S.C. women now required by law to view ultrasound images before having an abortion

Quote:

---

Finally, this suggestion seems to be a traditional attempt at humiliating and pointing accusing fingers towards people and calling them spawns of Satan. It will be rather contraproductive to show this to women who often out of difficult social situations are forced to make this decision - which is already quite difficult for them - to face such accusations and discrimination because of their ideology and situation.

---

Got it in one I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

...Or serial killers, or child molestors.

Hard to say, really, and because of that, really a moot point with respect to the discussion at hand.

---

A study by the economist Steven Levitt showed that the legalisation of abortion following the US supreme court's decision in Roe vs. Wade in 1973 was the cause of roughly 25-30% of the fall in crime rates in America during the 1990s. Homicide rates fell by 43% to their lowest levels in 35 years between 1991 and 2001 and the FBI's indicies for violent and property crime fell by 34% and 29% respectively over the same period. Rape incidence fell by a similar magnitude, namely between 25% and 40%. On a state by state analysis it is also clear that crime fell to a greater extent in high abortion states than low abortion states. The causal mechanism of this effect is pretty clear: unwanted children are more likely to be criminal...

Similar studies have found similar effects. Sen did a study of Canadian crime data and found the same result, likewise the Pop-Eleches study shows the consequent increase in criminality in Romania following an unexpected abortion ban.

Forget all this 'morality' rubbish. Save society! Get aborting!

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

Quote:

---

coercion, in law, the unlawful act of compelling a person to do, or to abstain from doing, something by depriving him of the exercise of his free will, particularly by use or threat of physical ormoral force. In many states of the United States, statutes declare a person guilty of a misdemeanor if he, by violence or injury to another's person, family, or property, or by depriving him of his clothing or any tool or implement, or by intimidating him with threat threat, in law, declaration of intent to injure another by doing an unlawful act, with a view to restraining his freedom of action.
..... Click the link for more information. of force, compels that other to perform some act that the other is not legally bound to perform. Coercion may involve other crimes, such as assault assault, in law, an attempt or threat, going beyond mere words, to use violence, with the intent and the apparent ability to do harm to another. In the law of contracts, the use of unfair persuasion to procure an agreement is known as duress duress ,such a contract is void unless later ratified

---

it seems the shoe fits into this situation.....doesn´t it?

is this what democratic societies are comming down to?:help:

This proposal is yet more punishment for women who exercise their natural right to dispose of their own bodies. The human body is inviolable and the foetus is an outgrowth of the female body. No state can force a woman to become pregnant, to prevent her pregnancy or to carry through un unwanted pregnancy. All the rest is superstitious bullcrap.

I hate abortions, by the way. But I hate discussing them even more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Finally, this suggestion seems to be a traditional attempt at humiliating and pointing accusing fingers towards people and calling them spawns of Satan. It will be rather contraproductive to show this to women who often out of difficult social situations are forced to make this decision - which is already quite difficult for them - to face such accusations and discrimination because of their ideology and situation.

---

Once I find the other members of my religious mob, we will come and burn you at the stake!:sweatdrop:

And Beren Son Of Barahi, don't think you can escape with your atheist garbage, we will get you as well...:2thumbsup:

The problem here is that people want to have sex and fun but don't want to bear the consequences. I can safely say to have never driven any woman into abortion...and never would. There is a certain responsibility of the father, because without him there would be no baby in the woman's womb. And if a family despises their girl because it is pregnant now, they either messed up education And/or are heartless and not really worth to call a family IMO. I know that I may have a very idealistic view on that, I think I can line myself up behind SFTS, but we could try to work on the number of abortions until we as a society have reached a point where they are simply not needed anymore or only in special medical cases.
Just saying we need them and going on like before isn't a good solution IMO.

Otherwise we could also legalize honour killings because that poor brother would have to go through all that mental aggony if he didn't kill his sister...

This is always a tough topic, often drilling down to definitions of life, death, and responsibility.

Please: all strive to keep their comments to the issue(s), and not personal criticism, or religion-bashing.

