Abortion debate (2 Viewers)

[katie_tully]

A pro life website offering bullshit propaganda? I'd like to see their proof of that being a legal abortion before 10 weeks gestation. I'm quite sure that looked like a near fully developed feotus. Highly illegal.

 

[HotShot]

A pro life website offering bullshit propaganda? I'd like to see their proof of that being a legal abortion before 10 weeks gestation. I'm quite sure that looked like a near fully developed feotus. Highly illegal.

lol, enjoy the pic... (hope it doesnt give nightmares, if so i am sorry).

its only an image, i dont think its true. so if you are scared dont worry.

 

[ameh]

I think a woman took responsibility for the unborn child the moment she decided to engage in the acts which lead to the creation of the child. That's a responsibility that I do not believe a woman should be able to just shirk.

So that responsibility is entirely hers?

 

[Mountain.Dew]

what about when the female was 'forced' into action that causes the creation of the child? e.g...say...rape?

it should be both mother and father that makes the decision together.

i would also like to contribute this: under what circumstances/conditions/means would the baby be - emotionally, socially and econmically - better off...well...'dead'...as opposed to living, e.g. to be actually born as a fully developed foetus?

 

[Phanatical]

This is, for all intents and purposes, my stance on the issue.

Unlike consentual sex, rape does not indicate consent to the responsibilities of childbearing. It is not just a question of whether the unborn child has a right to life, but more importantly a question of quality of life - and if the parents of a child (or in the case of a rape victim, the mother and perhaps her family) do not believe they can reasonably guarantee a quality of life that is suitable, then I cannot in good conscience prevent a merciful abortion - and for the record, RU486 is one of the most Inhuman methods of termination.

That said, there SHOULD be a lot more restrictions on abortion - especially reducing the legal term from 24 weeks (as I think, but am not sure it is in NSW) to at most 12-16 weeks (and at absolute most 20 weeks, without a good medical justification), and requiring a substantial reason (convenience should not be an acceptable reason).

Consider the case of Jessica Jane, whose mother in 1998 decided that having the child would interrupt her career. At 22 weeks, Jessica was aborted, but when the abortion failed she was placed in a dish by a midwife, and was left to cry until she died in that dish 80 minutes later.

My focus as a politician will be not to make abortions illegal, but to prevent mothers, their partners and families from being put in a situation where they even have to consider abortion as an option. We would prevent abortion by pushing the message that sex can result in babies, and that sexual activity that doesn't involve intercourse is preferable. For young people, Health classes would deliver the extra message that not having sex at all is the super cool thing, and that teenagers who have sex are uncool people who you shouldn't go near. Obviously not in such crude terms, but the sentiment is clear.

Abortion is a necessary evil in our society, but it's one that should be considered an absolute last resort. It should NEVER be done for reasons of "convenience". And it sure as hell shouldn't be seen as a way to hurt the religious right-wing, or as a way to "liberate" women from the so-called "patriarchy".

 

[erawamai]

My focus as a politician will be not to make abortions illegal,

Not even a politicians bootstrap. Deal with the rest later.

 

[Mountain.Dew]

Phanatical, i like ur "prevention is better than a cure" strategy, but you still need a backup plan. what IF they did happen to break the 'prevention' net and have to decide whether to take an abortion or not?

 

[Phanatical]

I believe in counseling, both before and after an abortion. I'm not advocating that said counseling should be completely pro-life, but rather fair and balanced. And society's responsibility doesn't end at abortion or birth - counseling should be available for both mother and father after the fact.

 

[Generator]

I believe in counseling, both before and after an abortion. I'm not advocating that said counseling should be completely pro-life, but rather fair and balanced. And society's responsibility doesn't end at abortion or birth - counseling should be available for both mother and father after the fact.

Ah, if you ignore those who actively seek to pressure a woman into not taking an abortion, all counselling services do provide fair, balanced and case-dependent advice, phanatical.

 

[Phanatical]

I don't disagree. I do believe that more needs to be done for women after the decision has been made though.

