Abortion

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I DID read your post, but sadly find it irrelevant.

[b]Immoral- does not automatically equal Evil. Immoral , in my version of the word, just means bad, you are using the word out of religious context. In religion, immorality is Sin, and every sin is equal to another.

It's a very black and white way of thinking, not the mentality I share on the matter.

Immorality ranges from bad to evil. You have disregarded the point I made about the fist/knife example, which is your right to do so. However, u fail to realize that I was specifically answering YOU with that point, and if you feel my stance is once again mistaken, then ultamately there is nothing more I can do for you on that matter. 😉 [/B]

Um, I'm not religious, and I doubt that the 5 dictionaries I've checked through aren't either.

Immoral means that it is violating the principles of right and wrong.
Evil means being morally wrong.
The terms are synonymous.

So basically, you're accusing not only myself, but also the probably hundreds of people who worked on creating neutral definitions, heavily religious and wrong.

What makes you the master of English definitions, oh Holier than Thou?

Your example makes no sense whatsoever. Maliciously punching someone isn't evil?

You see, the person here who is affected by "religious definitions of evil" is you. Because you've been told over and over again that killing is wrong, you immediately classify that as the greatest evil. I won't argue the point on that, but I would advise you to think about your own flawed definitions before tossing out accusations of inaccuracy around.

In fact, I seem to recall you tossing around the phrase "abortion is the lesser of two evils" around before...

And you still haven't read my entire previous post.

kill all babies, humans are the problem so u kill'em all, u'll see how earth will get better.

A question: Women are able to avoid motherhood by aborting, even though their partner may be more than willing to help raise the child.

My question is, if women can avoid becoming mothers through abortion, should men be able to avoid fatherhood by leaving their pregnant girlfriends and refusing to pay child support?

To me, it sounds fair. Why should a man pay for a child he never wanted? I think it is somewhat a double standard, as men who don't pay child suport are labelled 'deadbeat dads' and the woman who has an abortion is not labelled selfish, a whore, anything.

What do you think?

no abortion for me. and i don't have to explain. that's just my choice.

Originally posted by autumn dreams

My question is, if women can avoid becoming mothers through abortion, should men be able to avoid fatherhood by leaving their pregnant girlfriends and refusing to pay child support?

Let’s say the girl and guy find out she’s pregnant and they decide to keep the child.

Five months later the guy walks out on her (Hey, maybe he's a good Christian and follows Mark 10:29-30???), and she does not want to be a single parent but now she’s past the legal abortion time. NOW what?

If she doesn't want to be a single parent and it is past the point of no return have it then put it up for adoption.

Originally posted by RedSkull
Have it and put it up for adoption if she doesn't want it. Or try to talk the guy into coming back/staying.

Or abortion if she doesn't want adoption.

-AC

Originally posted by The Omega
Let’s say the girl and guy find out she’s pregnant and they decide to keep the child.

Five months later the guy walks out on her (Hey, maybe he's a good Christian and follows Mark 10:29-30???), and she does not want to be a single parent [b]but now she’s past the legal abortion time. NOW what? [/B]

She is past abortion though so I would say have the child then do everything she can to find it a good home.

Originally posted by The Omega
Let’s say the girl and guy find out she’s pregnant and they decide to keep the child.

Five months later the guy walks out on her (Hey, maybe he's a good Christian and follows Mark 10:29-30???), and she does not want to be a single parent but now she’s past the legal abortion time. NOW what?

OMG !

What ever is there to do now? Being a single mother is hopeless ! Women cannot raise children on thier own !!!! That's IMPOSSIBLE! That's unheard of !!!!!

Oh wait....NO IT's NOT..if her man leaves her, then he's a prick. Sue him for child support, and raise the child.

Otherwise give it up for adoption.

Or if all else fails, you can always return the baby to the store. 🙄 Or maybe if she pretends it's just a foetus, she might feel justification for killing it, but i duno.

Originally posted by Gay Guy
BUDDHA'S F*CKIN HAIRY GAY ASS MAN!! YOUR NOW OFFICIALLY RETARDED. READ THE F*CKIN CONDENSED VERSON OF THE BILL ABOVE MAN!!!

WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKING? 😮‍💨

GIVE ME SOME OF THAT SH*T WHEN YOU'RE DONE!!!

YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE THIS THICK.

As I said previously just posting the definition of the law does not equal the slightest bit of understanding. With every post you empathise this fact. As I have said: the law is constantly evolving - prior to this bit of legislation there was uncertainty regarding the status of the unborn in terms of criminal law - thus a law was created to deal with crime directed at directly or indirectly causing harm to an unborn. An unborn - as you so nicely highlighted and bolded and all that - an unborn is a different thing entirely to an infant, just as an infant is different from an unborn or teenager - the law is full of detail. It doesn't work on big, sweeping generalities (unlike a certain gay guy) - it defines and empathises variations. The act you think proves you point doesn't - it recognises that a crime can be committed against a child in utero - it doesn't simply tack onto the end of the violence against children act (or whatever the US has that serves in it's place), it actively is a different law that specifies crime against a specific stage of child development.

Just like euthanasia doesn't come under 1st degree murder - though people like you would bleat "ugggg - the doctor is killing the patent, that makes it murder, but it is ok for doctors to murder patents as long as it is legal" - I am sure I don't need to point out the stupidity of the argument (oops, just did!)

Teh LAW recognizes ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT IN UTERO as being A HOMOSAPIEN!! DO YOU KNOW WHAT A HOMOSAPIEN IS? IT'S A HUMAN BEING DUDE.

And that is a pointless definition - is a teenager an infant? Is an adult in utero or an infant? No - the law differentiates between age groups for a number of reason (which I will happily go into if you are to ignorant to know already) - what you are trying to do is group them together for the sake of your muck raking.

KILLLING a BUNCH OF PREGNANT CHICKS AT ANY STAGE OF THEIR PREGNANCY WOULD BE CONSIDERED INFANTICIDE!!!!

No, it wouldn't. It is a different crime entirely, and as well as this you are once against being idiotic. You are saying a women having an abortion is committing infanticide, which is different from someone killing a pregnant women (both of which are legally not infanticide).

THE LAW CONSIDERS THE CHILD TO BE A FULLY HOMO SAPIEN(HUMAN) REGARDLESS OF WHAT STAGE OF IFANCY THE CHILD IS IN!!!

Going of topic, the law considers it a crime to harm an unborn, though once again there is contention regarding the abortion window, as in terminological terms it is not a "child" - thus it is problematic argumentatively, and people have escaped prosecution on such arguments - if they can get a scientist to stand up in court and say "medically a foetus at 3 weeks is not a child" then it causes problems.

You can rant and rave on the point of "a child at any state of pregnancy" but since science is un certain about the qualification of the cells as child in the first couple of months it is a point of contention.

Any way as I said before I AGREE WITH YOU. YOU AND I have the SAME VIEW. WE're both SMART GUYS, AND REALIZE THAT KILLING THE UNBORN INFANT is the WOMAN'S CHOICE!!!

God damn it, that is the point "KILLING THE UNBORN INFANT" - it is a needlessly inciteful, and ultimately incorrect and ignorant way of putting it. It is not correct. You can post every bit of legislation in the US, and what you will be proving is that abortion is not "killing the unborn infant" - and saying it is, and trying to act proud about it, makes people from both sides of the line angry. It is the line used by the misguided "pro-life" lobby - "oh, they are murdering children", you will never here a true pro-choice lobbyiest say such a thing because it is scientifically and factually incorrect.

Which makes me believe, as I have said, that you are just trying to cause trouble by taking the misguided and inaccurate pro-life line and saying that is what pro-choice supporters believe. Once again - abortion is not infanticide, legally or otherwise. Murder is equally inaccurate.

And ANYONE who DISAGREES with US IS a RETARD, and NEEDS to PUT THEMSELVES IN THE SHOES of the POOR WOMEN WHO either FORGOT TO USE birth CONTROL, OR THE VERY FEW who ge RAPED AND want TO PROVE To teh WORLD THAT two WRONGS can MAKE EVERYTHING RIGHT!!!

No, anybody who disagrees is exercising their right to express their opinion. All I ask is that both sides avoid incorrect arguments, like the ones you are using. And as to your "two wrongs make everything right" - once again you are showing your true colours.

