You want Contraversy? You can't handle it!

[Stopper]

And while I don't believe it a sin to have sex before marriage, I realize that it is bad. .

Nonsense. When I was 10, I knew my birthday, my parent's wedding date, and the average length of gestation...and worked out I owe my life to it

Funny you should bring that up... you also owe your life to the fact that your mom did not have an abortion.

I'd say touche, but I somehow think I'd have been somewhat less than indifferent if she HAD done.

And hence you'd be indifferent if they hadn't had sex?

Exactly.

[subdork]

And hence you'd be indifferent if they hadn't had sex?

Exactly.

Now you've got me confused.
Your point seemed to be that premarital isn't bad because it resulted in you. Now you say it wouldn't bother you if you never existed? Now, I know nothing can bother something that doesn't exist. But put it this way, if you knew that you would cease to exist in the past present and future 2 minutes from now, that wouldn't bother you?

You can't have it both ways. You can't be happy that your parents conceived you but not care that your mom carried you to full term.


And I'm not saying there aren't gaping holes in the pro-life argument. I can think of one that's huge... less black and white than the flaw in your logic, but perhaps more crucial... I wonder if anybody can guess what it is?

[cowshrptrn]

IN closing, the church is going against one of our most arcane instinct that has been rooted into our subconscious through millions of yeras of evolution because they feel that its "immoral" and give no backing as to why it is except for the fact that they say so.

There's plenty of reasons given, if not by the church, then by science. A fetus has human DNA, thus making it human. It's DNA is distinct from the mother's DNA, thus making it not part of the mother.

I love how you turn to sceince when it suits you and regard it as blasphemy when it doesn't. Just because something has human DNA does not make it a "human life". My skin cells aren't a human life.

If it has the potential to be life also doesn't make it a human life, If someone is getting in-vitro fertilization they are inseminated with several fertilized eggs with the knowledge that most of them won't attach to the uterus and not become a life. Are you going to say to the fertility clinics performing in-vitro fertilization that they are intentionally killing several babies?

If they perform in-vitro fertilization on a mother who they know has a very low chance of acutally getting a child, are the doctors murderers when several zygotes all die becasue the mother's uterus isn't funtioning in a healthy manner?

wow...that amy chick...what an idiot...she has no morals. Letting babies being killed and rapists being aloud to walk streets....she is a freakin idiot.

Theres something called patient privacy, if the child, since she's a minor her parents as well, doesn't wish for others to view her private records then the doctors are bound by law not to reveal it. You can't run around pointing fingers at the doctors when you have no idea what's going on. By not releasing the rapist's name who is being affected? The child and her parents, all of whom don't want the name given for any multitude of reasons.

[Stopper]

And hence you'd be indifferent if they hadn't had sex?

Exactly.

Now you've got me confused.
Your point seemed to be that premarital isn't bad because it resulted in you. Now you say it wouldn't bother you if you never existed? Now, I know nothing can bother something that doesn't exist. But put it this way, if you knew that you would cease to exist in the past present and future 2 minutes from now, that wouldn't bother you?

You can't have it both ways. You can't be happy that your parents conceived you but not care that your mom carried you to full term.


And I'm not saying there aren't gaping holes in the pro-life argument. I can think of one that's huge... less black and white than the flaw in your logic, but perhaps more crucial... I wonder if anybody can guess what it is?

It's perfectly simple...

You're confusing the argument by wilfully equating conception to non-abortion.

I am here now, so I cannot be indifferent to the fact I was conceived AND carried to full term.

Had either of these conditions not been fulfilled, "I" would never have come into being. So I wouldn't even be in a position to BE indifferent.

EDIT: missed out a crucial word

[Backglass]

There's plenty of reasons given, if not by the church, then by science. A fetus has human DNA, thus making it human.

OMG...I killed four humans today. My toenails...they have DNA. I never realized. Not to mention the countless lives you guys kill daily by "spilling your seed". Isnt that in your bible? YOU BABY-KILLERS!

Many times for men, it is their instinct to have sex with attractive women, whether the woman wants to or not (I would imagine this to be especially true in early human development). It is instinct to have sex with any girl that has gone through puberty.

LOL...Wow...what a lopsided view of the sexes. Of course women NEVER want to have sex with attractive men, whether they want it or not. I have news for you...it is a known medical fact that women on average have a HIGHER sex drive than men and are more sexual in general. Your "men only want to screw" and "women are pure & chaste" view is very victorian and actually backwards.