Ideally, when contraceptives are available to anyone there'd be next to no need for abortions. It's perhaps unrealistic to expect that, but it sure is working out a lot better over here then that "only abstension works" crap that the US nowadays seems to prefer.
In fact, if memory serves the Netherlands is among the nations with the lowest abortion rates in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Then why dont they just put the child up for adoption? Who knows how many great thinkers weve lost becuase of this. There are alternitives why kill a living thing? That being said it still should be legal becuase it needs to be done right,.

---

Having been through, actually still living in what is some sort of personal hell, because I am the (20 years younger) sibling of an adopted child (I was wanted by my mother/father), seeing what the adoption has done to my mother etc. I'm going to say you still don't have a clue.

Adoption is often put up as some sort of easy way out. It's not. It has a huge set of implications for family relations. I've allways lived with the stigma, that I was the second grand-child, not the first. I've had a grandparent who has NEVER recognised me for what I've done, instead has allways criticised me for not being the adopted one. I effectively don't know, or refuse to maintain contact with a large proportion of my family because they won't accept me for myself, because I'm the brother of an adopted child. Everytime they look at me, they see someone else and won't let me be myself.

I've cut my relationships with them. A friend snapped me out of it and convinced me too, when he found me very close to committing suicide over it. I can count one hand the ammount of family on my mothers side that actually value me as a family member. That's what adoption has done. An abortion would have meant that nobody would have known.

Adoption is no easier for a lot of people than abortion. Don't kid yourself. You haven't lived it. I have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I'm sorry, where did he mention religion?

CR

---

Don't be dense. You know as well as anybody on this forum, that Navaros comes from an ultra-hardline religous viewpoint, which influences basically everything he has ever posted in the Backroom. That he didn't state it doesn't mean that's where it comes from.

That's not to say he represents all religion, or even that he represents any religion in anyway.

I'm sorry about that Productivity, but there are some questions left:

1. Do you like your adopted sibling? Would you prefer that he/she was aborted even if there were no problems with the rest of the family?

2. Did you talk about it with your family members?

Well, to me this sounds like the other family members have some serious issues and it was the right thing to end relations with them. But the fault of your family members does not mean that every adoption is that way and that all families will create a little personal hell for one or the other child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

This proposal is yet more punishment for women who exercise their natural right to dispose of their own bodies. The human body is inviolable and the foetus is an outgrowth of the female body. No state can force a woman to become pregnant, to prevent her pregnancy or to carry through un unwanted pregnancy. All the rest is superstitious bullcrap.

I hate abortions, by the way. But I hate discussing them even more.

---

With respect I think it's difficult to define a foetus as "an outgrowth of the female body." It shares 50% of it's DNA with another body, it's cell are a different gneder to the woman carrying it half the time.

To those who say that a woman goes through hell before and after an abortion, yes, absolutely. I'm not belittling that in the slightest.

However, in the vast majoriety of cases where the issue is not medical the woman would not be pregnant had she not decided to have sex.

That is the ultimate issue, the rest is just a smoke screen. If she didn't want children she shouldn't have had sex, she was irresponsible and the child is the direct consequence of her actions.

All the suffering the pro-choice group are talking about would have been avoided if the woman had not had sex. Lets look at the reverse:

A man has sex with a woman, accidently gets her pregnant and whether he wants the child or not he is held responsible and has to pay 18 years child support.

I'm 20, I don't want kids, so I'm not having sex, I know plenty of women my age or older who have taken the same decision.

This isn't "some crazy religious garbage" this is just taking responsibility for your actions. I apply the same morality to murder, or binge drinking. Funnily enough I don't do either.

Edit: I should point out I have no problem with people having safe sex but as reliable as contraceptives are these days they're not 100% so if you fall into that minoriety I don't feel that "but I used contraception" qualifies you for an abortion.

Productivity, that really sucks, I mean really. At the end of the day though it's your family that have the problem, not you. Adoption is no easier than abortion, in some ways it's harder but I can't support snuffing a life out before it has begun instead of handing that life over to someone who wants to nurture it.

