Mr. Bush has signed a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortion, and the first federal law to endow a fetus with legal rights distinct from the pregnant woman.

http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/s...BNStory/Front/
<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">
So, let's see... these women are upset cause now their doctors aren't allowed to pull a premature baby halfway from the womb, stab it in the back of the neck, and suck out it's brains while it's arms and feet flail?

Or are they upset cause now if a person kills a pregnant chick s/he's liable for the deaths of two? Or if s/he attacks a chick and causes a miscarriage s/he may be charged with murdering the baby?

I wish Canada would follow suit on some of these laws. There is no need to perform partial birth abortion. There are other methods of abortion. And if anyone attacked my significant other and caused the miscarriage of my baby, I would be out for blood. I'd want to see them pay, cause, born or not, they would have taken my baby away from me.

I understand the need for abortion, after all women are too stupid to figure out where babies come from or how to keep from getting pregnant if they dont want a baby, so there is, of course a huge need for the government santioned murder of thousands of babies annually. (Sarcasim Alert!!!! I don't think women are stupid)

Im so tired of people bringing "coat hanger" abortions into this frey. This is not the year 1970 where birth control was not so advanced. There is the pill, condoms, IUD's, Norplant, Spermacidal foams and jellies, etc today. If you dont want to have a baby, use birth control, (use 2 or even 3 different types at the same time if you really dont want a baby) or better yet, dont have sex. (because anyone with more than a 5th grade education knows that everytime you have sex, there is a possibility of the woman getting pregnant) After all, nobody ever died from lack of sex, but thousands of children are dying every year because of abortion.

As has been said, society is judged by the way it treats its most helpless citizens, and and a baby in the womb is as helpless as they come. Some day this society is going to be viewed as barbaric as the nazi's with the concentrations camps, the southern united states with slaves etc because of abortion. There was a time when these people were not considered people by those in power. Do you see any similarities? After all the baby in the womb is a live human. Alive because Alive is defined as changing and growing...And a human because its nothing else.

What I find truly amazing is that we have, in this day and age, denegrated to the level that the only thing that makes a person a baby or a "fetus" is its mothers opinion. Wasn't there a time when black people were not people, women and live children were considered property by their husbands/fathers? Dogs and cats and cattle are given more respect than unborn babies. Yes this is truly amazing. </font>

[ 04-27-2004, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

You are absolutely right in some ways - birth control is readily available, so why do lots of women (and it is lots, not just a few) want to be able to get abortions? Why are women pregnant when they don't want to be pregnant? Your paragraph about women being stupid was obviously a joke, but that seems to be the mainstream view of why women get pregnant when they don't want to be - they were too stupid to do anything about it. Well, as I'm sure most of us are aware it takes two people to make a baby and thats hardly ever mentioned. Women don't have babies they don't want because they're too stupid to work out what you do with a contraceptive pill, but because for some reason they had unprotected sex with some guy and now, presumably, regret that.

So what kind of society are we living in when thousands of women every year get pregnant because their other half lied to them, or misled them, or simply pressured them in order to get them to have unprotected sex, yet once they try to remedy that situation they're told its their fault in the first place! That they shouldn't have been so stupid. Lets not kid ourselves, abortion is as much an issue of liberation for women as is equal pay and hiring conditions. It is a clear case of the mainstream society taking a particular problem thats at the very least 50% due to men (and probably quite a lot more - lets face it) and proclaim that women can deal with the consequences. Even those pro-choice seem to often portray it as if its granting a boon to the women in question, as if its a method of curbing poverty somehow, when in fact its often due to the poverty and discrimination that women want to get the abortion anyway.

I'm not against abortion, I'm just against partial birth abortion.

You are absolutely right in some ways - birth control is readily available, so why do lots of women (and it is lots, not just a few) want to be able to get abortions? Why are women pregnant when they don't want to be pregnant? Your paragraph about women being stupid was obviously a joke, but that seems to be the mainstream view of why women get pregnant when they don't want to be - they were too stupid to do anything about it. Well, as I'm sure most of us are aware it takes two people to make a baby and thats hardly ever mentioned. Women don't have babies they don't want because they're too stupid to work out what you do with a contraceptive pill, but because for some reason they had unprotected sex with some guy and now, presumably, regret that.

