Bound4Life

[flicka]

Yeah. It has all the meaning of, say, flapping your cyber-gums on a php/MySQL inter-net forum, eh? Look at the profound meaning to be found in those VARCHARs and INTs.

I won't even pretend to know what you are babbling about. But I stand by what I said. In real life and cyber world.

 

[Autumnleaf]

The problem, I believe, is that people focus on the fetus, and not the mother. They don't care about her situation, whether she is 14, raped, too poor, just not in a place to raise a child, etc.

It's all about the fetus.

And if she does have the baby, too often, the same people will condemn her as sinner if she is unwed.

Citizen Ruth is a great movie where the main character, Ruth, gets pregnant. She is a huffer (gets high on paint fumes) and has had two kids taken away from her. She gets prenant again, and goes to a "clinic" that instead, tries to talk her out of it. Then she becomes a pawn between Pro-Choice and Pro-Life, each side fighting over her, while neither side really caring about her.

That's the problem.

The problem is semantics versus substance. Ruth is lost to addiction. The person inside her was not. If you hold such contempt for Ruth that it carries over to her children then you can justify killing for Ruth's perceived benefit. ie She can go on huffing without inconveniencing other people. Otherwise helping someone other than Ruth comes to the fore with predictable results.

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

And about their mothers?

They've lived their lives. If it's in a situation of rape, I'm a little more leery, but I still wouldn't suggest it. But that's the only situation and most situations of abortion are because the mother just doesn't want the baby. Occasionally it's medical, either with the mother (though death of the mother during birth is VERY unlikely and something is easily agitated by the abortion process anyway) or the baby, but in that case I still think it's selfish. My mother was born seriously ill with spina bifeda and before she was born doctors predicted she wouldn't live to be 5. And then, at 23, she's pregnant with me and they feed her the same nonsense and I was born physically and mentally normal.

The fact is, it's selfish to assume "Well the baby will be better off this way" and abort it when in the end it comes done to "I don't have enough money" or "I can't take care of a child" or "I just don't want it". How selfish! I don't want to hear all the "the adoption system is wack" nonsense either. This is where I think pro-lifers should be working. Working trying to help improve this system. I know when I adopt a child and I plan on adopting all my children, that I won't be picky. This is what pro-lifers AND pro-choicers need to be trying to improve on. Not using mother and child as a pawn and excuse to disagree.

I respect the mother and I believe all humans deserve to live but if the case is a mother lives or a newborn lives, I would choose the newborn. Because while the newborn HASN'T had it's input into the world, the mother has. Someone who has lived, who's gotten to experience much in life and who's gotten to achieve some goals compared to a baby who hasn't even gotten to SEE the world? I don't know what kind of person says "The mother gets too".

Abortion is a very permanent band-aid, for the most part, when a woman sees the mistakes of having sex when she doesn't want a child. Except all the band-aid does is cover up a gaping wound that will never heal. If you are raped, I do understand it was unplanned. But when you HAVE sex KNOWING, that no matter how many contraceptives you use there is always the chance, you can't justify killing an innocent unborn with just "Well it was an accident" or "I don't want to have a child for such-and-such reason". Grow up. Having a child isn't a punishment and it is the women who decide abortion is their only choice who decide that it is, NOT the pro-lifers saying "You did it, you have it".

And the argument on "is it a human or not" shouldn't even be such a big argument. Does it really matter? It's made of you DNA. It has your features. It is made of YOU. It is a PART of YOU. Do you not consider yourself human? Because that baby is an image of yourself, except it's smaller and it's helpless to the mercy of selfish people who think they know best when they don't.

 

[The Nihilist]

Do you realize how absolutely stupid this post makes you look? Seriously. Did you think about it even a little?

It's as if you've never seen anything he's posted; this is par for the course

 

[Ramona]

I am very much pro-life (which means anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty), but it's downright stupid to think that a woman will be able to keep her baby with no help and no guidance. There needs to be counseling, birth control, and options if people really want to end abortion. Just by banning it altogether, women WILL get "back-alley" abortions and they WILL die. And the women who do this are not just statistics - they are actually people with families and friends who love them.

