People are going to have abortions so its a good idea to have clinics that are there to provide an environment where they can safely have this procedure completed. As I understand it the government funds that go in to these clinics do not go in to providing for abortions as these clinics must keep them seperate (on the books) from anything else that is done there. Personally I think we need to spend more time ducating our youth on the matter in our schools and it would help prevent it from going that far in the first place. I wouldn't know, as I am a man, but i'm told that it is a traumatic experience for a lot of women to have to make that decision. Honestly I don't believe that most women that have one really want to have to make that decision. Put yourselves in their shoes for a minute and realize that sometimes people have to make impossible decisions for the right reasons.
@ Neosutra I personally don't like the thought of abortion. I can't really tell you when the definition of alive begins for human beings but when someone becomes pregnant (whatever it is at this point and time) it will one day become what we recognize to be alive. I don't think you can say that about sperm or eggs on their own. As for the question you posed to Mightymog, no I would not agree with the church unduly influencing my government into banning women or men from using forms of birth control. The government certainly has no place in that either (unless the product is dangerous to your health). It's a personal decision. I think more people should use em and in the matter of abortions (with a small acception I would assume) its the fact that they aren't using any form of birth control. A question for you, what is your stance on people who use abortions as a form of birth control?
Abortion
Abortion
Fairy.Spence said:
/*** sigh Want to save space on this website? Get rid of the entire Politics and Religion section.
Lakshmi.Flavin said:
Fairy.Spence said:
/*** sigh Want to save space on this website? Get rid of the entire Politics and Religion section.
Bored out of my bloody mind and want to complain.
Fairy.Spence said:
Lakshmi.Flavin said:
Fairy.Spence said:
/*** sigh Want to save space on this website? Get rid of the entire Politics and Religion section.
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
Carbuncle.Mightymog said:
For instance, I am a firm believer that life begins at conception, therefor any choice to kill an unborn child would be no different to me than the killing of any other human being.
That's cute.
You think this is a debate on where life begins, and not where person-hood begins.
Life is a continuum. It is a description of biological processes where amino acids form into complex protein structures to develop the most effective distribution of entropy.
Your sperm is alive. Her eggs are alive.
The resulting combination of DNA is "alive". So life doesn't "begin at conception", it continues to evolve from that point.
The legal stance here is at what point can that continuum be stopped to prevent the further development of what could have been. Extremely conservative activists would have you believe that even using contraceptives is murder/against "god", as it prevents the "continuum" of life from happening by preventing the sperm from meeting the egg. You would have us believe that preventing the continuum from happening any time after RNA/DNA sequencing occurs between the chromosomes is "murder" because "life has begun".
This is clearly not true on a scientific or legal standpoint and you're just as bad as the people advocating not using contraceptives.
You have your right to believe that however, just take some time and think about the ramifications of that decision path if taken to it's extreme (where people want to take it). Ask yourself this (I'd like your answer here as well): Would you be ok with the church (or the government on behalf of the church) telling your wife that she is not allowed to take birth control? (I'm not equating abortion to birth control, but rather making a parallel to government intrusion into reproductive decisions of women).
Just as condescending as ever I see.
There is no potential for life or personhood as long as sperm and egg are kept separate so the birth control analogies that people bring up aren't really even worth discussing. You cannot take a life that has not yet begun (I believe this is a fundamental belief of pro-choice advocates yes?)
The bottomline is that if personhood "Continues to evolve" from the point of conception, then birth is a rather arbitrary line where on one side there is 'choice' and the other 'murder'. Why not when a child says their first word? Or takes their first step? Or hits their first stand up triple? Should a child born 3 months premature be considered a person while the 8 month old fetus which is more developed should not?
"Government intrusion into reproductive decisions of women" is seen as a terrible evil, but there are plenty of decisions I would make if the government weren't intruding. I would speed a whole lot more. I would pirate a lot more software/music. But somewhere along the line someone thought "Hey wait a minute, if we let someone go 125 in a 45 it might hurt another person." At that moment my 'decisions' must submit to the law of the land.
