Pro choice

[HS Thomas]

pregnant anti-Abortionists who chain-smoke.. In fact , any pregnant woman who chain smokes should consider the damage she is doing to the unborn child.
The babies growth is reduced during pregnancy with no chance of catching up after birth and the risks of infant illness disability and death are increased.
A joke about Spain being notoriously pro-cigarette , restaurants were about to impose sections in restaurants: one for smokers and one for chain-smokers.
[ May 03, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Warren Dew:

I understand how it's worded, but from this non-Catholic's point of view, "procreation" is exactly about "potential human beings".

I suppose in some vague sense but since the Church teaches nothing about "potential human beings" and would deny that such a thing even exists it is more on the side of misunderstanding Church teaching. The Church considers sex a gift from God and throwing away procreation in favor of the conjugal love part of sex is rejecting half of God's gift. Michael is on the right track.

[Marc Peabody]

Did everyone hear about the lady convicted of killing one of her children by refusing to have a c-section? She should have pleaded "Abortion".
So at what point in time is it no longer her right to do what she wants with her body and becomes the right of the baby to live???

[John Dunn]

MB: So at what point in time is it no longer her right to do what she wants with her body and becomes the right of the baby to live???
Now that partial-birth abortion is no longer an option, its 24 weeks. If Mom has not aborted at that point we say that she has chosen to go thru with the birth. So anything suspect done after that is deemed negligence. Why would that be hard to understand? Doctors will make it very clear, albeit tactfully, when that 24 week period is coming to a close. There's simply no denying that a 24 week old fetus is not a human being. They are completely formed, but usually have weak lungs. My daughter was born at 25 weeks and was 1.5 lbs. The cutest little person you could ever imagine. Hard to believe almost. She was sooooooo tiny, yet perfectly formed. It was pretty cool when she place her hand around my pinky finger. It was like me gripping a pole. Her finger nails were sooooo tiny.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
Now that partial-birth abortion is no longer an option, its 24 weeks.

This is incorrect. PBA is simply a method of abortion but it certainly is not the only type of abortion that can be performed after 24 weeks. A doctor could, for example, shove a shunt into the head of a fetus at 8 months and suck the brains out. As long as the fetus is not partially delivered the procedure would still be legal.

[Warren Dew]

Originally posted by Marc Peabody:
Did everyone hear about the lady convicted of killing one of her children by refusing to have a c-section? She should have pleaded "Abortion".
So at what point in time is it no longer her right to do what she wants with her body and becomes the right of the baby to live???

I think there's a difference between prohibiting abortion and requiring people to go to term naturally and going further and requiring people to undergo invasive medical procedures for the benefit of others. Requiring the mother to be cut open for a caesarian for the benefit of the baby is not ethically different from requiring someone to give up a kidney for the benefit of a child. Sure, you can say they're selfish for refusing to do it, but it's not something the government should be in the business of forcing on people. Where does it stop?

[John Dunn]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Dunn:
Now that partial-birth abortion is no longer an option, its 24 weeks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TP: This is incorrect. PBA is simply a method of abortion but it certainly is not the only type of abortion that can be performed after 24 weeks. A doctor could, for example, shove a shunt into the head of a fetus at 8 months and suck the brains out. As long as the fetus is not partially delivered the procedure would still be legal.

From this link
In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that abortions in the second trimester may be regulated only to protect the woman�s health. In the third trimester, after viability, states may ban abortions, except where the life or health of the woman is at stake. Third trimester abortions are illegal in NY and most other states. The national standard for viability is 24 weeks. Abortion foes have engineered uncertainty by lumping together second and third trimester abortions, convincing people that healthy women seek and receive "partial-birth abortions" in the final weeks of pregnancy for minor reasons.

From my experience 24 weeks is a real cut off point.

[Gregg Bolinger]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
This is incorrect. PBA is simply a method of abortion but it certainly is not the only type of abortion that can be performed after 24 weeks. A doctor could, for example, shove a shunt into the head of a fetus at 8 months and suck the brains out. As long as the fetus is not partially delivered the procedure would still be legal.

