[ALEXIS_DH]

A baby after birth has no chance of development without an external force acting on it. Try telling me that ain't human..

a newborn is definately a human, so the same criteria doesnt apply to decide whether or not its a kill.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Why do we need yet another thread on abortion when there has been a new one every six months or so since RM came online? Use the *search* function and stop picking at old scabs.

Suffice it to say Mack's position is completely idiotic and Changleen's one skip this side of that. I applaud Changleen, however, for finally finishing somewhere other than Dead Fuggin' Last.

 

[binary visions]

Suffice it to say Mack's position is completely idiotic

Shocker, huh?

 

[TheInedibleHulk]

this is going to hurt you more than it hurts me...

i agree with your post

I was afraid of that

 

[llkoolkeg]

Shocker, huh?

Thanks, but no thanks. Too early in the day for that brand of eye-opener.

 

[binary visions]

Thanks, but no thanks. Too early in the day for that brand of eye-opener.

Maybe some other time, then?

I'll buy you dinner first, if it'll make you feel better.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Maybe some other time, then?

I'll buy you dinner first, if it'll make you feel better.

Hahaha...not to be a buzzkill, but again, I'll have to pass.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Why do we need yet another thread on abortion when there has been a new one every six months or so since RM came online? Use the *search* function and stop picking at old scabs.

I agree, this is a dead horse let's stop beating it............

 

[-BB-]

Abortion = Bailing off your bike mid Jump.

 

[mack]

I dont understand how my position is idiotic?

Other than you are and Ass and feel the need to insult people when you dont agree.

 

[llkoolkeg]

I dont understand how my position is idiotic?

Other than you are and Ass and feel the need to insult people when you dont agree.

I didn't answer specifically because I have already done so here SO MANY TIMES in the past. If you want to see what was idiotic, behold:

A woman should have the right to have an abortion at any time, but cannot kill the baby after it has come out of the womb... and that the husband has no say in weather the baby gets aborted or not.

I believe it is kinda silly that people draw a line in the sand by saying the you can only have an abortion have X ammount of weeks. Next thing you know theyll say that using condoms is abortion and so is the day after pill.

DAMN YOU RELIGION!!! :mumble: :mumble:

I do not deny that I am an ass, but I take issue with your second statement. I insult people that I both agree AND disagree with.

To indulge you briefly, though, saying that women should be able to kill their children up to the point they push them out of the womb belies not only your ignorance of anatomy and biology, but it is also a position so indefensible that only the most extreme of "womens' rights" advocates even dare to speak it. Saying that men have no rights whatsoever in the issue is rather naive, also. If you did have any knowledge of human development, you would not have made such a silly statement as the last one. You should be not angry at religion, but at yourself for not listening in class more. Then again, as long as you can shoot the stork an email telling him not to deliver the baby, I guess all's well that ends well, right?

Really, Mack, I have no personal issue with you but you should really research a topic more thoroughly before making such foolish pronouncements.

 

[Andyman_1970]

.........you should really research a topic more thoroughly before making such foolish pronouncements.

OWN3D................

(I've always wanted to do that.......)

 

[fluff]

OWN3D................

(I've always wanted to do that.......)

Dude, nooooooo! Please don't do that again.

 

[mack]

I




To indulge you briefly, though, saying that women should be able to kill their children up to the point they push them out of the womb belies not only your ignorance of anatomy and biology,

Maybe that was a little redundant on my part... but in many past and present cultures people consider their children property. Why dont humans kill other humans? Why is it wrong, people kill deer without blinking an eye, so why cant you dismantle a creature that you have created. Maybe i am just a evil person and my connection with society is some what vague. I just want to know what makes it wrong.

I dont really see what my ignorance of science class has to do with this, weather the baby is alive or not i still think it is a right not to have one.

I am going to delete this thread in a few hours then...

 

[-dustin]

ridemonkey would die if posts weren't repeated.

no, it would revive around Interbike, then go into a coma for 10months. awaken, sleep, awaken, sleep...

 

[llkoolkeg]

Maybe that was a little redundant on my part... but in many past and present cultures people consider their children property. Why dont humans kill other humans? Why is it wrong, people kill deer without blinking an eye, so why cant you dismantle a creature that you have created. Maybe i am just a evil person and my connection with society is some what vague. I just want to know what makes it wrong.

I dont really see what my ignorance of science class has to do with this, weather the baby is alive or not i still think it is a right not to have one.

I am going to delete this thread in a few hours then...

