, we might have more insight, but it stilll doesnt give us the right to force our opinions down someones throat. it doesn make our opinion of our personal experience the be all and end all of opinions. ur own personal experience can be very much different ton someones else.

when i was raped, i didnt get pregnant, but i wudnt have had an abortion . im my situation, it would have been okay. hardly ideal, but id be able to cope financially, lots of family support etc. soemone else might not be able to cope at all. . so me lecturing to that girl, saying ' i was raped and i didnt get an abortion' wud be pointless and self indulging.

we can only do what we feel is the right thing to do. abortion is wrong, im sure all the pro choicers agree, its a terrible, tragic thing. but as somneone said, it is a necessary evil. in some cases. at the same time, any life is better than no life at all.

embee

Originally posted by ixoy
I neverr played the religion card and I'd appreciate you not implying I did as a method to try and disparage my comments.

Where did I say that I was referring to you about the religion card?
Its not all about you, you know.

ixoy

Originally posted by embee
Where did I say that I was referring to you about the religion card?
Its not all about you, you know.

It was inferred from your post - the remainder of the post was a direct response to what I wrote. Including that last paragraph inferred it meant me. Care to tackle the rest of the post?

uberwolf

Originally posted by bonkey
Well, let me ask you this...

What is the difference between "responsible and really unlucky" and "irresonsible and unlucky" when the resultant action will be the same.

Or, put a different way, if you could abort for being responsible and unlucky, what difference does being responsible make??? You're still willing to make the decision to abort.

If you consider abortion to be acceptable (i.e. you're pro-choice, to borrow a label), then I can't see the logic as to why it should be only for those who have responsible sex.

Conversely, if you consider abortion unacceptable (i.e. you're pro-life, to borrow another label), then I can't see how someone having acted responsible makes the difference.

Finally....if you're a don't know, ask yourself this...

you're faced with two twin sisters, each of whom is pregnant. The fathers are twin brothers. Conception occurred at the same time. Why would the fact that one couple used protection and the other not make any difference in deciding whether or not you could accept them having abortions?

jc

I posted that to highlight what I saw as a discrepency in someones(newband?) argument about having no pity for someone who was irresponsible and that they had no right to have an abortion. It seems to me that that you either pro-choice or pro-life as the labels demand. But if you're a "in certain circumstances" kinda person then there seems to be a capacity to flit between the two moralising to other people as they see fit. I was merely trying to eliucidate this grey area, trying to get a better definition of what is or isn't "ok".

As for my own views I have posted them already and will willingly debate them, especially as I am open to having my viewpoint changed and appreciate the opportunity to discuss a matter like this candidly
E.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by embee

Also... playing the religion card (God will punish you/hold you to account/make you atone for your sins etc) is pretty redundant in this thread imo. Its not a debate on the theological aspect.. to bring religion into it is going slightly off topic.

Why is it redundant...?
I simply posed the question that if one believes in God , then one must also consider what his view on abortion is.
I'm not religous or anything but I do believe there is a God and my ethics alone do not condone the deliberate killing of an unborn baby, I don't know of any religion that does either.
Indeed the most anti catholic preacher that I know of, the reverend Ian Paisley is fervently opposed to elective abortion.
So if you believe in God and an afterlife and that what you do in this life determines what happens after you die, then that has a bearing on abortion.
If its the case that God is in favour of abortion or that there is no God, then , it's fine for women to carry on aborting.
If they meet me , I'll try to persuade them it's wrong, but thats all I can do, I'll have done my bit.

If one doesn't believe in a God then ,one is just as free to carry on aborting but that doesn't necessarilly mean that there is no God and that he won't be angry , if there is no genuine repentance.
I don't judge, I have enough confidence in my own ethics and belief in God to know that that will be for when we die.

Lemming

Warning: OT to wind up the vengeful-god-wrath types here


Here's a mindf*ck for you .......

God created the world right? That means God created mother nature.

Mother nature aborts. But surrrrrrrrrely God couldn't condone that and would have commanded it otherwise wouldn't he? After all he created it all in his infinite wisdom

here endeth the mindf*ck


The point I'm making here is that bringing religion/God into an argument like this immediately not only completely polarises the argument, but brings utterly intangible and abstract notions that may or may not be true to the fore. These can not be resolved or even argued with any degree of conviction

uberwolf

Originally posted by Lemming
Warning: OT to wind up the vengeful-god-wrath types here


Here's a mindf*ck for you .......

God created the world right? That means God created mother nature.

