And guys shouldn't have sex unless they either want to participate in raising a child or be vasectomised. But they don't have to suffer the consequences of it much of the time. It's not a matter of crazy. You just aren't educated.
Apparently you aren't aware that most abortions take place after some other method of birth control has failed (except rape/incest cases). Nothing works 100% of the time. Without the availability of a second line of defense, even (straight) married couples who don't want children would have to practice abstinence until menopause. And couples that already have enough kids would have to stop having sex. With kids starting younger all the time (national average of 15, last time I checked), some of them are too immature and ignorant to handle birth control well on a consistent basis. As you have seen here on HF, some teenagers still have some crazy ideas about birth control, partly because the school sex education programs are so weak. And before you even say "they should wait until they're older", let me tell you - trust me - their parents already know this. They aren't giving permission. I have mostly had very positive experiences with premarital sex, but I waited until I was 18 to start. I do think that may have made a difference. We're talking about two different things. There are millions of men in America who would like to legally restrict the options in my "decision process", and they have not been involved in any "conception process" with me. To them, I am a statistic. It is their opinions that I respect least. You were apparently talking about an individual decision, in a state/country where the woman has the legal right to do as she chooses. Depending on the nature and length of their relationship, the guy may have earned some moral right to have input. I'm not going to argue that point one way or the other. It's none of my business how they handle it. As for the guy that I live with, we have no disagreements on this subject. I wouldn't enter into a long-term relationship with somebody if we didn't agree on major issues. We can agree on that point, and it is the most important one for me.
The main issue is the concept of when life starts. Most pro-life people believe it starts at conception, which I do as well. As soon as the egg and sperm unite the embryo begins cell multiplication and thus is alive and growing. I don't have any problems with types of birth control that prevent the egg and sperm from uniting. I don't see how it is okay to kill a baby that is inside a brown paper bag referred to as the uterus, but it is not okay to kill a baby after it comes out of the uterus even if we put it inside a brown paper bag. If we put the baby inside a bag, it does not cease being a baby. My wife was unable to handle the bad mood the pill put her into, so we have used condoms as birth control our whole life. We have had 4 babies (intentionally), two of them lived and are now wonderful girls 15 and 19 years old. If something happened and our birth control failed and my wife got pregnant, I would take that as a sign from God that we are supposed to have another baby. In 21 years of marriage we have never had a pregnancy due to a failed condom.
Biologically, yes, a fetus is alive. It's a few million cells in a petri dish during the term most abortions happen without any features that we'd recognize as human. Whether a person wants to carry the pregnancy to fruition or end it before it becomes a person is a choice. And that's really the question for me, not whether a fetus is alive or not, but whether it's a person or not.
Something I have been wondering about, if it is a choice to kill a live baby before it is born, why do most people recoil in horror and call me psychotic when I say if that is the case then it should be a choice to kill a live baby after it is born? We let abortion doctors kill babies before they are born, and put Casey Anthony on trial for murder for killing her baby after it was born. Can you explain that to me? It becomes obvious to me that it will not be long before euthanasia will also be government sanctioned. My parents no longer serve any real purpose in our society. They are retired. Why keep them alive; it only takes resources from the rest of us.
This is simply not true. Some babies are aborted by cutting a hole through the skull and scooping out the brains. Most babies when they are aborted around the 3rd month are perfectly formed little people with beating hearts. http://www.justmommies.com/articles/fetal_development.shtml
*edit*^ Those are rare exceptions. http://www.policyalmanac.org/culture/archive/abortion_statistics.shtml Because it comes down to what you see as an existing human being i.e. a baby, I don't see a ball of ill defined cells as anything that should have any type of protection, it's far from a person. I don't believe something truly exists as a separate entity until it's either been born, or it has a chance of serving outside of the womb. Philosophical question, if life begins at conception, are women guilty of manslaughter? A good deal of pregnancies end in "miscarriage", but these are in the most literal sense, a fertilized egg that just doesn't take and gets expelled from the body within a few days or few weeks, with the woman often having no clue she was ever technically pregnant.
My brother-in-law used to be a semi truck driver and on a rainy day one time didn't see the brake lights on the car in front of him, went to the right off the road to avoid them and ended up hitting and killing a man in another vehicle waiting at a crossroad. The crash was investigated and deemed an accidental death, not manslaughter. If my BIL had been drunk or stoned or otherwise impaired, it would have been deemed manslaughter and he would have served prison time for it. Since it was an accident, there wasn't even a trial. If you accidentally kill your child, it is an accidental death, not murder or manslaughter.
