Abortion Clinic / House of Horrors

[Xiahou]

Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Charged With 8 Counts Of Murder (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/01/19/philly-doctor-facing-8-counts-of-murder/)

A West Philadelphia abortion doctor, his wife and eight other suspects are now under arrest following a grand jury investigation.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.This story is appalling on many levels- perhaps worst of all is how this clinic was allowed to continue to stay open after numerous complaints and investigations by the Dept of Health. :no:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Charged With 8 Counts Of Murder (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/01/19/philly-doctor-facing-8-counts-of-murder/)
This story is appalling on many levels- perhaps worst of all is how this clinic was allowed to continue to stay open after numerous complaints and investigations by the Dept of Health. :no:

So he's being accused of seven child murders, but why?

For me this just highlights the reality of abortion generally.

The idea that a babe is only alive once it draws breath is from the same era as the beliefs that women could not concieve without orgasm, and that male "sperm" contained everything needful to create a new life with the woman being no more than a field to be plowed.

Yet the support for abortion stems from exactly that sort of Ancient medical wisdom.

[PanzerJaeger]

The consequences of extreme pro-choice politics (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704747904576094410777014744.html). And the proponents say outlawing it will drive women into squalid, back-alley abortions...


After 1993, there were no more inspections because the Pennsylvania health department "abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all," the grand jury reported. There was supposed to be an exception for "complaints dumped directly on the department's doorstep," yet the Women's Medical Society wasn't inspected in spite of repeated complaints about Dr. Gosnell, the report said.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The consequence of pro choice politics, but at least not the consequence of legalising abortion in general. This comment has the better measure of that:

clarese76

What’s at issue is that he performed illegal late term abortions, and wrote illegal scripts, just think how many more of these doctors would be out there if abortion were illegal, not to mention how many more dead and injured women. If a woman doesn’t want to deliver her baby she won’t, there are herbal remedies that have been used to create miscarriages for centuries.

That in Philadelphia they don't bother with proper medical “discipline” is another topic, and actually quite disturbing.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Saying that a doctor didn't follow the rules is evidence for why abortion in general is terrible is the same as saying that the Arizona shooter is evidence for why guns in general are terrible.

[Fragony]

Abortion should only be allowed in very special circumstances, much like euthanesia. There are plenty alternatives there's no need to end a life. it's sickening. I don't understand why people take it so lightly. Horror-house indeed, bah

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Saying that a doctor didn't follow the rules is evidence for why abortion in general is terrible is the same as saying that the Arizona shooter is evidence for why guns in general are terrible.

While I oppose abortion and believe it to be wrongful death, I must note that ACIN's comment here is spot on. This incident is horrible independently of your views on the abortion issue itself. Linking the incident is poor argumentation.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is no more horrific than abortion in general.

I have never heard one argument for abortion that hasn't been completely ridiculous.

[Fragony]

This is no more horrific than abortion in general.

I have never heard one argument for abortion that hasn't been completely ridiculous.

A woman could have been raped, and psychologically not up for it even when giving it up for abortion, choose her wellbeing then. A baby could have an illness that makes sure it's going to have a short and miserable life, would be cruel having it. I am 100% pro-choice though, and healthy unborn baby's don't have one. Use a condom.

[Greyblades]

The worman in question could be a teenager that didn't know better and has no means of supporting a child.

[Fragony]

The worman in question could be a teenager that didn't know better and has no means of supporting a child.

She can give it up for adoption, many a couple that wants a kid but can't have one. What are these 9 months when compared to a lifetime. Friend of mine is a rape-child his mom could be his sister, he has (serious) issues with that but he still prefers existence over nothing

[Greyblades]

I was thinking more 13-15 yrs old. I don't think bringing a child into the world is worth destroying the life of another.

[Fragony]

I was thinking more 13-15 yrs old

You do know they are illegal huh ;) Inform them better, but if they screw up.. Their life is not that more useful as the baby in their womb, why give them the choice on what isn't really theirs .

[Greyblades]

Illegal or not it happens and it will always happen, no matter what is done. I don't think anyone that young should ever go through that sort of trauma just because they were stupid like, well, a child.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The worman in question could be a teenager that didn't know better and has no means of supporting a child.

So why can't they just kill the baby once it's been born going by your logic? The superstitioun sorrounding the pro-choice arguments is unbelievable, doctors have to jam scissors into the babies head and suck its brains out through a tube, since of course it would suddenly gain a 'soul' if it were to pop out the vagina alive. Or something like that... I can't understand it.

[The Stranger]

Saying that a doctor didn't follow the rules is evidence for why abortion in general is terrible is the same as saying that the Arizona shooter is evidence for why guns in general are terrible.

thats not what he said.

he is talking about the thin line of when a baby is considered a living being and can thus be murdered and when it is a non-living being and can still be legally aborted... which is more like the thin-line between neccesary and excessive violence. i dont think that he argues that this case is obviously perverted.

[Greyblades]

So why can't they just kill the baby once it's been born going by your logic? The superstitioun sorrounding the pro-choice arguments is unbelievable, doctors have to jam scissors into the babies head and suck its brains out through a tube, since of course it would suddenly gain a 'soul' if it were to pop out the vagina alive. Or something like that... I can't understand it.

What? Dude you'd have to be realy messed up to believe that.

[Lemur]

The superstitioun sorrounding the pro-choice arguments is unbelievable, doctors have to jam scissors into the babies head and suck its brains out through a tube, since of course it would suddenly gain a 'soul' if it were to pop out the vagina alive.
The vast majority of people who support abortion access do not support late-term or partial-birth abortions. We've been around this tree before, and it's become obvious to this lemur that there is a sensible common ground that most Americans hold, and which no American politician will offer, for various legal and political reasons.

[rory_20_uk]

I'll play along...

The woman has cancer, which will become more aggressive in pregnancy as the immune system is downregulated. Odds are she will die without treatment for 9 months anyway.

Has structural heart abnormalities and her cardiovascular system will not cope with a pregnancy. Most likely she will die die to the pregnancy.
Has severe lung disease (e.g. Cystic Fibrosis) and most likely she will die due to the pregnancy.

And Lemur put the other half succinctly. No one here (bar you) is talking about late term abortions. For most things, 3 motnhs is adequate time.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

And keep your misconceptions on partial birth abortions to yourself next time!

[Beskar]

Since a soul doesn't exist anyway...

Killing living beings in a brutal way is just degrading, when it is nothing more than a lump, and is as living as a mole on my backside, then there is absolutely no issue, though a condom and real protection is always the way forward, just to stop the spread of STD's. I know some posters cry about how sperm wasted in masturbation is the murder of thousands of children, but there are people here with some sensible positions.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The vast majority of people who support abortion access do not support late-term or partial-birth abortions. We've been around this tree before, and it's become obvious to this lemur that there is a sensible common ground that most Americans hold, and which no American politician will offer, for various legal and political reasons.

Why won't people take their beliefs to their natural conclusions?

I really don't understand this phenomenon these days where people have decided that taking the middle-ground on any issue is something good in and of itself. It's in your whole language... that "sensible common ground". While taking the middle-ground is usually seen as moderate, sensible, well thought-out it, there is no reason why this should be the case. To me, it seems like it is often intellectually dishonest, and the abortion debate is a classic example of this.

I mean... the right to life is an absolute value. You either have it or you don't, and it is either taken for you or it isn't. The problem with abortion is that the 'moderates' are taking this absolute principle, and trying to make it work for a scenario which they treat as being a grey area (eg when the baby counts as 'human' enough to have this human right).

This of course means that they accept abortion as taking away what they admit to be a human life in some form, or to some degree. Which then surely makes it murder to some degree.

The fact is that this is exactly what they admit they are doing unless they can provide a cut off point and say "right, now we have a human being with the right to life". At least the pro-abortion extremists do this, though their reasoning for their cut off point is bizarre (being when it pops out a vagina, because it can then survive by itself, or some other ridiculous argument).

I really wish people would get out of this habbit of going for the middle-ground just for the sake of it, presuming it is somehow going to be the 'right' way to go. It's something indoctrinated into us from birth these days, I blame communists. :clown:

Bah! You can read my sig to see what I think of taking the middle-ground just for the sake of it...

[Rhyfelwyr]

And Lemur put the other half succinctly. No one here (bar you) is talking about late term abortions. For most things, 3 motnhs is adequate time.

Nobody said we weren't, its all part of the parcel. Unless you only support some abortions, I've said what I think of that in the post above.

[rory_20_uk]

Medicine is full of sliding scales where one has to take an arbitrary line.

When has someone had a heart attack?
When is someone a diabetic?
When does the "person" effectively die from dementia?
Hell, when does a person die? When they're buried generally it's safe to say they are, yet when they came in to hospital they usually weren't. Is it flicking a switch? Sometimes yes - but other times they can be brought back, or placed in a death like state.

Clearly a single cell at conception is not a viable life. Clearly at 9 months it has become one. Somewhere - dare I say it? - in the middle there was a slow drift from one to the other as a baby is concious and a fertilised egg isn't.

You can have a hissy fit at the middle groud all you like but relativism is a fact in medicine.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

I don't think bringing a child into the world is worth destroying the life of another.

Destroying? I think that term is often used where "inconveniencing the life of another" is a far more appropriate wording.
It's hyperbole to support a weak argument.