So what kind of society are we living in when thousands of women every year get pregnant because their other half lied to them, or misled them, or simply pressured them in order to get them to have unprotected sex, yet once they try to remedy that situation they're told its their fault in the first place! That they shouldn't have been so stupid. Lets not kid ourselves, abortion is as much an issue of liberation for women as is equal pay and hiring conditions. It is a clear case of the mainstream society taking a particular problem thats at the very least 50% due to men (and probably quite a lot more - lets face it) and proclaim that women can deal with the consequences. Even those pro-choice seem to often portray it as if its granting a boon to the women in question, as if its a method of curbing poverty somehow, when in fact its often due to the poverty and discrimination that women want to get the abortion anyway. </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">While you are correct that it is 50% the guys fault as well. The women get most of the perks from having a baby and basically all the say. Lets face it the guy has no say over if he can afford the kid or not. He can't say I want an abortion yet he will end up paying a good bit in child support to that woman if she has the kid (usually a good bit more than will take care of the kid depending on salary). He can't say don't have an abortion I will take and raise the kid. In this situation would the woman have to pay child support? The real issue is partial-birth abortion as they had plenty of time to make a decision before this stage.</font>

[ 04-27-2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Either inform me when men can get pregnant, or maybe we should have more women have a say in laws regarding abortion.

I'm not a fan of partial-birth abortion either, not by a long shot... Usually if there's a problem of some kind, a woman should abort earlier in the pregnancy. But I was at the march. And don't believe what the press says, either. At least a million attended that march... Not all of us got counted. Not by a long shot.

And I really hate it when pro-lifers discuss abortion because religion is brought into the issue too often for my liking. When does the soul enter the body? At conception? Well, alright. What if the zygote splits and becomes twins? Do two souls enter the cell? Three? What if one gets aborted? Does the soul go to heaven? Does it get reincarnated? Are we prepared to make distinctions here, in our supposedly secular society?

You can't make laws regarding something that needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

And I'm not even going to mention the fact that pro-lifers are more prone to violence anger, and gory images during protests or outside clinics. How is showing a bloody image of an aborted fetus good for the children that are present at the demonstration? We didn't parade about color photos of infants in garbage cans, or abused children.

Finally, I would like to propose two scenarios. Woman A gets pregnant at age 18, accidentally, but her religion forbids abortion. She drops out of school and raises a child whom she resents. Woman B gets pregnant at age 18, but realizes that she is in no position to raise a child. She aborts it and waits until she's thirty to raise a child in a loving environment.

Which child is better off?

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">I am not against abortion but I am against partial-birth abortion. The kid has arms, legs, and is almost developed. She should know before this stage if not have the kid and put it up for adoption. There are alternatives to murder.</font>

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">What are kids doing at such a demonstration? Demonstrations like this can turn ugly it is like placing your children in harms way. For me I don't think it is a good event for kids to take part in. </font>

[ 04-27-2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Silly comment.
Just to note -- I think the new partial birth ban includes an escape hatch for women whose health is at serious risk if they give birth.
Like it or not, this is central to the whole debate. And, it is really why the issue cannot be resolved between some people. If I have no right to tell you that you cannot be Christian, I likewise have no right to tell you when the soul enters the fetus.
Sure you can -- we do all the time. In fact, every criminal law follows this format: [Guilt = act + guilty mind - mitigating circumstances]

I guess this is the overall perception. I'm a pro-choicer though (actually, I prefer "pro death"), and I can get pretty darned violent when I want.
Obviously Child B is better off. However, what you are missing is the Child A is better off in scenario A than in scenario B -- Because in scenario B, Child A is DEAD.

well, i read an artical about an old form of abortion where they used to stick a sharp object in the womb, then just scramble the baby, and pull out the pieces. as it so happens, one particular baby managed to dodge and lose just an arm, so as the doctor pulls out the pieces he pulls out an arm and... SUPRISE... live baby. the doctor has now not aborted the fetus, he has delivered it, and to kill it at this point would consitute murder of the first degree. thus, doc bandages the babies severed arm and woman puts baby up for addoption. 15 years later, baby has grown into an attractive teenage girl (with a minor blemish of lacking one arm) who has never met her real mom (yeah, i wouldnt want my kid to know me either, after trying to abort them and accidently just choping their arm off). asked by a reporter if she was glad that the abortion doctor had failed to kill her, she said that every day is a gift that she appreciates and even without an arm and without a mother she wouldnt wish to have missed out on life.

so, which child is better off? the child who dies without a chance to ever get to experience anything in life? or the child who gets to live? well, i dont think theres anyone out there who doesnt have SOME joy in their life, so child A will get some good times and some bad times, just like everyone else in this world. child B will be too dead to get a chance to experience anything, much less joy. you tell me which is better off...