Mother nature aborts. But surrrrrrrrrely God couldn't condone that and would have commanded it otherwise wouldn't he? After all he created it all in his infinite wisdom

here endeth the mindf*ck


The point I'm making here is that bringing religion/God into an argument like this immediately not only completely polarises the argument, but brings utterly intangible and abstract notions that may or may not be true to the fore. These can not be resolved or even argued with any degree of conviction

I agree with you that religion will polarise this debate. But this is a debate on morals. People are therefore entitled to bring into play what ever it is that has given them their morals.

People die all the time, nature ensures it. But is not up to me to bring that time closer at my own whim. Spontaneous Abortion or miscarriage is a natural occurance. I am not calling all women who abort murderers but I think it is completely unreasonable to determine that because it happens in nature sometimes or somewhere it is ok for us as humans to determine that we can replicate the process.

Humans have decided to shape the world around them - If a pack of dogs savages my sister and rips her limb from limb we as a society hunt the dogs and kill them. Should we bow to natures wishes and allow the dogs continue? Furthermore would I be justified ripping your sister limb from limb, and as my defense cite the dogs? That is to say that just because nature decides doesn't mean we accept. Why do we have medicine, computers anything? Consequently it is a misnomer to use nature as a justification.

I have declared that I don't feel strongly on the matter, and it may appear that I'm swinging from side to side here. I am just picking up on what i perceive as flawed arguments and seeking clarity.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Lemming


God created the world right? That means God created mother nature.

Mother nature aborts. But surrrrrrrrrely God couldn't condone that and would have commanded it otherwise wouldn't he? After all he created it all in his infinite wisdom

Yes but you see, God is the supreme being if one believes in a God , his authority and decisions are final in that scenario.
One can play God you know, but there is probably only one and from what I can see he has given us free reign to do what we like.
If theres none theres no problem, thats the point I'm making here, as I believe there is a God and therefore If I carry out an abortion deliberately, I'm expecting to answer for that when I die.
He created a nature in my belief that is as much perilous as it is wonderfull and indeed some believe his wrath can be responsible for many an accident including natural abortions.

ixoy

I don't believe in an Almighty God because his presence makes no sense:

* A child is naturally aborted - it's an act of God. Ummm... whuh? Why is God taking away children? They've done ... what? Yet he'd let Adolf Hitler be born? No, it's an unfortunate act of science when natural abortion occurs.

* I think the pro-life aspect of this argument would work better if we, as I've been trying to do, argued it from a humanitarian perspective. Bringing religion into it tends to destabilise the argument often (because, as pointed out, there's no proofs to argue for/against) and lead it off track.

I'm still quite unconvinced by any of the humanitarian angles of allowing abortion in the case of those couples who had sex and now want to abort. Sex brings about an element of responsibility and if that act produces a child because you were irresponsible, then your responsibility is to bring that child to term at least. It's a large burden but we all know about the birds and the bees so we know it's a possibility. People, in society nowadays, are far too quick to try and shift burden of owness away from them and this is just another, stronger, example of it. This is applicable, may I reiterate, to those adoption cases where it merely interferes with the couple's lifestyle rather than victims of rape or those women physically endangered by the pregnancy.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by ixoy
I don't believe in an Almighty God because his presence makes no sense:

I've no truck with that, beliefs are a personal thing imho.

A child is naturally aborted - it's an act of God. Ummm... whuh? Why is God taking away children? They've done ... what? Yet he'd let Adolf Hitler be born? No, it's an unfortunate act of science when natural abortion occurs.

Well thats a perfectly practical point of view as a non believer.
I think Satan had more to do with the creation of hitler than God,generally if one believes in a God one believes in a satan.

Christians would believe for instance that the power of prayer can prevent a miscarriage if it's Gods plan.
I'd rather not go down the fervancy route, as I merely brought God into the equasion to highlight his impact on peoples decisions if he exists.

Not believing in his existance has no bearing on his power if he does exist or on what he does with you in the afterlife if you do something he considers wrong in this life.

The ironic thing is, and this is another point I am making here, you as a non believer could by your lifestyle , if there is a God and an afterlife end up in heaven as opposed to hell or purgatory or whatever ahead of many supposed christians.

I cannot reconcile a belief in god with a belief in elective abortion you see.
Much the same as going along the road you are taking, I can not reconcile a belief in humanity with support for elective abortion.

Shanka

I cannot reconcile a belief in god with a belief in elective abortion you see.

Belief in god? Does that not depend on which flavour of God? Maybe you mean the Christian god... But Buddhists might not agree... Basically, that's your opinion (which yer entitled to) but not everyone thinks of god or life itself that way.