So if you can get past the 'hate speak' (or condescending remarks) the debate always boils down not to choice, but to where life (or personhood) begins. You simply aren't allowed to 'decide' to hurt a person. I don't see how birth is anymore appropriate as the answer to when personhood begins than conception. Both entities just need food, water, and shelter to grow into an adult. Both are completely dependent on outside sources for these things.
The question of when life (or personhood) begins is actually a tremendous topic for debate and dialogue if it's done properly and respectfully. Sadly I don't think this has ever happened over the internet on any topic at anytime.
[+]
Did you just call me condescending for pointing out the actuality of the argument (personhood versus life), then agree with my point in the end?
Nice.
Nice.
[+]
You also didn't provide anything compelling to the argument to justify your stance that "personhood begins as conception" beyond the extremely weak argument that "the developing fetus needs external support like a baby does".
Guess what: So does your liver. If we take the liver out of your body, it stops functioning.
If we take the sperm out of your junk, it dies pretty fast (oh noes, all those potential republican voters!?).
Your argument is just as invasive as the anti-contraceptive argument.
Let me ask another question to you Barber, which I already know the answer to: Do you think that fetus has a "soul" once conception occurs?
Guess what: So does your liver. If we take the liver out of your body, it stops functioning.
If we take the sperm out of your junk, it dies pretty fast (oh noes, all those potential republican voters!?).
Your argument is just as invasive as the anti-contraceptive argument.
Let me ask another question to you Barber, which I already know the answer to: Do you think that fetus has a "soul" once conception occurs?
[+]
Pretty sure was just pointing out that the difference between "a life" and "all life" was understood. You're still coming across the same way, too.
And maybe it's just me, but I'm not picking up ANY church driven or Republican oriented arguments you so obviously hate.
And maybe it's just me, but I'm not picking up ANY church driven or Republican oriented arguments you so obviously hate.
[+]
Fenrir.Terminus said:
Pretty sure was just pointing out that the difference between "a life" and "all life" was understood. You're still coming across the same way, too.
And maybe it's just me, but I'm not picking up ANY church driven or Republican oriented arguments you so obviously hate.
And maybe it's just me, but I'm not picking up ANY church driven or Republican oriented arguments you so obviously hate.
Then you should try and be more perceptive. The "life begins at conception" *** is derived from one area, and it's not reason/science/biology/education.
[+]
Neosutra only comes off as condescending because he's talking to the people who don't already understand this, which indeed he is talking down to, because it's necessary.
[+]
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
LISTEN TO ME
[+]
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
Did you just call me condescending for pointing out the actuality of the argument (personhood versus life), then agree with my point in the end? Nice.
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
Did you just call me condescending for pointing out the actuality of the argument (personhood versus life), then agree with my point in the end? Nice.
I actually thought your last post was a sad atempt at making yourself look smart with some high school science theories and with smart *** undertones. I like the "Thats cute" Real classy there.
The only fact in this argument is if a woman is pregnant and goes about her normal routine (eat, sleep, poop) 9 months or so a baby is born. Abortion prevents that from happening. So people who say it is murder are right in that sense. On the other hand it is legal at this point and the bible does say to obey the laws of the land so we are back at square one.
I have children so I am not a fan of abortion but since it is not ilegal I say let the parents choose what is right for them.
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
You also didn't provide anything compelling to the argument to justify your stance that "personhood begins as conception" beyond the extremely weak argument that "the developing fetus needs external support like a baby does". Guess what: So does your liver. If we take the liver out of your body, it stops functioning. If we take the sperm out of your junk, it dies pretty fast (oh noes, all those potential republican voters!?). Your argument is just as invasive as the anti-contraceptive argument. Let me ask another question to you Barber, which I already know the answer to: Do you think that fetus has a "soul" once conception occurs?
sefalon said:
I actually thought your last post was a sad atempt at making yourself look smart with some high school science theories and with smart *** undertones. I like the "Thats cute" Real classy there.