 

[Ramona]

It's as if you've never seen anything he's posted; this is par for the course

You're right, but it still hurts my heart - and stomach - to constantly be reading it.

 

[Ramona]

I've never seen anything he's posted; considering his age I was prepared for less-than-adult discourse, but after the picture...

How do you know his age?

For the record, we have a fourteen-year-old in NCR whom everyone was surprised to learn was not in his early twenties, and we also have forty-year-olds on these forums who behave like they are ten. Just sayin'.

BTW, good to see you!

 

[Ramona]

I am very much pro-life (which means anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty), but it's downright stupid to think that a woman will be able to keep her baby with no help and no guidance. There needs to be counseling, birth control, and options if people really want to end abortion. Just by banning it altogether, women WILL get "back-alley" abortions and they WILL die. And the women who do this are not just statistics - they are actually people with families and friends who love them.

Does the militant right care?

 

[Ramona]

Sorry... I got the reactionary posters confused. I thought he was the 15 year old.

I don't disagree that there are 14 year olds who act like their 40 and 40 year olds who act like their 10... But I think you'll agree that there is a reason it's so amazing to see a 14 year old act like a 40 year old...

LOL! Too true.

Hope all's well on your side of the internets.

 

[Pwnerer]

Since you think you have the right to tell others they are not human your posts, ultimately, carry all the weight of an SS guard or a Klan member, but I will try and reason through what you're saying anyway.

Well, if it was "pro-murdering your children movement," I don't see how it could involve a womans body. Then again, I'm not particularly versed on the movement in support of murdering your own kids.

Actually you are. If you give a little consideration to the words "Pro-choice", it becomes transparently clear that it is an euphemism. "Pro-choice". As opposed to "anti-choice"? No one is saying that people should not make their own choices. What they are saying is that some choices are wrong. So what choice are we talking about here? Well, it is the choice of whether or not to murder your own unborn for the sake of your convenience. That is why I say "pro-choice-of-murder". It seems we had a misunderstanding about that, so I am thankful that you exercised that open-minded tolerance and nonjudgmentalism that liberals love to pontificate about, instead of rushing to judgment and ridicule.

Abortion, which is not murdering your child, does involve your body though... And the developing body of a future child.

Of course not. Human DNA, human skin tissue, human brain tissue, human blood, human arms, human lungs, human hair, human eyes, human nose, human ears, human feet, etcetera. . . Well, must not be human! The pro-choice-of-murder types reason that since the unborn have not developed their mental faculties yet that they must not be human, and thus murdering them is OK. But in reality a one month old does not possess those reasoning capabilities they speak of either. So in the eyes of the 'choice' crowd, it would be OK to kill a new-born. "After all, they're not like me, so they're not human."

The person who's pregnant has the final say. It's their body.

Indeed. It's their body, so they are fiscally responsible for what they do with it.

When men get pregnant, they can decide for themselves what they want to do. But a man shouldn't have the final say in if a woman aborts or not, just like if I go to the doctor tomorrow I don't need my husband's permission. The woman is not his property, so his opinion can certainly be considered, but it's not more important than the woman's opinion.

I never said they woman is his property. If you think that is what I am saying then there isn't much hope for you

So he pays child support... Whoopdy ding dong. She carries and gives birth to the kid, and will probably be the primary parent. I've yet to hear of a man who died while signing a child support check.

Your aloof dismissal proves that you truly are bigotted against the rights of males. To sexists like you, men are little more than a paycheck.

So what you're saying is you want to be able to blackmail women into doing what you want them to do with their pregnancies? Because a woman COULD choose abortion (but didn't), a man should choose to not support the child? So for not choosing to abort, you choose to do the male equal to abortion of not paying for the child once it's born? Does that mean if a woman decides to abort but he decides he doesn't want her to, she can abort and collect child support?


