A great theory on the anti-Bush fervor

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2004, 3:52 pm

Abortion is bigger than the labels placed upon it here. The anti-abortion, and the pro-abortion causes both seek freedom for the individual.

One group wants freedom of the mother to make decisions about her body. The other group wants freedom for the kid to have a chance at living life.

The problem is not the morality, it's the definition of when life begins. One group places the beginning of life very early, the other places life as beginning after the baby has "more than partially" passed out of the womb.

The definition of the beginning of life is the contention, not the morality of both sides seeking freedom.

One group relies of biblical references to pin life's beginnings as very early, the other group cherishes the conviences of killing the kid and places the definition as far forwards as possible.

Both reliances of both groups alone are not considerate of society. I don't know the magic key to solve the problem. I wish I did.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » August 28, 2004, 3:54 pm

I don't know if this has been posted in this forum before but here is a link to a site I came across with pretty good evidence of the kind of flip-flop lying this administration is willing to accept and take part in..

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp ... VF&b=42263

Thoughts?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2004, 3:59 pm

The enforcement of morality on the heads of people works both ways with Gay Marriage.

One group sees restriction of gay marriage as religious people enforcing their religion on others.

The other group sees legalization of gay marriage as a method towards forcing a moral code of acceptance of something seen as a religious and societal harm.

Both sides see the other as "forcing" their morality on each other.

The arguement itself becomes an impediment to resolving the problem.

I do think I have the magic key solution for this one. Get the government out of the marriage business. Contractual unions for all. Let marriage be defined by non-government groups. Gay folks can get "married" at a church or organization that recognises it. Straight folks can get married at a church or organization that recognizes their preference.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 28, 2004, 4:36 pm

Wow Adex you almost had a reasonable post until you wrote this drivel:

One group relies of biblical references to pin life's beginnings as very early, the other group cherishes the conviences of killing the kid and places the definition as far forwards as possible.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » August 28, 2004, 4:57 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:The enforcement of morality on the heads of people works both ways with Gay Marriage.

One group sees restriction of gay marriage as religious people enforcing their religion on others.

The other group sees legalization of gay marriage as a method towards forcing a moral code of acceptance of something seen as a religious and societal harm.

Both sides see the other as "forcing" their morality on each other.

Not really. You see, we have this thing called the seperation of Church and State. Marriage, as recognized by "the State", provides certain economic and legal privledges.

By denying gays the right to marry, those who do so on religious grounds cite a moral code that encourages unlawful discrimination, which isn't OK (except in Bush's America). You do remember that people feared inter-racial marriages because of the "societal harm" they would cause, yah? Well, using your moral code to create law just doesn't wash in my book.

If the "religious" had any balls, they would GIVE UP all benefits conferred upon them by the State and reign in marriage to their local Holy Holes, where they could feel free to discriminate, hate, and inbreed as much as they wanted.

But that's not most organized religions - spread the good news (even if they don't want to hear it)!

The only way to solve this thing is to create a "government recognized union", anyway. You don't want "them" in your church, fine - that's your decision. You don't want "them" to recieve the same economic and legal privledges because they have identical genitalia? Foffkthx.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 28, 2004, 4:59 pm

Kelshara wrote:Wow Adex you almost had a reasonable post until you wrote this drivel:

One group relies of biblical references to pin life's beginnings as very early, the other group cherishes the conviences of killing the kid and places the definition as far forwards as possible.

Drivel?

You can wrap abortion up with all your cute little euphemisms about "women's rights to choose" and so forth, but in the final analysis Adex is 100% zero'd in... this is about a society and it's grasping for convenience in killing babies.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 28, 2004, 5:03 pm

All I have to say about that is.. the more you talk the easier you make the job for pro-choice people

And yes. Drivel. You should recognise it, you sure post enough of it.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2004, 5:20 pm

Toshira did you read my entire post? I think we agree on the solution.

Society can no longer agree on what the definition of marriage is. Right now the government endorses (through tax benefits) the traditional model.

A good solution to this would be for the government to stop giving marriage licenses at all. Laws should be changed to allow for any group of people to pool their resources together in the form of contractual unions.

Marriage would then reside within the realm and endorsement of private groups.