 

[erawamai]

Unlike consentual sex, rape does not indicate consent to the responsibilities of childbearing. It is not just a question of whether the unborn child has a right to life, but more importantly a question of quality of life - and if the parents of a child (or in the case of a rape victim, the mother and perhaps her family) do not believe they can reasonably guarantee a quality of life that is suitable, then I cannot in good conscience prevent a merciful abortion - and for the record, RU486 is one of the most Inhuman methods of termination.

As is often the case you like to suggest that abortion is murder. You often paint it in this way in order to provide the best reactionary response from your readers.

It is either abortion or not. To suggest that an abortion is ok in the case of rape is simply a justification for murder as a healthy life (as you would see it) is being killed because of mental issues this may cause the mother and the child. The only difference is that others are justifying this murder or abortion on other grounds. The grounds which people use to justify an abortion differ depending on the perspective of that person. I can’t speak for all women because I’m not one. But there has been a market for abortions since the dawn of time. Women have always wanted access to abortions for whatever reasons. Your perspective is based on your subjective understandings and so is the woman’s. As a result both are valid, but the perspective of the woman wins because it is she that ultimately takes on the physical as well as mental responsibility for the birth of the child.

If you were a real pro lifer abortions could not be justified at all. The only difference between you and the pro choice people is that their reasons for abortion are different to yours. The arguments pushed often by men of the pro life front illustrate a simple ignorance. They accept the rape situation because it is an easy one for the male to understand, so easy to understand that you are even able to grasp it. It doesn't require much imagination for a man to consider what that may be like. Hopefully most males have enough of an understanding of females to be able to grasp that a female may not like carrying a foetus that was a result of a rape. A man who is totally ignorant of females would not understand why women would be upset at this. That she should be happy. Understanding builds empathy and only a man who is totally ignorant of females would deny the choice to a female who subjectively tells you that she cannot handle the responsibility of the child whatever the reasons. This brings us to the Phanatical ‘She shouldn’t have opened her legs in the first place’.

Ignorance abounds in your unbelievably simplistic assertions about women (and later men after uic demanded it) accepting responsibility for life every time they have sexual intercourse. Essentially that people just not have sex until they are ready to raise a family. This of course could be until the couple are in their early 30s. This kind of assertion would only come from someone that is very far out of touch with social dynamics, everyday life and relationships. It is an assertion that is based on ignorance.

Family planning and the responsible use of contraceptives is a better way to prevent unwanted pregnancies than telling people who are grown adults within their sexual prime to just hold off and continue mutual masturbation.

Consider the case of Jessica Jane, whose mother in 1998 decided that having the child would interrupt her career. At 22 weeks, Jessica was aborted, but when the abortion failed she was placed in a dish by a midwife, and was left to cry until she died in that dish 80 minutes later.

I don’t think anyone would feel that what you described was appropriate.

My focus as a politician will be not to make abortions illegal, but to prevent mothers, their partners and families from being put in a situation where they even have to consider abortion as an option.

Well you are learning to lie like a politician. I think your first move would be to make abortions nigh impossible. I certainly don't think you would accept that women would have to put aside her career/question for education or have an abortion.

From your first posts I certain don’t think you are seriously interested in workable and realistic solutions to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Currently your stance consists of the overly simplistic method of reminding people that sex can result in babies.

We would prevent abortion by pushing the message that sex can result in babies, and that sexual activity that doesn't involve intercourse is preferable. For young people, Health classes would deliver the extra message that not having sex at all is the super cool thing, and that teenagers who have sex are uncool people who you shouldn't go near. Obviously not in such crude terms, but the sentiment is clear.

Honestly that is one of the most utopian socialist and totally unworkable thing I’ve heard. Is that it? You are going to tell people that sex isn’t cool and that sex can result in babies. It’s also a little bit sick and smacks of social engineering.

Like I pointed out above your ideas are grounded in a weird unreality that demonstrates very little understanding of the social dynamics of relationships, love, lust and every life in general.

