PDA

View Full Version : What is Your View Regarding Abortion?



Pages : [1] 2

Blutwölfin
Wednesday, April 12th, 2006, 09:08 AM
What's your view regarding abortion? Pro? Contra? Depends? Has your view on this topic any connections with your faith?

Sigrid
Wednesday, April 12th, 2006, 01:09 PM
History of abortion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

This topic has become a pivot point in political movements of the extreme and/or religious right. For some it's a question of what God does not want and for others it's a question of some misguided idea that Hitler hated it. Hitler in fact thought it was fine for anyone who wasn't his version of "Aryan". Hitler was a man with a mission and that mission had nothing to do with God or ethics, but was purely eugenic and racial. I have encountered some extremist folk from political, Christian and Heathen persuasions who have decidedly archaic views on both contraception and abortion. I have left off this discussion after the sheer stupidity laced with Biblical chauvinism that ensued. There is no point in even trying to discuss the matter with these people. Especially if you are a woman. The aggression isn't worth it and the insults make things worse. The high level of ignorance and superstition, of fear and intolerance compounds the issue.

Abortion has been a human practice among all kinds of people since the earliest times. Nature practises it too when conditions are not normal in the womb. Only when nature does it it's called a miscarriage, or a "spontaneous abortion".

Unwanted children are those who have not been planned. They tend to occur today among first world populations only when contraception fails. There is an increasing number that occur because first world women are falling into ignorance and alcoholism (because socialism itself is failing to educate them) and becoming pregnant without recourse to preventative methods. Their options are an abortion morning after pill or a full abortion of the foetus at various stages up to a certain cut off period, as we all know.

The issue is a tricky one for moralists but not for pragmatists. The tax payer should not have to be burdened with both his own financial contributions as well as contributions to support the world's unwanted flotsam. Added to this it should be borne in mind that to pontifiacte upon people who are forced to do is not the province of anyone who has never found him or herself in a similar predicament. Some people just cannot have the children they have conceived and if these were to be born they would face almost certain neglect. It is not wonderful simply to be alive. It is wonderful to be alive and be significant enough to have a place and destiny and enough food to get through each day, not to have to live in a filthy apartment sixty floors up nor spend your life watching your junkie single mother shoot up and sleep with strangers to pay the rent and support your other ten brothers and sisters who where all conceived in the same way you were. Single parenthood should be discouraged. Families are the best way to bring up children.

However that is all well and good in la-la land where everything goes right, but in the real world which is harsh and cruel and where survival often hangs by a thread one must be realistic.

Many right wing politicians have a one sided view of abortion. Usually you find males pontificating on the topic of what evil "selfish" people women are who have abortions and how they only have them because they "want careers", etc. This I find banal, stupid, ignorant and unacceptable. With the result that I cannot support their dumb political parties no matter how much I perhaps should in the long run. In the short run I get tripped up by things that serve as warnings about what kind of world and society these overtly Biblical individuals and their troops want for those of us who end up on the wrong side of failed contraception or failure to practise it.

I have never had an abortion but that doesn't mean I do not sympathise with women who had found it necessary. It is a terrible thing to willfully murder your own unborn child and I don't think it's necessary to vilify these people. They have their own demons to fight and as time goes on they often feel extremely unhappy about what they had to do.

People should be mature and look at it this way. We now live in a promiscuous society. Boys hardly old enough to wear long pants are having sex with girls hardly old enough to have stopped playing with dolls. Adolescents now engage in sexuality that is really only suitable for people aged over eighteen. People drink enormous amounts of alcohol and are often not in any condition to know where they were or with whom when these pregnancies happen. Drug use has a similar result. So unless we drastically change our behaviour these abortions will not only be necessary they will be essential or society will burst at the seams with the results of indiscriminate reproduction and many deeply unhappy offspring, dependent on welfare or growing up without the benefit of nuclear families.

If men would like women to stop aborting so many foetuses then they must understand that their own sexual behaviour is fostering the entire process. They wouldn't for a moment want to stop sleeping around with people they hardly know. This has become a sort of cultural practise. But if they were asked to help look after and financially support every single one of these unplanned offspring they would end up being fathers many times over to people they have no bond with and whose mothers they have no feelings for.

The whole abortion issue needs to be approached from a realistic angle. Or people could mind their own business and stop trying to direct the lives of women when they have no real interest in either women or their unwanted offspring but are simply jumping on a misogyny bandwagon fuelled by copious quantities of hypocrisy and archaic religious moral injunction.

Every child born planned, wanted and to two responsible parents is worth more than all the foetuses you could flush down the drain in a million years. Many babies are still being born and to those who cannot have children there could be institutions who agreed to support mothers who wanted to give their babies up for adoption. The rest of the badly bred horde will definitely not be missed. And none of them would thank you for saving them if all they did was end up in some backstreet or a terrible housing estate with a bunch of crackheads for parents and a horde of aggressive immigrants for companions. Often abortion can be a smart move and the girl, having learnt from her mistake can go on to have children who are wanted and well cared for with someone who isn't going to abandon her.

Gorm the Old
Wednesday, April 12th, 2006, 03:25 PM
Abortion is murder. The argument over just when the foetus becomes a human being will never be resolved. I base my view of it on genetics. At conception, the genetic basis of the human being is established. From then on, it is just a matter of development. Abortion prevents the existence of a human being. This is a much more momentous matter than getting rid of an annoying growth in the uterus. This story may be apocryphal, but the point is valid. At a meeting of cardinals in Rome to discuss the issue of abortion, one is said to have remarked "If abortion had been legal 70 years ago, how many of us would be here discussing it today ?" Think about that. Unwanted children have gorwn up to be great men and women. Of course, some have grown up to be criminals. The same is equally true of wanted children. There are people living and dead whom we might well wish had been aborted as foetuses , but we can never know which aborted foetuses might have grown up to be a boon to mankind. If abortion had been legal 76 years ago, I would not be writing this letter. I WOULD NOT EXIST ! Admittedly, this fact colors my view of abortion. I would say to any woman who could otherwise bear the child and put it up for adoption if she did not wish to rear it, but chooses to abort the foetus " THINK of what you are doing ! You are willfully destroying a human being. " Even if the child is conceived by rape, can that fact possibly justify denying it the right to exist ?

Sigrid
Wednesday, April 12th, 2006, 04:54 PM
Yes, I can justify it. I would point blank refuse to carry the child of a rapist. If society took that right from me then they may as well set the rapist free.

juno
Wednesday, April 12th, 2006, 06:15 PM
there are so many things that you can use , so you dont have to get pregnant..
and i'm also a big believer in:: start with sex when your in a serieus relationship, and dont sleep around..
so many girls my age already have kids, not that that's a bad thing but they dont have a father figur for the child.
girls of 20 years want to party, and not be stuck in a relationship..
so for some girls abortion is a way out.
but íf i got pregnant abortion is not an option, if it's under normal surcumstances that is.
i dont know what i will do if its becouse i got raped..

i see a child as a blessing, and not a toy that one day is fun to have and after that you can put it in the trash.
you have to be sure you can handle it.
it make's 2 people to make a child, and also 2 people to rais it.
my mom did it al by her self she left my dad when i was 5.
my dad has 2 younger children with a new wife and i get really sad when i see him and those kids.
i understand better now that i really missed a dad in my life when i was growing up.

Sigrid
Wednesday, April 12th, 2006, 07:57 PM
Juno you've made such a very valid point in that men are very important in this equation. Maybe one day you can find one who gives you what you always missed through giving it to your kids. Good luck. You deserve a happy marriage and a nice family with an attitude like that. ;) These things are very simple to achieve and maintain but they require maturity and discipline and commitment from both sides. Maybe the people who know what it's like not to have families will appreciate them when they do. I lost my mother at eight and had a series of step families that were a disaster. I know how you feel. Life can be really crap but only until you can get control of it, then you can get a chance to make the decisions, but only if your partner is there with you. If not the whole thing repeats itself through the kids. People don't choose carefuly enough.

freya3
Wednesday, April 12th, 2006, 08:40 PM
This is a subject very close to me. I was adopted as a baby to 2 wonderful, loving parents. My birth mother was 15 when she had me and my birth father was only 17. I see her as a very strong individual, even though I have never met her. I owe her so much for the gift of life that she gave me. So, I take that and try to live out my life as best as I can to thank her for the opportunity.

On this subject, I do feel that it is a personal one. Extenuating circumstances such as if there is something major wrong w/the baby or if demise to 1 or both mother and baby are involved, then abortion may need to be indicated. I, however, do not condone abortion as a means of birth control. Especially nowadays with everything on the market. Besides, we need to PROCREATE(but in saying that, I know only the idiots of the world will comply ;))!

Being a parent is the most wonderful, tiring, difficult, rewarding job I could have ever asked for. When my daughter smiles at me, it melts me. When she hugs me, I get choked up. There is NO feeling like it in the world.

Weg
Friday, April 14th, 2006, 03:04 PM
No matter what you say, abortion is a murder (even Romans gave the child to born a statute, it's not a new thing : it's alive); if it's too hard to use condom, you ladies keep your legs crossed and you guys keep your wienner closed. If pregnancy happens, be consequent.

Women who abort contibute to the genocide of their people. Abortion add to low birthrate are leading to the extinction of European peoples. It is being a massive collective suicide and I'm not too fond of people who promote abortion, try to justify it and give credit to such arguments (jews -abortion laws here were voted thanks to a feminist jewess-, hardcore feminists, lefties, liberals, etc.)... They are all enemies of my kin, if you side with them, well...

In our current situation I still don't understand how can some people of our side (supposedly) approve it; life is a serious matter, it's no game. We are bound to disappear if nothing happens and some people still feed the propaganda of our butchers, the ones who are killing our races... There's something wrong with such people...

I'd only advise abortion in case of genetic diseases (such a burden for both parents and Society) or rape (for all I know, cases of pregnancy after a rape are extremly rare, though).


Abortion is a personal matter and so neither moral nor amoral

Bloody lefty feminist argument.

No, it's not a personal matter; we all have duty towards our community, our people, our nation and mothers have duty towards the child they are expecting (provided it is healthy). There is nothing personal in this matter, for when you abort you harm people and Society.

Frostwood
Friday, April 14th, 2006, 04:15 PM
First, abortion isn't the problem. As much as one would like to blame some external or inanimate factor for the demise of our people, unfortunately they are really wading in a bog of symptoms while searching for that grove which bears the cause itself. I find it rather dubious to think that by allowing every child conceived by random after-party "adventures" we would be somehow better off, as we would have more children then. Yes, perhaps more, but do we want more broken people; people without a sufficient, loving family to bring them up? On the other hand, by banning abortion - except in cases of genetical defects etc., of course - the society may influence the attitudes of people and veer them from being so overtly individualistic pleasure slaves (although still resulting in more unwanted and accidental babies at least for some time: it's unavoidable considering the attitudes of contemporary times). Anyway, I think the question of abortion requires striking at the heart of the contemporary decadence: the individualist soul that has long since separated itself from its surroundings to escape into its own private ego-worship. More people won't magically make that ugly reality go away.

As for human rights, well... Frankly, I find that concept to be just another facet of Christianity, which deems everyone equal and while it cannot actualize that dream, it hands us equal rights so that we are the same in a metaphysical sense. Thus, the concept of human rights is a linear truth, apparently directly colliding with reality, and if being sincere with your perceptions of the external world is the aim, it would be quite foolish to constantly bang one's head on the wall all the time, no?

All in all, I propose a holistic view on the modern society instead of clinging on token issues: view abortion as a tool instead of some decisive moral issue of utmost importance that alone bears the future upon its shoulders.

Sigrid
Friday, April 14th, 2006, 04:54 PM
Agree with Frostwood. Thank you Frostwood for existing. :peck:

Alizon Device
Friday, April 14th, 2006, 07:18 PM
I think abortion is a woman's prerogative until the foetus is viable outside the womb.

Weg
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 05:59 AM
I didn't say it's the problem, but it's part of the problem. What do you call more than 250.000 abortions a year for 30 years (more than 7.500.000 in 30 years)? These are only French abortion figures. I call that an issue of importance... Wow, where are you all living? F/ck, read statistics man... Some people should land time to time. :doh

Yeah, abortion laws are good, no wonder why jews voted them. And they certainly have only but good intentions in mind. :rolleyes: Let your people die in your homeland, it's up to you. I consider abortion, practiced on such a large scale, wrong in mine, given we are being wiped out of existence by arabo-negroid hordes who, them, don't practice abortion, that's about it. I'm being practical here, and I'm not playing Mr smart-ass pseudo-philosopher : "So, is abortion morally wrong? Blah, blah blah"... We are facing extinction. It's about time to react, leave your forests for a second. Put the religious problem aside, that's nothing to do with xianism or heathenism. It's about survival.

I don't give a sh!t about pro-life xians moral, those fanatics are opposed to abortion even in case of malformation or mental retardness. Let they be happy with their trisomic offsprings all they wish. As for me, if I obviously value life, I also value quality life (ie, I don't value any life forms), it doesn't mean we'd let our women (French ones, the others' womb are yours) abort for a yes or a no.

Frostwood
Monday, April 17th, 2006, 03:28 PM
I didn't say it's the problem, but it's part of the problem. What do you call more than 250.000 abortions a year for 30 years (more than 7.500.000 in 30 years)?

Well then, would France be grateful for those annual 250,000 people now? How many of them would end up as stable citizens unifying the nation, like those blooms of the smallest unit of society, the family, mostly do - instead of just ending up as fragments of an collapsed society?


Yeah, abortion laws are good, no wonder why jews voted them. And they certainly have only but good intentions in mind. :rolleyes:

Jews this, jews that. Anything touched by jews, or even if only being in same sentence with the word "jew," is condemned to be filthy and beyond redemption for all eternity, is it? Abortion is a tool, and it can be used to both preserve and destroy. How it is used depends on the wielder. As harmful as the Jewish mode of thinking is, I still wouldn't define our stance to whatever concepts or ideas solely by the Jew's use of them.


Let your people die in your homeland, it's up to you. I consider abortion, practiced on such a large scale, wrong in mine, given we are being wiped out of existence by arabo-negroid hordes who, them, don't practice abortion, that's about it. I'm being practical here, and I'm not playing Mr smart-ass pseudo-philosopher : "So, is abortion morally wrong? Blah, blah blah"... We are facing extinction. It's about time to react, leave your forests for a second. Put the religious problem aside, that's nothing to do with xianism or heathenism. It's about survival.

I don't see how more individuals of inadequate upbringing could benefit a nation in its struggle against external forces, as its precisely the horde of separate individuals that brought Europe to its knees, and vulnerable to attack, in the first place. Unless you are thinking of some final, decisive battle, where everyone will gather either under the banner of the West or the crescent moon and then those two armies, white and brown, would clash against each other - then the raising of quantity over quality would work. But, I must say I don't find that thought very feasible. No matter how many individuals we breed, they are still detached, condemned to drift on their own ways without any actual group cohesion. A mass of individuals is like a pack of chickens: the idle clucking turns into total hysteria, relentless beating of wings and running around screaming, when a predator suddenly leaps amidst them.

Sincerely,
Mr. Smartass pseudo-philosopher

Weg
Monday, April 17th, 2006, 08:48 PM
Finally, I agree. Abortion should be made mandatory for some women... The ones who give birth to people who don't understand that their own people is being murdered and even approve it... :thumbsdow


Sincerely,
Mr. Smartass pseudo-philosopher

Well, at least you've a sense of humour...

Mead Devourer
Tuesday, April 18th, 2006, 02:49 AM
Im all for it, this planet is overpopulated as it is.

Weg
Tuesday, April 18th, 2006, 02:08 PM
This planet is overpopulated by Asians and Africans, not by Europeans. Abortion is mainly (over) practiced in wealthy and developped countries (inhabited by Europeans for most of them).



Im all for it, this planet is overpopulated as it is.

Even for your own people?...

Ewergrin
Tuesday, April 18th, 2006, 03:41 PM
My own view:

Unless the child is a byproduct of rape, or it has been determined that the child will be physically or mentally disabled, abortion is murder.

Abortion as a means of population control? You've got to be kidding me. Instead of killing babies, perhaps we should be putting bullets through the heads of the irresponsible, selfish people who practice such barbarianism?

nordicdusk
Tuesday, April 18th, 2006, 11:29 PM
My own view:

Unless the child is a byproduct of rape, or it has been determined that the child will be physically or mentally disabled, abortion is murder.

Abortion as a means of population control? You've got to be kidding me. Instead of killing babies, perhaps we should be putting bullets through the heads of the irresponsible, selfish people who practice such barbarianism?
I have to agree 100% here.Why should a women be forced to carry a child as a result of rape.How would a mother look upon a child which had come about this way the risk of bitterness is too great and would be no ideal start to a childs life.As for population control thats a shocking view.

Weg
Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 03:41 AM
Well then, would France be grateful for those annual 250,000 people now? How many of them would end up as stable citizens unifying the nation, like those blooms of the smallest unit of society, the family, mostly do - instead of just ending up as fragments of an collapsed society?

And how many great people have been killed for good in an arbitrary way since the begining? And what about the loss of generations? The unborn babies who didn't give birth to any heir and so one... No wonder why the young aliens account for more than 1/4 of the total young people population here.


Jews this, jews that. Anything touched by jews, or even if only being in same sentence with the word "jew," is condemned to be filthy and beyond redemption for all eternity, is it?

Redemption for all eternity... Hmm, sorry I don't believe in such things. On the other hand, I do believe anything touched by the members of the tribe is filthy. You don't? Xians have many faults but at least they recognise it, while many heathens have a propensity to minimise their influence in the fall of the "West" (a term I usually don't use for I dislike it).

Authentic Pagans' view on abortion :

The Hammourabi's code (XVIIIth c. BC) sanctions abortion. And the Hippocratic Oath(IVth c. BC) says :


I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

So much for anti-abortion laws being a xian thing... :rolleyes:


Abortion is a tool, and it can be used to both preserve and destroy. How it is used depends on the wielder.

This is what a 12 weeks (14 weeks of amenorrhoea) foetus looks like, and 12 weeks is the limit of abortion in France and various European countries (including Finland).

http://i3.tinypic.com/vxbs7m.jpghttp://i3.tinypic.com/vx2sg7.jpg

It's 16 weeks in Sweden.

http://i3.tinypic.com/vxbsew.jpg

20 to 22 weeks in the Netherlands

http://i3.tinypic.com/vxbsjq.jpghttp://i3.tinypic.com/vxbsp2.jpg

The embryo'sheart beats regularly between 4 and 7 weeks if I'm not mistaken. So no doubt that it's a murder.

For decades, we have not seen abortion used to "preserve", quite the contrary. It is not used in an eugenic purpose but to destroy Europe's biological substance, nothing less.


As harmful as the Jewish mode of thinking is, I still wouldn't define our stance to whatever concepts or ideas solely by the Jew's use of them.


I think we should. The people who has been preserved is the one who forbids abortion for its own women but gives it possible for ours.


I don't see how more individuals of inadequate upbringing could benefit a nation in its struggle against external forces, as its precisely the horde of separate individuals that brought Europe to its knees, and vulnerable to attack, in the first place.

Do you worry about your country's lowbirth rate? What do you exactly care about? Are you waiting for Ragnarok by chance? This is the end? Wait and see?...


Unless you are thinking of some final, decisive battle, where everyone will gather either under the banner of the West or the crescent moon and then those two armies, white and brown, would clash against each other - then the raising of quantity over quality would work.

The battle has already started for decades. It is called : "immigration invasion". We are not in the Middle Ages any more, there are other forms of battles. War is everyday and its battle fields are our streets, schools, ... and overall our maternities. That's why I believe the more we are, the better it is. Like Habib Bourguiba said, they are actually conquering us thanks the womb of their women (and sadly, even with ours now : racial mixing). So for the moment keep your swords in their sleeve, it's a demographic war.

Do you really think abortion is helping us in gaining quality over quantity? Think about this. And what if potential genius, inventors, artists, leaders, great warriors, heroes had been aborted?...


But, I must say I don't find that thought very feasible. No matter how many individuals we breed, they are still detached, condemned to drift on their own ways without any actual group cohesion. A mass of individuals is like a pack of chickens: the idle clucking turns into total hysteria, relentless beating of wings and running around screaming, when a predator suddenly leaps amidst them.


People shall no longer stay in apathy and shall join a natural side gradually after they have encoutered difficulties, especially economicals. For the moment, their belly is too full but many begin to realize some things. The better is yet to come. I don't believe they won't react when most of them will feel directly threatened.

Sigurd
Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 09:24 PM
Agree with Frostwood. Thank you Frostwood for existing. :peck:

So 'tis, Frosty is a man of great-thoughts, despite his literally block-headed avatar. ;)

Sigrid
Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 06:11 AM
That block-headed avatar is an inspiration. It is the Nordic equivalent of the ancient Greek Thinker.

Frostwood
Sunday, April 23rd, 2006, 05:23 PM
And how many great people have been killed for good in an arbitrary way since the begining? And what about the loss of generations? The unborn babies who didn't give birth to any heir and so one... No wonder why the young aliens account for more than 1/4 of the total young people population here.

There may have been potentially great people killed, but would they have compensated the broken people resulting from children born to unstable conditions - think of the situations abortions are had in? Would a couple that chooses abortion be able to provide a healthy upbringing anyway? I find it doubtful, since it hints of having higher priorities than ensuring a prospering future for one's own blood. Few kings rise from chaotic swarms...


Redemption for all eternity... Hmm, sorry I don't believe in such things. On the other hand, I do believe anything touched by the members of the tribe is filthy. You don't? Xians have many faults but at least they recognise it, while many heathens have a propensity to minimise their influence in the fall of the "West" (a term I usually don't use for I dislike it).

No, I don't believe in simple juxtaposition in means of finding a solution for us. I find it much more feasible to examine the world without some rigid absolutes in mind, such as "Jews are eternally evil."


So much for anti-abortion laws being a xian thing... :rolleyes:

Thank you for enlightening me. It seems other religions too share the fixation on the absolute value of human life of Christianity, or exoteric Christianity, to be exact. Christianity is just the closest example of such behaviour nowadays, which is why I used it.


The embryo'sheart beats regularly between 4 and 7 weeks if I'm not mistaken. So no doubt that it's a murder.

And? Are you proposing some kind of an indisputable right to live?


For decades, we have not seen abortion used to "preserve", quite the contrary. It is not used in an eugenic purpose but to destroy Europe's biological substance, nothing less.

Well, to that I'd say that the tool has been applied the wrong way, then. Which doesn't mean that the tool must be slinged as far as possible into some remote lake, never to be found again.


I think we should. The people who has been preserved is the one who forbids abortion for its own women but gives it possible for ours.

Which doesn't mean that we should necessarily follow their example. They are a group of their own.


Do you worry about your country's lowbirth rate? What do you exactly care about? Are you waiting for Ragnarok by chance? This is the end? Wait and see?...

As long as there are effects of overcrowding, i.e. former idyllic towns turning into hivelike dens filled with bored, directionless faces, with an atmosphere that slowly chokes everything with its fingers of gray vapours, I don't really lose sleep over low birthrates. If one wants higher birthrates, people should be gotten interested in breeding, as simply banning abortions won't do much if there aren't that many fetuses to abort in the first place. Although I wonder how people trapped in cubicle existences are able to breed anyway, as it certainly doesn't seem like an optimal situation for having children, at least for me.

So it seems I'm just idly sitting and waiting for the firestorm to take my dreaming shape away when I'm not at streets bellowing against abortion, eh?


The battle has already started for decades. It is called : "immigration invasion". We are not in the Middle Ages any more, there are other forms of battles. War is everyday and its battle fields are our streets, schools, ... and overall our maternities. That's why I believe the more we are, the better it is. Like Habib Bourguiba said, they are actually conquering us thanks the womb of their women (and sadly, even with ours now : racial mixing). So for the moment keep your swords in their sleeve, it's a demographic war.

That is true. Still, I don't see how having a jumble of individuals helps us. Do you think race-mixers have a sense of belonging? I didn't think so either, so it would be logical to minimize the bond-shattering influences like unstable families.


Do you really think abortion is helping us in gaining quality over quantity? Think about this. And what if potential genius, inventors, artists, leaders, great warriors, heroes had been aborted?...

Yes, I do, for reasons stated in the beginning of this post.


People shall no longer stay in apathy and shall join a natural side gradually after they have encoutered difficulties, especially economicals. For the moment, their belly is too full but many begin to realize some things. The better is yet to come. I don't believe they won't react when most of them will feel directly threatened.

I hope you are right, but when I let my eyes wander at the present people, pessimistic emotions take ahold of me. People who don't have a sense of belonging in the first place; units dangling from their surroundings with a flimsy cord won't react before the s**t floods on their own yards: it's altogether fine for the average individual if streets are covered by sewage as long as his own lawn isn't covered by that waste!

All in all, what I'd like to know is how it would change the attitudes of people if a ban on abortion was suddenly put in action? Would there be a awakening of respect towards old family values, a mode of thinking that acknowledges family instead of individual as the smallest unit of society?