That is a complete load of tripe, to put it in Org friendly terms. Sex was, is, and will be a perfectly natural aspect of human lifestyle. People are going to engage in sexual activity period, regardless of how much "education" about abstinence conservatives shove down their throats. The gist of the above post is not that you should accept the consequences, it's that you should PAY for your mistakes. People by and large know about and do use protection, and sometimes it's going to fail. Ruining someone's lives by forcing them to have and raise or put a child for adoption because of the hand that luck dealt them is not even remotely the right answer. Even if it's not a failed contraceptive, some people are just going to make bad choices at certain points in their lives. We'd be so presumptuous and arrogant to force them to pay for it the rest of their lives? Please... I once shot out a window with a BB gun (as a stupid prank) and got caught for it, but due to my parents and the people involved I was allowed to pay for my mistake without having to involve the cops and forever having something on record that could haunt me the rest of my life. Before someone says this isn't remotely the same thing as what we are talking about, bull, it is. It's about forcing someone to pay for their mistakes, NOT "making them atone for them" or "living up to their mistakes" whatever kind of nerfed wording can be substituted.

Bottom line. Someone wants to abstain from sex, fine, that is certainly within their rights. But enough of that self-righteous sanctimonious "you should pay for your mistakes" attitude. That attitude exemplifies just another aspect of what is wrong with people these days.

Wow, thats just..... far to aggressivbe to begin with.

It's not about punishing people it's about a very simple truth. If two people have sex then there is always a chance that a child will be the result. That child is not responsible for it's existance, it's parents are.

Given that this is a child we are talking about I can't coutenance killing it, not when the mother's life is not in danger.

You talk about luck, well luck only comes into play after you have sex. At the end of the day no sexual activity will always mean no bady and that is 100% certain.

As I said, if people want to have sex they can but there is always a small chance there will be consequences, be that disease or conception.

Now as far as I can see your post is a personnal attack on me as a religious hard-liner who wants to punish people for having sex. That isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if you have sex then you have to be willing to deal with the consequences and that may well be an innocent child.

Earlier you said that some people deserved to die. well what has that unborn child done that means it deserves death?

you also said that abortion should be done within the first or second trimester. Well, why then, why not later, why not earlier? I can only see two lines where you can reasonably draw the line between a part of a woman's body and a child in its own righht.

That has to be either an implanted embreo or when the baby draws breath. I don't think the second is reasonable, which only leaves me with the first. That is what I base my stance on and it has NOTHING to do with any religious outlook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The problem here is that people want to have sex and fun but don't want to bear the consequences. I can safely say to have never driven any woman into abortion...and never would.

---

If you vote, you support some kind of society form. Can you honestly say that the society form you vote for aims to help those people with a difficult enough social situation to be forced into abortion by society? If not, you are indeed part in forcing women into abortion. Indirectly causing something isn't any better/worse than causing it directly, if you're aware of its consequences. What I see is mostly that conservatives are against abortion, while at the same time being for a harsh, ruthless society which likes to drive women such as those who make abortion out in the streets, force them to work 15 hours a day if at all they have any luck getting a job in the conservative society, and then you like to point fingers at them when they have to do an abortion because they got fired from their 100 hours work week job because they broke down mentally and physically out of being overworked. To just generally say abortion must be forbidden is IMO quite contraproductive.

Just like you, I think the amount of abortion should be minimized. But pointing fingers at those who do it isn't the way to go. Abortion is something you do if your confidence is broken down, and you're unsure if you're capable of bringing up the child. You need support, love and warmth in order to prevent someone from doing an abortion. Encourage them, strengthen them, help them find solutions to their economical and logistical problems in their everyday lives. Make sure the society system gives them a fair chance to have children on the salary you get from working 8 h a day at the smallest pay per hour in your country. If you do that, you will see abortion rates go down dramatically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Otherwise we could also legalize honour killings because that poor brother would have to go through all that mental aggony if he didn't kill his sister...

---

We don't need honor killings in European societies, since people who live here and do honor killings are considered maniacs, opposite to those geographical regions where those who don't do it are considered maniacs and they are pressured to do it.

It's aggressive because I found that response and position despicable.

It's not a personal attack either, nor does it have anything at all to do with religion, it's about the subject at hand which I am indeed attacking with vim and vigor. I know/knew absolutely nothing about your or your background when I posted my response, nor does it matter for the reason I stated above.

