Hundreds of thousands march in Washington

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: ::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.

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. [/QUOTE]Let's try this. When do you feel a human being is created, Yorick? At what precise moment? When sperm meets egg? [/QUOTE]Yep. When the egg is fertilised. When life begins.

When does a seed become a plant? [/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.

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Yorick: How do you think the human race survived without abortion for millenia?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

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 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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: 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.

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.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: quote: 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.

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. [/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.

[Yorick]

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.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by pritchke: 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. 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.

Great post Pritchke

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: 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.

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. [/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?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: 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?

I see this as an irrelevant comparrison.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

Thanks. I'll pass it along.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Jerr Conner]

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.