That's it. I'm moving when I get my degree.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Banefull

And there are people who have survived abortions and I don't think they would be happy to be told that they had to die at that moment.

Why isn't anyone thinking about the child's feelings. It turns out that the said "fetus" sometimes does grow up and can look back at what happened. I haven't heard a single abortion survivor say "I would rather have died" and that is why I think life should be the option.

Again. Pick who you're going to **** over, the mother, or the fetus.

[applejuice]

Originally Posted by Banefull

And there are people who have survived abortions and I don't think they would be happy to be told that they had to die at that moment.

Why isn't anyone thinking about the child's feelings. It turns out that the said "fetus" sometimes does grow up and can look back at what happened. I haven't heard a single abortion survivor say "I would rather have died" and that is why I think life should be the option.

I've already put a reference: a lot of people in irreversible vegetative state or with brain death get up of their beds, laugh, cry, stare at the people, but their are dead!
The principal victim of a rape is a woman, not the fetus or the rapist. We are talking about the early stages of pregnancy. Already stated, pain is an autonomous response of very low level, primordial nervous system that says to the conscious part of a human being that something is wrong. If a fetus has not developed the necessary regions of the brain to interpret the primordial signals of pain as such, we are only looking at an autonomous answer, much like when we applied electricity to dissected frog legs in school to see them move.

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by applejuice

The principal victim of a rape is a woman, not the fetus or the rapist. We are talking about the early stages of pregnancy. Already stated, pain is an autonomous response of very low level, primordial nervous system that says to the conscious part of a human being that something is wrong. If a fetus has not developed the necessary regions of the brain to interpret the primordial signals of pain as such, we are only looking at an autonomous answer, much like when we applied electricity to dissected frog legs in school to see them move.

reposting what I said earlier:

...does that mean that killing is ok so long as it doesn't feel pain? Some humans cannot feel physical pain due to nerve damage. Is killing someone because they can't feel it or won't know what happened because its too fast a valid reason?

[applejuice]

Originally Posted by Banefull

reposting what I said earlier:

...does that mean that killing is ok so long as it doesn't feel pain? Some humans cannot feel physical pain due to nerve damage. Is killing someone because they can't feel it or won't know what happened because its too fast a valid reason?

Well, that's what we do when our pets suffer terminal illnesses, don't we? I think you are overlooking the main issue here: Rape. This whole debate started because of that. Not because some women decided that they could get an abortion just because they wanted to, but because they were raped. Suddenly we are encountering all sort of arguments to try and make look that it is moral to say a woman that she will have to take care of a child that was not supposed to be in there and that she has to cope with it because a group of people has said that God made that happen!

[Banefull]

The thing is, some of the arguments that abortion in cases of rape is justified were "abortion in all cases is justified." The two topics have been quite meshed together.

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by Banefull

The thing is, some of the arguments that abortion in cases of rape is justified were "abortion in all cases is justified." The two topics have been quite meshed together.

That's simply because the question of "When does human life begin?" trumps the question of "How did human (or pre-human) life get there?" IMO. Depending on how you answer the first question, the second could be completely irrelevant.

[X.,.Pandora.,.X]

I'm just adding this.
Abortion is justified if the mothers life is in danger
Abortion is acceptable if pregnancy is caused by rape
This is my take on it

[applejuice]

^^ I like that, well thought.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Banefull

reposting what I said earlier:

...does that mean that killing is ok so long as it doesn't feel pain? Some humans cannot feel physical pain due to nerve damage. Is killing someone because they can't feel it or won't know what happened because its too fast a valid reason?

That's false logic, because someone who can not feel pain as a living person is still a sentient being - the point was that an autonomic response to pain does not necessarily make a being sentient, that does not mean that lacking one precludes that condition.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Icu

"all" is a very strong word. I think this is not true.

Imagine a veteran who had a horrible experience in a war. He would have a strong personal conviction that the war is terrible and all that. But what if objectively the war ended up saving millions of lives and improving standard of living etc. Then I would gladly take the opinion of an informed outsider who has studied the matter thoroughly over the opinion of the veteran who, although he/she may have more experience, may be blinded from the big picture by his/her own experience.

Likewise for a veteran who never saw anything traumatic yet saw a number of positive results. He/she might report that the war was justified yet an outsider might observe that it cost far more money than it was worth and ended up negatively affecting countless more lives than it helped. Does the veteran's experience count as a better opinion on the matter JUST because of what he/she saw, even if it was only at best one side of the picture?

I say absolutely not.

But this is what you're doing. You went and experienced one aspect of it and now are trying to claim that anyone who didn't experience what you did, or something equivalent to it, can't have a real opinion on the matter compared to you, even though there are FAR more ways to get better, more well rounded information than your experience.

