Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by riley

You did not really address what I said.
If you are a christian you would know that free will isn't something that is taken away when a woman gets pregnant. Most human beings (regardless of belief system) consider slavery to be wrong and immoral yet you are okay with forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she does not want against her will? How is that not grossly immoral? What exactly do you propose be done to enforce a no abortion law? If you haven't got any real answers or solutions it's just postering. Whining about how evil and irresponsible women are just makes you sound like you have issues with women.. it's counter productive and we've all heared it before.

You are not talking about free will, riley. You are trying to merge freedom from responsibility as a result of your free will. You have have the free will to as you choose but choice's in life bear responsibility and sometimes life isn't fair and sometimes our choices don't always turn out how we planned them but they are still choices we have the freedom to make but when those choices involve others and you say it is slavery to make someone have a child. Sorry,, that dog won't hunt. No one forced you to have a baby unless you want to blame mother nature or were raped.

The fact is now that YOU DO have one, you are responsible for it and THIS is why sex is so under appreciated for the responsibilities it carries with it which happen to be THE BIGGEST responsibilities in any of our entire lives.

It is about free will because the alternative is removing it. You have (indirectly) just said that free will only applies until a woman gets pregnant and then she is obligated by that responsibilty.. who decides that? You? So all women whould adhere to your moral views? If a woman is locked up for the duration of pregnancy that IS slavery and is taking her freedom. Your "unless you were raped" argument doesn't hold water either as you could again just say "sometimes life isn't fair" to force a rape victim to carry it to term. I'm also a little confused that you would even bother saying "unless you were raped" as if you think it's okay to lock a woman up until she gives birth why would you care if women are raped or not? Do you really think women who consented to sex should be abused in such a way?

I think for the most part MEN take this for granted more than woman do, however, that being said, Roe VS wade was predicated on the lack of information regarding when LIFE begins.

Incorrect. It was more about protecting a woman's right to medical privacy.. unless you are against that.?

If you want to make the argument that life isn't life as long as the baby is inside the womb depending on the mother to survive, tell me ONE living thing that isn't dependant on other living things.

Thats not the argument. I don't disagree that it is life.. I just do not think that an embryo/zygote's rights should trump a woman's. If this were to become the case then all pregnant women would have to account for everything they did to make sure it was healthy for the fetus. If someone doesn't like them eating junk food or over-working should they take them to court to stop them?

No-one answered how they would enforce this "no abortion" law. Would you have them locked up untill they gave birth? If you just want to make it illegal thats not going to save babies.. it's just going to kill women who have illegal abortions so thats not a more moral road to take.

How about if they were raped.. would they have to prove it when only a fraction of rapes end in conviction? What if they couldn't prove that rape.. "too bad"?

[edit on 3-4-2009 by riley]

Originally posted by riley

It is about free will because the alternative is removing it. You have (indirectly) just said that free will only applies until a woman gets pregnant and then she is obligated by that responsibilty..

Yes that is what I am saying. You are to be held accountable for the choices you make and you seem to think that is just outrageuous that someone would expect such a thing from those with flirting with life as though you just go by the seat of your pants and whatever happens that may require your plans to be changed you just say ta hell with that?

This is why I think it is true that Godless people like yourself who espouse Atheism saying they are every bit as moral as theist, until morality is required of you. Yeah then it is someone "pushing their m Hell orals down your throat". I suppose we should all have that right to choose with free will letting all parents who work hard raising a family then decide ,, "hey I am not doing what I want to do and these kids are just too much a cramp in my lifestyle"

who decides that? You? So all women whould adhere to your moral views? If a woman is locked up for the duration of pregnancy that IS slavery

Riley, would you please show me where I said we should lock woman in jail that are pregnant? Why must you attempt such dishonesty? I am certain, had I said that, my interloculators would be having a field day.

Your "unless you were raped" argument doesn't hold water either as you could again just say "sometimes life isn't fair"

I could just say that yes but I am pretty sure my argument is based on case law where people who are coerced with the threat of death are vindicated and again I direct you to the term for "mitigating circumstances" They are circumstances beyond your control done by physical force or the threat of death and yes IT HOLDS OCEANS FATHOMS DEEP of water .

to force a rape victim to carry it to term. I'm also a little confused that you would even bother saying "unless you were raped"

Mitigating circumstances and extremely rare too but what is it you feel is so unfair that if a woman raped and forced to be impregnated is not her being being held accountable so much a problem for you ? You think she should be forced to have that baby?

as if you think it's okay to lock a woman up until she gives birth why would you care if women are raped or not?