[subdork]

IN closing, the church is going against one of our most arcane instinct that has been rooted into our subconscious through millions of yeras of evolution because they feel that its "immoral" and give no backing as to why it is except for the fact that they say so.

There's plenty of reasons given, if not by the church, then by science. A fetus has human DNA, thus making it human. It's DNA is distinct from the mother's DNA, thus making it not part of the mother.

I love how you turn to sceince when it suits you and regard it as blasphemy when it doesn't. Just because something has human DNA does not make it a "human life". My skin cells aren't a human life.

Your skin cells are indeed a part of you. They are a piece of a human being, as evidenced by the DNA inside their nuclei.
They don't constitute the entirety of you, and so they cannot be considered a separate human being, however. They have the same DNA as the rest of you, and hence they are a piece of you: a human being.
A fetus has human DNA, and hence the cells of a fetus are part of a human being. That DNA is not that of the mother's, and therefore those cells are a part of a different human being.

So what is human life? Oh, yeah, I forgot, magically when the umbilical cord is cut, human life comes into being. And, I'd really like to know where I called science blasphemy! Please, please, if you respond, point that one out to me.

If it has the potential to be life also doesn't make it a human life, If someone is getting in-vitro fertilization they are inseminated with several fertilized eggs with the knowledge that most of them won't attach to the uterus and not become a life. Are you going to say to the fertility clinics performing in-vitro fertilization that they are intentionally killing several babies?

If they perform in-vitro fertilization on a mother who they know has a very low chance of acutally getting a child, are the doctors murderers when several zygotes all die becasue the mother's uterus isn't funtioning in a healthy manner?

Actually, yes, in-vitro fertilization is wrong. Not only is it fundamentally wrong, but has negative side-effects on society as a whole.

[subdork]

There's plenty of reasons given, if not by the church, then by science. A fetus has human DNA, thus making it human.

OMG...I killed four humans today. My toenails...they have DNA. I never realized. Not to mention the countless lives you guys kill daily by "spilling your seed". Isnt that in your bible? YOU BABY-KILLERS!

Take a biology class. Sperm and Eggs only have half the chromosomes of a human cell.

Many times for men, it is their instinct to have sex with attractive women, whether the woman wants to or not (I would imagine this to be especially true in early human development). It is instinct to have sex with any girl that has gone through puberty.

LOL...Wow...what a lopsided view of the sexes. Of course women NEVER want to have sex with attractive men, whether they want it or not. I have news for you...it is a known medical fact that women on average have a HIGHER sex drive than men and are more sexual in general. Your "men only want to screw" and "women are pure & chaste" view is very victorian and actually backwards.

Wow, are you silly. I never said women didn't have a sex drive. I was giving an example of bad instincts. Wow. How about countering the point I made instead of inferring something that I didn't say.

Seems to be what people are up to these days.

Anyway, I've got to go tutor some kid in like 15 minutes. I'll try to respond to all the inane replies some time later tonight

[Stopper]

Anyway, I've got to go tutor some kid in like 15 minutes. I'll try to respond to all the inane replies some time later tonight

You might get further if you didn't call people's replies "inane". So far, nothing you have said is very convincing, and seems to be riddled with "flawed logic".

[cowshrptrn]

If it has the potential to be life also doesn't make it a human life, If someone is getting in-vitro fertilization they are inseminated with several fertilized eggs with the knowledge that most of them won't attach to the uterus and not become a life. Are you going to say to the fertility clinics performing in-vitro fertilization that they are intentionally killing several babies?

If they perform in-vitro fertilization on a mother who they know has a very low chance of acutally getting a child, are the doctors murderers when several zygotes all die becasue the mother's uterus isn't funtioning in a healthy manner?

Actually, yes, in-vitro fertilization is wrong. Not only is it fundamentally wrong, but has negative side-effects on society as a whole.

I'm jsut curious, how does in-vitro fertilization have a negative side effect on society? I knwo in-vitro exists and the only effects on soceity i've seen from it are that mothers are happy that they can now have a child that's their own. Not everyone is altruistic enough to adopt a child, and if they are then they should probably adopt from a foreign country where the child is likely to die of starvation or diease (and since it has a developed brain and pain and hunger receptors at this point its not like a fetus in case that morbid counter-argument ever crossed your mind)

If beign altruistic enough to adopt a child was a requirement for having one then this planet would have a huge population crisis.