LIKE GHANDI SAID, AN EYE FOR AN EYE MAKES THE WHOLE WORLD BLIND, so what he meant WAS THAT if you GET RAPED/HURT/WHATEVER, HURT SOMEONE ELSE back, SO Then everyone AND EVERYTHING WILL be EQUAL AND BEETER again..

i'M DONE with this debate. HAVE A NICE DAY... 🙂

All I can say is that it is a good thing you are done, your act is as threadbare as your common sense. Claiming to be pro choice while using purposely inciteful inaccurate arguments and then saying something like "you GET RAPED/HURT/WHATEVER, HURT SOMEONE ELSE back" - shows that you have no respect for the argument, nor any understanding. You wish to make the pro-choice stance seem monstrous and criminal, and I believe that everyone here can see that is exactly what you are doing.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
As I said previously just posting the definition of the law does not equal the slightest bit of understanding. With every post you empathise this fact.

As much as I hate to agree with Gay Guy, it's quite apparent that only one of you has a limited understanding of what's being presented, and it definitely isn't him.

Let's refer back to the section d of the bill that Gay Guy posted.

(d) In this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'.

Take notice, that the law does not simply refer to the foetus as an unborn as you have put it, rather it refers to the foetus as an unborn child. This terminology is used to describe it throughout the bill.

To further illustrate that it recognizes the right to life of the foetus, the bill distinctly references it as an unborn child and a member of the species homo sapien. As anyone with just a smidgen of common sense knows, this would then clearly categorizes it as being fully human.

So Gay Guy is indeed correct, and you have proved yourself to be grossly ignorant of US law, and of definitions posted in English language dictionaries. His reference to abortion as a form of infanticide is a just one, seeing as how infancy is representative by the earliest stages of childhood, and the law clearly recognizes the unborn as being in this earliest stage, as well as clearly defines it to be a human within the bill.

[EDIT] I apologize for all of the italics, I just felt it necessary to emphasize the importance of the words and definitions being used, to ensure that you would have a good understanding of the arguments being presented.

Originally posted by Final Warrior
As much as I hate to agree with Gay Guy,

....that is, unless you are him, himself. 😉

Told you Fin never really means Fin.

Originally posted by botankus
Why would you hate to agree with Gay Guy? You just registered and know nothing about him.

Originally posted by botankus
....that is, unless you are him, himself. 😉

You just answered your own question.

Yeah, I pretty much figured it out by the time I finished my post, and I was too lazy to hit the delete button. I will have to admit, "Final Warrior" has got to be the best name yet, which...isn't saying much.

But PVS highly doubts it....he's the authority on whob....

Originally posted by RedSkull
If she doesn't want to be a single parent and it is past the point of no return have it then put it up for adoption.

This was not the point.
Autumn dreams asked "if women can avoid becoming mothers through abortion, should men be able to avoid fatherhood by leaving their pregnant girlfriends and refusing to pay child support?"

Initially this sounds like an idea. But my example shows, that unless pregnant couples start signing contracts we'll get in trouble. My example was a couple who got pregnant, and decided to keep the child together. Five months later the guy walks out and can sign off to pay child support. WOuld this be fair?

Imperial_Samurai> You're debating a Whob-sock. There is no point.

Originally posted by The Omega
Let’s say the girl and guy find out she’s pregnant and they decide to keep the child.

Five months later the guy walks out on her (Hey, maybe he's a good Christian and follows Mark 10:29-30???), and she does not want to be a single parent but now she’s past the legal abortion time. NOW what?

Lets say the guy and girl find out she's pregnant and she wants the baby, then five months later she turns around and gets rid of it, even though her boyfriend wanted it. Same thing.

If they guy leaves her, so be it. Give the baby up for adoption. I wouldn't support an abortion at 5 months, it would depend on the circumstances.

Originally posted by Final Warrior
As much as I hate to agree with Gay Guy, it's quite apparent that only one of you has a limited understanding of what's being presented, and it definitely isn't him.

Let's refer back to the section d of the bill that Gay Guy posted.

