Plan B available "over the counter"

[SEVERUSMAX]

Maybe you shouldn't be speaking for the AH...

Maybe, maybe not. I wasn't really. Just expressing my view of what he should do. He is getting on my nerves.

 

[shereads]

So, some of us are opposed to murdering unborn children, and that makes US irresponsible?

Egg + sperm = zygote. Not child. Zygote. Countless zygotes are spontaneously aborted before they attach themselves to the woman's uterus, which is the point at which the medical community generally agrees that a pregnancy exists. The day-after pill, like an IUD, prevents that from taking place; it is birth control.

By no standard except the one imposed by zealots does this form of birth control kill an 'innocent child.' The zygote is innocent, all right, in the same way that algae is innocent.

A child, on the other hand, can feel, dream, love, and suffer from the lack of love. It can die slowly of starvation. It can be born drug-addicted or HIV-infected or doomed by fetal alcohol syndrome. It can be adopted by abusive parents as easily as by loving ones.

But that's not your concern, is it? Your concern, if you oppose the use of the morning-after pill, is for what happens in the immediate aftermath of sex: a woman might or might not have ovulated; a sperm cell might or might not have come in contact with an egg cell. You feel duty-bound to assure that the woman does nothing to interfere with what happens next.

If nature decides that there will be no pregnancy, and disposes of the zygote without the woman ever knowing it existed, you're okay with that, right? But if the woman herself, by means of a pill or by wearing an IUD, causes the same thing to happen to the cell division that might or might not have been begun in the hours after intercourse...she's a murderer. Is that right?

It's your belief that after the failure of a condom, or in the hours after a rape, or on the morning after plain old irresponsible sex between a couple of horny drunks in the back seat of a Buick, the only responsible course of action is none at all.

You're right about one thing:'irresponsible' isn't the word for that point of view. Try absurd. Deluded. Uncaring, or even cruel.

You don't give a tinker's damn about other people's children. Not after they're born, anyway. As you pointed out, what happens once a child is born is its parents' responsibility. (She plays, she pays.) What happens in the womb, however, is everyone's business. That's where innocence exists. That's where life is worth protecting and nurturing and fighting for.

Out here, it's every kid for himself.

I'll go out on a limb here and guess that you are a social conservative, like many people on your side of this issue, which means you generally oppose the use of taxes to subsidize free day care, health care and other things that reward the poor for spawning.

The hypocrisy boggles the mind.

 

[Lisa Denton]

So, I offended you guys? Well, that makes two of us. I was a bit angry and offended yesterday at Lisa's suggestion that I was irresponsible for opposing abortion, yet not wanting to adopt. As far as I am concerned, we are even.

Not by a long shot, my lil banana remark was funny, and not even close and after you accused everyone who doesn't share your views of being a murderer. And I do think you are irresponsible (not a murderer) and have heard it all before, you feel your responsibility ends when you have forced the woman to have the child. If she was raped, she prolly deserved it and liked it and should be forced to have the child and love it. Share custody and support with her loving rapist, and live happily ever after ...... after he gets out of prison.
Or worse, after she pays for your views and has the child you admit you don't want, put it up for adoption and have me pay for your views to raise the child in a orphanage, whatever, just keep that lil brat away from you.

Severus, you first attempt to defend me, then you try to dismiss me as a "lunatic", after which you complete your two-faced approach by suggesting that I go to the GB. As I am an aspiring writer, I see no reason to do so. With defenders like you, who needs attackers?

Did I call you people murderers? Not unless you have had abortions. Perhaps it is your guilty consciences at work. I don't know. I think that Mr. Zack's post just confirms what I think. Many in the pro-death camp are prudes in their own way, or at least adamantly oppposed to the procreative principle for some odd reason. Anything to avoid pregnancy and preserve their materialistic pursuit of the Almighty Dollar. Not that I have anything against money or wealth, but when you will take a life for it, how are you better than any other criminals?

See, you can state your views, defend your opinions and have peoples listen without labeling everyone criminals, it kinda turns peoples off.

It is clear that I struck a nerve. However, when you start a thread like this, Miss Denton, you invite strong controversy and opposing views. Especially from what Severus so perceptively called a "man of character and strong convictions".