I apologize if science jargon gives you the forced intellectual vibe. I'll keep my explanations down to 3 syllables for you in the future. Let me know if I go over your head again in the future and I'll type a bit slower.
sefalon said:
The only fact in this argument is if a woman is pregnant and goes about her normal routine (eat, sleep, poop) 9 months or so a baby is born. Abortion prevents that from happening. So people who say it is murder are right in that sense. On the other hand it is legal at this point and the bible does say to obey the laws of the land so we are back at square one.
If you made it this far without getting upset at my obvious jab above and are not just furiously hitting the quote/reply button to show me how bad you can own me, think about this:
If you are making the argument that preventing a life that "would have happened had you not prevented it" is the same as murder, then you're essentially saying all birth control, pulling out, or even not having sex is murder. When a woman has her period because she didn't get pregnant that cycle, that's a waste of potential life and murder. When a man jacks off, it's murder of thousands of potential lives.
sefalon said:
I have children so I am not a fan of abortion but since it is not ilegal I say let the parents choose what is right for them.
Indeed.
[+]
sefalon said:
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
Did you just call me condescending for pointing out the actuality of the argument (personhood versus life), then agree with my point in the end? Nice.
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
Did you just call me condescending for pointing out the actuality of the argument (personhood versus life), then agree with my point in the end? Nice.
I actually thought your last post was a sad atempt at making yourself look smart with some high school science theories and with smart *** undertones. I like the "Thats cute" Real classy there.
The only fact in this argument is if a woman is pregnant and goes about her normal routine (eat, sleep, poop) 9 months or so a baby is born. Abortion prevents that from happening. So people who say it is murder are right in that sense. On the other hand it is legal at this point and the bible does say to obey the laws of the land so we are back at square one.
I have children so I am not a fan of abortion but since it is not ilegal I say let the parents choose what is right for them.
murder refers to human beings, a clump of cells that can't sustain life on their own do not constitute as a human being...
Lakshmi.Flavin said:
Personally I think we need to spend more time educating our youth on the matter in our schools and it would help prevent it from going that far in the first place.
Totally agree, education is the key to keeping abortions down.
The wingnuts want to ban abortion and at the same time axe sex education. By denying both routes out of unwanted pregnancies, they force many individuals who aren't ready to have children to deal with a responsibility far beyond their limitations. Anyone with children will tell you that raising one is a full-time job that requires hours upon hours of mental, physical and financial investment. You simply cannot afford to halfass it.
This isn't to say that some people don't rise up to the challenge but if you're 16 and barely mentally developed yourself, the option should be there, just like putting your child up for adoption is.
When teens start exploring their sexuality, they should be armed with the vast reserves of knowledge available in the 21st century and not denied this for extraneous reasons.
Quote:
I wouldn't know, as I am a man, but i'm told that it is a traumatic experience for a lot of women to have to make that decision.
For any moral individual, the loss of a life is going to be hard one and I believe this alone will deter most individuals from using abortions as birth control.
Maybe it wont affect you at 17 or 18 but somewhere down the road it will catch up with you.
As parents, it should be your choice what you do with your child and it's also your choice to live with those consequences. Some people hook up, make a terrible mistake and it shouldn't mean having to be stuck to someone you could care less about for life.
It's simply a matter of freedom.
I'm glad people brought up the fact that pro-life lunatics (not calling you a lunatic for being pro-life, but rather people that take it to an extreme) cause more abortions through their idiotic abstinence programs than they ever prevent via their obsessive attempts to legislate female reproductive organs.
the pro-life movement is all about controlling other people's freedoms and decision-making processes. instead of leaving such an important decision up to the mother, they'd simply lock that woman up in prison for murder for her decision if given half a chance. these are the same people going on and on about "repressive government" and the tyranny of "judicial activism". the actual fact being that they adore these concepts, as long as they are working for their benefit only.
like most of the so-called "conservative principles" it is a disgusting, walking lie sold by the powerful to the ignorant masses.
like most of the so-called "conservative principles" it is a disgusting, walking lie sold by the powerful to the ignorant masses.