Hmmm, actually I think I have a fairly good grasp actually - during my final year of legal studies in High School I was required to do a major research assignment on the subject of the evolution of the law, and it's relationship with the people - we had to pick up a number of current events causing debate to highlight our arguments - one at the time being a man charged with manslaughter for harming a pregnant women within the three two month abortion period. Ultimately it is not clear cut.

Whob/Gay Guy has tried, for whatever sad reason, to make it appear that members of the pro-choice lobby believe that abortion is legal infanticide, and are happy with it. Final Warrior, I can say without a doubt that this is legally and scientifically absurd and completely incorrect.

Take notice, that the law does not simply refer to the foetus as an unborn as you have put it, rather it refers to the foetus as an unborn child. This terminology is used to describe it throughout the bill.

And the relevance of this? An unborn child is not an infant. An abortion does not, due to a number of things, fall under the unborn child violence act - except in still legally shaky cases where a a foetus has been lost due to the actions of another - and cases have occurred where a medical/scientific professional has been called to testify that in the first portion of the pregnancy the foetus is not medically an "unborn child"- thus causing conflict of definition.

To further illustrate that it recognizes the right to life of the foetus, the bill distinctly references it as an unborn child and a member of the species homo sapien. As anyone with just a smidgen of common sense knows, this would then clearly categorizes it as being fully human.

By that logic the bill would classify abortion as an act against an unborn child. It doesn't. Further more it is a different set of laws as to those that govern treatment of children from new born onwards. It is not infanticide.

So Gay Guy is indeed correct, and you have proved yourself to be grossly ignorant of US law, and of definitions posted in English language dictionaries. His reference to abortion as a form of infanticide is a just one, seeing as how infancy is representative by the earliest stages of childhood, and the law clearly recognizes the unborn as being in this earliest stage, as well as clearly defines it to be a human within the bill.

Actually I am showing a more in depth knowledge then Gay Guy/whob or you seem to be - taking a cut down definition of a law and taking it at face value in line with your own opinions.

Now I get to question your common sense. Abortion is not legally infanticide, and quoting an act which simply outlines the situations and legal process in regards to harm to unborn children does not instantly translate into proving that abortion is infanticide - rather it shows ignorance of where the law applies and how it is perceived. Just as with the euthanasia debate it is not applicable to include legislation regarding 1st degree murder. A, does not necessarily in law lead to b.

And as I have said, the law is constantly evolving, and people have used, successfully as a defense, the fact abortion can be carried out, and that it can be carried out because the initial phase of the pregnancy the foetus is not considered an "unborn child" or a child in utero - in certain legal terms. A man, who punched his wife in the stomach 3 weeks into the pregnancy, causing a miscarriage, can legally defend himself thus: it is legal to have an abortion in the three weeks, and abortion is legal as the foetus does not qualify as a child, and thus I have not committed a crime, other then assault, against a human being, and certainly not murder or manslaughter. And there is a good chance he can win - because the law has yet to come to terms with this in a sound fashion.

Go trawl some case law, and you will see and understand that law, any law is not a simple thing like you or gay guy are making out.

And gay guy can cherry pick web definitions all he likes - infancy/infant does not apply to an unborn child during gestation/pregnancy - it only applies from the moment of birth. But if you like I can post a couple of defs. based upon the defs in biological and medical text books? Would you like that?

infancy
Babyhood; the earliest period of extrauterine life; roughly, the first year of life.

From http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Infancy

By definition, infancy is the period of life between birth and the acquisition of language approximately one to two years later.

Well look at that. From the encyclopedia Britannica. Join the web site (or buy the encyclopedias like I did) to get the whole article.

Now the law expands upon these and changes them somewhat - infant refers almost exclusively to any person in the age category "minor" - that is the entire time from birth onwards before they become an adult, and has little to do with infanticide. Not really relevant then. However infanticide laws deal more with the biological definition= the UK infanticide act is applicable to parents who kill the infant in the primary period of infancy (I believe the first nine months of it's life, that is from the moment it is born up till it's ninth month in case you are confused.)

Imperial_Samurai> You're debating a Whob-sock. There is no point.

Yes, I know that is likely, still I got some basic enjoyment out of pulling apart his absurd arguments.

c'mon 400 pages!