[TrashMan]

People have sex if they so choose. You speak of sex as if it is a impossible thing NOT to have. I don't know where you live, but sex is one of the most important thing in the western world today (SADLY so). And you keep forgetting it's an OPTION. Nothing more, nothing less. Nobody is forcing you.

As Kosh said, procreation is a biological imperative. More than that, sex is rather nice. Think of it this way: Chocolate is nice. It's really nice, in fact. However, having too much of it is unhealthy. We all want to eat chocolate, but some people don't want to get fat. How do we resolve this paradox? I would suggest people watch how much they eat, and make sure they don't over-do it. You seem to be suggesting that the only option if you don't want to get fat is to not eat chocolate. Ever.  Given that a lot of people like chocolate, and it is somewhat widely available, what would be the more effective option from a sociological standpoint, rather than a position of black-and-white absolutism?

Not to mention we're ignoring the major problems with abstinence-only education, which is that it teaches ignorance. People are going to do it anyway, so we might as well teach them how to protect themselves and their parters, rather than just telling them not to think about it and setting a good number of them up for making big mistakes down the track. From a purely logical standpoint, not having sex is the best, sure-fire way to prevent unwanted pregnancies, etc. However, from a practical standpoint, that's just wishful thinking. People have sex, nothing is going to stop that, so let's make sure they know what the hell they're doing and don't cock it up. (Pun intended )

I love it when people don't read what I say at all....

Biological imperative? What does that have to do with the possibility of having sex or not. Yeah, we'll go extinct if EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET refuses to have sex, but was I talking about that? No.
Sesh, you're talking as if there are no people in history who lived a happy, long life without sex. Well, surprise - there have been and there are.
It's the same thing as chocolate in a way - nice, but you can live without it if you so choose.

Secondly, I'm not suggesting anything. I've said - it's an option. One of many. So don't put words in my mouth pls.
 

Depends. If I found a woman of my dreams, no. I'd have children...1 or 2 max..thats a optimal number.
If I havn't found one I would have no touble keeping my mojo in check. Power or will and all that stuff...you might have heard of it.

Okay, what about after you have two children? Are you saying that you'd swear off all sex so as not to have another kid? Yeah, good luck.

Although, as they say; Marriage is the world's best contraceptive. So there you go.

I *COULD* swear off sex. I don't know why it's such a big problem for you, but for me it isn't. yeah, sex is great - but so are many other thing in life. that doesn't mean I can't live without them. Besides, since when is sex the cornerstone of marriage? Once you get old you won't be able to preform anyway - you telling me the marriage is over then? Plase...

Into a short, painful and traumatic life? How can you be the judge of that? How can I, for that matter? The point is, we can't! And certainly neither can the man in the Vatican. Therefore, the only way to know is for the mother to decide, as she is the ultimate authority on the wellfare of her child.
Why should it be up to anyone but the mother?

You can't know the future..no one can. So how can you condem a child to death becoause of your FEAR that things will turn out bad?
Speaking of which, why should it be up to the mother? The person in question can very well be drunk, on drugs or simply immature and irreseponsible.
It's a terrible thing to grow up in a broken family..but that can be remedied in a way, or avoided. Death before birth can't.

[Mobius]

There's a difference between your opinion and the opinion of priests.

The mother? I hear of mothers killing their children. Who said that the mother is the only person able to decide the fate of her child? Unless she's going to die, the child must live! The child can be adopted...but he/she must live!

You're not advocating infanticide

[Mefustae]

You can't know the future..no one can. So how can you condem a child to death becoause of your FEAR that things will turn out bad?

So after accusing me of not reading your posts, you go ahead and misread mine!

I'm not condemning anyone. We're talking about preventing life from forming, not snuffing out an existing person. If anything, "condeming" would be more applicable to the child being born into an abusive, neglectful or dangerous household.

Speaking of which, why should it be up to the mother? The person in question can very well be drunk, on drugs or simply immature and irreseponsible.
It's a terrible thing to grow up in a broken family..but that can be remedied in a way, or avoided. Death before birth can't.