Phanatical, you must understand that people will have sex. Telling them that sex results in babies will not work and has never worked in the past. Abstinence forms of sexual education have been proven to result in more unwanted pregnancies (not hard to understand why) because it teaches people to be ashamed of their sexual feelings to the extent that they find talking and learning about sexuality scary. As a result they will not just learn about it. This is true because I know girls who are so ashamed sexual feelings and it’s sad. I also believe they would be just like every other young person who is biologically reaching a sexual peak. It is so sad that ideas and policies like yours make these people ashamed of who they are and what they feel. These kids then eventually (say when they are 30 or whatever) go out and get involved in a sexual relationship the whole time feeling ashamed of their feelings and being totally uneducated and uninformed about how to handle these feelings.

Sex is inevitable for everyone. Everyone you know will have a sexual relationship in their life. Telling them that babies come from sex and that sex is bad (ie uncool) is hardly good for the person’s mental health when the time comes around. It certainly isn’t going to help them prevent unwanted pregnancies.

It simply doesn't make sense, when sexual relations between people are inevitable, to tell people to not have sex so as to not have babiesa. What happens to a couple in their late 20s you tell them that having sex my result in babies?

How on earth will telling people that sex results in babies going to reduce unwanted pregnanies when you accept that sex is inevitable between humans?

 

[ur_inner_child]

phanatical please please please try and refute erawamai's post. You always seem to leave the argument after he does. Please just do.

 

[Phanatical]

As is often the case you like to suggest that abortion is murder. You often paint it in this way in order to provide the best reactionary response from your readers.

I say it's murder, because it's the taking of life from another.

It is either abortion or not. To suggest that an abortion is ok in the case of rape is simply a justification for murder as a healthy life (as you would see it) is being killed because of mental issues this may cause the mother and the child. The only difference is that others are justifying this murder or abortion on other grounds. The grounds which people use to justify an abortion differ depending on the perspective of that person. I can’t speak for all women because I’m not one. But there has been a market for abortions since the dawn of time. Women have always wanted access to abortions for whatever reasons. Your perspective is based on your subjective understandings and so is the woman’s. As a result both are valid, but the perspective of the woman wins because it is she that ultimately takes on the physical as well as mental responsibility for the birth of the child.

Some reasons are more valid than others. And no matter how much you disagree with me, the welfare of the child should be paramount. Society has a responsibility to speak for, and protect those who cannot speak for themselves, and that includes the unborn child.

If you were a real pro lifer abortions could not be justified at all. The only difference between you and the pro choice people is that their reasons for abortion are different to yours. The arguments pushed often by men of the pro life front illustrate a simple ignorance. They accept the rape situation because it is an easy one for the male to understand, so easy to understand that you are even able to grasp it. It doesn't require much imagination for a man to consider what that may be like. Hopefully most males have enough of an understanding of females to be able to grasp that a female may not like carrying a foetus that was a result of a rape. A man who is totally ignorant of females would not understand why women would be upset at this. That she should be happy. Understanding builds empathy and only a man who is totally ignorant of females would deny the choice to a female who subjectively tells you that she cannot handle the responsibility of the child whatever the reasons. This brings us to the Phanatical ‘She shouldn’t have opened her legs in the first place’.

Ignorance abounds in your unbelievably simplistic assertions about women (and later men after uic demanded it) accepting responsibility for life every time they have sexual intercourse. Essentially that people just not have sex until they are ready to raise a family. This of course could be until the couple are in their early 30s. This kind of assertion would only come from someone that is very far out of touch with social dynamics, everyday life and relationships. It is an assertion that is based on ignorance.

My job is to CHANGE social dynamics. Like driving a car, we can enjoy it, and we can do it as much as we like. But when we hit a person, can we just deny responsibility for the accident? Most definitely not, because even if we're drunk, we're sleepy or we're just plain stupid, the fault STILL lies with the driver. If we smoke 40 a day and get lung cancer, should we still be surprised when the packet contains photographs of a lung full of tar? Likewise, if we create a person through the act of sex, one should not be able to just forget the consequences of their actions.

I don’t think anyone would feel that what you described was appropriate.

By "appropriate", you mean "absolutely destroyed your argument". It's uncomfortable, but important to realise that these sorts of things happen.

Well you are learning to lie like a politician. I think your first move would be to make abortions nigh impossible. I certainly don't think you would accept that women would have to put aside her career/question for education or have an abortion.