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">I am not against abortion but I am against partial-birth abortion. The kid has arms, legs, and is almost developed. She should know before this stage if not have the kid and put it up for adoption. There are alternatives to murder.</font>

Quote:

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: How is showing a bloody image of an aborted fetus good for the children that are present at the demonstration?

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">What are kids doing at such a demonstration? Demonstrations like this can turn ugly it is like placing your children in harms way. For me I don't think it is a good event for kids to take part in. </font> </font>[/QUOTE]I see a *lot* of kids at these demonstrations. Most of them are dragged along by the pro-lifers. It's irresponsible.

I know a girl who went to that march.

She's never had an abortion.

I know a large number of women who have had abortions. All, all, all without exception are filled with irreconcilable grief at what they did, at the life they took. All wish there had been just ONE VOICE counselling them against destroying the life of their unborn child. But there were none. And all they are left with is deep grief and regret.

Hundreds of thousands were at a march millions have forever been denied the opportunity to attend.
I wonder how many others who marched never had abortions, and how many women who have aborted sat home and wept.

Thankfully I know one woman of incredible bravery, who will be speaking at an abortion couselling clinic, trying to help women come to terms with their grief and move on. She's gotten the courage to take her private darkest grief, weather it and help other women heal. Kudos and salutations.

Meanwhile hundreds of thousands marched on Washington screaming for the right to not only destroy countless more human lives, but also send countless more women into extreme mental anguish as a result.

What a wonderful caring society we live in. So educated and life respecting. So open minded and compassionate.

How do you think the human race survived without abortion for millenia?
The grandparents. In "the village" the grandparents took a more active role in raising children, because they were mellower, had more time, and had more wisdom.

I have a collaborator who was raped at age 12 and became pregnant. She had the child. Her mother helped her raise the child. She is now 24 and has the most beautiful 12 year old daughter. An act of hate was turned around, and a wonderful human has been given love, and brought those around her much joy and happiness.

You present intellectual hypotheticals, yet the reality is life has so many twists and turns, that, though seemingly negative, can be catalysts for unspeakable joy, if taken on the chin.

The child had love, a close relationship with mother and grandmother, the mother finished schooling and has an incredibly sucessful career as a songwriter and singer.

There is always an alternative to killing. Humans killing humans should be an anathaema to humanity. No government killing citizens, no murders, no murders in art, no abortions no euthenasia, no suicide. Make the concept of humans taking human life, so unthinkable, it becomes as rare as say, cannibalism.

The only problem I have with most pro-lifers I've interacted with is their hypocrisy.

They talk about how important the child's life is, how it's murder, and how the kids should live a life, yet they're not willing to adopt any kids nor pay welfare to those women whose only other option than adoption was abortion, nor foster care those kids.

What happened to the importance of that child? Or is it only important as long as it's birthed?

As far as abortion is concerned, no real opinion here except for thos pro-lifers that claim to give a damn about kids when they don't.

Funny, I know a few women who had abortions, and while they're not proud of what they did, they realize it was the right choice, and would make that choice again if needed.

How do you think the human race survived without abortion for millenia?
The grandparents. In "the village" the grandparents took a more active role in raising children, because they were mellower, had more time, and had more wisdom.

I have a collaborator who was raped at age 12 and became pregnant. She had the child. Her mother helped her raise the child. She is now 24 and has the most beautiful 12 year old daughter. An act of hate was turned around, and a wonderful human has been given love, and brought those around her much joy and happiness.

You present intellectual hypotheticals, yet the reality is life has so many twists and turns, that, though seemingly negative, can be catalysts for unspeakable joy, if taken on the chin.
</font>[/QUOTE]Why yes, I suppose I do. You have a beautiful outlook on life, but I'm afraid reality isn't always that beautiful. Which is worse, do you suppose? Having an abortion or abandoning a child in a garbage can?

An interesting question, actually. I'd say an abortion is better because the child has no consciousness yet (presumably). Nevertheless, I don't see that this rebuts Yorick's example -- who didn't leave the child in a garbage can.

theyre both murder in my eyes. if anything the baby should be taken to an adoption agency. whether or not the baby is killed pre or post delivery doesnt make it any less dead.

An interesting question, actually. I'd say an abortion is better because the child has no consciousness yet (presumably). Nevertheless, I don't see that this rebuts Yorick's example -- who didn't leave the child in a garbage can. </font>[/QUOTE]He painted a rosy example of a community willing to raise a child. I'm saying that, sadly, this isn't always the case.