Look riley! This is the second time you have suggested I have made such an assertion as locking woman up and I am insisting that you STOP LYING! I think we are done, you and I. You obviously can not discuss this without adding sensationalized hyperbole putting words in my mouth then you go and respond to those mis rep-representations as if I had said them when I DIDN'T!

Do you really think women who consented to sex should be abused in such a way?

Oh I don't know riley, why don't you ask yourself, you seem to know me better than I do.

I think for the most part MEN take this for granted more than woman do, however, that being said, Roe VS wade was predicated on the lack of information regarding when LIFE begins.

Incorrect. It was more about protecting a woman's right to medical privacy.. unless you are against that.?

No THAT was the argument brought before the supreme court where the law at that time superceded her rights for the right of the infant and that abortion on demand was denied her because she had already been arrested for violating the abortion law. This is where the argument for the rights of privacy were no longer her rights when they impact another persons rights. The argument for her right to privacy was abridged if they could not determine whether the fetus was a person posessing rights too .


rights of another person

3. The common law. It is undisputed that, at common law, abortion performed before "quickening" -- the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy [n20] -- was not an indictable offense. [n21] The absence [p133] of a common law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins. These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became "formed" or recognizably human, or in terms of when a "person" came into being, that is, infused with a "soul" or "animated." A loose consensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth. [n22] This was "mediate animation." Although [p134] Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that, prior to this point, the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide. Due to continued uncertainty about the precise time when animation occurred, to the lack of any empirical basis for the 40-80-day view, and perhaps to Aquinas' definition of movement as one of the two first principles of life, Bracton focused upon quickening as the critical point. The significance of quickening was echoed by later common law scholars, and found its way into the received common law in this country.

Originally posted by riley

No-one answered how they would enforce this "no abortion" law. Would you have them locked up untill they gave birth?

No, why would you be locked up unless you tried to mutilate yourself where you are now a danger to yourself and the baby. I think then they would consider it. Most people however are not so intent on breaking the law. I have said this before, that some people are alive today MERELY because it is illegal to kill them.

That statement is usually met with righteuous indignation by Pro death advocates which I find amusing since they not only are of the same philosophy, they take it to the extreme, THEY want the RIGHT to do it and are thinking about doing it to someone that is not even born yet but HOW DARE THEM if they even THINK of trying because then their death becomes a foregone conclusion and premeditated to boot.

How about if they were raped.. would they have to prove it when only a fraction of rapes end in conviction? What if they couldn't prove that rape.. "too bad"?

Why does this not surprise me framing an innocent guy for rape si something that would occur to a Pro-life person so intent on killing she would throw anyone under the bus to have that right yet I am supposed to think this is such a hard decision for them to make?

I think it is a narcissistic decision that is easily made because the person making it is hard.

If you just want to make it illegal thats not going to save babies.. it's just going to kill women who have illegal abortions so thats not a more moral road to take.

Interesting you take the moral high ground when it suits you but you.

Considering the tact you have taken with me mis-representing my posts in some caracature of an evil oger jailing all pregnant woman making slaves of them, then asking me my opinion on woman framing guys as rapists just to get an abortion where now someone dies and another innocent this time a full grown man out side of her womb is in prison for twenty years and you ask me my opinion. Gee WHAT do YOU think?

Considering all that, riley, if a woman died at the hands of an illegal abortionist. I think they call that one

POETIC JUSTICE

THREE TIMES I counted where you have DIRECTLY accused me of mispresenting you, have said I am being dishonest and accused me of lieing..? I HAVE DONE NO SUCH THING. The slavery scenario was not even directed at you personally so I find it a bit rich to martre yourself on that point when it was originally a general question to prolifers. Most people would realise that I'm saying that the ONLY way you could stop a woman getting an abortion is to lock her up. If it becomes illegal again they'll be at the mercy of backyarders with rusty knives.

Which you would call "poetic justice."

I spose if they can stop her in time they can.. throw her in jail long enough to give birth? They'll have to make room in their maternity ward.

