Pro abortion or not

[Bad Writer]

Nu

I started to reply to this but it degenerated into an inarticulate stream of abuse so I'll wait until my brain is not quite so full of Fuck.

Ok. Have simmered down a bit. However I've decided not to reply to your post in detail. I'm here on this forum for fun an not to rake over old scars simply to refute the asinine ramblings of an ignorant arsewipe (sorry). So I'll concede all points (unless anyone else wants a go). You win lion.

Just because he flung his dung in your face in no way means that he won anything. All those who have read your posts here know who the true victor is, especially since your views in no way attempt take away a person's right to choose. Arsehole is as arsehole does.

[WesOlsen]

I didnt hear any arguments from you. Black OR white. For or against. So it seems that YOU are the one going for the beige, custom-fit, do whatever you feel is right morality.
How does that feel? Laodicean?
Nice? Comfortable? Popular?

Perhaps like most other people on this forum, he concedes that the debate is complex and acknowledges that there are numerous different scenarios which could lead to an abortion being considered. Unlike you, rational humans have to wrestle with a great many ethical references, they don't just spout the ludicrous dogma from one ludicrous book and demand the moral highground. Deriving your entire moral compass from one highly dubious piece of dark-age shite is the real crime here. As if anyone is going to take moral advice from someone who has been exposed to very little philosophy and even less science. The one book solution fails again.

And you agreed with someone who holds two mutually exclusive positions?

If we consider the plethora of different scenarios that could lead to a couple or individual considering an abortion then it's no surprise that people could hold multiple, context dependent opinions. That's probably hard for you to swallow because you naively believe that your ridiculous book of religious propaganda contains everything you need to know, despite being so utterly vague regarding certain rulings that not even christians can agree.

This is not an "an emotive and complex" issue - not even for strong opponents of abortion-on-demand. Saving one life as opposed to definitely losing TWO, is a moral no-brainer.

Are these morals derived from the good book? I seem to recall it contains quite a few stories in which multiple lives were anihilated for next to no reason. What were you saying about things being a moral no-brainer? Depends from whence you derive your morals I suppose, jackass.

So please dont try to equate that life saving medical intervention with the elective destruction of healthy unborn babies.

They're called non-viable and pre-viable for a reason dipshit, because they're so underdeveloped that they wouldn't last 10 seconds outside of the mother's womb. As already mentioned they're a cluster of cells that don't yet represent an infant child. No cognition, no functioning CNS etc. Not that medical/scientific conclusions ever satisfied you cranks.

I would argue that the medical treatment of patients with ectopic pregnancies is a moral question of whether one or both lives can be saved.
The pro-life position would be that saving one life is better than losing two.

Again, what ashame that the good book is filled to the brink with tales of innane killing and inherited sin.

What percentage of the millions of abortions performed each year do you think are necessary to save the life of the mother?

It doesn't really matter, they're early stage and don't yet constitute human life. Science is agreed on that.

If you want to see hypocrisy writ-large, chat to a pro-choicer who opposes circumcision. You can abort an unborn baby but parents who circumcise their new born babies butchers.)

A newborn baby is alive and kicking. It is exposed to the elements and medical science is agreed that they constitute an individual life in their own right. Abuse of a born child is quite different to aborting something that is not considered an individual life. Circumcision is grim but probably doesn't compare to the long-term, systematic psychological guilt-cycle abuse forced on to children in Baptist and other denominational communities. No need to discuss the physical abuse endemic in many christian communities the world over.

Its an interesting paradox that the supporters of abortion on-demand chant... it's a womans body, its a womans choice, mind your own business, right up until the baby is born, and then it's the taxpayers job to step up and support unmarried moms if her choice of fertility partner leaves her.

Spoken like a true right-wing cunt. Funnily enough in most parts of the developed world, welfare isn't a derogatory term thrown at non god-fearing republican wankers. Once a baby is born then child abuse becomes a matter of public interest, it's everyones business (which is why so many people show disgust towards religious child abuse). A non-viable foetus is the parent's concern only. Funny how your analogy, typical amongst your ilk, ignored the potential taxpayer contributions made by the hypothetical mother and father. Interesting how right-wing religious nuts seem to think that they're the only ones paying taxes and legislating 'right' and 'wrong'. You better get used to not dictating the world's ethical makeup, secular politics doesn't need your irrational bed-time stories. Prick.

[Tiberius]

The world is overpopulated as is. We can't maintain the population growth we currently have. Because of that, the last thing we need is to force more people to have babies against their will.

Current statistics actually do not support this position. The world is not overpopulated; we can support this many people and more, but the wealth / food is not distributed well enough so a lot of people are still in poverty.

The population growth is actually less than you probably think it is. This is due to us reaching what is known as "peak child". The number of children in the world is expected to remain the same (around 2 billion) for the future, and the only increases to global population will come from medical advances that mean less people die and people in general live longer.

I encourage you to watch the following documentary (free) for some great explanations:

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-pan...opulation/

[Doubting Thomas]

I would argue that the medical treatment of patients with ectopic pregnancies is a moral question of whether one or both lives can be saved.
The pro-life position would be that saving one life is better than losing two.

Except for the "pro-life" members who wanted Dr. Tiller dead.