Ælfhere
Saturday, October 28th, 2006, 07:05 PM
About twelve years ago me and my girlfriend at the time got pregnant and decided to go with an abortion. At the time we were both somewhat nonchalant about it, both coming from families who were strongly pro-choice.

Around the time when my wife and I found out she was pregnant about two years ago I began to severely regret that decision. Now watching my daughter grow up and worrying about her occaisionally I regret it even more. I think my girlfriend and I should have went with adoption instead. I did an evil, heartless thing back then and will feel guilty about it for the rest of my life.

A quote from a page on Tyr from the Odinic Rite website:


The spirits of unborn children - 8 million in one recent decade in Great Britain alone - cry out to us from the sleepy mists of Niflheim that they who were torn from their mothers' bodies before that had the chance to live should not be unavenged. What "karmic debt" do we build up by neglecting our duty to avenge these wrongs?

Tennyson
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 05:34 PM
At present circumstances when birth rates are falling a ban on abortions is clearly in the interests of Germanic peoples. Also, the humanity of an unborn child is the only philosophically consistent position.

On the other hand, I doubt that mentally retarded people (even adults) can be considered moral subjects as their faculty of reasoning is comparable to that of great apes. Mandatory screenings and ensuing compulsory abortions should prevent the birth of those abominations.

If the mother is unable to raise the child because of her social circumstances she can give the child to adoption. It is surely a better alternative than a murder.

Æmeric
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 05:44 PM
In the US, non-Whites (both Negroes & Catholic Latinos) account for a disporportionate amount of the abortions, so a ban on abortions which just make the situation worst. Only a ban on elective abortions by White/Germanic women would be beneficial. Banning abortions would not necessasily increase the birthrate immediately, but it might make people less promiscuous & more sexually responsible, and long term it could lead to higher marriage rates & birthrates.

I'm opposed to compulsory abortions, but I do favor bribing people to have themselves sterilized by offering them cash payments to do so.

ladybright
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 05:47 PM
To quote what I said over at BuB.
' I have never liked the concept of abortion. However I do not have a significant problem with it before quickening.(when the fetus can be felt moving). I have always felt the the spirt of the aborted child/fetus is not damaged and returns again as another child. I am not sure when the spirt is in place. However I consider it appropriate to hold a ritual after either an abortion or misscarriage. To acknowledge the death of a person/potential person and the loss to the mother. Even if it is an abortion it is still a loss in my opinion.

Now the political-logistical. I support abortion at any stage in the pregnancy to protect the mother's life and health if necessary. I am a proponant of legal abortion, with either parental or judicial consent (In cases of incest or abused teenagers) if the woman is under 18. I have never had an abortion and have seen how it can emotionaly scar a woman. '

I think that motherhood should be praised as a good part of life and people should put their actions where they put their mouths. This is not intended as an arguement against you Tennyson. I just get pissed at people who protest at womens clinics but are not willing to adopt children or volunteer at orphanages or with childrens service agencies.

Tennyson
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 05:52 PM
In the US, non-Whites (both Negroes & Catholic Latinos) account for a disporportionate amount of the abortions, so a ban on abortions which just make the situation worst. Only a ban on elective abortions by White/Germanic women would be beneficial. Banning abortions would not necessasily increase the birthrate immediately, but it might make people less promiscuous & more sexually responsible, and long term it could lead to higher marriage rates & birthrates.
I'm opposed to compulsory abortions, but I do favor bribing people to have themselves sterilized by offering them cash payments to do so.
It is well documented that a ban on abortions increases fertility. When Ceausescu banned abortions in Romania fertility rates skyrocketed immediately.

It's true that the abortion is a method of fighting crime in the US because it decreases the birth rate of Negroes, however.

Would your view of suitable abortion policies be different in an overwhelmingly White European nation?

nätdeutsch
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 05:53 PM
Never.

Tennyson
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 05:55 PM
Never.
What about those cases when pregnancy endangers the life of the mother? The Catholic Church allows abortions in some of these cases as the death of the unborn child is regarded as an "unintended consequence" of a justifiable act.

Æmeric
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 05:59 PM
' I have never liked the concept of abortion. However I do not have a significant problem with it before quickening.(when the fetus can be felt moving).

I am doubtful of life beginning at conception. I think it is more serious to have an abortion after there is brain activity is detectable or there is a heartbeat.
But generally I am oppose to elective abortions (by elective, I mean abortions done for convience, not for health or because of rape) because I think they have had a negative effect on society. The risk of pregnancy forced people to control their sexual urges better. With the easy availibility of legal abortion, humans have become more irresponsible in matters pertaining to family formation. Many of the demographic & social problems facing Western societies started around the same time abortion became availible on demand.

Æmeric
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 06:08 PM
It is well documented that a ban on abortions increases fertility. When Ceausescu banned abortions in Romania fertility rates skyrocketed immediately.

It's true that the abortion is a method of fighting crime in the US because it decreases the birth rate of Negroes, however.

Would your view of suitable abortion policies be different in an overwhelmingly White European nation?

I don't know if Romania is a good example. Ceausescu also banned birthcontrol & the result was orphanages overflowing with unwanted children.

In a overwhelmingly White nation, I would be tempted to support a ban on elective abortions, not just to increase the birthrate but because as I stated in my previous post, I believe it would have a positive effect on the social behavior of the population leading to longterm benefits. But I believe a society that has a high rate of abortion is a sick society and banning abortions will not cure that society immediately as evident by the high numbers of abandon children in Ceausescu's Romania.

Tennyson
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 06:14 PM
I don't know if Romania is a good example. Ceausescu also banned birthcontrol & the result was orphanages overflowing with unwanted children.
In a overwhelmingly White nation, I would be tempted to support a ban on elective abortions, not just to increase the birthrate but because as I stated in my previous post, I believe it would have a positive effect on the social behavior of the population leading to longterm benefits. But I believe a society that has a high rate of abortion is a sick society and banning abortions will not cure that society immediately as evident by the high numbers of abandon children in Ceausescu's Romania.
In Ceausescu's Romania there were few people willing to adopt children but the situation is different today. There are many White couples who are unable to have a child and opt for adoption.

Unfortunately, there are very few White children available although people are even willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to have a child who looks even remotely like themselves. The market price of a White child is around $35 000.

The children abandoned by their mothers would be raised in good homes not in orphanages.

Kurtz
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 06:25 PM
Delicate question

It should be, at least, much more complicated than it is to have access to abortion. Moreover, I think the doctors should have the right to refuse to procede to an abortion. If a doctor sees a couple of healthy Europeans, aged 20 or 25, who are by no way poor or miserable, who want to use abortion as a mean to save money ("because having kids is so expensive":thumbdown ), he should have the power to ban abortion on this case. However, if he sees a poor black women with many children, abortion should be compulsory, or at least fairly encouraged.

Doctors should be the judges if an abortion is fair or useful. Mothers who want to be aborted should submit to a test to evaluate if the hypothetical abortion is fruitful to society.

We have to take note that abortion is a fast and simple operation, also relatively cheap. To practice abortion on selective cases can make the society as a whole save a lot of money.

ladybright
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 06:40 PM
A page of adoption resources and articles. Are you all tired of these links yet?http://www.vachss.com/help_text/adoption.html

In Ceausescu's Romania there were few people willing to adopt children but the situation is different today. There are many White couples who are unable to have a child and opt for adoption.
Unfortunately, there are very few White children available although people are even willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to have a child who looks even remotely like themselves. The market price of a White child is around $35 000.
The children abandoned by their mothers would be raised in good homes not in orphanages.
There are many babies (including white) that go unadopted and many more children who have been removed from the biological family and will probably never be adopted. :~(
People should check out the extra fetuses from fertility clincs if they want control over what color child and how they are treated in utero and after birth. Personally I consider it better to adopt a child that already exists that have one implanted even if it is your own sperm+egg. http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem10.htm http://adopting.adoption.com/child/embryo-adoption.html

Æmeric
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 06:45 PM
Doctors should be the judges if an abortion is fair or useful. Mothers who want to be aborted should submit to a test to evaluate if the hypothetical abortion is fruitful to society.


There are doctors in America who's primary practice is abortion. There is a stigma attached to abortion in America & those doctors who own & operate abortion clinics are generally very well off. So in America at least, doctors would not necessarily be the best judges of whether an abortion is necessary or not.

Kurtz
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 06:48 PM
There are doctors in America who's primary practice is abortion. There is a stigma attached to abortion in America & those doctors who own & operate abortion clinics are generally very well off. So in America at least, doctors would not necessarily be the best judges of whether an abortion is necessary or not.

In most European countries as well as Canada, health care system is not as privatized as in USA, if not 100% public. I had these systems in mind much more than the rather original american system

Æmeric
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 06:50 PM
In countries like Canada with universal healthcare, are doctors required to perform abortions if the patient asks for the procedure?

Tennyson
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 06:56 PM
In countries like Canada with universal healthcare, are doctors required to perform abortions if the patient asks for the procedure?
Probably they are not required to do so if their conscience objects to that. It is not difficult to arrange for another doctor to perform the procedure.

Kurtz
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 06:59 PM
In countries like Canada with universal healthcare, are doctors required to perform abortions if the patient asks for the procedure?

I bet yes. Nevertheless, if abortion is contrary to a doctor's moral, he probably work in a field which is not related in any way with abortion and will never lead him to practice one someday.

Æmeric
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 07:00 PM
There has been a recent issue in America concerning birthcontrol. Some pharmacists have been threaten with legal action for refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control, including the morning after pill, which some people view as being an abortion pill. The morning after pill use to be given to rape victims at hospitals but it is now availible at local pharmacies as another means of birth control.

Some states & local governments do not believe a pharmacist has the right to refuse to fill a prescription on moral grounds.

Γνώθι σεαυτόν
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 07:32 PM
First the "easy" (what a laugh concerning such a topic...) cases:

Abortion yes, if the mother's health is seriously endangered, if the mother is pregnant from a rapist or if the child will be disabled (though one could argue this already starts with glasses...I'd say if the person will never or only very late be able to live an autonomous life, autonomous from physic and psychic help and autonomous from material help/money).
Abortion must be heavily restricted, permission controlled.

But in general I'm against prenatal murder; life isn't anything "holy" or sth. like that, but it gets its value through its "framework" (family, friends, work, nation, etc.) and as long as there's no demographic problem (contrary to the status quo, too much young) nearly every life has a potential value for its framework and must hence get the chance to live.

Furthermore I think getting children means responsibility which makes people grow; the other way around I think many of today's abortions are products of the fun society, Nietzsche's "last people" (dunno the English term).

Anyway, I'm against too much scientific monitoring of unborn, it kills the nonrational and we would be but fools if we thought we'd foresee everything coming.

When does life start ? The latest point for that is when the mother feels her child, but I'm tried to say it's when there's heart- and brain-activity, so sth. is created which some people might call "soul", "being" or consciousness.

BTW as some mentioned it: I'm not too happy with adoption, though I prefer it to prenatal killings; it's the bloodline with all its aspects which gives identity and shouldn't be missing for the sake of children.
Of course I'd never say "You grow uo this child", but I wanted to mention my ideas about it. ;) It's not solving the problem of alienation from one's own blood (which is a topic of its own), it's just a little help.

Liberator Germaniae
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 07:34 PM
I am basically against abortion, but I feel that the poll should also have considered the option to forcefully end pregnancies of mothers who have fallen pregnant within racially incorrect relationships. There is nothing that I despise more than low-class `white´ mothers, black wanna-be asylum-seekers and their mixed-raced offspring with their woollen, frizzy-kind-of hair. They don´t deserve living! :thumbdown

Æmeric
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 07:47 PM
I am basically against abortion, but I feel that the poll should also have considered the option to forcefully end pregnancies of mothers who have fallen pregnant within racially incorrect relationships. There is nothing that I despise more than low-class `white´ mothers, black wanna-be asylum-seekers and their mixed-raced offspring with their woollen, frizzy-kind-of hair. They don´t deserve living! :thumbdown
In those cases, where White individuals are engaged in miscegenation, I would favor mandatory sterilization for both partners, as a means to avoid mixed-race children.

GreenHeart
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 08:06 PM
I don't think it's right, but there may be some exceptions.

kharas
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 08:23 PM
Never. Abortion is a worst crime than an homicide.

Enibas
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 08:33 PM
Abortion is always a catastrophe.
I am sure that no woman aborts unhesitatingly.
I am an opponent of abortion but there are 3 reasons for me that justify such a decision:

1. The life of the mother is in danger by the pregnancy.
2. The pregnancy results from a rape.
3. The child is heavy handicapped and the birth probably would not survive.

I´m very glad that all 3 reasons were never a problem for me amd my children.

Tennyson
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 08:39 PM
Abortion is always a catastrophe.
I am sure that no woman aborts unhesitatingly.
I am an opponent of abortion but there are 3 reasons for me that justify such a decision:
1. The life of the mother is in danger by the pregnancy.
2. The pregnancy results from a rape.
3. The child is heavy handicapped and the birth probably would not survive.
I´m very glad that all 3 reasons were never a problem for me amd my children.
Why do you think abortion is justified in the case of rape as you consider an unborn child already a person?

If a woman is raped and she still decides to give birth to the baby the child has certainly a same kind of right to live as other people.

Γνώθι σεαυτόν
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 09:11 PM
Why do you think abortion is justified in the case of rape as you consider an unborn child already a person?

If a woman is raped and she still decides to give birth to the baby the child has certainly a same kind of right to live as other people.

You wrote it yourself: it's justified then, it doesn't have to be so. I think in that case the mother (and if existing also her husband/friend) has to decide.

But the differences between a normal pregnancy and such a pregnancy are the mother-child-relationship and the family-child-relationship.
Getting pregnant should be the end of a long progress of love, family-planning and preparing the right setting for the child (not primarily financial though).
All this is at least endangered, if not destroyed by a rape.
What kind of start into life would that be for a child ? What if it wants to know its father ?

And I think as medical reasons can be an argument against giving birth psychic reasons can be too.

nätdeutsch
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 09:26 PM
What about those cases when pregnancy endangers the life of the mother? The Catholic Church allows abortions in some of these cases as the death of the unborn child is regarded as an "unintended consequence" of a justifiable act.
how often does this actually happen?

who says you cant just take the child out of the womb?

that's just as safe if not safer than sticking a razor into the uterus, or using a razor bladed vacuum....

Tennyson
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 09:26 PM
You wrote it yourself: it's justified then, it doesn't have to be so. I think in that case the mother (and if existing also her husband/friend) has to decide.
But the differences between a normal pregnancy and such a pregnancy are the mother-child-relationship and the family-child-relationship.
Getting pregnant should be the end of a long progress of love, family-planning and preparing the right setting for the child (not primarily financial though).
All this is at least endangered, if not destroyed by a rape.
What kind of start into life would that be for a child ? What if it wants to know its father ?
And I think as medical reasons can be an argument against giving birth psychic reasons can be too.
Some children are raised without love by abusive parents. I don't think that means that they lose their right to live. It isn't right to murder a person who was born as an unwanted baby or as the child of a rapist.

In the abortion debate there are too logical alternatives.

If you don't consider an unborn child a person then the mother has a right to choose what she does with her own body.

If you do consider an unborn child a person then the unborn child has same kind of basic rights as all other people. It would be no more justified to kill the unborn child than to kill an adult.

Tennyson
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 09:33 PM
how often does this actually happen?
who says you cant just take the child out of the womb?
that's just as safe if not safer than sticking a razor into the uterus, or using a razor bladed vacuum....
For example, the case of ectopic pregnancy occurs in about 1 per 4000 pregnancies. In that case abortion is considered moral by the Church.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c.htm

nätdeutsch
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 09:33 PM
What about those cases when pregnancy endangers the life of the mother? The Catholic Church allows abortions in some of these cases as the death of the unborn child is regarded as an "unintended consequence" of a justifiable act.
furthermore, I don't think that's the case:

"is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Evangelium Vitae 62). ~John Paul II

translation: Always wrong.

Tennyson
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 09:34 PM
furthermore, I don't think that's the case:

"is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Evangelium Vitae 62). ~John Paul II
translation: Always wrong.
See the link I provided

"There are certain medical procedures that a pregnant woman can undergo which, indirectly, result in the death of the embryo or fetus. Under some circumstances, the church regards these as a moral choice. These involve an ethical principle called "double effect." This is where an action that is directly undertaken for a moral reason has an unintended and unavoidable, second, indirect, and negative, effect. Perhaps the most common example is the administering a narcotic to ease the pain of a terminally-ill cancer patient. The medication will have the desired effect of alleviating pain. However, it also has the side effect of shortening life.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I, an action involving a double effect can be morally acceptable if four conditions are all met: That the negative effects are not sought, and all reasonable efforts are made to avoid them.
That the direct effect is positive.
That the negative effect is not made a means to obtain the positive effect.
That the positive effect is at least as important as the negative effect."

nätdeutsch
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 09:39 PM
See the link I provided
"There are certain medical procedures that a pregnant woman can undergo which, indirectly, result in the death of the embryo or fetus. Under some circumstances, the church regards these as a moral choice. These involve an ethical principle called "double effect." This is where an action that is directly undertaken for a moral reason has an unintended and unavoidable, second, indirect, and negative, effect. Perhaps the most common example is the administering a narcotic to ease the pain of a terminally-ill cancer patient. The medication will have the desired effect of alleviating pain. However, it also has the side effect of shortening life.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I, an action involving a double effect can be morally acceptable if four conditions are all met: That the negative effects are not sought, and all reasonable efforts are made to avoid them.
That the direct effect is positive.
That the negative effect is not made a means to obtain the positive effect.
That the positive effect is at least as important as the negative effect."


Interesting site, although it comes from the "tolerance" crowd:thumbdown ;)

I'd like to see some Papal comments on the scenarios listed.

ladybright
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 09:41 PM
This is a good discription of some of the points of view. I am concerned with the fetus/child's 'personhood' in proportion to its potential to survive outside the womb.
When does personhood begin? No consensus exists about when human life becomes a human person.
Human life can be defined as any living entity that contains human DNA. Thus, each adult or child skin cell, spermatozoa, a woman's ovum, a just-fertilized egg, a pre-embryo which consists of a group of identical stem cells, an embryo which consists of differentiated cells, a fetus, and a newborn are all forms of human life. But human life is not necessarily considered to be a human person by everyone.
bullet Most pro-choicers believe that the transition from human life to human personhood is achieved part way through pregnancy, or perhaps at birth. Thus, the value and status of an pre-embryo lies in its ability for future development into a human person, if it is given the proper environment. A pre-embryo is respected because of its future potential, but is not assigned the status of a human person at that stage. It is seen as one step beyond that of an ovum or spermatozoa towards personhood. Some view it as a collection of live, human cells containing human DNA -- much like a microscopic piece of adult skin.
People are not usually concerned about the loss human DNA posed by hundreds of thousands of spermatozoa in a single male ejaculation, or the rejection by the woman's body of an unfertilized egg approximately every four weeks. So also, many pro-choice person do not assign major importance to pre-embryos. The existence of hundreds of thousands of frozen pre-embryos in fertility clinics is thus of little concern to them -- at least in comparison to other moral issues such as sexism, racism, homophobia, child abuse, etc. I find it unsettling to go and intentionaly create life or potential life and then cast off the rest.When you get what you want. But then humans are selfish creatures.

bullet Pro-lifers generally regard the start of human personhood as occurring at or shortly after conception. A strict pro-life position would thus regard all of the following as possibly causing the murder of human person(s):
bullet Insertion of an Intra-Uterine Device (IUD). This generally prevents fertilization of ova, but can in some instances change the environment of the uterus to bar the "implantation of a fertilized egg." 1
bullet Emergency contraception (a.k.a. the Morning-After Pill) which generally prevents ovulation or conception. In rare instances, it can prevent the implantation of an already-fertilized egg.
bullet Medically induced abortions, Vacuum aspiration abortions, surgical abortions, and RU-486, a abortifacient medication.
bullet Discarding unwanted, "surplus" pre-embryos in fertility clinics, and allowing them to die.
bullet Harvesting the stem cells from a pre-embryo, and thus causing its death.
Many pro-lifers look at the inventory of frozen embryos in a fertility clinic as a potential adoption facility. Some would view the harvesting of stem cells as ethically equivalent to Nazi medical experimentations during the Holocaust. http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem10.htm

Boche
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 09:50 PM
If the children has a extreme disease like Alobar Holoprosencephaly, Arthogryposis, The Harlequin Syndrome, The Nager Syndrome or Trisomy etc. then it's justified to give that poor living no Life, since it will live in pain and die within a few weeks or months anyway.

The Pictures might be disturbing for some:

Acardia Triplette:

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/2...riplet4kf2.jpg (http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/2078/acardiactriplet4kf2.jpg)

Alobarholo-Senziphaly:

http://img438.imageshack.us/img438/6...cephalykm0.jpg (http://img438.imageshack.us/img438/6633/alobarholoprosencephalykm0.jpg)

Arthrogryposis:

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/3...yposis4xo9.jpg (http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/381/arthrogryposis4xo9.jpg)

Harlequin Syndrome:

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/1...ects025re6.jpg (http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/1007/iraqbirthdefects025re6.jpg)

Treacher Collins Syndrome:

http://img427.imageshack.us/img427/6...annaat2bm4.jpg (http://img427.imageshack.us/img427/6763/juliannaat2bm4.jpg)

Trisomy + Sacroccocy

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/4...rococcyxv0.jpg (http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/4964/trisomy13withsacrococcyxv0.jpg)

Acrania:

http://img427.imageshack.us/img427/3...iaandmedj0.jpg (http://img427.imageshack.us/img427/3483/raquisquiseacraniaandmedj0.jpg)

Extreme Deformation:

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/4...trice03bb6.jpg (http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/4444/beatrice03bb6.jpg)

Lymphangioma + Haemangiso

http://img427.imageshack.us/img427/7...aemangiso8.jpg (http://img427.imageshack.us/img427/7613/lymphangiomaandhaemangiso8.jpg)


Besides that if the children will be healthy, and there aint any other problem which would be damaging, the child has to be born.
Because... If you can f*ck, you also can live with the "Results". ;)


Also i can't understand the probably sadistic people here who voted for "Abortion is always wrong."
So you support it when a child has some deadly and painful disease to let it live for more 2 months and let it die out of pure suffering?
If you support this, then you're sick.



Gruß,
Svartr

Tennyson
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 09:52 PM
Interesting site, although it comes from the "tolerance" crowd:thumbdown ;)
I'd like to see some Papal comments on the scenarios listed.
The US conference of Catholic bishops has approved those principles.


Moral Principles

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the lives of both the mother and child are placed at risk. The moral teachings of the Church call for medical treatment that respects the lives of both. Most recently, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reiterated these principles: In the case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion. 2 Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child. 3 On one hand, there can be no direct attack on the child (direct abortion) to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, the life of the mother is equally valuable and she must receive appropriate treatment. It might be that the only available remedy saves the life of the mother but, while not a direct abortion, brings about the unintended effect of the death of the child. Morally speaking, in saving the life of the mother, the Church accepts that the child might be lost.

This principle applies in other pregnancy complications as well. With severe hemorrhaging, for example, if nothing is done, both will die. In respecting the life of the mother, the physician must act directly on the uterus. At that time the uterus loses its ability to support the life of the embryo. The mother’s life is preserved and there has been no intentional attack on the child. The mother and the uterus have been directly treated; a secondary effect is the death of the child.

Another example arises in the treatment of uterine (endometrial)
cancer during a pregnancy. The common treatments of uterine cancer are primarily hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus) and sometimes
chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Again, taking the life of the baby is not intended, but a hysterectomy does mean the removal of the womb and the death of the child. Yet, if a hysterectomy must be performed to save the life of the mother, the Church would deem the procedure morally licit.

Thus, a moral distinction must be made between directly and intentionally
treating a pathology (a condition or abnormality that causes a disease) and indirectly and unintentionally causing the death of the baby in the process.

This distinction is derived from a moral principle called “double effect.” When a choice will likely bring about both an intended desirable
effect and also an unintended, undesirable effect, the principle of
double effect can be applied to evaluate the morality of the choice.
The chosen act is morally licit when (a) the action itself is good, (b) the
intended effect is good, and the unintended, (c) evil effect is not
greater in proportion to the good effect. For example, “The act of
self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own
life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the
other is not” (Catechism, no. 2263, citing St. Thomas Aquinas).

http://www.cuf.org/nonmemb/ectopic.pdf

Γνώθι σεαυτόν
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 10:31 PM
Some children are raised without love by abusive parents. I don't think that means that they lose their right to live. It isn't right to murder a person who was born as an unwanted baby or as the child of a rapist.

In the abortion debate there are too logical alternatives.

If you don't consider an unborn child a person then the mother has a right to choose what she does with her own body.

If you do consider an unborn child a person then the unborn child has same kind of basic rights as all other people. It would be no more justified to kill the unborn child than to kill an adult.