Surely it is wrong to bring a life into the world that you are incapable of supporting and loving... If you have an unwanted pregnancy, decide to have it regardless of your circumstances - and end up having a life filled with misery and suffering simply because you had to be a mum (and/or dad) when you were not ready (financially or emotionally)

I had a 'one night stand' with a girl last year (we had sex the first night we met) However - the relationship blossomed and after about 6 weeks, we found out that she was pregnant. We had used a condom but...

She never gave me a say in what was to happen next. It was going away and that was that. I had always been pro-choice in my views... But saying this, I was very taken aback when I was simply informed that this was the decision...

But not for long. When I thought about it - Who was I to think that I had a say in this? It was her body, her womb, her nine months - I was happy to go along with her decision that was hers to make... I would have equally supported her if she had decided otherwise... But she was broke, living far from home and in no shape to have a baby... (neither was I for that matter but this didn't matter to me)

I went with her to London (twice, once for the check up and once again for the procedure) I held her hand the whole way. The whole time I was thinking how messed up the Irish really are for making us travel to London to go through this terrible ordeal... (its never easy - no matter what the pro lifers think of us sinners)

We live in an age where we can abort a pregnancy to suit our circumstances - we can choose when and where - Insuring that our child has every chance in this world that we can give them. I am still with this girl and someday we plan to have kids - but not until we're ready - when we are capable both financially and emotionally.

We are both very happy that we didn't go through with the birth - It would have made us both deeply unhappy and its very doubtful we could have stayed together as a couple. This would have meant that our child would not have had a father (she would have moved back to her home country)

When I hear the arguments of the pro-lifers I have to take them with a pinch of salt - I'm just thinking - until you've been in the situation - you'll never know what you're talking about - friends or no friends (that have) If we couldn't have gone to London, we would have been well and truly screwed...

One last point - In the ward 8 of the 10 beds had Irish girls in them... The Irish abort more babies per Capitola than the English do... Yet we don't allow it... Anyone smell a rat?

uberwolf

Originally posted by Shanka

When I hear the arguments of the pro-lifers I have to take them with a pinch of salt - I'm just thinking - until you've been in the situation - you'll never know what you're talking about - friends or no friends (that have) If we couldn't have gone to London, we would have been well and truly screwed...

this is the one reason I consider my self pro choice. I simply don't feel strongly enough about it to decide what I and everyone else should do if they found themselves in the position.

Shanka - I'm glad you're ok with how it happened and that you're still togther and happy.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Shanka
Surely it is wrong to bring a life into the world that you are incapable of supporting and loving... If you have an unwanted pregnancy, decide to have it regardless of your circumstances - and end up having a life filled with misery and suffering simply because you had to be a mum (and/or dad) when you were not ready (financially or emotionally)

err, there is such a thing called adoption..

there are plenty of people who have babies when they are not ready for them, financially and emotionally, not all these people are miserable because of it, infact i would think quite the opposite, my brother and his gf had a baby when he was 23, they weren't financially or emotionally ready(is anyone??) and after a couple of years of hard work and commitment they have a nice house, a great relationship and they wouldn't change ANYTHING, they have a beautifull daughter called Lucy Ann.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Shanka
Belief in god? Does that not depend on which flavour of God? Maybe you mean the Christian god... But Buddhists might not agree... Basically, that's your opinion (which yer entitled to) but not everyone thinks of god or life itself that way.

well you have hit the nail on the head there, if theres no God as I said or if there is one and he thinks abortion is ok, then theres no problem is there, in your way of thinking.
But if there is...

Surely it is wrong to bring a life into the world that you are incapable of supporting and loving... If you have an unwanted pregnancy, decide to have it regardless of your circumstances - and end up having a life filled with misery and suffering simply because you had to be a mum (and/or dad) when you were not ready (financially or emotionally)

Thats in essense saying selfishness is a justification for killing an unborn child.
I know of plenty un married mothers living in council houses with their rent paid for and loads of social welfare support, indeed they feel so secure, some of them have a few kids, so the economic argument doesn't wash with me really.

We live in an age where we can abort a pregnancy to suit our circumstances - we can choose when and where - Insuring that our child has every chance in this world that we can give them. I am still with this girl and someday we plan to have kids - but not until we're ready - when we are capable both financially and emotionally.