This arrangement allows gay folk to benefit from the govermental tax breaks just like straight people, and it doesn't force traditional people to celebrate or endorse the idea of gay marriage.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2004, 5:35 pm

Metanis wrote:
Kelshara wrote:Wow Adex you almost had a reasonable post until you wrote this drivel:

One group relies of biblical references to pin life's beginnings as very early, the other group cherishes the conviences of killing the kid and places the definition as far forwards as possible.
Drivel?

You can wrap abortion up with all your cute little euphemisms about "women's rights to choose" and so forth, but in the final analysis Adex is 100% zero'd in... this is about a society and it's grasping for convenience in killing babies.

Not exactly,

I hold that our inablity to agree on a definition of life's beginning is the core contention.

Our grasping is aimed at applying law to something that suffers from the lack of a common definition.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 28, 2004, 6:14 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:
Metanis wrote:
Kelshara wrote:Wow Adex you almost had a reasonable post until you wrote this drivel:

One group relies of biblical references to pin life's beginnings as very early, the other group cherishes the conviences of killing the kid and places the definition as far forwards as possible.
Drivel?

You can wrap abortion up with all your cute little euphemisms about "women's rights to choose" and so forth, but in the final analysis Adex is 100% zero'd in... this is about a society and it's grasping for convenience in killing babies.
Not exactly,

I hold that our inablity to agree on a definition of life's beginning is the core contention.

Our grasping is aimed at applying law to something that suffers from the lack of a common definition.

When faced with a dilemma that forces us to make god-like decisions we can choose not to. I feel no compelling need to make this decision. I choose to force the abortionists to prove they aren't killing human life. At some point in the 9 month gestation period of a human baby the act of abortion becomes murder. Let those who support it split the infinite horns of that dilemma.

Should it be banned outright? No.
Should it be one of the most contentious issues of our time? Absolutely.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » August 28, 2004, 6:33 pm

Metanis wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:
Metanis wrote:
Kelshara wrote:Wow Adex you almost had a reasonable post until you wrote this drivel:

One group relies of biblical references to pin life's beginnings as very early, the other group cherishes the conviences of killing the kid and places the definition as far forwards as possible.
Drivel?

You can wrap abortion up with all your cute little euphemisms about "women's rights to choose" and so forth, but in the final analysis Adex is 100% zero'd in... this is about a society and it's grasping for convenience in killing babies.
Not exactly,

I hold that our inablity to agree on a definition of life's beginning is the core contention.

Our grasping is aimed at applying law to something that suffers from the lack of a common definition.
When faced with a dilemma that forces us to make god-like decisions we can choose not to. I feel no compelling need to make this decision. I choose to force the abortionists to prove they aren't killing human life. At some point in the 9 month gestation period of a human baby the act of abortion becomes murder. Let those who support it split the infinite horns of that dilemma.

Should it be banned outright? No.
Should it be one of the most contentious issues of our time? Absolutely.

Ahhh there we go let's prove negatives...freakin idiot...do you not understand fundamental logic? Please explain how a negative can ever be proven and I will gladly conceed you the point...

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 28, 2004, 6:37 pm

So Metanis are you for or against capital punishment?

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » August 28, 2004, 7:01 pm

No, I stopped reading when I read "A Ursurper".

If this idiot isn't going to bother with the most basic of all grammatical rules, or at least hire an editor, his drivel isn't worth my time.

My disagreement with you is that I think you are trying to draw a parallel between the facists and the fags regarding their desire to impose views on others, when there is none.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » August 28, 2004, 7:55 pm

Isn't Ursurper a bear that steals power? Or did I dream that? Still would be a pretty fucking awesome bear.

Man, I used to think abortion was a tough issue. But the more I hear pro-lifers talk, the more they just sound anti-woman. I could almost buy into the "save the organic tissue" stuff in kind of a psudo-hippy PETA kind of way, but it's sounding more downright militant every day.

Next fucker to take antibiotics is going to get green paint thrown on them by me for killing innocent viruses.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2004, 8:34 pm

Where is your starting point Niffoni?

You mention viruses so I assume you belive a kid isn't alive during he very early stages.

How about right before birth? Is the kid alive then?

How about this? Let's just assume for the sake of arguement that the kid IS alive right before birth. Should the mother still be able to end the kid's life?