I don't think anyone that young should ever go through that sort of trauma just because they were stupid like, well, a child.

Getting a child is a trauma now?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Medicine is full of sliding scales where one has to take an arbitrary line.

When has someone had a heart attack?
When is someone a diabetic?
When does the "person" effectively die from dementia?
Hell, when does a person die? When they're buried generally it's safe to say they are, yet when they came in to hospital they usually weren't. Is it flicking a switch? Sometimes yes - but other times they can be brought back, or placed in a death like state.

Clearly a single cell at conception is not a viable life. Clearly at 9 months it has become one. Somewhere - dare I say it? - in the middle there was a slow drift from one to the other as a baby is concious and a fertilised egg isn't.

You can have a hissy fit at the middle groud all you like but relativism is a fact in medicine.

But there is of course a massive difference with the examples you gave, the one that is the heart of the matter.

When you assess whether or not someone has had a heart attack, you do that with one fundamental aim... treating them.
Same for when you assess if a person is diabetic.
I have enough personal experience with dementia to say that they are dead when their heart stops just like the rest of us, and hope others would see things the same way.
You might have a case with the death example but at the end of the day you would have to be cautious and not end their life is there was any life there.

The difference with abortion from all the above is that when you consider whether or not the baby has the right to life, you are not assessing what is best for it... you are considering whether it even deserves your treatment, or deserves not to be destroyed by you (to avoid saying killed).

[Greyblades]

Destroying? I think that term is often used where "inconveniencing the life of another" is a far more appropriate wording.
It's hyperbole to support a weak argument.
Hyperbole? Probably, but I've already said I was reffering to 13-15 year olds. I will admit that most of my information about the "life destroying" teenage pregnancies from those god-awfull special presentations I had to sit through during secondary school and yeah they were most likely biased. But I still dont believe that a person of that age should have to give birth if they don't want to, whatever stage the fetus is in.


Getting a child is a trauma now?
The amount of times people say men are lucky that we dont go through the pain of child birth I'd say yes, especially when the child is unwanted. Even afterwards when the child is born it wont just be an easy thing to just give it away for adoption due to natural instincts to keep it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hyperbole? Probably, but I've already said I was reffering to 13-15 year olds. I will admit that most of my information about the "life destroying" teenage pregnancies from those god-awfull special presentations I had to sit through during secondary school and yeah they were most likely biased. But I still dont believe that a person of that age should have to give birth if they don't want to, whatever stage the fetus is in.

The amount of times people say men are lucky that we dont go through the pain of child birth I'd say yes, especially when the child is unwanted. Even afterwards when the child is born it wont just be an easy thing to just give it away for adoption due to natural instincts to keep it.

All of which is an irrelevance compared to the fundamental right to life.

[Greyblades]

So what, the mother should have no say in it?

[Beskar]

All of which is an irrelevance compared to the fundamental right to life.

You also forget the fundamental right to die as well. Then there is the fundamental right to choice, as a prenatal cluster of cells is not a person, and the choice is to be conducted in a safe and legal manner.

[Lemur]

[P]eople have decided that taking the middle-ground on any issue is something good in and of itself. It's in your whole language... that "sensible common ground". While taking the middle-ground is usually seen as moderate, sensible, well thought-out it, there is no reason why this should be the case. To me, it seems like it is often intellectually dishonest, and the abortion debate is a classic example of this.
When we are discussing a policy on which there is broad common agreement in the populace, I don't think it's in any way dishonest to point out this basic fact. The radical anti- and pro-abortionists ignore the common ground because it suits them to do so, not because the moderate middle is somehow false, disingenuous, intellectually lazy or dishonest. And to quote Mr. Franklin, I am a radical moderate, and think that all men who do not practice moderation should be strung up.


All of which is an irrelevance compared to the fundamental right to life.
Define what it means to be "alive" and we can talk more productively. Is a virus alive? By many measures it is not, and yet it is. Or is it? Is a sperm alive? An egg? How about a blastocyst? What "alive" means is only simple if you don't think very hard.

Without question at some point between fertilization and birth an embryo becomes what most would agree is "alive." Reasonable people can disagree on when that takes place.

[Greyblades]

Maybe we should use a different word than alive seeing as its arguable that a severed limb is still alive due to not all of the cells have gone into the state we consider cell death yet. How about sentient?

[rory_20_uk]

Just as tough. Most animals are not thought to be sentient, ditto most plants and "lower" life forms for starters. At what point a foetus becomes sentient isn't known either. Again, it definitely isn't at conception, and definitely is at birth.

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

Most animals are not thought to be sentient, ditto most plants and "lower" life forms for starters.
Not to get completely derailed, but people who refuse to consider animals to be sentient always strike me as folks who can't let go of the great chain of being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being). A shocking number of secularists/scientists seem to be stuck in this rut.

Anyway, I'm not trying to get lost in a maze of sophistry, but a lot of the abortion conundrum circles around what it means to be alive. And both the pro- and anti-abortionists take very absolute (and not very thoughtful) positions, that are intellectually indefensible.

If we take the anti-abortion view, that life begins at the moment of conception, we run into all sorts of logical problems. The rhythm method, for instance, is based on the spontaneous miscarriages that happen at a certain time of the woman's cycle. So the Catholic Church's only approved method of birth control (which is predicated on the sanctity of life) depends on a natural form of abortion. Go figure. By the same reasoning, every miscarriage is an abortion, no matter what trimester it occurs in. What was it Rhyfelwyr was saying about "not taking things to their logical conclusions"? That's not a sin unique to either side.

The extreme pro-abortion position -- that a fetus cannot be considered alive until it emerges from the mother's body -- is equally preposterous, for obvious reasons. An embryo that can react to light, to sound, to its parents' voices and so forth, is obviously alive in every meaningful sense of the word. So to declare that it is not alive until birth is absurd.

[Greyblades]

Great. The lynchpin behind all of our arguments "is the fetus alive/sentient enough to be considered human" and noone knows for sure, this is seeming like an endless discussion more and more. Still this is the internet so that doesn't realy mean much.

[Lemur]

[T]his is seeming like an endless discussion more and more.
Abortion is a Backroom standard, sort of like playing Free Bird at a concert.

I really don't think looking hard at what it means to be "alive" is a dead end (pun intentional). Most people would agree that a blastocyst is not alive. Likewise, most people would consider an embryo with a brain and sensory organs to be fully alive. A sensible compromise can be reached if we look at this without being blinded by rhetoric or rancor.

Besides which, I figure abortion will someday be a relic of the past, when 100% maintenance-free, reliable birth control can be installed at low-to-no cost before puberty. Which will happen, in time. Technology will render this debate moot at some point.

[Greyblades]

Knowing teenagers, I doubt it will completely become invalid.

[Strike For The South]

Seems like they would have had better luck with a coat hanger and a vaccum

Edit: A sterliezed coat hanger, safety first

[Fragony]

Great. The lynchpin behind all of our arguments "is the fetus alive/sentient enough to be considered human" and noone knows for sure, this is seeming like an endless discussion more and more. Still this is the internet so that doesn't realy mean much.

Does it really matter when it's a 'could have been', why deny someone everything. No matter how old, it doesn't change anything for me, it's just so wrong

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Great. The lynchpin behind all of our arguments "is the fetus alive/sentient enough to be considered human" and noone knows for sure, this is seeming like an endless discussion more and more. Still this is the internet so that doesn't realy mean much.

I have always said - show me when it isn't a human and I'll say it's ok to kill it.

[The Stranger]

Abortion is a Backroom standard, sort of like playing Free Bird at a concert.

I really don't think looking hard at what it means to be "alive" is a dead end (pun intentional). Most people would agree that a blastocyst is not alive. Likewise, most people would consider an embryo with a brain and sensory organs to be fully alive. A sensible compromise can be reached if we look at this without being blinded by rhetoric or rancor.

Besides which, I figure abortion will someday be a relic of the past, when 100% maintenance-free, reliable birth control can be installed at low-to-no cost before puberty. Which will happen, in time. Technology will render this debate moot at some point.

then we will have a debate about wether or not the government is allowed to regulate and decide who will get children and who will not by such devices. im already looking forward to it!

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Rhyfelwyr et all: pregnancy is not something to be taken so lightly, it's not necessarily easy on the mother. Pro “choice” isn't about saying, oh well do whatever you please with it. Pro choice is about giving people who cannot bear to have a baby the option not to apart from risking life in a forced miscarriage (which I should add is a considerably more brutal option than abortion in a controlled medical environment).

Nor is the pro “choice” option about encouraging people to abort if they think they cannot bear to have a baby. At least over here the option to abort is a last recourse, not as something you should actively pursue or be made to pursue (medical staff is supposed to give you time to think things over, offer other options if there are any).

[Tellos Athenaios]

I have always said - show me when it isn't a human and I'll say it's ok to kill it.