You can think what you want. But no matter what you think, it doesn't make it any more true. I will NOT make abortions illegal. There are just too many reasons why that's a bad idea, but you haven't listed a single one of those. I, on the other hand, have.

From your first posts I certain don’t think you are seriously interested in workable and realistic solutions to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Currently your stance consists of the overly simplistic method of reminding people that sex can result in babies.

Simplistic, but important. And it's just one step in reducing the number of terminated children, just like reminding smokers that they can get lung cancer or that driving a car can result in people being run over. The only difference is that an abortion allows a mother to shirk their responsibility at the cost of a human life - a price which is FAR too high.

Honestly that is one of the most utopian socialist and totally unworkable thing I’ve heard. Is that it? You are going to tell people that sex isn’t cool and that sex can result in babies. It’s also a little bit sick and smacks of social engineering.

That's the problem I have with political correctness - it's wrong to tell people that what they are doing or believe is wrong. Guess what, erawamai, you're wrong, And you're an idiot.

Like I pointed out above your ideas are grounded in a weird unreality that demonstrates very little understanding of the social dynamics of relationships, love, lust and every life in general.

By "every life", do you include the murdered babies?

Phanatical, you must understand that people will have sex. Telling them that sex results in babies will not work and has never worked in the past. Abstinence forms of sexual education have been proven to result in more unwanted pregnancies (not hard to understand why) because it teaches people to be ashamed of their sexual feelings to the extent that they find talking and learning about sexuality scary. As a result they will not just learn about it. This is true because I know girls who are so ashamed sexual feelings and it’s sad. I also believe they would be just like every other young person who is biologically reaching a sexual peak. It is so sad that ideas and policies like yours make these people ashamed of who they are and what they feel. These kids then eventually (say when they are 30 or whatever) go out and get involved in a sexual relationship the whole time feeling ashamed of their feelings and being totally uneducated and uninformed about how to handle these feelings.

A 20 year old who's scared of sex is better than a 20 year old with a 6 year old, and a 4 year old to two different fathers. Yes, I just described somebody I actually know.

Sex is inevitable for everyone. Everyone you know will have a sexual relationship in their life. Telling them that babies come from sex and that sex is bad (ie uncool) is hardly good for the person’s mental health when the time comes around. It certainly isn’t going to help them prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Again, it's better to be scared, than to be pregnant.

It simply doesn't make sense, when sexual relations between people are inevitable, to tell people to not have sex so as to not have babiesa. What happens to a couple in their late 20s you tell them that having sex my result in babies?

They have babies, and society assists them in raising those babies to be healthy, happy, intelligent and productive in society's future.

How on earth will telling people that sex results in babies going to reduce unwanted pregnanies when you accept that sex is inevitable between humans?

Same way that cigarette packets tell smokers they'll get lung cancer and die, and the same way that drivers are reminded that they could hit people on the road. I believe you are grossly overstating your argument, because I don't see people refusing to drive a car or smoke a cigarette. I see them doing so with consideration to the consequences of what could potentially occur in doing so.

 

[crazyhomo]

better not to drive than risk having a car crash

 

[Phanatical]

But if you Do drive, you accept the risk that something might go wrong, and you might hit a pedestrian, another vehicle or even a stationary object.

 

[Generator]

What about when you eat, phanatical? Should someone just accept the consequences if they happen to have an allergic reaction to, say, peanuts? Yes, you can take precautions (as most people do), but what about when these precautions fail for whatever reason?

 

[katie_tully]

I came on coz I was motivated to do my first uni assignment. I've lost all motivation. I think I might take my uzi and sit atop a bell tower now.

 

[crazyhomo]

But if you Do drive, you accept the risk that something might go wrong, and you might hit a pedestrian, another vehicle or even a stationary object.

if you drive, expect to crash

 

[erawamai]

First things first, are you planning on being a socialist dictator? I'm a bit worried considering you comments about the population being better off scared and ignorant. I guess you know what’s best for everyone at all times. Kim Jong Il?

I say it's murder, because it's the taking of life from another.

If you suggest that abortion is murder then there is no exception for abortion. If you accept exceptions for abortion/murder then you are no better than the pro lifers because you are measuring life and making excpetions for it.