Normally people argue abortion limits based upon the definition of where life begins. Do you belive there is a line there? Are the moral reasons to kill a kid? Some places practice infanticide post birth and think nothing of it. Do you?

I'm not trying to bait you. I struggle with this issue on a secular level like any other person. I'm simply curious.

My faith says one thing, but out of respect for the secular world I consider things from outside that perspective in the hopes that there is a resolvable point for both sides.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » August 28, 2004, 8:54 pm

You know, you should differentiate the biological definition of life from the definition we're using here. For intents and purposes we are talking about conscious life. Fair enough, to get me to believe abortion is wrong, you'll have to prove to me that a fetus is conscious. IE that it is a thinking creature the moment there is a fertilized egg present. If not, then at what point does it become conscious? His point was that virii are considered life by the biological definition. But we don't really mean that. Chatting here about it solves nothing. There need to be some tests on fetuses, figure out at what point they become sentient beings.

Are you against eating meat? And if not, why? Cows are pretty smart...

-=Lohrno

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2004, 9:08 pm

Consciousness is an interesting place to put the mark.

Contrast that with people in a coma. We sometimes terminate life support to people who have been unconcious for long periods of time.

Since the beginning of life is so hard to mark, my preference biases WAY into the favor of the kid. aka. no abortons past some early stage in pregnancy.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » August 28, 2004, 9:28 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote: Contrast that with people in a coma. We sometimes terminate life support to people who have been unconcious for long periods of time.

That's sort of the same thing. The thought there is that they will not become conscious. We don't terminate them immediately because they were conscious, and they have a chance of becomming conscious again. With fetuses, they never were consious, so it doesn't matter. They never even knew they existed. Sure they can become conscious, but so can an unfertilized egg or sperm.

-=Lohrno

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » August 28, 2004, 9:33 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Consciousness is an interesting place to put the mark.

Contrast that with people in a coma. We sometimes terminate life support to people who have been unconcious for long periods of time.

Since the beginning of life is so hard to mark, my preference biases WAY into the favor of the kid. aka. no abortons past some early stage in pregnancy.

Right. Since we KNOW that the woman is alive, I whole-heartedly agree that we should make our decisions regarding abortion rights based upon the forever grey spectrum of when a child's life begins.

Why make decisions based upon what we know for sure, when we can make them based on speculation, I always say.

Unless of course, it's a daughter the mother is carrying - shit, whose rights can we ignore first?

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » August 28, 2004, 9:55 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Where is your starting point Niffoni?

Sorry, Adex, the guys are over and it's been a few beers since my post, so I'll try to come back tomorrow and read your response as well as formulate an answer.

Glad someone is willing to give me the other side though.

EDIT: I'll give it a shot. My whole position on the subject is that humanity kills whatever it wants to kill for the sake of convenience, and considers it to be justified. Animals are food, so it's okay to kill them. Germs can cause us problems so it's okay to kill them. Bugs that don't bite are harmless.. why do we kill them? Oh yeah, because they make us go "ew!". If we really decide we reeeally can't live in the same world as someone, we... well... WE don't kill them, we send them to Texas where THEY kill them, and WE pretend to be morally outraged.

I'm sure this doesn't apply to everyone, but a lot of people seem nervous at the idea of women having the ability to kill for their convenience. Meanwhile, the guy who skips town after knocking some girl up is actually fairly likely to get away with it, at least for the most part. Don't get me wrong. Abortion should never be used as a form of birth control... if you just don't like taking responsibility for being a twit who likes to fuck, then you're no better than the deadbeat dads.

But in the end, my opinion doesn't mean shit because I know in my heart of hearts that I will never have to be in the decision to make that kind of choice. Abortion is primarily a woman's issue, and it's up to them to decide if it's "ethical" or not.

Fuck... I'm too drunk to remember, did I hijack this topic, or was it someone else?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 28, 2004, 10:05 pm

Toshira wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:Consciousness is an interesting place to put the mark.

Contrast that with people in a coma. We sometimes terminate life support to people who have been unconcious for long periods of time.