Yep. Kansas; abortion capital of the world I think. Dr. Tiller actually banks at the bank I work at.
From the web site: Kansas law allows for post-viability abortion procedures when continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to the pregnant woman's health. Each person's circumstances are reviewed on a case-by-base basis.
The guy has been shot a few times.
Here is an interesting article I found on the web.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Marc Peabody:
So at what point in time is it no longer her right to do what she wants with her body and becomes the right of the baby to live???
I depends who you are and where you live

[Thomas Paul]

Third trimester abortions are illegal in NY and most other states.But there is no law that can stop a NYer from going to one of the other states for an abortion. But my main point is that the ban on PBA is not going to stop a single abortion from happening.

[John Dunn]

TP: But my main point is that the ban on PBA is not going to stop a single abortion from happening.
So if one abortion in this country were to be stopped, you'd be wrong, is that correct?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
TP: But my main point is that the ban on PBA is not going to stop a single abortion from happening.
So if one abortion in this country were to be stopped, you'd be wrong, is that correct?

Yes, but what is the likelihood of your proving that an abortion was not performed because PBA was made illegal?

[HS Thomas]

The Swedes who were the first to legalise abortion do not terminate after 18 weeks. Sophisticated drugs are currently being developed to be administered in the early weeks of pregnancy and these may soon be available on the Internet. Doctors need a clear law giving them the right to say to women - I am sorry but 20-28 weeks is too late. (Except in the case of an extreme emergency)
British law and the police do not like investigating "private morality" like spousal abuse in days gone.
[ May 04, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Angela Poynton]

I've come into this discussion late and will admit i haven't had the time to read everything that's been said so far but i think I've got the jist of things.
Personally I am probably what would be considered "Pro Choice".
I believe that a woman has the right to make the choice for herself.
I personally know that if I became pregnant and I had no reason to believe my or the baby's health was in danger I couldn't actually have an abortion myself at any stage of the pregnancy. So I would CHOOSE NOT to have an abortion.
I disapprove of women who seem to use abortion as a contraceptive. I know it happens but I think it's fairly rare. Abortion can have horrible after-effects and it's certainly not something any intelligent woman I know would get into lightly.
BUT there are cases where a woman may have been using contraceptives and they have failed. In such a case I could understand that woman choosing to have an abortion. By using the contraceptives she was already making the choice to NOT become pregnant, she would be acting upon this.
In the case of rape, irrespective of the woman's age or who raped her of course I can understand a victim choosing to Abort, the trauma of rape is great enough, she shouldn't have to carry around a constant reminder of it for 9 months and potentially the rest of her life if she chooses not to have the child adopted. To force or even encourage a rape victim to carry the baby to full term is in my eyes endorsing massive psychological torture on an already fragile person.
The adoption arguement is weak, there are thousands if not more unadopted children living in homes all over the world. There simply aren't enough people in the world wanting to adopt or foster.
As for those who are making the decision simply based on their current lifestyle/financial situation. In many ways I can understand the urge to Abort if you don't want your lifestyle to change or you feel you can't afford to have a baby. It is in my mind the weakest argument but is an understandable one.
As for learning that the baby has a serious physical deformity or genetic disorder, again, most people I know would go ahead and it's admirable. Quite simply though what will make one person stronger could destroy another and some people simply can't deal with the added stresses and strains a disabled child can bring. I've watch a couple of relationships stretched to breaking point over this issue and witnessed the tragedy of seeing the child suffer, constantly in and out of hospital, in pain, bullied and relentlously tormented by other kids and adults. I can see the arguement to do what is necessary to make it not happen. We wouldn't let an animal suffer that way. I'm not saying if it's right or wrong, I just can understand it.
The stories I have heard from the days when it was illegal, of women getting "back street abortions" are horrendous and it should never be allowed to be that way again.
As Tony said earlier on, If you're against Abortion, don't have one, you have made your choice.
If you are "pro choice", make your choice. It MUST be YOUR choice based on YOUR values and not those of anyone else, afterall what choice you make YOU will live with it for the rest of your life.

