raven, theres a very big difference between being reckless stupidity and things actually going wrong. Anyone using good protection is being responsible, if they are reasonably quick and getting the abortion I feel they are still doing the responsible thing. If they wait 7 months then they are being irresponsible. What I think you are misunderstanding is that noone wants there to be abortions, but we cant force children on everyone and not allow exception.

If you don't want children, abstinence is the best way to go. Condoms and such are low risk factors, but they still have risk. Abstinence has the smallest risk percentage, being ridiculously small, only violated in the case of rape, in which case abortion is, I feel, open for legitimate discussion.

 

 

 

Other than that, you have nobody to blame but yourself. In life, things can go wrong, and it's your duty to avoid them, not anybody elses, and if you suffer the consequences because you took the risk, then you need to pony up.

 

 

 

In the Mafia, they shoot people who don't.

I'm not here to 'debate' about abortion, as beating a dead horse would be more constructive.

 

I just want to say that about the parents not knowing or punishing the young girls getting abortions - if you ask any girl who has been through it, the abortion is punishment in itself.

Why let these 'gamblers', ie, those who have sex underage with no intention of having a child, get off that easily as well?

 

The woman who opens her mesh-protected window is not 'gambling' any more than the soon-to-be rape victim "leaving home without a (reliable!) army." The latter also took the risk and failed, mind you, but it would hardly be reasonable to hold her responsible for her misfortune.

 

 

 

What does being underage have to do with this? The majority of abortions in America are made by 20-39 year olds.[1]

 

 

 

If you don't want children, abstinence is the best way to go. Condoms and such are low risk factors, but they still have risk. Abstinence has the smallest risk percentage, being ridiculously small, only violated in the case of rape, in which case abortion is, I feel, open for legitimate discussion.

 

Abstinence as a contraceptive is not as effective as you make it out to be.

 

 

 

[hide=]Researchers have two different ways of measuring the effectiveness of contraceptive methods. "Perfect use" measures the effectiveness when a contraceptive is used exactly according to clinical guidelines. In contrast, "typical use" measures how effective a method is for the average person who does not always use the method correctly or consistently. For example, women who use oral contraceptives perfectly will experience almost complete protection against pregnancy. However, in the real world, many women find it difficult to take a pill every single day, and pregnancies can and do occur to women who miss one or more pills during a cycle. Thus, while oral contraceptives have a perfect-use effectiveness rate of over 99%, their typical-use effectiveness is closer to 92%

 

 

 

... indeed, abstinence is 100% effective if "used" with perfect consistency. But common sense suggests that in the real world, abstinence as a contraceptive method can and does fail. ... For example, a recent study presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the American Psychological Society (APS) found that over 60% of college students who had pledged virginity during their middle or high school years had broken their vow to remain abstinent until marriage.[/hide]

 

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/5/gr060504.html

I don't believe it's the same to prosecute somebody under what they DIDN'T do, unless in some very strange cases, instead what we must look at is what they did do.

 

 

 

And abstinence is still a 100% effective way to avoid pregnant, it's not abstinences' fault that a bunch of horny teens went and had sex, breaking their vows. They succumbed to their primal nature.

 

And abstinence is still a 100% effective way to avoid pregnant, it's not abstinences' fault that a bunch of horny teens went and had sex, breaking their vows. They succumbed to their primal nature.

 

 

 

Hence why contraception is a necessary fall-back system. In a perfect world abstinence would work 100% of the time, but that's simply unrealistic.

Well, Comrade Warrior, a utopia is the ultimate goal of a society, therefore the society should try to aim towards those utopian ideals, rather than devolving into coddling for the people who only serve to muck up society.

My.

 

 

 

At any rate, I'm going to bed. Goodnight, Comrades.

 

 

 

P.S. Cooooommuniiiism....spectre of Eeeeeuroooope.... \

I don't believe it's the same to prosecute somebody under what they DIDN'T do, unless in some very strange cases, instead what we must look at is what they did do.

 

The risk she took was leaving her house, going to the bar or even going on a date. The likelihood of rape in these instances, albeit extremely low, certainly does exist. Even so, it would be unreasonable to prosecute women for drinking at a bar, aware of the risks of date rape.

Well, Comrade Warrior, a utopia is the ultimate goal of a society, therefore the society should try to aim towards those utopian ideals, rather than devolving into coddling for the people who only serve to muck up society.

 

 

 

So people who use contraception only serve to muck up society?

 

 

 

While we should aim for a utopia of sorts, simply trying to do that without considering stopgap solutions is seriously irrational. I mean really, just expecting abstinence to work by telling kids not to have sex is ridiculous. You said it yourself - a bunch of teens break their vows and succumb to their primal nature. Why then wouldn't you want kids to have a proper education of contraception? It's a great fall-back in case they decide to ignore their vows, and it's a great way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and therefore abortion (that is what you want, right?). Not to mention how condoms in particular can help prevent STDs like HIV.