Since the beginning of life is so hard to mark, my preference biases WAY into the favor of the kid. aka. no abortons past some early stage in pregnancy.
Right. Since we KNOW that the woman is alive, I whole-heartedly agree that we should make our decisions regarding abortion rights based upon the forever grey spectrum of when a child's life begins.

Why make decisions based upon what we know for sure, when we can make them based on speculation, I always say.

Unless of course, it's a daughter the mother is carrying - shit, whose rights can we ignore first?

Are you talking about abortion in situations where the mother could die without it? Or are you talking about abortons whenever a mother feels like it?

It's tricky to apply the same rules to both circumstances.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » August 28, 2004, 11:24 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:
Toshira wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:Consciousness is an interesting place to put the mark.

Contrast that with people in a coma. We sometimes terminate life support to people who have been unconcious for long periods of time.

Since the beginning of life is so hard to mark, my preference biases WAY into the favor of the kid. aka. no abortons past some early stage in pregnancy.
Right. Since we KNOW that the woman is alive, I whole-heartedly agree that we should make our decisions regarding abortion rights based upon the forever grey spectrum of when a child's life begins.

Why make decisions based upon what we know for sure, when we can make them based on speculation, I always say.

Unless of course, it's a daughter the mother is carrying - shit, whose rights can we ignore first?

Are you talking about abortion in situations where the mother could die without it? Or are you talking about abortons whenever a mother feels like it?

It's tricky to apply the same rules to both circumstances.

No it's not.

A) Mother = woman = sentient being
B) zygote, baby, fetus, biological mosh pit, whatever = indeterminate

Now, whose rights are more important in this situation, give that this must be a black and white issue, because abortion is not reversible? The rights of a developed sentient being, or the rights of an indeterminate body contained within that being? Giving priority to one nullifies the other. So it's either what baby wants (or what anti-choicers THINK baby wants) is not important, sorry, into the vacuum with you - or- what mom wants is not important, sorry, we know you thought you had free will and control over yourself up to this point, but it was a lie. We'll take over from here.

I don't care if a woman likes to have 15 dicks a night and has had 402 abortions - the suggestion that it's "only ok if she's in mortal danger (!)" is applying a conditional to when she can make the choice, or, "you" imposing your beliefs on her.

This should be a moot issue anyway, if dickhead Bush didn't block all testing on drugs like RU-486 etc. Hooray executive orders.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » August 30, 2004, 2:08 am

Toshira, your viewpoint loses grounding when you consider the kid is alive at some point. At that point the mother's convienence is secondary to the kid's right to live.

But we've heard all of this before.

Rights of the kid and mother depend on the definition of life's beginning. And that is the primary contention. Solve that question, and then we're able to form law that both sides agree on.

Sadly the task isn't easy to accomplish.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » August 30, 2004, 3:05 am

Much

for 2 guys talking about abortion rights

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 30, 2004, 3:38 am

Thess wrote:Much for 2 guys talking about abortion rights

I prefer men ignore the abortion issue. It's none of their business! Only children should talk about children's rights..only people in comas should talk about what to do with people in comas...

Unless you weren't being cynical...but from what I've read on this board, it seems women only know what's best when it comes to abortion and for some reason it's off limits for men to debate as opposed to any other topic that people aren't directly affected by.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » August 30, 2004, 4:40 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:Toshira, your viewpoint loses grounding when you consider the kid is alive at some point. At that point the mother's convienence is secondary to the kid's right to live.

But we've heard all of this before.

Rights of the kid and mother depend on the definition of life's beginning. And that is the primary contention. Solve that question, and then we're able to form law that both sides agree on.

Sadly the task isn't easy to accomplish.

Right. Devoting 18 and 3/4 years to another entity is simply a matter of convienence.

Where does the unborn entity's right to life come from, anyway? Not from a religious standpoint, but legally? It's from the Declaration of Independance (I assume you won't have a problem substituting the word "men" with "people"). Of course, those pretty words didn't stop there. They also include "Liberty" and that wacky "Pursuit of Happiness". At what point does the holy trinity of rights for an unborn entity supercede the rights of someone who is already here?

Even if I were agree with you (which I don't), that life begins at conception, you've got two entities then whose rights and interests may conflict with one another. At some point, you are saying that the rights of the mother are less important than the rights of the unborn entity, the rights of the legally indeterminate are more important than the rights of the legally established.