It's always a human. There are no other non-human species or subspecies left to mate with, so by definition it is always a human.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Does it really matter when it's a 'could have been', why deny someone everything. No matter how old, it doesn't change anything for me, it's just so wrong

Well, that same can be said for the mother who choses to have the abortion. Who are we to say that we know better than her what could have been? I mean the easy example here is teenage pregnancy, and in particular that of young teenagers: having a baby isn't exactly like having a doll, pregnancy isn't all fun. And by the way: before the advent of highly sterile operating rooms such babies would have little chance at surviving delivery and neither would the mother. Reason: the teenage body isn't sufficiently adapted for delivery yet (despite being fertile) and this coincides with the baby being her first one which is always extra risky. Even today, young mothers are more likely to end pregnancy in miscarriage or encounter other “complications” (i.e. early or late delivery, medical problems with the baby, etc. etc.).

Here's something else to consider: there is a minimum age at which medical staff may attempt to save the life of a baby. Below a certain threshold, if it is delivered it is left to die as a matter of course. Below a certain threshold if the life of the mother is threatened or she needs to undergo heavy surgery, the baby is aborted as a matter of course.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's always a human. There are no other non-human species or subspecies left to mate with, so by definition it is always a human.

That would mean it's always homicide, then?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's always a human. There are no other non-human species or subspecies left to mate with, so by definition it is always a human.

Does that mean it's always homicide, though?

Edit: Lag sucks.

[Greyblades]

12 minutes of it?

[HoreTore]

I fully support abortion, up until the point of birth. I trust humanity to make the best decison in each case.

I will never give a rats behind about the unwanted unborn. I only care about the quality of life of those who are already born.

And the rest of you are perfectly free to have whatever opinion you want, of course, I don't really give a crap about what others believe when it comes to abortion. As long as the law still says its legal.

[Meneldil]

On this we agree. What is the point of bringing pain not only to a woman (and his possible companion), but to a perhaps unwanted, unloved and untaken-care-off kid? That is the most selfish behaviour I've ever seen: following religious standards none else care about, you think you're entitled to decide how other people should or should not live.

This is especially bad in the case of mentally disabled or sick newborns. By fear of offending your god, you will let a kid live hell on earth. Just because it makes you feel better.

Furthermore,there are already more than enough scumbags who run around the street playing gangsta and being useless while their parents don't give a shit. If we can avoid breeding more kids who will never be taught anything by their irresponsible parents, I say that's a plus.

[Greyblades]

Furthermore,there are already more than enough scumbags who run around the street playing gangsta and being useless while their parents don't give a shit. If we can avoid breeding more kids who will never be taught anything by their irresponsible parents, I say that's a plus.
Gotta say, Meneldil pretty much summed my view on this nicely. As long as it is the mother making the choice I dont think abortion should be witheld.

[The Stranger]

12 minutes of it?

lmao :laugh4:

[The Stranger]

I fully support abortion, up until the point of birth. I trust humanity to make the best decison in each case.

I will never give a rats behind about the unwanted unborn. I only care about the quality of life of those who are already born.

And the rest of you are perfectly free to have whatever opinion you want, of course, I don't really give a crap about what others believe when it comes to abortion. As long as the law still says its legal.

and what if the law would say it is unlegal? would you care then?

always as eloquent btw.

[The Stranger]

On this we agree. What is the point of bringing pain not only to a woman (and his possible companion), but to a perhaps unwanted, unloved and untaken-care-off kid? That is the most selfish behaviour I've ever seen: following your own moral standardsnone else care about, you think you're entitled to decide how other people should or should not live.


fixed it for you...


Furthermore,there are already more than enough scumbags who run around the street playing gangsta and being useless while their parents don't give a shit. If we can avoid breeding more kids who will never be taught anything by their irresponsible parents, I say that's a plus.

and the monkey shows his nastly lil head.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Define what it means to be "alive" and we can talk more productively. Is a virus alive? By many measures it is not, and yet it is. Or is it? Is a sperm alive? An egg? How about a blastocyst? What "alive" means is only simple if you don't think very hard.

Without question at some point between fertilization and birth an embryo becomes what most would agree is "alive." Reasonable people can disagree on when that takes place.

Well take it from the point up until a baby is born and work backward. Pick a point and make a good case for why that is the point where the baby was not 'developed' enough to be considered human and have the right to life. That's all you have to do... until then, you admit that the baby is alive to some degree, and so aborting it is murder to some degree.


And the rest of you are perfectly free to have whatever opinion you want, of course, I don't really give a crap about what others believe when it comes to abortion. As long as the law still says its legal.

The thing is abortion is really illegal going by the most fundamental laws of the land. And so any further laws passed that say abortion is OK are themselves illegal. It's just using little particular laws to overried the fundamental laws. Like with slavery being made lawful despite the laws regarding the rights of the indiviudal. Exact same case with abortion laws and the more fundamental laws regarding murder.


On this we agree. What is the point of bringing pain not only to a woman (and his possible companion), but to a perhaps unwanted, unloved and untaken-care-off kid? That is the most selfish behaviour I've ever seen: following religious standards none else care about, you think you're entitled to decide how other people should or should not live.

You're missing the point. Everything you said could equally well be applied to a one year old infant. So why can't she have it killed?

And it's not even a religious issue, it's purely secular arguments I'm using.

[The Stranger]

Well take it from the point up until a baby is born and work backward. Pick a point and make a good case for why that is the point where the baby was not 'developed' enough to be considered human and have the right to life. That's all you have to do... until then, you admit that the baby is alive to some degree, and so aborting it is murder to some degree.



The thing is abortion is really illegal going by the most fundamental laws of the land. And so any further laws passed that say abortion is OK are themselves illegal. It's just using little particular laws to overried the fundamental laws. Like with slavery being made lawful despite the laws regarding the rights of the indiviudal. Exact same case with abortion laws and the more fundamental laws regarding murder.



You're missing the point. Everything you said could equally well be applied to a one year old infant. So why can't she have it killed?

And it's not even a religious issue, it's purely secular arguments I'm using.

how much i do not agree with ryf, he does have a point here regarding meneldil... because nothing he says makes it so that this cant happen at any age after birth as well.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

12 minutes of it?

Local "Call of Duty" players must be salivating at the chance to oppose him.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I fully support abortion, up until the point of birth. I trust humanity to make the best decison in each case.

I will never give a rats behind about the unwanted unborn. I only care about the quality of life of those who are already born.

And the rest of you are perfectly free to have whatever opinion you want, of course, I don't really give a crap about what others believe when it comes to abortion. As long as the law still says its legal.

What about the unwanted born?

You haven't made a moral case, just one of convenience. It amounts to "I can't see the baby, so it doesn't matter".

The fact is, there is almost no difference between a baby five minutes before it's born and five minutes after. You're always accusing those of us here of Faith of having "medieval" opinions, but your opinion isn't even medieval, it's Aristotle, the same mysoginistic twit who called females "deformed males" and advocated 40 year old men marrying 14 year old girls!

[Noncommunist]

On this we agree. What is the point of bringing pain not only to a woman (and his possible companion), but to a perhaps unwanted, unloved and untaken-care-off kid? That is the most selfish behaviour I've ever seen: following religious standards none else care about, you think you're entitled to decide how other people should or should not live.

This is especially bad in the case of mentally disabled or sick newborns. By fear of offending your god, you will let a kid live hell on earth. Just because it makes you feel better.

Furthermore,there are already more than enough scumbags who run around the street playing gangsta and being useless while their parents don't give a shit. If we can avoid breeding more kids who will never be taught anything by their irresponsible parents, I say that's a plus.

So when should we start putting chemicals in the water systems to sterilize slum dwellers? It'll stop those "scumbags who run around the street playing gangsta and being useless while their parents don't give a shit" before they're even born! Or if we don't get them in time, should we send police officers through the neighborhood to shoot all the children in a slum to ensure they don't have to suffer in their almost certainly terrible lives?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Medicine is full of sliding scales where one has to take an arbitrary line.



Clearly a single cell at conception is not a viable life. Clearly at 9 months it has become one. Somewhere - dare I say it? - in the middle there was a slow drift from one to the other as a baby is concious and a fertilised egg isn't.

You can have a hissy fit at the middle groud all you like but relativism is a fact in medicine.

~:smoking:This, yes.

Abortion to me is not about absolutes. There is a sliding scale were a lump of cells becomes a viable life in itself. If forced to draw a line, I'd place it at the point were a baby could somewhat naturally survive outside of the womb, six months if memory serves me right?
Then there are social, medical, psychological circumstances to consideration.

Abortion is not an easy issue.



What if an evil criminal-medical organisation stole that 'just a lump of cells' out of your six weeks pregnant wife's womb, and used it for medical experiments, or implanted it in another women who goes on to give birth to your life child?
Still just a lump of cells? Or perhaps something more?

[Louis VI the Fat]

On this we agree. What is the point of bringing pain not only to a woman (and his possible companion), but to a perhaps unwanted, unloved and untaken-care-off kid? That is the most selfish behaviour I've ever seen: following religious standards none else care about, you think you're entitled to decide how other people should or should not live. Have you ever held a newborn baby?

I have serious moral objections against third term abortion. Maybe it is because I am a pious Catholic (...), but I can not think of a newborn baby, and then think it was not a baby two weeks earlier. Only in the severest of circumstances would I allow third term abortion.

[Louis VI the Fat]

So when should we start putting chemicals in the water systems to sterilize slum dwellers? It'll stop those "scumbags who run around the street playing gangsta and being useless while their parents don't give a shit" before they're even born! Or if we don't get them in time, should we send police officers through the neighborhood to shoot all the children in a slum to ensure they don't have to suffer in their almost certainly terrible lives?Good points. That all borders on fascism.