[John Dunn]

The adoption arguement is weak, there are thousands if not more unadopted children living in homes all over the world. There simply aren't enough people in the world wanting to adopt or foster.
It is very expensive and quite difficult to find babies to adopt. Ask around. Folks lucky enough to find a young woman who rather not abort are rare. You're going to be quite surprise if you look into this. I want to adopt one child any race/gender, as long as they are healthy; it's not as easy as you'd think. I just hope I can afford it.

[Gregg Bolinger]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
The adoption arguement is weak, there are thousands if not more unadopted children living in homes all over the world. There simply aren't enough people in the world wanting to adopt or foster.
It is very expensive and quite difficult to find babies to adopt. Ask around. Folks lucky enough to find a young woman who rather not abort are rare. You're going to be quite surprise if you look into this. I want to adopt one child any race/gender, as long as they are healthy; it's not as easy as you'd think. I just hope I can afford it.

And it shouldn't but easy. Also, IMHO, being a foster parent should be more difficult than it is.

[Gregg Bolinger]

As Tony said earlier on, If you're against Abortion, don't have one, you have made your choice.
If you are "pro choice", make your choice. It MUST be YOUR choice based on YOUR values and not those of anyone else, afterall what choice you make YOU will live with it for the rest of your life.
The reason it isn't this simple for us pro-lifers is because we feel 1 person is making a life or death choice for someone who has no say so in the matter. I wish I could look at it that way because it would make it easier on me to deal with the killing of innocent babies. Call me crazy for having compasion for an innocent life. :roll:

[Gregg Bolinger]

For those of you that are pro-choice, I encourage you to visit Abortion Truth. WARNING - very disturbing pictures of aborted babies. But hey, if you are ok with abortion then these photos shouldn't bother you at all. Since it's not a human life yet, it's just like looking at a squashed bug.
Also, read the techniques used to perform abortions. All the medical wonder and science we have today and we are still chopping them up.
[ May 05, 2004: Message edited by: Gregg Bolinger ]

[Thomas Paul]

I can see the arguement to do what is necessary to make it not happen. We wouldn't let an animal suffer that way. I'm not saying if it's right or wrong, I just can understand it.
You are right but people aren't animals. We don't execute people because they are old and can't get around but we put animals to sleep. If we live in a world that torments the disabled then the solution is not to kill the disabled but to change the world!

[Angela Poynton]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
[b]The reason it isn't this simple for us pro-lifers is because we feel 1 person is making a life or death choice for someone who has no say so in the matter. I wish I could look at it that way because it would make it easier on me to deal with the killing of innocent babies. Call me crazy for having compasion for an innocent life. :roll:

The assumption you are making is that pro-choice people don't acknowledge a foetus as a life.
I AM pro-choice.
I DO believe that at the moment of conception a life is created. It is MY compassion for that life that lead me to say at the beginning of my argument that I personally wouldn't have an abortion.
I do see your arguement. However, I can't help but also see other arguements. I would be the first to disapprove of a friend who had an abortion because she was foolish enough to have sex without using contraceptive. If that same friend had however used a contraceptive and it had failed I would have to spend some more time thinking about it. One could argue that the contraceptive failing was fate taking a hand and leading her down a new road in her life. One could also say it was an accident, not meant to happen because she had been taking steps to prevent it happening.
I find a few things interesting in this arguement particularly the words used in particular by the Pro-Life people, it tends to be more provocative and emotional. Words such as "Murder" and "innocent babies". The reason I think Pro-Lifers are often consider radicals is because they're language seems to always moves to Extreme Emoting and strongly focused on the baby.
You must remember there is more than one life at stake in this arguement.
It may sound like I'm sitting on the fence but I have thought long and hard about this subject over many years. I had a Catholic education and it was indoctrinated into me that abortion is wrong. We had priests come and show us videos of aborted foetus and tell us why it was bad bad bad. When one student asked when we were going to have someone to come and present the other side of the arguement, we were told there was no other side.
I have since seen the devastation caused in people's lives when an unwanted pregnancy goes full term because the mother was emotionally blackmailed into having the child and raising it, she was just 16 and alone. Two years later she still couldn't cope emotionally or financially and the child was taken away from her.
So in my own mind, even though I do believe a foetus is a life, I have had to allow myself to acknowledge that sometimes things that seem bad can be good.

