[Turambar]

I believe the solution to this problem is abortions.

I'm against abortions.

so don't get one

[General Battuta]

iamzack, it's generally safer to just disregard Trashman's contributions to GenDisc threads.

In general, it's wise thing to just ignore pretty much everyone, not just me. You included.

Forum debates are very rarely intelectual or literary highhlights of anyones day.

I have no particular problem with you as a person, Trash, but there's a higher-than-usual risk of flame!

In general, it's wise thing to just ignore pretty much everyone, not just me. You included.

Forum debates are very rarely intelectual or literary highhlights of anyones day.

Obviously you don't read what Battuta usually posts.

Aw, thanks. I might deserve that more if I could actually find a source for that battleship-mines thing.

[Liberator]

Abortions, or more acurately they're recipients, are rampant with complications post procedure, such as depression and a sense of loss.  Not saying they should be illegal, but then again, they weren't pre-1976 either.

My feeling is this, by the time an abortion is practical as a way of terminating a pregnancy you are killing a baby, end of story.

Termination of a pregnancy, to me, is only viable using the so-called "abortion pill", outside of that window, no go unless the health of the mother is directly threatened by the pregnancy.  "I don't want to be pregnant!" is not a sufficient reason to kill a baby.

[General Battuta]

Abortions, or more acurately they're recipients, are rampant with complications post procedure, such as depression and a sense of loss.  Not saying they should be illegal, but then again, they weren't pre-1976 either.

Same's true of pregnancy.

My feeling is this, by the time an abortion is practical as a way of terminating a pregnancy you are killing a baby, end of story.

Termination of a pregnancy, to me, is only viable using the so-called "abortion pill", outside of that window, no go unless the health of the mother is directly threatened by the pregnancy.  "I don't want to be pregnant!" is not a sufficient reason to kill a baby.

Oh God please let's not get into this we just had an epic flamewar on this last year.

This is the rule: you don't have to have an abortion, okay? And you can let everybody else decide for themselves too.

[StarSlayer]

This tread is an abortion

Seriously are there any other hot button issues we need to add to General Discussion?

[iamzack]

Abortions, or more acurately they're recipients, are rampant with complications post procedure, such as depression and a sense of loss.  Not saying they should be illegal, but then again, they weren't pre-1976 either.

My feeling is this, by the time an abortion is practical as a way of terminating a pregnancy you are killing a baby, end of story.

Termination of a pregnancy, to me, is only viable using the so-called "abortion pill", outside of that window, no go unless the health of the mother is directly threatened by the pregnancy.  "I don't want to be pregnant!" is not a sufficient reason to kill a baby.

Post-abortion syndrome is a complete lie.

"I don't want to be pregnant" is a perfectly good reason to kill a baby. See, I do believe that fetuses count as "human life." However, I also believe that no human has the right to live inside another human against their will, feeding off of them like a parasite, even if it's necessary to their survival.

That's like me stealing your kidney because I need one to survive. It's not a completely essential organ, and you'll survive if I take it for a while, say, nine months, and then give it back when I don't need it anymore.

[MP-Ryan]

My feeling is this, by the time an abortion is practical as a way of terminating a pregnancy you are killing a baby, end of story.

Termination of a pregnancy, to me, is only viable using the so-called "abortion pill", outside of that window, no go unless the health of the mother is directly threatened by the pregnancy.  "I don't want to be pregnant!" is not a sufficient reason to kill a baby.

You realize the majority of abortions that are performed are medical abortions during the first 7-8 weeks following the woman's last period, using one of either (depending on the country) methotrexate and misoprostol OR mifepristone (RU 486) and misoprostol, right?

Even then, surgical abortions are generally only performed in the third trimester if there is immediate risk to the health and safety of the mother.  Most abortions fall well before the 20-weeks (five months) viability period.

Just sayin'.

[Flipside]

Shall I mention the rhythm method again? Considering that system relies on a fertilized egg being ejected because it is too late in the cycle for it to attack to the wall of the womb? Or the 'morning after pill', which does the same thing.

Abortion isn't just going under the knife, and Roman Catholicism has been practising church-sanctioned 'abortions' for hundreds of years via the said rhythm method.

[IronBeer]

Shall I mention the rhythm method again? Considering that system relies on a fertilized egg being ejected because it is too late in the cycle for it to attack to the wall of the womb? Or the 'morning after pill', which does the same thing.

Abortion isn't just going under the knife, and Roman Catholicism has been practising church-sanctioned 'abortions' for hundreds of years via the said rhythm method.

(Skipping to the last page)
It's not an abortion because a pregnancy could not have been achieved under those circumstances. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. The rhythm method simply is a manner of knowing when a woman is fertile or not.

[MP-Ryan]

Shall I mention the rhythm method again? Considering that system relies on a fertilized egg being ejected because it is too late in the cycle for it to attack to the wall of the womb? Or the 'morning after pill', which does the same thing.

Abortion isn't just going under the knife, and Roman Catholicism has been practising church-sanctioned 'abortions' for hundreds of years via the said rhythm method.

(Skipping to the last page)
It's not an abortion because a pregnancy could not have been achieved under those circumstances. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. The rhythm method simply is a manner of knowing when a woman is fertile or not.