Well, now we are entering into a much broader philosophical debate.
Humans DO kill other humans. There are only a very few "acceptable" reasons for doing so, e.g. self-defense, war, etc. Deer = non-human; human = human...two totally different premises. You CAN dismantle a creature you have created, but in many cases, it is wrong to do so. Even though it was a plodding story at times, you might enjoy this topic as addressed by Ron Howard in the movie "A.I.". I didn't say you were evil, but I did suggest that more research into human development (week-by-week) would profit your ability to discuss the topic knowledgeably. The reason I suggest this is because the more science and medicine teaches us about the development of babies, the more it becomes obvious that killing unborn babies is wrong...independent of whether or not you believe in God. The popular belief (or at least, party line) amongst many hard-line "women’s rights" advocates is that a baby is not a baby until it is born into this world. This is a self-serving, conscience-easing falsehood propagated for political gain that becomes all the more obvious to rational thinkers as babies are born grossly premature, yet still live and grow to become fully-functional members of society. I agree that women have a right not to have children; I just don't believe they have a right to kill them once they have already been created except for the most grievous of circumstances that can already be addressed with "morning after" pills.

 

[Silver]

The reason I suggest this is because the more science and medicine teaches us about the development of babies, the more it becomes obvious that killing unborn babies is wrong...independent of whether or not you believe in God.

Actually, that's a very non-obvious point. Care to elaborate on that?

 

[Toshi]

Actually, that's a very non-obvious point. Care to elaborate on that?

i agree. i like to think that i've studied a bit of biology, human development, and anatomy, and yet i fail to see a clear "right" viewpoint, let alone consensus among the "educated". llkoolkeg, good try in smacking mack down but you can't hide behind or justify your personal position with science on this one.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

i agree. i like to think that i've studied a bit of biology, human development, and anatomy, and yet i fail to see a clear "right" viewpoint, let alone consensus among the "educated". llkoolkeg, good try in smacking mack down but you can't hide behind or justify your personal position with science on this one.

when does life begins according to you toshi?
i read lots of things, the most interesting pro-abortion was from carl sagan i think, it was good, but not definately convincing..

on the other hand, i kinda agree with the current peruvian law, which states that implantation of the fertilized egg is the beggining of life..

 

[Toshi]

my view is that life begins when the fetus is visibly different from, say, a chicken or lizard fetus. (the similarities are shocking in early development.) i don't have a number for this.

i'm also fond of the criteria of whether a fetus could survive on its own outside the womb.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

my view is that life begins when the fetus is visibly different from, say, a chicken or lizard fetus. (the similarities are shocking in early development.) i don't have a number for this.

i'm also fond of the criteria of whether a fetus could survive on its own outside the womb.

well, the term "on its own" is quite arguable.....
how much external help is allowed to be still considered "on its own".

 

[mack]

Id just like to ad that you all were 16 somtime too.

 

[Changleen]

Suffice it to say Mack's position is completely idiotic and Changleen's one skip this side of that. I applaud Changleen, however, for finally finishing somewhere other than Dead Fuggin' Last.

Whatever hippy. My position is the law so :eviltongu

 

[$tinkle]

i'm also fond of the criteria of whether a fetus could survive on its own outside the womb.

malaproping "criteria" aside, isn't a fetus outside the womb called a baby?

 

[Changleen]

Hmm, How timely:

Another attempt by your retarded administration to take a good step back to the stone age:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1427583,00.html

America urges UN to renounce abortion rights
The Bush administration was accused yesterday of trying to roll back efforts to improve the status of the world's women by demanding that the UN publicly renounce abortion rights.

America's demand overshadowed the opening yesterday of a conference intended to mark the 10th anniversary of the Beijing conference on the status of women, an event seen as a landmark in efforts to promote global cooperation on women's equality.

The US stand was also widely seen as further evidence of the sweeping policy change in Washington under the Bush presidency. The last four years have seen a steady erosion of government support for international population projects, due to the administration's opposition to abortion.

The UN's commission on the status of women had drafted a brief declaration reaffirming support for the Beijing declaration, and calling for further effort to implement its recommendations.

Organisers had hoped that informal discussions last week would reach a consensus on the draft, leaving the next fortnight clear for government officials and women's activists to hold more substantive talks on advancing economic equality and political participation, and fighting violence against women.

But those hopes were crushed in a closed-door session late last week when Washington demanded the declaration reaffirm its support for the declarations made in Beijing 10 years ago only if "they do not include the right to abortion", says a copy of the US text obtained by the Guardian.

"We were not able to conclude informal consultations as we had originally hoped and planned for," said Beatrice Maille, the vice-chair of the UN commission.