You don’t seem to be able to grasp that argument. That if the foetus is aborted for the reason that the women is raped then it is still murder because, according to your definition, ‘it’s the taking of life from another’. How exactly does that differ from a person who chooses to have an abortion because she feels she is too young, not financially or emotionally ready for the child? The only difference is the reasons for this murder (remember, according to your definition). You also make exceptions for life. How does that make you any different from the pro choice person who you like to called murderers for making exceptions to human life. BNy your definition your views are as murderous as those pro lifers. You both make exception to life, it's just your reasons are different.

As you would well know the reasons people give for an abortion will depend on their particular perspective. People are nice enough to listen to your perspective but you won’t listen to the perspective of the woman who has to carry the baby. If you were able to physically carry the baby I’m sure your subjective position would be different.

And yes I know you are going to parrot on about how the female should not have opened up her legs in the first place and how people should just not have sex. But honestly, are you living in a parallel universe of make believe? The policies which you put forward would result in more unwanted pregnancies and have been proven to result in more unwanted pregnancies. And yes I know you have smoking and driving analogies. Both are crap and you should be doing better for your cause to come up with new ones. Why they are crap later.

Some reasons are more valid than others. And no matter how much you disagree with me, the welfare of the child should be paramount. Society has a responsibility to speak for, and protect those who cannot speak for themselves, and that includes the unborn child.

But I thought you said it was murder because ‘because it's the taking of life from another’. Doesn’t that mean that you would allow an abortion in a rape case because of the mental damage this may cause to the mother and child as well as the image issues?

According to your definition that's murder. The reason why you support abortion in this case is because you have enough up there or at least empathy or some kind of basic understanding of females to be able to understand this. In all other situations you are so unknowledgeable about females that you can’t even to begin to grasp the reasons why they might consider an abortion. Rather you would prefer to lock them up for murder because their subjective reasons which they are come to as a result of thinking about their welfare are different to your subjective reasons.

My job is to CHANGE social dynamics. Like driving a car, we can enjoy it, and we can do it as much as we like. But when we hit a person, can we just deny responsibility for the accident?

I think we have considered this argument before and it has already been dealt with before. Stop using it, it doesn’t make any sense. It’s a crap analogy because it doesn’t like up with what you are trying to compare it with.

I see the issue as being analogous to driving a car. It is estimated that every three kilometres we do something that could result in an accident. We manage this risk, but when something Does happen the responsibility must still lie with the driver at fault. If you hit somebody with your car, you can't just say "it was the pedestrian's fault, I managed my risk to the best of my ability".

I’ll just cut and paste what I said before TWICE already in answer to your analogy that actually doesn’t make much sense.

In the case of a reckless driver having fun his accident results in a death that is not his active choice. You also can’t correct your analogy by arguing that by doing such speeds he has made an active choice to end a life as doing 160kmph in certain situations is safer than doing 40kmph in others.

In the case of a woman who wants an abortion the termination is not an accident but rather an active choice. In this case the accident results in a pregnancy and not the loss of life.

Again…

In any case a person who kills a pedestrian doesn't make an active choice as to kill the pedestrian or not. That is an accident just like an accidental pregnancy. There was no intention to kill the pedestrian or get pregnant. The choice to terminate is not an accident unlike the case of a person who kills a pedestrian. The accident in the case of the pedestrians kills. The accident in the case of the couple creates a pregnancy.

By "appropriate", you mean "absolutely destroyed your argument". It's uncomfortable, but important to realise that these sorts of things happen.

What? I don’t really agree with late term abortions? In any case I wasn’t making an argument to rebut your description of the abortion. Here I will cut and paste it for you.

I don’t think anyone would feel that what you described was appropriate

.
This means I ‘agree’ that you situation you describe is wrong. The above is also not an argument. It’s an affirmation or statement. The description also has nothing to do with whether abortion should be legal or not.

Learn; when someone agrees with one thing which you say and it is not no way is attached to your main argument it does not mean they surrender or that all of a sudden their argument has been destroyed!

I will NOT make abortions illegal. There are just too many reasons why that's a bad idea, but you haven't listed a single one of those. I, on the other hand, have.