Miss Denton? Unintentional insult or just gender bias? Yea, I started this thread, but to discuss Plan B, not how you think all women, or young girls raped, should be forced to deliver the child, as you hurl insults at everyone.
You could try just stating your views.

For the record, my "congenial" post on the Career Women thread is because I am mostly liberal in my politics. My only opposition is to abortion. It is not a religious thing, as I am an agnostic (despite a brief flirtation with Islam). It is simply a firm belief that life begins at, if not conception, somewhere very close to it. Your own President Reagan issued a Proclamation to this effect in 1988, I might add. Many great people oppose abortion on principle, including some prominent women.

My Own Ronnie Reagan????????

For the record, I was noting that children born to rapists are not guilty of the rape committed by their fathers. Hence, they should not be punished (certainly not with the death penalty) for their father's crimes. Here is where I must part company with the "women's agenda", which seems to be in favor of ANYTHING that will inconvenience women in any way. That seems to include motherhood. Well, there are more important things than convenience, damn it! Human life, for starters!

Rape is not an inconvienience. Nor is sentencing the woman who was raped to nine months hard labor (?) and the eighteen years of child support, what else to keep the memories fresh? Maybe some photos of the loving night of brutal bliss?

No, Sarah, it was not a "hate-spewing attack" on you, or anyone else. Nor was it from nowhere. It came from what some might call "righteous indignation" at the defamation of the pro-life camp by militant pro-deathers, to paraphrase what Sev said earlier.

Your "righteous indignation" should jut be your opinion, no one is demanding that you procreate (at least not me) or demanding that after you are raped you be forced to deliver a child. I don't want to force you to live by my views, get outta my face with yours (thats me being nice).

I regret that you find my principles offensive. I also regret that you saw fit to offend me as well. It is too bad that my previous affection and respect for you is neither deserved nor returned. Such a tragedy. Too bad.

I am sure Sarah will cry at the loss of your affection (party time).

But I WILL NOT "go back to lurking". Nor will I retreat to this infamous "GB". I am an aspiring smut writer with my own principles and passion, and I intend to use that to present some dissenting views, whether you or others want dissenting views or not. Because it IS a free country and I have a right to my own damned views, thank you very much!

Most peoples here will fight to the death to defend your right to spew hatred and insults, even while you are insulting them. You could get some friends by stating your views without the hatred and insults, but hey, go for it.

No Soup For You!

I don't like soup, but I still think you deserve a banana.
Have a nice day.

 

[Liar]

It is not a religious thing, as I am an agnostic (despite a brief flirtation with Islam). It is simply a firm belief that life begins at, if not conception, somewhere very close to it.

Ok. Why?

For every belief, there's a reason. If it was a religious reason, then "because my religion dictates it is so" would be an acceptable explanation. I wouldn't agree, but I'd certainly accept it. But you say it's not a religious thing. What then is your rationale for this belief?

 

[rgraham666]

Ok. Why?

For every belief, there's a reason. If it was a religious reason, then "because my religion dictates it is so" would be an acceptable explanation. I wouldn't agree, but I'd certainly accept it. But you say it's not a religious thing. What then is your rationale for this belief?

Probably something about 'nature'.

Conveniently forgetting that nature always trims populations that breed out their habitat.

And the methods that nature uses for this balance are far worse than anything we would do.

Mother Nature is a child abuser.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Your own President Reagan issued a Proclamation to this effect in 1988, I might

Uh-oh, oops, Ima bad, I made a boo boo.

I was under the impression that you came from a free country that I am familiar with. Some peoples here are from america, where everybody came from somewhere else, well, except Cloudy and she lets us all hang out in her living room. Other peoples I know and talk with come from countries where things are similar (they tell me) to the US as far as freedoms and stuff.

Your radical views on this subject, combined with your above quote, finally made me realize something which would explain your views on women and other cattle.

I will splain it for you.

In lots of countries, unlike yours, peoples do not think its an inconvenience for a 12 year old girl to be thrown down in the street and raped, especially if you and a bunch of friends take turns with her you prolly figure at most she will be late for school. And since she is just a breeding machine the sooner she starts spittin out babies, (hopefully male) the better.