The chief of the US delegation, Sichan Siv, went on to tell his counterparts that Washington opposed the ratification of the international treaty on women's equality, as well as resolutions that would "place emphasis on 'rights' that not all member states accept, such as so-called 'sexual rights'."

Mr Siv also told diplomats that Washington opposed any move to seek funds from industrialised countries to implement the reforms called for under the Beijing declaration.

The stand left America almost entirely isolated at the pre-conference sessions. According to officials who were at the meetings, only the Vatican observer supported Washington's hard line. There was harsh criticism of the Bush administration yesterday from diplomats and women's activists.

"This sort of statement is a clear signal to everybody present that the US does not support the Beijing agreement perspective on the human rights of women," said Adrienne German, president of the International Women's Health Coalition.

"It clearly demonstrates that this government has taken a 180-degree reversal from the US government in 1995 and 2000."

Private talks were under way yesterday to persuade Washington to reverse its stand. Although there are expectations that the US will eventually relent, several officials accused the US of igniting the controversy - and sabotaging the conference - to try to score points with Bush supporters on the Christian right.

The Clinton administration was a strong supporter of the Beijing declaration in 1995, and until President Bush took power in 2001, Washington was viewed as a leader in international family planning efforts. The US government began providing aid to developing countries in 1965, and its organisations were seen as leaders in population control.

But President Bush has steadily reversed Washington's support for such initiatives, blocking US funds to the UN population fund, and diverting cash towards programmes promoting abstinence.

A spokesman for the US delegation described the controversy over Washington's stand on abortion as "motivated".

"We just wanted to make clear what the assumptions were about the Beijing document," said Rick Grenell, the US spokesman. "We don't believe that it recognises abortion as an international human right."

Wankers. Complete and utter Wankers.

 

[$tinkle]

gee, i wonder if this is just a "u.s. problem":

australia faces anti-abortion movement.

want some more fun? google for "john howard" "late term abortion". by the way, what was birth control back in the stone ages? you seem primed to offer pearls of wisdom on what is to us proles a convoluted topic.

 

[Changleen]

gee, i wonder if this is just a "u.s. problem":

australia faces anti-abortion movement.

want some more fun? google for "john howard" "late term abortion". by the way, what was birth control back in the stone ages? you seem primed to offer pearls of wisdom on what is to us proles a convoluted topic.

Just because a few Oz politicians feel the need to cowtow to the blindly religious segment of their populus doesn't mean they're gonna get anywhere with it - Fortunately the majority of Austrailians still have the sense they were born with.

The US is the only country making wild, innapropriate demands on the global stage these days. 'Throw Russia out of the G8!' - 'Renounce Abortion!' Thankfully everyone else will continue to ignore the increasingly isolated noisy fascist and it's childish concepts of self serving 'good and evil'.

As for birth control in the past, well, essentially there was none. Women died in horrible slow deaths from labour complications, children of rape were brought up hated an shunned by their families. Millions were forced into poverty from the burden of bringing up too many children. And now 'pro-life' advocates want to return us to those happy times. Huzzah! Go you.

 

[fluff]

my view is that life begins when the fetus is visibly different from, say, a chicken or lizard fetus. (the similarities are shocking in early development.) i don't have a number for this.

i'm also fond of the criteria of whether a fetus could survive on its own outside the womb.

My four month old little boy cannot survive on his own, so not necessarily a relevant criterium.

Since becoming a father my views on abortion have changed somewhat.

 

[fluff]

Id just like to ad that you all were 16 somtime too.

Yeah. And some of us were probably full of it at some point too. :evil:

 

[MMike]

My four month old little boy cannot survive on his own, so not necessarily a relevant criterium.

Since becoming a father my views on abortion have changed somewhat.

Me too.... it happened right around that first ultrasound........

 

[Andyman_1970]

Dude, nooooooo! Please don't do that again.

Sorry..................... :

 

[llkoolkeg]

Whatever hippy. My position is the law so :eviltongu

Not that I feel particularly insulted, but just for the record, I am most definitely NOT a hippy.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

my view is that life begins when the fetus is visibly different from, say, a chicken or lizard fetus. (the similarities are shocking in early development.) i don't have a number for this.

i'm also fond of the criteria of whether a fetus could survive on its own outside the womb.

Just to support/define Toshi's statement

By "surive on its own outside the womb" you mean things like - be able to breathe on its own - be able to swallow/eat on its own (not intravenously thorugh a tube attached between it and it's mother).