What we should do, then, is to make abortion anonymous and free of charge and make sure we build plenty clinics in all troubled estates.


:creep:

[HoreTore]

and what if the law would say it is unlegal? would you care then?

always as eloquent btw.

Then it would be revolution time of course, just like if any other tyrannical law is passed, like say the re-institution of feudalism.

[rory_20_uk]

This, yes.

What if an evil criminal-medical organisation stole that 'just a lump of cells' out of your six weeks pregnant wife's womb, and used it for medical experiments, or implanted it in another women who goes on to give birth to your life child?
Still just a lump of cells? Or perhaps something more?

That's what it is, not what it was.

What if someone takes one's discarded gym sock after some intensive... thinking, takes a sample and fertilises an egg with it? Come on all: "Every sperm is sacred...."

If one is not going to do the whole "depot injections for those on benefits" route, then I think there is the "your child / family, you deal with it" - no increasing handouts to cover their life choices. And of course wide and free access to contraception and abortion clinics.

I compltely agree that a third trimester abortion should be under the most extreme circumstances. Even as I write I'm not sure what they would be as this is 26 weeks plus which has decentish outcomes if delivered. It's the 22 weekers who rarely survive, let alone survive well.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

A fetus with very low chance of living and high risk to the mothers health is the reason for most, if not all, late abortions.

[Fragony]

A fetus with very low chance of living and high risk to the mothers health is the reason for most, if not all, late abortions.

And that's fine.

For you pro-choice folks, If I kick a 10 weeks pregnant woman in the stomach causing a miscarriage, do you only care about wether she wanted the baby or not. Still just some cells or a life destroyed?

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, absolutely.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

And that's fine.

For you pro-choice folks, If I kick a 10 weeks pregnant woman in the stomach causing a miscarriage, do you only care about wether she wanted the baby or not. Still just some cells or a life destroyed?

Before or after we lynch you for being a complete monster?

[Fragony]

Yes, absolutely.

~:smoking:

Yes but to you every human being is a pre-leather sack filled up with organs and bones ~;)

@Greyblades, ok, 9 weeks then

[Greyblades]

Makes little difference, if you made her miscarrige when the woman wanted to keep the child you destroyed a life, if she didnt you attacked a pregnant woman, either way you took the choice from her by committing an act that would result in a lynch mob.

[Fragony]

Makes little difference, if you made her miscarrige when the woman wanted to keep the child you destroyed a life, if she didnt you attacked a pregnant woman, either way you took the choice from her by committing an act that would result in a lynch mob.

Even with 1 week I would have taken a life, that lump of cells is a life if you let it be. Rest assured, haven't kicked a pregnant woman in the stomach for years

[HoreTore]

For you pro-choice folks, If I kick a 10 weeks pregnant woman in the stomach causing a miscarriage, do you only care about wether she wanted the baby or not. Still just some cells or a life destroyed?

That will lower the happiness of the living human, the woman, which makes it not OK, even though its juet a lump of cells.

It aint ok for you to key my car either....

[The Stranger]

Then it would be revolution time of course, just like if any other tyrannical law is passed, like say the re-institution of feudalism.

ah but there are so many tyranical laws under the cover of being for your own safety. such having to wear your seatbelt XD which is only gradually different from everyone being forced to be home at midnight.

feudalism is a (law)system not a law btw. you can have feudalism which isnt tyrannical (even though you might disagree with your current time notions and ofcourse i would be the idiot.)

[The Stranger]

Before or after we lynch you for being a complete monster?

why? because if they were just a bunch a cells that could also be aborted than no harm is done. so you should receive the regular penalty for assault. or atleast i havent heard a decent argument of why this should not be the case.

whose point of view should we regard? the childs? the mothers? the fathers? the families? or of society? all societies? nature?

[HoreTore]

Defining tyranny is subjective and personal.

[Ironside]

Well take it from the point up until a baby is born and work backward. Pick a point and make a good case for why that is the point where the baby was not 'developed' enough to be considered human and have the right to life. That's all you have to do... until then, you admit that the baby is alive to some degree, and so aborting it is murder to some degree.


Since we're talking about natural conclusions.
An embryo is alive and contains a unique human genetical profile. So does parasitic twins,
vestigial twins, fetus in fetu, the absorbed part of a human chimera. Are they human? If not, when did they lose this criteria?

And what is your opinion on in vitro fertilisation?

Besides, "a degree" is already a comprimise.

This is one thing that never will be pretty, but has been done as soon as someone got the concept.


And that's fine.

For you pro-choice folks, If I kick a 10 weeks pregnant woman in the stomach causing a miscarriage, do you only care about wether she wanted the baby or not. Still just some cells or a life destroyed?

Of course you care. You also care if someone kills your cat.

[The Stranger]

Defining tyranny is subjective and personal.

that is not very scientific of you...

[Fragony]

That will lower the happiness of the living human, the woman, which makes it not OK, even though its juet a lump of cells.

It aint ok for you to key my car either....

But had I not kicked her in the belly he/she would have become anything, good/bad smart or dumb. It's cutting of someones right to live, what does it matter how developed it is, it will develop further if you let it.

[HoreTore]

But had I not kicked her in the belly he/she would have become anything, good/bad smart or dumb. It's cutting of someones right to live, what does it matter how developed it is, it will develop further if you let it.

To clarify further:

Thelump of cells is a lump of cells, but its a lump of cells that belongs to someone else, ie. someone elses property. They get to decide what to do with it, not you. Whack the lump, and you destroy what belongs to someone else, or, in your words, made a choice for someone else.

And that kind of stuff is punishable.

[Andres]

"Lump of cells".

Echo of 8 weeks, we saw a heartbeat.
12 weeks: we saw arms, legs, a head, movements; it looked very human to me.


Maybe you're a cynic or a coldblooded man, but this wimpy father here didn't consider that tiny, moving thingy with a heartbeat a "lump of cells".

I'm not "against abortion", but to talk about it as if it is nothing more than the "removal of just a lump of cells" seems pretty distasteful to me.

That said, my position on the issue remains unchanged: abortion allowed until the 12th week, if later, only if there are serious medical reasons (child wouldn't survive birth or at best survive and live a horrible, short, life of pain and suffering because of a defect; life of the mother is threatened, etc.)

[rory_20_uk]

Heart cells will beat on a petri dish. It's what heart cells do.

When I saw my son for the first time (12 weeks) on a scan I immediately got a lump in my throat.

I had an overwhelming surge of pride when the sonographer said he was a handsome baby - even though I knew he was a few cm long and was too immature to be called handsome. A lot of evolution has programmed me this way.

~:smoking:

[The Stranger]

To clarify further:

Thelump of cells is a lump of cells, but its a lump of cells that belongs to someone else, ie. someone elses property. They get to decide what to do with it, not you. Whack the lump, and you destroy what belongs to someone else, or, in your words, made a choice for someone else.

And that kind of stuff is punishable.

lmao... its not property, because if it was then a mother could do with her child whatever she wants to. and this is not exactly the case. she could rip it out of her and put it in a trashcan. she could eat it. she could sell it...

you are btw also not more than a lump of cells in that respect but you are not your mothers property... or has she already released u?

[Fragony]

"Lump of cells".

Echo of 8 weeks, we saw a heartbeat.
12 weeks: we saw arms, legs, a head, movements; it looked very human to me.


Maybe you're a cynic or a coldblooded man, but this wimpy father here didn't consider that tiny, moving thingy with a heartbeat a "lump of cells".

I'm not "against abortion", but to talk about it as if it is nothing more than the "removal of just a lump of cells" seems pretty distasteful to me.

Couldn't agree more. It screams towards me when taken so lightly.

edit, little observation, my fellow atheists seem to be a little hostile towards all creation

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't care for the abortion topic precisely because of what Andres and Fragony is suggesting. I don't care when I am accused of being a soulless monster or distasteful or whatever precisely because I am attempting to refrain from my having my emotions dictate my responses and arguments. In any other debate both economic and social we discuss the facts and the subjectivity or lack there of calmly and with respect. Even the Prop 8 kind of topics never stray too far from what is really is at heart, the definition of marriage and how government should handle it. There is no appeal to emotion on either side of that situation for the most part here, the pro gay marriage side claim equal protection and the anti gay marriage side claim separation of church and state.

Yet, when we start talking about this particular social debate, people get criticized and labeled negatively because they are not as emotional as you are? No thank you, I'm not even going talk to you.

This is precisely why this issue cannot be resolved with any sort willing compromise (at least in the US), because for the most part people seem to make an exception to this topic and start letting what they feel become their entire argument.

It is just as easy to get all emotional about how we define social constructs and how some people want to permanently define them to exclude a segment of society (from a person's perspective). I could rant about how the people on the anti gay marriage side are heartless because it seems like they are not even considering the lives of millions of people. But I don't, because I am better than that. And we should all be too, even when it comes to abortion. It is the toughest topics that highlight our willingness to solve issues together, and getting your emotions all muddled up in the facts imo, shows a weakness in that regard.

[HoreTore]

edit, little observation, my fellow atheists seem to be a little hostile towards all creation

Creation?