No more shmishmortions from the shmishmortion-clinic!?!?
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
I'm glad people brought up the fact that pro-life lunatics (not calling you a lunatic for being pro-life, but rather people that take it to an extreme) cause more abortions through their idiotic abstinence programs than they ever prevent via their obsessive attempts to legislate female reproductive organs.
I can agree with that. Abstinence programs are just a product of ignorance of
It's a giant troll I assume:
Does anyone else find it ironic that most pro-lifers are also pro death penalty, pro hand gun de-regulation, and against basic healthcare rights for human beings.
Apparently human life is sacred until it's born. After that, *** it.
Does anyone else find it ironic that most pro-lifers are also pro death penalty, pro hand gun de-regulation, and against basic healthcare rights for human beings.
Apparently human life is sacred until it's born. After that, *** it.
[+]
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
It's a giant troll I assume:
Does anyone else find it ironic that most pro-lifers are also pro death penalty, pro hand gun de-regulation, and against basic healthcare rights for human beings.
Apparently human life is sacred until it's born. After that, *** it.
Does anyone else find it ironic that most pro-lifers are also pro death penalty, pro hand gun de-regulation, and against basic healthcare rights for human beings.
Apparently human life is sacred until it's born. After that, *** it.
I'm a big fan of situational laws regarding abortion.
If a woman becomes pregnant due to actions that are not of her choice, she is eligible for abortion. Though the life inside her is still precious, due to the nature of how it got there, the woman's right to terminate the pregnancy and not to carry the baby to term is her decision to make.
Still births: If a fetus devolops without normal functions of life maintaining organs, the choice again is up to the parents. As much as I would like to say that their is no choice and the mother should carry a child to term, there is no sense in forcing a woman into a life threatening situation over a child that will absolutely be born dead.
Other abnormalities: fetuses devoloping with non-life threating abnormalities should be carried to term. This is a tough one for parents to take in, having a different child who may be mentally HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE on physically deformed, but if these differences were ment to be their end, they pregnancy will self-abort. In the meantime, there are people out there who will adopt these children and give them happy lives.
Abortion just because someone doesn't want to be pregnant. This is the one that bothers me most. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex, period. Nothing is full proof, condoms break, birth control pills aren't 100% effective. If you are in love and get pregnant, and you break up, I'm sorry if it bothers you to have that persons baby, but that life has a right to be there because it was conceived out of love and mutual consent of sex. If you are a married couple, and just don't feel you are ready for a baby in your lives, put it up for adoption. This goes back to what other people post on here about personal responsibility. I appreciate our country's casual view on sex but people always downplay the potential after effects.
I'm sure there are other circumstances that I didn't mention, but this one seems like a fair compromise of both sides. The problem is getting those who only see in black and white to consider the gray area in the middle.
If a woman becomes pregnant due to actions that are not of her choice, she is eligible for abortion. Though the life inside her is still precious, due to the nature of how it got there, the woman's right to terminate the pregnancy and not to carry the baby to term is her decision to make.
Still births: If a fetus devolops without normal functions of life maintaining organs, the choice again is up to the parents. As much as I would like to say that their is no choice and the mother should carry a child to term, there is no sense in forcing a woman into a life threatening situation over a child that will absolutely be born dead.
Other abnormalities: fetuses devoloping with non-life threating abnormalities should be carried to term. This is a tough one for parents to take in, having a different child who may be mentally HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE on physically deformed, but if these differences were ment to be their end, they pregnancy will self-abort. In the meantime, there are people out there who will adopt these children and give them happy lives.