[Warren Dew]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
I want to adopt one child any race/gender, as long as they are healthy; it's not as easy as you'd think. I just hope I can afford it.

You're more open minded than most. Most people in the market for an adopted baby want one similar to themselves - which generally means white. Also, the U.S. is different from most of the world with respect to how many extra babies are around. And even your 'healthy' restriction can cut out a lot of the babies that might be created if people never aborted in the case of severe congenital defects.

[Gregg Bolinger]

Originally posted by Angela Poynton:

The assumption you are making is that pro-choice people don't acknowledge a foetus as a life.
I AM pro-choice.
I DO believe that at the moment of conception a life is created. It is MY compassion for that life that lead me to say at the beginning of my argument that I personally wouldn't have an abortion.
I do see your arguement. However, I can't help but also see other arguements. I would be the first to disapprove of a friend who had an abortion because she was foolish enough to have sex without using contraceptive. If that same friend had however used a contraceptive and it had failed I would have to spend some more time thinking about it. One could argue that the contraceptive failing was fate taking a hand and leading her down a new road in her life. One could also say it was an accident, not meant to happen because she had been taking steps to prevent it happening.
I find a few things interesting in this arguement particularly the words used in particular by the Pro-Life people, it tends to be more provocative and emotional. Words such as "Murder" and "innocent babies". The reason I think Pro-Lifers are often consider radicals is because they're language seems to always moves to Extreme Emoting and strongly focused on the baby.
You must remember there is more than one life at stake in this arguement.
It may sound like I'm sitting on the fence but I have thought long and hard about this subject over many years. I had a Catholic education and it was indoctrinated into me that abortion is wrong. We had priests come and show us videos of aborted foetus and tell us why it was bad bad bad. When one student asked when we were going to have someone to come and present the other side of the arguement, we were told there was no other side.
I have since seen the devastation caused in people's lives when an unwanted pregnancy goes full term because the mother was emotionally blackmailed into having the child and raising it, she was just 16 and alone. Two years later she still couldn't cope emotionally or financially and the child was taken away from her.
So in my own mind, even though I do believe a foetus is a life, I have had to allow myself to acknowledge that sometimes things that seem bad can be good.

The problem with this view is you are basically saying it's ok to kill an innocent human being. I can understand better the view of the pro-choice person who is ok with killing a fetus he/she doesn't believe to be a human life yet. But, that's what makes the world so interesting; different opinions.
I have since seen the devastation caused in people's lives when an unwanted pregnancy goes full term because the mother was emotionally blackmailed into having the child and raising it, she was just 16 and alone. Two years later she still couldn't cope emotionally or financially and the child was taken away from her.
As I have stated a few times before, there are living choices that can prevent an un-ready mother from having to keep and raise her baby. And especially in your scenerio you described, pregancy is the risk you take whenever you have sex.
You must remember there is more than one life at stake in this arguement.
There sure is. You must remember this as well. It works both ways if you agree that a fetus is a human life.
[ May 05, 2004: Message edited by: Gregg Bolinger ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Speaking about adoption, you may want to visit this thread and drop a couple of lines:
https://coderanch.com/t/2306/Ranch-Office/want-thank-ranch-SUN

[Warren Dew]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
The problem with this view is you are basically saying it's ok to kill an innocent human being. I can understand better the view of the pro-choice person who is ok with killing a fetus he/she doesn't believe to be a human life yet. But, that's what makes the world so interesting; different opinions.