My point is that the proposed solution of "making them accept the consequences" given the implied reasoning is unacceptable. Further I completely disagree that it's "killing" something until it gets up to a certain point, hence my point about the trimesters. The bottom line on that regard is that it's completely subjective how you view it, yet there are certain medical facts surrounding "normal" pregnancy and development (and some hotly disputed ones). Obviously you think it's a new life from the point that it's conceived, physically I agree, conceptually I do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

I think something that many people are completely failing to take into account is the amount of emotional baggage forced on a woman by making her have the child. Not only is it extremely taxing to a woman mentally and physically to go through a pregnancy and all the pain and misery of the birth, BUT there's a well known, instinctual mother-child bond that forms during said process. So not only has she now had to go through the entire process, she now is going to give up the child that she has this bond with to adoption, that she didn't want to have in the first place for whatever reason. The alternative of course is that she now keeps the child, but there will always be those memories in the back of her mind that she did not want this child. There may even be some resentment, and the child may be mistreated as such. I have a friend who falls into this category, thankfully he turned out ok, but his mother actually tried to poison him when he was in his early teens, and eventually turned him over to an adoption agency then when his paternal grandmother stepped into to raise him. He once described to me how it felt to stand there in court with his mother saying in a stony cold manner that she did not want her child anymore. I can't possibly imagine going through something like that.

My stance for the record. I am fully pro-choice, WITH the caveat that it should be done within the 1st or 2nd trimester unless some extreme extenuating circumstances arise. I think that all abortions should be done as humanely as possible, some of the methods used do make me sick to think about. Sorry but I don't subscribe to the "but it's a life, think of all the people we've killed" outlook, this world has way too many people right now as is. I can guarantee you that these are all well thought out and very hard made choices when women choose to do this. Anyone who presumes otherwise is fooling themselves. The whole "it's a disgusting contraceptive version" argument is for the most part preposterous and used by hardcore religious types to try and push their pro-life agenda. I have had two women very close to me go through this process and I can tell you it's traumatic enough without hypocrits and disgusting religious zealots yelling at you and calling you a whore and a sinner.

---

Amen, brutha...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Also Mr. Goof, I gotta disagree with you on the execution thing. Some people deserve to die for what they've done to others, especially those who violate children in depraved ways in my view. By forcing people on a jury to watch an execution would be the exact same thing in my view as what this despicable law is proposing, it is completely unnecessary, overkill, and intimidation.

---

That was exactly the point I was trying to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Productivity

Don't be dense. You know as well as anybody on this forum, that Navaros comes from an ultra-hardline religous viewpoint, which influences basically everything he has ever posted in the Backroom. That he didn't state it doesn't mean that's where it comes from.

That's not to say he represents all religion, or even that he represents any religion in anyway.

---

One may take up a opinion for religious reasons, yet defend their position with secular arguments, as it were. Navaros made no reference to religion, and yet his critic called his post 'religious garbage' and made no attempt to debate him.

My question was valid; Navaros' critic relied solely on trashing religion, something Navaros had not mentioned at all.

Quote:

---

This proposal is yet more punishment for women who exercise their natural right to dispose of their own bodies. The human body is inviolable and the foetus is an outgrowth of the female body. No state can force a woman to become pregnant, to prevent her pregnancy or to carry through an unwanted pregnancy.

---

So, at 8 1/2 months, when a baby could be born completely healthy, but is still in the mother, it is just a growth that can be killed? Yet, should the baby be born an hour later, it is a human being? So you're saying which side of the mother's womb a baby is on determines whether we can kill it or not?

:shame:

Crazed Rabbit

Bah. What a nasty mix of mysogony, superstition and self-righteousness at the expense of others this law is.
Picking on women when they're down, bah. It's the light version of Pred Phelps picking on funerals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article

Rep. Alan Clemmons, choking back tears as he talked about his two adopted children, recalled a prayer given by his 11-year-old daughter.

"She thanked her God, her father in heaven for her birth mother for loving her enough to give her life,"

---

http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repo...Crade/0026.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

So, at 8 1/2 months, when a baby could be born completely healthy, but is still in the mother, it is just a growth that can be killed? Yet, should the baby be born an hour later, it is a human being? So you're saying which side of the mother's womb a baby is on determines whether we can kill it or not?