RIF.

Allow me to show you:

Considering that system relies on a fertilized egg being ejected because it is too late in the cycle for it to attack to the wall of the womb?

A fertilized egg is what most anti-abortionists claim to be a human being.  The rhythm method tricks a woman's body into preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg.  if you're against abortion at any stage because it's the termination of a human life, then you're a class-A hypocrite if you use or condone the rhythm method.

[karajorma]

(Skipping to the last page)
It's not an abortion because a pregnancy could not have been achieved under those circumstances. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. The rhythm method simply is a manner of knowing when a woman is fertile or not.

I've made this argument before but you obviously weren't around for it. Most pro-lifers argue that life begins at conception. However the rhythm method isn't designed around preventing conception. It's designed around making sure that the fertilised cell doesn't implant.

In other words if you believe that life begins at conception you are killing more people using the rhythm method than you would be by using barrier or chemical forms of contraception as those methods prevent conception from occurring in the first place.

Pregnancy may have not occurred but that's a rather moot point since we're going from the assumption that life begins at conception. Which makes using the rhythm method a senseless waste of life compared with condoms.

See, I do believe that fetuses count as "human life." However, I also believe that no human has the right to live inside another human against their will, feeding off of them like a parasite, even if it's necessary to their survival.

That's like me stealing your kidney because I need one to survive. It's not a completely essential organ, and you'll survive if I take it for a while, say, nine months, and then give it back when I don't need it anymore.

Now that's an interesting take on it actually. It does open up some rather interesting arguments.

[IronBeer]

My apologies. See if I do an off-the-cuff argument in the future. (Hint: I won't)

[General Battuta]

Wow, IronBeer, that was actually impressively mature.

[karajorma]

My apologies. See if I do an off-the-cuff argument in the future. (Hint: I won't)

Feel free to do so. It's better to make a mistake and learn something new (or see a new way of thinking about things) than to keep quiet and remain ignorant.

As I said, you weren't around last time this came up.

[Flipside]

Don't worry about it Ironbeer, being here is a learning experience, and this argument has been going on in this forum for at least 5 years, probably longer

Besides if no-one ever made an off the cuff argument, the entire Internet would be a wasteland

[TrashMan]

Obviously you don't read what Battuta usually posts.

I read everything everyone posts. And none of us usually have anything particulary deep to say.

I have no particular problem with you as a person, Trash, but there's a higher-than-usual risk of flame!

Why? For stating the obvious? I don't know about you, but I don't live in a dellusion that I'm so absolutely brilliant that everyone will love to hear what I have to say.
I doubt I'm that interesting or smart. No one is.
If I wanted a mental workout or something really intelectual, I'd go read a good book - not debate on various forums. These forums do have a somewhat higher standard tough.

[Scotty]

Why? For stating the obvious?

There is this thing called tact, and it generally helps keep discussions from becoming heated.

Personal take:  I think that life begins, technically, at conception.  I am against abortions unless the pregnancy directly threatens the life of the mother.  "I don't want a baby" is not, to me, an acceptable reason.  If you don't want a baby, use contraceptives, or don't do it at all.  That seems to me like deciding to kill your kids just because you don't want to have to support them anymore.  "I don't want to support them anymore" is most definately not a good enough reason for a jury.  Now let's all agree to disagree.

(That's my opinion, deal with it.  It won't change, don't even try to do so, it will lead to Bad Things, as such things usually do.)

[iamzack]

If you don't want a baby, use contraceptives, or don't do it at all.  That seems to me like deciding to kill your kids just because you don't want to have to support them anymore.  "I don't want to support them anymore" is most definately not a good enough reason for a jury.  Now let's all agree to disagree.

(That's my opinion, deal with it.  It won't change, don't even try to do so, it will lead to Bad Things, as such things usually do.)

That's not a very good analogy. Kids that are already born aren't living inside of you causing you all kinds of physical discomfort, health problems, etc. I'm a bit sensitive to this issue, seeing as I do have a uterus and would be extremely opposed to having another person living in it.

[Scotty]

Why? For stating the obvious?

There is this thing called tact, and it generally helps keep discussions from becoming heated.

Personal take:  I think that life begins, technically, at conception.  I am against abortions unless the pregnancy directly threatens the life of the mother.  "I don't want a baby" is not, to me, an acceptable reason.  If you don't want a baby, use contraceptives, or don't do it at all.  That seems to me like deciding to kill your kids just because you don't want to have to support them anymore.  "I don't want to support them anymore" is most definately not a good enough reason for a jury.  Now let's all agree to disagree.

(That's my opinion, deal with it.  It won't change, don't even try to do so, it will lead to Bad Things, as such things usually do.)

Relevant part bolded and color changed.

(Wow, I just quoted myself  )

[TrashMan]

That's not a very good analogy. Kids that are already born aren't living inside of you causing you all kinds of physical discomfort, health problems, etc. I'm a bit sensitive to this issue, seeing as I do have a uterus and would be extremely opposed to having another person living in it.

No, but they can cause you physical discomfort, stress, exhaustion and health problems even outside.

So being inconvenient for a person is pretty much irrelevant.