I do love the "I can't tell a woman what medical procedures she can and can't get, that's sexist and anti-male" position. It's chauvanism disgused as moral outrage of inequal rights. Can I cry that it's anti-feminist tyrany that I can't force my husband to get me pregnant because I want to be because I have to take into account his ability to be the ruler of his own body? After all, *I* want to be pregnant, *I* want a baby, so by denying that right to me, he's oppressing me...

OK, now you've really gone off your rocker. Sorry, I have no way to even fathom this simian drivel, much less reply to it.

If you don't have the 90 or so IQ it takes to understand the idea that if it's your body then you're responsible for what you do with it . . . well, I don't think I even have to argue. I'll just let you talk. You're doing my job for me.

 

[IzzyPop]

Actually you are. If you give a little consideration to the words "Pro-choice", it becomes transparently clear that it is an euphemism. "Pro-choice". As opposed to "anti-choice"? No one is saying that people should not make their own choices. What they are saying is that some choices are wrong. So what choice are we talking about here? Well, it is the choice of whether or not to murder your own unborn for the sake of your convenience. That is why I say "pro-choice-of-murder". It seems we had a misunderstanding about that, so I am thankful that you exercised that open-minded tolerance and nonjudgmentalism that liberals love to pontificate about, instead of rushing to judgment and ridicule.

And where is this 'sake of convenience' coming from? It aborting an ectopic pregnancy mere convenience? How about comparing it to the 'inconvenience' of carrying your rapist's child for 9 months? How about the convenience of safe abortions only being available to the rich if it becomes illegal again? You have an awfully broad definition of convenient.

Of course not. Human DNA, human skin tissue, human brain tissue, human blood, human arms, human lungs, human hair, human eyes, human nose, human ears, human feet, etcetera. . . Well, must not be human! The pro-choice-of-murder types reason that since the unborn have not developed their mental faculties yet that they must not be human, and thus murdering them is OK. But in reality a one month old does not possess those reasoning capabilities they speak of either. So in the eyes of the 'choice' crowd, it would be OK to kill a new-born. "After all, they're not like me, so they're not human."

Do you actually talk to people or just set up straw men to knock down? Where has anyone in this thread advocated the killing of infants? Show me that and you may have an argument, but until such time, please keep your inflammatory, misconceived rhetoric to yourself.

Indeed. It's their body, so they are fiscally responsible for what they do with it.

I never said they woman is his property. If you think that is what I am saying then there isn't much hope for you
Your aloof dismissal proves that you truly are bigotted against the rights of males. To sexists like you, men are little more than a paycheck.

Should a woman consult the father concerning whether to abort their child? Yes. But ultimately, the woman is the one that gets to spend the next several months being pregnant, so it is ultimately her decision. You what to make that choice, you go get pregnant.

OK, now you've really gone off your rocker. Sorry, I have no way to even fathom this simian drivel, much less reply to it.

If you don't have the 90 or so IQ it takes to understand the idea that if it's your body then you're responsible for what you do with it . . . well, I don't think I even have to argue. I'll just let you talk. You're doing my job for me.

Once again, such black and white decisions are the stuff of tyrannies.

 

[Ramona]

Pwnerer, bearing in mind that I am pro-life, would you mind answering my post #30?

 

[Pwnerer]

And where is this 'sake of convenience' coming from? It aborting an ectopic pregnancy mere convenience? How about comparing it to the 'inconvenience' of carrying your rapist's child for 9 months? How about the convenience of safe abortions only being available to the rich if it becomes illegal again? You have an awfully broad definition of convenient.
Do you actually talk to people or just set up straw men to knock down? Where has anyone in this thread advocated the killing of infants? Show me that and you may have an argument, but until such time, please keep your inflammatory, misconceived rhetoric to yourself.