I think you are the one who has demonstrated that he cannot learn or read. You mistake statements as arguments and think agreement on a fact scenario or description is an acceptance of your argument.

If you accept my argument that abortion is ok in cases of rape that doesn’t mean you accept all of my argument. Does it?

If I were to sit here and describe what a mother would go through if she was pregnant as a result of a rape and you agreed with me (which you do) I wouldn’t then put to you that your whole argument was completely destroyed.

Simplistic, but important. And it's just one step in reducing the number of terminated children, just like reminding smokers that they can get lung cancer or that driving a car can result in people being run over. The only difference is that an abortion allows a mother to shirk their responsibility at the cost of a human life - a price which is FAR too high.

People can quit smoking. It is not a natural biological urge. People cannot quit sex. Again you analogy is terrible. You are equating smoking with having sex? Sex is cannot be quit because humans have a biological urge to have sex. It is going to happen. Even if they have sex when they are married and in a stable relationship to do you expect the woman to moderate her reproduction? Are you going to tell them just to not have sex? Whether you like it or not grown adults are going to have sex.

Again you make broad brush statements about mothers shirking their responsibilities with abortions. It hardly makes people think that you wont outlaw abortions.

Honestly that is one of the most utopian socialist and totally unworkable thing I’ve heard. Is that it? You are going to tell people that sex isn’t cool and that sex can result in babies. It’s also a little bit sick and smacks of social engineering.

That's the problem I have with political correctness - it's wrong to tell people that what they are doing or believe is wrong. Guess what, erawamai, you're wrong, And you're an idiot.

Really? I’m telling you that you are wrong. Am I wrong for doing this? You called me an idiot for pointing out very clear problems in your reasoning.

What makes you think you are more right? You cannot even give me a decent analogy to support your case. Telling me that smoking is like having sex and killing a person with a car is like having an abortion. Honestly.

As for politeness I’ve restrained myself from the use of the word ‘idiot’.

By "every life", do you include the murdered babies?

Typo, ‘everyday’ life.

Phanatical, you must understand that people will have sex. Telling them that sex results in babies will not work and has never worked in the past. Abstinence forms of sexual education have been proven to result in more unwanted pregnancies (not hard to understand why) because it teaches people to be ashamed of their sexual feelings to the extent that they find talking and learning about sexuality scary. As a result they will not just learn about it. This is true because I know girls who are so ashamed sexual feelings and it’s sad. I also believe they would be just like every other young person who is biologically reaching a sexual peak. It is so sad that ideas and policies like yours make these people ashamed of who they are and what they feel. These kids then eventually (say when they are 30 or whatever) go out and get involved in a sexual relationship the whole time feeling ashamed of their feelings and being totally uneducated and uninformed about how to handle these feelings.

A 20 year old who's scared of sex is better than a 20 year old with a 6 year old, and a 4 year old to two different fathers. Yes, I just described somebody I actually know.

Why? I thought you were in favour of life? I mean girls abort healthy fetuses because they don’t have a father. I would have never though that would have been a valid reason for abortion due to your hard-line stance.

If those children are healthy then I don’t see what you are complaining about. Are you somehow trying to suggest that it would have been better if those kids were aborted?

Same way that cigarette packets tell smokers they'll get lung cancer and die, and the same way that drivers are reminded that they could hit people on the road. I believe you are grossly overstating your argument, because I don't see people refusing to drive a car or smoke a cigarette. I see them doing so with consideration to the consequences of what could potentially occur in doing so.

You need new analogies.

 

[Phanatical]

First things first, are you planning on being a socialist dictator?

Yes.

If you suggest that abortion is murder then there is no exception for abortion. If you accept exceptions for abortion/murder then you are no better than the pro lifers because you are measuring life and making excpetions for it.

That's not true. I do believe that some murders are justified, such as in the cases of euthanasia (which, no matter how willing the victim is, still murder). I believe that to bring a child into a world where he or she will face nothing but hardship, sorrow and/or the stigma of being the product of rape is cruel, and that it's better to put them out of their misery while their minds are not at the point where they can feel pain. This does not mean they are not human, because we spend our entire lives developing, and losing certain physical and mental functions.