EXACTLY. You do not need to have been IN something to know about it, and I find the premise of that assumption insulting.
Woodsprite - your "Oh, I know someone who has had one" as an attempt to gain some kind of logical superiority in your own mind was completely pointless and added nothing, but you did it anyway just to attempt an argument from (presumed, in your mind) authority, which, I would say, is in the absence of an honestly considered viewpoint.

Are you interested in 'validly supported'?

MYTH: Many women come to regret their abortions later.
Research indicates that relief is the most common emotional response following abortion, and that psychological distress appears to be greatest before, rather than after, an abortion.

There are undoubtedly some women who, in hindsight, wish that they had made different choices, and the majority would prefer never to have become pregnant when the circumstances were not right for them. When a wanted pregnancy is ended (for medical reasons, for example) women may experience a sense of loss and grief. As with any major change or decision involving loss, a crisis later in life sometimes leads to a temporary resurfacing of sad feelings surrounding the abortion. Women at risk for poor post-abortion adjustment are those who do not get the support they need, or whose abortion decisions are actively opposed by people who are important to them.

There.

Your claim that only someone with first hand experience can have an opinion on anything is both insulting and patronising, and purely a method to invalidate other opinions in your own mind. History, or general consensus anywhere, does not agree with you.
It's perfectly understandable that, as in your war analogy, personally experiencing something does give added perspective, you your attempt to mentally write off everyone else is a simple equivalent of when a six year old goes "Well, I don't want to hear it, so I'm not listening lalalalalalala"

Originally Posted by Banefull

Very well, I will concede that point.

However, I should also point out that thought is not a biological requirement for life.

But it is the criteria for sentience, which is the criteria that humans judge life on for a different level of respect (along with near-sentience) - average people will destroy millions of bacteria in a single day. Almost everyone thinks nothing of killing pest animals, or of eating nonsentient animals for food. Plants are alive, and nobody disputes that - yet even people who refuse to use animals for resources will eat those.

Baneful, I replied to that point earlier:
That's false logic, because someone who can not feel pain as a living person is still a sentient being - the point was that an autonomic response to pain does not necessarily make a being sentient, that does not mean that lacking one precludes that condition.

It has nerve cells, yes, but can it process the input from them? No. There have been cases of pregnancies with severe genetic or birth defects who essentially have no actual brain, who still autonomously respond to touch. All they are capable of doing is regulating the basic biological functions. They have literally zero capacity for thought - they don't survive long even if they remain alive throughout the pregnancy, but they can still respond in an autonomic manner. Animals respond to sensory input to a far greater degree, and are not automatically equal to a human. Even some plants can, several species even move based on touch. Does that make them sentient? Should killing and eating of plants be banned? Of course not, or at least I hope not.

[Disco Scratch]

Originally Posted by Isard

And this is why choice is the only answer. Because people are divided on what they would do. So leave it up to them. That's what freedom is all about. Choices.

Let’s talk about the woman’s right choose. (Choices in general).

Women need to do whatever it takes to avoid placing themselves in a position where they’re more likely to be raped.

When is a rape most likely to occur?

Women are most vulnerable when they’re alone especially at night. To add to a potentially bad situation they could be in a secluded area or under the influence of drugs or alcohol putting them at greater risk.

Rapists are opportunistic predators who are willing to wait for a victim to come along at the right time.

Let’s say I was a predator and was looking for a woman to rape. Where would I start?

I would wait outside the areas in and around college dorms (or in an area where there’s always a party) looking for a woman walking alone at night. I would focus my search for only women who are obviously intoxicated from the party she just left. This will cause her to have delayed uncoordinated reactions and be less able to remember details if I let her go. To make this process easier for me I would wait until she was in a dimly lit area at her farthest point from everything before I made my move. So in other words I would wait for a woman to make a bad choice.

I would never do that, but that’s how I would do it.

Women are targets and they need to understand that the choices they make could potentially put them in a very bad situation. Yes, going out and partying “is fun and all,” but when a woman is intoxicated the men around her consider her an easier sexual partner willing or not. This applies to men who under normal circumstances would never violate a woman.

That’s the point of going to parties. Women go to have fun while men go to find easy prey. Primary objective: get them drunk then get them alone. (This does not apply to me because I am not describing my lifestyle I've never been to a party and I don't intend to).

If you walked into a bedroom at a party and there was an insanely hot woman passed out on the bed wearing next to nothing showing most of the goodies that’s the makings of something bad waiting to happen. You may be a real man and be able to control yourself, but there are many grown boys who would be unable to resist the temptation.

Women need to learn to make better decisions about their life so they don’t end up raped, dead, or facing an unwanted pregnancy.