The sperm and egg combine and evolve through several stages to make a complete human. There is no magic creation-thingy, just cold, hard chemical reactions ~;)

ACIN: your point is exactly why I always limit myself to saying "this is my view, you can have a different one if you please, and we will have to agree to disagree". Trying to convince others of my view? Hah, no thanks, I'd rather put burning coal under my foreskin.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I don't care for the abortion topic precisely because of what Andres and Fragony is suggesting. I don't care when I am accused of being a soulless monster or distasteful or whatever precisely because I am attempting to refrain from my having my emotions dictate my responses and arguments. In any other debate both economic and social we discuss the facts and the subjectivity or lack there of calmly and with respect. Even the Prop 8 kind of topics never stray too far from what is really is at heart, the definition of marriage and how government should handle it. There is no appeal to emotion on either side of that situation for the most part here, the pro gay marriage side claim equal protection and the anti gay marriage side claim separation of church and state.

Yet, when we start talking about this particular social debate, people get criticized and labeled negatively because they are not as emotional as you are? No thank you, I'm not even going talk to you.

This is precisely why this issue cannot be resolved with any sort willing compromise (at least in the US), because for the most part people seem to make an exception to this topic and start letting what they feel become their entire argument.

It is just as easy to get all emotional about how we define social constructs and how some people want to permanently define them to exclude a segment of society (from a person's perspective). I could rant about how the people on the anti gay marriage side are heartless because it seems like they are not even considering the lives of millions of people. But I don't, because I am better than that. And we should all be too, even when it comes to abortion. It is the toughest topics that highlight our willingness to solve issues together, and getting your emotions all muddled up in the facts imo, shows a weakness in that regard.SO YOU ARE OKAY WITH SLAUGHTERING INNOCENT BABIES? :baby: :hmg:

[HoreTore]

SO YOU ARE OKAY WITH SLAUGHTERING INNOCENT BABIES? :baby: :hmg:

.....what do you think a true liberal eats for breakfast...?

[The Stranger]

Creation?

The sperm and egg combine and evolve through several stages to make a complete human. There is no magic creation-thingy, just cold, hard chemical reactions ~;)

ACIN: your point is exactly why I always limit myself to saying "this is my view, you can have a different one if you please, and we will have to agree to disagree". Trying to convince others of my view? Hah, no thanks, I'd rather put burning coal under my foreskin.

but your view is wrong :O are you convinced now?

[Fragony]

Creation?

The sperm and egg combine and evolve through several stages to make a complete human. There is no magic creation-thingy, just cold, hard chemical reactions ~;

Suit yourself but why reduce something that's beautiful to a chemical process, isn't everything clinical and joyless enough as it is. It's not just a lump of cells, well it is of course so am I, but I still kinda think I'm more than that

[HoreTore]

Speak for yourself, I love chemicals every saturday night, and it always fills me with joy!

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm not being emotional it's more an aspergers moment, too stuck in rigid logic. Because at the end of the day I still see people saying this is a grey area (when someone gets the right to life) and applying absolute principles to it (the right of life itself)... which doesn't work.

You can talk all you want about inconveniences and the complexity of the different scenarios but these will always be secondary to the main point above. Because if you admit the baby is alive in some form, you are admitting that abortion is murder to some degree, which cannot make it acceptable in any situation.

Plus, the whole "lump of cells" and "chemical reactions" talk is useless rhetoric, since that's what all of us sitting here are made of. The point is, how complex/developed do these cells and chemical reactions have to be to gain the right to life? Nobody has even tried to answer this question which is the only one I have ever asked, and to which every other argument here is secondary.

The only person to offer any sort of answer is Louis, who suggested six months, since the baby could in theory survive outside the womb itself by such a stage. Which doesn't seem to be a great answer... we don't just have a right to life, the state is also obliged to actively protect our right to life if we consent, IIRC it is a criminal offence to leave somebody to die when you could have helped them.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm not being emotional it's more an aspergers moment, too stuck in rigid logic. Because at the end of the day I still see people saying this is a grey area (when someone gets the right to life) and applying absolute principles to it (the right of life itself)... which doesn't work.

You can talk all you want about inconveniences and the complexity of the different scenarios but these will always be secondary to the main point above. Because if you admit the baby is alive in some form, you are admitting that abortion is murder to some degree, which cannot make it acceptable in any situation.

Plus, the whole "lump of cells" and "chemical reactions" talk is useless rhetoric, since that's what all of us sitting here are made of. The point is, how complex/developed do these cells and chemical reactions have to be to gain the right to life? Nobody has even tried to answer this question which is the only one I have ever asked, and to which every other argument here is secondary.

The only person to offer any sort of answer is Louis, who suggested six months, since the baby could in theory survive outside the womb itself by such a stage. Which doesn't seem to be a great answer... we don't just have a right to life, the state is also obliged to actively protect our right to life if we consent, IIRC it is a criminal offence to leave somebody to die when you could have helped them.

Then you have already admitted you are unwilling to have a conversation. If you refuse to acknowledge the opposition as anything but baby murders when the vast majority of people who are pro choice are clearly not any of the sort...then there is just no use. I will not dumb down my view of the world to suit the level of conversation you are willing to talk at. Life is complex, and this is one of the most complex situations a society can have. I will not discuss this any further until you acknowledge that is the most important aspect to remember when talking about the sides.

[gaelic cowboy]

@ Rhyfelwyr

This fella has tried a fair bit to answer said question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer)

[HoreTore]

Nobody has even tried to answer this question which is the only one I have ever asked, and to which every other argument here is secondary.

I have.

Birth.

In my opinion.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Then you have already admitted you are unwilling to have a conversation. If you refuse to acknowledge the opposition as anything but baby murders when the vast majority of people who are pro choice are clearly not any of the sort...then there is just no use. I will not dumb down my view of the world to suit the level of conversation you are willing to talk at. Life is complex, and this is one of the most complex situations a society can have. I will not discuss this any further until you acknowledge that is the most important aspect to remember when talking about the sides.

Can you post something that isn't just pointless rhetoric? You keep saying how you won't talk with me because I won't talk with you, and yet you're the one that refuses to answer the one question I've asked.

If it's complex you have to say why you think it's complex. You have to say why these complexities override the fundamental point that I've been making (the 'when do they get the right to life' issue).

All the emotional nonsense is coming from one side, mainly yourself.

Now, if you look at the link gaelic provided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide), you can see a guy actually sensibly and logically going through the points I've been bringing up. When you do that then we can have a discussion, until then, you are the only one refusing to have a discussion.

Also, you seem to have another case of 'middle-ground syndrome', and have decided that since I have actually picked a positon and chosen not to sit on the fence, that there's no point debating with me at all. *sigh*

[a completely inoffensive name]

Can you post something that isn't just pointless rhetoric? You keep saying how you won't talk with me because I won't talk with you, and yet you're the one that refuses to answer the one question I've asked.

If it's complex you have to say why you think it's complex. You have to say why these complexities override the fundamental point that I've been making (the 'when do they get the right to life' issue).

All the emotional nonsense is coming from one side, mainly yourself.

Now, if you look at the link gaelic provided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide), you can see a guy actually sensibly and logically going through the points I've been bringing up. When you do that then we can have a discussion, until then, you are the only one refusing to have a discussion.

Also, you seem to have another case of 'middle-ground syndrome', and have decided that since I have actually picked a positon and chosen not to sit on the fence, that there's no point debating with me at all. *sigh*

How is half of what you have said not pointless rhetoric as well? Because if you admit the baby is alive in some form, you are admitting that abortion is murder to some degree, which cannot make it acceptable in any situation. Oh please, get out of here. We all know what murder is, it is a malicious, intentional act of taking the life of someone else. The woman who feels like she can't afford to raise a baby properly, is not doing an abortion out of any malicious intent. To suggest that women who get abortions are eager to kill this inconvenience inside them shows how much jack you know what it is like being a woman in that position.

I have not been emotional at all in my previous replies. Just because it sounds nice to spin my words against me, doesn't mean it makes for a correct statement.

Again, let me stress why it is pointless to talk about this with you which makes you the one that hinders the conversation. These are your words.

You can talk all you want about inconveniences and the complexity of the different scenarios but these will always be secondary to the main point above.So I have decided all your arguments on why this scenario isn't so clear cut are completely worthless and not valid for consideration. Because if you admit the baby is alive in some form, you are admitting that abortion is murder to some degree, which cannot make it acceptable in any situation. Pointless rhetoric which I have exposed above.

Plus, the whole "lump of cells" and "chemical reactions" talk is useless rhetoric, since that's what all of us sitting here are made of. I do not understand the nuances of what the competing arguments are. I will lump a fetus and a fully developed human being into a category, "lump of cells" ignoring that under this definition anything with cells from highly advanced creatures to simpler plants are also just "lumps of cells" therefore, killing a lump of cells like a plant is the same as killing a human being. The point is, how complex/developed do these cells and chemical reactions have to be to gain the right to life? This is exactly the question that people have attempted to answer and yet, their explanations have been thrown out by you and your incredible logic of...nope, they are baby murderers. Nobody has even tried to answer this question which is the only one I have ever asked, and to which every other argument here is secondary. After reading this thread, the one thing I can absolutely say for sure, is that people have tried to answer this question.