Because it again get's into the personhood debate again, and you try to brush it off with a crude metaphor.
That lies at the core of what the whole debate is about. That is the real issue. The only issue. All the other points and questions revolve around this one. I've often wondered what it would be like if society truly believed that an early-stage embryo was fully human, with all the rights and legal protections of any toddler, and society started acting in a way that was consistent with that belief. For starters, I think that would require many invasive laws requiring the mothers to do everything that was in the best interests of the embryo's health, from day one. Her personal freedom would be close to zero, because nearly everything she does makes a big difference to this living thing that can't speak for itself. Pregnancy tests would have to be required twice a week, because significant damage can be done (from alcohol, drugs, medical conditions, etc.) long before the first menstrual period is missed. That problem makes me more convinced that we need for babies to be carried and delivered only by women who want to do it. They deserve no less. Because, you see, there is no way to legislate the kind of care and concern and diligence that needs to be invested in a healthy pregnancy. And then I think of the fact that more than half of all spontaneous, natural miscarriages take place so early in a pregnancy that a lot of women never suspect that they might have been pregnant. They may not even have a late period before the microscopic mass of cells leaves her body, floating in a drop of blood. You can't have a funeral for that embryo and bury it in a cemetery. You can't even find the embryo. Was it flushed down a toilet? Thrown away with a tampon? What day did it happen? Under those circumstances, labeling that microscopic spec as a child seems rather absurd; wishful thinking. It is because, on some deep level, they recognize the fact that something very important happens at the moment of birth. The cord is cut, and the baby starts to breath, living life as a separate entity from its mother. The doctor makes a note of the exact time that the baby's life began. From a human perspective, breath is life. When you are born, you start breathing. When you stop breathing, you die. In between, is your life. In the Book of Genesis, it says that God formed Adam from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into him (my paraphrase, OWB!). For those of us who are not christians, it shows that for thousands of years, breath has been considered as synonymous with human (and animal) life. There is strong consensus on this across cultures. Hospital policy reflects this social recognition of the significance of birth. If a baby dies during or after delivery, they ask the mother which funeral home she wants it sent to. Miscarriages are routinely incinerated on the site, along with amputated body parts and bags of diseased organs removed in surgery. Thank you, Humperdink, for disagreeing with me in a way that seems appropriate for a discussion between rational adults about a serious and complicated topic. Apparently it has crossed your mind already that not everybody on the other side is evil, and may have at least an ounce of human compassion in them, even though we are looking at a divisive issue from an opposite perspective. I could debate with people like you all day and not get stressed out. And now, I guess it's time for somebody who doesn't know how to write to take another cheap shot. I know it's gonna happen before the day is over. :hide:
But it's still a death since it happened to something that was regarded as alive. The question is if life begins at conception, than should women all through their child bearing years be forbidden from doing anything that can cause miscarriages in the embryonic stage of development to ensure all that is possible is done to protect a life. Now obvious that's a bit hyperbolic(though in a few places in the world women already are banned from doing most of those things though for other reasons), but it's an over philosophical question to ask if conception is being counted as the moment that life begins, because something that is alive, is something that can die, and things that are alive we give legal protection to to ensure everything possible is done to protect their life. And this goes both ways, now your brother may not have been charged with anything, but what about people who are. Now aside from intoxicated drivers(because they rightfully inspire much disdain from most people), what about regular accidents. Drivers who weren't paying attention, who fell asleep, people in hunting accidents or other accident discharges, ect, cases basically where people are often charged with involuntary manslaughter, and then plead down to a simple charge with a fine or conditional release because it's recognized they screwed up pretty bad, but it was accidental and not malicious. If life begins at conception, and it's found out in autopsy a woman was 2 weeks pregnant, should a person receive double charges?