You're right. It might be easier if we could agree on when "life" began - but we can't. Thankfully, the SC (oh those whacky activist judges!) recognized that legislation created to protect the rights of that Which Is Yet To Come, is idiotic. What precedent do you want to create? Protect the rights of JimBobJoeSlim born 500 years from now?

And yes Thess, I do recognize the irony >< Two dicks arguing about what a woman should do with her body is pretty pathetic, in that it misses the fundamental point - it's not our fucking choice to make.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 30, 2004, 7:37 am

ever since the erudite Adlai Stevenson lost to the syntactically challenged Dwight Eisenhower in 1952

I stopped reading at this point. I've just read a biography of Eisenhower and though he may not have been much of one for high-falutin' tastes he was excellent at expressing himself and about as far from syntactically challenged as you can get.
Til the stroke anyway.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 30, 2004, 7:37 am

Metanis wrote:
Kelshara wrote:Wow Adex you almost had a reasonable post until you wrote this drivel:

One group relies of biblical references to pin life's beginnings as very early, the other group cherishes the conviences of killing the kid and places the definition as far forwards as possible.
Drivel?

You can wrap abortion up with all your cute little euphemisms about "women's rights to choose" and so forth, but in the final analysis Adex is 100% zero'd in... this is about a society and it's grasping for convenience in killing babies.

Calling a fetus that cant think for itself or live without the host is as assanine as calling a sperm cell a full grown man. We pull the plug on "vegetables" ever day, fetuses are even less developed then one of those, specially before the 1st three months.
Of course you all forget to realize the world is over-fucking population, hell it already is very overpopulated. We dont have enough resources to hold 8 billion fucking people in 25 years. If we dont do something soon we will have to impliment the same rule as China soon (1 child per family)
This may be a bit extreme but society should be encouraging that as it is.

murr · Post by **murr** » August 30, 2004, 10:30 am

JESUS WANTS BUSH TO WIN!

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 30, 2004, 10:33 am

Xzion wrote:
Metanis wrote:
Kelshara wrote:Wow Adex you almost had a reasonable post until you wrote this drivel:

One group relies of biblical references to pin life's beginnings as very early, the other group cherishes the conviences of killing the kid and places the definition as far forwards as possible.
Drivel?

You can wrap abortion up with all your cute little euphemisms about "women's rights to choose" and so forth, but in the final analysis Adex is 100% zero'd in... this is about a society and it's grasping for convenience in killing babies.
Calling a fetus that cant think for itself or live without the host is as assanine as calling a sperm cell a full grown man. We pull the plug on "vegetables" ever day, fetuses are even less developed then one of those, specially before the 1st three months.
Of course you all forget to realize the world is over-fucking population, hell it already is very overpopulated. We dont have enough resources to hold 8 billion fucking people in 25 years. If we dont do something soon we will have to impliment the same rule as China soon (1 child per family)
This may be a bit extreme but society should be encouraging that as it is.

Convenience.

I can't believe you are arguing that it's OK to kill people merely for the sake of convenience of those already here. How utterly selfish.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 30, 2004, 10:40 am

Kelshara wrote:So Metanis are you for or against capital punishment?

I'm against capital punishment. You will find I've posted this postion before on other threads here.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 30, 2004, 1:34 pm

Toshira wrote: And yes Thess, I do recognize the irony >< Two dicks arguing about what a woman should do with her body is pretty pathetic, in that it misses the fundamental point - it's not our fucking choice to make.

Discussing an issue is not the same as being the decision maker of the issue.

What if a man would have come up with a brilliant idea for something to replace tampons but it never came to fruition because tampons don't affect the male body? Just because something is discussed and debated doesn't mean the ultimate decision is made by anyone but the individual in question.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » August 30, 2004, 1:47 pm

Metanis wrote:Convenience.

I can't believe you are arguing that it's OK to kill people merely for the sake of convenience of those already here. How utterly selfish.

Why else would you kill? Amusement? Sicko.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » August 30, 2004, 3:08 pm

Winnow wrote:
Toshira wrote: And yes Thess, I do recognize the irony >< Two dicks arguing about what a woman should do with her body is pretty pathetic, in that it misses the fundamental point - it's not our fucking choice to make.
Discussing an issue is not the same as being the decision maker of the issue.