Anyways, to help you understand my views, in some countries, like mine, women and even young girls, are considered people.

Hope this clears up some of the confusion and mis-conceptions.

 

[shereads]

Uh-oh, oops, Ima bad, I made a boo boo.

I was under the impression that you came from a free country that I am familiar with. Some peoples here are from america, where everybody came from somewhere else, well, except Cloudy and she lets us all hang out in her living room. Other peoples I know and talk with come from countries where things are similar (they tell me) to the US as far as freedoms and stuff.

Your radical views on this subject, combined with your above quote, finally made me realize something which would explain your views on women and other cattle.

I will splain it for you.

In lots of countries, unlike yours, peoples do not think its an inconvenience for a 12 year old girl to be thrown down in the street and raped, especially if you and a bunch of friends take turns with her you prolly figure at most she will be late for school. And since she is just a breeding machine the sooner she starts spittin out babies, (hopefully male) the better.

Anyways, to help you understand my views, in some countries, like mine, women and even young girls, are considered people.

Hope this clears up some of the confusion and mis-conceptions.

Uh-oh. The women are gettin' uppity. Time to make more babies.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Uh-oh, oops, Ima bad, I made a boo boo.

I was under the impression that you came from a free country that I am familiar with. Some peoples here are from america, where everybody came from somewhere else, well, except Cloudy and she lets us all hang out in her living room. Other peoples I know and talk with come from countries where things are similar (they tell me) to the US as far as freedoms and stuff.

Your radical views on this subject, combined with your above quote, finally made me realize something which would explain your views on women and other cattle.

I will splain it for you.

In lots of countries, unlike yours, peoples do not think its an inconvenience for a 12 year old girl to be thrown down in the street and raped, especially if you and a bunch of friends take turns with her you prolly figure at most she will be late for school. And since she is just a breeding machine the sooner she starts spittin out babies, (hopefully male) the better.

Anyways, to help you understand my views, in some countries, like mine, women and even young girls, are considered people.

Hope this clears up some of the confusion and mis-conceptions.

*chuckle*

 

[yevkassem72]

Uh-oh, oops, Ima bad, I made a boo boo.

I was under the impression that you came from a free country that I am familiar with. Some peoples here are from america, where everybody came from somewhere else, well, except Cloudy and she lets us all hang out in her living room. Other peoples I know and talk with come from countries where things are similar (they tell me) to the US as far as freedoms and stuff.

Your radical views on this subject, combined with your above quote, finally made me realize something which would explain your views on women and other cattle.

I will splain it for you.

In lots of countries, unlike yours, peoples do not think its an inconvenience for a 12 year old girl to be thrown down in the street and raped, especially if you and a bunch of friends take turns with her you prolly figure at most she will be late for school. And since she is just a breeding machine the sooner she starts spittin out babies, (hopefully male) the better.

Anyways, to help you understand my views, in some countries, like mine, women and even young girls, are considered people.

Hope this clears up some of the confusion and mis-conceptions.

So, you think that I am ignorant peasant? From where? Iran? Iraq? Syria?

I am part French, but I grew up in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. I have seen rape victims of the ages that you mention. I no longer live in that war-torn, once prosperous country. I live in the United States, as you do. Yes, I know that rape is a despicable, terrible practice. However, that does not mean that the innocent children should suffer for what their fathers did. That is the sort of attitude, blaming children for the deeds of their parents, that led to the civil war in my native land. That is why I feel so strongly that abortion, even for cases of rape and incest, is still something that society should not legally sanction.

Now, you and others argue that it is simply a cluster of cells. Are you sure enough to allow that fetus to be "terminated", simply so that a woman won't have to live with someone that she can simply give up for adoption? Even if it
is only a marginal chance (which I doubt) that these are living, conscious people, shouldn't you give life the benefit of the doubt, over an easier, more pleasant experience for 9 months? I realize that I am not at stake here, but I would think that human life is more valuable than one's lifestyle for 9 months tops. It is the other attitude, the one raises other values above human life, that leads to the kind of chaos, barbarism, and cruelty that I have seen in Beirut.