 

 

 

Beside that, I think we have different views of what "utopia" entails.

If you don't want children, abstinence is the best way to go. Condoms and such are low risk factors, but they still have risk. Abstinence has the smallest risk percentage, being ridiculously small, only violated in the case of rape, in which case abortion is, I feel, open for legitimate discussion.

 

 

 

Other than that, you have nobody to blame but yourself. In life, things can go wrong, and it's your duty to avoid them, not anybody elses, and if you suffer the consequences because you took the risk, then you need to pony up.

 

 

 

In the Mafia, they shoot people who don't.

 

 

 

I fell pregnant after Brent was told by more than 3 specialists that he would not be having kids, and I was on the pill. What do you say to those circumstances? Just curious as I did my duty to avoid it but still ended up with Raiden lol

Abstinence only sex-education is failing America badly. Teach kids what they need to know to protect themselves. This isn't 1950 anymore.

abortion is murder plain and simple it doesnt matter if its letting girls off without reprecussions. the important thing is the baby is human at conception and having an abortion is murder now matter when or how its is done :evil: and now seein how that idiot obama is passing [cabbage] like this our country is goin down the [bleep] tubes not even regarding the economic crisis which the world brought down on its self.

 

 

 

How can you murder something that is not life? It most certainly does NOT begin at conception. Both the medical and scientific community agree that the actual "life" phase does not begin until somewhere around week 27-28. Only the uber-religious believe life begins at cell division.

 

Meh. Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Meantime keep to your own body.

abortion is murder plain and simple it doesnt matter if its letting girls off without reprecussions. the important thing is the baby is human at conception and having an abortion is murder now matter when or how its is done :evil: and now seein how that idiot obama is passing [cabbage] like this our country is goin down the [bleep] tubes not even regarding the economic crisis which the world brought down on its self.

 

 

 

How can you murder something that is not life? It most certainly does NOT begin at conception. Both the medical and scientific community agree that the actual "life" phase does not begin until somewhere around week 27-28. Only the uber-religious believe life begins at cell division.

 

Meh. Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Meantime keep to your own body.

 

 

 

All the pro-life activists who argue that life begins at conception are 100% right, and trust me, I'm not even one of them.

 

 

 

Biologically, the zygote is alive from the moment of conception. From then on, it's all just stages of development. It's also of the human species, so you could call it a human life. The contention between pro-life and pro-choice activists is when you want to grant this life rights or "personhood", if you like, and whether this life should take precedent over the wishes of the mother.

 

 

 

I think what you're referring to is viability, or the ability of the fetus to survive independently from the mother, but then you'd be a few weeks over.

My point is that if you want to get into technicalities and label an action as killing (abortion), then it's really not that hard (my example with parents).

 

Your arguments are absolutely absurd and, if anything, are counterproductive to the defense of abortion...

 

 

 

Parcedon is not arguing technicalities, or using "killing" too loosely (you, on the other hand, are). Parcedon claims that human life begins at conception and thus, by definition, active termination is murder (i.e. "unlawful killing of another human with intent to do so"). Parcedon is suggesting that abortion is murder regardless of how many days, weeks or months the human life has been developing for.

 

 

 

(He may, however, be using "human being" too loosely.)

 

 

 

Which brings me to my next question: Parcedon, what is your stance on pregnancy due to rape?

 

 

 

Not to be rude, but who is Parcedon? :? My post wasn't really directed towards anyone in particular, just the whole pro-life argument altogether.

 

 

 

And I don't see how saying an abortion is killing isn't using the term loosely. You know what else is "killing"? Masturbation. Stepping on grass. Washing your hands. I acknowledge that it is killing, but I am arguing that it isn't an argument holding much weight in the debate, especially when trying to apply morality to it. I could say that conceiving a child also causes a death, but I think we both agree that, while technically true, the argument holds no weight whatsoever.

And I don't see how saying an abortion is killing isn't using the term loosely. You know what else is "killing"? Masturbation. Stepping on grass. Washing your hands.

 

This is a misrepresentation of pro-lifer's arguments. Very few argue against abortion on the sole grounds that you are "killing life." Rather, pro-lifers tend to see abortion as the unjustified killing of a legal person.

 

 

 

The debate here stems from one's interpretation of "personhood."

And I don't see how saying an abortion is killing isn't using the term loosely. You know what else is "killing"? Masturbation. Stepping on grass. Washing your hands.

 

This is a misrepresentation of pro-lifer's arguments. Very few argue against abortion on the sole grounds that you are "killing life." Rather, pro-lifers tend to see abortion as the unjustified killing of a legal person.

 

 

 

The debate here stems from one's interpretation of "personhood."

 

agreed, thats probably the best way of framing this also for the sake of uniformity regarding stuff like genetic research

Comrades, I feel the good debate flowing through this thread.

 

 

 

Goddess, any doctor who tells you that you are 100% from getting pregnant while engaging in intercourse is lying to you, and if that is what they said, than you were given the wrong information, but you yourself really should have known the risks for yourself by going to more than just a few sources (and using common sense. There's always risk factors in pretty much everything.)