What if a man would have come up with a brilliant idea for something to replace tampons but it never came to fruition because tampons don't affect the male body? Just because something is discussed and debated doesn't mean the ultimate decision is made by anyone but the individual in question.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 30, 2004, 3:27 pm

Niffoni wrote:
Metanis wrote:Convenience.

I can't believe you are arguing that it's OK to kill people merely for the sake of convenience of those already here. How utterly selfish.
Why else would you kill? Amusement? Sicko.

Because the earth is getting overpopulated? We are expanding exponentially....somewhere it has to give.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 30, 2004, 3:30 pm

Actually....I am not for abortion so much. I think that in certain cases it is an option, but to kill a fetus simply because you can't control your own fucking urges is complete and utterly absurd. If I was in office, I would call for Government mandated subsidies for women and men to be sterilized. I would also require these fucking animals to be spayed and/or neutered before they were able to receive cash from welfare. We should not be paying taxes for baby factories to pump out unwanted kids just so they can be paid more for not working.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » August 30, 2004, 3:41 pm

Abortion Issue

Point 1. Definition of Life

Current legal standing grants limited rights to minors (under the age of 18). Those rights decrease with age (non-linear) unto nothing. An egg (prior to conception) is a living organism. Following conception and gestation period of approximately 9 months, a child is born. At some point during this process, the embryo must pass a legal milestone. This milestone is incredibly difficult to pin down and has traditionally not relied upon scientific method.

Candidate notions:

An entity is considered a human being when it possesses the immediate capacity for sentient thought.

An entity is considered a human being when it is a viable, self sufficient organism able to survive outside of the biological contact with another human.

Both candidate solutions have their limitations. As medical advances progress, it is likely and perhaps inevitable that babies surgically removed from their mother at earlier and earlier stages of the pregnancy could be nurtured to maturity through technological substitutes.

Basing the definition on a presently unmeasurable capacity for sentient thought will be a rough scientific approximation at best and opens the door for many unpleasant corrolaries to this ruling.

I am inclined to believe say that when a baby could survive in "the outside world" without crafting a fully synthetic womb that this entity is a human being. I reserve the right to refine my opinion as technology and my/our understanding of life evolve over time.

Miscellaneous

It is clear that many pro-life people do not seem to appreciate that there are perfectly normal, healthy, married, heterosexual couples in America that conceive and find that their baby has horrendous birth defects. These babies could cause significant danger to a mother to carry to term and would inevitably lead to a baby that lived for several years, or just enough time to amass a lifetime of medical debt for the ill prepared couple. This is coupled by the less tangible emotional damage done to the parents.

It seems to me that many pro-life people seem unconcerned with the ramifications of banning abortion. The concerns of the massive financial and emotional long term commitments that are being made for a person by a government that bans abortion seem of lesser consequence.

Scenarios:

Imagine the 13 year old girl from a poor neighborhood. She has it bad enough as it is with her own life, but for our intellectual excercise, we are going to hit her with tragic circumstances. She is raped by her own stepfather in her own home. She is forced to carry the child to term at the age of 14. As it stands today, orphanages are already overworked, but in our hypothetical world they are now totally unable to accept this girl's new baby. As a result, she is not only forced to carry that child to term, but she is now forced to live her life caring for it and raising it when still a child herself.

Imagine the young couple in their 20s. They aren't the wealthiest couple on the block, but they do well enough. There is a history of genetic diseases in the family on one side and after responsible testing it is discovered that the other half carries the resessive gene. Any attempt at pregnancy will be a crap shoot to see if they can manage to conceive of a child that does not carry the genetic disease. As luck would have it, they are shit out of luck. They have tests done early on in the pregnancy to discover that the wife is carrying a serious deformed baby. Carrying the child to term could be dangerous for her, but she has no choice. The delivery goes well enough under the circumstances, stretching the couple's budget. They now can look forward to a 1-8 year period of "raising" a child in one hospital or another before the child dies. By thirty, they have outlived their only child and amassed enough debt to make Bush's spending look like a bad day at the mall.

