Chrissi King For A Couple Of Days Age: 38 Gender: Female Posts: 3145
April 25th, 2007 at 06:57pm
Ol' Blue Eyes.:
Chrissi_1986:
I've said before, I'm not sure whether there is a right or wrong time as it depends on the individuals circumstances. What I mean also is that I think by 6 months in most people's cases they would have decided whether or not to keep the child or not. No one can really say when it "should" be done or "if" it should be done, we're merely just dicussing it.
I agree that the decision should be made quickly, but I also think that sometimes there are just unforseen circumstances that would merit an abortion.
Really, I think it varies from person to person, and there is no way to rule out abortions, because they will always be necessary.
I agree. I think they should always be available for them circumstances when people do need them.
lyrical_mess Falling In Love With The Board Age: 33 Gender: Female Posts: 5278
April 26th, 2007 at 12:17am
I agree with Dru on this one. If there is a good, like a REALLY good reason to have an abortion, I don't see why it should be stopped. The mother might not be physically or mentally ready to care for a child. The child might come out extremely disabled. If there is a justifiable, solid reason to abort the child and both parents (provided the father didn't take off) agree, it should be okay.
But the problem comes in here. I don't know about other countries on this part, but I sure as hell know India has an issue. Gender choosing. Instead of calculating the cycle and having intercourse to try for a male or female child, what lower class and lower middle class parents do here is inexcusable. They have sex like bunnies and then, they have a sonogram and ask for the baby's gender, even though its illegal. If the baby's a girl, they abort it. And repeat the process.
Doctors help even though its illegal. People beg even though its illegal. No one even cares that there's not enough girls to have kids with their precious baby boys. They just want boys. India is going to end up as a homosexual country at this rate.
Anji Basket Case Age: 35 Gender: Female Posts: 15914
April 26th, 2007 at 05:53am
druscilla; in rags:
Nobody has a problem with killing bugs.
They have a problem with somebody else not being society's bitch and making a decision to not allow the cells inside of her uterus to grow to term.
So my advice is this... everyone should mind their own damn business.
If you ban abortions you're just going to bring back the coat hanger ones.
And then you have two "lives" on your hand as opposed to the cells.
If you don't want one, don't have one.
My uterus is not your political playground.
I have a problem with killing bugs.
Anji Basket Case Age: 35 Gender: Female Posts: 15914
April 26th, 2007 at 06:01am
PentatonicA:
“[..]an 8-month-old baby, with a heartbeat, nerve impulses, movement, taste, touch, hearing, hands, feet, nose, eyelashes, everthing..isn't actually alive?”
A person in a coma also has heartbeat, nerve impulses, (sometimes) movement and/or involuntary reflexes, taste, touch, hearing, hands, feet, nose, eyelashes…
But are those physiological impulses truly theirs or is it because of the life support machine?
Were you to pull the plug, that person would be no more, and chances are that s/he wouldn’t feel a thing, and also chances are that the person isn‘t really there, meaning inside their own bodies. Many never wake up.
What I’m trying to illustrate is that fetus physiological activities are kept ‘alive’ thanks to their machine support that is the placenta via the physical connection to the hosts, the mother. And its wrong to call it a symbiotic relationship because in symbiotic relationships both subjects benefit from the exchange. In gestation only one of the two benefits from the association. In mammals the gestation process is highly invasive but in our ‘culture’ it’s romantized to hide the harshness and realities of it.
Most people that agree with abortion, won’t tolerate the possibility of aborting a 4 months old fetus, never mind an 8 months one. You’re being fatalistic and are trying to manipulate people’s emotions by evoking the mental picture of a 8 months cuddly little baby.
The line is drawn for the procedure at the initial months after conception.
Again, does a mother's love for her child account for nothing?
Anyway, at eight months, babies can be born premature and survive.
So should all humans who depend on a machine be considered 'not alive'? Diabetic people depend very much on their insulin monitors without them they could die, so should they just give up on life? All animals rely on another animal for survival. Lions eat zebras, cats eat mice, dolphins eat fish, they're feeding on them. It's not the technical term for parasite, but a parasite is more derogatory I mean, they're only trying to live. And that's all a baby wants to do, even an unborn one.
lyrical_mess Falling In Love With The Board Age: 33 Gender: Female Posts: 5278
April 26th, 2007 at 10:31am
The parents do benefit from the baby. They are given the chance to pass on their DNA and perpetuate the species. Which is really the point of reproduction. Which is really the point of living. We live, have sex, have babies, watch em grow up, die. Well, we used to anyway.
Brendon Urie.. King For A Couple Of Days Age: 37 Gender: Female Posts: 2394
April 26th, 2007 at 11:05am
Anji:
PentatonicA:
“[..]an 8-month-old baby, with a heartbeat, nerve impulses, movement, taste, touch, hearing, hands, feet, nose, eyelashes, everthing..isn't actually alive?”
A person in a coma also has heartbeat, nerve impulses, (sometimes) movement and/or involuntary reflexes, taste, touch, hearing, hands, feet, nose, eyelashes…
But are those physiological impulses truly theirs or is it because of the life support machine?
Were you to pull the plug, that person would be no more, and chances are that s/he wouldn’t feel a thing, and also chances are that the person isn‘t really there, meaning inside their own bodies. Many never wake up.
What I’m trying to illustrate is that fetus physiological activities are kept ‘alive’ thanks to their machine support that is the placenta via the physical connection to the hosts, the mother. And its wrong to call it a symbiotic relationship because in symbiotic relationships both subjects benefit from the exchange. In gestation only one of the two benefits from the association. In mammals the gestation process is highly invasive but in our ‘culture’ it’s romantized to hide the harshness and realities of it.