Well, I don't know if a one-armed abortion survivor has a "rosey" story. Nevertheless, allow me to paint a less rosey picture, but one that nevertheless indicates adoption should be a seiously-considered alternative to abortion. First I've got to repeat Jay Leno's joke last night:

One of the networks is running a reality show where 5 couples compete to adopt a baby. That's so sick, even Fox didn't want to do it. However, the other 4 contestants don't go home empty-handed -- they get to adopt a crack baby of their choice.

So, Jay's joke may have poor taste, but it certainly reflects reality. People are falling over themselves to adopt kids here. They fly to South America, Russia, and China to adopt children. If the child is lucky enough to have white or light skin, it will have lawyers, doctors, professors, etc. literally fighting each other for it. A child is not shit-outta-luck just because the mother didn't keep it.

::nods:: Of course, adoption is preferable to abortion, certainly. And partial-birth abortion is a horrid procedure. But I feel that adoption-abortion should be the woman's choice.

An interesting question, actually. I'd say an abortion is better because the child has no consciousness yet (presumably). Nevertheless, I don't see that this rebuts Yorick's example -- who didn't leave the child in a garbage can. </font>[/QUOTE]He painted a rosy example of a community willing to raise a child. I'm saying that, sadly, this isn't always the case. </font>[/QUOTE]And why not? These are choice humans are in control of. What kind of society puts women in a situation where they feel they have to destroy life? Where is the community? the breakdown of the "village" and the extended family, and now the nuclear family is at the heart of this issue. The breakdown of COMMUNITY directly leads to the murders of unborn children. Horrific in the extreme.

As per Timbers example, kids have been left on church doorsteps for centuries. Moses was left in a little boat in the swamp. Taliesin the Bard was abandoned. It is better to be left in a garbage can or aborted? Garbage can, no contest. While there is life there is hope.

And that is the whole point. In putting women in a situation where they believe they are "choosing" what's best for their life, we not only destroy the mental health of these women, or damage their ability to bear children in future, but most importantly, WE DESTROY HUMAN LIFE. How is it that "choice" overrides life? YES children are inconvenient. I was an "accident" that caused my parents problems as they adjusted to an inexpected pregnancy. So what. So many humans are. LIFE is unexpected. My point about the 12 year old mother was that is SEEMINGLY bad - just because it is unexpected and different to what you planned - is not necessarily BAD. Women when they abort are throwing away countless blessings that arise from taking lifes difficulties on the chin and adjusting. Human adaptability is part of what makes us so dominant over the planet. It's why we survive. No the "rosy picture" doesn't always happen, but it CAN if people CHOOSE it. I have a schoolfriend who was raped and had the child as well. That's two rapes that resulted in two births, and two beautiful humans now on the planet.

And should we have the right to kill our elderly parents when they get old an inconvenience us? If the husband dies when the child is three, should they be allowed to kill their child?

And also, what of the father? If you want fathers to start taking responsibilty don't remove the choice aspect from their life. The child was created by two. I do know of a women that aborted AGAINST the will of the father who would have been prepared to rear the child alone. How is this tolerable in a humane society. The father was left with the grief of losing a child to a vindictive woman who then left their marriage.

It cuts both ways. At the moment it's all "The Womans choice" so of course prospective fathers are less careful.

An interesting question, actually. I'd say an abortion is better because the child has no consciousness yet (presumably). Nevertheless, I don't see that this rebuts Yorick's example -- who didn't leave the child in a garbage can. </font>[/QUOTE]He painted a rosy example of a community willing to raise a child. I'm saying that, sadly, this isn't always the case. </font>[/QUOTE]And why not? These are choice humans are in control of. </font>[/QUOTE]Why not? Because it doesn't happen! If it DID, people wouldn't feel the need to have abortions, would they?

And should we have the right to kill our elderly parents when they get old an inconvenience us? If the husband dies when the child is three, should they be allowed to kill their child?

And also, what of the father? If you want fathers to start taking responsibilty don't remove the choice aspect from their life. The child was created by two. I do know of a women that aborted AGAINST the will of the father who would have been prepared to rear the child alone. How is this tolerable in a humane society. The father was left with the grief of losing a child to a vindictive woman who then left their marriage.

It cuts both ways. At the moment it's all "The Womans choice" so of course prospective fathers are less careful. </font>[/QUOTE]Let's try this. When do you feel a human being is created, Yorick? At what precise moment? When sperm meets egg?

Yes that is funny. Those sort of women are few and far between. How many did you say you knew? How old are they? How long ago were the abortions?