There is a difference between not wanting to raise children and wanting to see them dead. I do no active harm. I take no lives. I shed no blood. That is a considerable moral difference. I realize that perhaps human life is not as rare or endangered where you grew up as where I did, but I happen to consider it valuable.

I am not an evil man, nor an insane one, regardless of what you might think. I am not even a social conservative. I look at American equivalents of Hezbollah and worry that this nation might follow down the same dark path of savagery. It is for that reason that I detest the callousness of people toward these tiniest, most vulnerable human lives. I don't consider them expendable.

Unlike some, I also have the advantage of not being a prude. I favor the procreative act, preferring life over death. When you have seen plenty of death, as I have done, it loses any romantic or glamorous appeal that it might have to others. Procreation becomes a good and positive force, one ideal to redress the loss of people and their creative potential caused by constant warfare. Perhaps this will better explain my viewpoint. Unwed pregnancies, to me, are not tragic. They are more lives being brought into the world, nothing to hide in shame or try to eradicate.

So, you see, I'm not the bomb-throwing fanatic that you think that I am. I wasn't calling you murderers anyway. I was calling the perpertrators of what I see as another senseless slaughter on their guilt for it. I mean the abortionists and their patrons.

And, no, I am no pacifist. However, I have seen enough violence in my life. I have no more appetite for it, if it can be avoided. To me, abortion is another form of violence, against an innocent person completely undeserving of such cruelty and malice.

 

[CharleyH]

Ok. Why?

For every belief, there's a reason. If it was a religious reason, then "because my religion dictates it is so" would be an acceptable explanation. I wouldn't agree, but I'd certainly accept it. But you say it's not a religious thing. What then is your rationale for this belief?

Religion ruins all good discussions. Why can't people just do things because THEY strongly believe in it?

Yes, we all agree with the acceptable beliefs of others, but do you think that the religious agrument is 'acceptable' in an "intelligent" argument, Liar or anyone else?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

So, you think that I am ignorant peasant? From where? Iran? Iraq? Syria?

I am part French, but I grew up in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. I have seen rape victims of the ages that you mention. I no longer live in that war-torn, once prosperous country. I live in the United States, as you do. Yes, I know that rape is a despicable, terrible practice. However, that does not mean that the innocent children should suffer for what their fathers did. That is the sort of attitude, blaming children for the deeds of their parents, that led to the civil war in my native land. That is why I feel so strongly that abortion, even for cases of rape and incest, is still something that society should not legally sanction.

Now, you and others argue that it is simply a cluster of cells. Are you sure enough to allow that fetus to be "terminated", simply so that a woman won't have to live with someone that she can simply give up for adoption? Even if it
is only a marginal chance (which I doubt) that these are living, conscious people, shouldn't you give life the benefit of the doubt, over an easier, more pleasant experience for 9 months? I realize that I am not at stake here, but I would think that human life is more valuable than one's lifestyle for 9 months tops. It is the other attitude, the one raises other values above human life, that leads to the kind of chaos, barbarism, and cruelty that I have seen in Beirut.

There is a difference between not wanting to raise children and wanting to see them dead. I do no active harm. I take no lives. I shed no blood. That is a considerable moral difference. I realize that perhaps human life is not as rare or endangered where you grew up as where I did, but I happen to consider it valuable.

I am not an evil man, nor an insane one, regardless of what you might think. I am not even a social conservative. I look at American equivalents of Hezbollah and worry that this nation might follow down the same dark path of savagery. It is for that reason that I detest the callousness of people toward these tiniest, most vulnerable human lives. I don't consider them expendable.

Unlike some, I also have the advantage of not being a prude. I favor the procreative act, preferring life over death. When you have seen plenty of death, as I have done, it loses any romantic or glamorous appeal that it might have to others. Procreation becomes a good and positive force, one ideal to redress the loss of people and their creative potential caused by constant warfare. Perhaps this will better explain my viewpoint. Unwed pregnancies, to me, are not tragic. They are more lives being brought into the world, nothing to hide in shame or try to eradicate.