[Backglass]

Take a biology class. Sperm and Eggs only have half the chromosomes of a human cell.

Why then is contraception such a horrible sin? I would suggest that the Pope take a biology class.

Wow, are you silly.

On THAT we can agree!

I never said women didn't have a sex drive.

Thats right...you didnt!

Seems to be what people are up to these days.

Now see, I thought that making overtly religious new topics was the new thing.

[subdork]

To Backglass:

"...I don't believe it a sin to have sex before marriage" -subdork

"Why then is contraception such a horrible sin? I would suggest that the Pope take a biology class. " -Backglass

Oh my God, sadly, this is the closest I can get to a statement that resembles me talking about contraception.
I had no idea that I had to defend the pope's statements as well as my own as well.



"LOL...Wow...what a lopsided view of the sexes. Of course women NEVER want to have sex with attractive men, whether they want it or not. I have news for you..." -Backglass


And yes, thanks for now agreeing that I never stated that women don't have a sex drive.
Seems like you were going the opposite direction when you posted the above quote. Seems like you were willing to put words into my mouth just so that you didn't have to refute what I was saying.




To cowshrptrn:

In-vitro vertilization decreases the number of mothers that adopt orphans and children that have been taken from abusive parents. The result is that you have foster parents who "take care" of the children so that they can cash the fat government check. I know this because my ex-girlfriend's mom is a foster mom, and while she isn't a bad one, she can rattle off a dozen or so just in the state of Maine. My friend in Manhattan lives in the same building with a woman who has 12 foster kids... none of them doing too well.

So, maybe adopting is altruistic. But guess what, altruism has a positive effect on society! If there was no in-vitro fertilization, then more women would adopt, creating lots more of these altruistic acts. Sounds like a positive effect on society as a whole, just like I stated it was.

"If being altruistic enough to adopt a child was a requirement for having one then this planet would have a huge population crisis."

But it would only be a requirement for women who can't have their own. So there would be no population crisis. If anything, right now, we're headed toward an unstainable amount of people on the earth anyway.

Don't get me wrong; just because I'm saying something is wrong does not mean I think it should be outlawed.




To Stopper:

I'm sorry if I called some people's comments inane. It was not directed at you.
I said it because
1) "I love how you turn to sceince when it suits you and regard it as blasphemy when it doesn't."
2) "LOL...Wow...what a lopsided view of the sexes..."
3) "Why then is contraception such a horrible sin?"


And I'm not willfully equating conception with birth. I am saying that if conception causes pre-marital sex to be a good thing, then it can only be so if it results in a birth. And actually for it to be a good thing, the child should at least live until the age of, say 3, to pick a random number. Of course that's only my opinion. Maybe some people like life as a fetus and don't particularly like life as an infant. In that case conception is good but birth is not.





In conclusion:

Sorry for the lack of formatting, but I'm tired... measure theory test, presentation on f-vectors of simplicial complexes, grading my class's pre-calc test, and turoring a management student in statistics.

Nobody tried to refute my assertion that not all instincts are good.
Nobody found an example of me decrying science as blasphemy.

And I will leave you with this:

organism
n 1: a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently [syn: being] -dictionary.com

"any living structure, such as a plant, animal, fungus or bacterium, capable of growth and reproduction"-Chambers 21st Century Dictionary


So a fetus is an organism. Is it a plant? fungus? protista? bacteria? animal?
If it's an animal, then which one? maybe human?
Do your skin cells have the ability to act or function independently of the rest of your body? Can your heart reproduce?


By the way, the quote I gave was in regard to Max Stirner's "The Ego and its Own" Good read. Marx and Engels actually devoted hundreds of pages of their "German Ideology" to refuting him.

[strike wolf]

I really don't like abortions but I don't think its my right to decide either. Immoral? yes. Illegal? That's something I can't decide for everyone.

[cowshrptrn]

We can't discrimiate agaisnt mothers who have problems having children. The people i know who have adopted children are some of the most altruistic people i know, and adopted form third world countries.

