'This can't be happening in our country.'

[August]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

To be fair Antikris:




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...abortions.html

Abortion is some womens contraception.

Now there's a case for mandatory sterilization if I ever saw one.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

To be fair Antikris:




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...abortions.html

Abortion is some womens contraception.

Who are few and far between and complete ****s.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

I agree with you up to the pint where you say however, because what comes after that amounts to BS in my opinion, and here is why. There are already thousands of children up for adoption, there is no shortage of kids to adopt. Also contraceptives are not failure proof, when contraceptives were used in order to avoid pregnancy and they failed, then what? Have the mother bring a child in to this world that is clearly unwanted just because you find abortion distasteful? Hell, I find it distasteful, that does not mean I have any right to forbid people from having one. Sure, you could just say that the woman should surely have abstained from sex, but be reasonable here, those who abstain until marriage are a very, very small minority, the rest of us enjoy sex. It is quite good. And to say abortion is nothing more than spite, now that really is some grade A bs right there.

See, I personally harbor no deep revulsion to abortion, as I just can't quite cross the threshold of a 12 week old fetus being a "baby".

However, that being said, I *DO* find the "inconvienience" argument repulsive. If you have sex, even with contraception, are you not accepting the risk that you might get pregnant?

The idea that any baby would be a burden and therefore must not be brought into existance echoes the arguments in the late 1930s regarding the handicapped. That I find downright frightening.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Who are few and far between and complete ****s.

1300 women having their FIFTH abortion in one year, in one country, does not fit my standard of "few and far between".

[CaptainHaplo]

Ahh an interesting debate.

First off, let me squash one item stated to start with.

"Its a woman's choice"

Well - it was the choice of 2 people to concieve a child - or at least partake in the activity that can create one. If the child is born, can the man look at a judge and say "well I aborted my part of the child, so I have no responsibility?" Of course not. Both parties have an equal responsibility in the creation of a child, and thus both should have a say on the outcome. Currently, there is no such thing as "equal rights" when it comes to this subject, which is a travesty of the system.

Now, with that said. I am likely to tick off a number of people, and probably suprise a few.

My view is that life is defined not at conception, but at the point where independant brain and circulatory activity can be detected and verified. My reasoning is this. At a certain stage, a heart develops. At a certain stage, a brain develops. However, for those of us who are "alive" in the legal sense, your considered "dead" when your brain can no longer cause your heart to beat. This is known as being "brain dead". For a fetus, prior to that moment when the brain sends its first electrical pulses to the heart to make it beat, the fetus does not meet the standard required to be "alive" that the rest of us do. Once that happens though, then an seperate (while still dependant) life exists.

For those that say life does not begin until birth, let me share something. I have a picture that I will cherish for my entire life. My youngest daughter was in the womb, and I would put my head on my lady's belly, and sing to my daughter. I would talk with her, got her used to my voice. Whenever I did, she would kick and bounce in recognition. The moment she was born, I reassured my lady, and then moved with the nurses to where my daughter was being cleaned. She was, as all baby's do, screaming. To her, it was bright, she was cold (both new sensations), and she was reacting in the only way she knew how. I had the camera in one hand, I reached down with my finger, and spoke gently to her. My finger touched her tiny little hand, and she grabbed onto it, without even knowing how. She also stopped crying immediately at the sound of my voice. The doctor rushed over, concerned that something was wrong, and the nurse who was cleaning her looked at me and said something to the effect of "I have never seen a baby do that, she knows who you are." That moment she recognized my voice, and it reassured her immensely. The doctor smiled at me and said "you have talked to her alot, haven''t you?" I told her yes, and she started telling my lady all was well and how our new daughter knew everything was ok. She also looked at me and told me I was going to definitely have a "Daddy's girl" on my hands. She was beyond right! But that moment held more than enough proof to me of whether or not an individual, capable of learning - a truly high brain function - existed well before "birth". It also gave me a memory (and a picture) to have forever.

I can see the need for abortions when there are severe health challenges to the child, or the health and life of the mother is in danger, as in the case of an egtopic pregnancy. Issues of incest/rape as well I feel should be valid reasons. *I am assuming that the incest was a part of rape, if its voluntary on both sides, well.. I honestly don't know..... Don't really want to think about that unless I have to.

But what I don't understand, is why some carry a baby while they know they won't have it, allow themselves to develop a deeper emotional bond (which is proven to occur), only to then abort. Its like self torture as well morally reprehesible.

This is why I am perfectly fine with things like the "morning after" pill.

You anti-abortionists are kind of like the US version of the Taliban.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Aramike

1300 women having their FIFTH abortion in one year, in one country, does not fit my standard of "few and far between".

that is 0.002% of the population of said country. it is not exactly common.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Aramike

See, I personally harbor no deep revulsion to abortion, as I just can't quite cross the threshold of a 12 week old fetus being a "baby".

However, that being said, I *DO* find the "inconvienience" argument repulsive. If you have sex, even with contraception, are you not accepting the risk that you might get pregnant?

The idea that any baby would be a burden and therefore must not be brought into existance echoes the arguments in the late 1930s regarding the handicapped. That I find downright frightening.

Not a burden, I just consider it more humane to abort a fetus than to bring an unwanted child into this world.

Edit: CaptainHaplo's stance most closely resembles my own on this mater.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

that is 0.002% of the population of said country. it is not exactly common.

Yeah, but in the context of people having abortions, the number is dramatically higher.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Not a burden, I just consider it more humane to abort a fetus than to bring an unwanted child into this world.

Edit: CaptainHaplo's stance most closely resembles my own on this mater.

Actually its not far off from mine either.

The problem with the point of being "humane", however, is that one could just as easily justify ending the life of a cripple as a humane alternative to them being confined to a chair.

I just don't like that slippery slope, and line of reasoning.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Actually its not far off from mine either.

The problem with the point of being "humane", however, is that one could just as easily justify ending the life of a cripple as a humane alternative to them being confined to a chair.

I just don't like that slippery slope, and line of reasoning.

A line has to be drawn somewhere and that is up to the society to draw them and since societies change, so do the lines that were once drawn.

[Reaves]

Originally Posted by Rilder

Its the woman's choice nobody else.

It takes two to tango.

[August]

Originally Posted by Reaves

It takes two to tango.

Yep, and although one of them has no input into the decision he still bears financial responsibility.

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Ahh an interesting debate.

First off, let me squash one item stated to start with.

"Its a woman's choice"

Well - it was the choice of 2 people to concieve a child - or at least partake in the activity that can create one. If the child is born, can the man look at a judge and say "well I aborted my part of the child, so I have no responsibility?" Of course not. Both parties have an equal responsibility in the creation of a child, and thus both should have a say on the outcome. Currently, there is no such thing as "equal rights" when it comes to this subject, which is a travesty of the system.

I agree.. It takes two to make a child. The two responsible need to make the choice together.

[CaptainHaplo]

Ok thats scary...

Antikristuseke and Aramike both are somewhat close to my view on something. Either the world is about to end in a cataclysmic statistical improbability, or there is hope yet for humanity to actually rationally discuss topics from divergent views and find something close to common ground.