So, you see, I'm not the bomb-throwing fanatic that you think that I am. I wasn't calling you murderers anyway. I was calling the perpertrators of what I see as another senseless slaughter on their guilt for it. I mean the abortionists and their patrons.

And, no, I am no pacifist. However, I have seen enough violence in my life. I have no more appetite for it, if it can be avoided. To me, abortion is another form of violence, against an innocent person completely undeserving of such cruelty and malice.

Here's a hypothetical for you.

If...If science was advanced enough to remove the fetus from the rape victim and transplant it to some other host, male or female, would you volunteer to carry the child to term and raise it as your own?

If not then you are a hypocrite.

 

[privyjo]

Here's a hypothetical for you.

If...If science was advanced enough to remove the fetus from the rape victim and transplant it to some other host, male or female, would you volunteer to carry the child to term and raise it as your own?

If not then you are a hypocrite.

*underwater lurker swimming by*

very nice, yes, very nice

so wish this was not an "if"

*swimming lurker leaving turbulent waters*

 

[CharleyH]

What did what you just said have to do with my post?

Q_C

You brought it up, not me. Did you forget what you said or sumpthin?

 

[CharleyH]

*underwater lurker swimming by*

very nice, yes, very nice

so wish this was not an "if"

*swimming lurker leaving turbulent waters*

WOW - I am thankful for MY partners and mostly MY smarts. BE INFORMED! In using PLAN A, we do not need Plan B.

 

[Liar]

Religion ruins all good discussions. Why can't people just do things because THEY strongly believe in it?

Yes, we all agree with the acceptable beliefs of others, but do you think that the religious agrument is 'acceptable' in an "intelligent" argument, Liar or anyone else?

Any opinion that has a rationale is acceptable to debate. Even if the rationale is religion (which is in essence an authorative argument - 'god says so'), it means that the reasoning behind it can be understood and adressed. Again, not agreed with, but understood. If we can't accept that different people have different base for their opinions, even if we don't understand and agree with them, we might as well end the discussion and start competing who can shout the loudest instead.

Yes people should do things because THEY strongly believe in it. But why do they believe in it? That's the rub. Venting an opinion about something 'just because', and not provding an answer to why, is equally demeaning to intelligent debate.

 

[Lisa Denton]

So, you think that I am ignorant peasant? From where? Iran? Iraq? Syria?

I am part French, but I grew up in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. I have seen rape victims of the ages that you mention. I no longer live in that war-torn, once prosperous country. I live in the United States, as you do. Yes, I know that rape is a despicable, terrible practice. However, that does not mean that the innocent children should suffer for what their fathers did. That is the sort of attitude, blaming children for the deeds of their parents, that led to the civil war in my native land. That is why I feel so strongly that abortion, even for cases of rape and incest, is still something that society should not legally sanction.

Now, you and others argue that it is simply a cluster of cells. Are you sure enough to allow that fetus to be "terminated", simply so that a woman won't have to live with someone that she can simply give up for adoption? Even if it
is only a marginal chance (which I doubt) that these are living, conscious people, shouldn't you give life the benefit of the doubt, over an easier, more pleasant experience for 9 months? I realize that I am not at stake here, but I would think that human life is more valuable than one's lifestyle for 9 months tops. It is the other attitude, the one raises other values above human life, that leads to the kind of chaos, barbarism, and cruelty that I have seen in Beirut.

There is a difference between not wanting to raise children and wanting to see them dead. I do no active harm. I take no lives. I shed no blood. That is a considerable moral difference. I realize that perhaps human life is not as rare or endangered where you grew up as where I did, but I happen to consider it valuable.

I am not an evil man, nor an insane one, regardless of what you might think. I am not even a social conservative. I look at American equivalents of Hezbollah and worry that this nation might follow down the same dark path of savagery. It is for that reason that I detest the callousness of people toward these tiniest, most vulnerable human lives. I don't consider them expendable.

Unlike some, I also have the advantage of not being a prude. I favor the procreative act, preferring life over death. When you have seen plenty of death, as I have done, it loses any romantic or glamorous appeal that it might have to others. Procreation becomes a good and positive force, one ideal to redress the loss of people and their creative potential caused by constant warfare. Perhaps this will better explain my viewpoint. Unwed pregnancies, to me, are not tragic. They are more lives being brought into the world, nothing to hide in shame or try to eradicate.