As I already wrote their right to live derives from their potential value, their value in spe for their frame-work (i.e. from family to society).
Thus you don't murder the child if you abort after a rape if the mother decided so, because murder is about morals, but there's nothing immoral in wanting to cut out what has been planted into your body by a monster.

You have to gain a secular (not only in the religious sense but abroad from any metaphysical idea) view.

The baby only has its right to live if the circumstances are so and in nearly all cases they are, but this is an exception.

Applied on your examples:

A rape-baby is a person, but it might be without value when it's the seed of such an destructive act thus its right to live doesn't exist and thus it actually is not to compare with killing an adult (as long as (s)he isn't a child-molester, murderer, etc.).

And it's not the mother's natural or holy right to chose, but she is granted the right because there's no better authority, it's a big difference!
It's not for her pleasure or limited wanting but for the whole familiy's sake.

Æmeric
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 11:19 PM
In the abortion debate there are too logical alternatives.

If you don't consider an unborn child a person then the mother has a right to choose what she does with her own body.

If you do consider an unborn child a person then the unborn child has same kind of basic rights as all other people. It would be no more justified to kill the unborn child than to kill an adult.

But when does an unborn child become a person in it's own right? At conception, at it's quickening or when it draws it's first breath? The traditional legal standard has been when it draws it's first breath. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on the issue. In the US there has been a controversy for several years over a type of abortion called partial birth abortion. It involves delivering a fetus feet first and then extracting the brain while the head is still in the birth canal causing the skull to collapse. This is one of the more grisly forms of abortion. This is a procedure done at a point in pregnancy when there is a chance the infant could be born alive & survive with proper medical care. Late-term abortions are no different IMO than infanticide. Aborting a fetus that might otherwise be able to survive outside of the womb should be illegal.

Many persons mention the health of the mother or rape when discussing abortion. But the vast majority of abortions are not done because of rape or health issues, but simply because the mother doesn't want the child. But if a woman has become pregnant because of rape, should she be forced to deliver the child of her rapist, even if we consider that unborn child to be a living person?

Tennyson
Monday, January 1st, 2007, 12:06 AM
As I already wrote their right to live derives from their potential value, their value in spe for their frame-work (i.e. from family to society).

Thus you don't murder the child if you abort after a rape if the mother decided so, because murder is about morals, but there's nothing immoral in wanting to cut out what has been planted into your body by a monster.
You have to gain a secular (not only in the religious sense but abroad from any metaphysical idea) view.
Still, the baby of a rapist might have value to the society as a whole. 3.7% of babies born in Germany in 1945-1946 had Russian fathers who had raped the German mothers. Do you think it would be moral to kill all these German-Russian people who are now 60 years old?



The baby only has its right to live if the circumstances are so and in nearly all cases they are, but this is an exception.
Applied on your examples:
A rape-baby is a person, but it might be without value when it's the seed of such an destructive act thus its right to live doesn't exist and thus it actually is not to compare with killing an adult (as long as (s)he isn't a child-molester, murderer, etc.).
And it's not the mother's natural or holy right to chose, but she is granted the right because there's no better authority, it's a big difference!
It's not for her pleasure or limited wanting but for the whole familiy's sake.
Do you refer to unborn children or not? If you don't make distinction between an adult person who is the child of a rapist or a normal adult person you cannot make such a distinction between fetuses.

Tennyson
Monday, January 1st, 2007, 12:31 AM
But if a woman has become pregnant because of rape, should she be forced to deliver the child of her rapist, even if we consider that unborn child to be a living person?
Of course. Even the child of a rapist is an innocent human being. Even if your father rapes someone they don't have a right to kill you.

Enibas
Monday, January 1st, 2007, 01:12 AM
Why do you think abortion is justified in the case of rape as you consider an unborn child already a person?

If a woman is raped and she still decides to give birth to the baby the child has certainly a same kind of right to live as other people.


This is a good question.

My answer:

If I am with a man having a baby and I notice that the man is not the right one for a life together. The baby then has nevertheless arisen with my consent and I then also will stand to this baby.

At a rape this is quite different. I have been impregnated against my will there. It is not the partnership here which is impossible because a partnership was never striven for.

If I approve of a possible pregnancy, then I would deliver the child in any case even if the partner would leave me or would die of a road accident.
But against my will I would let none plant a child for me!

Why?because I would have difficulties in loving the fruit of a rape and because I would be afraid that this child carries the negative ancestral estate of its begetter into itself.

Oski
Monday, January 1st, 2007, 01:20 AM
Ok I was going to say something that would get me a warning but I'll say this "other"

My opinion, Non whites - abort all you want!

Tennyson
Monday, January 1st, 2007, 01:36 AM
This is a good question.
My answer:
If I am with a man having a baby and I notice that the man is not the right one for a life together. The baby then has nevertheless arisen with my consent and I then also will stand to this baby.
At a rape this is quite different. I have been impregnated against my will there. It is not the partnership here which is impossible because a partnership was never striven for.
If I approve of a possible pregnancy, then I would deliver the child in any case even if the partner would leave me or would die of a road accident.
But against my will I would let none plant a child for me!
Why?because I would have difficulties in loving the fruit of a rape and because I would be afraid that this child carries the negative ancestral estate of its begetter into itself.
You are basically placing your own mental suffering above the life of your child. Relief of emotional distress can never justify a homicide.

You can't say that the child loses its right to live simply because its mother or its father was a rapist.

The rapist has forced you to carry the child and the child is an innocent being developing like any other children in the womb. The child is as much of an innocent victim as the mother.

Istigkeit
Tuesday, January 2nd, 2007, 11:48 PM
My views on abortion are a little spread out. I wouldn't say I'm pro-life or pro-choice in that most people who are pro-life think abortion is never OK, not even for rape or 99% of health issues, and most people who are pro-choice treat abortion as the only choice if you have an unwanted pregnancy. Personally, I'd rather have a child adopted than aborted, but if a girl is raped, or has a disease that can be passed congenitally, I could understand wanting an abortion performed.

I think if abortions are outlawed, then there is a greater chance that unsafe ones will be performed that could result in a lot worse than a dead embryo. They should be safe, legal, and rare.

Hohenheim
Tuesday, January 2nd, 2007, 11:58 PM
In my opinion, it is always wrong and none should be allowed to do it. Nobody has the right to take a life. If you don't want the child,if there are fellings that you could have problems raising it, then give it for adoption to a better family where it is going to have a bright future. or at least where it can be alive and not dead. But abortion... NO! :thumbdown

Boche
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 12:05 AM
In my opinion, it is always wrong and none should be allowed to do it. Nobody has the right to take a life.


http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=730014&postcount=34


Gruß,
Svartr

D'Vadder
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 12:17 AM
My answer: "Abortion is wrong but it should also be allowed in cases of rape"

Hohenheim
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 12:34 AM
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=730014&postcount=34


Gruß,
Svartr

I was not talking about children with such disease. But for example, parents who are still children, try to act like adults, have sex before thinking about consequences...

Or like you said:

Besides that if the children will be healthy, and there aint any other problem which would be damaging, the child has to be born.
Because... If you can f*ck, you also can live with the "Results".

Æmeric
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 01:56 AM
You can't say that the child loses its right to live simply because its mother or its father was a rapist.

The rapist has forced you to carry the child and the child is an innocent being developing like any other children in the womb. The child is as much of an innocent victim as the mother.

What if the rape victim is White & the rapist is a Negro? Should the woman be forced to give birth to a mulatto baby? Non-Europids commit a disporportionate number of rapes (in predominately Europid societies) & many times the victims are White.

Blood_Axis
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 10:31 AM
What if the rape victim is White & the rapist is a Negro? Should the woman be forced to give birth to a mulatto baby? Non-Europids commit a disporportionate number of rapes (in predominately Europid societies) & many times the victims are White.
I was just about to write the same, when I saw your post.

Yes, what about interracial rape?

You would encourage a woman to bring a mixed offspring to life, of the kind of those posted and make a mockery of in this very forum? (e.g. Klum/Seal baby)

And even if the rapist is White: putting aside the emotional factors of the mother carrying a rape child, do you also consider the genetic predisposition for violence and criminality?

To become a rapist, there must be something wrong in your genetic make-up as well. Most serious mental diseases have a high hereditary factor anyway.

I cannot seriously believe that a raped woman should be urged to keep the child. For once, she would upbring it with hate & bitterness.

And what do you say to a child that is the product of rape, when it is old enough to ask "who is my father"?

As for serious genetic defects, my opinion is the same. Why bring a sick & disabled soul into the world, guaranteed to be suffering for the short and painful span of his/her life, and also to cause pain & suffering to its caregivers..?

Listen, I think either extreme is bad. There is a general trend to promote abortion as a liberalist political right for women and a sign of emancipation, but we should not return to the dark ages and support that abortion is unjustified in cases of rape and genetic defects.

Of course, education & prevention is the best measure of all.

Thusnelda
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 01:23 PM
I´m generally against abortion. For me, its a kind of murder on our descendants. They join this world because of us (mother and father), but aborted children didnt even get the chance(!) to life their very young life. Its like "Oh, we´ve made a mistake! :( No matter, we undo it easily!"

Its simply unfair and...yes, for me..inhumane!

Furthermore, from a Germanic/European preservationistic point of view, its a indeed a shame: Hundredthousands (or even millions) of young and white/european people, the future of our kind, have no chance to life! Only because the parents say "No".
Our western societies are growing older and older, and we have too less offsprings...and the offsprings we have are getting harshly reduced by abortions. :thumbdown

If a mum dont want to have her child, but is pregnant, she should bear it and should give it free for adoption right after the successful birth. She mustnt even hold her baby in the arms if she dont want to.
(Personally, If I would become pregnant right now, I dont know If I would say "Yes, I want to life with the baby". As I said in an other thread quite a time ago, I couldnt give my baby much right now. Ive not a satisfiying life to offer a child just yet. But I can, at least, offer the right to life! So I wouldnt abort it for sure, its strictly against my ideals.)

An other case are cases of rape pregnancy and mental retardation. In these (quite few) cases, I would make an exception and allow abortion. But only if it is ensured by administrative bodies that there was really a rape.

Hm well, I hope my opinion is clear. *g*

Γνώθι σεαυτόν
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007, 02:01 PM
You can't say that the child loses its right to live simply because its mother or its father was a rapist.

The rapist has forced you to carry the child and the child is an innocent being developing like any other children in the womb. The child is as much of an innocent victim as the mother.

Human life as well as family aren't values per se, nothing can be that as long as there's no metaphysical "something" and hence no such thing like universal values.

The worth of the mentioned units results from their giving of identity (you'd ask why identity is sth. so important, but here's not the place...) and in almost every case a child adds to it (it shows nature's grace, carries forth your family's bloodline, it's a person having come out of you), so destroying this link can't be permitted.

But if a rape happens, what will be then ? I think only the mother (or both parents) knows, but isn't it possible that this wonderful chain bursts ?
If the child is just a reminder of "that guy", if the mother begins to hate nature because it made her bear such a destiny,...

I don't think one should force the mother to get the baby and it's not a question of guilty or not.

A young teenager may be unhappy because she can't become a model anymore (to all you pregnant girls at Skadi: you look fine :)), but her psyche isn't destroyed like after a rape.

Enlil
Tuesday, January 9th, 2007, 01:57 PM
Wow, alot of christians here it seems.

I must say I feel alot of confusion & contradiction in this thread, as always when discussing complicated issues like this - and I'm not an exception.

However, if we just see how it is in practice, should it be legal or not, and in which cases?

I think it should be legal for all women to abort their pregnancy up until a certain time limit (in Sweden it's based on the chances for the fetus to survive - by a council of doctors, legal advisors & other representatives sometimes granting 'late' abortions in cases of rape, incest, medical hazards, etc).

I don't see life as 'holy', and I don't see the mother's right to chose as something 'holy' neither. The reasons I'm pro-choice are several.

If it's not legal, some people will do it themselves, in very nasty ways, with women damaging themselves or getting killed. This way they will never be able to give birth to any wanted children in the future anyway.

You abort a child because you don't want it. Maybe the father is a drunk or an idiot, or maybe he left you, or perhaps it was an accident - you might have been drunk yourself or whatever. A child should not have to be born to parents who don't want it. Imagine being born to a single mother, who didn't even want you, even being ashamed of you, perhaps never being able to get a good man again.

If she instead would've aborted her pregnancy, you could be born one year later, when your mother had a planned pregnancy with a loving man and a supporting family.


Apart from this, I'm pro sterilization & compulsary abortion for people with serious inhertiable diseases. (how can you support this and not support a white woman's right to chose when and with whom she gets a child?)


Quality, not quantity :)

Godiva
Friday, January 12th, 2007, 10:25 PM
I am like many here who believe that abortion is only justified in cases were it would be fatal for the mother to give birth, in the case of rape, and at time in the case of abnormalities in the fetus. A few months ago I saw a really good bumper sticker that said "I support an un-born woman's right to choose" that sticker really puts it into perspective for me. However, at the same time I really hate deciding what people can and cannot do with their own lives and their own bodies. True, a baby his its own life and its own body, but without another the baby would not be able to survive on its own, it would be a drain on society for a number of years. So in many ways I have a hard time when people try to equalize the life of a baby with the life of it's mother.


You are basically placing your own mental suffering above the life of your child. Relief of emotional distress can never justify a homicide.

You can't say that the child loses its right to live simply because its mother or its father was a rapist.

The rapist has forced you to carry the child and the child is an innocent being developing like any other children in the womb. The child is as much of an innocent victim as the mother.

You seem to feel quite strongly that a woman does not have the right to choose to abort a rape baby. I have some very strong feelings about a woman's right to choose to abort a rape baby as well, though my feelings are the total opposite of yours. I'm a young woman, who's married and who does not have children yet. Though I am larger and stronger than most women the possibility still exists that someday I could be raped. If that were to happen, and if I were to become pregnant from that act I would decide to get an abortion whether it's legal or illegal at the time. When I got married I committed to one man. I committed to share my life with him, to have his children, and to raise them to be good people. If someone rapes me and causes me to become pregnant, he has taken away my choice of my husband being the only man to "know" me. He has taken that choice from my husband. He attempts to take both of our choices away of only having children with one another. And he attempts to take away my choice of who I share my DNA with to create a new life. Having committed such wrongs gives me good reason to prevent another like him to enter this world and wrong others as his or her father has done. When I got married I chose to only unite my DNA with that of my husband's and I will not see my DNA abused to such an extent as a rape baby, not in this life or in the life to come. Trying to attempt to force morals into a situation where morals have already been shot out the window will never help or rectify the situation, morals would not fit in.

Glynd Eastŵd
Friday, January 12th, 2007, 10:36 PM
I support abortion and the mother's right to choose. The world is over-populated enough.

Weg
Saturday, January 13th, 2007, 01:38 AM
I support abortion and the mother's right to choose. The world is over-populated enough.

Is the Palaenegrid talking or the Europid?

Glynd Eastŵd
Saturday, January 13th, 2007, 01:41 AM
Is the Palaenegrid talking or the Europid?

No, my comment was serious. I'm only Palaenegrid on the outside.

Weg
Saturday, January 13th, 2007, 02:05 AM
No, my comment was serious. I'm only Palaenegrid on the outside.

Bounty!


It's not the best thing to do to let European women abort, that's my opinion.

Bridie
Saturday, January 13th, 2007, 11:38 AM
I support abortion and the mother's right to choose. The world is over-populated enough.
The world is over-populated with Asians, Arabs and Africans, while the numbers of European Europids' are dwindling - fast. Something to consider. ;)


As for my view on abortion... well I believe that it's only acceptable in cases where the mother has been raped, or the baby is not healthy and "normal". But this only applies to Euro Europid women. For women of all other races, I couldn't give a toss.

Deary
Tuesday, September 4th, 2007, 07:58 PM
Please do your best to provide your opinion with the rules below in mind.


1. Explain why you do or do not support the right to abortion.

2. Explain a system of rules and regulations to determine the allowance/disallowance of abortion procedures.

3. Explain how might society and the economy be affected by the right/lack of right to abortion.

Æmeric
Tuesday, September 4th, 2007, 09:55 PM
I do not support the right to unrestricted abortion on demand. There are three reasons for this;

1. When does life begin? I have a problem thinking of an embryo as being a human being. But at some point during a pregnancy the fetus should be given legal protection, after there is brain-stem activity & a heartbeat.
2. The easy availability of abortion hasn't helped the social (sexual) behavior of Americans since Roe v Wade. Legalised abortion has contributed to irresponsible sex without consequences.
3. If late term abortion is legal, why not infanticide after birth. If you can kill a child two months before it's due date, then why not kill a child born two months prematurely. What is the difference other then one is in the womb & the other in an incubator. There have been cases of newborns being murdered by their parents at birth, with the penalties being extremely light, for example Brian Peterson who received a 2-year sentence & his girlfriend Amy Grossberg who received 2 1/2 years for the death of their newborn son in 1996.

Abortion should not be entirely illegal. There some instances were the health of the mother could justify a therapeutic abortion. And rape victims shouldn't have to carry the child of their rapist. But abortions for this reason are a small minority in the US.

A drawback to making abortion illegal in the US would be an increase in the number of non-White births. Women of color have abortions at a higher rate then White women. And it would probably result in an increase of illegitimate children who would receive welfare & grow up to cause social problems. But changes in welfare laws that subsidize illegitimacy could bring down the number of non-White & illegitimate births. In 1960, before LBJ expanded the welfare state with his "Great Society", & before legalise abortion or the birthcontrol pill, the illegitimacy rate in the US was about 5 to 6 percent. For Negroes it was about 24%. Today, about 1/3 of all children born in the US are illegitimate, with the rate for Negores around 70%.

SineNomine
Tuesday, September 4th, 2007, 11:41 PM
I see prenatal abortion as an excellent tool for eugenics. So I am definitely for it.

Cuchulain
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007, 12:04 AM
I think we should abolish welfare and start paying certain people to sterilize themselves. This would reduce abortion, and be cheaper and more beneficial to society in the long run than the current practices.

emperorlives
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007, 12:06 AM
I think we should abolish welfare and start paying certain people to sterilize themselves. This would reduce abortion, and be cheaper and more beneficial to society in the long run than the current practices.

I second this.

I also think a woman has the right to do whatever she wants to her body, and if that means abort the fetus that grows inside her, then so be it!

Æmeric
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007, 12:11 AM
I see prenatal abortion as an excellent tool for eugenicsIntersting point. But what conditions should be considered for reasons of eugenics. For instance, I have a cousin who's daughter was born with cystic fibrosis. The girl is twenty-nine now. She is a college graduate, is gainfully employed. Her parents & sister love her and have enjoyed their time with her, but she will most likely be dead within 5 years (she was never expected to live this long). Should she have been aborted? What about a child with Down Syndrome. Some are incapable of ever taking care of themselves, but others are able to hold down low wage jobs & function with minimal supervision. However the number of persons born with Down Syndrome have been decreasing in reason years because of prenatal testing that allow parents to abort damaged children before birth.

Which brings up another question; should there be a duty to abort? Should parents be penalized for allowing children to be born when they know that child will have a handicap or will develope a genetically inherited disease & could become a burden to the healthcare system?

I do support eugenics for racial reasons.:) But aborting the unborn because they are the wrong race would make even myself screamish. I would prefer bribing people into sterilizing themselves - as I pointed out before (at Skadi) some people would give up their right to become parents for the cost of a widescreen TV.

As for what other societies do, such as the Indians & Chinese, regarding abortion, I do not care as long as they stop exporting their excess population to the West.

Deary
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007, 12:57 AM
And rape victims shouldn't have to carry the child of their rapist.

What if a woman fails to receive a rape examination in time? How should her situation be assessed?

Æmeric
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007, 01:38 AM
If a woman is raped she needs to go to a hospital for treatment, to retrieve evidence & to prevent pregnancy. We don't live in a perfect world & if a woman cannot provide some evidence she was raped, because it wasn't reported or she didn't seek medical treatment, her story isn't believable etc.. she shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. Realistically though, she could go to a jurisdiction were abortion is legal. If Roe v Wade is ever overturned (as it should, because it is an example of judicial activism) abortion would still be legal in many parts of the US. It would become illegal in states like Utah & Mississippi, but remain legal in places like New York, Massachusetts & California - the abortion laws in those states might even become more lenient. And there is always Canada or Cuba. But most rapes do not result in pregnancy. Rape is usually held up as an example of why abortion should be legal, but abortions because of rape actually accounts for a very tiny percent (perhaps 1%) of of all abortions performed. The real reason for abortion-on-demand is for the freedom to have sex without consequences.

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007, 02:34 AM
Realistically though, she could go to a jurisdiction were abortion is legal. If Roe v Wade is ever overturned (as it should, because it is an example of judicial activism) abortion would still be legal in many parts of the US. It would become illegal in states like Utah & Mississippi, but remain legal in places like New York, Massachusetts & California - the abortion laws in those states might even become more lenient. And there is always Canada or Cuba.

Yeah, but places like Mississippi and the rest of the deep south where abortion would be banned first are the places we most need it, in that those states are about 40% black, and blacks make up the overwhelming majority of the abortions there.

Making it so that abortions could only be obtained by traveling long distances would make it so that only women from middle to upper class backgrounds would be able to obtain abortions, which would have a reverse eugenics effect.

Even setting aside racial/eugenics issues, I think a woman who doesn't want a child to the extent she is willing to get an abortion will not make a good parent. Many of these are single as well.

Also there is the personal liberty aspect to consider as well, I think the benefits of a ban on abortion are far outweighed by the negatives.

SineNomine
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007, 03:33 AM
Intersting point. But what conditions should be considered for reasons of eugenics.
That is a matter for the parents to take into consideration. I do not think in this case it is easy to establish universal standards of perfection. Obviously most parents will weed out negative traits and opt for children bearing positive ones.


Which brings up another question; should there be a duty to abort?
If parents cover all costs involved with child-rearing, no. In the context of socialized healthcare systems it'd make more sense (and this is another way in which these systems gradually become more totalitarian.)


I do support eugenics for racial reasons.:) But aborting the unborn because they are the wrong race would make even myself screamish.
Why?

Æmeric
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007, 04:20 AM
I don't think many women would voluntarily abort their child for reasons of racial eugenics, especially non-White women for the benefit of Whites. They would have to be coerced by the government, & any government with the power to that would be dangerous to everyone. And it would discredit the racialist movement for Whites/Europids in the same way the racialism was discredited by the atrocities, real & imagined, committed by the Nazis. That's why I prefer voluntary sterilization. Paying a woman, lets say $20,000 to have herself sterilized after one child or $50,000 not to have any. Would you factor in the cost of public education per child, along with welfare benefits that would likely be paid out to the women who might take up this sort of offer (if they had children), the public would come out ahead with a scheme like this. Plus the added benefit of not having the social problems many of these children would cause.

Besides, abortion is just a temporary solution, solving the problem of one unplanned pregnancy. Sterilization would be a permanent solution.

SineNomine
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007, 04:29 AM
Alright, I think I understand your point of view more completely now. Yes, I agree that voluntary funds gathered to promote wilful sterilization would be a better measure of eugenics. Even with regard to abortions, I was thinking only of voluntary situations, in which for instance parents chose to weed out children with mental retardation. The only problem with a fund for sterilization is that it would be discredited as racist (or simply darwinist) in a flash, and would be nearly impossible to institute as a government programme. In the past this wouldn't be a problem, but nowadays governments tend not to tolerate even voluntary donations to such causes, and leftists will do their best to insure that anyone associated has their name tarnished (anonymous donations might do the trick.) Abortions aimed at eugenics have a superficial element of neutrality to them, one that leftists in favour of women's rights cannot deny unless they want to be inconsistent.

Rassenpapst
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007, 09:37 PM
Please do your best to provide your opinion with the rules below in mind.


1. Explain why you do or do not support the right to abortion.
I generally oppose it because the mother does not have a right to deprive the fetus of its future human life.

What is a murder anyway? It's an act of intentionally depriving a human being of his future life.

However, I don't see difference in the moral value of severely retarded humans and higher apes who can be more intelligent. The health of fetuses should be surveyed in genetic screenings and those who are unfit would be aborted.



2. Explain a system of rules and regulations to determine the allowance/disallowance of abortion procedures.
The state should make abortions illegal. A doctor who would perform an abortion should receive a prison sentence of 1-3 years.



3. Explain how might society and the economy be affected by the right/lack of right to abortion.[/b]
If abortion was illegal the fertility rate which is currently dangerously low would skyrocket to 2.5-3.0 in each European country. This would be very beneficial to the economy.

Contraception should also be illegal. Richard Lynn has found that intelligent couples tend to use contraception whereas people with low intelligence do not plan their lives and have children accidentally. The availability of contraception thus leads to dysgenic fertility.

Boche
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007, 11:03 PM
Please do your best to provide your opinion with the rules below in mind.