Note that there are plenty of people who think an embryo or fetus is alive and don't think it's a human being yet - it's not a good assumption to think that someone who says "yes it's alive" means "yes it's human".
[ May 05, 2004: Message edited by: Marilyn de Queiroz ]

[John Dunn]

MI: you may want to visit this thread and drop a couple of lines:
Thanks.

[Stefan Wagner]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
... But hey, if you are ok with abortion then these photos shouldn't bother you at all. Since it's not a human life yet, it's just like looking at a squashed bug. ...

Well I'm pro-choice when asked for bug-hunting, but I don't like looking at squashed bugs.
I'm eating flesh every day, but don't want to visit the slaughterhouse.
It's surprising, but allways the 'contra-choice' fraction likes looking at these pictures and propagetes them.
You refuse to get the argument, which distinguishes between 'pro abortion' and 'pro choice'.
And the continously repeated term of 'innocent babies' belongs to the kind of suggestive propaganda, which acts very repugnant on me.

[Ellen Zhao]

I was inspired and by Angela's posts. Thank you Angela.
[ May 06, 2004: Message edited by: Ellen Zhao ]

[Marc Peabody]

TP - We don't execute people because they are old and can't get around ...

This reminds me of a Simpsons episode. I forget the exact context but I believe Lisa made a comment about it being wrong to dispose of someone when they become an inconvenience (shot moves to Grandpa Simpson, all alone at the Springfield Retirement Castle).
That's actually the best argument I've heard against abortion, IMO. Frank Peretti has made good use of it. To roughly quote him, "Our society has begun to treat human life as part of a large machine - if a part breaks we simply get rid of it and replace it. Sometimes if the part doesn't fit exactly the way we'd like it to, we cancel the order before it arrives."

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Ellen Zhao:
...
Wow, that was the most interesting post and point of view on this thread so far.

[Ellen Zhao]

I updated my last post since I saw again this place is mainly for fun and sometimes for serious stuff.
This topic is serious in my mind however my true opinion was beyond my current capability of expressing it in a way which would cause minimum misunderstandings and in fact, now I look back, my post would raise great temper here which would cause unnecessary hurt to many people including myself. Now I regret I posted it last night and appology to all the people who were seriously disturbed by it. I was even not beligning for the culture I love so much, but rather, seriously mis-interpreted it in English thus in fact was maligning it. And I feel guilty to those acient wisdom.
I have a bit to say why I posted it. If people think my opinion is evil this post is not intended to reduce the level of evilness, if I deserved the hell I would get my punishment, don't worry. I sincerely hope those who were disturbed feel a bit comfortable given all the background which caused my posting it emotionally. I was told before I came to Germany "when you get there, remember, no political talk, no religious talk, no sexual talk. It's normal that people think differently, too easy to get chaos when people talk about those. We only hope you have a safe and happy life there." I did what I was told pretty well for a long while. In my life here I was avoiding those talks but sometimes I simply couldn't. I was frequently told "it's evil for Chinese government to force people to abort." I explained to them we have very limited resource but still don't give up the effort of increasing the quality of life. "But still it's evil to kill potential life." I was told about it too often. I had always kept silent and smiling. I believe there is better solution than pro abortion, like let those who are willing to adopt adopt to other countries. But still quite a few people hold different opinions in my country, and the way they think, reason, and the theory they based on are not unworthy of a think. Another question I was often asked is "Do Chinese people really eat dogs?" I felt so difficult to answer. It would hurt dog lovers so much but it is a fact in China. I have neighbours who spent thousands of euros just to fix a broken leg of their little dog's while they themselves are not well off at all. To this couple, I answered "no, don't believe." Yes it's a lie. I didn't want to hurt them, I also cannot imagine what would happen if they see it with their own eyes. I'm sorry for this situation but I really could do nothing with it. I saw an article from a professor from PKU defending the people who kill dogs in China. "Dog is people's best friend in bible, but we don't have the tradition of take every word in the bible as a rule..." I don't know if that professor was facing that couple in person, would he say it out so easily. When I met strange people in bus stops or anywhere else, I only wished "please don't ask me stuffs like abortion, dog...". But as the time goes by, I honestly don't feel comfortable to think so many Chinese people are said evil while another system of thinking is inveterate in China. How to get this awkward situation straight is a big job and Currently I am not able to. There are many qualified social scientists and other people working sincerely and hard on this tough problem. And, there are already many good books out there with deep understandings to both systems and with sympathy, not intended to raise hatred. For example: books by Samuel P. Huntington, on the subject of the conflict of civilization; Many of Ray Huang's books and John King Fairbank's books. Communication might be the first step and communication is constantly needed during the process of solving this problem. It's at least so much better than war or fighting. I appreciate all the posters here offered me deep insights of different aspects and various meaningful perspectives. I was provoked and was trying to say something. But, my very wrong expression plus the wrong place, wrong time, I believe some people were deeply hurt. I'm sorry for my last improper post and won't say anything on similar topics again until I have enough study on this subject. It is an interesting and meaningful subject.
For those who felt curious about what had happened. I mainly wanted to say: In Buddism every life is a Budda ( or has the Budda in it ), every life is equal, human beings are not more important than animal or plants. People believe in Buddism don't kill any animal; In Dao(Tao)-ism, human-being is a part of the universe like anything else also do, all births and deaths are natural things, people needn't worry about it too much. It mainly pursues the harmony between people and its out-side environment. In Confuciusm, it's said if one was a father then be a good father, if one was a son then be a good son. It's one way to achieve the peace and regularity of the society if everyone does his own job very well. These three philosophies deeply influenced the way of Chinese's thinking and our attitude to life. However my post yesterday was horribly inarticulate and pompous, partially due to my shallow understanding of them. To everyone who was disturbed by my wording, before you think these philosophies are evil please think my expression was evil but there is possibility that they might be okay. All my fault.
[ May 08, 2004: Message edited by: Ellen Zhao ]