Why should it be the mother's option? Because it's her child. She created it, it's quite literally a part of her, and yet you somehow believe she can't be trusted with it? There can be no denying that there are indeed unfit mothers out there, but why should a vast minority warrant decrying abortion in virtually every case.

You've also fallen into the trap of believing there is always an out for children born into abusive or neglectful households. Well, what if there isn't? What if the child is subjected to violent or even sexual abuse because the child protection/wellfare system is either insufficient to act or doesn't exist at all? It's incredibly naive to believe that a child in an unfit household or in an otherwise ****ty situation will be snatched up by child wellfare in every case, or even in a majority of cases

There's a difference between your opinion and the opinion of priests.

Why?

The mother? I hear of mothers killing their children. Who said that the mother is the only person able to decide the fate of her child? Unless she's going to die, the child must live! The child can be adopted...but he/she must live!

Oh yeah? I hear of Priests that sexually abuse altar boys. Why did I dredge that up, you might ask? No reason, because arbitrary references are just that; arbitrary. So let's take the high road and leave them out of this.

I never said that a mother should be the only authority in the wellfare of her child. I merely meant she should be the principal authority, which should never be superseded by blanket declarations, and certainly not by declarations based on religious dogma.


Let me just set something straight here: We're not talking about living people here. We're talking about the potential for human life. Let's not get caught up in our emotions as if we were discussing strangling newborns! This isn't murder or euthanasia or whatever you want to call it, this is preventing a human life from coming into existence. It simply can't be equated to ending a human life because to do so you need a human life to end!

[Mobius]

You can't know the future..no one can. So how can you condem a child to death becoause of your FEAR that things will turn out bad?

So after accusing me of not reading your posts, you go ahead and misread mine!

I'm not condemning anyone. We're talking about preventing life from forming, not snuffing out an existing person. If anything, "condeming" would be more applicable to the child being born into an abusive, neglectful or dangerous household.

Are you atheist? If there's no afterlife...it would be a good reason to let a child live.

Speaking of which, why should it be up to the mother? The person in question can very well be drunk, on drugs or simply immature and irreseponsible.
It's a terrible thing to grow up in a broken family..but that can be remedied in a way, or avoided. Death before birth can't.

Why should it be the mother's option? Because it's her child. She created it, it's quite literally a part of her, and yet you somehow believe she can't be trusted with it? There can be no denying that there are indeed unfit mothers out there, but why should a vast minority warrant decrying abortion in virtually every case.

You've also fallen into the trap of believing there is always an out for children born into abusive or neglectful households. Well, what if there isn't? What if the child is subjected to violent or even sexual abuse because the child protection/wellfare system is either insufficient to act or doesn't exist at all? It's incredibly naive to believe that a child in an unfit household or in an otherwise ****ty situation will be snatched up by child wellfare in every case, or even in a majority of cases

As I said, mothers can kill their children. And I don't consider a mother who is taking abortion in consideration(even when she's risking her life) a valid one. In case of risks, she will most likely let her child die...but be sure that she will regret the decision for the rest of her life.

And those "mothers" we're talking about aren't normal "mothers": they might be 15 years old girls, not 23+ years old women who are married!

There's a difference between your opinion and the opinion of priests.

Why?

Simple. The Church has all the right to promote life while you don't have the right to promote death.

The mother? I hear of mothers killing their children. Who said that the mother is the only person able to decide the fate of her child? Unless she's going to die, the child must live! The child can be adopted...but he/she must live!

Oh yeah? I hear of Priests that sexually abuse altar boys. Why did I dredge that up, you might ask? No reason, because arbitrary references are just that; arbitrary. So let's take the high road and leave them out of this.

I never said that a mother should be the only authority in the wellfare of her child. I merely meant she should be the principal authority, which should never be superseded by blanket declarations, and certainly not by declarations based on religious dogma.


Let me just set something straight here: We're not talking about living people here. We're talking about the potential for human life. Let's not get caught up in our emotions as if we were discussing strangling newborns! This isn't murder or euthanasia or whatever you want to call it, this is preventing a human life from coming into existence. It simply can't be equated to ending a human life because to do so you need a human life to end!

Principal authority...when possible. A girl can't be the principal authority. We're not talking about living people here? We're not talking about condoms, we're talking about abortion that, when not necessary, can and should be considered the assassination of a child!