1. Explain why you do or do not support the right to abortion.

2. Explain a system of rules and regulations to determine the allowance/disallowance of abortion procedures.

3. Explain how might society and the economy be affected by the right/lack of right to abortion.


1. I support it if it's needed. For example if the woman was raped, is from her health not capable to bring a child to live.

Also if the Child would be retarded i think Abortion should be allowed, even in the later months, same goes for infamous birth-defections like a Hydrocephalus, Ichthyosis, Spina Bifida, Zyklopie, The Harlequin Syndrome, Malformations etc. etc.

2. A More excessive medical look on people who want to abort.
But you have to keep in mind that a woman who really doesn't want a child can't be forced either. There are many mothers who kill their baby after birth, or even try to loose it during pregnancy throughout illegal medications and even hurting theirselves.

3. Women who want to abort because they've forgot to use a condome or similar silly reasons shouldn't be allowed to do so. So Abortion MUST exist and must be an option for women, but not in every case.




Gruß,
Boche

mischak
Wednesday, September 5th, 2007, 11:21 PM
3. Women who want to abort because they've forgot to use a condome or similar silly reasons shouldn't be allowed to do so. So Abortion MUST exist and must be an option for women, but not in every case.




Gruß,
Boche

I completely agree. Actually things like this really piss me off and I think women should be sterilized if they take this approach to the use of contraceptives, or lack thereof. I once knew of a girl who had 5 abortions in her 20s because she didn't want to take birth control that would affect her hormones and she didn't like the 'feel' of condoms, so she opted to get an abortion everytime she got pregnant. Anyway by the time she had got married and wanted to start a family she was unable to conceive because of all the procedures she had done, and I think she very much got what she deserved for being so selfish.

That being said, I do not have anything against the day after pill and it can prevent many unwanted pregnancies that may have been caused by lack of birth control, or broken condom or whatever.

Matamoros
Thursday, September 6th, 2007, 12:41 AM
I completely agree. Actually things like this really piss me off and I think women should be sterilized if they take this approach to the use of contraceptives, or lack thereof. I once knew of a girl who had 5 abortions in her 20s because she didn't want to take birth control that would affect her hormones and she didn't like the 'feel' of condoms, so she opted to get an abortion everytime she got pregnant. Anyway by the time she had got married and wanted to start a family she was unable to conceive because of all the procedures she had done, and I think she very much got what she deserved for being so selfish.
I read in the newspaper last year about an English girl who had already had 6 abortions, before she turned 18.

Cuchulain
Thursday, September 6th, 2007, 03:00 AM
Contraception should also be illegal. Richard Lynn has found that intelligent couples tend to use contraception whereas people with low intelligence do not plan their lives and have children accidentally. The availability of contraception thus leads to dysgenic fertility.

We're all entitled to our opinions, but I really don't think the world would be a better place without contraception. I think that contraception is one of the reason intelligent couples are able to be productive, because they can plan out when its best to have children. How would one study to become a doctor if one had a child at home to take care of or provide for. If abstinence became a big part of getting through med school, I think there would be a lot less good doctors out there. Etc.

I for one would be absolutely miserable if contraception were illegal.:D

mischak
Thursday, September 6th, 2007, 03:16 AM
Contraception should also be illegal. Richard Lynn has found that intelligent couples tend to use contraception whereas people with low intelligence do not plan their lives and have children accidentally. The availability of contraception thus leads to dysgenic fertility.

Yes and an increase of pregnant teenagers and people who aren't financially ready and/or mentally mature enough to raise children does so much good for a society..

Deary
Thursday, September 6th, 2007, 03:48 AM
I cannot think of a consistent, objective, satisfactory argument for granting personhood to a would-be baby at conception. To argue it is okay in cases of rape, incest, disease and dozens of other reasons there are unexpected pregnancies and abortions performed, is not only pro-choice, but is essentially saying that either one is for justifiable killing (if he/she believes that a embryo is a person) or that he/she is arbitrarily deciding for someone else when/if abortion is appropriate. I consider this an issue of property. Given that the embryo, as part of a woman's body, is her property, it is entirely within her rights to carry the embryo to term or terminate it as she sees fit. This allows those with moral qualms that are supported by religion and the like, to act as they deem appropriate without infringing on others.

As for abortion and states rights, I like the idea, but something about the legal status of an embryo as a "life" or not being determined, and not protecting it consistently throughout the nation irks me. States determining it is probably the most efficient and only solution, given there will not be a consensus at a national level, but it bothers me a great deal that we're sacrificing the uniform protection for a woman's right to her body and life or the "baby's" right to life (depending where you fall) based on what side of the border that state is on. It reminds me of free states vs. slave states, except the personhood of slaves is obvious. Like Vistula said, withholding abortion rights would ultimately result in migration to states which permit abortion, superseding anti-abortion rules of other states.

I sit at pro-choice with a good dose of prevention and possibly obligatory depo shots for abortion patients. Organizations such as Planned Parenthood support healthy ideas which I stand by. I am pro-choice for the sake of the mother's and potential child's life and welfare. In the cases of unintentional pregnancy and given "alternatives" to abortion, like unpreparedly raising a child (putting the health and capabilities of the mother into question, chances are) or leaving the child for adoption, are equally devastating scenarios (especially for those who one day wish to raise a family in their own good time) and neither agreeable, in my opinion. To refuse the right to abortion to those who become pregnant out of irresponsibility by further punishing them for their actions (nevermind that they already have to pay costly fees and likely suffer some post-abortion syndrome) would have adverse effects on society, leaving mothers unfit to tend to their unwanted children and/or will result in a higher amount of parentless children to be adopted.

The over-the-counter morning-after pill fails to receive enough attention. Currently, you have to obtain a prescription for it, which sort of impedes its purpose as an emergency contraception.

Abortion clinics (here) generally have limitations on how many abortions a patient can have (at least within a certain time frame, as far as I know) further steering from physical and emotional damage of the woman while protecting her chances of later conceiving if she chooses to, which I believe is a fair regulatory solution, and if not already in progress, it should be put into progress.


If a woman is raped she needs to go to a hospital for treatment, to retrieve evidence & to prevent pregnancy. We don't live in a perfect world & if a woman cannot provide some evidence she was raped, because it wasn't reported or she didn't seek medical treatment, her story isn't believable etc.. she shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion.

Given that we do not live in such a perfect world, raped women often fail to report their attack as a result of traumatization and fear. They can also be prone to distance themselves from the outside world and be reluctant to attend social gatherings. The shock of being raped can lead them to forget details of the attack to the point where their experience becomes unbelievable. Should they still not have the right to abortion? How should one prove her situation (or anyone, for that matter)?

Esther_Helena
Thursday, September 6th, 2007, 04:04 AM
1. Explain why you do or do not support the right to abortion.
I say no to abortion, but with exceptions.

2. Explain a system of rules and regulations to determine the allowance/disallowance of abortion procedures.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that sex (can) = a baby. I can't respect anyone with such little responsibility as to use abortion as a way out. If a mother or couple is worried about something like a genetic abnormality, there are tests they can take before conceiving. I know there are some things that can "just go wrong" but that's with every pregnancy. If you can't accept the possibility, you shouldn't have a kid.
The only reasons I'd be for abortion - incest, rape, if the mother could die (I'm on the fence about that one), unforseen genetic abnormalities the baby won't be able to survive under any circumstances.

3. Explain how might society and the economy be affected by the right/lack of right to abortion.
I'd say pretty much the same way it is now. You'll always have those who are for it, those who are against, and those who are on the fence.

ladybright
Thursday, September 6th, 2007, 04:37 PM
Having only 'pushed out' one child (Unmedicated, thank you.) I am not an expert at the effects of multiple childbearing. Ask me again afer St Lucia day and I will be a little more experienced.;) I think three or four children is ideal for many families. Larger families are great for some but I do not want to ask of another what I do not plan on doing myself. If there are groups which want to pay particularly intelligent or healthy people for having children (al la Heinlein) that would be nice but I do not want the goverment that involved in reproduction.

I think that an copper IUD is the best option for mid to long term birth control. They can safely last 10 years with better protection and fewer side effects than any of the hormonal options. Also they are MUCH cheaper than pills over as llittle as two years. Having them offered after an abortion seems like a great idea to me.

Socially and in sex education I think that as well as the STD issues kids should be tought to not have sex unless they are willing to raise a child. Having a few week session working in a kindergarden would be a good part of a reqired home economics course for middleschoolers.

1. Explain why you do or do not support the right to abortion.
I support abortion rights especially before quickening. I personnally cannot conceve of me having an abortion but there is a strong tradition of early term abortion in europe. I do not believe in the sacntity of life at conception. I believe that fetal rights start to occur after there is a chance of survival outside the womb.

2. Explain a system of rules and regulations to determine the allowance/disallowance of abortion procedures.
I think that the morning after pill should be availble at all hospitals and police departments. I think that young women under 18 should have either parental consent or judical consent if there are extenuating cercumstances. (Having known more three teenagers who was raped by a family members I would insist on this exception. Even if it is only used rarely I strongly support it.) Vists from a social worker or nurse practicioner should be given one and six months after the abortion as younger women often do not report emotional or physical aftereffects.
For adult women I think that first trimester abortions should be legal but if a woman has two or more in two years she should get an IUD or sterilization at her option. Second trimester abortion's would be legal but require long term birth control unless it is a health issue. Third trimester abortions should be legal to protect the mother's health or incase of a severly damaged fetus. I think that the mother's health outweigh's that of the fetus/baby unless she choses otherwise.

3. Explain how might society and the economy be affected by the right/lack of right to abortion.
I would hope that requiring some basic learing of child care and sexual education as well as the availability of reliable birth control would cut down the requests for abortions. I think requiring long term birth control for women with a history of abortions would cut down on physical and emotional damage to the women and on costs to society. This would hopefully provide a mild eugenic effect as less responsible women have fewer children. I wish that there were long term reversable birth control for men but it has not been devloped yet. I hope that that would also lessen some of the birthrate differences between races.

Æmeric
Friday, September 7th, 2007, 03:27 AM
Please do your best to provide your opinion with the rules below in mind.


1. Explain why you do or do not support the right to abortion.

2. Explain a system of rules and regulations to determine the allowance/disallowance of abortion procedures.

3. Explain how might society and the economy be affected by the right/lack of right to abortion.
I'm always amused by the way these threads nearly always wander off topic.:D

Sigurd
Friday, September 7th, 2007, 03:10 PM
Generally I am against abortion. If people are old and mature enough to have sex, and unprotected one at that, then they are old and mature enough to live with the possibility that a child might be conceived. Many of them aren't, but that's their fault - people should live with the consequences of their deeds, not constantly try to nullify them. Maybe a somewhat odd example to justify that rationale by but - even in real life, I do not ask for forgiveness, only ever for another chance to prove myself to be worthy. Live with your deeds, and make the best out of them, don't try to pretend they never happened.

Another reason why I am against abortion is because it has a thorough mental impact on the mother, at least it usually does. I've known young women who had an abortion, and those that did still had a feeling of loss when it was over, even if they were entirely sure about doing an abortion beforehand.

However, I would reserve the right to abortion in certain circumstances:

- When the woman has been raped. A child should be made of love and affection, and not remind of a traumatic experience. Such a child will be default hvae only one parent, and only one parent at that which is constantly reminded of that painful situation. As a result, the child will hardly have a healthy upbringing. In addition to that, it wouldn't be a nullification of deeds, since the conception wasn't ever consentual. Here a woman should have the choice whether she wishes to abort, to keep the child, or to have it adopted by another couple.

- When there has been another morally unacceptable ground, such as incest, and to some extent miscegenation. The latter is probably me pushing an agenda, because I feel utmost sympathy for a child that has to grow up in a way where it well never feel that important sense of belonging to a certain group, but the former is kind of self-evident. A consequence of incest can be genetic oddities, even in the latter generations ... and on top of that it is pretty much the most immoral thing you can do. If you have an attractive sister, then fair enough, she's an attractive woman, but making love to your own sibling - it's just wrong on so many levels, and should be avoided as long as there are sufficient potential partners around (i.e. pretty much the only instance you can argue your way out of it is if you're the last two survivors of your people, even then it's still morally questionable). :rolleyes:

- When there is a danger to the life of the mother and/or the child. The main reason why I would support an abortion in the case of danger to the mother's life - if the mother dies, so will the child. In this case, you are doing an abortion as a productive rather than destructive function - better to save one rather than lose both.

- When a child would be seriously mentally handicapped. Physical handicaps can often be overcome - from blind star tenors through players of wheelchair tennis to fully lame scientists, we've seen it all. Those persons can still aim for their highest potential. As regards metal handicaps - I believe that the danger of a minor disorder can be overcome, many persons have a neurological/mental issue, and live with it perfectly. But if it gets to the point that the child could never be self-sufficient, and is unable to live a healthy life, I would support the abortion of a fetus which is by that spared a harsher fate.

But people who forgot to use contraception, and when they figured they'd forgot didn't even care to take the (for granted, still questionable) route out of the "morning after pill", they should not be allowed to have an abortion. Live with the consequence of your deeds. When you're pregnant, it's too late to use a condom/pill/whatever ... that's tough luck, live with it.

United Faith
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 07:53 AM
You shouldn't have sex until you're prepared for a child; therefore, no to abortion.

mischak
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 07:57 AM
You shouldn't have sex until you're prepared for a child; therefore, no to abortion.

So people who don't want kids should never have sex? Not very logical reasoning there

United Faith
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 08:22 AM
So people who don't want kids should never have sex? Not very logical reasoning there

Ideally they shouldn't; however, that wasn't what I meant. If they're going to have sex for pleasure then they should be prepared to have kids.

mischak
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 08:30 AM
Ideally they shouldn't; however, that wasn't what I meant. If they're going to have sex for pleasure then they should be prepared to have kids.


Why? People aren't allowed to enjoy sex for what it is, without it accompanying a child? This is why good things like birth control come into play, no unnecessary pregnancies and children. Ideally, what people decide to do in their bedrooms and whatever the reasoning, shouldn't be determined by what outside parties think is "right" or "wrong".

United Faith
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 08:36 AM
Why? People aren't allowed to enjoy sex for what it is, without it accompanying a child? This is why good things like birth control come into play, no unnecessary pregnancies and children. Ideally, what people decide to do in their bedrooms and whatever the reasoning, shouldn't be determined by what outside parties think is "right" or "wrong".

And your profile says you're Catholic! :p

It's not about right or wrong, it's about responsibility. You don't kill a to-be baby because when you had sex you didn't care about the consequences.

It's amazing how many children were and are "mistakes" actually.

mischak
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 08:44 AM
And your profile says you're Catholic! :p

I am


It's not about right or wrong, it's about responsibility. You don't kill a to-be baby because when you had sex you didn't care about the consequences.

This is why responsible people plan their families with things such as birth control, which is 99% effective in preventing pregnancy last time I checked.


It's amazing how many children were and are "mistakes" actually.

I agree people who don't want children and don't take proper precautions to prevent pregnancy shouldn't be having sex, but it's not only an archaic mindset, but illogical to say people who don't want kids should remain completely abstinent. Not to mention people who have healthy sex lives and aren't uptight about sexuality usually tend to be happier couples.

Rassenpapst
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 08:50 AM
Yes and an increase of pregnant teenagers and people who aren't financially ready and/or mentally mature enough to raise children does so much good for a society..
Why do you assume that their number would increase if there was no contraception?

All evidence indicates otherwise. Contraception has led to generally looser sexual morals. In the early 20th century under 5% of white children in America were born out of wedlock but today 37% of all births are illegitimate.

Women in the higher social classes used to have higher fertility than women in the lower classes but this has changed because of contraception and family planning.

Currently, Negroes in the Sub-Saharan Africa are the only race in the world not experiencing dysgenic fertility while our race is degenerating closer to their mean intelligence.

United Faith
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 09:02 AM
This is why responsible people plan their families with things such as birth control, which is 99% effective in preventing pregnancy last time I checked.

That makes failure of preventative measures occur once in every 100 uses on average. That could possible be 1 aborted baby because of the irresponsibility of modern-day couples.

mischak
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 09:04 AM
Why do you assume that their number would increase if there was no contraception?

Because many teens who do make the choice to take preventive measures, still aren't mature enough and don't have the reasoning skills to make the decision to stop having sex if contraceptives become unavailable.


All evidence indicates otherwise. Contraception has led to generally looser sexual morals. In the early 20th century under 5% of white children in America were born out of wedlock but today 37% of all births are illegitimate.

There is far more that is attributable to these supposed "looser morals" than the availability of contraceptives. It's probably a combination of many things.


Women in the higher social classes used to have higher fertility than women in the lower classes but this has changed because of contraception and family planning.

Contraceptive doesn't affect a woman's fertility, it may determine the number of children she decides to have, but once she stops taking them, it doesn't prevent or harm her fertility in any way


Originally Posted by United Faith
That makes failure of preventative measures occur once in every 100 uses on average. That could possible be 1 aborted baby because of the irresponsibility of modern-day couples.

I can't respond to something so illogical, sorry

Jäger
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 09:18 AM
I can't respond to something so illogical, sorry
You just don't get him as it seems.
If you have sex, even without the intention of having children, but then you get pregnant, then what? Then you have a father who you didn't even want to be the father of your kids, and more important you have a child you didn't even want.
And if this happens every 100th time, then it should be prevented, of course if the only thing we want to strive for are hedonistic needs, then of course not.

mischak
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 09:27 AM
You just don't get him as it seems.
If you have sex, even without the intention of having children, but then you get pregnant, then what? Then you have a father who you didn't even want to be the father of your kids, and more important you have a child you didn't even want.
And if this happens every 100th time, then it should be prevented, of course if the only thing we want to strive for are hedonistic needs, then of course not.

Then you use condoms and birth control if you're so concerned with that less than 1% chance of pregnancy. And according to another poster's claim, contraceptive is to blame for low birth rates, so obviously it must be doing its job.

Jäger
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 10:42 AM
Then you use condoms and birth control if you're so concerned with that less than 1% chance of pregnancy.
The effectiveness of contraceptions is evaluated with statistics. Somebody hits it, even if it is just one among 100.


And according to another poster's claim, contraceptive is to blame for low birth rates, so obviously it must be doing its job.
In a statistical sense, so to say on average, this doesn't mean it works individually the same.

Statistically the air bag saves a lot of lifes, but this is of no concern for the guy who got killed by it.

mischak
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 11:24 AM
The effectiveness of contraceptions is evaluated with statistics. Somebody hits it, even if it is just one among 100.


In a statistical sense, so to say on average, this doesn't mean it works individually the same.

Statistically the air bag saves a lot of lifes, but this is of no concern for the guy who got killed by it.

People are going to have sex, regardless, it's human nature. For the rare person that does get pregnant while being on birth control, so what? Who says they're going to get an abortion, who says they won't welcome pregnancy, even if unexpected?


If you have sex, even without the intention of having children, but then you get pregnant, then what? Then you have a father who you didn't even want to be the father of your kids, and more important you have a child you didn't even want.

If that's your theory then without the use of contraceptives, there will be an unfortunate number of people who fall into these categories, even more than there already are

Jäger
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 11:40 AM
People are going to have sex, regardless, it's human nature.
Yes, no one denied it, you are just projecting your fears on others. The point is that they should be more picky with whom they will have sex, the selective criteria should be children, which means that the sexual partner could be a potential parent.


For the rare person that does get pregnant while being on birth control, so what? Who says they're going to get an abortion, who says they won't welcome pregnancy, even if unexpected?
If they welcome the pregnancy then they did something right in their selection of the partner, or they have just high hopes which might be crushed sooner or later. However, if they disregard the possibility of a child, the chances are pretty high they didn't select their partner after this creteria, and maybe they are lucky, but the rule will be that it won't work out.


If that's your theory then without the use of contraceptives, there will be an unfortunate number of people who fall into these categories, even more than there already are
Apes and other primitive animals can't control their natural urges, men can. No one wants to deny sex if it isn't for the purpose of children, however everyone who has sex, should be well aware that this might be the result of it, and select their partners accordingly.

mischak
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 11:48 AM
Yes, no one denied it, you are just projecting your fears on others. The point is that they should be more picky with whom they will have sex, the selective criteria should be children, which means that the sexual partner could be a potential parent.


If they welcome the pregnancy then they did something right in their selection of the partner, or they have just high hopes which might be crushed sooner or later. However, if they disregard the possibility of a child, the chances are pretty high they didn't select their partner after this creteria, and maybe they are lucky, but the rule will be that it won't work out.


Apes and other primitive animals (e.g. Niggers) can't control their natural urges, men can. No one wants to deny sex if it isn't for the purpose of children, however everyone who has sex, should be well aware that this might be the result of it, and select their partners accordingly.

Well, we can agree to disagree, because I'm not going to agree with you and will continue to support contraception to prevent pregnancy 100%. Neither you nor I should have a say in what decisions adults decide to make in regards to it either

Jäger
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 12:20 PM
Well, we can agree to disagree, because I'm not going to agree with you and will continue to support contraception to prevent pregnancy 100%. Neither you nor I should have a say in what decisions adults decide to make in regards to it either
You seem to not get the point here, I never said I was against contraception per se, I said that contraception shouldn't free you from the responsibility to choose a suitable partner for potential children.

Rassenpapst
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 12:24 PM
Because many teens who do make the choice to take preventive measures, still aren't mature enough and don't have the reasoning skills to make the decision to stop having sex if contraceptives become unavailable.
Many married couples use contraceptives, too. The very point of the reform would be to increase the amount of pregnancies because it would be advantageous to the nation.



There is far more that is attributable to these supposed "looser morals" than the availability of contraceptives. It's probably a combination of many things.
You can take a look at Africa. Because contraception is not economically viable or socially acceptable in many African states the fertility levels are very high there. Studies by e.g. the UNICEF have shown that the availability of contraception decreases fertility.

The effect of contraception is similar in European countries. When abortions were forbidden in the Soviet Union and contraception was forbidden in Ceausescu's Romania fertility increased.



Contraceptive doesn't affect a woman's fertility, it may determine the number of children she decides to have, but once she stops taking them, it doesn't prevent or harm her fertility in any way
Yes but intelligent women are far more likely to control their fertility using contraceptives. And despite the availability of contraceptives stupid women tend to become pregnant accidentally.

Thus, this leads to a disparity in fertility (=the amount of children women have) between social classes. Scientists have shown that this is dangerous because intelligence is a heritable attribute.

mischak
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 12:28 PM
You seem to not get the point here, I never said I was against contraception per se, I said that contraception shouldn't free you from the responsibility to choose a suitable partner for potential children.

I got what you meant, but I still feel that it is reliable enough and the chances of pregnancy are low enough that if a person wants to be intimate with someone they're not in a committed, long term relationship, that's their choice and I find nothing wrong with it.



The very point of the reform would be to increase the amount of pregnancies because it would be advantageous to the nation.

It might advantageous to some nation based on subservient women whose only purpose in life is to pop out baby after baby, but sorry to break it to you, no man, or government, will decide when I have children, how many I have, and when I decide to stop.


The effect of contraception is similar in European countries. When abortions were forbidden in the Soviet Union and contraception was forbidden in Ceausescu's Romania fertility increased.

That doesn't mean it's going to be an increase of quality people.


Yes but intelligent women are far more likely to control their fertility using contraceptives. And despite the availability of contraceptives stupid women tend to become pregnant accidentally.




If you want to encourage "preservation" of people, you educate and try to change mindsets with more positive images of motherhood and family. Banning contraceptives, practically forcing women to have children to suit what you, as a male, believe motherhood should be, is only going to backfire on you

Jäger
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 01:48 PM
I got what you meant, but I still feel that it is reliable enough and the chances of pregnancy are low enough that if a person wants to be intimate with someone they're not in a committed, long term relationship, that's their choice and I find nothing wrong with it.
If nothing happens nothing is wrong, however if due to these irresponibility the life of a child is destroyed (and I also mean e.g. by making it live in a crippeld family) then these people should be held accountable.
Since it would be hard to determine if such an irresponsibility really took place, pre-emptive measures have to be used.

Which brings us to this:

It might advantageous to some nation based on subservient women whose only purpose in life is to pop out baby after baby, but sorry to break it to you, no man, or government, will decide when I have children, how many I have, and when I decide to stop.
You said it yourself, people will always have sex, it is nature, so we just ditch some contraceptives by outlawing them :)

You are right though, education and a general mentality shift is what should be aimed for, in the end, women always bow to social pressure.


Banning contraceptives, practically forcing women to have children to suit what you, as a male, believe motherhood should be, is only going to backfire on you
Our whole society evolved that way, how do you think it would backfire?

a.squiggles
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 02:09 PM
children, with the proper attitude, are the most time-consiming committment one can possibly make. if either parent is having any second thoughts, it simply shouldn't be done.

sex is another matter, it is a biological process, and should not be subservient to some artificial morals.

to demonstrate: maslows heirarchy of needs (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs.svg). sex is in the lowest tier, while children are in the third (or even 4th, as that is where "responsibility" is). it makes no sense to make one of your basic needs subservient to a tertiary one.

mischak
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 02:11 PM
If nothing happens nothing is wrong, however if due to these irresponibility the life of a child is destroyed (and I also mean e.g. by making it live in a crippeld family) then these people should be held accountable.
Since it would be hard to determine if such an irresponsibility really took place, pre-emptive measures have to be used.

