[Ford Prefect]

and....ford....lets go back to the thing about knowing what the possible consequences are for sex. If you have sex...you may end up pregnant. If you agree to sex, you are also agreeing to the possible outcomes.

If the consequences are what make the action bad, then eliminate the threat of the consequences and by logic, the action should cease to be a bad one. Unless there's something else at work here.

[Liberator]

so, in addition to sactioning the murder of innocents, you're going to alter the brain chemistry of people to make pre/extra marital sex "okay"?

wow...

[Bobboau]

all the women I've known who've had abortions, the few of them, don't have second thoughts about it.
for some women it's not the right choice, those women who think it's murder and if somehow get presured into it think of them selves as haveing killed there child. it's prety simple, if you don't want to don't do it.

[Ford Prefect]

Liberator, premarital sex is a personal decision, and one that has become widely accepted, at that. Extramarital sex is an issue between the spouses and possibly whoever else is getting in on the action. They are "okay" if the parties involved are "okay" with them. (Usually not the case in extramarital sex, but still not an issue for the state.)

I don't understand whose brain chemistry is being altered. It seems to me that providing these options is a way of cooperating with people's natural brain chemistry by reconciling them with society. Do you really think a species that reaches its sexual peak in its teen years is going to sit around and masturbate until marriage, which is an artificial condition to begin with?

[Bobboau]

lets change the direction of this a little, will someone please explain to me why it would be perfictly alright (well ok, I know you do have a problem with these too but relitively speaking...) to destroy an unfertalised egg and swaths of sperm as many contraceptives do, but yet if you kill an egg the instant after fertaliseation it's murdering a innocent human soul?

[Liberator]

I have no problem with "morning after pills" or what have you, then you are only destroying a mass of cells.  Waiting months before doing something is totally wrong however.

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Liberator
I have no problem with "morning after pills" or what have you, then you are only destroying a mass of cells.  Waiting months before doing something is totally wrong however.

well, thats a step in the right direction. ok so when exactly is it "murder", I agree that if a pregnancy is to be terminated it should be done so at the earliest posable time. but were argueing here, so I won't dwell on what we agree about. is it implantation in the uterine wall? the formation of a spinal colum? a brain? a heart? what is the point, and then I'll disect that point further until we get at what it is exactly that you use to define a human soul.

{hey, look at my post count }

[Kazan]

actually shadowwolf i'll merely be ignoring you - because she was overstating her case by attempting to claim that her personal expirience with said individuals makes that the "norm"

[Bobboau]

it probly is the norm for her, you tend to hang around people who are like you, if she somehow got talked into haveing an abortion I have a feeling she whould regret it.
doesn't mean she was exadurateing, intentionaly.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Bobboau
well, thats a step in the right direction. ok so when exactly is it "murder", I agree that if a pregnancy is to be terminated it should be done so at the earliest posable time. but were argueing here, so I won't dwell on what we agree about. is it implantation in the uterine wall? the formation of a spinal colum? a brain? a heart? what is the point, and then I'll disect that point further until we get at what it is exactly that you use to define a human soul.

Haven't we been down this road before...

I am not qualified to say when it is no longer okay to remove the child, no human is.

But applying cold logic:

The point at which the baby could survive on it's own(not including any external medical assistence) free from the mother's superior systems, would seem to be a logical place.

But such a position may have to change in the future.

[Bobboau]

if you can't define when the point of mortality occurse then it is entierly a matter of personal oppionion and thus can not be legilated
personaly I am of the judgement that desisions of this personal nature should not be legislated, it is not the government's place to come in and dictate how what your oppionions are to be.

[Liberator]

I agree...in principle.

But this is similar(similar not identical Kaz) to the racial purges that have accompanied the rise of dictators.  You have to remove the humanity of those you want to kill en masse, or else you lose all legitimacy and the people stop obeying.

The primaary difference is that the ones being exterminated a) have no voice, b)have no say in their being here, and c) the ones who should be their advocates are the ones killing them.  That just seems screwy to me.

BTW, I'm still waiting for some ambitious law student or lawyer to come along and explain to me how a single decision by a single jusdge(who is perhaps long dead) can have the apparent weight of law when it comes to adjudicating a separate, completely different case.  I've never had it explained to me why precedent exists in a court enviroment, it never really serves to do anything except sucker-punch common sense(which it turns out isn't so common).

[WMCoolmon]

BTW, I'm still waiting for some ambitious law student or lawyer to come along and explain to me how a single decision by a single jusdge(who is perhaps long dead) can have the apparent weight of law when it comes to adjudicating a separate, completely different case. I've never had it explained to me why precedent exists in a court enviroment, it never really serves to do anything except sucker-punch common sense(which it turns out isn't so common).

If judges were to continually reverse themselves, then the law would have no weight.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sapphire
Its just that far too many abortions are performed for cases that do not have real reason.

You're 100% corect. As I stated before the pro-choicers would love to bring the abortion figures down if only because it is an invasive proceedure and does have the possibility of a long term psychological effect.

 But remember that it's your side responsible for preventing the children being taught proper sex ed so that they didn't need to have an abortion.

In the majority of the cases you mention contraception would have prevented the need for abortion.

So the real reason that there are such a high number of abortons is cause of the pro-lifers and other campaigners against good sex ed in school. Don't lay the blame for this one anywhere else.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

overstating her case, that sounds dangerously close to being called a liar.  If you want to ignore something, ignore this....your opinion is not fact.  You seem to believe that your opinion is the only correct way to think.  People have different opinions, and it doesn't make them any less of a person, or any less intelligent, or any less real to have an opinion that differs from yours.  An opinion isn't right or wrong, only someone with an  ego so large that it exerts force on celestial bodies would think that people who do not share the opinion, are beneath them.

oh screw it.....
only someone who is believes themselves to be inferior would feel the need to constantly berate others for the beliefs that they hold.  That is my opinion, but it does beg another question....why do you constantly berate people for the beliefs that they have?

[Liberator]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon


If judges were to continually reverse themselves, then the law would have no weight.

Reversing themselves?  I'm expecting them to adjudicate based on Law, not a decision by one man in a particular set of circumstances.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator


Haven't we been down this road before...

I am not qualified to say when it is no longer okay to remove the child, no human is.

But applying cold logic:

The point at which the baby could survive on it's own(not including any external medical assistence) free from the mother's superior systems, would seem to be a logical place.

But such a position may have to change in the future.

And that's the current legal position for legalised abortion.

[Liberator]

Then why are 7 & 8 month babies being partially delivered and then haveing a hole drilled into their heads and their brains sucked out?

[WeatherOp]

Why does this get going when I go to bed?


I still say triple the cost of abortion, but the very sad fact is it won't stop abortion, not by a long shot. All we would end up with is a whole pile of rich doctors.


Hey, Lib do you know what state leads the whole USA in STDs and probley abortions?

[Zarax]

7 month babies aborted?
Where did you read such an enormous BS?
The only place where it may happen is china, but no western country has such a practice.