Your misandry aside, do you actually have any data that supports your position that men tend to be pro-life and women pro-choice? Because I have studies that show the divide is fairly even. Not only that, it shows that most women are not pro-choice. http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
You are attempting to turn me into some sort of monster when the fact is I am not. I'm just a regular guy with a good sense of humor and I am willing to live and let live. I am stating my views which are based on my genetics and environment to try to get people to think about their views, not to shove them down their throats. If you come up with a very good argument as to why it is okay to kill a baby, I might change my view. American law permits abortion, and I can live with that even though I do not agree with it. I am not the person who shoots abortion doctors. One thing to note is that a woman does not usually know she is pregnant until at least 2 weeks after becoming pregnant. It is normally about 2 weeks after becoming pregnant that she would have her period and she might figure it is a few days late before going to the drug store for a pregnancy test kit. Then she has to decide what to do, which can take a little while, then find a clinic and make an appointment. 88-92% of all abortions occur in the first trimester and I would guess most of those occur in the 3rd month. http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/ . By this time the baby is a perfectly formed human being with fingers and toes, which form in week 9. So to answer your question, I think everything within reason should be done to protect life. To tell a woman she cannot do anything and must simply lie in bed is unreasonable. To tell her she cannot intentionally kill her baby sounds reasonable to me. If a man intentionally kills a pregnant woman, he should be sentenced to 2 death sentences. If a man accidentally kills 4 people, whether they are adults or fetuses, I think the babies should be taken into consideration when ruling his punishment. If I were schooled in law and a sitting judge, I would feel at liberty to say what his punishment should be. Since I am not, then not.
I don't think anybody has reliable data on what people really think. I personally know women who will tell me privately that they're pro-choice, but will not admit it publicly because they know they will get strong negative reactions from a lot of people. When there is no problem pregnancy in the family, it seems easier and smarter to play along with the anti-abortion crowd and avoid ugly arguments. And even if their daughter just had an abortion last week, they don't have to admit it to the world. Would they be honest with a telephone survey person? Maybe; maybe not. I don't know. Also, it matters how the question is worded. If you ask someone about their personal view on the matter, you will often get a different answer if you then ask them what the law should require of other people. And your graph doesn't say anything about the "hard" cases (rape, incest, life of the mother in danger). Many people take a different position on those cases from unrestricted abortion. And third trimester abortions are the least popular of all. Finally, polls never measure firm vs. soft support for a position. I've noticed that some women who start out as anti-abortion tend to waiver somewhat (or a lot) when certain situations come up, such as a daughter reaching puberty. I talked about that more in an earlier post. A poll that simplifies the issue down to two numbers tells me nothing. Careful! That definition would include blades of grass, and cancerous tumors. For humans: breath + heartbeat = life That definition takes euthanasia and infanticide off the table.
I understand all that - but you stated it as if it were clear fact that pro-life is dominated by men and that most women were pro-choice. And here you basically state that your only evidence to support this was anecdotal, along with an explanation of how polls can be misleading. That's fair enough, but in the future it would be more helpful for you to not make statements of fact without proper support, particularly when the statement is seemingly made to downplay opinions based on gender. With all due respect, I think that is very dishonest.
That's kind of an interesting position, one that seemingly hedges your bets. You still hold the view that life is valuable and should be protected, but you claim that if something isn't breathing on it's own it's not alive. My dad had a pain in the neck a few years back (possibly due to my attitudes) and the doctor told him he could do surgery but advised against it due to his health. My dad said life with the pain was not worth living, signed a "do not revive" order and they did the surgery. After surgery my dad deteriorated rapidly, until they came to the point where the doctors told my 2 brothers that were there that they would have to put him on life support or he would die. The older brother, who was technically put in charge of those decisions by my parents, said he had signed a do not revive order and we would not put him on life support. My younger brother then insisted they put him on life support, so my older brother changed his position and they put him on life support. 2 days later they took it off and he survived, alive to this day. Medicaid paid $270,000 for that operation. It seems odd to me that we are going to such lengths to save the life of an old man who can hardly walk any more, but we are aborting fetuses. It makes no sense to me.
I have seen a poll that showed a high percentage of women being in favor of allowing abortions if their own lives were in danger, or if they were rape victims. That shouldn't surprise anybody. I believe it was an NBC News poll, but I'm not in the mood to look for it online and post a link. I don't think the exact percentage is important to this discussion. Look at any website or discussion group or TV show where the anti-abortion message is being pushed hard. The leaders are mostly men. Women are always going to have a different feeling about this issue just because it is physically possible for us to get pregnant under dire circumstances. If you really think about it, this is a common sense point. No survey is needed to prove it. Even if a woman has become thoroughly convinced in her mind that abortion is the most evil thing in the world, unless she is beyond menopause, there has to be a little nagging doubt in the back of her mind. Now and then, she has to ask herself, "If I ever get raped, and get pregnant with a baby with terrible birth defects, and the doctor says I may die in labor and leave my other children without a mother, will I be able to do the right thing? Can I follow through with my convictions?" No man has to worry about facing that. If a fertile woman ever tells you she has never had those thoughts and felt those fears, she is lying to you. If you have any ability to imagine yourself in someone else's position, you have to know I'm right. Just last week, I ran across an older woman on TV, clearly beyond her child-bearing years, delivering a hard line against abortion. Yeah, she's off the hook now. She can say whatever she wants. I'll bet she was much less outspoken when she was my age. And please assume that everyone is speaking from their own experiences here, unless they clearly state otherwise. Academic standards don't apply to HF. Not breathing at all. A premature infant may require a respirator at birth. Everybody needs to be able to laugh at themselves sometimes. It only makes sense in light of the fact that your father is a separate human being, not dependent on living inside the body of another person, who has rights and opinions and interests of her own. There is no other situation on earth that compares to this; no similar potential conflict of interest. It is impossible to make an analogy that fits.