Sucks how people will always find ways to make money.

about my blasphemy comment:

It comes across a lot mroe persuasively than sceince is irrelevant in other cases, which is what some people seemed to be doing, simply putting it in the background and ignoring it when it doens't fit their definition of life.

also, i've been mainly arguing agaisnt the hordes of people, like jay_a2j, who are pretty intent on refuting ANY pro-choice arguments.

regarding the actual topic: While i would always be a bit wary of post 2nd trimester abortions, if they are imperative to the mother's health then they need to be done. We need to trust doctors' diagnosis, they're the experts in their field. If people lost their jobs every time they acted overly cautious and ended a life we would have very few good surgeons left, or governments for that matter.

[OnlyAmbrose]

If you don't want to get pregnant practice birth control.

If you don't want to get pregnant don't have sex at all. Two reasons I support the "abstinence" side of the "how to protect yourself" debate are:

1) Contraception is an evil and warps the sacred sexual act God created (and I am quite willing to argue this point with any Christian who disagrees).

2) Birth control doesn't guarantee safety. STDs are still transferred in spite of the pill, and condoms are known to have malfunctions every now and again.


On the topic of abortion, suffice to say I believe it to be one of the greatest abominations in the history of the human race. To put to comfort of a woman in front of the very LIFE of a child... is not right. Granted, I've never been pregnant, I never will become pregnant, so it may sound easy for me to say, but fortunately for me I associate with some very strong young ladies who are quite capable of becoming pregnant (or already have) and yet still believe they should not be given a "right to choose". That gives a perfectly good amount of credibility to our side of the issue, I think.

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." ---Mother Teresa

WHOA WHOA WHOAAA! That is WRONG! No matter what you say, it is alive. The mom cares for it, tends to it in essence, and when she kills her seed, something that wether you admit it ir not, is ALIVE, that is murder. KILLING.

What the blip are you talking about? I'm on your side...

[OnlyAmbrose]

As for unwed people. Yes, sex outside of marriage is sin. Abortion is also sin. So, at least with birth control you eliminate one of the two sins. (this of course, is assuming that the "they're gonna do it anyways" agrument is true)


In closeing, Gods plan is: wait until you are married to have sex.

IN closing, the church is going against one of our most arcane instinct that has been rooted into our subconscious through millions of yeras of evolution because they feel that its "immoral" and give no backing as to why it is except for the fact that they say so.

Funny, because i didn't know it is the most arcane instinct of a mother to kill her own offspring.

[vtmarik]

What the blip are you talking about? I'm on your side...

You apparently aren't hardline enough for him... go figure.

[OnlyAmbrose]

What the blip are you talking about? I'm on your side...

You apparently aren't hardline enough for him... go figure.

but.... I have the same stance that he does... lol

Seriously, this is one of my non-negotiable issues. Solid stance and no looking back.

[Backglass]

I had no idea that I had to defend the pope's statements as well as my own as well.

I had no idea anyone asked you to. You have no problems with all forms of contraception then?

Seems like you were going the opposite direction when you posted the above quote. Seems like you were willing to put words into my mouth just so that you didn't have to refute what I was saying.

Seems like you are willing to say "seems like" a lot. Seems like you are depressed. Seems like you are desperate. Seems like you are going to shoot the president. Of course none of it is true, but it seems like it.

"Things are not always what they seem" - Phaedrus

In-vitro vertilization decreases the number of mothers that adopt orphans and children that have been taken from abusive parents. The result is that you have foster parents who "take care" of the children so that they can cash the fat government check.

I have always been a bigger fan of horizontilization personally. I just cant get into vertilization. Calf cramps mostly...but I digress!

So...seems like you are saying we should force mothers to adopt children instead of having a chance at biological children of their own? Again this makes perfect sense when talking about other peoples wombs, but when it comes to YOUR reproduction, I believe you would have a different answer. Plus, you are assuming that all potential in-vitro mothers, having no other option, would always adopt. This simply isnt true...some people will only want to love/raise there own flesh & blood...sad but true.

measure theory test, presentation on f-vectors of simplicial complexes, grading my class's pre-calc test, and turoring a management student in statistics.

Seems like someone feels the need to pump up their ego.

Nobody tried to refute my assertion that not all instincts are good.

Well as long as we are using dictionary.com as a reference:

in‧stinct  /ˈɪnstɪŋkt/ –noun

1. an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species.
2. a natural or innate impulse, inclination, or tendency.
3. a natural aptitude or gift: an instinct for making money.
4. natural intuitive power.