Abortion just because someone doesn't want to be pregnant. This is the one that bothers me most. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex, period. Nothing is full proof, condoms break, birth control pills aren't 100% effective. If you are in love and get pregnant, and you break up, I'm sorry if it bothers you to have that persons baby, but that life has a right to be there because it was conceived out of love and mutual consent of sex. If you are a married couple, and just don't feel you are ready for a baby in your lives, put it up for adoption. This goes back to what other people post on here about personal responsibility. I appreciate our country's casual view on sex but people always downplay the potential after effects.
I'm sure there are other circumstances that I didn't mention, but this one seems like a fair compromise of both sides. The problem is getting those who only see in black and white to consider the gray area in the middle.
[+]
Ya Josseppi, don't have sex if you don't want to be pregnant.
Right?
Right?
sorry for the double quote was a accident.
I am not mad I just felt what the poster said did not warrant the response you gave. He has theories and you shoot them down with your own. Nobody here has the answers we try to use science or the bible to hammer home are points but who REALLY knows?
Look at it like this if GOD really does exist and a woman who had a abortion is standing next to him for judgment and he says "Sorry I can not let you in". Would she really need to ask him why?
Now yes I know that scenario is silly..
It ties together with my point. Everyone has a different view on things but that is what makes life so intresting.
Someone said that murder is classified as killing a human being not a bunch of cells that cant sustain life on its own. OH really would you like to see cases tried where the suspect was charged for murdering BOTH the baby and the mom. If the father came out and testified saying that when his wife was murdered she was on the way to the obortion clinic than the charges for the baby would be dropped?
I am not mad I just felt what the poster said did not warrant the response you gave. He has theories and you shoot them down with your own. Nobody here has the answers we try to use science or the bible to hammer home are points but who REALLY knows?
Look at it like this if GOD really does exist and a woman who had a abortion is standing next to him for judgment and he says "Sorry I can not let you in". Would she really need to ask him why?
Now yes I know that scenario is silly..
It ties together with my point. Everyone has a different view on things but that is what makes life so intresting.
Someone said that murder is classified as killing a human being not a bunch of cells that cant sustain life on its own. OH really would you like to see cases tried where the suspect was charged for murdering BOTH the baby and the mom. If the father came out and testified saying that when his wife was murdered she was on the way to the obortion clinic than the charges for the baby would be dropped?
[+]
Phoenix.Neosutra said:
It's a giant troll I assume:
Does anyone else find it ironic that most pro-lifers are also pro death penalty, pro hand gun de-regulation, and against basic healthcare rights for human beings.
Apparently human life is sacred until it's born. After that, *** it.
Does anyone else find it ironic that most pro-lifers are also pro death penalty, pro hand gun de-regulation, and against basic healthcare rights for human beings.
Apparently human life is sacred until it's born. After that, *** it.
I'd say I'm pro-choice before the third trimester, against death, I am for hand-gun dereg though, oh and healthcare for all...
Bahamut.Josseppi said:
I'm a big fan of situational laws regarding abortion.
If a woman becomes pregnant due to actions that are not of her choice, she is eligible for abortion. Though the life inside her is still precious, due to the nature of how it got there, the woman's right to terminate the pregnancy and not to carry the baby to term is her decision to make.
Still births: If a fetus devolops without normal functions of life maintaining organs, the choice again is up to the parents. As much as I would like to say that their is no choice and the mother should carry a child to term, there is no sense in forcing a woman into a life threatening situation over a child that will absolutely be born dead.
Other abnormalities: fetuses devoloping with non-life threating abnormalities should be carried to term. This is a tough one for parents to take in, having a different child who may be mentally HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE on physically deformed, but if these differences were ment to be their end, they pregnancy will self-abort. In the meantime, there are people out there who will adopt these children and give them happy lives.
Abortion just because someone doesn't want to be pregnant. This is the one that bothers me most. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex, period. Nothing is full proof, condoms break, birth control pills aren't 100% effective. If you are in love and get pregnant, and you break up, I'm sorry if it bothers you to have that persons baby, but that life has a right to be there because it was conceived out of love and mutual consent of sex. If you are a married couple, and just don't feel you are ready for a baby in your lives, put it up for adoption. This goes back to what other people post on here about personal responsibility. I appreciate our country's casual view on sex but people always downplay the potential after effects.