You want my answer to the question? Well, I honestly don't know. I don't have an answer to the question. I don't feel like I can come up with a solid enough reason to pick one side or the other right now. I read the link from gaelic and I think that guy has a very convincing argument. I will have to think about it more than 15 minutes before I type a reply on a forum giving it thumbs up or thumbs down.

The point is, your attitude imo, is just all wrong. All I ask is that you stop labeling people and you come at me saying that I am full of ****. There is a difference between not sitting on the fence and attempting to remove the fence completely.


EDIT: I forgot to elaborate on why I think this is complex. Here goes:

So in my short time I have been on Earth, I have read some interesting arguments about abortion. From the link gaelic posted, to the hypothesis postulated in Freakonomics that abortion has a positive effect on crimes rates decreasing. I have already stated, that I reject the idea that abortion is murder in the sense of how that word is supposed to be interpreted, or at the very least the connotation of what that word brings with it. If the hypothesis in Freakonomics is true, then I figure that we must also take into account an added dimension into this which is the impact on the collective. The guy in gaelic's article if I understand correctly, is saying that he bases decisions based on a utilitarian viewpoint hinging on preferences. Now, if banning abortion does produce a more disproportionate amount of criminals from this new addition of babies, then everyone is impacted by an unwanted pregnancy, not just the baby and mother. Shouldn't we have to take into account the preferences of the public in our mental calculations as well? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. What is the hypothesis is wrong in the first place, well then that is now a completely different story. You see, every time I wrap my mind aorund the subject, I start thinking of all the what ifs, and before I make the final decision of "Is abortion wrong or not?" I have to decide multiple other questions before hand, all of which lead down more branches and sub arguments. So I just can't see this as anything but a complicated mess of moral decisions stacked upon more decisions stacked upon incomplete data and unproven hypothesis of what be and is. To just pick a side is impossible for me at this moment. This is why I view it that the complexities override the fundamental point, because these complexities imo, stack up and multiply upon each other and do make a difference in the end result.

Perhaps there is something I am not getting here that maybe you have figured out. Something that you have seen, which makes it all clearer and more straightforward...but I guess I will have to pull what HoreTore said earlier, and agree to disagree.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What about the unwanted born?

You haven't made a moral case, just one of convenience. It amounts to "I can't see the baby, so it doesn't matter".

The fact is, there is almost no difference between a baby five minutes before it's born and five minutes after. You're always accusing those of us here of Faith of having "medieval" opinions, but your opinion isn't even medieval, it's Aristotle, the same mysoginistic twit who called females "deformed males" and advocated 40 year old men marrying 14 year old girls!

So, you never answered my point.

This:


I have.

Birth.

In my opinion.

Is exactly the sort of "primative thinking" as "Gays are corrupt men/women are inferior".

Given the things you have said about my views, and those of others here you are a monster, by your own lights.

[The Stranger]

I don't care for the abortion topic precisely because of what Andres and Fragony is suggesting. I don't care when I am accused of being a soulless monster or distasteful or whatever precisely because I am attempting to refrain from my having my emotions dictate my responses and arguments. In any other debate both economic and social we discuss the facts and the subjectivity or lack there of calmly and with respect. Even the Prop 8 kind of topics never stray too far from what is really is at heart, the definition of marriage and how government should handle it. There is no appeal to emotion on either side of that situation for the most part here, the pro gay marriage side claim equal protection and the anti gay marriage side claim separation of church and state.

Yet, when we start talking about this particular social debate, people get criticized and labeled negatively because they are not as emotional as you are? No thank you, I'm not even going talk to you.

This is precisely why this issue cannot be resolved with any sort willing compromise (at least in the US), because for the most part people seem to make an exception to this topic and start letting what they feel become their entire argument.

It is just as easy to get all emotional about how we define social constructs and how some people want to permanently define them to exclude a segment of society (from a person's perspective). I could rant about how the people on the anti gay marriage side are heartless because it seems like they are not even considering the lives of millions of people. But I don't, because I am better than that. And we should all be too, even when it comes to abortion. It is the toughest topics that highlight our willingness to solve issues together, and getting your emotions all muddled up in the facts imo, shows a weakness in that regard.

i cant help but believe that its a good thing because once emotions leave this discussion and having children becomes a pure rational affair we would stop having kids all together.

[a completely inoffensive name]

i cant help but believe that its a good thing because once emotions leave this discussion and having children becomes a pure rational affair we would stop having kids all together.

If you want to base your entire argument on how you feel, that is perfectly fine as long as you say well than it is fine that you just feel the exact opposite way. But when you say, I feel this way and when someone says I feel that way then I don't think it is 100% ok to come up with logical reasons why the way they feel is wrong. When it comes to feelings, there is no "right" way to feel, I think that is too subjective (could be wrong there) to determine if one is in the right for the way they feel compared to how another feels. If you are compelled to bring up logical points and make the discussion that way, go ahead, just make sure you check your emotions at the door. Logical statements can be proven or disproven but when you add logic with emotion what you usually get is a set of basic statements that will not be compromised on which the debater will not accept as false. This happens to any and all of us on both sides of the isle.

[The Stranger]

If you want to base your entire argument on how you feel, that is perfectly fine as long as you say well than it is fine that you just feel the exact opposite way. But when you say, I feel this way and when someone says I feel that way then I don't think it is 100% ok to come up with logical reasons why the way they feel is wrong. When it comes to feelings, there is no "right" way to feel, I think that is too subjective (could be wrong there) to determine if one is in the right for the way they feel compared to how another feels. If you are compelled to bring up logical points and make the discussion that way, go ahead, just make sure you check your emotions at the door. Logical statements can be proven or disproven but when you add logic with emotion what you usually get is a set of basic statements that will not be compromised on which the debater will not accept as false. This happens to any and all of us on both sides of the isle.

you are absolutely right.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Leaving the stuff about who is being emotional and using rhetoric aside...


The woman who feels like she can't afford to raise a baby properly, is not doing an abortion out of any malicious intent. To suggest that women who get abortions are eager to kill this inconvenience inside them shows how much jack you know what it is like being a woman in that position.

The woman who feels like she can't raise a one month year old baby properly, is not ending its life out of any malicious intent. To suggest that women who end the lives of their infant babies are eager to kill these inconveniences in their lives shows how much jack you know what it is like being a woman in that position...


You want my answer to the question? Well, I honestly don't know. I don't have an answer to the question. I don't feel like I can come up with a solid enough reason to pick one side or the other right now. I read the link from gaelic and I think that guy has a very convincing argument. I will have to think about it more than 15 minutes before I type a reply on a forum giving it thumbs up or thumbs down.

So you admit you do not know when a foetus gains the right to live, and yet you are happy in the meantime to support abortion anyway? :dizzy2:


Now, if banning abortion does produce a more disproportionate amount of criminals from this new addition of babies, then everyone is impacted by an unwanted pregnancy, not just the baby and mother. Shouldn't we have to take into account the preferences of the public in our mental calculations as well? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

Eh, I thought human rights were not subject to majority rule.


What is the hypothesis is wrong in the first place, well then that is now a completely different story. You see, every time I wrap my mind aorund the subject, I start thinking of all the what ifs, and before I make the final decision of "Is abortion wrong or not?" I have to decide multiple other questions before hand, all of which lead down more branches and sub arguments. So I just can't see this as anything but a complicated mess of moral decisions stacked upon more decisions stacked upon incomplete data and unproven hypothesis of what be and is. To just pick a side is impossible for me at this moment. This is why I view it that the complexities override the fundamental point, because these complexities imo, stack up and multiply upon each other and do make a difference in the end result.

The bolded bit is the main disconnect between us here. You keep bringing up all these particular points about the benefits abortion has for the mother, or society. But I see all this as irrelevant until we establish where the right to life begins. Because no matter how great these other benefits were, so long as a foetus has the right to life, it can never lose that right for all the societal gain in the world.

Now you've told me people have answered me when I asked them when the foetus gains the right to life, but so far only two people have and I said why I disagree with their reasoning. Louis went with the 'right to life with ability to survive alone' approach, which I think goes against otherwise common practice for our civilised society. HoreTore on the other hand went for the 'abortion up until birth' approach, though he never said why, and I don't see how such a position can be defensible.

[gaelic cowboy]

Abortion basically I don't like it but I tolerate some forms of it. I don't buy any argument on rape or suicide etc, I feel there barbaric a sort of modern "Demon Seed" scare.

If there is a medical need as in potential death of the mother or potential mental handicap of a child I would allow it, but then thats already allowed.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The woman who feels like she can't raise a one month year old baby properly, is not ending its life out of any malicious intent. To suggest that women who end the lives of their infant babies are eager to kill these inconveniences in their lives shows how much jack you know what it is like being a woman in that position...

Hmmm, this is a good point. I'm going to have to think about this.



So you admit you do not know when a foetus gains the right to live, and yet you are happy in the meantime to support abortion anyway? :dizzy2:I sit on the fence. When I have not chosen a side, my personal policy is not to challenge the status quo, which for the US, is legalized abortion. I don't challenge a law when my opinions on it have not been determined yet.