That's right, he was performing medically necessary late-term abortions. Medically necessary. As in, both he and another doctor had to sign off on stating that the abortion was medically necessary. It's not like he was rounding up pregnant women and ripping babies from their bellies, as ex-Attorney General* Phil Kline and Bill O'Reilly always insinuated. And yet, some wonderful "pro-lifer" by the name of Scott Roeder decided to be judge, jury, and executioner and killed a doctor who was performing medically necessary abortions. Now, hardly any doctors in the country are willing to perform late-term abortions due to domestic terrorism, and women's health is at risk.

Even if they aren't medically necessary, it's still none of your fucking business who has an abortion or why.



*Phil Kline was the Attorney General of Kansas and made his sole mission upon being elected nothing more than putting Dr. Tiller in jail. However at his trial Dr. Tiller successfully showed that all the abortions he performed were medically necessary and was acquitted. Phil Kline, on the other hand, lost reelection and later lost his law license due to ethics violations regarding illegally accessed private medical records of women who had abortions.

[JohnCrichton72]

Sorry John Crichton but this subject has the the shit beaten out of it.

I notice no poll, and that the majority of posts are just rehash from other threads. over the past year or more.

For your records...I am pro-choice of the woman involved.

I just recently joined and haven't yet mastered all of the little tid bits of the site such as adding polls.


I didn't mind being wrong, but, most of the posts seemed like proselytising, rehashed propaganda.
I honestly feel completely alienated from the majority of this forums community because of the responses, I don't think I am in any way more intelligent when I say this as I know people can be dumb about certain things yet still retain innately high reasoning faculties and be extremely well read;

The universal condoning of abortion with horrible libtarb, overtly feministic to the point of sexist reasoning makes me think it's time to move on from this forum already.

[NoraBrimstone]

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

The world is overpopulated as is. We can't maintain the population growth we currently have. Because of that, the last thing we need is to force more people to have babies against their will.

Current statistics actually do not support this position. The world is not overpopulated; we can support this many people and more, but the wealth / food is not distributed well enough so a lot of people are still in poverty.

The population growth is actually less than you probably think it is. This is due to us reaching what is known as "peak child". The number of children in the world is expected to remain the same (around 2 billion) for the future, and the only increases to global population will come from medical advances that mean less people die and people in general live longer.

I encourage you to watch the following documentary (free) for some great explanations:

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-pan...opulation/

So forced redistribution of wealth and food?

What's the plan?

I mean, whether population is a problem or not, generally fewer people = less problems socioecologically.

[feeling]

Current statistics actually do not support this position. The world is not overpopulated; we can support this many people and more, but the wealth / food is not distributed well enough so a lot of people are still in poverty.

The population growth is actually less than you probably think it is. This is due to us reaching what is known as "peak child". The number of children in the world is expected to remain the same (around 2 billion) for the future, and the only increases to global population will come from medical advances that mean less people die and people in general live longer.

I encourage you to watch the following documentary (free) for some great explanations:

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-pan...opulation/

So forced redistribution of wealth and food?

What's the plan?

I mean, whether population is a problem or not, generally fewer people = less problems socioecologically.

So can we kill you?

[Lemonvariable72]

Current statistics actually do not support this position. The world is not overpopulated; we can support this many people and more, but the wealth / food is not distributed well enough so a lot of people are still in poverty.

The population growth is actually less than you probably think it is. This is due to us reaching what is known as "peak child". The number of children in the world is expected to remain the same (around 2 billion) for the future, and the only increases to global population will come from medical advances that mean less people die and people in general live longer.

I encourage you to watch the following documentary (free) for some great explanations:

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-pan...opulation/

So forced redistribution of wealth and food?

What's the plan?

I mean, whether population is a problem or not, generally fewer people = less problems socioecologically.

.... Who the fuck said anything about forcing it? It mostly because of how modern economics policies set forth by organizations like the imf Have cause debt in the developing world to ballooon.
This is worth reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavily_ind..._countries
Basically the most import step to fixing this damn world is in issues like solving third world debt.

[genkaus]

Not much. I'm aware of a lot of men who didn't/don't pay their child support.

Are they legally excused from paying it or can the mother still drag them to court.

And anyway, why shouldn't he pay child support? Oh, wait -- he WASN'T half responsible for the "consequences" of his decision to have sex?

While the woman had the CHOICE to avoid the consequences of having sex if she'd chosen to terminate the pregnancy - no such choice was available to the man.

I can't decide which side of the abortion issue you're on. Is she irresponsible if she has the baby? Or if she chooses to abort?

I'm pro-choice - through and through. The question of irresponsibility here does not matter. Whether or not they were being irresponsible, the woman gets to choose whether or not to avoid having the responsibility of the baby. The man is stuck with her choice - which as a pro-choice advocate, I find galling.

Here's the point: If the man "chooses" to stick around or if he doesn't, the woman must live with the result of an unwanted pregnancy no matter what choice he makes. She HAS no choice in the matter. Guy takes off for Bimini? She still has the baby. Don't you see that? Really?

But she does have a choice - of terminating it. And as decisions go, that one is easier to carry out that abandoning your life, your job, your friends and your family and moving to Bimini.