---

Here you go dragging in emotional arguments again :no:

This isn't about third trimester abortions, ban them for all i care (except when the live of the mother is in danger), don't make women who go in for an early abortion go through this, a lot of them might decide to have it done in another state, and the fetus will probably be more evolved by then.

This is intimidation and wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Here you go dragging in emotional arguments again :no:

---

That's what I think when I read all those posts about "oh noes, they might have to work to support their child" and "oh noes, why do you want to punish women with their own children?"

Well, here in lalaland mothers get some money for their children from the state and from it's dad if he doesn't want to stay with the mother. This basically means that she won't have to work a trillion hours per week to feed her child. And i actually know a lot of women and have even seen other women I don't know, who really love their little kids, I think the notion that all women hate their kid, see the devil in it and want to kill it sooner or later is just emotional and wrong. Some even think that the smile of their kid makes up for the additional burden they have now and I'm not only talking about the rich mothers. Well, babies don't smile on ultrasound images I guess so it's easier to use the vacuum cleaner at that point than later on.:shame:

And that argument about them being just a bunch of cells is really funny because if you go down that route, by shooting someone, you just stop the flow of energy through his or her cells by removing vital parts required for that flow to continue, it's like smashing a guitar onto the ground, why should anyone bother? After all, a human ist just a bunch of electrons, neutrons and protons and emotions etc are only a result of certain physical and chemical patterns in what we call a brain(which again, is merely a bunch of elemental tiles).:dizzy2:
Should I go on?:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

My point is that the proposed solution of "making them accept the consequences" given the implied reasoning is unacceptable. Further I completely disagree that it's "killing" something until it gets up to a certain point, hence my point about the trimesters.

---

so you think that people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions?

Quote:

---

This is intimidation and wrong.

---

:yes:

it would be more effective to show it in a more general sense, say sex ed. at school, that way people can see, but not be intimidated individually,

its not just the process of actually looking at the UV picutres, its the angle its given at, if it takes say a week to get to view the pictures, thats a week to think over it, with the knowledge that you have to go see the scan, and their may even be pressure when you get there... I dont agree with abortion, but this is surely the wrong way to go about stopping it...

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrashaholic

A study by the economist Steven Levitt showed that the legalisation of abortion following the US supreme court's decision in Roe vs. Wade in 1973 was the cause of roughly 25-30% of the fall in crime rates in America during the 1990s. Homicide rates fell by 43% to their lowest levels in 35 years between 1991 and 2001 and the FBI's indicies for violent and property crime fell by 34% and 29% respectively over the same period. Rape incidence fell by a similar magnitude, namely between 25% and 40%. On a state by state analysis it is also clear that crime fell to a greater extent in high abortion states than low abortion states. The causal mechanism of this effect is pretty clear: unwanted children are more likely to be criminal...

Similar studies have found similar effects. Sen did a study of Canadian crime data and found the same result, likewise the Pop-Eleches study shows the consequent increase in criminality in Romania following an unexpected abortion ban.

Forget all this 'morality' rubbish. Save society! Get aborting!

---

Correlation does not imply causation. The decline of crime may be caused by other factors, such as improved economic matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Here you go dragging in emotional arguments again :no:

This isn't about third trimester abortions, ban them for all i care (except when the live of the mother is in danger), don't make women who go in for an early abortion go through this, a lot of them might decide to have it done in another state, and the fetus will probably be more evolved by then.

This is intimidation and wrong.

---

Emotional? Adrian stated women have a right to terminate the 'growth' while it is in their body - I merely asked why he thought a baby inside, identical except in relative position to a baby outside, is not afforded the right to life. What is so different?

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

so you think that people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions?

---

Of course, but you misconstrued my post a bit (which I may or may not be doing the absolute best at relaying properly), you quoted my reasoning exactly, about the implied reasoning behind that. Holding someone accountable for their actions is one thing entirely, making them "pay for it" as what's being implied in previous posts is another. Barring certain crimes/actions, I think everybody deserves a mulligan, I know that I'm at least very grateful for the one or two I've been given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Emotional? Adrian stated women have a right to terminate the 'growth' while it is in their body - I merely asked why he thought a baby inside, identical except in relative position to a baby outside, is not afforded the right to life. What is so different?