A sweet 30 year old woman (recently widowed) is living in New York City. One night, she is raped by an unknown number of men. The emotional damage of this event may scar her for life and the physical damage to her body has left her ill equipped for the pregnancy. Unfortunately, she is shit of out luck and will have to suck it up because some older, mid-income (probably) white men decided that she does have the right to "murder" her "baby" (she probably had it coming anyway!).

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » August 30, 2004, 3:47 pm

One interesting hair splitting excercise to follow:

Food for thought:
Removing the fetus from the womb is not necessarily murder. So, if it were possible to transplant the fetus into a host (biological or not) that wanted to carry the baby to term, would that be an acceptable alternative to abortion for you prolifers? Most importantly in the cases of people who couldn't afford the support anyway, but in general, how would you proprose to support those children?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 30, 2004, 3:56 pm

Until we have universally available, 100% effective, zero-side effect birth control, abortions must remain legal.

Personally, I think that we should have MANDATORY birth control, and people should have to apply for breeding permits. Everything else requires a license, why not the most important activity in human existance?

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » August 30, 2004, 3:59 pm

masteen wrote:Until we have universally available, 100% effective, zero-side effect birth control, abortions must remain legal.

Personally, I think that we should have MANDATORY birth control, and people should have to apply for breeding permits. Everything else requires a license, why not the most important activity in human existance?

I have had wonderful, well adjusted, polite, intelligent friends that had parents that clear should have been aborted themselves let alone been allowed to reproduce. As a result, the license issue would prevent the birth of too many "good apples". On the flip side, I have known some incredibly nice, good looking, intelligent parents that have had some seriously screwed up children.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 30, 2004, 4:03 pm

Thess wrote:Much for 2 guys talking about abortion rights

Only current and former members of the armed forces should decide when we go to war.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » August 30, 2004, 4:09 pm

Metanis wrote:
Thess wrote:Much for 2 guys talking about abortion rights
Only current and former members of the armed forces should decide when we go to war.

Those two are not equal. Men talking about abortion would match with "only those people who could potentially fight a war should decide when we go to war."

The match to your comment on war would be: "Only women who have had or are having abortion should have the right to decide its legality".

In conclusion, your shitty logical failed you.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 30, 2004, 4:17 pm

archeiron wrote:In conclusion, your shitty logical failed you.

I have an appointment with a mechanic for the morning to get that looked at!

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 30, 2004, 4:18 pm

Only current and former members of the armed forces should decide when we go to war.

I'd almost agree with that! Except change it to "Only current and former members of the armed forces who have been in war should decide when we go to war"

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 30, 2004, 4:19 pm

Kelshara wrote:
Only current and former members of the armed forces should decide when we go to war.
I'd almost agree with that! Except change it to "Only current and former members of the armed forces who have been in war should decide when we go to war"

Then we'd have to have wars just to keep them in practice.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 30, 2004, 4:25 pm

When the topic of abortion comes up, logic flies out the window and emotion takes over. It never fails.

Only first time posters should determine our policy on jackasses. They have one shot to post how they feel, afterwards they are no longer jackasses and can't comment.

Unfortunately, most jackasses don't know they're jackasses until it's too late!

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » August 30, 2004, 4:50 pm

Metanis wrote:
archeiron wrote:In conclusion, your shitty logical failed you.
I have an appointment with a mechanic for the morning to get that looked at!

Be carefull! Those lousy logic mechanics will tell you that you have a faulty spacial reasoning module and try to hit you up for parts and labour for perfectly functioning skills!

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » August 30, 2004, 7:42 pm

Metanis wrote:
Kelshara wrote:So Metanis are you for or against capital punishment?
I'm against capital punishment. You will find I've posted this postion before on other threads here.

So Metanis how do you feel about letting your tank die 7 times in a night?

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 30, 2004, 8:04 pm

Pherr the Dorf wrote:
Metanis wrote:
Kelshara wrote:So Metanis are you for or against capital punishment?
I'm against capital punishment. You will find I've posted this postion before on other threads here.
So Metanis how do you feel about letting your tank die 7 times in a night?

My attention was diverted trying to think of witty one-line comebacks on VV...

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » August 30, 2004, 8:24 pm

I have the reasoning behind the anti-Bush fervor. He's a tool. Continue the abortion debate.