 

 

 

As for...abstinence-only sex-ed? You're right. It's totally wrong. We need to teach more outside of abstinence, but it's also ridiculous to drop the idea of abstinence from sex ed. Encourage abstinence, teach alternatives. I mean, they are just children, but children can be brash and think that they know it all and go ahead and have sex anyway. It's their fault for ignoring their 'vows', and taking the risks, but they should at least know how to reduce the risks. I, of course, would hope that these people simply don't get pregnant, but aye, Comrade Warrior, that is a utopia we will never achieve.

 

 

 

Also, yes, the zygote contains plenty of cells that preform mitosis, all of them with the proper 46-chromosome nuclei, which makes them biologically human. It's just duplication of cells from that point, and the introduction of meiosis in which gametes (23-chromosome nuclei cells) are produces, and eventually determine the gender of the now-fetus. Life, no doubt, begins the second gamete and gamete meet (sperm and egg.)

 

 

 

Also, tangent, wouldn't an effective contraceptive be a device that sucks the egg out of the uterus before intercourse? Condoms, of course, break sometimes, but there is only one egg in the question. Is it still too far up the uterus when fertilization occurs?

 

 

 

Also, double-tangent, why can't the girls just say; 'I'm near or on my period, I don't think sex is safe now.' It's like, seriously, sperm die within 24 or so hours (or so I understand, please correct me if I'm wrong.) so if a woman has her period around the 12th each month, have sex on the 25th or so.

[hide=]

Comrades, I feel the good debate flowing through this thread.

 

 

 

Goddess, any doctor who tells you that you are 100% from getting pregnant while engaging in intercourse is lying to you, and if that is what they said, than you were given the wrong information, but you yourself really should have known the risks for yourself by going to more than just a few sources (and using common sense. There's always risk factors in pretty much everything.)

 

 

 

As for...abstinence-only sex-ed? You're right. It's totally wrong. We need to teach more outside of abstinence, but it's also ridiculous to drop the idea of abstinence from sex ed. Encourage abstinence, teach alternatives. I mean, they are just children, but children can be brash and think that they know it all and go ahead and have sex anyway. It's their fault for ignoring their 'vows', and taking the risks, but they should at least know how to reduce the risks. I, of course, would hope that these people simply don't get pregnant, but aye, Comrade Warrior, that is a utopia we will never achieve.

 

 

 

Also, yes, the zygote contains plenty of cells that preform mitosis, all of them with the proper 46-chromosome nuclei, which makes them biologically human. It's just duplication of cells from that point, and the introduction of meiosis in which gametes (23-chromosome nuclei cells) are produces, and eventually determine the gender of the now-fetus. Life, no doubt, begins the second gamete and gamete meet (sperm and egg.)

 

 

 

Also, tangent, wouldn't an effective contraceptive be a device that sucks the egg out of the uterus before intercourse? Condoms, of course, break sometimes, but there is only one egg in the question. Is it still too far up the uterus when fertilization occurs?

 

 

 

Also, double-tangent, why can't the girls just say; 'I'm near or on my period, I don't think sex is safe now.' It's like, seriously, sperm die within 24 or so hours (or so I understand, please correct me if I'm wrong.) so if a woman has her period around the 12th each month, have sex on the 25th or so.

[/hide]

 

 

 

attempting to match fertility cycles doesnt work, there is some logic behind it but its not nearly as effective as much better methods. If we want to get technical there is surgery to make someone 100% steril but thats a fairly extreme measure.

Yes...tube-tying and testi-snipping. Most unpleasent.

 

 

 

But it was an honest question. I, seriously, didn't know. :|

Yes...tube-tying and testi-snipping. Most unpleasent.

 

 

 

But it was an honest question. I, seriously, didn't know. :|

 

 

 

I know, I mean it does sound like a great idea but even ignoring that, to say try to only have sex on interval y of the week seems like it would be rather infeasible.

I would like to make a motion.

 

 

 

And I don't see how saying an abortion is killing isn't using the term loosely. You know what else is "killing"? Masturbation. Stepping on grass. Washing your hands.

 

This is a misrepresentation of pro-lifer's arguments. Very few argue against abortion on the sole grounds that you are "killing life." Rather, pro-lifers tend to see abortion as the unjustified killing of a legal person.

 

 

 

The debate here stems from one's interpretation of "personhood."

 

 

 

The fact that you are killing a fetus shouldn't be used in an a argument of morality because one's interpretation of personhood is nothing more than that - an interpretation. This is the very reason I said it was a loose application. I was not arguing the definition of the word "kill" but instead, the context in which it is used and if the argument should be taken into consideration or not. That only happened because you said that conceiving a person is not killing, but by definition, it is.

Stupid 4chan doesn't keep it's gif's up for very long.

 

 

 

Thread is dying. :o

I don't take a stance on abortion, both sides have to many good points -.-