[HS Thomas]

Ellen, your earlier post was from the heart and from many a woman's standpoint be it in China, Europe or anywhere else. Being able to give a life of quality is important to many women the world over. Please don't apologise for that view.
Probably what is important is that women the world over can feel that they can choose if and when to have children and be able to give that quality.
Quality will have to be redefined to each woman's personal values and circumstance.
Within a marriage or partnership that's a joint decision but with the number of broken marriages and partnerships it inevitably is a woman's responsibility.
As Richard said , one of the best posts in the thread- now gone. Hope you kept a copy of it.

[HS Thomas]

In Britain under-age girls as young as 14 are sterilised to cut teen pregnancies.

400 girls have already received the implant a match-stick sized plastic rod inserted just under the skin of the upper arm making them infertile for 3 years. Britain has the highest rate of teen pregnancies in Europe.
Of course the Govt doesn't realise it's opening the doors to other problems - diseases . The current guidance from the Govt and the General Medical Council is that GPs must decide only 'that the girl is capable to decide on the treatment she is about to get'.
These girls have to decide on their resonsibilities at a pretty young age.
And will be role models for their off-spring.
A bit like the 4 minute mile - it's only possible to shave seconds and milliseconds off that these days.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Warren Dew:
Note that there are plenty of people who think an embryo or fetus is alive and don't think it's a human being yet - it's not a good assumption to think that someone who says "yes it's alive" means "yes it's human".

That's fine but on what day exactly does it become a human being?

[Ashok Mash]

Very informative thread, I must say! I am not particularly aligned to any side in this discussion, but I was wondering what�s the view of both sides about some other issues around pregnancy?
What does pro-life side think about would-be mothers smoking, drinking or clubbing long hours, and other actions by a pregnant woman that could potentially damage the foetus or the baby in future?
On the other hand, if abortion is made legal, is there a way to prevent the misuse of the system? For instance, abortion after finding out the sex of the baby and such extremely selfish and inhumane cases?
Thanks in advance!