Then don't you come back to the question of:
If you disagree with the concept of abortion for a normal, healthy child, do you believe it is the parents' right to choose abortion if the child can be proved to be deformed or malign in some way prior to it's birth?

 

[$tinkle]

My four month old little boy cannot survive

congrats! i missed the general announcement

...relevant criterium [sic].

this may be the only indication you ride

Since becoming a father my views on abortion have changed somewhat.

having that in your face does give one pause, no? however i need to remind you any new found positions are under the duress of sleep deprivation.

maybe your opinion of torture will now slide a little right knowing what you can endure?

 

[$tinkle]

The US is the only country making wild, innapropriate demands on the global stage these days. 'Throw Russia out of the G8!' - 'Renounce Abortion!' Thankfully everyone else will continue to ignore the increasingly isolated noisy fascist and it's childish concepts of self serving 'good and evil'.

it would give me no greater honor than the UN to take on your point of view & pack up; maybe they should be in amsterdam - a true cultural hodge-podge

Millions were forced into poverty from the burden of bringing up too many children.

i don't believe there were millions of people during the stone age, but i will understand your point to be hyperbolic in scope

And now 'pro-life' advocates want to return us to those happy times.

the debate should be framed in terms of the value of life

Huzzah!

no-one here says that; it never caught on. you hear someone trying to talk american to you by saying that should be tea-bagged.

 

[fluff]

congrats! i missed the general announcement

Thanks. My announcements tend to haphazard, this one particularly, for obvious reasons.

this may be the only indication you ride

I just thought that the singular of criteria would be criterium. Ride what?

having that in your face does give one pause, no? however i need to remind you any new found positions are under the duress of sleep deprivation.

Ah sleep, I remember that.

maybe your opinion of torture will now slide a little right knowing what you can endure?

Perhaps, although my position is mostly results-based.

 

[llkoolkeg]

i agree. i like to think that i've studied a bit of biology, human development, and anatomy, and yet i fail to see a clear "right" viewpoint, let alone consensus among the "educated". llkoolkeg, good try in smacking mack down but you can't hide behind or justify your personal position with science on this one.

I never said that there was a clear "right" viewpoint. If it were clear and obvious to most people, there would be little debate. What I am saying is that as the age of viability continues to decrease due to scientific and medical advances, it becomes harder and harder to justify killing babies that could otherwise live. BTW, have you seen the latest 3-D intrauterine imaging technologies? Perhaps prospective abortion "patients" should have 15 minutes alone in a room with the new sonograms hooked up and going real-time before the procedure can go forth. A brief meet-&-greet, if you will, between a baby and his mother before final consent for the procedure is collected. Why should a woman be able to make such a critically important decision in a comparative emotional vacuum w/o ALL the ramifications of it before her? Even convicted murderers get the opportunity to make a final appeal to the governer for a stay of execution. Surely an unborn child deserves no less! Then again, abortionists are not interested in putting before their customers information that would surely impact profits negatively.

My goal is not to smack anyone down; my jollies are not met so easily and I have nothing against Mack personally. It is to prod people to open their eyes, consider current relevant data, and think before they parrot the answer that they feel is most consistent with their chosen political affiliations or status as a person deemed sensitive to females and their issues. I personally find it nauseating that supposedly "pro-women" groups can find nothing more worthy of their time and passion than lobbying for their continued "right" to off their offspring for no reason greater than inconvenient timing. Whatever happened to "equal pay for equal work"? Is there yet a cure for breast cancer or an effective treatment for endometriosis? Apparently, such issues are less worthy of effort than advancing the state-of-the-art in fetal death and disposal. Maybe 24-hour abortion clinics would be nice with layaway or flexible financing options. Perhaps throw up a flat panel plasma w/ Dolby 7.1 in the procedure room, comfier chairs, umbrella drinks and hors d' ourves and turn it into a real pleasant experience!

 

[Silver]

So the definition of human depends on the current state of medical technology?

By that reasoning, abortions in third world countries don't count as killing a human, and ones in first world countries do.

 

[fluff]

So the definition of human depends on the current state of medical technology?

By that reasoning, abortions in third world countries don't count as killing a human, and ones in first world countries do.

I didnt think third world deaths at any age registered as a blip in the West..

You're twisting his argument. If medical research suddenly demonstrated conciousness at 8 weeks then those who seek medical proof would have a new barometer.

 

[mack]

You're twisting his argument. If medical research suddenly demonstrated conciousness at 8 weeks then those who seek medical proof would have a new barometer.

No I think Silver has a good point.