So, you see, I'm not the bomb-throwing fanatic that you think that I am. I wasn't calling you murderers anyway. I was calling the perpertrators of what I see as another senseless slaughter on their guilt for it. I mean the abortionists and their patrons.

And, no, I am no pacifist. However, I have seen enough violence in my life. I have no more appetite for it, if it can be avoided. To me, abortion is another form of violence, against an innocent person completely undeserving of such cruelty and malice.

Hi, welcome to my country, spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard.

Since you tried to tone down the hatred I will answer.

In many countries, this one included, we do not refer to rapists as fathers.

Also, in many countries, pregnancy is not the opposite of an easier, more pleasant experience for 9 months for the person involved.

Especially after being raped.

You flew over the outer fringes of the far right with that, and kept going, harming your cause, by including incest along with rape. Is the little toddler going to get confused by somtimes calling daddy granpappy.

You say you mean no harm, you just want to force that cow to have a lil inconvienience for 9 months, and you admit you don't want the child and refuse to adopt it. Your responsibility ends at birth, after that who cares. Zeb is right, have it yourself.

Notice I was nice in return?

 

[CharleyH]

Any opinion that has a rationale is acceptable to debate. Even if the rationale is religion (which is in essence an authorative argument - 'god says so'), it means that the reasoning behind it can be understood and adressed. Again, not agreed with, but understood. If we can't accept that different people have different base for their opinions, even if we don't understand and agree with them, we might as well end the discussion and start competing who can shout the loudest instead.

Yes people should do things because THEY strongly believe in it. But why do they believe in it? That's the rub. Venting an opinion about something 'just because', and not provding an answer to why, is equally demeaning to intelligent debate.

Indeed.

 

[Guest]

So, you think that I am ignorant peasant? From where? Iran? Iraq? Syria?

I am part French, but I grew up in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. I have seen rape victims of the ages that you mention. I no longer live in that war-torn, once prosperous country. I live in the United States, as you do. Yes, I know that rape is a despicable, terrible practice. However, that does not mean that the innocent children should suffer for what their fathers did. That is the sort of attitude, blaming children for the deeds of their parents, that led to the civil war in my native land. That is why I feel so strongly that abortion, even for cases of rape and incest, is still something that society should not legally sanction.

Now, you and others argue that it is simply a cluster of cells. Are you sure enough to allow that fetus to be "terminated", simply so that a woman won't have to live with someone that she can simply give up for adoption? Even if it
is only a marginal chance (which I doubt) that these are living, conscious people, shouldn't you give life the benefit of the doubt, over an easier, more pleasant experience for 9 months? I realize that I am not at stake here, but I would think that human life is more valuable than one's lifestyle for 9 months tops. It is the other attitude, the one raises other values above human life, that leads to the kind of chaos, barbarism, and cruelty that I have seen in Beirut.

There is a difference between not wanting to raise children and wanting to see them dead. I do no active harm. I take no lives. I shed no blood. That is a considerable moral difference. I realize that perhaps human life is not as rare or endangered where you grew up as where I did, but I happen to consider it valuable.

I am not an evil man, nor an insane one, regardless of what you might think. I am not even a social conservative. I look at American equivalents of Hezbollah and worry that this nation might follow down the same dark path of savagery. It is for that reason that I detest the callousness of people toward these tiniest, most vulnerable human lives. I don't consider them expendable.

Unlike some, I also have the advantage of not being a prude. I favor the procreative act, preferring life over death. When you have seen plenty of death, as I have done, it loses any romantic or glamorous appeal that it might have to others. Procreation becomes a good and positive force, one ideal to redress the loss of people and their creative potential caused by constant warfare. Perhaps this will better explain my viewpoint. Unwed pregnancies, to me, are not tragic. They are more lives being brought into the world, nothing to hide in shame or try to eradicate.