Check with feminist movements which declare abortion a disaster for women. What society makes bearing life an inconvenience??? Where is the support? The edification of the highest role in life? What state are we in, when people are afraid of experiencing what every parent says is the most wonderful moment on their life??

Abortion =
Abort joy
Abort wonderment
Abort new challenges
Abort new perspective
Abort untold happiness
Abort fears, struggles, sucesses, laughter, tears
Abort a child
Abort life

Adopt your child, give your child away, involve your parents in raising your child, get involved in a church that will help, anything, anything other than killing your unborn child.

And should we have the right to kill our elderly parents when they get old an inconvenience us? If the husband dies when the child is three, should they be allowed to kill their child?

And also, what of the father? If you want fathers to start taking responsibilty don't remove the choice aspect from their life. The child was created by two. I do know of a women that aborted AGAINST the will of the father who would have been prepared to rear the child alone. How is this tolerable in a humane society. The father was left with the grief of losing a child to a vindictive woman who then left their marriage.

It cuts both ways. At the moment it's all "The Womans choice" so of course prospective fathers are less careful. </font>[/QUOTE]Let's try this. When do you feel a human being is created, Yorick? At what precise moment? When sperm meets egg? </font>[/QUOTE]Yep. When the egg is fertilised. When life begins.

When does a seed become a plant?

I strongly disagree. Even if there is a soul, I think it would not enter until the creature has brain activity. If we can euthanize someone who's a vegetable, the fetus who has not yet had a thought is equally "unalive." Besides, I know too much biology to accept this -- I'd at least like for it to look different than a fish's fetus before I start calling it human.

I also have a different experience here. I have found that the majority who have shared their experience with me consider it the right choice, even though it causes them sadness. The ones who are the least affected are the ones who took the morning after pill (which has been available for a lot longer than it's been legal).

I have two problems with this:
1. I think that developing good humans is far more important than simply birthing more humans. I am in favor of quality over quantity -- and you know my views about overpopulation support the same perspective. Any sow can pop out a kid -- it don't make you a special and beautiful flower. But, it takes a lot of effort and caring to be a good parent. There's a big distinction here.

2. I don't want to aggrandize childbirthing to the point that it overshadows the other accomplishments women can make. I know a wonderful trial attorney who is getting high marks at her job and becoming a very skilled prosecutor. She does a lot of good in this world. If she got pregnant tomorrow and decided, "You know what, I'm not ready yet," I would fully understand (oh, did I mention she's my wife?). There are contributions women can make to society that are vastly superior to popping out another mouth to feed. As I said, it's their choice.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">I think a big part of the problem with abortion lies with society and the community. While the staunch conservatives preach about no abortion after the child is born it is abandoned by those same conservatives.

Yorick is correct however Where there is life there is hope and it is possible that it may have a better life than those who have not been given up. There is always a chance of being adopted.

I also believe the father should have a more of a role in making such a decision especially if he is willing to take it in a raise it by himself. Our courts tend to favor women even if they are some criminal or not fit to take care of a child. Fathers do win but they have to fight a hell of alot harder to get anywhere with the courts.

The worst the woman gets from having a baby is a few stretch marks and maybe a little discomfort at times especially towards the end of term. Big deal, than again that is another problem with our society having to look so prim and proper.

There is also the factor of no longer accepting responsibility for ones actions. We tend to take the easy way out even if it may not be the right way. This is yet another growing problem with society and the courts and laws seem to grow slacker all the time.

It is the woman's body but she has a life growing inside of her that is not really a part of her body but another body. By giving into abortion we are treating unborn children the same as they were parasites. I mean a tape worm is a living thing and just because it is in your body does not mean it is a part of it. Abortion means we place the same value on an unborn child as we would a tape worm. We tend to treat animals better than people. God forbid anyone do anything to a puppy we will put them up for adoption yet an unborn child we will pluck from the womb like a leech on the skin.

That all said there may be cases were abortion should be allowed. They should be taken on case by case scenario however. In Timbers wife's case they could easily put it up for adoption it isn't as if she would need to stop working. I think the Bhaal in Timber would come out and he would want to keep his mortal prodigy after it was born if this were the case. :D

I had a cousin who get pregnant and wanted a career as a nurse. She put the baby up for adoption and it was adopted by her Aunt who could not have children. Anyway she still got to see her child, know how it was doing, and she became a very successful nurse. Every thing turned out well except now the Aunt is now dieing with breast cancer which is sad. :( But that child who is now about 15 was a blessing in disguise to that Aunt. If my cousin had aborted she would have regretted it. The thing that was different about this situation was she was adopted in the family. The mother did not have to have regrets, and if the child ever goes searching she will not be hard to find. </font>

[ 04-29-2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Yep, I said as much earlier, so I'm in agreeance.