Don't bother replying as it's clear you can't do so without personal attacks.. and that includes U2Us from your supporters.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by riley]

Originally posted by riley
THREE TIMES I counted where you have DIRECTLY accused me of mispresenting you, have said I am being dishonest and accused me of lieing..? I HAVE DONE NO SUCH THING. The slavery scenario was not even directed at you personally so I find it a bit rich to martre yourself on that point when it was originally a general question to prolifers. Most people would realise that I'm saying that the ONLY way you could stop a woman getting an abortion is to lock her up. If it becomes illegal again they'll be at the mercy of backyarders with rusty knives.

Which you would call "poetic justice."



[edit on 4-4-2009 by riley]

I spose if they can stop her in time they can.. throw her in jail long enough to give birth? They'll have to make room in their maternity ward.

Riley who is she? then you can tell me who "they" are and after that you can tell me why you think someone as intent on maming herself putting herself and a child in danger, someone THAT intent on acting this out should not be considered for observation or held in a padded room. Am I to assume that if you did not have this right to choose abortion as your method of contraception that we can count on you to seek out a back alley abortion, you are that sure of how you would handle it.?

MOST people obey the laws and THAT is part of being responsible also.

MOST people don't consider free will to mean they can do what ever the hell they want.

MOST people would think anyone that intent on having an abortion the money would be better spent on getting spayed!

Further more I called you names?

No an accusation where I am unequivocally certain you mis-represented me not once but three times I am asserting is a patent FACT. Looking at the context of your post and who it says you were responding to, leaves NO DOUBT you were speaking to me.

Or should I say, "who you were speaking FOR". It isn't enough you respond to me using statements I had never made, but now I can't even call you on it ? In case you are unaware of this I will have to be more explicit because it would seem this continues to be a habit of yours as you have DONE it AGAIN!

SEE EXAMPLE BELOW:

Don't bother replying as it's clear you can't do so without personal attacks..

Please share with us Riley, share with us the personal attacks if you would be so kind because THIS is what I call being dishonest and what YOU call being personally attacked. Please share with us what it is I have said that is NOT true and have no right to alledge because I am going to have to ask you take responsibility for vague statements made that look a scandalous bit like another suggestion or perhaps this is an innuendo but if you can be more specific what is meant by:

and that includes U2Us from your supporters.

I have no control of what others are sending you and have given no instruction to that effect anyone should send u2u's to attack you. When you say "Includes" and "Your" supporters, how else can I take this without understanding you are saying I have given such instruction to these alleged supporters. Are we to assume you know who they are but don't want to name them and just why is it you bring that up unless you think I had something to do with that then by all means Riley, don't sugarcoat and hide behind your accusations deliberate ambiguity implying such a thing, Just accuse me of the u2u conspiracy or don't bother making the suggestion. If you are having a problem with u2u's sent from people, I suggest you contact one of the Boards Moderators in a u2u of your own





[edit on 4-4-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
It's one thing to argue what one can do to remove something already alive in a female whose body is quite capable of not only supporting it but also having BOTH survive the unfortunate consequence of a choice she made where the other choice is invasive surgery and the death of a son or daughter that could have been avoided had she been more concerned with the life of someone depending on her to be more considerate of others SHE put there as a result of that choice. The argument she gets to do whatever she wants with her body simply because it is HERS is not true anymore because what she has done is involve the body of another where she is at minimum responsible for it the nine months and the male for 18 years of child support if she so chooses which by the way is also a choice HE made but one he has no say in what so ever and is also enforced by the Government you say should look the otherway for a woman wanting to abort it.

Sure - that's all valid and truthful *if* it was her decision to have a child. Then of course that's a whole different issue. But what if it wasn't her choice? What if she was raped, contraception failed, etc? Just because her body can have the child doesn't mean mentally she's ready for it, or even financially. And in today's world, children cost the earth - it's hugely expensive and consuming.

The same Government that YOU say has no right to tell a woman what she can take out of her body is often the same Government that tells us what we can and can't do with our body in many other cases such as drugs.

No argument from me here. I have no issues with those who wish to use said substances or pursue those avenues. Personally, they aren't for me - but I don't care if people want to. But that's a whole different topic.

Calling this a "Right" to choose what a woman can do with there own body would have better legal grounds as an argument to smoke pot than it does to take the life of another. In both cases she chooses to do something that may have long term effects on her body.

