posted 12-02-2001 23:31            

I will post tomorrow, with more facts for you all.

Just want to give a quick reply to Dave: you're comparing the freedom of religion to the right to abort a fetus.

That's just whacked. =) Apples and oranges man.

And before I go to bed, what amazes me is that nobody has really contended the fact that the fetus is actually an individual. You all seem to agree with that... and just for the record, that was how Abortion passed, because at the time (1973?) they couldn't prove that it was not a part of the body. That's the only reason that it wasn't shot down completely.

posted 12-02-2001 23:38            

Inside a mother, a baby is not capable of making a decision. (we all agree on this i am sure of) Assuming receiving "no response" from the baby would be considered the favorable decision of the baby, why dont you ask your baby if it wants to die

I can already see an argument rising up from this, "the baby does not know where he/she will end up yet, what if he is condemned to live a life of poverty... or worse..." If you happen to ask yourself that question, then I will reply with

HEY UNBORN /\/ARCUS, I DON"T HAVE TOO MUCH CASH AND PROB. COULD NOT RAISE YOU AND YOU MIGHT NOT LIVE THE IDEAL LIFE, DO YOU STILL WANT TO LIVE? (I know my answer)
If your answer is no (which is alright because you may decide that if your life is just going to suck because of poor quality of life and other reasons) than I also believe the answer is clear to you: It should be up to the mother and or aborted. It is impossible to come up with an answer to fit both sides because of the question that is the basis of this issue, "Would you want to live if your life *may* be horrible."

Stay young, drink pepsi!

------------------
/\/arcus
--Women are a lot like Trolley Cars. Theres a whollle bunch of them at the bottom of the ocean."

--Once again, due to the fact that I came in 2nd in my 4th grade spelling contest, I had to do a little editing... I SHOULD HAVE WON

posted 12-02-2001 23:59            

Jim- You say straw man when you think the other fellow isn't being kosher, but you might not be correct. Why not simply argue the point, rather than implying that the other person is stooping to dirty tricks?
After all, what I said about your "unless you're personally prepared" arguments somewhat fits your straw man description, and I stand by it. I just don't like to namecall.

Narcus, or whatever-
I've got a great idea. Just for a moment, ignore all the factors that make this a complex question, and focus on one that I choose, so that I can pose a question that I already know the answer to. That's about a step up from "God said so".
Or, refer to the post about how no-one is really *for* abortion, the question is whether its better than the alternative.

All: I'm here at work at 4 or 5 in the afternoon, seeing all these posts.. Are you all staying up all night for this thread?
*edit* Just noticed the timestamps. Is that server time? Is it really only midnight over there?

posted 12-03-2001 03:48            

I know that. I got what you meant. The point is, you can't boil this stuff down to "one simplistic question" (though I assume you meant [i]simple[/]..), and I cerainly never tried.

I suppose if you ignore every other issue, then the debate could look something like what you say. Also, we could argue what color the easter bunny's wings are, if there was an easter bunny, and if there was if it had wings. There's just no point unless you're arguing pure theory, like in a classroom.

posted 12-03-2001 06:49            

now the personal attack, i am thinking your "choice" of being abstinent is not so much a choice but the fact that you are a ugly looser who has some trouble getting play. i am also secretly hoping you are gay so the church you believe in will cast you out or that every child you have is gay. i was wondering if you feel that little scratchy thing in your throat, just like the george did at first. change your ways before the cancer take over all of your body.

posted 12-03-2001 11:21            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jumper42:
[B]you know what ratboy i am happy fen made you feel all warm and fuzy inside, because i am here to piss you off again. i myself am roman catholic and had to go to catholic school too. now if you dont think showing a 10 year old kid the "horrors of abortion" by showing the medical procedure how it is done and that is not propaganda then you are on some sweet shit that i want to smoke too. [B]

---

1. You failed, I'm not pissed off at all.

2. You are not a Roman Catholic despite what you may write down on a survey. To be a Roman Catholic you must share its views on subjects, and from what I hear (lenincy with sex, drugs, and pro-choice) you're on the far end of the spectrum. When's the last time when you went to church?

posted 12-03-2001 13:09            

i am now secretly working on a time machine to go back in time to find your mom and punch her in the stomach while you were only a few cells on a slide and then to just make sure i will break out my handy coat hanger and give her a once over.

posted 12-03-2001 13:10            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KetchupRAT:
To be a Roman Catholic you must share its views on subjects, and from what I hear (lenincy with sex...

---

posted 12-03-2001 13:31            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke:
Amazon, sorry to drag you into this mess, I know you don't like this lovely heated debate. I did stick up for ya though, do I get any points for that?

---

I didn't say I didn't like the DEBATE, I just hate name calling. Please people, if you are going to call each other names, make it something ORIGINAL, like "scum sucking gutter whore" or something like that.

posted 12-03-2001 14:51         

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenomas:

Thanks for the info on partial birth abortions.. I thought the law against that passed. But what I'm really curious about is the claim that abortions are dangerous to the mother. Is there evidence here?