Taking birth control appropriately isn't "irresponsible", in fact it's quite the opposite as I've already explained many times. I also don't see how banning birth control is pre-emptive, you can ban it, but people are still going to have sex. You're simply contributing to the problem, more people are going to produce more children that will be born into unhealthy environments


You are right though, education and a general mentality shift is what should be aimed for, in the end, women always bow to social pressure.

If that was true women wouldn't be voting, working the same jobs as men, wearing pants, or taking birth control. ;)


Our whole society evolved that way, how do you think it would backfire?

Societies change, it's still evolving, trying to turn it back to a time when women were treated like children and property will not fare very well, not to mention I can't imagine anyone thinking that the previous treatment of women in such situations was ok.

Rassenpapst
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 03:12 PM
It might advantageous to some nation based on subservient women whose only purpose in life is to pop out baby after baby, but sorry to break it to you, no man, or government, will decide when I have children, how many I have, and when I decide to stop.
You won't be raped which means that you can make that decision yourself.

Furthermore, I doubt that Germanic women between 5000 BC - 1900 AD were "subservient" or their "only purpose in life is to pop out baby after baby". You are repeating feminist canards which mock traditional womanhood.



That doesn't mean it's going to be an increase of quality people.
As I said scientific studies have shown that contraception leads to fertility disparities between social classes. Because of differences in the genotypic average IQ of social classes intelligence will decline. In the long run, dysgenics is unsustainable.

"Intelligent women are far more likely to control their fertility using contraceptives. And despite the availability of contraceptives stupid women tend to become pregnant accidentally."



If you want to encourage "preservation" of people, you educate and try to change mindsets with more positive images of motherhood and family. Banning contraceptives, practically forcing women to have children to suit what you, as a male, believe motherhood should be, is only going to backfire on you
How?

Jäger
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 05:56 PM
Taking birth control appropriately isn't "irresponsible", in fact it's quite the opposite as I've already explained many times.
I never disagreed, what is irresponsible is to have sex with a partner not suited for raising children with oneself.


I also don't see how banning birth control is pre-emptive, you can ban it, but people are still going to have sex.
That's what I already wrote, we don't have to repeat everything here.


You're simply contributing to the problem, more people are going to produce more children that will be born into unhealthy environments.
No, Rassenpapst already said it, contraception is only as useful as it is applyed, by that the idiots are always the ones who "pop out the babys", with or without contraception alowed. The elites are the ones who use these measures the most effective way.
And they couldn't play surpriesed anymore.


If that was true women wouldn't be voting, working the same jobs as men, wearing pants, or taking birth control. ;)
No, there is no social pressure in this regard, not to wear pants, or not to work, quite the contrary.
If anyone in our media supports a more traditional role for the women they get ripped apart, like e.g. Eva Hermann. All those things were initiated by men anyway, esp. the pill.


Societies change, it's still evolving, trying to turn it back to a time when women were treated like children and property will not fare very well, not to mention I can't imagine anyone thinking that the previous treatment of women in such situations was ok.
You mean for thousands of years up untill the 60s of the last century they all got raped?

Loftor
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 06:14 PM
Abortions are a personal, not a public matter.

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, September 22nd, 2007, 05:59 AM
intelligent women are far more likely to control their fertility using contraceptives. And despite the availability of contraceptives stupid women tend to become pregnant accidentally.

Thus, this leads to a disparity in fertility (=the amount of children women have) between social classes. Scientists have shown that this is dangerous because intelligence is a heritable attribute.


scientific studies have shown that contraception leads to fertility disparities between social classes. Because of differences in the genotypic average IQ of social classes intelligence will decline. In the long run, dysgenics is unsustainable.

"Intelligent women are far more likely to control their fertility using contraceptives. And despite the availability of contraceptives stupid women tend to become pregnant accidentally."

I think the way to fix that is to offer women a flat rate to get sterilized, the lower class women that way will be more likely to take the offer because they need the money. Also school loans I think should be forgiven, 1/4 per child or so, like Germany did in the 1930s with home loans

Deary
Saturday, September 22nd, 2007, 10:06 PM
Sigurd:

We do not withhold chemotherapy from cancer patients who have been smoking all of their lives; we should not withhold abortion procedures from pregnant women. Further punishing someone by making them live with the consequences of their actions based on reasons unverifiable is unethical. It is not possible to tell if the condom did break, birth control failed or all was the result of just sheer irresponsibility. Rape can only be proven if one is tested in time. Therefore, no authority should have the right to determine the grant or denial of an abortion procedure because (as of yet) there are no means of gaining substantial evidence to pass judgments by.

Next World
Sunday, September 23rd, 2007, 11:58 PM
I don't believe a female has the right to kill a real man's child.

Sigurd
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 12:41 AM
We do not withhold chemotherapy from cancer patients who have been smoking all of their lives; we should not withhold abortion procedures from pregnant women.

You talk of being pregnant as though as it is a disease, a sickness, something that has to be treated.


Further punishing someone by making them live with the consequences of their actions based on reasons unverifiable is unethical.

Is it really? If I break into my neighbours house and steal his laptop, I'll have to live with the chance of getting charged for housebreaking. If I shoot someone I'll have to live with the chance of getting done for murder. If I eat too much, I'll have to live with the chance of getting fat. If I don't change my clothes after being outside in the rain, I'll risk getting a cold. And if I have sex, especially unprotected sex, I'll know that a pregnancy can arise. If you want to be 100% sure not to get pregnant, just don't have sex. It really isn't that hard...

And if we allow women to get abortions over abortions over abortions, obviously everyone is going to have unprotected sex. We men don't like wearing condoms because they create an odd feel in the process of making love, you women don't like taking the pill because it messes with your hormones, etc. etc. etc.

In my opinion, if you're old and mature enough to have sex, then you're old and mature enough to have a child. Full stop.

Istigkeit
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 01:12 AM
I don't believe a female has the right to kill a real man's child.

I wouldn't consider someone who gets any woman pregnant in a situation where abortion would even come to mind a "real man."

Next World
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 01:19 AM
I wouldn't consider someone who gets any woman pregnant in a situation where abortion would even come to mind a "real man."But you would consider a female who got pregnant in a situation where abortion is in debate a "woman"?

Males have the same vices as females. In general, females who abort (this is from an assessment of experiences I am aware of) don't bother to discuss it with the male(s) involved.

I know plenty of men who have had their children killed by females they thought were women. I know plenty of men who have taken the position of "father" for children who are obviously not theirs, simply because the female involved said it was theirs. I know men who would never dream of leaving a woman or encouraging her to abort if she got pregnant, and I know men who are still heartbroken because they found out the idiot girl they were dating had it in her head to off their baby without saying a word about it.

Then again, I guess this goes to show that certain people take more responsibility for their sexual acts than others.

If abortion is to be legal, then men also might deserve the right to "opt out" of fatherhood in situations where they decide they'd rather not deal with it, pay child support, deal with custody issues, or even be part of a child's life. Perhaps they should pay a price to the government equivelant to the price of an abortion, so that they can gain the right to avoid responsiblity and refuse fatherhood.

Addendum: Better yet, if females are allowed to make decisions about "their bodies" which result in the death of a child (who has two parents), men should be allowed to pay to have the baby killed without consent of the mother, too. :rolleyes: Especially considering, whether or not to have a baby is a decision about a man's financial situation in most cases, especially in the US, where non-custodial parents can go to prison for simply not having enough money to pay child support. :rolleyes:

OneEnglishNorman
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 01:21 AM
Please do your best to provide your opinion with the rules below in mind.


1. Explain why you do or do not support the right to abortion.

2. Explain a system of rules and regulations to determine the allowance/disallowance of abortion procedures.

3. Explain how might society and the economy be affected by the right/lack of right to abortion.


1) I support the idea of an individual owning their body. As a question of property rights, a woman should not be prevented from removing any object which is inside her.

2) Up to 25 weeks on demand.

3) More or less citizens? Whether abortion rates go up or down is a reflection of what's happening in society. Abortion can not be viewed as an isolated thing.


Anyway, there's so many reasons why a woman may want to abort her baby. It's easy for a man to say it's selfish or whatever. But if a woman is in her late teens, early twenties and she wants a career of some kind or to have children later, then an abortion is going to be considered.

Actually having an abortion in many cases must be an appreciation of how rearing a child is such a huge lifetime commitment; a "disposal mentality" does not have to be the case at all.

Istigkeit
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 01:22 AM
But you would consider a female who got pregnant in a situation where abortion is in debate a "woman"?

The honour of the woman wasn't really brought into question. I try to stay relevant.;)

Rassenpapst
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 01:26 AM
I wouldn't consider someone who gets any woman pregnant in a situation where abortion would even come to mind a "real man."
Some women might tell that they are on the Pill even if they are not. I have a friend whose girlfriend missed a pill and didn't notice that she was pregnant until it was too late to (legally) perform an abortion. He became a father at the age of sixteen.

Next World
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 01:27 AM
The honour of the woman wasn't really brought into question. I try to stay relevant.;)Well, you keep calling it a woman, although it's assumed that she chose to have sex with the male involved (ie, she also made the choice to risk pregnancy), whereas, I wouldn't ever call a rapist or non-White or pedophile or someone invovled in incest a "real man".

Istigkeit
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 01:35 AM
Some women might tell that they are on the Pill even if they are not. I have a friend whose girlfriend missed a pill and didn't notice that she was pregnant until it was too late to (legally) perform an abortion. He became a father at the age of sixteen.

That's an accident, different situation. I'm meaning those "men" who think using a condom is like showering with a raincoat on.

16 year male is a boy by most standards anyways.


Well, you keep calling it a woman, although it's assumed that she chose to have sex with the male involved (ie, she also made the choice to risk pregnancy), whereas, I wouldn't ever call a rapist or non-White or pedophile or someone invovled in incest a "real man".

Since when were people, or just females, "its." Are we speaking some English version of Rhine Franconian? You're nearly as bad as those white "anti-racists" who bash themselves.

Next World
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 01:40 AM
You're nearly as bad as those white "anti-racists" who bash themselves.And you're almost as good as the average femminist at straw-manning. ;)

Rassenpapst
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 01:51 AM
That's an accident, different situation. I'm meaning those "men" who think using a condom is like showering with a raincoat on.
If a man knowingly has sex with a fertile woman he probably accepts the possibility that the woman will be pregnant. I have no sympathy for men who impregnate a woman and then demand that she have an abortion, though.

It is reasonable that even if a woman does not have ability to take care of her child she should still give birth. Many couples who would preferentially adopt a white child have to adopt a Chinese or a Negro child, instead.

The state should give funding to a Lebensborn program to take care of the social needs of unwed pregnant women who are of worthy racial stock.

Sigurd
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 01:52 AM
I'm meaning those "men" who think using a condom is like showering with a raincoat on.

Well if a woman should be able to abort regardless of the circumstances, what difference would it make if men wore condoms or not? For contraception purposes that is.

Fact is, if condoms were something that made you attain superior pleasure everyone'd use them constantly except when explicitly planning to have a child conceived that very night (which rarely works out anyway). I can assure you that 99.9% of all men think that using a condom is like showering with a raincoat on, just that some of them are more sensible and responsible about it than others.

Just pondering on that thought...

Istigkeit
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 01:56 AM
Well if a woman should be able to abort regardless of the circumstances, what difference would it make if men wore condoms or not? For contraception purposes that is.

Fact is, if condoms were something that made you attain superior pleasure everyone'd use them except when explicitly planning to have a child conceived that very night (which rarely works out anyway). I can assure you that 99.9% of all men think that using a condom is like showering with a raincoat on, just that some of them are more sensible and responsible about it than others.

Just pondering on that thought...

If everyone did use them, and that attitude wasn't as prevalent, I don't think I'd have the opinion I do now.

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 01:58 AM
Some women might tell that they are on the Pill even if they are not. I have a friend whose girlfriend missed a pill and didn't notice that she was pregnant until it was too late to (legally) perform an abortion. He became a father at the age of sixteen.

Yeah these aren't the type of people we want raising our next generation, 16 yr olds and women who lie about using birth control

Sigurd
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 02:07 AM
If everyone did use them, and that attitude wasn't as prevalent, I don't think I'd have the opinion I do now.

You know, I said I'm just pondering. Before I finished my studies and would be able to provide for a family I would only refrain from using a condom if I was 100% sure that the female part used a different source of birth control (even though I disagree with using the pill since it messes with your hormones and natural menstrual circle). Other than that, I'd have to be using condoms. None of us like using them, but if that's what it takes, the sensible ones amongst us will.

The thought I was pondering on other than that is - considering that no one really likes the feel of condoms, and no woman really likes taking contraceptive pills etc: would it lead to increased unprotected sex if people knew an abortion was available on demand, for whatever reason?

Either way, what remains to be said - if I had a girlfriend who was pregnant by me and chose to abort without doing as little as asking my opinion first (and I would persuade her to keep it, render it for adoption at best), then, yes, that would be a reason to dump her.

This may sound harsh to some, but there's things that come before love, and a healthy respect for life and the ability to take responsibility for your actions are two of them.

Rassenpapst
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 02:08 AM
The current legal situation is especially unfair to men, not women. Women have complete freedom to decide whether or not they want an abortion in all Western countries.

On the other hand, men have financial responsibility of the mother and the child yet only woman can decide of the abortion. Young boys of very good families get drunk at bars and pick up some common slut who then decides to get pregnant to extort the father. Lesbian women who are looking for a semen donor are even worse.

Because of a one drunken night the poor guy can't even remember he ends up paying hundreds of thousands to the whorish golddigger. And he can look forward to difficulties with his future wife and legitimate kids.

Rassenpapst
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 02:18 AM
Yeah these aren't the type of people we want raising our next generation, 16 yr olds and women who lie about using birth control
The girl was fourteen and not very mature which should explain her mistake with the pill.

They both graduated with above average marks despite the pregnancy and they are of good racial stock. I think they will be good parents.

Next World
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 02:43 AM
The current legal situation is especially unfair to men, not women. Women have complete freedom to decide whether or not they want an abortion in all Western countries.

On the other hand, men have financial responsibility of the mother and the child yet only woman can decide of the abortion. Young boys of very good families get drunk at bars and pick up some common slut who then decides to get pregnant to extort the father. Lesbian women who are looking for a semen donor are even worse.

Because of a one drunken night the poor guy can't even remember he ends up paying hundreds of thousands to the whorish golddigger. And he can look forward to difficulties with his future wife and legitimate kids.I agree and disagree with this statement. I believe if someone chooses to get drunk, then they need to reap whatever they sow--however much and of whatever sort it is.

However, you're right that men are refused any shade of reproductive right in western Nations, which is why I believe os many people who are ethnically European are converting to Islam.

If you're going to give a woman the right to refuse consequences of her actions, then a man should have the same right.


And for the person who decided to PM me and accuse me of lacking self-respect and "preaching" about women being "wombs with legs"--I'd like to inform them, and others here, that it's because I have respect for myself that I consider myself "pro-choice". I make the choice not to have sex, and in turn, not to get pregnant. If I became pregnant because I was raped, I would get an abortion, with no ifs or buts, as the person who made the decision to have sex in the situation was not me and obviously doesn't have morality deserving of being passed on genetically. As far as "women" being "wombs with legs", maybe if they acted like they were something more than vaginas with legs, people would think more highly of them. I'll never deny that the most noble thing I can do is to have and raise good, healthy children. However, I know that I can do much, much more.

I can't blame western men for believing that women are incapable of making good decisions, when so many embrace their legal "rights" to avoid responsibility or change their minds at their whim.


For the record, in a eugenic society, I support abortion, although I think it would be relatively unnecessary, and most bad genetic issues would be prevented with sterilization.


However, despite the fact that there are a lot of problems that result both from abortion and a lack of abortion, I believe in forcing people to take personal responsibility. No short-cuts, no hand-outs, no "watered-down versions". Hanging people in public puts the crime rate down. I view this in a similar fashion. Abortion of things which are not ethnically correct, I can't say I care about, really. It won't be my child, and it won't be a child my child dates. I don't care whether or not it exists, and I don't hold other races to the standards I set for my own.


As far as the person who mentioned something about Maslow's hierarchy--the bottom of the pyramid's mention of sex is about being a sexually healthy individual. You can be sexually healthy and abstinent at the same time. As an abstinent person I've had a lot of discussion about the specific subject, and the consensus is that you must have sexual desires, but it is not necessary that they are "quenched", rather that they are "entertained" and acknowledged. As in, if I develop a sexual interest in a guy, I do not have to have sex with him to be a healthy and progressive individual, I simply have to acknowledge that I find him attractive and respect my urges for him, rather than trying to turn myself off to him or pretend that I feel nothing. Maslow's Hierarchy existed before Maslow. People used to get a lot done while remaining abstinent, and they still do.

One amazing trait about European peoples, though, is that we have the ability to ignore animalistic instinct and even necessities for quite some time to bring about achievement. People can do incredible things without having sex, and they certainly can fulfil high needs. I'd even go so far as to say, that in general, our people have a greater desire for the higher needs than the primal needs, and that people who spend all of their time on certain primal needs are lacking something that the rest of us have, whatever name you'd like to give it.

Sigurd
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 03:24 AM
I agree and disagree with this statement. I believe if someone chooses to get drunk, then they need to reap whatever they sow--however much and of whatever sort it is.

Besides you vindicating one of my favourite phrases - "you reap what you sow" - I totally agree. If people are stupid enough to have unprotected sex after getting drunk, then it is their own fault if they get pregnant over it. Even the Law doesn't recognise voluntary intoxication as a defence to anything - at least not over here, so why should society at large see this any different?


You can be sexually healthy and abstinent at the same time.

It totally depends on you far you are taking abstinence. If you are being abstinent because you haven't found a person you would consider having children with, or because, even if you found such a person, feel that you could not care for/provide for them yet - then that is a healthy attitude IMO.

For the overall situation - I would say that sexual activity to some extent, at some point, is not only healthy, but in fact vital in some sense. Not only to the happiness of a person, but also on a greater level: If everyone were to abstain from sex for all eternity, our Folk would die out without a single stroke of the hands of those who would seek to destroy its ways. Also, if you really love the person you are with, and could consider staying together with them for a longer time period, then I see nothing wrong in engaging in sexual activity - as long as you are willing to bear possible consequences.

For example, I know that I'm selective about which girls I even go out with (and usually choose the wrong ones at that, but that's a story for another time ... :rolleyes:), since I generally look for long-term relationships. Whenever I find one that I consider suited enough, then I see no problem in engaging in sexual activity - even though I know that I would only be able to provide for them in a few years - I would still know that I would bear the consequences, and would try to make the best out of the situation.

So I think that neither total abstinence or total sleeping around is the way forward - the way forward is definitely closer to abstinence than to "whoring" - at least until you have found a person you would consider to share your life with (although I'm not Christian, the "No sex before marriage" maxim didn't come out of nonsense, now, did it? ;)) - but total abstinence for lifetime I think would, on the long run, make you unhappy. (Or am I just thinking this because I'm male? :D)


One amazing trait about European peoples, though, is that we have the ability to ignore animalistic instinct and even necessities for quite some time to bring about achievement.

Again, the way forward is to achieve a healthy balance between those instincts and necessities. There needs to be room and time for all of them, to a lesser or higher extent, as to be decided by each person themselves. Suppressing primitive instincts when reason tells us that we should is indeed good, but ignoring them at a point when our reason tells us to no longer suppress them can be quite unhealthy, and keep us from even attaining any of that which you call the "high needs".

But it's all your own choice of course, I'm not some sort of "moral apostle" telling you what to do, just one of those people who have to give their opinion to everything. :P

Next World
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 04:00 AM
Besides you vindicating one of my favourite phrases - "you reap what you sow" - I totally agree. If people are stupid enough to have unprotected sex after getting drunk, then it is their own fault if they get pregnant over it. Even the Law doesn't recognise voluntary intoxication as a defence to anything - at least not over here, so why should society at large see this any different?Actually, in our country, if you say that you were drunk and you would not have had sex with a sober person who had sex with you, had you been sober, it is considered rape. Although, this usually only works for women. There have been a few cases of men trying to use this argument for themselves, but I think the only one I can recall now is a case in Sweden. The court laughs at a man's rights like nothing else--a woman could NEVER "rape" a man :rolleyes:, I mean, obviously men want sexual activity with ANY woman who they come across...

It's similar to how if a female student has sex with a male teacher, the teacher was abusing his authority and needs to be removed, but if a male student has sex with a female teacher, it's assumed that the boy likes it and the woman was just fulfilling his desires...

Our law system is bogus, though.


As far as abstinence... lol... I never meant to imply that I'm never going to risk pregnancy. I intend to risk pregnancy many times... lol... in fact, I plan to not only risk it, but go out of my way to achieve it. But only once I am married to someone I know is going to stick around and be the ideal father to all of my children. :p



I don't care whether or not other people abstain--it's their life for them, and all. I do care, though, that people take personal responsibility for themselves and their decisions. If they don't, they don't deserve rights or privileges.

Jäger
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 10:17 AM
that would be a reason to dump her.
If a girl killed my heir simply because of stupidity and selfish reasons, dumping her would be the least I'd consider doing with her.

mischak
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 02:56 PM
Actually, in our country, if you say that you were drunk and you would not have had sex with a sober person who had sex with you, had you been sober, it is considered rape. Although, this usually only works for women.

This is true, to an extent. It's not that clear cut, though, there are other factors involved in determining if it can actually be considered rape. For one you can't just "say" something happened, you need proof, not to mention they also take peoples reputations into account, past relationships, circumstances surrounding the situation, etc., etc.


There have been a few cases of men trying to use this argument for themselves, but I think the only one I can recall now is a case in Sweden. The court laughs at a man's rights like nothing else--a woman could NEVER "rape" a man :rolleyes:, I mean, obviously men want sexual activity with ANY woman who they come across...


That isn't the reason it's harder for men to convict women in cases like these. A man cannot have sex without being aroused (at least it's nearly impossible), so the defense usually uses this against him, reasoning that if he weren't willing, he wouldn't be sexually aroused either. Anyway, I don't agree with this really, a person can be aroused, it doesn't necessarily mean they want to have sex with the person, it can simply be just a natural, biological response which can't be prevented

Sigurd
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 03:10 PM
A man cannot have sex without being aroused

Oh really? What about potency drugs and the likes? I know it sounds ridiculous at first, but if a woman was really planning to rape a man, she might as well think of that too. ;)

mischak
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 03:15 PM
Oh really? What about potency drugs and the likes? I know it sounds ridiculous at first, but if a woman was really planning to rape a man, she might as well think of that too. ;)

ok, when I say aroused, I mean erect, regardless of how that occurs, he has to be:rolleyes:. You do bring up a good point, but I doubt it's very common in these type of cases

Next World
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 10:32 PM
That isn't the reason it's harder for men to convict women in cases like these. A man cannot have sex without being aroused (at least it's nearly impossible), so the defense usually uses this against him, reasoning that if he weren't willing, he wouldn't be sexually aroused either. Anyway, I don't agree with this really, a person can be aroused, it doesn't necessarily mean they want to have sex with the person, it can simply be just a natural, biological response which can't be preventedI'm glad that you mentioned that arousal doesn't necessarily mean that someone is willing to consent to sex. That is a very important thing.

On the subject of men being raped, there was a group of women in Africa who went around abducting men, holding them at gun point, and slathering their groins down with nitroglycerin. Nitroglycerin is relatively easy to get your hands on if you want it, and is often available in medical products. For those of you who don't know what nitroglycerin does when it's rubbed on the skin, it basically increases bloodflow to the area where it is applied. It is usually used in heart-related medical issues. However, if someone had it in their mind to rape a man, it would work, according to reports.

I'm just glad that the freaks of America are, for the most part, too stupid to figure something like that out.

Watch out for those chem-nerd girls, though...

ladybright
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 11:15 PM
That makes failure of preventative measures occur once in every 100 uses on average. That could possible be 1 aborted baby because of the irresponsibility of modern-day couples.
Just as a note the falure rates of contraceptives are PER YEAR not per sexual intercourse.



Contraceptive doesn't affect a woman's fertility, it may determine the number of children she decides to have, but once she stops taking them, it doesn't prevent or harm her fertility in any way

Unfortunately the hormonal options (Pill, hormonal IUD, implant, patch and shots) all have a real risk of impacting fertility as well as a host of other side effects. Condoms, foam, sponges, cervial caps and diaphrams all require applying which can be distracting. As others have noted condoms are less fun but they have the advantage of both partners know that some form or birth control was used. I still recoment a copper IUD because of the low risk of fertility issues and other side effects(assuming you do not have a copper allergy or fibriods, which can cause really heavy bleading and cramps). I was pregnant two months after mine was taken out so my personal experience matches the statistics:D.