Am I saying it’s the woman’s fault?

Well, if I’m driving my car while texting and I get into a wreck and die because I’m not paying attention who’s fault is it mine or the person who was texting me?

Answer; I was the one who chose to put myself in danger.

Yes, the impact of the power of choice can have consequences. Choose wisely…

Ever heard of the Mary Vincent story? She chose to run away from home at the age of 15 and she also chose to catch a ride with a random stranger in a lightly trafficked area. Down the road he stopped his van… put her in the back… cut her arms off with an axe so she couldn’t fight back... raped her… and threw her over a cliff. She survived the fall and climbed up the cliff with no arms only to find that no one would stop and help her. She was walking down the middle of the road nude with no arms covered in blood when a newly wed couple on their honeymoon stopped to help her. She's alive today in fact she's a painter, but I bet she regrets choosing to run away from home, which is something she did quite often.

The way I'm presenting this I'm not trying to make it sound like I don't care or like I feel nothing when I hear a story about rape. I watched the Mary Vincent story on "I survived" and it had me in tears. It was a very horrible thing to happen to someone especially a 15 year old girl, but it wouldn't have happened (to her) had she not chose to run away in the first place.

You would probably ask me if I thought she should be forced to go through a pregnancy had she become pregnant. In this case I would say no because she was fifteen.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Eternal Enigma

That’s the point of going to parties. Women go to have fun while men go to find easy prey. Primary objective: get them drunk then get them alone. (This does not apply to me because I am not describing my lifestyle I've never been to a party and I don't intend to).

If you walked into a bedroom at a party and there was an insanely hot woman passed out on the bed wearing next to nothing showing most of the goodies that’s the makings of something bad waiting to happen. You may be a real man and be able to control yourself, but there are many grown boys who would be unable to resist the temptation.

That's pure crap. Although it's a different discussion, women CAN commit rape, and men can be victims, and the incidence of such is hugely underreported due to social stigma. Equally, not all men are interested in easy sex or whatever, and as someone who goes out fairly often, I can assure you that there are a lot of women who are too. there are people who would see someone in that situation and make sure they were OK (and age has nothing to do with it in either way). Sexually stereotyping people is not a valid point.

Equally, decisions entail risks. EVERY decision does. Nothing is risk-free. It's only though others' actions that some become dangerous, while some will always be.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Eternal Enigma

Let’s talk about the woman’s right choose. (Choices in general).

Women need to do whatever it takes to avoid placing themselves in a position where they’re more likely to be raped.



If you walked into a bedroom at a party and there was an insanely hot woman passed out on the bed wearing next to nothing showing most of the goodies that’s the makings of something bad waiting to happen. You may be a real man and be able to control yourself, but there are many grown boys who would be unable to resist the temptation.

I could not physically hate you any more, than I do right now. I think I'm numb.



You're blaming women for getting raped. I had truly, truly hoped you weren't one of them, but you are.


Rapists ****ing rape people. You disgust me. Absolute, complete disgust.

[Aaron]

It might be interesting to take all this talk of "choice" and return to the original gripe, which had to do with funding Planned Parenthood. As long as we're drilling into words, it might also do to drill into the word "Planned." First off, I support choice in this matter in the same way I support freedom of religion: Do what you want, and while I may not like it, I'll at least live with it. On the other hand, I "choose" not to fund this decision for other people. Further, there is nothing "planned" about an abortion. An abortion results from having no plan at all. Rape is certainly very far from the number one motivator of abortion. If abortions weren't as cheap as condoms in this country, maybe fewer people would object to making them harder to get. I sense a certain amount of entitlement seeping in here.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Eywa's Pet

It might be interesting to take all this talk of "choice" and return to the original gripe, which had to do with funding Planned Parenthood. As long as we're drilling into words, it might also do to drill into the word "Planned." First off, I support choice in this matter in the same way I support freedom of religion: Do what you want, and while I may not like it, I'll at least live with it. On the other hand, I "choose" not to fund this decision for other people. Further, there is nothing "planned" about an abortion. An abortion results from having no plan at all. Rape is certainly very far from the number one motivator of abortion. If abortions weren't as cheap as condoms in this country, maybe fewer people would object to making them harder to get. I sense a certain amount of entitlement seeping in here.

No, this had to do with an abortion bill passed in Idaho.


Condoms are free at planned parenthood. Birth control pills are cheap, at planned parenthood. Men and women who would otherwise be unable to receive proper reproductive healthcare get it free at planned parenthood. 3%, 3 tiny percentage points, of their funds go to abortions. And none of that 3% is at taxpayer expense. (btw, if that's how we're doing things, I'd like to eliminate 80% of military spending because I know there's alot of us who don't approve of the wars)