No, the exact percentage is not important, but statements of fact being supported by any evidence aside from anecdotes is. But even so, instances of abortion as a result of rape/incest is about 1%; so using a poll that answers only to that 1% only shows a tiny portion of the abortion debate. Two more polls concerning men and women on abortion: http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/men-and-women-hold-similar-views-legality-abortion http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml This isn't even about women using different criteria on how they judge the morality of abortion, it's about the conclusion they have come to. It's not about academic standards, it's about being honest when there is a discussion. It's one thing to say, "I think men have an easier time being against abortion than women" is very fair and perhaps even true. To say, "Most women are pro-choice" as a fact when evidence says at the very least that the positions and division of gender on the issue are muddy is unacceptable in any honest conversation. I even tried to find the poll you were talking about and all I found were more polls disputing what you said. I don't think it's out of line or burdensome if someone is going to make a dubious statement where evidence to the contrary is provided that the person who made the statement back it up with something other than more opinions. At the very least it would behoove you to admit that your position of 'most women are pro-choice' or even the implication that women more than men tend to be pro-choice is spurious and not 'common sense'.
I probably will get in trouble with the right to life crowd for saying this, but if abortion were only used in dire circumstances like this I wouldn't have a problem with it. In cases of rape or incest or saving the life of the mother, I believe the woman should have a choice as to whether the baby lives or dies. As you say, I am a man and will never have to make that decision. I do have a problem with aborting a baby due to birth defects, especially mongoloid babies, because often times those children end up having a very good life, although different from "normal". My problem with abortion is that it is used in cases of recreational sex where the couple irresponsibly decides not to use birth control even though they don't want a baby. Then the baby is simply killed and tossed into the trash, problem solved. Somehow this doesn't seem right to me. The cheerleader gets talked into giving her body to the quarterback in the back seat of his Dodge Neon and gets pregnant. Neither one is "ready" for a baby, plus imagine the crimp it would put on their style, so the baby is simply killed and tossed in the trash. Problem solved. The one thing they don't realize and nobody tells them, is that they will feel like they murdered an innocent child for the rest of their life unless they get some pretty serious therapy for it. I apologize if this is too graphic, it's kind of an emotional issue for me.
Emotions like fear don't follow statistics. Also, responsible adult women care a lot about the rape situation because it's out of their control. They don't worry as much about birth control...except for their daughters. And a very likely conclusion is, be pro-choice in your own mind, but don't ever admit it to anybody, especially anti-abortion men. I challenge you to find a poll on that. It doesn't exist, and never will. I'm liking that approach better all the time. You seem to be having a hard time understanding the instinct of human self-preservation and its obvious role here. Everybody has a natural fear of death and intense physical pain. It influences our opinions. If we did an anonymous opinion poll on drafting men into the military, would it surprise you that draft-age men would be more opposed to it than any other group? That was once such a popular opinion that it used to be the official position of the Republican Party. George H.W. Bush (senior) ran on that platform. Times have changed. A law against that would be so hard to enforce now. Besides flights to Canada and Europe, you would see a huge black market for RU-486 pills sent through the mail. How could you police that? Home pregnancy tests don't leave a paper trail. I think you are much more likely to reduce the number of abortions by improving sex education. Ignorance is the big enemy. I'd like to see a big increase in the priority of teaching young people facts about birth control and STDs. Attack the root causes of the problems. Not if they believe that human life begins at birth, rather than conception. I don't expect you to change your opinion on this, but you do need to accept the fact that some people really do think this way. Lode is another one who gets this, along with all its implications: I hate to even bring this up, but there are other schools of thought out there that seek to define the beginning human life at some other point, such as first heartbeat, first brain waves, or the time at which premature birth and survival in an incubator become possible. There are guys who will debate the finer points of this all day long. I'm staying out of that one.