Crazed Rabbit

---

A collective "growth" of tissues with no demonstrated capability of thought is not a "baby" in my view. As for feeling "pain", that's debatable up to a certain development stage, hence why no matter the method I think it should as humane as possible, some of those in use are just disgusting.

Note - I don't remotely believe in the concept of the 'soul' or existence beyond what we are physically composed of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

This proposal is yet more punishment for women who exercise their natural right to dispose of their own bodies. The human body is inviolable and the foetus is an outgrowth of the female body. No state can force a woman to become pregnant, to prevent her pregnancy or to carry through un unwanted pregnancy. All the rest is superstitious bullcrap.

I hate abortions, by the way. But I hate discussing them even more.

---

A quite important point, actually. Nobody thinks that an abortion is an ideal thing. You don't have to like abortions to support it, you can even hate it intensively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

It's aggressive because I found that response and position despicable.

---

That is a personnal attack, to which I take personnal offence

Quote:

---

It's not a personal attack either, nor does it have anything at all to do with religion, it's about the subject at hand which I am indeed attacking with vim and vigor. I know/knew absolutely nothing about your or your background when I posted my response, nor does it matter for the reason I stated above.

---

See above, you called my position, and by extension my moral stance despicable.

Quote:

---

My point is that the proposed solution of "making them accept the consequences" given the implied reasoning is unacceptable. Further I completely disagree that it's "killing" something until it gets up to a certain point, hence my point about the trimesters. The bottom line on that regard is that it's completely subjective how you view it, yet there are certain medical facts surrounding "normal" pregnancy and development (and some hotly disputed ones). Obviously you think it's a new life from the point that it's conceived, physically I agree, conceptually I do not.[/b

---

I can quite see that if this Bill is passed it would be a form of intimidation, which is wrong. On the other hand I can also see the moral posistion of those that want the Bill passed. They want to stop easy abortion, which do happen. In the first Trimester you can have it done in your lunch break.

As to the second trimester arguement, well consider this. Medical technology has advanced to the point that you can now abort a baby that can quite happily be delivered and survive to grow up perfectly healthy. So the boundery between a viable life and when you can have an abortion now has a massive grey area.

Most importanly how can you make a statement such as the one in bold above. You have admitted to a disconnect between your morality and your perception of the physical world.

Quote:

---

If you vote, you support some kind of society form. Can you honestly say that the society form you vote for aims to help those people with a difficult enough social situation to be forced into abortion by society? If not, you are indeed part in forcing women into abortion. Indirectly causing something isn't any better/worse than causing it directly, if you're aware of its consequences. What I see is mostly that conservatives are against abortion, while at the same time being for a harsh, ruthless society which likes to drive women such as those who make abortion out in the streets, force them to work 15 hours a day if at all they have any luck getting a job in the conservative society, and then you like to point fingers at them when they have to do an abortion because they got fired from their 100 hours work week job because they broke down mentally and physically out of being overworked. To just generally say abortion must be forbidden is IMO quite contraproductive.

---

First off, hi Legio, long time no debate.

Now, to be honest I don't recognise the society you portray. More specifically, I refute your premise that voting supports that society. Failure to involve oneself in the political process is tacit acceptance of the society in which you live. At least if you vote you can vote against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

That is a personnal attack, to which I take personnal offence

---

Sorry, go directly to debate jail, do not pass Backroom, do not collect postcount. Completely wrong on the first part. Sorry that you take offense to me attaking your views, I haven't and will not say a thing about you personally.

Quote:

---

See above, you called my position, and by extension my moral stance despicable.

---

Correct. Your stances and views, not you personally. Your views and morals do not define you, you define them. Sorry mate, you need to distinguish between personal and subject debate here.

Quote:

---

I can quite see that if this Bill is passed it would be a form of intimidation, which is wrong. On the other hand I can also see the moral posistion of those that want the Bill passed. They want to stop easy abortion, which do happen. In the first Trimester you can have it done in your lunch break.