Both can be said were done at the time anyway for her own indulgence and recreation and both can have life and death ramifications that were believed to be possible but wouldn't happen to them but did if in fact a worst case scenario like getting pregnant or getting in a car wreck from taking drugs BOTH were the result of taking something into her body but you think the only one she should have a "Right" to a get out of jail free card is the one that kills an infant without even a manslaughter charge, no nothing but to think her punishment will be her conscience bothering her for the rest of her life. Yeah riiight.

Sigh. Again, this only applies in situations where the woman *wanted* to have a baby. I'm referring to instances where it's an unplanned pregancy, where it was the result of sex being forced upon her or the contraceptive failed. In both cases, pregnancy wasn't intended or wished for, so an abortion in that case is fully justified, IMO.

But then, even if it was but circumstances changed, she should be allowed to have an abortion. Her body, her choice.

When you can get laws that punish us for doing what we want to our bodies for things like smoking pot or whatever, THEN ill think you won't look so pious a feminist with the right to kill a baby for putting sperm in your body as a female the same way one can kill ther own body putting drugs in our bodies.

Uhm I'm a male, actually, so my dealings with sperm are down to the production and distribution of it

And I wouldn't say I'm a "pious feminist" -- I'm a guy who believes people should be able to make their own decisions regarding their bodies and not people like you who sit on a throne believing they're arguing for the 'rights of the child' and all that nonsense. Life isn't fair - it never had been and it never will be.

At the end of the day, it's still a woman's choice and only her choice - no one else's. And you points about using drugs and car crashes as cause/effect examples didn't sway my own belief.


[edit on 4-4-2009 by noonebutme]

Originally posted by noonebutme
And I wouldn't say I'm a "pious feminist" -- I'm a guy who believes people should be able to make their own decisions regarding their bodies and not people like you who sit on a throne believing they're arguing for the 'rights of the child' and all that nonsense. Life isn't fair - it never had been and it never will be.

At the end of the day, it's still a woman's choice and only her choice - no one else's. And you points about using drugs and car crashes as cause/effect examples didn't sway my own belief.

I agree. My point has been is if people want to prevent a woman from having an abortion then they are claiming authority over her own body. Last I checked a women are no longer property of their husbands or fathers and they certainly are not now property of court systems or religious groups and shouldn't be. Again. To claim authority enough over another human being that you can force them to stay pregnant would be turning them into a breeding slave.

.,.and no that is not a personal attack on anyone specifically. That is a very valid point as if it were made illegal pregnant women would have to start accounting for eveything they do with their bodies because it would no longer be their bodies. Welcome back to the dark ages.

..and prolifers thinking they have the right to go prying into people's medical business like it's their business? Is it their business when a woman gets pap smears or have breast examinations? What about what kind of tampons they use? First it's abortions.. then it's whining about women being on the pill which many pro-lifers already do If they genuinely cared about saving babies they wouldn't start stipulating on what forms of contraception they think should be disallowed; they would be encouraging ANY form of contraception yet only the billings method and abstinence are permitted by the pro-life movement. Some don't want to prevent unwanted conception at all.. they want to prevent those unwanted pregnancies being aborted which tells me it's more about imposing their ideals of how women should be rather than actually saving babies.

Go forth and multiply!

..even if those kids aren't wanted.

I admit do not really condone late term abortion.. if it's viable and she wants it out may they may as well do a C section instead but they probably do that already. I'm honestly not sure why a woman would wait till she's nearly to term to abort and I suspect most late term abortions are due to serious medical issues and not just done from evil doctors looking to make a dollar.

my last word on this hopefully.. we seem to be going round and round in circles and it's getting hostile again so it's counter productive.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by riley]

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by noonebutme

Sure - that's all valid and truthful *if* it was her decision to have a child. Then of course that's a whole different issue. But what if it wasn't her choice? What if she was raped, contraception failed, etc? Just because her body can have the child doesn't mean mentally she's ready for it, or even financially. And in today's world, children cost the earth - it's hugely expensive and consuming.

Asked and Answered

No argument from me here. I have no issues with those who wish to use said substances or pursue those avenues. Personally, they aren't for me - but I don't care if people want to. But that's a whole different topic.