I'm sure there are other circumstances that I didn't mention, but this one seems like a fair compromise of both sides. The problem is getting those who only see in black and white to consider the gray area in the middle.
If a woman becomes pregnant due to actions that are not of her choice, she is eligible for abortion. Though the life inside her is still precious, due to the nature of how it got there, the woman's right to terminate the pregnancy and not to carry the baby to term is her decision to make.
Still births: If a fetus devolops without normal functions of life maintaining organs, the choice again is up to the parents. As much as I would like to say that their is no choice and the mother should carry a child to term, there is no sense in forcing a woman into a life threatening situation over a child that will absolutely be born dead.
Other abnormalities: fetuses devoloping with non-life threating abnormalities should be carried to term. This is a tough one for parents to take in, having a different child who may be mentally HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE on physically deformed, but if these differences were ment to be their end, they pregnancy will self-abort. In the meantime, there are people out there who will adopt these children and give them happy lives.
Abortion just because someone doesn't want to be pregnant. This is the one that bothers me most. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex, period. Nothing is full proof, condoms break, birth control pills aren't 100% effective. If you are in love and get pregnant, and you break up, I'm sorry if it bothers you to have that persons baby, but that life has a right to be there because it was conceived out of love and mutual consent of sex. If you are a married couple, and just don't feel you are ready for a baby in your lives, put it up for adoption. This goes back to what other people post on here about personal responsibility. I appreciate our country's casual view on sex but people always downplay the potential after effects.
I'm sure there are other circumstances that I didn't mention, but this one seems like a fair compromise of both sides. The problem is getting those who only see in black and white to consider the gray area in the middle.
it's not a life, it's a clump of cells.
Also adoption option is a joke.
Also it's nobody's business to tell people to not have sex (unless they're violating laws) seriously...
sefalon said:
sorry for the double quote was a accident.
I am not mad I just felt what the poster said did not warrant the response you gave. He has theories and you shoot them down with your own. Nobody here has the answers we try to use science or the bible to hammer home are points but who REALLY knows?
Look at it like this if GOD really does exist and a woman who had a abortion is standing next to him for judgment and he says "Sorry I can not let you in". Would she really need to ask him why?
Now yes I know that scenario is silly..
It ties together with my point. Everyone has a different view on things but that is what makes life so intresting.
Someone said that murder is classified as killing a human being not a bunch of cells that cant sustain life on its own. OH really would you like to see cases tried where the suspect was charged for murdering BOTH the baby and the mom. If the father came out and testified saying that when his wife was murdered she was on the way to the obortion clinic than the charges for the baby would be dropped?
I am not mad I just felt what the poster said did not warrant the response you gave. He has theories and you shoot them down with your own. Nobody here has the answers we try to use science or the bible to hammer home are points but who REALLY knows?
Look at it like this if GOD really does exist and a woman who had a abortion is standing next to him for judgment and he says "Sorry I can not let you in". Would she really need to ask him why?
Now yes I know that scenario is silly..
It ties together with my point. Everyone has a different view on things but that is what makes life so intresting.
Someone said that murder is classified as killing a human being not a bunch of cells that cant sustain life on its own. OH really would you like to see cases tried where the suspect was charged for murdering BOTH the baby and the mom. If the father came out and testified saying that when his wife was murdered she was on the way to the obortion clinic than the charges for the baby would be dropped?
have sources of the cases you claim or don't bring them up.
Also most people who aren't superstitious nuts don't fear a sky-daddy.
[+]
Bahamut.Jetackuu said:
Also adoption option is a joke.
Maybe in this country. I have many friends and family that were adopted though. Adoption is not a joke though.
Think of how many people who cannot conceive a child by natural means. Two of my aunts have endometriosis. There are many people who are infertile, but they can still have families without paying an arm and a leg for fertility treatments or in vitro fertilization.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.