Ok, poor people should use condoms as they can't guarantee a normal lifestyle to their children, but...abortion kills a living human being!

[Mefustae]

Are you atheist? If there's no afterlife...it would be a good reason to let a child live.

I don't see how the question of an afterlife even enters into this discussion.

As I said, mothers can kill their children. And I don't consider a mother who is taking abortion in consideration(even when she's risking her life) a valid one. In case of risks, she will most likely let her child die...but be sure that she will regret the decision for the rest of her life.

And those "mothers" we're talking about aren't normal "mothers": they might be 15 years old girls, not 23+ years old women who are married!

Forgive me, but I noticed that you're male. From that, I would deduce that you're yet to have children, and thus cannot be considered a mother. Now, while I often see the "you don't know what it's like, so you can't comment" line of reason to be fallacious and downright moronic in most cases, in this case it actually applies: You're not a mother, or even a parent, and thus you don't know what the **** you're talking about. I hate to word it so strongly, but that's just the way it is. Having a child a unique experience that neither you nor I can understand until we've encountered it first hand, and as males we can never truly understand it as a woman can. As such, you simply cannot state with any certainty or weight what can and cannot be considered "normal" in that situation, so you'll have to excuse me if I consider your personal view of what constitutes a 'normal' mother to be irrelevant given the circumstances.

Of course, that's sidestepping the issue that we're not talking about well-adjusted 23-year-old, married mothers in comfy, developed nations. We're talking about unwanted pregnancies to unfit mothers in unsuitable conditions. If a mother doesn't want a child, and abortion is off the table, what is she to do? Giving it up at an orphanage or adoption facility isn't exactly the norm around the world, and more often than not the child will simply be abandoned to rot in an alleyway someplace. But the important thing is that it's alive, isn't it! Heaven forbid it be aborted before it even becomes a real person, lest it miss out on the chance to lie cold and alone in a deserted alleyway, screaming its tiny head off as it slowly starves to death. And don't say that that doesn't happen, because you know as well as I do that **** like that happens far too often in the world.

Simple. The Church has all the right to promote life while you don't have the right to promote death.

Yeah, i'm promoting death. Heck, i'm a regular Charles Manson!

Principal authority...when possible. A girl can't be the principal authority. We're not talking about living people here? We're not talking about condoms, we're talking about abortion that, when not necessary, can and should be considered the assassination of a child!

'Assassination of a child'? Blimey!

What do you define as "necessary"? When the mother will die if the baby is born? Let's see how far you'll go: What if the mother might die if the baby is born, is abortion okay then? Where do you draw the line between putting the wellfare of the mother before the child?

but...abortion kills a living human being!

Please refer to the final paragraph of my previous post, in that a foetus is potential, not a human being incarnate. If you could point me to legal statue declaring a foetus as a fully-functioning human being of equal or greater value than the mother that carries it, i'd be much obliged.

[TrashMan]

I'm not condemning anyone. We're talking about preventing life from forming, not snuffing out an existing person.

Abortion = by that time life is already formed. Are you perhaps confusing this with condoms?

If anything, "condeming" would be more applicable to the child being born into an abusive, neglectful or dangerous household.

It's a possibility. but then again, the future is an unknown. Maby having the child might snap some sense in the mother/father and they start behaving more responsible - it happened before. Or not.
Either way there's no way to know for sure. A lot of people who were born in "bad" families ended up as perfectly nice persons. And there's always social services and adoption.
There are no guarantees, but there aren't any for anything in life. You might get killed tomorrow by a brick falling from a roof.
Why not kill yourself now then?

Why should it be the mother's option? Because it's her child. She created it, it's quite literally a part of her, and yet you somehow believe she can't be trusted with it? There can be no denying that there are indeed unfit mothers out there, but why should a vast minority warrant decrying abortion in virtually every case.

It's not "her" child in the property sense. She doesn't own it. You don't own life.
But it's not good for anyone to have the final word on sensitive subjects tough.