Well I happen to think the Government involves itself on those, who, like you, have no problem with others who make stupid choices like those where doing drugs and drinking, have wrought unbelievable sorrow and grief to others as the inevitable colateral damage so often seen when we take the "MY BODY , MY CHOICE" position, when what you want to do is going to kill someone, young, middle age, senior citizen or a innocent infant, where the intent is not only made known someone is imposing a death sentence on another, and the loss of a son or daughter another male may have to suffer through.

Sigh. Again, this only applies in situations where the woman *wanted* to have a baby. .

what are YOU sighing about guy, I'm the one who has just come to the realization I am talking to someone who actually has to explained to him, that woman who "WANT" a baby, usually DON'T GET ABORTIONS.

I'm referring to instances where it's an unplanned pregancy, where it was the result of sex being forced upon her or the contraceptive failed. In both cases, pregnancy wasn't intended or wished for, so an abortion in that case is fully justified, IMO.

But then, even if it was but circumstances changed, she should be allowed to have an abortion. Her body, her choice

the rape issue notwithstanding as I have addressed that, I see what you mean, she should be free to do what she wants with her baby if something unexpected happens because it is HER body and if mistakes happen, then yeah sure I get it. I get that like I get it when someone fills there gut full of booze gets into a car accident killing someone and getting off scott free because THAT part of having fun with his or her body wasn't planned either! Yeah same argument same illogical conclusion based on a get out of jail free card for doing things people like to do that have serious ramifications if we are not held accountable when "accidents" happen.

not people like you who sit on a throne believing they're arguing for the 'rights of the child' and all that nonsense. Life isn't fair - it never had been and it never will be.

Life was given to you FREE of charge pal, so it doesn't owe you a damn dime. I'd say that is a helluva lot more fair than those who sit on a throne of their own arguing for others right to take that life away from them

I'm a guy who believes people should be able to make their own decisions regarding their bodies and At the end of the day, it's still a woman's choice and only her choice - no one else's. And you points about using drugs and car crashes as cause/effect examples didn't sway my own belief.

And I am a guy that thinks people should be held accountable for the choices they make when your argument they didn't PLAN to have a baby is as ridiculous as the drunk driver who didn't plan to get in an accident. and someone dies. Like the pro-choice person, who only wanted to have a good time, so did the drunk and like the pro-choice person they both knew that when you have sex even when you think you won't get pregnant, you know it is always a possibility and a risk you take either driving the car drunk or getting pregnant.

You just don't get it pal, and I hope you never do the way some have learned this by experience. What makes this so much more incidious there is no comparison who is the lesser of the two evils, the drunk is.

The difference is the drunk really didn't plan to kill anyone as a result of what he did with his body filling it full of booze, conversely, the woman didn't plan on getting pregnant letting someone "use her body" filling it full of his sperm but that's not what makes her argument lose a logical foundation for more understanding. You see, while the Drunk doesn't plan on killing someone if he gets too drunk to drive,, the woman on the otherhand, plans on killing that kid,,

before she even knows,

she is pregnant.




[edit on 5-4-2009 by Aermacchi]

My political views could rather accurately be construed as liberal, democratic, left leaning, etc. except for abortion and 'gay marriage'; the latter of which, I would say, should, at most, be left up to the states to decide. In other words, I am pro life and constitution and frown on tragicomically institutionalising the unnatural and awkward. With the usual and expected caveats for abortion due to rape (though this would be problematic as many women would simply cook up rape stories to get their abortion; as if there aren't enough false allegations already, without such a strong incentive), medical reasons, etc. at the mother's discretion.

Abortion however is almost entirely infanticide for convenience. Or, if you will, to avoid an 'inconvenience'.

If you're too poor to afford any of the myriad of contraceptive methods then 'unprotected' sex ought to be the last thing on your mind.

People being too stupid or impulsive to prepare for intercourse with minimal risk of pregnancy is no reason to murder the ensuing 'mistake.'

Sex ed shouldn't be left up to prudish, possibly ignorant themselves or even stupid parents who might postpone discussing such issues too late or might even never touch on such matters of life with their progeny.

To teach these things in school to teens in a respectful and tactful way is not debauchery or institutionalised promiscuity training. It's common sense. It should be tought in biology class. I also believe home schooling should be illegal.

Just as it is common sense for small children to be TRAINED not to touch or come near power outlets. That's how my dad did it, he tricked me into licking the contacts on a 9 volt battery. You'd best believe I steered clear from then on.