So, you see, I'm not the bomb-throwing fanatic that you think that I am. I wasn't calling you murderers anyway. I was calling the perpertrators of what I see as another senseless slaughter on their guilt for it. I mean the abortionists and their patrons.

And, no, I am no pacifist. However, I have seen enough violence in my life. I have no more appetite for it, if it can be avoided. To me, abortion is another form of violence, against an innocent person completely undeserving of such cruelty and malice.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and we often differ in the AH. This is such a volatile issue (and this type of thread has been done before) and I can tell you very easily which AH members believe in a woman's right to an abortion and which ones do not. And yet most of us are usually able to discuss it without resorting to insults and name-calling.

You do realize that you could have stated your opinion in a way that wouldn't have inflamed so many? It was only after you called me a murderer (and whether or not I have had an abortion is irrelevant to the discussion, by the way) that you said you no longer liked me. What in the hell is that? Who are you? Have we ever even exchanged thoughts on the same thread?

At any rate, further discussion is pointless. If you dig a hole for yourself in this forum, don't blame it on others inability to deal with differing views. It was your personal attack that earned your stripes.

 

[Just-Legal]

I told myself I wasn't going to do this. Ah well.

Yev - let me tell you something.

I was raped, four years ago nearly. I see his MOTHER nearly every week because we live in the same town and every time I do, I feel sick, I want to turn and run, to hide away and never come out again because it reminds me of what happened.

And you're telling me, that if I hadn't been on the pill (thank FUCKING god) at the time, if I would have got pregnant from what that bastard did to me, I should have kept the baby?

You would curse a child not only to the social stigma, but also to a mother who is mentally ill, would probably be even more so through the stress and hormone craziness that happens through pregnancy? I hit the bottle, badly, for about a year afterward - so you would also curse the child to foetal alcohol syndrome? Yes, I can give it up for adoption after it is born, but I doubt very much it would find a good home... I'm sorry, but there is no way I would do that. I would rather be called a murderer and have it over quickly and simply than doom the child to a lifetime of being passed from pillar to post, wondering why its parents didn't want it, questioning its own existence and dying a little more inside each day.

J-L

 

[Guest]

Oh, JL.

I'm so sorry.

 

[deathlynx]

WOW - I am thankful for MY partners and mostly MY smarts. BE INFORMED! In using PLAN A, we do not need Plan B.

I can say from personal expirience that even brand new, out of the box, condoms break...From the expirience of my in-laws even getting tubes tied and a vascectamy is not infalible...In my case I was lucky that it was not the appropriate time of the month in the case of my inlaws it did result in the birth of more in-laws...

the more forms of birth control the smaller the chance of conception however by the laws of probability there remains a single chance of fertility no matter what you do (except for completely removing the Vas Differenz, sp?)...

Oh and to (hopefully) settle some confusion here...Some deffinitions from the American Heritage (online) Dictionary...Please note in the deffinitions they make explicit refferences to time frames and other biological differentiations...

zy·gote
NOUN:
1. The cell formed by the union of two gametes, especially a fertilized ovum before cleavage.
2. The organism that develops from a zygote.

em·bry·o
NOUN:
pl. em·bry·os
1. a. An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
b. An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.

2. a. The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.
b. In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.

fe·tus
NOUN:
pl. fe·tus·es
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

 

[CharleyH]

I can say from personal expirience that even brand new, out of the box, condoms break...From the expirience of my in-laws even getting tubes tied and a vascectamy is not infalible...In my case I was lucky that it was not the appropriate time of the month in the case of my inlaws it did result in the birth of more in-laws...

the more forms of birth control the smaller the chance of conception however by the laws of probability there remains a single chance of fertility no matter what you do (except for completely removing the Vas Differenz, sp?)...

Oh and to (hopefully) settle some confusion here...Some deffinitions from the American Heritage (online) Dictionary...Please note in the deffinitions they make explicit refferences to time frames and other biological differentiations...

Thank you for your take. I do not agree with all, but thats ok, I agree in something. Who do you think should take control of the birth and disease control in sex? Do you think boys are qualified?

 

[deathlynx]

Thank you for your take. I do not agree with all, but thats ok, I agree in something. Who do you think should take control of the birth and disease control in sex? Do you think boys are qualified?