Wow, what a huge pile of hypocrisy. Anyone with half a brain can tell that an ectopic pregancy is not an abortion for simple convenience, so your intellectually dishonest straw manning is obvious, and your hypocrisy is quite audacious. You really ought to take a look in the mirror. You staw-man me, and then accuse me of straw manning.

Should a woman consult the father concerning whether to abort their child? Yes. But ultimately, the woman is the one that gets to spend the next several months being pregnant, so it is ultimately her decision. You what to make that choice, you go get pregnant.

Once again, you miss the point.

If it is her body, then let her be fiscally responsible for what she does with it.

 

[Pwnerer]

I am very much pro-life (which means anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty), but it's downright stupid to think that a woman will be able to keep her baby with no help and no guidance. There needs to be counseling, birth control, and options if people really want to end abortion. Just by banning it altogether, women WILL get "back-alley" abortions and they WILL die. And the women who do this are not just statistics - they are actually people with families and friends who love them.

Honestly, I really don't have much sympathy for women who commit murder. I believe in capital punishment.

 

[Ramona]

Honestly, I really don't have much sympathy for women who commit murder. I believe in capital punishment.

Then how can you call yourself pro-life? While I believe that life begins at conception, it is very, very debatable. However, even criminals are living humans - there's no arguing about that. So what happened? Why does the sanctity of life no longer matter?

Also, on a practical note, I don't want my taxpayer dollars going to killing criminals whilst I'm borrowing $20,000 a year to pay for college and shelling out $100 in co-pays for a month's worth of BPD medication.

 

[IzzyPop]

Wow, what a huge pile of hypocrisy. Anyone with half a brain can tell that an ectopic pregancy is not an abortion for simple convenience, so your intellectually dishonest straw manning is obvious, and your hypocrisy is quite audacious. You really ought to take a look in the mirror. You staw-man me, and then accuse me of straw manning.

You are the one that stated:

Actually you are. If you give a little consideration to the words "Pro-choice", it becomes transparently clear that it is an euphemism. "Pro-choice". As opposed to "anti-choice"? No one is saying that people should not make their own choices. What they are saying is that some choices are wrong. So what choice are we talking about here? Well, it is the choice of whether or not to murder your own unborn for the sake of your convenience.

I was asking you how various real world people struggling with real problems fall in this convenience area. So you are for abortions when medically necessary? How about in cases of rape or incest? What about when the child will be born with horrible defects? Where do you draw the line and why do you draw it there?

Once again, you miss the point.

If it is her body, then let her be fiscally responsible for what she does with it.

So if she wants to keep the baby and the man wants to abort it, he pays no child support? And this meshes how with your pro-life stance? That seems to be logically inconsistent. How can you hold both of those beliefs at the same time and not have your head explode?

 

[Pwnerer]

Then how can you call yourself pro-life? While I believe that life begins at conception, it is very, very debatable. However, even criminals are living humans - there's no arguing about that. So what happened? Why does the sanctity of life no longer matter?

Also, on a practical note, I don't want my taxpayer dollars going to killing criminals whilst I'm borrowing $20,000 a year to pay for college and shelling out $100 in co-pays for a month's worth of BPD medication.

I never said I am 'pro-life'. (at least, not that i recall).

I am against killing innocent people. That is all.

 

[IzzyPop]

I am against killing innocent people. That is all.

And you support the death penalty? The same death penalty that executes innocent people? The same death penalty that has seen over 100 exonerations in the past few years?

Logical consistency is not something you seem to excel at...

 

[SimplyMe]

Since you think you have the right to tell others they are not human your posts, ultimately, carry all the weight of an SS guard or a Klan member, but I will try and reason through what you're saying anyway.