Eh, I thought human rights were not subject to majority rule.
Well ideally yes. But our human rights are curtailed all the time, for the benefit of us all nevertheless. Free speech and the others all have their own restrictions and we have accepted that rights have a limit to them in all cases where the public danger has been deemed too high. Again, I really don't have a solid opinion or answer to that but I don't think your statement there is as rock solid as we want to believe.



The bolded bit is the main disconnect between us here. You keep bringing up all these particular points about the benefits abortion has for the mother, or society. But I see all this as irrelevant until we establish where the right to life begins. Because no matter how great these other benefits were, so long as a foetus has the right to life, it can never lose that right for all the societal gain in the world.

Now you've told me people have answered me when I asked them when the foetus gains the right to life, but so far only two people have and I said why I disagree with their reasoning. Louis went with the 'right to life with ability to survive alone' approach, which I think goes against otherwise common practice for our civilised society. HoreTore on the other hand went for the 'abortion up until birth' approach, though he never said why, and I don't see how such a position can be defensible.

I am not sure if there will ever be clear establishment on where exactly the right to life begins. But if we are determining when the right to life begins, then there is the possible outcome that we will determine the right to life at some point after conception, and not at that moment. So for the moment, I don't see why asking the questions that come along with a ball of cells having no right to life would entail.

EDIT: Hmm, not sure if this is what I envisioned my 3,000th post to be about.

[Greyblades]

EDIT: Hmm, not sure if this is what I envisioned my 3,000th post to be about.
Join the club, we have "three thousand posts and all I get is this poxy T-shirt" t-shirts.

[Ice]

Oh look an abortion thread.

Here is my view:

(Theoretical) Abortion should be illegal in most instances. Things like rape/incest/disfigured child would be accpetable.

(Practical) Like others have said, people will do things whether they are illegal or not (kind of like drugs). Legalize and regulate it to minimize societal damage.

[The Stranger]

imo i dont get all this society this society that. i dont think that the effect the birth of a child will have on society has, is secundary to the question what effect the birth will have for the child itself and its family. in case of abortion the safety and health etc of the child will have to be considered first and subsequently that of the mother. and because the child cannot make a descision the parents will have to make it instead.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Now that I have spent another hour thinking about what I have said, I am a bit worried about being a bit too totalitarian when it comes to involving societies needs on an individual (at least to the extent we are talking about with abortion).

Just...******* disregard everything I have said in this thread. I don't know **** anymore when it comes to this topic.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The only person to offer any sort of answer is Louis, who suggested six months, since the baby could in theory survive outside the womb itself by such a stage. Which doesn't seem to be a great answer... we don't just have a right to life, the state is also obliged to actively protect our right to life if we consent, IIRC it is a criminal offence to leave somebody to die when you could have helped them.A woman has an absolute right to the integrity of her body. She can decide if she does or doesn't want to carry a baby.

Which means two (for now) conflicting rights: the right to life which you seek to protect, and the right to physical integrity. It is mostly to balance these two rights that I draw a (non-absolute) line at the momemt where a baby in natural circumstances could survive outside of the womb.

Strangely, the very moment when a baby is no longer absolutely dependent on its mother is for me the moment when the baby can not be forcefully removed from the mother anynmore. The woman's right of physical integrity must give way to the baby's right to live. The reasoning is not so strange: the baby must now be considered an independent life form, instead of a fully dependent one.


There are also other considerations, of psychological, social, criminal, medical, practical nature. All of these too ought to be taken into account. Again I'll repeat my mantra that I don't see abortion in absolutes, even if indeed seemingly absolute rights are at the heart of the debate.


Everybody ought to search their soul him/herself to do what they think is right, and may God have mercy on them whatever their decision, for it won't be an easy one.

[The Stranger]

A woman has an absolute right to the integrity of her body. She can decide if she does or doesn't want to carry a baby.

Which means two (for now) conflicting rights: the right to life which you seek to protect, and the right to physical integrity. It is mostly to balance these two rights that I draw a (non-absolute) line at the momemt where a baby in natural circumstances could survive outside of the womb.

Strangely, the very moment when a baby is no longer absolutely dependent on its mother is for me the moment when the baby can not be forcefully removed from the mother anynmore. The woman's right of physical integrity must give way to the baby's right to live. The reasoning is not so strange: the baby must now be considered an independent life form, instead of a fully dependent one.


There are also other considerations, of psychological, social, criminal, medical nature. These ought to be taken into account. Again I'll repeat my mantra that I don't see abortion in absolutes, even if indeed seemingly absolute rights are at the heart of the debate.


Everybody ought to search their soul him/herself to do what they think is right, and may God have mercy on their them whatever their decision, for it won't be an easy one.

:bow: wisely spoken.


Strangely, the very moment when a baby is no longer absolutely dependent on its mother is for me the moment when the baby can not be forcefully removed from the mother anynmore. The woman's right of physical integrity must give way to the baby's right to live. The reasoning is not so strange: the baby must now be considered an independent life form, instead of a fully dependent one.

this is not strange at all, its actually quite sensible. because before that period the baby is dependent on the mothers health to survive as well.

[The Stranger]

Now that I have spent another hour thinking about what I have said, I am a bit worried about being a bit too totalitarian when it comes to involving societies needs on an individual (at least to the extent we are talking about with abortion).

Just...******* disregard everything I have said in this thread. I don't know **** anymore when it comes to this topic.

cmon now son ;) *pats him in the back* its a difficult matter for everyone. and therefor i hope no one will ever take it lightly

[a completely inoffensive name]

cmon now son ;) *pats him in the back* its a difficult matter for everyone. and therefor i hope no one will ever take it lightly

Aww, thank you stranger. :D It's all good. I just get frustrated when I look at statements I made literally hours ago and think to myself, god that was dumb to say. Sooner or later I will get close to the truth, I still have my entire life to find it.

[Beskar]

Aborted babies don't kill people, unaborted babies do.

[Ice]

imo i dont get all this society this society that.

Botched abortions typically have a negative effect on society.

[The Stranger]

Botched abortions typically have a negative effect on society.

which means what exactly?

[Ice]

which means what exactly?

Like I said, if abortion is illegal, people will still have abortions. Many people will screw their said abortions up, and end up causing a lot of pain, injuries, and suffering to themselves and possibly the unborn child. This is negative by it self. It becomes even worse if they are poor, and the taxpayers have to pick up the tab. If abortion is legal, a qualified doctor could preform the procedure.

[The Stranger]

Like I said, if abortion is illegal, people will still have abortions. Many people will screw their said abortions up, and end up causing a lot of pain, injuries, and suffering to themselves and possibly the unborn child. This is negative by it self. It becomes even worse if they are poor, and the taxpayers have to pick up the tab. If abortion is legal, a qualified doctor could preform the procedure.

i dont say that abortion has to be illegal. i only say that case should always be regarded for the best of child and mother, wether legal or illegal. in the case that you describe i would oppose because of the pain and suffering for the child and mother. the taxpayer has nothing to do with it. because the answer to that question, wether or not the taxpayer should pay for such a thing is not a matter of abortion it is a matter of state and how to organise such a state.

[Ice]

i dont say that abortion has to be illegal. i only say that case should always be regarded for the best of child and mother, wether legal or illegal. in the case that you describe i would oppose because of the pain and suffering for the child and mother. the taxpayer has nothing to do with it. because the answer to that question, wether or not the taxpayer should pay for such a thing is not a matter of abortion it is a matter of state and how to organise such a state.

What? All I'm trying to say is that illegal abortions negatively affect society as a whole. Of course what's best for the mother/child should be taken into consideration.

[Husar]

A woman has an absolute right to the integrity of her body. She can decide if she does or doesn't want to carry a baby.

Which means two (for now) conflicting rights: the right to life which you seek to protect, and the right to physical integrity. It is mostly to balance these two rights that I draw a (non-absolute) line at the momemt where a baby in natural circumstances could survive outside of the womb.

A woman can think about the right to the integrity of her body before she becomes pregnant.

And concerning the argument about "people will do it anyway":

Should we legalize stealing and killing because people will do it anyway? At some point we make moral judgements regardless of whether people will do it anyway or not becazuse we think this or that is what people should do for certain reasons.

I haven't completely made my mind up on this issue but I'd say a few weeks after conception should be the only time where it is allowed, saying it's only a lump of cells 5 minutes before birth seems really convenient but also really ignorant.

[Ironside]

You can talk all you want about inconveniences and the complexity of the different scenarios but these will always be secondary to the main point above. Because if you admit the baby is alive in some form, you are admitting that abortion is murder to some degree, which cannot make it acceptable in any situation.

But those complex scenarios is important because they show the flaw in your arguments of absolutes. If "life" starts at conception, then a human chimera is either two people, or the absorbed twin (who still is far more developed than a fertilized egg) is "dead". And if it's dead then the moment of death needs to be determined. Brain dead? The absorbed twin never had a brain to start with. Heart stopped? Likewise.

In vitro fertilisation is also very complicated then. Only fertilising one egg at a time is highly inefficient. So by preventing deaths, you're also preventing births. So much for the sancity of life.

Besides, murder is acceptable in a few situations. War is the most notable. It has to, or the situation becomes absurd.


The only person to offer any sort of answer is Louis, who suggested six months, since the baby could in theory survive outside the womb itself by such a stage. Which doesn't seem to be a great answer... we don't just have a right to life, the state is also obliged to actively protect our right to life if we consent, IIRC it is a criminal offence to leave somebody to die when you could have helped them.