As for choices, I'd like to agree with both Illumina and Yorick. The Rosy picture is far from what we see; however it is attainable. Just rare.

It's far easier to look at what's good and ignore what isn't considered good.

[ 04-29-2004, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Jerr Conner ]

Note: Agreeance is only a word if you are President of the U.S. ;)

The point wasn't that me and my wife could adopt, the point was that if she got preggers and did not want to have the kid at the time, I would consent to her decision. I feel she'll ultimately do a lot of good for the world (my job = make $$, her job = save our mortal souls), probably more good than the good done by raising one more kid.

And as for the Bhaalspawn comment, well... erm.... I don't know what to say. I'm probably as much a megalomaniac as Bhaal, but without the evil cruelty. For instance, I wouldn't treat my kids like Bhaal did -- have 20 kids and make them kill each other to the last one.

I'm not quite sure how it's like to be aborted, or to be dead, so it's a bit hard to tell.
We don't really know for sure when it is, do we? I'd say we may just as well not kill off what may be human beings then.

And should we have the right to kill our elderly parents when they get old an inconvenience us? If the husband dies when the child is three, should they be allowed to kill their child?

And also, what of the father? If you want fathers to start taking responsibilty don't remove the choice aspect from their life. The child was created by two. I do know of a women that aborted AGAINST the will of the father who would have been prepared to rear the child alone. How is this tolerable in a humane society. The father was left with the grief of losing a child to a vindictive woman who then left their marriage.

It cuts both ways. At the moment it's all "The Womans choice" so of course prospective fathers are less careful. </font>[/QUOTE]Let's try this. When do you feel a human being is created, Yorick? At what precise moment? When sperm meets egg? </font>[/QUOTE]Yep. When the egg is fertilised. When life begins.

When does a seed become a plant? </font>[/QUOTE]Fine. What if there are twins? Triplets? Do two or three souls get crammed into the zygote? And this isn't tongue in cheek, I'm dead serious. Do they split off? What if they don't? What if there's a miscarriage or an abortion, what happens to the souls? Do they go to heaven, or are they reincarnated someplace else? I need to know what you think about these things before we can go further.

In that given case, there was no access to such a pristine resource as experienced individuals...

You're starting to sound like L. Fletcher Prouty with all this talk of villages and raising kids. Everyone knows parenting is a myth, only the state day care system, schools and TV can raise kids!

[quote]I have a collaborator who was raped at age 12 and became pregnant. She had the child. Her mother helped her raise the child. She is now 24 and has the most beautiful 12 year old daughter. An act of hate was turned around, and a wonderful human has been given love, and brought those around her much joy and happiness.

An exception to a given rule. Besides that, the asshole rapist has WON! He has passed on his seed, and his taking advantage of an innocent 12-year-old girl has made him genetically victorious. If I had a daughter and she was raped, I would want her to get an abortion for that reason and if she were that young I'm not about to have her risk her life to carry his baby to term, and I most certainly wouldn't force a 12-year old girl, someone physically immature, to give birth. The rapist should not win. The psychological power impulses and sexual insecurities and whatnot that drove them to it (they still chose, no matter what you sayk, however) are driven by that genetic drumbeat of passing on our genes. I don't think he should get the prize for playing the genetics game dirty.

That's true, it's much better to be alive than dead. But my child is more important to me than the child of the rapist, and I'd want to abort early to avoid all risk, and if I ever found out who raped her, I'd dismantle him.

How often does this happen? I seriously contend that rape victims who keep their children aren't nearly as often success stories as your one story would lead us to believe.

Men who are good for lack of knowledge of being bad aren't good, merely ignorant. What's more, free speech and our rights as artists/speakers/expressers takes precedence over an immediate social condition. Security is gained and lost in short term positions, but freedom is timeless, and if you let it go, you might never get it back.

We can't forget the past, World War 2, the Draft Riots of the Civil War, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, these are important moments. Humans are violent creatures. We can't pretend we aren't, and we can't pretend that there are no rewards to violence. Violence does come with serious rewards, just ask Henry Hill.