Actually you are. If you give a little consideration to the words "Pro-choice", it becomes transparently clear that it is an euphemism. "Pro-choice". As opposed to "anti-choice"? No one is saying that people should not make their own choices. What they are saying is that some choices are wrong. So what choice are we talking about here? Well, it is the choice of whether or not to murder your own unborn for the sake of your convenience. That is why I say "pro-choice-of-murder". It seems we had a misunderstanding about that, so I am thankful that you exercised that open-minded tolerance and nonjudgmentalism that liberals love to pontificate about, instead of rushing to judgment and ridicule.
Of course not. Human DNA, human skin tissue, human brain tissue, human blood, human arms, human lungs, human hair, human eyes, human nose, human ears, human feet, etcetera. . . Well, must not be human! The pro-choice-of-murder types reason that since the unborn have not developed their mental faculties yet that they must not be human, and thus murdering them is OK. But in reality a one month old does not possess those reasoning capabilities they speak of either. So in the eyes of the 'choice' crowd, it would be OK to kill a new-born. "After all, they're not like me, so they're not human."


Indeed. It's their body, so they are fiscally responsible for what they do with it.

I never said they woman is his property. If you think that is what I am saying then there isn't much hope for you
Your aloof dismissal proves that you truly are bigotted against the rights of males. To sexists like you, men are little more than a paycheck.

OK, now you've really gone off your rocker. Sorry, I have no way to even fathom this simian drivel, much less reply to it.

If you don't have the 90 or so IQ it takes to understand the idea that if it's your body then you're responsible for what you do with it . . . well, I don't think I even have to argue. I'll just let you talk. You're doing my job for me.

And where is this 'sake of convenience' coming from? It aborting an ectopic pregnancy mere convenience? How about comparing it to the 'inconvenience' of carrying your rapist's child for 9 months? How about the convenience of safe abortions only being available to the rich if it becomes illegal again? You have an awfully broad definition of convenient.
Do you actually talk to people or just set up straw men to knock down? Where has anyone in this thread advocated the killing of infants? Show me that and you may have an argument, but until such time, please keep your inflammatory, misconceived rhetoric to yourself.


Should a woman consult the father concerning whether to abort their child? Yes. But ultimately, the woman is the one that gets to spend the next several months being pregnant, so it is ultimately her decision. You what to make that choice, you go get pregnant.

Once again, such black and white decisions are the stuff of tyrannies.

Wow, what a huge pile of hypocrisy. Anyone with half a brain can tell that an ectopic pregancy is not an abortion for simple convenience, so your intellectually dishonest straw manning is obvious, and your hypocrisy is quite audacious. You really ought to take a look in the mirror. You staw-man me, and then accuse me of straw manning.

Once again, you miss the point.

If it is her body, then let her be fiscally responsible for what she does with it.

So that people would have context, I posted both Izzy's post and your previous post. And, you are wrong on two counts. First, you did create a straw man. You tried claiming that pro-choice individuals don't believe fetuses are human because they cannot reason (which may be true in some cases but typically a rather small percentage). And then you use that straw man in an attempt to claim that pro-choice individuals would have no problem with the murder of infants, which is untrue even if it is easy for you to knock down (hence the term straw man).

Now, Izzy did not post a straw man, Izzy asked your opinion. And the question about the ectopic pregnancy was not the only question, he also asked you about cases of rape and only the rich having access to abortions. He wasn't trying to put words in your mouth or make a simplistic claim about what you believe so that he could knock it down , it does not equal a straw man.

The issue of how much say father's should have in whether or not a woman has an abortion is a hard one. In some ways, I would expect you to argue the other side, the men should be held responsible since it can act as a brake on mens sexual activities. There is a study indicating adolescent males who perceive a high likelihood of being required to pay child support or who have a relative who pays child support are less likely than others to have multiple female partners and more likely to use contraceptives (Huang C and Han W, Perceptions of child support and sexual activity of adolescent males, Journal of Adolescence, 2004, 27(6):731-748.) IOW, education and enforcement of child support laws appears to be successful in deterring teenage pregnancies and children being born out of wedlock. Sounds like something I would think you would support.

 

[Ramona]

Sidenote: Whoa, so many guests! Did someone get FSTDT'd or something?