Seems like christians would view something "inborn & natural" as having come from their god...no? How then could these "god given" gifts be bad? Besides...saying there are "good" or "bad" instincts is like saying there are good or bad ear lobe dimensions in my opinion.

Is "fight or flight" a good or bad instinct? Yes...and no. Depends on which side you are on!

Oh...and while there I found this one too:

dork  /dɔrk/ –noun Slang.

1. a stupid or ridiculous person; jerk; nerd.
2. Vulgar. penis.

There are SO many roads I could go down with that last definition...

[subdork]

I had no idea anyone asked you to. You have no problems with all forms of contraception then?

Anything that prevents fertilization of the sperm with egg is ok by me.

Seems like you are willing to say "seems like" a lot. Seems like you are depressed. Seems like you are desperate. Seems like you are going to shoot the president. Of course none of it is true, but it seems like it.

"Things are not always what they seem" - Phaedrus

Then what exactly is this supposed to be: "Your "men only want to screw" and "women are pure & chaste" view is very victorian and actually backwards."

So somehow this isn't you putting words in my mouth? Because again, it seems like I never said "men only want to screw," and I never even mentioned women

I have always been a bigger fan of horizontilization personally. I just cant get into vertilization. Calf cramps mostly...but I digress!

So...seems like you are saying we should force mothers to adopt children instead of having a chance at biological children of their own? Again this makes perfect sense when talking about other peoples wombs, but when it comes to YOUR reproduction, I believe you would have a different answer. Plus, you are assuming that all potential in-vitro mothers, having no other option, would always adopt. This simply isnt true...some people will only want to love/raise there own flesh & blood...sad but true.

Actually, while I'm not married, I think I would prefer to adopt. That way my wife can keep her figure
I don't advocate forcing anybody to do anything. (Well maybe a few: like paying taxes, etc. So called "positive" duties should be few and far between). I'm not suggesting anybody has to have any children, be it their own flesh and blood or the adoptive kind.
Oh, and I have never assumed that all infertile women would adopt. I would surmise that many would, however. Is there a positive effect only if all infertile women adopt?

Seems like someone feels the need to pump up their ego.

Actually I'm not particularly proud of being able to grade a test, or understand z-scores, and I'm pretty sure I didn't do particularly well on the test I had to take. I was simply trying to pre-empt any accusation that I was running away from the argument. I was indeed quite tired. And hey, if anything, you can take it as evidence that I have respect for science.

Well as long as we are using dictionary.com as a reference:

in‧stinct  /ˈɪnstɪŋkt/ –noun

1. an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species.
2. a natural or innate impulse, inclination, or tendency.
3. a natural aptitude or gift: an instinct for making money.
4. natural intuitive power.

Seems like christians would view something "inborn & natural" as having come from their god...no? How then could these "god given" gifts be bad? Besides...saying there are "good" or "bad" instincts is like saying there are good or bad ear lobe dimensions in my opinion.

Is "fight or flight" a good or bad instinct? Yes...and no. Depends on which side you are on!

OK, so an instinct that drives a man (or a woman, ok?) to rape would not be bad? I guess if you're way out in the left field of moral relativity, then you can say that nothing in the world is good or bad.
Oh wait the instinct to have sex isn't bad, just the end result sometimes. Now remember where this tangent of the conversation is coming from: Basically "How could having sex be bad since it is indeed an instinct." I gave an example where the instinct to have sex would indeed lead to bad acts if it were not suppressed. Most people will agree that you should not rape.
So giving in to the instinct to have sex can be bad, wrong even.

Oh...and while there I found this one too:

dork  /dɔrk/ –noun Slang.

1. a stupid or ridiculous person; jerk; nerd.
2. Vulgar. penis.

There are SO many roads I could go down with that last definition...

indeed

[MeDeFe]

First of all: All Hail Fox! The Most Objective TV Channel In The World!


to jay, if you ever read this post...

Won't load here. But what values are you exactly talking about anyway? And no I'm not asking that to provoke you.

And you still haven't answered my question, jay.

Yes I did.....

The video is of some feminist who seems to favor abortion for any reason what-so-ever. Privided however that a "Dr.'s expert advice" that a depressed woman should have an abortion cause she "may not be ready to have a child". This is all talking about late term abortions (9 months into it).