Sex inclueds risks and responsibilities. I think that you should not have sex with anyone who you would not be willing to have a child with. But I also do not hold all people to my standards.

Next World
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 11:28 PM
I still recoment a copper IUD because of the low risk of fertility issues and other side effects(assuming you do not have a copper allergy or fibriods, which can cause really heavy bleading and cramps). I was pregnant two months after mine was taken out so my personal experience matches the statistics:D.I don't know much about copper IUDs, as they're not common around here (around here, most girls are on birth control by high school to deal with "cramps"--really it's just to cause more medical problems to keep the economy structured as it is), so I don't know if there is a difference between a copper T IUD and a copper IUD or if it's the same thing, either way, it sounds like this would apply to both, one of the fellas posted this in the health section of another forum I'm on, and I thought it is something worth mentioning:

Only thirty seconds on a cell phone are enough to open up our blood-brain-barrier, a natural barrier that protects our brain from toxins, for eight hours. A Swedish study showed that ninety percent of the women who used a copper-T I.U.D. as their birth control method, while simultaneously using cell phones, developed uterine cancer; the cause being that the I.U.D. functioned as a transmitter and receiver of unnatural, dissonant vibrations.


I know I don't "use a cell phone", although my mom recently bought me one for "safety reasons", and I don't use birth control, because I don't have a reason to, but I do think that if I were using birth control, I wouldn't feel comfortable with a copper IUD if it was picking up cell phone waves and vibrations. Uterine cancer doesn't fly with me, especially without having had children beforehand.

mischak
Monday, September 24th, 2007, 11:30 PM
Unfortunately the hormonal options (Pill, hormonal IUD, implant, patch and shots) all have a real risk of impacting fertility as well as a host of other side effects.

I've never heard anything about the pill having any siginificant or serious affect on fertility, do you have any sources for that? I was on the pill for over 2 years and while it had some really annoying side effects the first month or two, I felt fine after that, so I really have no issues with it, especially seeing as it did its job.

Sigurd
Tuesday, September 25th, 2007, 12:11 AM
I've never heard anything about the pill having any siginificant or serious affect on fertility, do you have any sources for that? I was on the pill for over 2 years and while it had some really annoying side effects the first month or two, I felt fine after that, so I really have no issues with it, especially seeing as it did its job.

Now, I'm going to have to give Eowyn OR credit for many things said in this posts, since we discussed this on another forum and she offered some interesting ideas, which are mainly offered in the first two paragraphs of my post.

Right, so you have the menstrual cycle, whose average length is about 28 days, split into four phases: pre-ovulatory, ovulatory, premenstrual and menstrual. Children are conceived at ovulation, whilst women tend to be more intuitive and parapsychological during the pre-menstrual and menstrual stages.

Now, when a woman takes the pill or similar hormonal medication, this cycle which is rather fine-tuned becomes imbalanced. When a woman thakes the pill, her body is led to believe she is already pregnant, which is the reason why it works as a contraceptive - as it creates a certain hormonal terrain. This will at least temporaarily affect their libido - the body is under the belief that the woman does not have to have sex because she is already pregnant. The cycle is no longer as prominently pronounced, and so a woman will not get the same full round of phases - this could well affect her creativity and intuitivity during the pre-menstrual and menstrual stages. Alternatively, if a woman, by the pill, messes with her hormones it can also change a man's reaction to her.

Now what is probably more haunting about the whole thing is that scientists have already discovered a way to make a new type of contraceptive pill stopping a woman from bleeding indefinitely. So basically, in the way that a mere variation of this pill can have such great effects on what is essentially a natural thing, it shows just how dangerous it is.

Another dangerous thing is obviously what is being marketted as HRT. For the side effects see this (http://www.hrtsideeffects.com/go.the%20petition.htm) page.

It is proven from statistics that ever since hormon replacement and the contraceptive pill have been in use, yes even over-use, female fertility problems have gone up. At the same time, it has been observed that male testes produces less and less sperm as we go along ... and I am sure that this cannot be a coincidence. I am sure that all the hormones we get ourselves, even the food we eat is fed with, can have adverse effects on us which are not yet fully clear.

Hence, nothing that changes your natural hormone level should be taken lightly, and this includes the contraceptive pill.

mischak
Tuesday, September 25th, 2007, 12:33 AM
Children are conceived at ovulation, whilst women tend to be more intuitive and parapsychological during the pre-menstrual and menstrual stages.

Intuitive and "parapsychological" in regard to what?


This will at least temporaarily affect their libido - the body is under the belief that the woman does not have to have sex because she is already pregnant.

Small price to pay for something that's temporary especially seeing as it's preventing something permanent from happening


Alternatively, if a woman, by the pill, messes with her hormones it can also change a man's reaction to her.

This has never been a problem for me


Now what is probably more haunting about the whole thing is that scientists have already discovered a way to make a new type of contraceptive pill stopping a woman from bleeding indefinitely.

Do you mean indefinitely while on the pill, or once off the pill also? Depo provera (the shot) already does this, but I think it's only after being on it for 6 months+


It is proven from statistics that ever since hormon replacement and the contraceptive pill have been in use, yes even over-use, female fertility problems have gone up. At the same time, it has been observed that male testes produces less and less sperm as we go along ... and I am sure that this cannot be a coincidence.

Source?

Sigurd
Tuesday, September 25th, 2007, 01:05 AM
Inuititve and "parapsychological" in regard to what?

It has generally been assumed that women are more spiritual and intuitive towards the end of their cycle. It has generally also been assumed that the oracles of Delphi were menstruating women. Now, obviously I'm not a woman so I cannot testify this, but I have heard it claimed that women are more in touch with their thoughts, dreams, and aspirations the closer they get to the "end" of the cycle. Can you testify this, or deny it wholehand?


Small price to pay for something that's temporary especially seeing as it's preventing something permanent from happeningWell, if you're taking the pill, then it is a quasi-permanent temporary. For the only time you actual pause taking it is during the (approximate) week you actually menstruate. The apparent sexual freedoms that women seek to enjoy by that are probably less so because their libido is actually decreased.

And whether your hormone level being constantly out of natural order is really a small price to pay in the long run is questionable.


This has never been a problem for meI am not going to make assumptions, but did you have scope for comparison?


Do you mean indefinitely while on the pill, or once off the pill also? Depo provera (the shot) already does this, but I think it's only after being on it for 6 months+Apparently it is actually just one that is designed to be taken daily, or whatever else may be implied in this (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc .co.uk%2F2%2Fhi%2Fhealth%2F6684511.stm) article.


Source?Trythis (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tele graph.co.uk%2Fhealth%2Fmain.jhtml%3Fxml% 3D%2Fhealth%2F2007%2F08%2F13%2Fhpill113. xml) piece for instance.

mischak
Tuesday, September 25th, 2007, 01:30 AM
Now, obviously I'm not a woman so I cannot testify this, but I have heard it claimed that women are more in touch with their thoughts, dreams, and aspirations the closer they get to the "end" of the cycle. Can you testify this, or deny it wholehand?

Honestly, I've never noticed any difference


Well, if you're taking the pill, then it is a quasi-permanent temporary. For the only time you actual pause taking it is during the (approximate) week you actually menstruate.

I meant, it's preventing pregnany, which otherwise would result in a child which is completely permanent.


The apparent sexual freedoms that women seek to enjoy by that are probably less so because their libido is actually decreased.

I am not going to make assumptions, but did you have scope for comparison?

Comparison for what? Libido? I do, and for me, there is no difference...

Deary
Thursday, September 27th, 2007, 02:21 AM
You talk of being pregnant as though as it is a disease, a sickness, something that has to be treated.

Yes, abortion is a means of treatment, a deterrent to eliminate an unwanted greater consequence of an action for those who wish not to have a child. On the other hand, below you relate the result of pregnancy from sex to crime.


Is it really? If I break into my neighbors house and steal his laptop, I'll have to live with the chance of getting charged for housebreaking. If I shoot someone I'll have to live with the chance of getting done for murder. If I eat too much, I'll have to live with the chance of getting fat. If I don't change my clothes after being outside in the rain, I'll risk getting a cold. And if I have sex, especially unprotected sex, I'll know that a pregnancy can arise. If you want to be 100% sure not to get pregnant, just don't have sex. It really isn't that hard...

My analogy is not inappropriate. The reasons of an outcome cannot always be known for a fact, and regardless of a greater or lesser chance of things, shades of grey are always present. Society is well aware of carcinogens, but if one has cancer, it does not automatically imply that they were using harmful substances or willingly exposing themselves to cancer-causing agents. There are those who smoke all their lives and get cancer while there remain others who smoke all of their lives and are cancer-free. If a person breaks their arm for falling off a ladder and goes to a hospital, doctors cannot refuse treatment no matter the reasons for their arm being broken. With safety guidelines, it is not impossible for one to break an arm, and with all information on cancer, people still end up with it. Pregnancy is similar in that it is not evidence of anything other than the act of intercourse took place. Even with the use of contraceptives, pregnancy is not an impossibility and it would be unreasonable to expect the population to remain abstinent.

My point is, if any authority expresses the wish to implement controls over who receives treatment and who does not, the authority must have means of gathering evidence to verify the qualifications of others. There is, currently, no means of gathering evidence to prove how one got pregnant. Doctors then have no right to refuse treatment to pregnant women who opt for an abortion. Having such controls in place (abortions for only rape victims, etc.) with lack of evidence is presumptuous, assuming all else who are unwillingly pregnant are guilty of not practicing safe sex, and must be pregnant as a result of their own irresponsibility.


And if we allow women to get abortions over abortions over abortions, obviously everyone is going to have unprotected sex. We men don't like wearing condoms because they create an odd feel in the process of making love, you women don't like taking the pill because it messes with your hormones, etc. etc. etc.

I never advocated any tolerance of multiple, endless abortion procedures, though I do think the amount of abortion procedures per patient is the only aspect of the issue that can truly be managed by an authority, and I already stated my views previously on contraception and the morning-after pill. As with anything, there must be limits. Also, because the option for abortion is available is not necessarily going to create a mass of careless sexually-active individuals. Abortion procedures are expensive, can be emotionally traumatizing, and after many, can pose as a physical threat.


In my opinion, if you're old and mature enough to have sex, then you're old and mature enough to have a child. Full stop.

Those who have sex are not always mature enough to have children. Girls as young as fourteen have sex and become pregnant. Do you propose they release a child into the world?

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, September 27th, 2007, 03:02 AM
Having such controls in place (abortions for only rape victims, etc.) with lack of evidence is presumptuous

Yeah, if you had that as the law, every woman who wanted an abortion would claim to have been raped, and a lot of innocent men would have their lives ruined by false charges of rape.

Next World
Monday, October 8th, 2007, 01:08 AM
I know the topic of this thread isn't birth control, but I was intending to reply to questions about the bad effects of the pill (I did, but it was that day that Raven had to delete a bunch of posts because they were doubling with her name on them.), and more were brought to light today.

What my homeopathic doctor told me about "the pill" and other hormone based methods of birth control, the main concern is "overdosing". Now, you're probably sitting there thinking, "How stupid do you have to be? One per day, dote.". Not really, different women have different estrogen levels Naturally, have different amounts of estrogen added through lifestyle (depends upon mainly their diet, their exercise habits, and their sex life), and most birth control has a standard dosage that is too much for a lot of women. Many women develop polycystic ovarian syndrome or a related condition, which basically gives the same effects as steroids (too much coarse body hair, highly irregular period even once pill use has stopped, so on). It is a fixable condition, to some degree. However, most women who develop such a condition have fertility problems for most of their life, and it requires a lot of hard and in some ways ridiculous work to fix the condition. For example, my homeopathic doctor says that when she has someone come in with PCO or a sister condition, she usually puts them on a very strict diet so that they can drop 5% of their body weight, even though most of them are not over weight. They can't just exercise it off, either, as the testosterone levels are all ready out of whack.


The thing that is kind of a bigger issue is what one of my exes called me to talk about. His sister is in the hospital in critical condition because of the birth control she is on. She has taken it for a good deal of time without problems. Now she has several bloodclots in her lungs, legs, and other parts of her body. One of them is about ten inches long (it's a miracle that she's alive). They're all attributed to the birth control, and she has been taking the right dosage. If anything, she'd probably need more of it for it to be fully effective for its purposes, looking at her in comparison to the average American woman.

She's been in a lot of pain for the past few weeks, and the first time she went to get this checked out, it was misdiagnosed. Luckily they got it right this time.

CharlesDexterWard
Sunday, March 16th, 2008, 01:28 PM
I'm against the so called right to abortion.


1. Explain why you do or do not support the right to abortion.Abortion is collective suicide. A good society makes sure that children are not a problem. In addition, women should take responsibility before they go on to claim a "right" to abortion. That way our birth rate would make a miraculous jump, and we would have more happy and Germanic families all over the world.


2. Explain a system of rules and regulations to determine the allowance/disallowance of abortion procedures.I think that abortion should be illegal. An official policy to allow something that is not allowed is just self-contradictory, and would cause confusion.


3. Explain how might society and the economy be affected by the right/lack of right to abortion.The right to abortion
-> irresponsible behaviour
-> claiming the right to kill our future
-> killing our future
-> ethnic suicide.

Bringing new life to our nations is everything that "the right to abortion" isn't. Life is beautiful.

Amorsite
Sunday, March 16th, 2008, 01:37 PM
Why disguise under "abortion" the act of child assassination? In all fairness this should be called the "(self inflicted) race genocide" debate. I assume you get my opinion on this issue. ;)

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 12:40 PM
In all fairness this should be called the "(self inflicted) race genocide" debate.

I'm not so sure about this-how many otherwise attractive women who want a normal family find that decent guys won't touch them with a 10 foot pole because they are single mothers?

CharlesDexterWard
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 01:12 PM
I'm not so sure about this-how many otherwise attractive women who want a normal family find that decent guys won't touch them with a 10 foot pole because they are single mothers?

I suggested that women should take responsibility before that. When they are complaining about the natural result of their own actions, they are giving voice to vain dissent with their own nature. What does it have to do with law and the right or wrong of abortion?

Hanna
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 01:34 PM
Didn't these people realize there's protections? I think people use more protections in the 60-70s compared to now.

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 02:38 PM
I suggested that women should take responsibility before that. When they are complaining about the natural result of their own actions, they are giving voice to vain dissent with their own nature. What does it have to do with law and the right or wrong of abortion?

Would I date a woman who has had an abortion or used some other form of birth control? Yes


Would I marry a woman who has kids from a previous relationship? H-E-L-L- NO.

Do many other Germanic males share a similar opinion? Yes

Amorsite
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 02:47 PM
Would I date a woman who has had an abortion or used some other form of birth control? Yes


Would I marry a woman who has kids from a previous relationship? H-E-L-L- NO.

Do many other Germanic males share a similar opinion? Yes

And?...

CharlesDexterWard
Monday, March 17th, 2008, 02:47 PM
Would I date a woman who has had an abortion or used some other form of birth control? Yes


Would I marry a woman who has kids from a previous relationship? H-E-L-L- NO.

Do many other Germanic males share a similar opinion? Yes

... like many (Germanic) men and women like to keep it no strings attached in this abhorrent age of no direction. Not all we are at face value is good. And it's not in the best of our nature either. The least society can do to inspire people with some guts is to not support vicious behaviour, don't you think? Anything else is treason.

Ossi
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008, 02:58 AM
I'm determinedly AGAINST abortion except when the woman is taken forcefully and has no choice about sex (rape) and when the fetus is malformed or sick. In all other cases, women who abort disgust me. If I had my way, women who abort healthy babies should be sterilised.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008, 08:03 AM
I'm against abortion because it is murder of a human being. And since that is my reason, I of course don't believe it's allowable under any circumstance.


Given that the embryo, as part of a woman's body, is her property, it is entirely within her rights to carry the embryo to term or terminate it as she sees fit.Well, calling it part of the mother's body is a matter of semantics. I don't consider it part of her body (in the sense that her hands and feet are), because it is another human being, it's not actually her, besides being derived from the father as well; so it's no less his body than hers. Just because it's attached to her doesn't mean it is her.

On top of this, I don't consider any human to have absolute power over his own body; mankind belongs to his Creator.

mischak
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008, 08:11 AM
I'm against abortion because it is murder of a human being. And since that is my reason, I of course don't believe it's allowable under any circumstance.

So are you against all war, and the death penalty as well?

Rhydderch
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008, 08:29 AM
So are you against all war, and the death penalty as well?I said I'm against abortion because it's murder of a human being. The death penalty is not murder of a human being, and neither is war (necessarily).

I never said that every kind of killing is murder.

The Lawspeaker
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008, 08:33 AM
So are you against all war, and the death penalty as well?
A war cannot be avoided (most of the time), a death penalty would be sick enough (you know my personal views on the death penalty), but I find abortion something abhorrent and I think that it should actually only be allowed after rape and when the foetus is de-formed or in any other way handicapped. Underaged mothers should be provided with all the care that they can find (both financially and emotionally) to help raising her child or should she decide to have it adopted , she should be provided with emotional care and advise.

There is, however, a major problem when we outlaw abortion: women might start hurting themselves, putting something inside of their wombs or throwing themselves down stairs just to get rid of their foetus. That's the only reason why I would like to keep the law as it is now. But in all honesty, I find the reason of feminist organisations that women have the right to be in charge of their own bodies (and what would be their reason for allowing abortion) laughable- Sure a woman is in charge of her body but it takes two to have a child and I haven't heard of new Immaculate Conceptions since I have read the Bible.

Jäger
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008, 09:11 AM
Well, calling it part of the mother's body is a matter of semantics.
And not really based on what we know. The woman's body is prone to reject her baby exactly because it is not part of her, and most deaths during birth happen exactly because of this.
In all high cultured societies, women are the carriers, men the creators.

Wasn't it in Aeschylus's drama where the mother betrayed her husband, and her son killed the mother for revenge, later when the son is supposed to get punished, it's the question whether it was an actual murder of his own blood (which would be punished severely), or better put which blood ties where stronger so which side he was supposed to take.
Apollo protected the son who killed his mother by saying "Not the mother procreates her son, It's the man who procreates" :)

Guntwachar
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008, 10:03 AM
No i am not against abortion, think woman should have the choice to do so but when there child is healthy and they do it i think they should get a punishment (except in case of a rape) but then more to take care they cant have kids anymore, as for kids that are for sure unhealthy and they know it before birth i think its a good way to take care that kid doesnt get a horrible life like other people.

SineNomine
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008, 01:41 PM
At what point does the foetus become human? One could argue at the point where its cerebral cortex developed, as this is the prerequisite for any sort of rationality. Before this time, I see no fault in aborting the child, though afterwards it would be murder I suppose (otherwise, to be consistent, one should consider masturbation to be murder too.) If the mother could eject the child safely without killing it, that'd be fully within her rights. She is the full owner of her body, and until I see a convincing case for the existence of the Christian god (that doesn't try escape the laws of logic and the like), I will continue with this assumption. Better that a woman aborts a child than be forced to raise it if she is unfit to do so.

CharlesDexterWard
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008, 03:02 PM
At what point does the foetus become human? One could argue at the point where its cerebral cortex developed, as this is the prerequisite for any sort of rationality. Before this time, I see no fault in aborting the child, though afterwards it would be murder I suppose (otherwise, to be consistent, one should consider masturbation to be murder too.) If the mother could eject the child safely without killing it, that'd be fully within her rights. She is the full owner of her body, and until I see a convincing case for the existence of the Christian god (that doesn't try escape the laws of logic and the like), I will continue with this assumption. Better that a woman aborts a child than be forced to raise it if she is unfit to do so.




If she is really unfit to raise the child, then society (relatives, charity or another institution) should take care of it. New life is valuable and respectable even if it is not raised by the biological parents.

As for the appeal to "rationality", I think I understand the postkantian nature of the argument, but it's an invalid argument in my opinion. What is the greater change? Conception of new life as such, or an arbitrarily chosen stage in the development of that new life?

Rhydderch
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008, 03:21 PM
At what point does the foetus become human?It is never not human. It's human from the point it comes into existence.


(otherwise, to be consistent, one should consider masturbation to be murder too.)It's the fusion of the cells from the father and mother that results in a human. A genetically unique human being comes into existence at that point, identical genetically to what it will be as an adult, of course.

SineNomine
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008, 04:31 PM
It would be arbitrary but were it for the fact that moral arguments concern moral agents, which must be rational, deliberative beings for morality to even make sense. A foetus without a developed cerebral cortex has not even got the potential for rationality, let alone rationality itself. So in its absence, why should moral arguments apply to the foetus?

...as for the rearing of the child, it's all well and fine if one can find individuals willing to raise it and give it up for adoption. Otherwise, though, it is best aborted.

Loddfafner
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008, 04:32 PM
Abortion horrifies me but law is the wrong tool for stopping it. Also, it would be extremely presumptuous of me to judge how others handle their predicaments.

CharlesDexterWard
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008, 04:48 PM
It would be arbitrary but were it for the fact that moral arguments concern moral agents, which must be rational, deliberative beings for morality to even make sense. A foetus without a developed cerebral cortex has not even got the potential for rationality, let alone rationality itself. So in its absence, why should moral arguments apply to the foetus?

Society is making the legal value judgements, not the foetus. In this debate, you and I make the value judgements, not the foetus. As a matter of fact, the foetus makes the difference as a value that we are discussing, and I have never heard of foeti - before or after the cerebral cortex - nor of newly born babies making value judgements, and certainly not value judgements of the kind that we are debating here. Your argument would only have a shot at being valid in the case that indeed the individual foetus spoke against its own existence, and then it would be in the realm of euthanasia at best. If you still insist on the cerebral cortex as such, then indeed it is an arbitrarily chosen stage of development in the new life. I think you might as well justify killing newly born babies with this argumentation.

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008, 10:52 PM
I'm determinedly AGAINST abortion except when the woman is taken forcefully and has no choice about sex (rape)


I find abortion something abhorrent and I think that it should actually only be allowed after rape

If you make abortion legal only in cases of rape, every woman who wants an abortion will claim to have been raped. We already have enough false accusations of rape as it is.




If she is really unfit to raise the child, then society (relatives, charity or another institution) should take care of it. New life is valuable and respectable even if it is not raised by the biological parents.


Underaged mothers should be provided with all the care that they can find (both financially and emotionally) to help raising her child

The problem with that is that it takes resources away from responsible people who avoid behavior that leads to accidental pregnancy. If you take money away from responsible people and give it to the irresponsible people, then the responsible people will have a harder time affording children of their own. Aside from issues of fairness, this will lead to a 'reverse eugenics' effect.

SineNomine
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008, 11:01 PM
Perhaps I should've differentiated moral agents from moral patients. The question is whether a foetus can be considered the latter, i.e. whether it can be said to possess rights at all, and if so on what account (this is similar to the argument as to whether animals have rights - their ability to argue is irrelevant.) Even on a natural rights approach one must specify what it is in man's nature that leads to the emergence of these rights, and the relevant characteristic is rationality. I suppose if one were to insist that based on man's innate potentiality for rationality that the foetus too possess certain rights then the argument could work, so I'll concede that much.

CharlesDexterWard
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008, 11:06 PM
The problem with that is that it takes resources away from responsible people who avoid behavior that leads to accidental pregnancy. If you take money away from responsible people and give it to the irresponsible people, then the responsible people will have a harder time affording children of their own.That's something a nationstate should do in order to promote its survival. And someone who delivers new life takes more responsibility than someone who doesn't, in my opinion, so I think that this is no big deal. In any case, the state does not have to be as selfless as to not even care for the survival of the nation. By the way I think there's a bit of difference between a nationstate and an egalitarian constitutional state like the U.S. of America in this part of the debate, whatever importance should be attributed to the difference.


Aside from issues of fairness, this will lead to a 'reverse eugenics' effect.I don't think so. Prove it!?

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008, 11:40 PM
That's something a nationstate should do in order to promote its survival. And someone who delivers new life takes more responsibility than someone who doesn't, in my opinion, so I think that this is no big deal. In any case, the state does not have to be as selfless as to not even care for the survival of the nation. By the way I think there's a bit of difference between a nationstate and an egalitarian constitutional state like the U.S. of America in this part of the debate, whatever importance should be attributed to the difference.

I don't think so. Prove it!?

The main reason middle class people don't have children, have fewer, or delay having them is because of difficulty affording them, feeling they can't afford to give their kids the life they deserve. The more money that is taken from these people in taxes and given to single moms on welfare, the less children the middle class will have.