You've also fallen into the trap of believing there is always an out for children born into abusive or neglectful households. Well, what if there isn't? What if the child is subjected to violent or even sexual abuse because the child protection/wellfare system is either insufficient to act or doesn't exist at all? It's incredibly naive to believe that a child in an unfit household or in an otherwise ****ty situation will be snatched up by child wellfare in every case, or even in a majority of cases

I'm very well aware of that that not all can be saved. But you don't know WHICH can and which can't. Killing them all is simply wrong.

Let's assume you had a child that has a rare and uncurable desease, and there's a test run of a new drug going on that could cure your child. Chanses that your child can make it into the test group are 10%. Chances that it will help your child are 50%. So ther's basicly just 5% chance that oyu child will be better. Would you still pllay and try to get into the test group?
Of course you would. Anyone would try.

Let me just set something straight here: We're not talking about living people here. We're talking about the potential for human life. Let's not get caught up in our emotions as if we were discussing strangling newborns! This isn't murder or euthanasia or whatever you want to call it, this is preventing a human life from coming into existence. It simply can't be equated to ending a human life because to do so you need a human life to end!

See my first reply.

[TrashMan]

but...abortion kills a living human being!

Please refer to the final paragraph of my previous post, in that a foetus is potential, not a human being incarnate. If you could point me to legal statue declaring a foetus as a fully-functioning human being of equal or greater value than the mother that carries it, i'd be much obliged.

Legality has nothing to do with this.
A fetus IS a living human being. It grows, it develops. Yes, it's still undeveloped but does that make it any less worth?
It's a potential? that's a wierd definition? when then, does it stop being a potential and becomes a "person"? And how do you define potential? Since at 20 years a human has to potential to become many things. It's STILL changing and developing - it's a ongoing process.
Sentience? How do you mesure it anyway? Is it a proper thing to even mesure? Is it the only thing one should mesure?
So don't give me that bull****, about it not being a real "person" and therefore it's not worth much. It's human, it lives. It's wort every bit as much as your scrawny ass - in fact, far more!

[Mobius]

Are you atheist? If there's no afterlife...it would be a good reason to let a child live.

I don't see how the question of an afterlife even enters into this discussion.

Well, innocent and pure souls deserve to go to the Paradise, stuff like that...

As I said, mothers can kill their children. And I don't consider a mother who is taking abortion in consideration(even when she's risking her life) a valid one. In case of risks, she will most likely let her child die...but be sure that she will regret the decision for the rest of her life.

And those "mothers" we're talking about aren't normal "mothers": they might be 15 years old girls, not 23+ years old women who are married!

Forgive me, but I noticed that you're male. From that, I would deduce that you're yet to have children, and thus cannot be considered a mother. Now, while I often see the "you don't know what it's like, so you can't comment" line of reason to be fallacious and downright moronic in most cases, in this case it actually applies: You're not a mother, or even a parent, and thus you don't know what the **** you're talking about. I hate to word it so strongly, but that's just the way it is. Having a child a unique experience that neither you nor I can understand until we've encountered it first hand, and as males we can never truly understand it as a woman can. As such, you simply cannot state with any certainty or weight what can and cannot be considered "normal" in that situation, so you'll have to excuse me if I consider your personal view of what constitutes a 'normal' mother to be irrelevant given the circumstances.

Of course, that's sidestepping the issue that we're not talking about well-adjusted 23-year-old, married mothers in comfy, developed nations. We're talking about unwanted pregnancies to unfit mothers in unsuitable conditions. If a mother doesn't want a child, and abortion is off the table, what is she to do? Giving it up at an orphanage or adoption facility isn't exactly the norm around the world, and more often than not the child will simply be abandoned to rot in an alleyway someplace. But the important thing is that it's alive, isn't it! Heaven forbid it be aborted before it even becomes a real person, lest it miss out on the chance to lie cold and alone in a deserted alleyway, screaming its tiny head off as it slowly starves to death. And don't say that that doesn't happen, because you know as well as I do that **** like that happens far too often in the world.

Just two things:

1)

2) I have somewhat experienced abortion and we're talking about abortion. And a mother can be immature, they're just normal girls/women, and someone got them pregnant. Having sex without condoms and/or forgetting to use the pill doesn't make a female a good mother.

I don't understand why you keep claiming that children should die without having a chance of succeding in their life? I told you, they might be doctors able to help the others and promote the use of condoms!