Also, violence in art isn't a bad thing. Understanding violence and how it can be immoral through art is one of our better accomplishments. Watching Gangs of New York and Goodfellas, two of Martin Scorsese's best films, both which take analytical stances on violence, we can see the good and evil of violence. Different examples of the same point: Violence is yet another tool of man, and its good or evil is dependant upon the intentions and actions of the users of that tool. Violence isn't inherently evil, benevolence isn't inherently good either... You'll have to study real evil to get that one...

Besides that, someone aborting their incomplete fetus to save their own life is something I don't object to. Euthanasia, at its best saves someone needless suffering. My father suffered through cancer for a year and a half until he became immobile for the last 3 weeks of his life. I have to tell you seeing him suffer during that time was the most horrifying thing I ever saw, and I've seen some scary and tragic things in my short time on this Earth. Some of those moments in the 3/4 earlier of it, those moments were very special. He laid some very important truths out to me in that time that I'll never forget, and will always live by. Those last days he couldn't have done anything with. It was over, and his death was far more protracted and painful than it needed to be. He laid on a bed for 3 weeks and died. I ask you, was his protracted suffering (which was inevitably going to lead to death, for the grand duration of the year, his chances were on par with other cancer patients, it was only inevitable that he would die in pain right then and there) over that time justifiable? I think not.

A baby looks, acts, sounds and moves very differently to a 50 year old, yet do we suggest the two are not the same lifeform? A catarpillar becomes a butterfly. Does it suddenly become anything other than an insect while in the coccoon? A foetus at the point of conception - whether you believe in a soul or not (irrelevent) is human life. A human lifeform AT THE POINT OF CONCEPTION, as opposed to a human lifeform at the point of death, say asphyxiation, which would also look and act differently to a human lifeform at the point of orgasm.

CIRCUMSTANCE is all that changes it's substance. Time will propel the lifeform into full potential. But it will not be anything other than human.

I stand by my assertions. No words on the internet erase the living breathing women I have encountered, who have deeply regretted their actions. The point was, the girl I knew marching had never had an abortion. I considered that ironic, considering I was with a girl who HAD aborted, and is the aforementioned speaker at the abortion counselling clinic (over 200 women will be there). 200 women needing counselling for abortion is 200 too many.

Any sow can pop out a kid? That's laughable and offensive Timber. I'll let any women who's given birth speak about the amount of effort that goes into carrying a child for nine months, making decisions that will affect it's health, not to mention the supreme effort of actually birthing the child. It's ludicrous for a male to comment on the ease of labour. You have no idea what it takes to bring a human life into the world, so why comment on how easy it is or isn't?

I'm sure she does a lot of good in the world, but a man could be doing the same thing. What she can do, that a man can never do, is bring a human life into the world. Create it for nine months and then under extreme exertion bring it out into the air.

I will aggrandize childbirthing as the ultimate creation. The fact that men CANNOT birth children, is why, in my opinion, so many men are concerned with creating "children" that survive them. Be that art, political achievements, buildings, a legacy, whatever. My songs for example, are my children. I create them, birth them, and release them where they then have a life of their own. However, a woman's real children make these paltry by comparison. There is nothing higher than bringing a human life into the world.

Are you simply "another mouth to feed" Timber? Is that your assessment of your contribution to the planet. Again, your views on life and the human race show a startling lack of esteem. Was your mothers creation a waste of energy? Are you a parasite on the planet and to society? Look at yourself and apply it to all humans. A life is worth unspeakable value.

At the end of the day, no-one on their death bed wishes they'd spent more time at work. More time putting criminals in prison, or filing lawsuits. FAMILY, time with family and loved ones ends up being what is held dearest.

So what? What has the soul got to do with anything? We are talking about human life, not whether there is a soul or not. You cannot ascertain when a soul is developed, so it's irrelevent speculation. You can however, pinpoint the start of human life, and that is when the egg is fertilised. SO from that point on, it is a human life form in various stages of development and realised potential.

A five year old girl has unrealised potential. Is she any less human that a 55 year old if she dies young?
A foetus is a human in an early stage of development. When it develops it will not be a monkey, a fish, a zebra or anything else, just as the five year old girl will not grow into a bat or viper.

Yep, I said as much earlier, so I'm in agreeance.

As for choices, I'd like to agree with both Illumina and Yorick. The Rosy picture is far from what we see; however it is attainable. Just rare.

It's far easier to look at what's good and ignore what isn't considered good. </font>[/QUOTE]However rare, it is always possible given HUMAN CHOICES. The grandmother reconciles with her estranged daughter to help raise the child. The mothers brother scomes to the rescue and fathers the child. Countless scenarios exist where humans could CHOOSE to come together to raise a child, and forge stronger relationships in the process.

