Are you still in favor of killing this child?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's up to the mother. The fetus is occupying her body, and if it is not with her consent, then he/she should get out .

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Trajanus
every day you waste sperm is an extra murder!!

What's more, sperms not, uh, "used" will be re-aborbed by the body, so you are a murderer no matter which way you look at it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The "child" in question can live outside the womb. Glad to hear though that you are "all for abortion". Kind of says quite a bit about you as well.

A bit heavy on the spinning here, aren't we? It's only a baby if it has sentience. Otherwise, it's not a human being.

You eat meat there Lincoln?

[Alexander's Horse]

The welfare of the mother is paramount as far as I am concerned.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This is exactly why your religious babble is not listened by the lawmakers. They try to achieve results, i.e to get an orderly society without tons of unraised kids running galore. This was the core of planned parenthood from the beginning (in the lawmaker's perspective), and this will remain so.
Since your position is only backed with passion, I'm damn glad the government won't enforce it
And I don't know about your country, but in mine, the State provides hospitals and institutions specialized in making this quitting as efficient and as humane as possible.
But maybe you think that threatening junkies with the "quit-or-Bubba-will-have-your-ass" argument is a better solution ?
I don't know. In my culture, we try to solve problems. I thought the Americans enjoyed solving their problems too.

The lawmakers don't listen to us because a fetus won't be able to vote for nearly twenty years, whereas the desperate and pregnant can vote now. Don't get all high and mighty, eh?
Kindly listen to the arguments I am making. If abortion is tolerable, it can be allowed regardless and the argument is daft. If it is not tolerable, i.e. if we see the unborn as worthy of human rights, then it is nothing more than an attempt to cover the more relevant point with appeals to squirmy feelings in your guts.
Just FYI, I believe the ideal solution for the drug problem would be something along the lines of crucifixion for drug dealers. Maybe not quite that cruel, but something so intolerable as vending death to the foolish is not acceptable. More or less the same for back-alley abortionists. See how long it takes for them to cut the crap then.

[Ecthy]

there should be capital punishment on abortion

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger



You eat meat there Lincoln?

Yes, but I don't eat babies. What is yor point?

[Thorn]

Enough with the debate already, anything that smilies at me, kill the brat freak of nature.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Yes, but I don't eat babies. What is yor point?

Please read next time.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It's only a baby if it has sentience. Otherwise, it's not a human being.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Originally posted by GePap
People in the uS need to get a grip on the issue: it's interesting how most European countries have little problem with the issue.

And it should remain legal.

No... only half the people in the US need to get a grip. Just happens to be the retarded half who also voted for Bush. So, as you can see, it's not going to happen any time soon.

Read the little article... means nothing.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
SUICIDE


It is generally accepted that induced abortion increases the risk that a woman will commit suicide.

...Well, if there was any lingering doubt that you are the poster formerly known as "Obiwan", I guess this nails it.

How many times have you trotted out this bogus argument now? And how many times has it been shot down in flames?

Is this sort of nonsense only used in anti-abortion arguments? I can see a few other potential uses for it:

"Here are statistics which show that fighter pilots who eject from their aircraft are significantly more likely to sustain injury or death than those who land normally after an uneventful patrol. Therefore ejection seats are hazardous, and should be removed from all fighter aircraft immediately".

Similar arguments can be used against seat belts, airbags, fire extinguishers: all safety devices which are used in incidents where injuries and deaths abound. So let's ban them all!

That's two premisses, both unverified.

1. Are women in this situation more likely to have an abortion?

2. Are these same women more likely to commit suicide?

Do you have the statistical evidence to back either of these statements?

The burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim. And you are making TWO extraordinary claims:

1. Women who seek abortions are just as happy with their situation as normal expectant mothers. They have nothing to be depressed about. Life is just peachy for them.

2. Women who seek and are denied abortions are happy about that. It doesn't bother them at all. They didn't really want one anyway.