You don’t seem to be able to grasp that argument. That if the foetus is aborted for the reason that the women is raped then it is still murder because, according to your definition, ‘it’s the taking of life from another’. How exactly does that differ from a person who chooses to have an abortion because she feels she is too young, not financially or emotionally ready for the child?

The rape victim did not choose to engage in the act of procreation. The second woman Did choose to engage in the act of procreation, namely willingly having sexual intercourse and facilitating the transfer of genetic material from the male to the female.

The only difference is the reasons for this murder (remember, according to your definition). You also make exceptions for life. How does that make you any different from the pro choice person who you like to called murderers for making exceptions to human life. BNy your definition your views are as murderous as those pro lifers. You both make exception to life, it's just your reasons are different.

The difference - and I think this is a pretty significant difference - is that my position on the issue takes into account the welfare of the unborn child before the welfare of the parents, both as an unborn child, and the future potential of said child. And sometimes it can be more merciful to end their lives before they feel pain.

As you would well know the reasons people give for an abortion will depend on their particular perspective. People are nice enough to listen to your perspective but you won’t listen to the perspective of the woman who has to carry the baby. If you were able to physically carry the baby I’m sure your subjective position would be different.

I don't. The welfare of the unborn child must take priority, and if I were able to carry the child myself that position wouldn't change. Because unlike you, I'm not selfish enough to put my own needs ahead of the greater good.

And yes I know you are going to parrot on about how the female should not have opened up her legs in the first place and how people should just not have sex. But honestly, are you living in a parallel universe of make believe? The policies which you put forward would result in more unwanted pregnancies and have been proven to result in more unwanted pregnancies. And yes I know you have smoking and driving analogies. Both are crap and you should be doing better for your cause to come up with new ones. Why they are crap later.

The policies I have put forward would result in less pregnancies, and where there Are pregnancies the parents will be better equipped to deal with the situation.

But I thought you said it was murder because ‘because it's the taking of life from another’. Doesn’t that mean that you would allow an abortion in a rape case because of the mental damage this may cause to the mother and child as well as the image issues?

According to your definition that's murder. The reason why you support abortion in this case is because you have enough up there or at least empathy or some kind of basic understanding of females to be able to understand this. In all other situations you are so unknowledgeable about females that you can’t even to begin to grasp the reasons why they might consider an abortion. Rather you would prefer to lock them up for murder because their subjective reasons which they are come to as a result of thinking about their welfare are different to your subjective reasons.

You're repeating yourself. I've already rebutted this particular point twice in this post already.

I think we have considered this argument before and it has already been dealt with before. Stop using it, it doesn’t make any sense. It’s a crap analogy because it doesn’t like up with what you are trying to compare it with. In the case of a reckless driver having fun his accident results in a death that is not his active choice. You also can’t correct your analogy by arguing that by doing such speeds he has made an active choice to end a life as doing 160kmph in certain situations is safer than doing 40kmph in others.

No, you call it a "crap analogy" because you don't like the idea that a person has to take responsibility for their actions, intended or not. When we get behind the wheel we do so with an understanding that no matter how many fatality-free kilometres you've driven, no matter how well-maintained your car is, you are still in a position to kill a person. My analogy doesn't suggest that a person makes an active choice to kill somebody, but rather suggests that a driver cannot shirk the responsibility for doing so, willing or not. Likewise, a parent cannot shirk their responsibility for the new life they have created, whether the life was intended or not. I like this analogy because it illustrates clearly that even if a consequence is unintended, the person at the wheel must still take responsibility for it. You've purposely misinterpreted this analogy because you know that it's a good one.

In the case of a woman who wants an abortion the termination is not an accident but rather an active choice. In this case the accident results in a pregnancy and not the loss of life.

Again…

In any case a person who kills a pedestrian doesn't make an active choice as to kill the pedestrian or not. That is an accident just like an accidental pregnancy. There was no intention to kill the pedestrian or get pregnant. The choice to terminate is not an accident unlike the case of a person who kills a pedestrian. The accident in the case of the pedestrians kills. The accident in the case of the couple creates a pregnancy.