---

I think this is what you aren't getting. It's never, ever, ever, ever easy to make these decisions. This is a permanant, life-changing, horrible event and will stick with the woman (and her boyfriend/husband) forever. You make it sound like it's a drive-through process, it's not remotely. I'm going to make an educated guess that you're probably a younger male who's never been intimately involved in one before based on your statements. Truthfully I hope you never have to.

Quote:

---

As to the second trimester arguement, well consider this. Medical technology has advanced to the point that you can now abort a baby that can quite happily be delivered and survive to grow up perfectly healthy. So the boundery between a viable life and when you can have an abortion now has a massive grey area.

---

Please go back and re-read all of my first previous post (the long winded one). Viability isn't the sole criteria. As I said, these are very very hard decisions to make, quite often the female is the subject of a rape and is recovering from that also. As such she may not be mentally prepared and able to make an informed, rational decision until it's rather far along. This, unfortunately, was the case in one of the two I was telling about in an earlier post.

Quote:

---

Most importanly how can you make a statement such as the one in bold above. You have admitted to a disconnect between your morality and your perception of the physical world.

---

No I haven't, there's no disconnect. My intent was to mean that at the second the sperm meets the egg, it's a "new life". Physically and medically speaking that's true. Conceptually, as in "it's a baby", no I don't view it as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Sorry, go directly to debate jail, do not pass Backroom, do not collect postcount. Completely wrong on the first part. Sorry that you take offense to me attaking your views, I haven't and will not say a thing about you personally.

---

You used the word ispicable, that is emotional and personnally loaded.

Quote:

---

Correct. Your stances and views, not you personally. Your views and morals do not define you, you define them. Sorry mate, you need to distinguish between personal and subject debate here.

---

A man who holds dispicable views is dispicable, of course your morals and beliefs define who you are, what else is there? You can engage with my arguement but the first thing you did was make an emotionally charged staement. You called my views dispicable which implies revulsion.

So I can only take that as you saying I am revolting. You are the one who needs to make the distinction between subject and personnal. My entire arguement is based on the judgement that an implanted embreo is a life. How is that disgusting.

Quote:

---

I think this is what you aren't getting. It's never, ever, ever, ever easy to make these decisions. This is a permanant, life-changing, horrible event and will stick with the woman (and her boyfriend/husband) forever. You make it sound like it's a drive-through process, it's not remotely. I'm going to make an educated guess that you're probably a younger male who's never been intimately involved in one before based on your statements. Truthfully I hope you never have to.

---

For some it is a drive throught process, especially in the UK and US. I also posted: "To those who say that a woman goes through hell before and after an abortion, yes, absolutely. I'm not belittling that in the slightest."

Quote:

---

Please go back and re-read all of my first previous post (the long winded one). Viability isn't the sole criteria. As I said, these are very very hard decisions to make, quite often the female is the subject of a rape and is recovering from that also. As such she may not be mentally prepared and able to make an informed, rational decision until it's rather far along. This, unfortunately, was the case in one of the two I was telling about in an earlier post.

---

I alos addressed this. Rape does complicate the issue emotionally, however it doesn't change the nature of the foetus. The foetus is blameless.

Quote:

---

No I haven't, there's no disconnect. My intent was to mean that at the second the sperm meets the egg, it's a "new life". Physically and medically speaking that's true. Conceptually, as in "it's a baby", no I don't view it as such.

---

So you admit that abortion is extinguishing a new human life. I can't see how that could not be a baby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

This proposal is yet more punishment for women who exercise their natural right to dispose of their own bodies. The human body is inviolable and the foetus is an outgrowth of the female body. No state can force a woman to become pregnant, to prevent her pregnancy or to carry through un unwanted pregnancy. All the rest is superstitious bullcrap.

---

Well, in that case, being made to look at an ultrasound should be no trouble at all should it? Would you view it as intimidation if your doctor made you look at a picture of a tumor before he cut it out? I certainly wouldn't. I don't get emotional attachments to my unwanted growths.... Or maybe your argument is bogus and it's not that simple.

They should revise the bill so they also have to wear veils and watch a cartoon about semen sensitivity, with dancing, singing little sperms wearing little league jerseys