Not so much my take...As I've mentioned I try not to have an oppinion as it has nothing to do with me in reality...Not my body so not my descision...
I just tried to add some evidence and deffinitions to help with debate as opposed to the name calling, tempers and confusion...

As for birth control I think it's the responsibility of both partners...

 

[Pure]

response to yev

i've read some of your earlier postings, but most recently you said,

Y:Now, you and others argue that it is simply a cluster of cells. Are you sure enough to allow that fetus to be "terminated", simply so that a woman won't have to live with someone that she can simply give up for adoption? Even if it
is only a marginal chance (which I doubt) that these are living, conscious people, shouldn't you give life the benefit of the doubt, over an easier, more pleasant experience for 9 months? I realize that I am not at stake here, but I would think that human life is more valuable than one's lifestyle for 9 months tops. It is the other attitude, the one raises other values above human life, that leads to the kind of chaos, barbarism, and cruelty that I have seen in Beirut.

There is a difference between not wanting to raise children and wanting to see them dead. I do no active harm. I take no lives. I shed no blood. That is a considerable moral difference. I realize that perhaps human life is not as rare or endangered where you grew up as where I did, but I happen to consider it valuable.

I am not an evil man, nor an insane one, regardless of what you might think.

P: It seems you've kept the habit of trying to goad. It's hardly worth the time to say there are no arguments there, only slogans and implied insults suggesting it's 'lifestyle' that's at issue. since you've made several posts i have to assume you are unable to make an argument for your alleged 'prolife' position.

Your attempt to link the prochoice position to Beirut is likewise baseless.

Y:I do no active harm. I take no lives. I shed no blood. That is a considerable moral difference. I realize that perhaps human life is not as rare or endangered where you grew up as where I did, but I happen to consider it valuable

P: This is highly debatable yev; you do harm in that the strictest antiabortion position, yours, leads to both suicides and fatal infections in actual humans (leaving aside the consequence of abused or abandoned children).

Y: I realize that perhaps human life is not as rare or endangered where you grew up as where I did, but I happen to consider it valuable.

P: That is far from clear. It is clear you disregard the lives and welfare of actual walking around humans in favor of your 'hypothetical human', a barely visible dot whose presence you can't even detect with any known test.

Y: I am not an evil man, nor an insane one,

P: true, you're more banal; but like Eichmann, banal folks mindlessly upholding dogmas can be very dangerous to the rest of us actual, walking around humans; in a more modern analogy, you're more like the suicide bombers convinced they're right and ready to sacrifice living innocents in 'the cause'.

While it's true there are occasional thoughful and humane prolife persons, ones capable of reasoning and argument (which certainly can be made), you're really an embarrassment to them.


===
Here's an interesting link to a NYTimes story on El Salvador, which has made all abortion related acts criminal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/m...=d855d80018cd6c56&ei=5088&partner=rssuserland

"Pro Life Nation" [Salvador]
by Jack Hitt

[...]
In this new movement toward criminalization, El Salvador is in the vanguard. The array of exceptions that tend to exist even in countries where abortion is circumscribed — rape, incest, fetal malformation, life of the mother — don't apply in El Salvador. They were rejected in the late 1990's, in a period after the country's long civil war ended. The country's penal system was revamped and its constitution was amended. Abortion is now absolutely forbidden in every possible circumstance. No exceptions.

There are other countries in the world that, like El Salvador, completely ban abortion, including Malta, Chile and Colombia. El Salvador, however, has not only a total ban on abortion but also an active law-enforcement apparatus — the police, investigators, medical spies, forensic vagina inspectors and a special division of the prosecutor's office responsible for Crimes Against Minors and Women, a unit charged with capturing, trying and incarcerating an unusual kind of criminal. Like the woman I was waiting to meet.

 

[CharleyH]

but like Eichmann, banal folks mindlessly upholding dogmas can be very dangerous to the rest of us actual, walking around humans; in a more modern analogy, you're more like the suicide bombers convinced they're right and ready to sacrifice living innocents in 'the cause'.

Now, here is a great ( partly quoted by me) arguement!