CharlesDexterWard
Thursday, April 10th, 2008, 12:24 AM
The main reason middle class people don't have children, have fewer, or delay having them is because of difficulty affording them

It's a complex issue for sure, but I don't believe that the above statement is true. What I do believe is that our societies have degenerated into a very anti-life state of affairs where economical aspects are just a tiny detail in the big picture, and that there are many ways in which the collective suicide needs to be countered. This thread is about abortion, and my previous statements still stand for my opinion. The wider question of social engineering is interesting. I believe there are many ways to counter other negative influences - than the so-called "right" to abortion - on the birth rate, such as flaws in present day social engineering, but that's off topic.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT:

All you people who thanked posts that implicitly say that abortions are good for increasing birth rates,

http://i30.tinypic.com/2s7b1g5.gif

You got lost in your own thoughts. I can't get you out of there. http://i29.tinypic.com/20703d2.gif
I also did not suggest anything that would create "single mothers on welfare".

Deary
Friday, April 11th, 2008, 02:44 AM
What I find ironic is that some of you support the idea of friends with benefits yet would also deny a woman the right to abortion. The friend one chooses to engage in a sexual relationship with is not always the one that they imagine producing offspring with or marrying. Hardly an ideal way for a child to be brought into the world.
To begin with, most of you are not opposed to the idea of having sex, pre-marital sex or even meaningless sex. You, at least, accept the fact that people will have sex regardless, and that even protection carries a chance of failure. So, how is it you can OK the right to sexual freedom and contraception yet be completely unforgiving when an accident should occur?
To apply that forgiveness only to victims of rape, incest, underage pregnancy, etc. is incredibly unfair. People lie, and ultimately, there is no way to prove or disprove how one became pregnant. It would be legally impossible to regulate who is allowed or disallowed abortions. If abortion is permitted at all, it will have to be for everyone.

There is a huge invasion of privacy here no one seems to be picking up on.
For example, a person is given the choice of donating blood. One pint of blood could save lives. Donating blood would not harm that person, but we do not mandate blood donations even if it would be for the good of another. When a person gets a license, he is given the choice of being an organ doner. Those organs could save lives, but even when that person is dead, by law, those organs cannot be harvested unless permission was given by the owner. A person is given the choice to donate his body to science. The knowledge learned could assist in bettering the lives of others, but who is anyone else to decide the future of that person's remains but that person himself?
Already, we have established that the right to our principles and the rule of our physical being are so invaluable even compared to the unfortunate fate of another. We've allowed the right to choose and the right to our bodies at the cost of lives because to strip us from that would be a violation. Were it up to me, those who are pro-choice would gain the title of pro-life, because what is life without those inalienable rights?
In fact, what "pro-lifers" really are supporting is the control over others so that it fits their definition of morality and what is best. They want to impose their views and religious doctrine upon everyone else. They want it so much that it might very well destroy a woman's most precious idea of family. Abortions aren't common. It's doesn't come out of your tax dollars. In fact, it's quite a price to pay for someone out of their own pockets. It's not your life. It's not your baby. It's not your future or your dreams. It's not your decision, and I'll be damned if any "pro-lifer" can call himself a red-blooded American.

I'm starting to think I should have called this thread "The Endless Abortion Debate" :D

Æmeric
Friday, April 11th, 2008, 02:47 AM
Maybe its a European thing. Among Americans, those opposed to abortion tend to also frown on premarital sex or casual sex.

Ossi
Friday, April 11th, 2008, 06:39 AM
What I find ironic is that some of you support the idea of friends with benefits yet would also deny a woman the right to abortion. The friend one chooses to engage in a sexual relationship with is not always the one that they imagine producing offspring with or marrying. Hardly an ideal way for a child to be brought into the world.
I said I support it as long as there's protection used and as long as they're willing to deal with the consequences of pregnancy if protection fails.


To begin with, most of you are not opposed to the idea of having sex, pre-marital sex or even meaningless sex. You, at least, accept the fact that people will have sex regardless, and that even protection carries a chance of failure. So, how is it you can OK the right to sexual freedom and contraception yet be completely unforgiving when an accident should occur?
Because anyone with a brain knows that sex can result in pregnancy. They assume that risk to themselves. If they can't deal with the consequences of sex, then ya, they shouldn't have it.


To apply that forgiveness only to victims of rape, incest, underage pregnancy, etc. is incredibly unfair.
To apply it to victims of rape is fair. They had no choice. They DIDN'T CONSENT to sex. Unhealthy babies are also of no benefit to the nation. We need healthy people, not malformed ones.


People lie, and ultimately, there is no way to prove or disprove how one became pregnant. It would be legally impossible to regulate who is allowed or disallowed abortions. If abortion is permitted at all, it will have to be for everyone.
Rape can be medically proven.


There is a huge invasion of privacy here no one seems to be picking up on.
For example, a person is given the choice of donating blood. One pint of blood could save lives. Donating blood would not harm that person, but we do not mandate blood donations even if it would be for the good of another. When a person gets a license, he is given the choice of being an organ doner. Those organs could save lives, but even when that person is dead, by law, those organs cannot be harvested unless permission was given by the owner. A person is given the choice to donate his body to science. The knowledge learned could assist in bettering the lives of others, but who is anyone else to decide the future of that person's remains but that person himself?
Already, we have established that the right to our principles and the rule of our physical being are so invaluable even compared to the unfortunate fate of another. We've allowed the right to choose and the right to our bodies at the cost of lives because to strip us from that would be a violation. Were it up to me, those who are pro-choice would gain the title of pro-life, because what is life without those inalienable rights?
There's a huge difference between making the choice to donate blood or organs and killing an unborn baby. Women who abort healthy babies are committing a crime against the nation. I have no sympathy for them. For every German woman who aborts her baby, there's a Turkish woman who gives birth to 4-5.


In fact, what "pro-lifers" really are supporting is the control over others so that it fits their definition of morality and what is best. They want to impose their views and religious doctrine upon everyone else. They want it so much that it might very well destroy a woman's most precious idea of family.
Of course I want my views imposed on others. I think my views are right. The only ones who are destroying the idea of family are the abortionists. I have no religious doctrine, I'm nonreligious. I'm not a liberal or a human rights activist. I'm a nationalist and a socialist, I care about my nation, not about the selfishness of irresponsible women and whores.


Abortions aren't common. It's doesn't come out of your tax dollars. In fact, it's quite a price to pay for someone out of their own pockets. It's not your life. It's not your baby. It's not your future or your dreams. It's not your decision, and I'll be damned if any "pro-lifer" can call himself a red-blooded American.
The baby is a potential part of the nation so I think the government should have a say over it.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, April 11th, 2008, 07:23 AM
I care about my nation, not about the selfishness of irresponsible women and whores.


The baby is a potential part of the nation so I think the government should have a say over it.

But what kind of parents are those people going to be?

Jäger
Friday, April 11th, 2008, 08:51 AM
But what kind of parents are those people going to be?
Doesn't matter, people should understand the way nature works here, we select after birth, not before.
As long as life isn't tested we can't say whether it is any good.

As thus, I tend to consider life at the moment it is born, not fecundated. It wouldn't matter to me anyway though, since I don't want to protect life just because it is life, so any deformed/ill/etc. fetus should be aborted, to give the parents a chance for a healthy child.

CharlesDexterWard
Friday, April 11th, 2008, 10:32 AM
There is a huge invasion of privacy here no one seems to be picking up on. There is no invasion of privacy. Why, if a woman goes to bed with a man, and new life is conceived, is there any "invasion of privacy" to not grant an abortion? If you spend time in the sun and get a tan, should the authorities be there for you to remove the tan if you are not completely happy with it? Why are you assuming that the authorities should be there to agree with you just because you can't accept the natural consequences of your actions? Why wouldn't it be all right for society to treat people like responsible and sensible people instead of like wasted creatures who always want a way out of anything they created?



In fact, what "pro-lifers" really are supporting is the control over others so that it fits their definition of morality and what is best.Oooh, that's what it's all about? No, it isn't. Pro-"choice" people are those who are trying to impose their standards on other people. You can't even become a doctor in Sweden unless you agree to "abort" = kill.



They want to impose their views and religious doctrine upon everyone else.Oh... really? Show us when did I want to impose my "views and religious doctrine upon everyone else". It's always safe to make obscure allusions, but can you prove them?



They want it so much that it might very well destroy a woman's most precious idea of family.No. Woman should take responsibility too, and not expect everyone to be there to fix everything according to her "most precious idea".



Abortions aren't common.Yes they are. What kind of argument is this?



It's doesn't come out of your tax dollars.In the U.S., maybe not, but in Sweden it does. Like it matters a whole lot? I think there are other considerations that are far more pressing. I try not to bring in the peculiarities of local policy into a question that can be otherwise settled.



It's not your decision, and I'll be damned if any "pro-lifer" can call himself a red-blooded American.The debate is not about who is entitled to be "a red-blooded American".



It's not your life. It's not your baby. It's not your future or your dreams.So... why do you expect the authorities to fix your life for you? Is that the attitude that makes a red-blooded American???

SineNomine
Friday, April 11th, 2008, 01:13 PM
Of course, socialists who think women should not abort on account of their ideology are not selfish at all, no. They're pure altruists. I forget that socialists know better than everyone else how they should live their lives though (and as always they will whine about "selfishness" when someone disagrees with their nonsense.) Give me a break. :rolleyes: Abortion may be illegitimate, but I'll be damned if I buy into such a silly argument against it.

Jäger
Friday, April 11th, 2008, 03:14 PM
Of course, socialists who think women should not abort on account of their ideology are not selfish at all, no.
Yes, of course not, it is a question what benefits the group.


I forget that socialists know better than everyone else how they should live their lives though (and as always they will whine about "selfishness" when someone disagrees with their nonsense.)
Hmm, Anarchy will result in domination anyway, it is a fact of life that the strong rules the weak.
If you are too weak, or incapable of convincing the strong of your idea, you have no other choice but to live by his rules.

I like freedom, and I even could see me allowing infanticide in certain cases, what I wouldn't allow is that the woman can ignore the man, with a silly notion that it would be "her" baby (or in case of abortion, her body), and the man should stay out of this.

Self-Responsibility is something you surely support, and if a woman and man do something where they know might result in an offspring, then they shall bear the consequences.
It is quite questionable and alogical when the child should be punished for the stupidity of its parents.

SineNomine
Friday, April 11th, 2008, 03:50 PM
Rubbish. They are some of the most selfish people alive, willing to force others to abide by their ill-conceived schemes if need be, then blaming the "selfishness" of their victims when their stupidity fails. Brilliant, indeed. That they clamour so against this bogeyman called "selfishness" and at the same time are so caught up in their own schemes discredits them further in my view. Wanting to control others "for their own good" is entirely selfish. But I digress.

I don't even disagree with you that personal responsibility should factor in or that the father should have some say. The most convincing case against it is that the foetus has rights that should not be violated. I am entirely opposed to Feldherr's rationalizations against abortion though.

I have no more to say on the topic.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, April 11th, 2008, 04:38 PM
Self-Responsibility is something you surely support, and if a woman and man do something where they know might result in an offspring, then they shall bear the consequences.

That might possibly apply in a 100% capitalist state with no welfare system, no public schools, no government provided services of any sort. Otherwise the children of the irresponsible suck resources away from more responsible people, and make it more difficult for them to have children of their own.

Also they grow up in households of parents who don't want them, usually a single mother with highly questionable lifestyle habits, and thus have a greater tendency towards disruptive behavior

Study showing abortion reduces crime:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID174508_code010501110.pdf?abstract id=174508&mirid=1

Jäger
Friday, April 11th, 2008, 04:49 PM
They are some of the most selfish people alive, willing to force others to abide by their ill-conceived schemes if need be, then blaming the "selfishness" of their victims when their stupidity fails.
So there is no such thing that is positive for the group, which would demand restrain from selfish strife?

If there is, I don't see your point.

Thusnelda
Friday, April 11th, 2008, 06:18 PM
Generally I do oppose abortion wholeheartly. I make exactly two exclusions and I will tell you more about them in some seconds. ;) But let me state why I´m against abortion first.

First I think that unborn babies are humans. They are living and reacting. It is of no matter how old the embryo/foetus is, it´s my opinion that the lifeform begins to exist when the male sperm unites with the female egg.
So killing people without reason is wrong, no matter how old they are.

Second: The reason why the demographics are not in favor of Germanics in many countries is that we have too less babies. Minorities like muslims, latinos or such have a higher birthrate.
Germanic preservation is ALSO a matter of bear children. It´s against the cause to abort babies.

So, what are my two exlusions? The two exclusions under which I would allow abortion in an individual case:

Exclusion 1: The baby is a product of rape. But then the police must make sure that the "rape" is not only a lie of the mother to get the right to make the abortion.

Exclusion 2: Doctors found out that a birth of the baby would harm the health of the mother severely or that she has to die while giving birth to her child. Or the baby is already dead or on it´s irreversible way to die.

----

I accept no other reasons for an abortion. "Unwelcome" babies are the fault of the mother (and father), it´s not the fault of the babies. People who abort babies because they wouldn´t fit in their "life planning" for example really disgust me! :mad:

Those who are pregnant and don´t want to have the child should give the baby at least the right and chance to be adopted by other people after birth! Then they can live on without a baby. And the baby can survive and and live it´s life. :)

Bärin
Friday, April 11th, 2008, 06:31 PM
I agree with Feldherr, Jäger and Valkyrie. I'm against abortion except in cases of rape and bad health. If you have sex you should expect to become pregnant one day. If protection fails you, you're responsible for not using it properly. The baby shouldn't be punished because the condom broke or because you forgot your pill. Preservation can't be without babies. If you abort them, you deny the importance of preservation. Some women who had abortions couldn't have children again.

I'm one of these eeevil socialists who think it's very selfish to abort. I don't think it's selfish to want these anti-abortion views to work in society, because these views help the collective. With more children, we will preserve more Germans for the future. In our country, the majority of people are old. We need more children or we are in danger of dying out. As far as I see, abortion is a crime against preservation. :(

Jäger
Friday, April 11th, 2008, 07:26 PM
Otherwise the children of the irresponsible suck resources away from more responsible people, and make it more difficult for them to have children of their own.
People will have to pay the state for the duties they demand from him, raising healthy "orphaned" children should be a priority, before research funding or anything else, in essence it might be seen as an "investment", that those children will eventually increase the wealth of the nation.


Also they grow up in households of parents who don't want them, ...
They shouldn't, the parents should be able to give them out for adoption, with the state being "client" who will always take them, compare Lebensborn e.V. ; this institution, despite popular belief, was not some kind of breeding facility, but was established exactly because of the many illegal abortions.


Study showing abortion reduces crime:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID174508_code010501110.pdf?abstract id=174508&mirid=1
Well, it shows a correlation, surely you will agree that there will be many other factors involved here, anyway, getting the children away from parents that really don't want them is indeed a good idea.

Ossi
Friday, April 11th, 2008, 09:07 PM
But what kind of parents are those people going to be?
Parents who learn to take responsibility. Alternatively, they could give the child for adoption.


Rubbish. They are some of the most selfish people alive, willing to force others to abide by their ill-conceived schemes if need be, then blaming the "selfishness" of their victims when their stupidity fails. Brilliant, indeed. That they clamour so against this bogeyman called "selfishness" and at the same time are so caught up in their own schemes discredits them further in my view. Wanting to control others "for their own good" is entirely selfish. But I digress.

I don't even disagree with you that personal responsibility should factor in or that the father should have some say. The most convincing case against it is that the foetus has rights that should not be violated. I am entirely opposed to Feldherr's rationalizations against abortion though.

I have no more to say on the topic.
What NONSENSE. I gain nothing if the baby isn't aborted. My nation does, so it isn't "selfish".

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 04:31 AM
People will have to pay the state for the duties they demand from him, raising healthy "orphaned" children should be a priority, before research funding or anything else, in essence it might be seen as an "investment", that those children will eventually increase the wealth of the nation.

The state has to get its money from somewhere-by taxing responsible citizens, who are then less able to afford children of their own.

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 09:19 AM
Abortion is a Crime and I condemn Crimes. Unless the Mother's Life is endangered, the Fetus is malformed or the Woman was raped and can prove it (she has to go to the Police and Hospital immediately), Abortion shouldn't be allowed in my Opinion. The Fetus is alive and can feel the Pain when it is killed. Some Abortion Doctors will lie about this but I've seen it proven by Doctors who performed Abortions and wanted to make a Stance because they realized they made a big Mistake. Abortion should be judged as a Crime in my Opinion and should receive the same Penalty like Infanticide.

CharlesDexterWard
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 09:51 AM
There is apparent lack of sound argumentation on the part of the abortionists. Tax money, unhampered "freedom", crime reduction and nobody-elses-business arguments are all from the point of view of a particular and temporal state of things, and not any principal considerations on the question of abortion. There's no reason why a non-abortion policy should lead to such things as single mothers on welfare and costly undertakings of another kind in all societies. When it comes to single mothers, they are clearly much more a result of too much "freedom", not of too much moral consideration. How anyone can argue something other than that strikes me as absurd.

About crime reduction, if ordinary murder or arbitrary execution led to reduced crime rates overall, would you support that as well? The argument is at any rate not a principal consideration of abortion as such, but merely in temporal consequences of abortion in a certain temporal state of things.

About freedom, it seems to me that when it is hijacked as an argument in favour of barbaric, unhealthy and irresponsible behaviour, it no longer has any value. Unhampered freedom arguments strike me as coming from the narrowminded point of view of the speaker who has nothing else in mind but to be "free", no matter the consquences of reckless freedom for self, society and third party. That's where the nobody-elses-business rant comes in as some kind of celebration of no moral direction whatsoever. I certainly don't think it is an argument at all. Just because there are people who are ready to do business out of virtually anything doesn't mean that it is right in any way whatsoever. When an action can be considered a crime, as is the case with taking a life, it becomes a matter not only of morality, but also of law.

End of analysis.

Jäger
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 11:07 AM
The state has to get its money from somewhere-by taxing responsible citizens, who are then less able to afford children of their own.
That can't be the deciding factor, or else poor people in countries like India, China, etc. wouldn't get so many children.

Aside from that, if children increase the general wealth of a nation, then it will lead to more couples being able to afford their own children :)


About freedom, it seems to me that when it is hijacked as an argument in favour of barbaric, unhealthy and irresponsible behaviour, it no longer has any value.
So it is:

"Freedom in the Germanic sense means inward independence, the scope for research, the extension of knowledge, and true religious feeling. Freedom for near eastern hybrids and swarthy mongrels means unrestrained license to destroy other cultural values." - A. Rosenberg.

Deary
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 03:44 PM
Rape can be medically proven.

Only if that raped woman goes to the police in time and gets herself medically examined. Some rape victims are too traumatized to do that, however. The immediately take a shower. They wait days, months and even years before ever mentioning it. By that time, bruises and scars will have disappeared, and she might already be pregnant. There would be no evidence of rape anymore. If you have sympathy for rape victims, you must also have understanding for how differently rape can affect women. Even if there is a policy for rape victims to get to the clinic and police in time, it will not always be followed. Thus, it would technically place them along the lines of everyone else who got pregnant by accident. I would really like to see a layout of how to prove the difference between a sexually-active woman who was raped and waited a long time to report it, and a sexually-active woman who got pregnant accidentally having consenting sex. Someone show me a way, honestly.


There's a huge difference between making the choice to donate blood or organs and killing an unborn baby. Women who abort healthy babies are committing a crime against the nation. I have no sympathy for them. For every German woman who aborts her baby, there's a Turkish woman who gives birth to 4-5.

No, there really isn't. Because lives could be and likely will be saved if those organs were harvested and that blood mandated to be given. The more people do not donate blood and give their organs, the more people die because of a lack of those necessities, yet we accept that because we think the persons right to their body is more important than a life or two or three lost. The right to choose, along with the right to choose to donate blood and organs, have the same consequences. A woman who aborts would be no worse than a woman who does not donate blood or organs, because lives will be lost as a result of each of those freedoms, some which are already allowed. I don't know about the laws surrounding these things in Germany.


Of course I want my views imposed on others. I think my views are right. The only ones who are destroying the idea of family are the abortionists. I have no religious doctrine, I'm nonreligious. I'm not a liberal or a human rights activist. I'm a nationalist and a socialist, I care about my nation, not about the selfishness of irresponsible women and whores.

People who support the right to abortion also value life and family, just not in the sense you do.

We allow adoption agencies. If a woman does not want or can not have her child so much as to consider abortion, the chances are she will leave it up for adoption if abortion is made illegal. That is not responsible either. One cannot expect to enfore responsible behavior upon people by taking away their right to abortion because another option for irresponsible behavior exists: adoption. To me, adoption is one of the worst things in the world. It contributes to the growing amount homeless children, the number of interracial families and minorities who become citizens of countries to which they do not belong. It perpetuates multiculturalism. Also, a family where there is no child of your own blood is not really a family at all. A lot of adopted children have no knowledge of their real parents and of their heritage. Who will teach them? If a woman is going to give birth to a child at all, she must be prepared to raise it and have what she feels is necessary for that: a good marriage, income, home, stable mind, etc. Abortion and adoption are both terrible things. One is allowed, so why not the other?

I understand the adoption situation might be different in Germany, but for America it's a mess, in my eyes.


Oooh, that's what it's all about? No, it isn't. Pro-"choice" people are those who are trying to impose their standards on other people. You can't even become a doctor in Sweden unless you agree to "abort" = kill.

People who are pro-choice want control over their own bodies. Anti-abortionists want control over everyone else's.


Oh... really? Show us when did I want to impose my "views and religious doctrine upon everyone else". It's always safe to make obscure allusions, but can you prove them?

You are simply by opposing abortion rights. Your view of family and a healthy society vs. others' views of family and a healthy society.


Yes they are. What kind of argument is this?

What I meant to say is, I do not think by allowing the right to abortion that abortion will become an alarming epidemic. It costs near $600 or more to have an abortion performed. A woman's body can only handle so many and there are regulations already on how many abortions per woman can be performed.


The debate is not about who is entitled to be "a red-blooded American".

Considering the values of America, separation of church and state (most who are anti-abortion here are so because of religious views), liberties and property (home, life, body), I think I'm entitled to say that "pro-life" Americans shock me.


I like freedom, and I even could see me allowing infanticide in certain cases, what I wouldn't allow is that the woman can ignore the man, with a silly notion that it would be "her" baby (or in case of abortion, her body), and the man should stay out of this.

A man cannot get pregnant, does not have a child living inside of him, and cannot get abortions. The woman always carries more of the burden because of these things. There are many responsibilities and risks that rest with her alone because there is a life growing inside of her. The man she got pregnant by might even not want a family. By a lot of aspects, it is moreso her choice than his what to do with it.


What NONSENSE. I gain nothing if the baby isn't aborted. My nation does, so it isn't "selfish".

You do. It is your view and it is your nation and you are part of your nation, the population who will supposedly benefit by disallowing abortion.

Jäger
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 04:37 PM
By a lot of aspects, it is moreso her choice than his what to do with it.
The paramount aspect here is, that the child is as much the child of the man as it is the child of the woman. The woman carries the child, the man (pro)created it.
It doesn't matter the slightest that she has more "responsibilities and risks" when she carries life, she has to take responsibility for her own actions.

CharlesDexterWard
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 04:55 PM
People who are pro-choice want control over their own bodies. Anti-abortionists want control over everyone else's.There's a general twisting of things in the way that things are termed, as it is with the term "pro-choice". You are not pro-choice. What you promote is killing innocent lives. You should be properly termed pro-death and pro-murder. In other words, you are claiming the "right" to kill. I'm just saying that everyone should take some basic responsibility for their actions. I'm not in it to control anyone. People should be able to control themselves. That's where you disagree.




You are simply by opposing abortion rights. Your view of family and a healthy society vs. others' views of family and a healthy society.There is no such thing as "abortion rights". That's just a shameful oxymoron; abortion wrongs are what they are.




What I meant to say is, I do not think by allowing the right to abortion that abortion will become an alarming epidemic. It costs near $600 or more to have an abortion performed. A woman's body can only handle so many and there are regulations already on how many abortions per woman can be performed.

Between 30.000 and 40.000 legal abortions a year are made in Sweden only.* Is that not an awful lot to you? It is mass murder.

http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/Statistik/statistik_amne/Aborter/aborter.htm

*Numbers date from before Sweden started inviting people from abroad, where abortions can't be had so easily, to have them here. In other words, these numbers constitute for the overwhelming part the negative effect of abortion on the ethnic Swedish population.


Considering the values of America, separation of church and state (most who are anti-abortion here are so because of religious views), liberties and property (home, life, body), I think I'm entitled to say that "pro-life" Americans shock me.I'm also against a state church. Read my thread Protestantism (see best threads on my profile page), and I think you will be very convinced that I'm serious about it.

What "most" are is irrelevant. The argument is a combination of two well known logical fallacies: Argumentum ad populum and poisoning the well. To the best of my knowledge I have not yet used as much as one religious argument in this debate, but you are on repeat with insinuations. Excuse me, but you are not even talking to me.