Not to mention the 10 year old girl who gets raped...her "right" to an abortion and the Clinics "right" to protect the rapist. Its crazy. Its getting worse, society in gerneral is getting worse.

How is that an answer to my question? I asked you what values you were ferring to. Giving me a (imo somewhat skewed) summary of the clip doesn't answer my original question.




Now for my views (yes I know that arguing on the internet makes you a retard), I'm not for abortions without reservations, but saying that they should be punishable by law and that they are immoral and evil is like saying that amputations are evil because you're damaging the body god gave you.
I know what I would choose if confronted with the choice of having an arm or leg cut off or dying of cancer.
A rape can be seen as something similar, a cancer of the mind to use a figure of speech. Every time the woman looks at the child she'll be reminded of what happened, the chances of her being able to love it as her own are slim, it's not impossible, there are women, albeit very few, who were raped, got pregnant and still loved the child. But they are the exception to the rule.

If the pregnancy and birth are a risk to the woman's health things are pretty clear or me, too. Would you rather put two people's lives at stake or remove a small lump of non-sentient cells? That's all there really is during the first few weeks.
Even if the complications occur later in the pregnancy I think the mothers life and health should have priority over the embryo's continued existence. If the pregnancy has progressed far enough a caesarean section can be an alternative. After 24 weeks the survival rate of premature infants lies at ~60%. It's not ideal, but better than nothing.

When it come to "real" "convenience abortions" I'm critical. If it's really just for convenience, a good career move not to have a child e.g., the parents are usually in a position where they should know what possibilities there are of not getting pregnant. If they mess up, well, they'll have to accept the consequences. One should differentiate however, if it's a woman in her early 30ies well into the 5th month who doesn't want the child because she feels it would hamper her career she can go f*ck herself (as opposed to fucking other people). If it's a 14 year-old girl who was seduced (not raped) or who wasn't careful with her boyfriend of the same age, maybe because they didn't get proper information at school or from their parents, well... I don't see the harm in an abortion, sure it's psychically taxing on her, but not as bad as a pregnancy, birth, and the decision of whether to keep the child or have it adopted by someone.



I'll stop here, I have to go and can't save what I've written so far, maybe I'll continue it some other time.

[jay_a2j]

First of all: All Hail Fox! The Most Objective TV Channel In The World!


to jay, if you ever read this post...

Won't load here. But what values are you exactly talking about anyway? And no I'm not asking that to provoke you.

And you still haven't answered my question, jay.

Yes I did.....

The video is of some feminist who seems to favor abortion for any reason what-so-ever. Privided however that a "Dr.'s expert advice" that a depressed woman should have an abortion cause she "may not be ready to have a child". This is all talking about late term abortions (9 months into it).

Not to mention the 10 year old girl who gets raped...her "right" to an abortion and the Clinics "right" to protect the rapist. Its crazy. Its getting worse, society in gerneral is getting worse.

How is that an answer to my question? I asked you what values you were ferring to. Giving me a (imo somewhat skewed) summary of the clip doesn't answer my original question.




Now for my views (yes I know that arguing on the internet makes you a retard), I'm not for abortions without reservations, but saying that they should be punishable by law and that they are immoral and evil is like saying that amputations are evil because you're damaging the body god gave you.
I know what I would choose if confronted with the choice of having an arm or leg cut off or dying of cancer.
A rape can be seen as something similar, a cancer of the mind to use a figure of speech. Every time the woman looks at the child she'll be reminded of what happened, the chances of her being able to love it as her own are slim, it's not impossible, there are women, albeit very few, who were raped, got pregnant and still loved the child. But they are the exception to the rule.

If the pregnancy and birth are a risk to the woman's health things are pretty clear or me, too. Would you rather put two people's lives at stake or remove a small lump of non-sentient cells? That's all there really is during the first few weeks.
Even if the complications occur later in the pregnancy I think the mothers life and health should have priority over the embryo's continued existence. If the pregnancy has progressed far enough a caesarean section can be an alternative. After 24 weeks the survival rate of premature infants lies at ~60%. It's not ideal, but better than nothing.