---

cf. that book by Chriton ("a case of need") in the appendix listing the arguments for and against abortion, he mentions in passing (i don't have the exact numbers and i can't find the fucking book,) that roughly 1 in 100,000 women will die during a routine abortion and roughly 10 (ok, 9.7) in 100,000 will die during a routine birth.

an anti-abortion resource w/ lots of facts.

a Canadian pro-choice website

an american pro-choice site.

posted 12-03-2001 14:59         

quote:

---

Originally posted by damnit:
Why is it women get to make the sole decision whether the fetus lives or dies. It requires two consenting people for fetus production to begin. Shouldn't it require two consenting people for it to end? Technically wouldn't 50% of the fetus be the property of the male? Presently, its "possession is 9/10ths ownership". If the "father" of said fetus was willing to sign his life away swearing he will forever do right by the child shouldn't the "mother" be required to carry the fetus to term. Seems a bit unfair that the "mother" can decide to keep the child even though the "father" doesn't want it, and he will be financialy responsible for the child even though he didn't want it to begin with. Seems when an "mother" finds out she is pregnant a trip to a lawyer by both parties should be in order.

---

posted 12-03-2001 16:25            

Damnit/Jim-
Listen to yourselves. A women who doesn't want her baby should carry it nine months to term, not for religious or moral reasons, but because the guy would like her to? On what planet?

Dare I say it, Jimbo, that "If you're not willing to personally carry that baby to term inside your own body, then you have not the faintest right to tell a woman to do so"? hee hee!

(edit-typed dave instead of damnit)

posted 12-03-2001 17:10            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
"Damnit" - I think that viewpoint has a lot of merit, actually. From there you get into issues of whether a woman should be forced to act as a brood mare for someone when she doesn't want any part of the baby, but, as you said, there's also the issue that the baby will be the father's as much as the mother's.

---

Perhaps the argument could be made that the woman put herself in the "brood mare" position when she consented, not to say the male is any way better. Just seems between two people someone should accept responsibility for their actions. I do know that the position of not having any say really sucks having experienced it first hand.

posted 12-03-2001 19:37            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenomas:
Jumper- You're an idiot, and no-one cares about your opinion (this is not invective, but fact). Please confine your comments to swearing and misogyny. Thanks.

---

posted 12-03-2001 20:23            

I also don't think anyone has the right to MANDATE BY LAW the decision either way.

posted 12-03-2001 22:11            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
Ketchuprat: there's a lot more to this than two cookie-cutter "sides".

---

quote:

---

I never said women should have to bear the child .. I simply said I believe in most instances she should.

---

I didn't say that either. Damnit did, but "be required to" is pretty obviously too far. And obviously I agree that a woman considering an abortion should take the father's feelings into account when she makes her decision.

But, if a woman was in the situation we're talking about and asked me for advice, I can't imagine suggesting that she carry the thing for nine months, to hand if off to a man she doesn't plan on living with. I realize its similar to adoption, but is this guy going to help her out all through the pregnancy? Will he practice the breathing with her, and pay for her while she's off work? If not, why is she considering carrying a baby for him? If so, why aren't they going to stay together? If they are going to stay together, why can't they agree on what to do with the child? What if the father's commitment to the child wears out after six or eight months? What if her commitment to give up the child wears out once she sees the sonograms?

posted 12-03-2001 23:14         

from the "war" comic of my new fighting/filing technique is unstoppable

posted 12-03-2001 23:48         

quote:

---

Originally posted by KetchupRAT:
Now we're getting somewhere.

I will post tomorrow, with more facts for you all.

Just want to give a quick reply to Dave: you're comparing the freedom of religion to the right to abort a fetus.

That's just whacked. =) Apples and oranges man.

And before I go to bed, what amazes me is that nobody has really contended the fact that the fetus is actually an individual. You all seem to agree with that... and just for the record, that was how Abortion passed, because at the time (1973?) they couldn't prove that it was not a part of the body. That's the only reason that it wasn't shot down completely.

---

i'll address you last point first: i don't know how true your assertion is, because i wasn't alive until the late 70's. anyway, my point is that you can't prove a negative; you can't prove the sun isn't made of oranges or that the the ocean's saltwater is not the planet's blood, or that my toenails are really a seperate symbiotic lifeform that really likes sticking to me. Also, please get your facts straight: "Abortion" is not a law. The Roe v. Wade decision says abortion is not illegal (although individual states make their own laws about it.)

speaking of oranges, i should clarify that i was not comparing religion and abortion (although the two issues are often brought up together,) but rather i was drawing a simile:

pro-choice people are outraged by others dictating morals to them AS pro-life prople would be outraged by others dictating the terms of religion.