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 05:18 PM
Only if that raped woman goes to the police in time and gets herself medically examined. Some rape victims are too traumatized to do that, however. The immediately take a shower. They wait days, months and even years before ever mentioning it. By that time, bruises and scars will have disappeared, and she might already be pregnant. There would be no evidence of rape anymore. If you have sympathy for rape victims, you must also have understanding for how differently rape can affect women. Even if there is a policy for rape victims to get to the clinic and police in time, it will not always be followed. Thus, it would technically place them along the lines of everyone else who got pregnant by accident. I would really like to see a layout of how to prove the difference between a sexually-active woman who was raped and waited a long time to report it, and a sexually-active woman who got pregnant accidentally having consenting sex. Someone show me a way, honestly.
If she doesn't go to the Police and Hospital immediately and the Rape can't be proven, she shouldn't be allowed to abort. It's her Duty not only to herself but also to Society to report the Rapist so that they make sure he doesn't rape again.


People who are pro-choice want control over their own bodies. Anti-abortionists want control over everyone else's.Your Body is not your own and you can't control it, otherwise you wouldn't need a Doctor to do the fancy Work for you, you'd just naturally expel your undesired Baby. You didn't create your Body, it was God's work. :)


Considering the values of America, separation of church and state (most who are anti-abortion here are so because of religious views), liberties and property (home, life, body), I think I'm entitled to say that "pro-life" Americans shock me.What's with all this American Rhetoric? The People you are arguing with aren't even Americans. I'm not American and wouldn't want to be. Americans have been abusing Freedom for Centuries.

Deary
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 05:51 PM
There are Germans on here talking about about abortion in Germany and Swedes talking about abortion in Sweden, so as an American, why am I at fault to talk about abortion in America? My original statement here (http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=58096&postcount=111) was not only dedicated to one or two people in this debate. This is an issue which concerns my nation too, and I felt the need to make a message to my own countrymen. I realize that we have violated freedoms in the past, but that does not mean we should. To deny abortion rights would only perpetuate this wrong. It's completely relevant to point out that the majority of my countrymen who oppose abortion rights do so on a religious basis (if this does not apply to you, OK, understood). In some states, this is enough for a law.

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 06:02 PM
There are Germans on here talking about about abortion in Germany and Swedes talking about abortion in Sweden, so as an American, why am I at fault to talk about abortion in America? My original statement here (http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=58096&postcount=111) was not only dedicated to one or two people in this debate. This is an issue which concerns my nation too, and I felt the need to make a message to my own countrymen. I realize that we have violated freedoms in the past, but that does not mean we should. To deny abortion rights would only perpetuate this wrong. It's completely relevant to point out that the majority of my countrymen who oppose abortion rights do so on a religious basis (if this does not apply to you, OK, understood). In some states, this is enough for a law.
I thought you were addressing Europeans Posts so excuse me, my Mistake. Anyway, I oppose Abortion because of Religious Views myself, but not only for those Reasons. There is no such Thing as "Abortion Rights". If you believe in Human Rights, then the Right to Life is one of them and by aborting a Baby, the Woman violates its Right to Life. Abortionists believe in the "Right" to murder. Your Countrymen who oppose it are wise and realize that.

ladybright
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 06:02 PM
The paramount aspect here is, that the child is as much the child of the man as it is the child of the woman. The woman carries the child, the man (pro)created it.
It doesn't matter the slightest that she has more "responsibilities and risks" when she carries life, she has to take responsibility for her own actions.

The fetus is as much the woman's as the man's as well. I do not understand this 'the man (pro)created it' idea. His sperm, her egg. Not his seed in her (otherwise empty) womb. Our understanding of biology has improved since ancient Greece.

The woman assumes much more physical risk in pregnancy and childbirth (or abortion) than the man. That is a fact of nature. I think that gives the woman a somewhat larger say than the man.

I think that the father/man should have a large vote in abortion/nonabortion/adoption decision.

Jäger
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 06:47 PM
The fetus is as much the woman's as the man's as well.
That's what I said.


I do not understand this 'the man (pro)created it' idea. His sperm, her egg. Not his seed in her (otherwise empty) womb. Our understanding of biology has improved since ancient Greece.
Even in ancient Greece, they must have known that the outcome of the child depends on the mother. So we don't really have a new conclusion here, just a better understanding of the method.
Anyway, my intention was never to say that the child is not as much part of the mother as it is of the father.


The woman assumes much more physical risk in pregnancy and childbirth (or abortion) than the man. That is a fact of nature. I think that gives the woman a somewhat larger say than the man.

I think that the father/man should have a large vote in abortion/nonabortion/adoption decision.
I can't understand this, if the woman has the "larger say", then no matter how large the vote of the man is, it will only depend on the woman, if only two parties are involved then there is only 50-50 or one side solely has the say.

You probably mean, you would be so kind to listen to the father of the child, but it was the decision of the woman to engage in such risk, so she bears the consequence, tough luck.

Æmeric
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 07:35 PM
The paramount aspect here is, that the child is as much the child of the man as it is the child of the woman. The woman carries the child, the man (pro)created it.


This brings up another issue. A woman can obtained an abortion even if she is married without the father's (husband's) consent. But if she decides to bring the child into the world the father is obligated to support the child. But what rights the father has to a personal relationship with the child is largely up to the mother, whether the child is born out of wedlock or the parents or married but later divorced. Family law has been heavily skewed in favor of women over the last 40-years to applease feminists at the expense of destroying the traditional family.

Deary
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 07:57 PM
A man and a woman should only be in agreement on bringing a child into the world. Ideally, every child born should be a wanted child and raised by both the parents in a marriage. However, whether in a marriage or not, if the man wants a child, but the woman does not, then she should have the right to seek abortion. It would be wrong to make a mother out of someone who does not want to be. Considering that child is within her body, she could get away with an abortion even if the man does not consent. If a man does not want a child, the woman should respect his wishes, even if she would like to have a baby.

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 08:06 PM
Feminists, another Threat to Preservation promote Abortion too because they think it's their Bodies and they can do what they want with them. Feminists believe that murdering their unborn Babies is part of Liberation. Being a Mother is too traditional for them.

Here some Statistics:
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Here the Sorce:
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abor tionno.org%2FResources%2Ffastfacts.html)

That speaks for itself. Pro-Abortionists aka pro-Death People use the Rape can't be proven Excuse when they are very rare compared to the Social Reasons.


A man and a woman should only be in agreement on bringing a child into the world. Ideally, every child born should be a wanted child and raised by both the parents in a marriage. However, whether in a marriage or not, if the man wants a child, but the woman does not, then she should have the right to seek abortion. It would be wrong to make a mother out of someone who does not want to be. Considering that child is within her body, she could get away with an abortion even if the man does not consent. If a man does not want a child, the woman should respect his wishes, even if she would like to have a baby.
You just contradicted yourself. If a Woman has an Abortion against the Man's Wishes, then the Man and the Woman aren't in Agreement on bringing a Child into a World.

mischak
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 08:08 PM
If she doesn't go to the Police and Hospital immediately and the Rape can't be proven, she shouldn't be allowed to abort. It's her Duty not only to herself but also to Society to report the Rapist so that they make sure he doesn't rape again.

Unless you've been raped yourself, I don't think you have any right to tell them what they should or should not be "allowed" to do. I know people who've had to deal with rape (and no it's not me) and unless you've dealt firsthand with the trauma accompanying sexual assault you have no right to comment on what they should do, what their time frame is to report it, or what their options are.

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 08:16 PM
Unless you've been raped yourself, I don't think you have any right to tell them what they should or should not be "allowed" to do. I know people who've had to deal with rape (and no it's not me) and unless you've dealt firsthand with the trauma accompanying sexual assault you have no right to comment on what they should do, what their time frame is to report it, or what their options are.
You don't know me and what I had to deal with, so it's you who has no right to tell me what Rights I have and what Rights I don't have. I refuse to tell you my Personal Experience but I will say this, I know People who dealt with Rape too, more than one. Rape is very common in a Country like Romania. The Rape Victim has an Option to treat herself from possible Pregnancy or STDs and if she doesn't, what happens later is the Consequence of her own Silence. If she can't prove Rape, Abortion shouldn't be allowed. Many Women could just lie and said someone raped them just because they want an Abortion.

Deary
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 08:22 PM
You just contradicted yourself. If a Woman has an Abortion against the Man's Wishes, then the Man and the Woman aren't in Agreement on bringing a Child into a World.

There is no contradiction. I believe if a child is unwanted by either the mother or the father, then it is best that child not be brought into the world at all. A child should only be born if it is wanted by both parents.

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 08:24 PM
There is no contradiction. I believe if a child is unwanted by either the mother or the father, then it is best that child not be brought into the world at all. A child should only be born if it is wanted by both parents.
What happens if the Child isn't wanted after it's born? Do you also support Infanticide? What's the Difference between aborting a lateterm Baby who could survive if given Birth to instead and killing a newly born?

Bärin
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 08:25 PM
Unless you've been raped yourself, I don't think you have any right to tell them what they should or should not be "allowed" to do. I know people who've had to deal with rape (and no it's not me) and unless you've dealt firsthand with the trauma accompanying sexual assault you have no right to comment on what they should do, what their time frame is to report it, or what their options are.
You have no experience with rape either, so you're in no better position than her.

mischak
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 08:26 PM
You don't know me and what I had to deal with, so it's you who has no right to tell me what Rights I have and what Rights I don't have. I refuse to tell you my Personal Experience but I will say this, I know People who dealt with Rape too, more than one. Rape is very common in a Country like Romania. The Rape Victim has an Option to treat herself from possible Pregnancy or STDs and if she doesn't, what happens later is the Consequence of her own Silence.

No, it's because of emotional trauma and stigma caused by both the rapist and society that causes these "consequences". They should not be further punished for not reporting immediately. They are the victim here.


You have no experience with rape either, so you're in no better position than her.

And yet you have no idea who I know in my life who has been. I don't have to be raped to see the impact it has on someone.

Deary
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 08:32 PM
What happens if the Child isn't wanted after it's born? Do you also support Infanticide? What's the Difference between aborting a lateterm Baby who could survive if given Birth to instead and killing a newly born?

After a child is born, people should accept it, especially if they planned on having it and raising it, but there are cases that arise which might require euthanasia. Sadly, adoption exists. After a child is born, people can opt for that :( which I don't agree with. I think it's more irresponsible than abortion. Lateterm abortions are especially risky and rare. The difference between a newborn and lateterm is the transition from fetus to infant. One has been released into the world and one has not. I stand by my belief that if a child is not wanted, it should not be born at all.

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 08:34 PM
No, it's because of emotional trauma and stigma caused by both the rapist and society that causes these "consequences". They should not be futher punished for not reporting immediately. They are the victim here.
If the Rapist isn't reported then there could be many more Victims. If the rape can't be proven, how can Abortion be granted? It would have to be granted to everyone, under any Circumstances, including those who forgot to take their Pill or who want Revenge with their Husband by killing his Baby and lying they were raped.

Bärin
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 08:37 PM
And yet you have no idea who I know in my life who has been. I don't have to be raped to see the impact it has on someone.
I don't care. Do you know if Siebenbürgerin has been raped or has someone in her life who was raped? No. So what makes you a better authority on the subject? As long as it's not been you, you also have no right to tell her what she can tell others to do.

I agree with her. If all proof of rape is gone and the woman is pregnant, abortion shouldn't be allowed. Anyone could make up rape reasons then. Pregnancy resulting from rape is rare.

ladybright
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 08:43 PM
I agree that mens rights get trampled pretty frequentlyin family law. This is worth having its own thread in the family or law section.

I know it is not fair for men not to have an equal share about the pregnancy. Having more risk but not more decision making power would be unfair as well. As my parents told me many times 'life is not fair'. If he is willing to raise the child himself that may change things.

I have never for a moment considered having an abortion so I don't know how I would weigh the factors of my feelings, the fathers, my health, my situation etc.


I also have known more women who have survived rape than I care to think about. Usually the violent stranger rapes are reported but not always before bathing. The cousin/brother/uncle rapes were never immediately reported even when thee was plenty of evidence. I pass no judgment on what someone is capable of directly after a rape. Just as not all combat Vets have PTSD not all rape victims respond the same way.

In any case I think abortion should be legal until after quickening longer in cases of health issues or rape. I think an IUD or other long term low side affect birth control should be recommended at that point.

mischak
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 08:43 PM
I don't care. Do you know if Siebenbürgerin has been raped or has someone in her life who was raped? No. So what makes you a better authority on the subject? As long as it's not been you, you also have no right to tell her what she can tell others to do.

Because anyone who is familiar with rape victims know that most don't report immediately and there are valid enough reasons for not doing so. Again, you have no right to judge their decisons because you are not in their situation. Even if "you" were raped also, you are not this other individual, and is just plain ignorant to compare one person's ability to report a rape to another's. Circumstances, context, options are all relevant to each individual case. Common sense would tell us this, or so I would assume.

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 08:43 PM
After a child is born, people should accept it, especially if they planned on having it and raising it, but there are cases that arise which might require euthanasia.
What if they didn't plan it and the Woman was undecided until after Birth, when she doesn't want it anymore? How's it different from having a lateterm Abortion?


Sadly, adoption exists. After a child is born, people can opt for that :( which I don't agree with.
They can opt for that in lateterm as well. When the Woman goes to the Hospital to have the Baby in her Womb murdered, she could give Birth to it instead and save its Life, as it can survive out of the Womb. Tehre's really no logical reason there to kill it.

Bärin
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 08:47 PM
Because anyone who is familiar with rape victims know that most don't report immediately and there are valid enough reasons for not doing so. Again, you have no right to judge their decisons because you are not in their situation. Even if someone was raped, you are not them, and is just plain ignorant to compare one person's ability to report a rape to another's. Circumstances, context, options are all relevant to each individual case. Common sense would tell us this, or so I would assume.
I have no right? What do you know about me? Nothing, that's right. Unless you know my life history, I advise you not to tell me what my rights are. Thanks very much.

mischak
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 08:48 PM
I have no right? What do you know about me? Nothing, that's right. Unless you know my life history, I advise you not to tell me what my rights are. Thanks very much.

Go ahead, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

Bärin
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 08:52 PM
Go ahead, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
1. I am taken seriously at least by one person, judging by the thank and reputation I received for my posting in this thread.
2. I don't "expect" anything. You make too many assumptions. ;)

ladybright
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 08:54 PM
Enough of this who has a right to say X or if Y position should be taken seriously. The next person to do so will get a warning as well as my deleting their post.

We do not all have to agree. We are not having a baby together.;)


I am not sure how often it happens but I cannot conceive of lying about rape to get an abortion or other benefit. To not tell I can understand. To lie about any crime is outrageously dishonorable. To shame a woman for being raped is being an after the fact accomplice in my opinion.

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 08:54 PM
Because anyone who is familiar with rape victims know that most don't report immediately and there are valid enough reasons for not doing so. Again, you have no right to judge their decisons because you are not in their situation. Even if "you" were raped also, you are not this other individual, and is just plain ignorant to compare one person's ability to report a rape to another's. Circumstances, context, options are all relevant to each individual case. Common sense would tell us this, or so I would assume.
I'm familiar with Rape Victims. As I said, Rape is a common Phenomenon in Romania. It would be interesting if you answered my previous Question. If the Rape can't be proven, how can Abortion be granted? Then Abortion would have to be granted in all Cases. I never said it's fair to the Rape Victim, but nothing is perfect. As Bärin said, Rape-resulted Pregnancy is rare. In my Opinion, it's less damaging to bring some unwanted Rape-Babies (which could be given to Adoption) into the World where Rape can't be proven than kill millions of Babies by Women who lie about being raped.

Deary
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 09:03 PM
What if they didn't plan it and the Woman was undecided until after Birth, when she doesn't want it anymore? How's it different from having a lateterm Abortion?

After a child is born, it cannot be terminated, unless that country permits euthanasia for medical reasons. If she does not want it after it is born, she legally has the right to choose to leave it up for adoption.


They can opt for that in lateterm as well. When the Woman goes to the Hospital to have the Baby in her Womb murdered, she could give Birth to it instead and save its Life, as it can survive out of the Womb. Tehre's really no logical reason there to kill it.

There are lots of reasons and situations, not all of which any one person can know or understand. I don't like abortion, and I moreso don't like adoption, but if one believes they are unfit to be a parent and cannot provide for a child (through material and other means), then they should better wait until they can.

Guntwachar
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 09:06 PM
I think ladybright also had a good point with men and there part in it, i'm not against abortion but i know some guys that did want to have a child but there gf didnt so they took abortion without asking there boyfriend this would be a reason for me to get tottaly psycho as i think familly,blood and flesh of your own is important.
I still think everyone should decide themself even if we dont agree with it otherwise we are asking for Freedom with limits and that basicly means no freedom, now just dont get fights about it lady's;) everyone his own opinion about it ...

Bärin
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 09:16 PM
I still think everyone should decide themself even if we dont agree with it otherwise we are asking for Freedom with limits and that basicly means no freedom, now just dont get fights about it lady's;) everyone his own opinion about it cuteypie's...
But do you support freedom without limits? That means, everyone to do whatever they want?
Freedom without limits is against preservation in my mind, because that would mean the immigrants would have the freedom to breed with our natives and so on. I don't support this definition of freedom in the first place cuz I'm a socialist but just asking. ;)

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 09:18 PM
I am not sure how often it happens but I cannot conceive of lying about rape to get an abortion or other benefit. To not tell I can understand. To lie about any crime is outrageously dishonorable. To shame a woman for being raped is being an after the fact accomplice in my opinion.
I can understand to not tell also, but if she keeps the Thing to herself and can't prove it then there is no Right for Punishment without Proof because there is the Possibility of Innocence. That doesn't only apply to the Rapist but also to the Child in my Opinion.

After a child is born, it cannot be terminated, unless that country permits euthanasia for medical reasons. If she does not want it after it is born, she legally has the right to choose to leave it up for adoption.
I'm not speaking of ill Children, but of normal, healthy Children. I know that the legal Situation doesn't permit it, but I thought this Thread is about what we envision for our Countries. So my Question is, do you see any Difference between killing an 8 Month old Baby in the Womb and killing it just after it was born? Is the Baby in the Womb not a Human until the Mother gives Birth to it?


There are lots of reasons and situations, not all of which any one person can know or understand. I don't like abortion, and I moreso don't like adoption, but if one believes they are unfit to be a parent and cannot provide for a child (through material and other means), then they should better wait until they can.
I don't like Adoption either, but there's a Difference. With Adoption, the Child doesn't have to pay with his Life for the Mistakes of his Parents.

Guntwachar
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 09:20 PM
But do you support freedom without limits? That means, everyone to do whatever they want?
Freedom without limits is against preservation in my mind, because that would mean the immigrants would have the freedom to breed with our natives and so on. I don't support this definition of freedom in the first place cuz I'm a socialist but just asking. ;)

No i think myself people should be able to act normal, but plz stay on topic about abortion and not about immigrants again.

Bärin
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 09:31 PM
No i think myself people should be able to act normal, but plz stay on topic about abortion and not about immigrants again.
If freedom is granted to people, then it includes the freedom not to act normal. ;)
It's related to abortion. If you give them the freedom to abort in any situation (freedom without limitations) they will have the freedom to abort for any reason, even against the father's wishes. Third world women don't abort, they have like 4-5 children on average, our women have 1 child max. if at all and if they abort that one too, we're going to become outnumbered, then we will mix more and more with the foreigners from lack of our own until we become extinct. That's what freedom without limitations can lead to.

Deary
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 09:31 PM
I can understand to not tell also, but if she keeps the Thing to herself and can't prove it then there is no Right for Punishment without Proof because there is the Possibility of Innocence. That doesn't only apply to the Rapist but also to the Child in my Opinion.

Your sympathy for rape victims ends when they decide to keep quiet and remain afraid?


I'm not speaking of ill Children, but of normal, healthy Children. I know that the legal Situation doesn't permit it, but I thought this Thread is about what we envision for our Countries. So my Question is, do you see any Difference between killing an 8 Month old Baby in the Womb and killing it just after it was born? Is the Baby in the Womb not a Human until the Mother gives Birth to it?

A fetus can be aborted/terminated, a child can be killed/murdered. A lateterm development is still considered a fetus and remains within the womb. So, yes, I do see a difference.


I don't like Adoption either, but there's a Difference. With Adoption, the Child doesn't have to pay with his Life for the Mistakes of his Parents.

Yes, it does. As a result, it remains without a real family. That child will have no true home and belonging because his parents abanoned him. Either way, that child pays with his life, as far as I'm concerned.

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, April 12th, 2008, 09:38 PM
Your sympathy for rape victims ends when they decide to keep quiet and remain afraid?
No, my Sympathy to allow them Abortion ends when they can't prove the Rape. I think Rape Victims should receive Help and Counseling and allowed to give their Babies away for Adoption if they don't want them.


A fetus can be aborted/terminated, a child can be killed/murdered. A lateterm development is still considered a fetus and remains within the womb. So, yes, I do see a difference.
So by this you are implying that the Fetus isn't Human while the Child is? What gives it the Human Status, that it can Survive outside the Womb? What about the Children who are Placed into Incubators which serve as Substitutes because they can't survive on this own?


Yes, it does. As a result, it remains without a real family. That child will have no true home and belonging because his parents abanoned him. Either way, that child pays with his life, as far as I'm concerned.
I know People who were adopted and they are very happy, so this isn't necessarily true. What defines a real Family? Are Children whose biological Parents abuse them happier than adopted Children? By paying with their Lives I meant literally paying with them, having their Lives terminated. Dead.

Phlegethon
Sunday, April 13th, 2008, 02:40 PM
The only way out of this mess (and this thread proves this point perfectly) is to sterilize 98% of the world population as their breeding is tantamount to degeneration.

Bärin
Sunday, April 13th, 2008, 02:58 PM
The only way out of this mess (and this thread proves this point perfectly) is to sterilize 98% of the world population as their breeding is tantamount to degeneration.
I see your point but 98% is too much. We need more children to survive. Let's only sterilize the abortionists. They wouldn't have to worry about unwanted babies anymore. ;)

Phlegethon
Sunday, April 13th, 2008, 03:18 PM
There is no contradiction. I believe if a child is unwanted by either the mother or the father, then it is best that child not be brought into the world at all. A child should only be born if it is wanted by both parents.

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but if we practiced that we'd live in a world of octogenarians without any children. Small solace for you, though: I wouldn't be there either.

Rhydderch
Monday, April 14th, 2008, 05:59 AM
It's completely relevant to point out that the majority of my countrymen who oppose abortion rights do so on a religious basis (if this does not apply to you, OK, understood). In some states, this is enough for a law.Do you have a problem with this? Every law has some kind of philosophical basis.

People who say that religion should be left out of it are simply saying that their own philosophy is the correct one and somebody else's is incorrect; they're wanting to make everyone conform to their own philosophy. I think we can all agree that laws should be based on a philosophy which is true; what we disagree on is which philosophy is the correct one. But whether that philosophy be considered "religion" or not is irrelevant.

Evidently you believe that your philosophy is basically correct but religious philosophies are incorrect.

If a certain religion is correct then so be it; laws should be based on it, and not on false philosophies.


To begin with, most of you are not opposed to the idea of having sex, pre-marital sex or even meaningless sex.Ok, well I'm not one of those people.


You, at least, accept the fact that people will have sex regardless, and that even protection carries a chance of failure. So, how is it you can OK the right to sexual freedom and contraception yet be completely unforgiving when an accident should occur?Even if I was one of those people, I could still argue that killing an unborn child is unnacceptable regardless of the circumstances. You can't murder a human being.

All this talk about pro-lifers wanting to have control over the bodies of others, well, "pro-choicers" are wanting control over the bodies of unborn children.

Oh, but pro-choicers don't consider the "fetus" human. Why? Because the idea is contrary to their philosophy.


In fact, what "pro-lifers" really are supporting is the control over others so that it fits their definition of morality and what is best. They want to impose their views and religious doctrine upon everyone else.And are the moral views of pro-lifers incorrect? Part of the moral views of pro-lifers is that abortion should be banned. If you're saying you want it to be legal then clearly you are trying to force your definition of morality on them. You're wanting to impose your views and philosophical doctrine on everybody else.

Secularism is no more philosophically neutral than any other philosophy, including religious ones.


They want it so much that it might very well destroy a woman's most precious idea of family. Abortions aren't common. It's doesn't come out of your tax dollars. In fact, it's quite a price to pay for someone out of their own pockets. It's not your life. It's not your baby. It's not your future or your dreams. It's not your decision, and I'll be damned if any "pro-lifer" can call himself a red-blooded American.Should people be allowed to kill their ten year old children if they don't want them any more? After all, it's not your life, your child, your decision etc.

If we follow the argument you've made here to it's logical conclusion, then killing one's ten year old child should be legal.

So obviously the argument that it's "none of our business" is an invalid one, and has no place in this debate.

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, April 14th, 2008, 07:02 AM
I am not sure how often it happens but I cannot conceive of lying about rape to get an abortion or other benefit.

Pretty often. One of my roommates did that to get back at her bf for cheating on her.