[John Dunn]

Ellen, you shouldn't have to apologize that much. You're allowed to think the way you do in our free open society, even if people don't agree with it.
I'm sure they'll get over it.
Now with that, let me share why I am not ~comfortable~ with using finances as a determining factor for abortion. If a man were to impregnate a woman other than his wife AND he were to exclaim, "I don't want a child, I'm not financially prepared and didn't plan on it!!" What would most woman say? Probably, "Too bad. You should have thought of that BEFORE you had sex. Be a man and do the right thing. etc, etc." Okay, so other men hear about this and decide, hmmmm better make sure I'm always ready to be a dad, if I'm sleeping with women. Fine. How do you now expect these ready-to-be-dad men to understand why women aren't able to be ready-to-be-moms? Why don't women make choices BEFORE, (same BEFORE as above), they have sex? Btw, if a man can't pay child support, his wages get garnished. So we don't care if he's financially ready.
The next time you have gripes about how unfair the world is to woman, think of the above.
I'm curious as to what would happen if we provided offspring termination on demand, and required 0% responsibility of men, if they so 'chose'.
IMHO (very humble that is), the marcocosm of women is not being true to itself.

[Warren Dew]

Thomas Paul responding to me:
That's fine but on what day exactly does it become a human being?

Marilyn deleted the second half of my post. I don't understand why. Until I understand what I'm allowed to post, I think I'll bow out of this thread.
(Or rather, my current understanding is, "post anything that all the sheriffs and bartenders agree with, and nothing that any of them disagree with", which also indicates I should quit discussing this topic.)

[Mapraputa Is]

If it will make you feel better, Warren, my response to your post was deleted as well. I don't think you should try to understand it intellectually. There is some Zen wisdom flying around this forum... First you need to clear your mind from any preconception...
"An insane asylum cannot be a success if it is run by sane people"

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ashok Mash:
On the other hand, if abortion is made legal, is there a way to prevent the misuse of the system? For instance, abortion after finding out the sex of the baby and such extremely selfish and inhumane cases?

My understanding is that this already happens in China where boys are preferred over girls. A interesting question for those who are pro-choice... if a "gay" gene was discovered, how would you feel about parents who abort instead of having a gay child?

[Gregg Bolinger]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
If it will make you feel better, Warren, my response to your post was deleted as well. I don't think you should try to understand it intellectually. There is some Zen wisdom flying around this forum... First you need to clear your mind from any preconception...
"An insane asylum cannot be a success if it is run by sane people"

Yeah, and 2 of my posts got deleted last weekend in this thread because they were thought to possibly rise the intensity level of this thread therfor causing this discussion to take an ugly turn, which I can see that from what I had posted.
So hop on off of that "the staff is biased and unfair" soapbox and keep on talkin'.
You can also contact any moderator of this forum or this site including the trailboss to discuss why your comments were deleted. I would suggest conacting the moderator that deleted your comments first and work your way up the ladder from there.
[ May 06, 2004: Message edited by: Gregg Bolinger ]

[Gregg Bolinger]

Originally posted by Stefan Wagner:
You refuse to get the argument, which distinguishes between 'pro abortion' and 'pro choice'.
And the continously repeated term of 'innocent babies' belongs to the kind of suggestive propaganda, which acts very repugnant on me.

A. What exact argument am I refusing to get?
B. What term would you prefer?
C. How is inncocent babies suggestive propaganda? What propaganda am I spreading with that term?
There is no difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice, just as there is no difference between pro-capital punishment and pro-choice as it relates to the death penalty (which has been discussed here already.)
If you are pro-choice you are saying that a woman has the right the make the choice of abortion. If you are pro-abortion, same thing. It means you are supportive of a woman's right to have an abortion if she so chooses.
I submit that Pro-Choice'rs don't like this because calling themselves Pro-Abortion'ers sounds worse. But it's the same thing.
[ May 06, 2004: Message edited by: Gregg Bolinger ]