I know there are places where growing a child up is difficult...but there are other places where children can grow up and become someone. I can mention some "bastards" like Richard Wagner, Colombus, Thomas Edward Lawrence, Leonardo da Vinci, Giovanni Boccaccio, Casanova, Alexandre Dumas jr, Jack London, Eduardo De Filippo and Antonio De Curtis.

They didn't have mature parents...now tell me if what they did is inferior to what "people with a normal lifestyle" did.

Simple. The Church has all the right to promote life while you don't have the right to promote death.

Yeah, i'm promoting death. Heck, i'm a regular Charles Manson!

Yes.

Principal authority...when possible. A girl can't be the principal authority. We're not talking about living people here? We're not talking about condoms, we're talking about abortion that, when not necessary, can and should be considered the assassination of a child!

'Assassination of a child'? Blimey!

What do you define as "necessary"? When the mother will die if the baby is born? Let's see how far you'll go: What if the mother might die if the baby is born, is abortion okay then? Where do you draw the line between putting the wellfare of the mother before the child?

Depends on the maturity of the mother. Do you think the words "Will" and "Might" can influence the choice of a mother in a radical way? The friend of one of my cousins died in order to ensure the survival of her child. My best friend's mother risked to die but managed to survive. My mother aborted a few months before adopting me. Depends on the individuals... I admire the first two people I mentioned...the first one has been unlucky but I consider her a fine person.

Mothers should do whatever they can for their children but, as I said, depends on the individuals.

[Nuclear1]

Simple. The Church has all the right to promote life while you don't have the right to promote death.

Yeah, i'm promoting death. Heck, i'm a regular Charles Manson!

Well, you're not exactly promoting life for the infant, so...

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100% on the abortion issue.  I'm just pointing out holes in peoples' thought processes.

[karajorma]

You can't kill what was never alive.

[Mobius]

"Alive" doesn't necessarily mean "anything that came out from the *****"...

[Nuclear1]

Oh, let's not go there.

[Flipside]

It never ceases to amaze me how easily people come to opinions about other people's decisions, especially people they have never met and know nothing about.

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but the danger lay in assuming that your opinion is the only possible right answer, because there is no 'right' answer, that's why I'm Pro-Choice, because it's about choice, not about what other people decide for you.

Is abortion murder? To Anti-abortionists, of course it is, to Pro-abortionists, of course it isn't, who's to say who is right? God? Well, frankly, if it's up to God, I'd appreciate it if anyone who isn't God refrain from trying to do his job for him...

[Mars]

He was in my old address book, but I lost that a few years back.

[Admiral_Stones]

Oh snap.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/23/save-the-planet-have-an-abortion/

Oh well. In this case, thei'll be extinct anyway soon.

[TrashMan]

You can't kill what was never alive.

What do you mean it's not alive? Its growing and developing - it IS alive by any definition of life we know.

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but the danger lay in assuming that your opinion is the only possible right answer, because there is no 'right' answer, that's why I'm Pro-Choice, because it's about choice, not about what other people decide for you.

You assumption Flippy, that doesn't have to be correct. You are assuming that your assumption is correct.

[Mobius]

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but the danger lay in assuming that your opinion is the only possible right answer, because there is no 'right' answer, that's why I'm Pro-Choice, because it's about choice, not about what other people decide for you.

Who the hell said that a fetus is not a human being?!?

[Flipside]

You think of it as a human being because that supports what you feel about abortion, that's my entire point. I believe otherwise. Depending on what school of thought you follow and how you interpret those results, you will get different answers to the same question. That doesn't mean that either answer is wrong, it just means it's all down to personal choice.

The way I see it, passing a law that any unmarried mother must have a termination would be a terrible, terrible thing. In exactly the same manner as a law saying that no-one can have an abortion would be a terrible thing. It doesn't mean you must have an abortion, it just means you can.

[TrashMan]

Well it ain't a cat or a horse.
It's clearly a LIVE member of a human species.

F'course you can try arguing semantics of what it actually means being alive or human, but IMHO it's pretty obvious what the truth is.

[Flipside]

But then, is a Yolk a Bird?