Thats a fair point.
But to carry the logic through a bit further, you will do everything you can to prevent your girlfriend getting pregnant in the first place, won't you?
That in itself is a recognition that killing an unborn child is neither a good experience,nor the best solution.
After all you are now in a relationship and I presume that you are using a condom as well as your steady girlfriend taking the pill.
The statistics for getting pregnant in that scenario are small and thankfully the need for those who disregard the life of an unborn child to kill it.

simu

I know of plenty un married mothers living in council houses with their rent paid for and loads of social welfare support, indeed they feel so secure, some of them have a few kids, so the economic argument doesn't wash with me really.

Encouraging ppl to become leeches is a good thing? That welfare money dosen't come out of a magic pot at the end of the rainbow!

Seraphina

ok, this thread is FAR too long for me to make all the replies i wanted, so im just gonna slap on my opinion at the end.
firstly, i noticed god mentioned around there somewhere.
since when has god had an opinion on this stuff? as far as im aware the only opinions we might have from god are in the bible. and well, they were bloody advanced if they had abortion back then. and kept it secret for a long time. thou shalt not kill. yes. kill what? thats terribly vague.
personally, to me, the baby is not 'alive' until it is born, because it cannot survive by itself. the woman eats, breathes and passes waste for it, it is completely dependent on her, it is a part of her body. she should be able to choose to remove it if she wants.

i feel insulted as a responsible woman who uses two forms of contraception that pro-lifers think i should be more careful, and live with my mistakes. it was not a mistake, i try everything possible to prevent it, but unfortunately nothing is 100% and i am not prepared to let something grow in my womb which will effectively destroy my life. college. out the window. social life. out the window. you've got a kid? guys, out the window.

as far as the father is concerned, well sorry, but **** off if you think i'm going through with pregnancy or childbirth for you. unless of course he's got a great job and can support the child, and is prepared to accept full custody and responsibility for the child, but even then its highly unlikely that i would go through a pregnancy for a child i didn't want. i am in a relationship, its not a one night stand, or rape, but its still not stable. i work part time. he works full time and is in college, there's no way we could support a baby. plus, will he be around in 15/20 years to pay for school/college. highly unlikely.

you can call me selfish all you want, but i would have an abortion on the basis that i do not want a child. i can chose to bring a child into the world, or i can chose not to. (back to my earlier point about it not being 'alive' in the womb'
and as far as contraception goes, i'd like to mention the HORRIFIC sex ed i got in school. words actually cannot describe it.
it was breezed over after the teacher informed us that the catholic church dont approve. and was followed by an anti-abortion video.
i was outraged at this. being 16 and knowing that this ignorant **** of a teacher could ruin someones life disturbed me. the lack of knowledge on the part of my school friends i also found disturbing. i had to explain contraception to a classmate after her trip to england for an abortion. with education like that, i think many girls in my class figured it wasn't really a risk if they weren't discussing it.

eh. im sure i had other points but they elude me right now. i'll probably post again when i remember....

secret_squirrel

Originally posted by newband
err, there is such a thing called adoption..

Why do pro-lifers always play this card? The fact is that adoption is a complete lottery..the child may get wonderful adoptive parents and grow up to be a normal well adjusted member of society, or a spend its life moving from institution to institution a turns in complete f*ckup who suicides at an early age - I've known both....

Its entirely possible a prospective parent(s) may want to spare their undifferientiated blob of cells this future....

Abortion can quite easily be seen as an act of mercy for both the mother and/or the potential offspring.

What really gets me is that rabid pro-lifers seem to think they can force their opinions on the rest of us...when the main reason I am pro-choice is that it allows everyone the right (imo its a right) to make their own decision on whether to abort or not -whether I agree with their reasons or not. The rabid pro-life lobby would deny everyone that choice.

ixoy

I know a friend who's adopted. I bet he's glad he was adopted rather than prematurely terminated...

How strict are adoption procedures nowadays? I thought you had to be fully vetted to prevent poor social situations?

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by ixoy
I know a friend who's adopted. I bet he's glad he was adopted rather than prematurely terminated...

How strict are adoption procedures nowadays? I thought you had to be fully vetted to prevent poor social situations?

persactly, no adoption agency is gonna give a child to an unstable couple living off the dole, they would give the child to a stable home with good people who physically CANT have babies, and its an insult to them that so many people choose to abort their babies when there are plenty of loving families out their who would take responsability of them without a second thought.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by secret_squirrel
What really gets me is that rabid pro-lifers seem to think they can force their opinions on the rest of us...when the main reason I am pro-choice is that it allows everyone the right (imo its a right) to make their own decision on whether to abort or not -whether I agree with their reasons or not. The rabid pro-life lobby would deny everyone that choice.

i, nor anyone else here is ''forcing'' their opinions on anyone, we're merely expressing our opinions, i'm sittin behind a screen, as you are reading from one, if you dont like wot u read then DONT READ.