I've made my point on this issue. Whether the life is created (pregnancy) or taken (pedestrian) isn't the point. It's that responsibility cannot be denied even if the consequence was unintended. I think I've been abundantly clear on this, and I think you've purposely misinterpreted the point because you can't truly rebut it.

What? I don’t really agree with late term abortions? In any case I wasn’t making an argument to rebut your description of the abortion. Here I will cut and paste it for you.

.
This means I ‘agree’ that you situation you describe is wrong. The above is also not an argument. It’s an affirmation or statement. The description also has nothing to do with whether abortion should be legal or not.

That wasn't a late term abortion I described. That was a perfectly legal abortion at 22 weeks. And if a baby can survive outside the womb at 22 weeks, then why (even under the minimal morality of the feminist pro-choice movement) is it still legal to kill it?

Learn; when someone agrees with one thing which you say and it is not no way is attached to your main argument it does not mean they surrender or that all of a sudden their argument has been destroyed!

I think you are the one who has demonstrated that he cannot learn or read. You mistake statements as arguments and think agreement on a fact scenario or description is an acceptance of your argument.

Maybe it's the fact that your writing style is poor, your arguments are poorer and your rationalisations are poorer still.

If you accept my argument that abortion is ok in cases of rape that doesn’t mean you accept all of my argument. Does it?

If I were to sit here and describe what a mother would go through if she was pregnant as a result of a rape and you agreed with me (which you do) I wouldn’t then put to you that your whole argument was completely destroyed.

Completely irrelevant. I've made the point that abortion in the case of rape is fine from the beginning, in many threads on the issue before, because to subject a child to that sort of stigma is cruel.

People can quit smoking. It is not a natural biological urge. People cannot quit sex.

Again you analogy is terrible. You are equating smoking with having sex? Sex is cannot be quit because humans have a biological urge to have sex. It is going to happen. Even if they have sex when they are married and in a stable relationship to do you expect the woman to moderate her reproduction? Are you going to tell them just to not have sex? Whether you like it or not grown adults are going to have sex.

I did not equate smoking with having sex. I suggested that a campaign along the lines of the campaign to make people aware of the consequences of smoking would be beneficial in combating the amount of unwanted pregnancies. There you go again, completely misinterpreting something (even though it couldn't be more abundantly clear) so that you can write a few hundred words to sound smarter than you really are.

Again you make broad brush statements about mothers shirking their responsibilities with abortions. It hardly makes people think that you wont outlaw abortions.

My goal isn't to stop them having abortions. My goal is to stop them getting pregnant in the first place. There's a HUGE difference, and surely you would support ANY move to reinforce in the community the concept that sex can, and does lead to pregnancy. Or maybe that's too sensible a concept for you to grasp.

Really? I’m telling you that you are wrong. Am I wrong for doing this? You called me an idiot for pointing out very clear problems in your reasoning.

I called you an idiot because you did no such thing. There ARE no clear problems in my reasoning, just your understanding of the points I have raised. I've demonstrated in just this posting alone that you do not have the mental ability to understand what I've said, and if you can't understand what I've said, then how can you possibly understand a complex situation like abortion? You're not putting forward any original ideas, or any good ideas for that matter. You're just spewing the misandrist line that baby killing is fine because it's good for women's liberation.

What makes you think you are more right? You cannot even give me a decent analogy to support your case. Telling me that smoking is like having sex and killing a person with a car is like having an abortion. Honestly.

I've already rebutted this.

As for politeness I’ve restrained myself from the use of the word ‘idiot’.

I won't. You're an idiot.

Why? I thought you were in favour of life? I mean girls abort healthy fetuses because they don’t have a father. I would have never though that would have been a valid reason for abortion due to your hard-line stance.

If those children are healthy then I don’t see what you are complaining about. Are you somehow trying to suggest that it would have been better if those kids were aborted? You need new analogies.

I am saying that if a child is going to face a lifetime of hardship, stigma and disadvantage because of their birthright, then it could be argued that it would be more cruel to the child to bring them into the world. I don't like this point, but it's one that has to be considered in the greater context of the debate. Unlike you, erawamai, I make it a point to at least Try to consider All sides of an issue before making policy. Maybe you should try the same, and you might understand things better for it.