When it come to "real" "convenience abortions" I'm critical. If it's really just for convenience, a good career move not to have a child e.g., the parents are usually in a position where they should know what possibilities there are of not getting pregnant. If they mess up, well, they'll have to accept the consequences. One should differentiate however, if it's a woman in her early 30ies well into the 5th month who doesn't want the child because she feels it would hamper her career she can go f*ck herself (as opposed to fucking other people). If it's a 14 year-old girl who was seduced (not raped) or who wasn't careful with her boyfriend of the same age, maybe because they didn't get proper information at school or from their parents, well... I don't see the harm in an abortion, sure it's psychically taxing on her, but not as bad as a pregnancy, birth, and the decision of whether to keep the child or have it adopted by someone.



I'll stop here, I have to go and can't save what I've written so far, maybe I'll continue it some other time.

The values I'm talking about is the value of life. The prosecution of criminals (rapists).


Now the difference between abortion and amputees. (I can't believe this comparasin was made) Is that one is taking a life the other (in most cases) is saving a life.


Rape is NOT the same as cancer. Rape is an act. Cancer is a disease. Why should we kill innocent life for the sins of its father?

I accept "The life of the mother" as the only acceptable reason for abortion.

The facts are that most abortions are "convience" abortions.

WE do have some common ground.

[Backglass]

Anything that prevents fertilization of the sperm with egg is ok by me.

Glad to hear it!

OK, so an instinct that drives a man (or a woman, ok?) to rape would not be bad?

I do not believe that rape is instinctual.

Oh wait the instinct to have sex isn't bad, just the end result sometimes.

That is like saying the instinct to breathe isnt bad, but the end result sometimes is...especially when under water.

Now remember where this tangent of the conversation is coming from: Basically "How could having sex be bad since it is indeed an instinct." I gave an example where the instinct to have sex would indeed lead to bad acts if it were not suppressed. Most people will agree that you should not rape. So giving in to the instinct to have sex can be bad, wrong even.

I do not believe that sex is bad. Although Rape does by definition include penetration, is not a sexual act but an attack. Just as a beating with a baseball bat is not a deep tissue massage, even though it might loosen you up a bit.

[MeDeFe]

I never said they were the same jay, I used it as a figure of speech, as a metaphor. Do me a favour and give me your opinion about the point I made (or at least was trying to make).

Would you really want a woman who was raped to give birth to the child and then be constantly reminded of what happened to her whenever she looks at it? Even if she had it adopted by some total stranger she would still know that somewhere out there her child and the child of the man who raped her is walking around. Things like that can seriously mess up one's head and fester in one's mind (therefor the referral to cancer). I wasn't even implying that the fetus itself is cancerous but that the feelings it evokes might be.

[jay_a2j]

I never said they were the same jay, I used it as a figure of speech, as a metaphor. Do me a favour and give me your opinion about the point I made (or at least was trying to make).

Would you really want a woman who was raped to give birth to the child and then be constantly reminded of what happened to her whenever she looks at it? Even if she had it adopted by some total stranger she would still know that somewhere out there her child and the child of the man who raped her is walking around. Things like that can seriously mess up one's head and fester in one's mind (therefor the referral to cancer). I wasn't even implying that the fetus itself is cancerous but that the feelings it evokes might be.

As stated before, you don't kill a child for the sins of his father. Adoption prabably the best option. I don't think a woman who is raped is gonna be thinking 5 years later, "Oh, I should of had an abortion! I can't stop thinking about that child that was a product of rape". I can see her not being able to forget the rape itself, maybe even the man who raped her. But to hold it against a child who is innocent of that crime?

[cowshrptrn]

As for unwed people. Yes, sex outside of marriage is sin. Abortion is also sin. So, at least with birth control you eliminate one of the two sins. (this of course, is assuming that the "they're gonna do it anyways" agrument is true)


In closeing, Gods plan is: wait until you are married to have sex.

IN closing, the church is going against one of our most arcane instinct that has been rooted into our subconscious through millions of yeras of evolution because they feel that its "immoral" and give no backing as to why it is except for the fact that they say so.

Funny, because i didn't know it is the most arcane instinct of a mother to kill her own offspring.

It IS, however, a mother's instict to do what is best for her offspring, and if she isn't in a position to raise a child at the time she was pregnant, then she has every right to wait and rasie a child when she is ready to do it.

Having the child at an innopportune time could prevent the mother from doing things like succeeding in college and getting a potentially better job. This would ruin the life of the child she was intending to have.

If we're arguing about "potential lives" here, i much rather think it better to postpone one life, so that the one it "died" for could have a much better life.