Oblivion, you are forgetting that while the child may have the genes of the rapist, they are also unquestionably the mothers child as well. 2 pair of genes. Additionally, the NURTURE part of the psyche will be all in the mothers control, not the rapist fathers.

The proof has been in the pudding anyway. Ever heard of Korea? Is that a den of terrible genes? Japanese soldiers raped Korean women en masse. Countless Korean women turned an act of hate into creating life and bore the children.

There are precedents after precedents of such occurring, and the child being a beautiful person.

Are you doomed to be like your father? Will you share all his failings and sins? Are you to be punished for what your father did? Thankfully these mothers regard the child as it's own person, and not an extension of their father.

I am not my father. I don;t know about you.

Great post Pritchke

So what? What has the soul got to do with anything? We are talking about human life, not whether there is a soul or not. You cannot ascertain when a soul is developed, so it's irrelevent speculation. You can however, pinpoint the start of human life, and that is when the egg is fertilised. SO from that point on, it is a human life form in various stages of development and realised potential.

A five year old girl has unrealised potential. Is she any less human that a 55 year old if she dies young?
A foetus is a human in an early stage of development. When it develops it will not be a monkey, a fish, a zebra or anything else, just as the five year old girl will not grow into a bat or viper. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, ah! But the soul is central to the debate! You are not human if you have no soul. "Human life" can't start without a soul. So the point where the soul enters the body is the point where a lump of flesh becomes a human. Hell, the entire abortion DEBATE is based on speculation over when a zygote becomes a human.
And I would like to hear your answers to my other questions. What happens when a woman miscarries? What happens to the real human if a woman aborts? Do they come back or don't they?

I see this as an irrelevant comparrison.

Quote:

A foetus at the point of conception - whether you believe in a soul or not (irrelevent) is human life. A human lifeform AT THE POINT OF CONCEPTION,... CIRCUMSTANCE is all that changes it's substance. Time will propel the lifeform into full potential. But it will not be anything other than human.

I simply disagree with this. A single ovary or spermatazoid may become a human -- that does not mean it is one. For me, it is not human until some point. I place that point at the moment of brain activity. For me, it is obvious that at the blastula and gastrula stages, a fetus is still so far removed from human that it cannot be considered human. If it is not human, it is not a crime to kill it.

Quote:

I stand by my assertions. No words on the internet erase the living breathing women I have encountered, who have deeply regretted their actions.

You and I simply have different experiences. I won't name the women by name and reveal their secrets -- obviously. Suffice to say my original statement stants.

Quote:

200 women needing counselling for abortion is 200 too many.

I'll agree with this, even given the fact that 200 is an almost statistically irrelevant number.

Quote:

Any sow can pop out a kid? That's laughable and offensive Timber.

Well, it was stated in an offensive way to invoke challenges. Nevertheless it is true. You certainly must agree that popping out a kid does not equal "parenting."

Quote:

It's ludicrous for a male to comment on the ease of labour. You have no idea what it takes to bring a human life into the world, so why comment on how easy it is or isn't?

Along the same vein, why should you or I be posting at all? Regardless, I'm not saying labor is easy, I'm simply saying rearing the child is more important.

Quote:

I'm sure she does a lot of good in the world

Thanks. I'll pass it along.

Quote:

but a man could be doing the same thing. What she can do, that a man can never do, is bring a human life into the world.

May be true, but there is a primrose path here that leads to mysoginism, and I do not want to condone it.

Quote:

Are you simply "another mouth to feed" Timber? Is that your assessment of your contribution to the planet.

No. But, I attribute my successes, however small they may be, in large part to good parenting -- which was my point.

Quote:

Again, your views on life and the human race show a startling lack of esteem. Was your mothers creation a waste of energy? Are you a parasite on the planet and to society? Look at yourself and apply it to all humans. A life is worth unspeakable value.

I try not to be a waste of energy, though the jury is still out on that. I try not to make my mothers' creation a waste everyday. I try not to apply my experiences to all humans. I'll agree that a life is worth unspeakable value -- but that does does not speak to whatehr a given entity will feel that way.

Quote:

At the end of the day, no-one on their death bed wishes they'd spent more time at work. More time putting criminals in prison, or filing lawsuits. FAMILY, time with family and loved ones ends up being what is held dearest.

Again, irrelevant But, to rebu it, I bet I will wish I'd spent more time at work.

Choices can be made, but most likely won't be made. Most people can't just put aside differences so easily. It takes time to sort through those emotions; time a baby can't afford to wait out.