It's difficult to see why anyone should believe such nonsense, even for a moment (let alone trot it out repeatedly). But it does appear to support the stereotype of (some) anti-abortion types as being "out of touch with reality". In particular, Extraordinary Belief 1 looks a lot like "women who seek abortions are callous, evil murderesses who just don't care about human life, they're too busy having fun screwing around". And Extraordinary Belief 2 looks rather like "God made women to be permanently barefoot and pregnant, that makes 'em happy, even if they don't realize that yet".

Would you care to support either Extraordinary Belief? And will you remove your seat belts and disconnect your airbag?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless


...Well, if there was any lingering doubt that you are the poster formerly known as "Obiwan", I guess this nails it.

How many times have you trotted out this bogus argument now? And how many times has it been shot down in flames?

Is this sort of nonsense only used in anti-abortion arguments? I can see a few other potential uses for it:

"Here are statistics which show that fighter pilots who eject from their aircraft are significantly more likely to sustain injury or death than those who land normally after an uneventful patrol. Therefore ejection seats are hazardous, and should be removed from all fighter aircraft immediately".

Similar arguments can be used against seat belts, airbags, fire extinguishers: all safety devices which are used in incidents where injuries and deaths abound. So let's ban them all!



The burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim. And you are making TWO extraordinary claims:

1. Women who seek abortions are just as happy with their situation as normal expectant mothers. They have nothing to be depressed about. Life is just peachy for them.

2. Women who seek and are denied abortions are happy about that. It doesn't bother them at all. They didn't really want one anyway.

It's difficult to see why anyone should believe such nonsense, even for a moment (let alone trot it out repeatedly). But it does appear to support the stereotype of (some) anti-abortion types as being "out of touch with reality". In particular, Extraordinary Belief 1 looks a lot like "women who seek abortions are callous, evil murderesses who just don't care about human life, they're too busy having fun screwing around". And Extraordinary Belief 2 looks rather like "God made women to be permanently barefoot and pregnant, that makes 'em happy, even if they don't realize that yet".

Would you care to support either Extraordinary Belief? And will you remove your seat belts and disconnect your airbag?

jeez, talk about close minded. And how you can compare abortion to ejecting out of a fighter jet is riciculous. Nothing more needs to be said about this post.

[Jack the Bodiless]

...As the point goes whooshing straight past and off into the distance, leaving nothing but a trail of turbulence...

[Ben Kenobi]

Where to start?

Jack:

Well, if there was any lingering doubt that you are the poster formerly known as "Obiwan", I guess this nails it.

Gee. Like I tried to hide the change.

1. Women who seek abortions are just as happy with their situation as normal expectant mothers. They have nothing to be depressed about. Life is just peachy for them.

So life is all peachy for those who are expecting? I thought that pregnancy was a terrible burden, hence the need for abortion. Nowhere does my argument assume that life is all good for either, both groups have their problems. My argument merely states that both groups will be approximately the same.

2. Women who seek and are denied abortions are happy about that. It doesn't bother them at all. They didn't really want one anyway.

No. All I say is that women who carry their child on average, commit suicide far less than the woman who choose to abort.

Secondly, when was the last time a woman was denied an abortion?

"Here are statistics which show that fighter pilots who eject from their aircraft are significantly more likely to sustain injury or death than those who land normally after an uneventful patrol. Therefore ejection seats are hazardous, and should be removed from all fighter aircraft immediately".

Most abortions are not performed to save the life of the mother. The only exception to this is ectopic pregnancy, which occurs around 1% of all pregnancies. The vast majority are performed for reasons of convenience, as Spiffor has aptly demonstrated. Without an ejection seat, the pilot will die in a plane crash. Without an abortion, can we say that all mothers will die?

Most importantly,

Abortion always results in the death of an unborn child. Ejection seats do not kill another person during operation.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's only a baby if it has sentience. Otherwise, it's not a human being.

UR:

Well then. How would one prove the sentience of any person?

The fetus is occupying her body, and if it is not with her consent, then he/she should get out.

Imran:

Do you agree that we should ban all abortions except for the case of rape?