Originally posted by secret_squirrel
the right (imo its a right) to make their own decision on whether to abort or not -whether I agree with their reasons or not.B]

wot about the unborn child's right to live?? people seem to only take into consideration their own rights when its not ONLY them that is involved.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by Seraphina
personally, to me, the baby is not 'alive' until it is born, because it cannot survive by itself. the woman eats, breathes and passes waste for it, it is completely dependent on her, it is a part of her body. she should be able to choose to remove it if she wants.

new born baby is also totaly dependant on his/her mother, the mother feeds it(breast feeding) and provides in every way for him/her, is it ok to kill a new born baby? just because a baby is not technically 'alive' in the womb is irrelevant, the baby WILL become alive,
if i was to hit a pregnant woman in the belly and in turn kill the baby, would i not be tried for murder, of course i would, but why?? if the baby is not alive then how is it murder??

Originally posted by Seraphina
i feel insulted as a responsible woman who uses two forms of contraception that pro-lifers think i should be more careful, and live with my mistakes. it was not a mistake, i try everything possible to prevent it, but unfortunately nothing is 100% and i am not prepared to let something grow in my womb which will effectively destroy my life. college. out the window. social life. out the window. you've got a kid? guys, out the window..

why would it destroy your life, why not give it to a family and provide it with a happy home and then get on with your own life. there is one thing that is 100% affective, NO SEX, we ALL take the risk, but some of us are too irresponsable to deal with our mistakes if those risks come and bite us in the ass

Originally posted by Seraphina
you can call me selfish all you want, but i would have an abortion on the basis that i do not want a child. i can chose to bring a child into the world, or i can chose not to.

if u do not want a child then dont have sex, you yourself said nothin is 100% effective, so why take that risk, someone made a point bout abortion being used as a contraceptive tool, you would be a prime example of this being the case if it were to happen to you.

embee

Adoption is another choice to make. It can be as hard, if not harder, to carry a foetus to term and then give it away for adoption. Some women cannot put themselves through such mental anguish, and opt for abortion.

When a woman is pregnant, the most important person in the equation is HER. Not the father, but her. She must look after Number One... she does not become some sort of bio-incubator for the foetus - she is still a person in her own right and is perfectly entitled to make lifestyle choices based on how she feels about herself and how her life will be affected. If she feels that adoption is not an option, that is her personal choice.

I personally do not believe that I could carry a foetus to term, deliver it, and then hand it to another woman to raise. That is not to say that I would want to raise said child myself. So, perhaps I would have an abortion. Yes - as a lifestyle choice.

So, I suppose that makes me a heartless bastard, a disease, a sinner of the highest order and first name down on the list for 'Go Directly to Hell'.

At the end of the day, none of you can call me any of the above based on a lifestyle choice because you dont know me, or my circumstances. You are mostly all men, so you will never fully know or understand what an absolute catastrophic nightmare an unplanned pregnancy can be.

Men arent too pushed on complaining about the morning after pill.... isnt that just an extremely early chemically induced abortion of sorts?

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by embee
When a woman is pregnant, the most important person in the equation is HER. Not the father, but her. She must look after Number One... she does not become some sort of bio-incubator for the foetus - she is still a person in her own right and is perfectly entitled to make lifestyle choices based on how she feels about herself and how her life will be affected.

does this mean it is ok for a woman to smoke, drink, smoke dope, take multiple drugs when she is pregnant because she has to look after ''number one''?? is she entitled to make those decisions even tho they could CONSIDERABLY damage the childs health to the point that the child might be physically or mentally handicapped, or BOTH?

embee

Originally posted by newband
new born baby is also totaly dependant on his/her mother, the mother feeds it(breast feeding) and provides in every way for him/her, is it ok to kill a new born baby? just because a baby is not technically 'alive' in the womb is irrelevant, the baby WILL become alive,

Er..... a new born baby is NOT totally dependent on its mother.
He/she is capable of breathing by itself.
In utero, he/she is provided with oxygen from its mothers amniotic fluid and the blood supply.

D!ve^Bomb!

Originally posted by embee
Er..... a new born baby is NOT totally dependent on its mother.
He/she is capable of breathing by itself.
In utero, he/she is provided with oxygen from its mothers amniotic fluid and the blood supply.

so if a mother were to leave her new born baby on its own for an indefinate period of time would it survive on its own?... no,, he/she would eventually die.. in my eyes the baby is totaly dependant on the mother, he/she could not survive on his/her own. the fact that the baby can breath on his/her own is irelevant