Most pregnacies will end up as miscarriages (usually so small that it looks like a normal menstruation). With correct methods (healthy living for starters) this risk is reduced. So taken to it's natural conclusion, unsafe sex without perfect health is putting alive people at risk. This is attempted manslaughter at the very least.

[HoreTore]

So, you never answered my point.

Weird, considering the first thing I said was "I will only offer my position on abortion, I will not debate, explain or argue."

[Rhyfelwyr]

Aww, thank you stranger. :D It's all good. I just get frustrated when I look at statements I made literally hours ago and think to myself, god that was dumb to say. Sooner or later I will get close to the truth, I still have my entire life to find it.

Try reading posts you made two years ago, makes me want to headcharge an oncoming bus...


Which means two (for now) conflicting rights: the right to life which you seek to protect, and the right to physical integrity. It is mostly to balance these two rights that I draw a (non-absolute) line at the momemt where a baby in natural circumstances could survive outside of the womb.

I agree there is a conflict of fundamental rights. But if we agree the right to life is there, surely that has to override the woman's right, which I guess would come under individual liberty.

Sorry if women find it offensive if it seems like I'm underplaying how difficult pregnancy and giving birth is, but at the end of the day we are talking about a whole human life over it.


A But those complex scenarios is important because they show the flaw in your arguments of absolutes. If "life" starts at conception, then a human chimera is either two people, or the absorbed twin (who still is far more developed than a fertilized egg) is "dead". And if it's dead then the moment of death needs to be determined. Brain dead? The absorbed twin never had a brain to start with. Heart stopped? Likewise.

B In vitro fertilisation is also very complicated then. Only fertilising one egg at a time is highly inefficient. So by preventing deaths, you're also preventing births. So much for the sancity of life.

C Besides, murder is acceptable in a few situations. War is the most notable. It has to, or the situation becomes absurd.

A You raise a good point and a difficult issue here. I can't say for sure, although I think it's fair to say at some point the absorbed foetus dies (from what I understand, one is dominant, they don't just merge?).

B Life can only be sacred once it exists. If you condemn what I'm saying for stopping IVF, do you think women should be forced to have babies every nine months?

C What situation with abortion could get absurd?


Most pregnacies will end up as miscarriages (usually so small that it looks like a normal menstruation). With correct methods (healthy living for starters) this risk is reduced. So taken to it's natural conclusion, unsafe sex without perfect health is putting alive people at risk. This is attempted manslaughter at the very least.

No, it's not a sliding scale from causing an abortion through carelessness to deliberately having one, intent makes all the difference. I think we can be reasonable when it comes to if a woman is causing serious risk to her foetus (eg binge drinking while pregnant). And what you did was not taking my argument to its logical conclusions, otherwise a woman letting her children cross the road would be attempted murder, and smoking a cigarette would be attempted suicide.

[The Stranger]

What? All I'm trying to say is that illegal abortions negatively affect society as a whole. Of course what's best for the mother/child should be taken into consideration.

eh which goes without saying for about all illegal practices. and a legal abortion that is messed up will have a similar effect then... so what im trying to say is, in deciding for or against abortion this all should be trivial compared to what is best for child and mother (and family)


Besides, murder is acceptable in a few situations. War is the most notable. It has to, or the situation becomes absurd.

its not as simple as you state it, but fine i get where youre going to. still this is not really legalised killing its more a policy of tolerance than that it is really accepted form of killing. it is not like it is the day to day answer to things.

[Ironside]

A You raise a good point and a difficult issue here. I can't say for sure, although I think it's fair to say at some point the absorbed foetus dies (from what I understand, one is dominant, they don't just merge?).

Yeah, one is dominant. It's the kind of merge that doesn't leave leftovers (vestigial twins is when it does. The body still contains two unique genetical profiles). Problem is to define when the absorbed twin "died", without also describing an embryo in the same category.


B Life can only be sacred once it exists. If you condemn what I'm saying for stopping IVF, do you think women should be forced to have babies every nine months?

That would break the woman's choise quite badly wouldn't it? As do preventing IVF (you don't need to repeat that you say that it should count less).

It's just a bit facinating issue if going from your viewpoint. Life that's born to die, in a process to create a viable living being. And net result is more living beings.


C What situation with abortion could get absurd?

In incidents like below. Granting an foetus the same status as a human being has severe consequences, since everything done by the mother is forcefully done on the foetus as well. And when life always counts higher than woman's choise, she cannot properly choose while being pregnant.


No, it's not a sliding scale from causing an abortion through carelessness to deliberately having one, intent makes all the difference. I think we can be reasonable when it comes to if a woman is causing serious risk to her foetus (eg binge drinking while pregnant). And what you did was not taking my argument to its logical conclusions, otherwise a woman letting her children cross the road would be attempted murder, and smoking a cigarette would be attempted suicide.

The thing is that the foetus doesn't have any will at the matter, but everything is done by the will of the mother. Forcing a new born baby to smoke or drink alchohol is counted pretty badly doesn't it? Free will vs safety counts for nothing, when one's will is taken out of the picture.

And while intent counts, so does the result. Accidental killings does not let you off the hook.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Guy had conntections to the Pittsburgh era I hear, terrific! :no:




Saying that a doctor didn't follow the rules is evidence for why abortion in general is terrible is the same as saying that the Arizona shooter is evidence for why guns in general are terrible.

True in the first part, but don't stick guns and abortions in the same group. Abortions are soley used to kill unborn babies, guns have at least useful purposes.


Abortion should only be allowed in very special circumstances, much like euthanesia. There are plenty alternatives there's no need to end a life. it's sickening. I don't understand why people take it so lightly. Horror-house indeed, bah

I'm with you here,Fragony. But then again, that's what happens when you have these light- minded liberals running around saying we should have Gun Control, pay for Social Secruity when I don't want to pay for some cocky old person's retirement, and so on.

[Greyblades]

True in the first part, but don't stick guns and abortions in the same group. Abortions are soley used to kill unborn babies, guns have at least useful purposes.

Ahem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_treatments)

[Beskar]

True in the first part, but don't stick guns and abortions in the same group. Abortions are soley used to kill unborn babies, guns have at least useful purposes.

Killing born babies?

[drone]

Abortions are good for the environment. Less carbon usage.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Try reading posts you made two years ago, makes me want to headcharge an oncoming bus...

You talking about my troll posts when I was still messing around with the whole EB Tavern thing or legit posts I made when I first entered the backroom? If the latter...examples please? (you can send them in a PM)

[Rhyfelwyr]

You talking about my troll posts when I was still messing around with the whole EB Tavern thing or legit posts I made when I first entered the backroom? If the latter...examples please? (you can send them in a PM)

Sorry, I meant when a person reads their own posts, I was talking about when I read some of my stuff from a few years ago.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sorry, I meant when a person reads their own posts, I was talking about when I read some of my stuff from a few years ago.

Ahh I see.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Sorry, I meant when a person reads their own posts, I was talking about when I read some of my stuff from a few years ago.I suffer from that. Occasionaly Lemur will dig up an ancient thread. I'm reading it. Then some insufferably pompous piss will post some pedantic semi off-topic thought. Then the post turns out to have been mine, from four years ago. Soooo embarrassing to read. :embarassed:

[The Stranger]

lucky it will get better over time, youll just stop reading.

[Fragony]

I'm with you here,Fragony. But then again, that's what happens when you have these light- minded liberals running around saying we should have Gun Control, pay for Social Secruity when I don't want to pay for some cocky old person's retirement, and so on.

More like feminism gone too far imho, gender roles have changed, but feminists still act as if it's still the fifties where childcare is on mom and dad works his butt of in the mines, nowadays parents share the burden.

[rory_20_uk]

Unless mummy want to go off, then daddy gets to give a percentage of his salary and to see his kids if mummy lets him (oh yeah, go to court as that'll work...)

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Unless mummy want to go off, then daddy gets to give a percentage of his salary and to see his kids if mummy lets him (oh yeah, go to court as that'll work...)

~:smoking:

But that's different, don't ask me on why how what & where, but it really is. Somehow. Personally I can't take feminists seriously until they demand equal representation on garbage-trucks instead of COE positions

[The Stranger]

I'm with you here,Fragony. But then again, that's what happens when you have these light- minded liberals running around saying we should have Gun Control, pay for Social Secruity when I don't want to pay for some cocky old person's retirement, and so on.

without taxes no state.

[Strike For The South]

http://articles.philly.com/2011-02-07/news/27105608_1_shore-house-grand-jury-report-investigators



HOW MANY severed baby spines does it take to pay for a $984,000 shore house?


Its this kind of moral outrage I can get behind

[Lemur]

Occasionaly Lemur will dig up an ancient thread.
I do go on archeological digs sometimes. It's a bad habit. Mea culpa.

[drone]

http://articles.philly.com/2011-02-07/news/27105608_1_shore-house-grand-jury-report-investigators



Its this kind of moral outrage I can get behind
Now we will see this taken seriously, some people just never learn. You can have women die in the office, keep aborted fetuses in the clinic fridge, and prescribe Oxycontin to whoever asks, but never, ever, keep money from the taxman!