Most people that agree with abortion, won’t tolerate the possibility of aborting a 4 months old fetus, never mind an 8 months one. You’re being fatalistic and are trying to manipulate people’s emotions by evoking the mental picture of a 8 months cuddly little baby.
The line is drawn for the procedure at the initial months after conception.
Again, does a mother's love for her child account for nothing?
Anyway, at eight months, babies can be born premature and survive.
So should all humans who depend on a machine be considered 'not alive'? Diabetic people depend very much on their insulin monitors without them they could die, so should they just give up on life? All animals rely on another animal for survival. Lions eat zebras, cats eat mice, dolphins eat fish, they're feeding on them. It's not the technical term for parasite, but a parasite is more derogatory I mean, they're only trying to live. And that's all a baby wants to do, even an unborn one.
They've already been born and are not living off of a host to survive.
I do not agree with late-term abortions except in extreme cases.
But a fetus does not have rights until it is out of the womb. It is not a person.
Matt Smith Admin Age: 33 Gender: Female Posts: 31134
April 26th, 2007 at 01:47pm
Host.
Host.
Gee, that sounds v. impersonal, doesn't it?
One would wonder why the hell exactly a 'host' matters at all. A host; it doesn't think, it doesn't have rights, it doesn't exist on a human level. Its only purpose is to endure the surivial of its "potential baby".
Makes you wonder what the difference between a "potential mother" and a petri dish is, really.
Women aren't really women, are they?
Nope, just uteruses on legs. Hosts.
Except when they get that choice thing, which is funky.
Brendon Urie.. King For A Couple Of Days Age: 37 Gender: Female Posts: 2394
April 26th, 2007 at 06:44pm
When I say "host" I mean that the child is living off another in a sort of parisitic [sp?] manner.
lyrical_mess Falling In Love With The Board Age: 33 Gender: Female Posts: 5278
April 26th, 2007 at 07:02pm
Parasitic? How can you compare a baby to a parasite?
Parasites, for one thing, are unwanted. They do nothing for the host. But a mother-child relationship is anything but parasitic. If anything, it is symbiotic.
When women miscarry, they often go through periods of deep depression. And sometimes they get a little nuts after they abort too. But I'm not sure how common it is.
Brendon Urie.. King For A Couple Of Days Age: 37 Gender: Female Posts: 2394
April 26th, 2007 at 09:08pm
lyrical_mess:
Parasitic? How can you compare a baby to a parasite?
Parasites, for one thing, are unwanted. They do nothing for the host. But a mother-child relationship is anything but parasitic. If anything, it is symbiotic.
When women miscarry, they often go through periods of deep depression. And sometimes they get a little nuts after they abort too. But I'm not sure how common it is.
I don't think a baby is actually a parasite.
I was thinking of a way to word it.
I obviously worded it wrong.
Misanthropist Post Whore Age: 32 Gender: Female Posts: 23279
April 26th, 2007 at 10:38pm
lyrical_mess:
Parasitic? How can you compare a baby to a parasite?
Parasites, for one thing, are unwanted. They do nothing for the host. But a mother-child relationship is anything but parasitic. If anything, it is symbiotic.
When women miscarry, they often go through periods of deep depression. And sometimes they get a little nuts after they abort too. But I'm not sure how common it is.
I think she meant like in a parasitic relationship. You know, one side doesn't benefit from the other and the other does.
lyrical_mess Falling In Love With The Board Age: 33 Gender: Female Posts: 5278
April 26th, 2007 at 11:36pm
Yes. I understand that. but the parents benefit greatly. I just said it up there. It's not parasitic. If anything, it's symbiotic.
Yes. I understand that. but the parents benefit greatly. I just said it up there. It's not parasitic. If anything, it's symbiotic.
People who get abortions are NOT parents. Parents don't abort their children. They love and care for them, not treat them like some horrible consequence.
lyrical_mess Falling In Love With The Board Age: 33 Gender: Female Posts: 5278
April 27th, 2007 at 01:14am
???
I never said that people who get abortions counted as parents. I was just responding to Dru's comparison. Children are necessary. They give us something in return. And when your kid is born, you say "Aww. Look at this wonderful thing I've been given." No one says "You stupid brat, you leeched off me for nine months."
At least I hope they don't.
Mycophobia Basket Case Age: 30 Gender: Female Posts: 15581
April 27th, 2007 at 09:24pm
Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo child-birth. No-one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. Whether a foetus has rights or not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue. Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed. Not everyone agrees that foetuses of two, four, eight, or even twenty weeks are children.
I never said that people who get abortions counted as parents. I was just responding to Dru's comparison. Children are necessary. They give us something in return. And when your kid is born, you say "Aww. Look at this wonderful thing I've been given." No one says "You stupid brat, you leeched off me for nine months."
At least I hope they don't.
I know you didn't, I just wanted to bring that into this debate I see the word mother used to describe people who have abortions alot and I don't think they have the right to call themselves mothers.
lyrical_mess Falling In Love With The Board Age: 33 Gender: Female Posts: 5278
April 28th, 2007 at 02:34am
Parent is kind of a scientific term. But mother and father have become emotional terms. Any post-pubescant person can be a parent. It takes care and love to be a mother or father.
Anji Basket Case Age: 35 Gender: Female Posts: 15914
April 28th, 2007 at 11:28am
Polexia?:
Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo child-birth. No-one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. Whether a foetus has rights or not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue. Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed. Not everyone agrees that foetuses of two, four, eight, or even twenty weeks are children.
We aren't talking about a woman's body, it's what's in it. The child is only half her's. It takes two to make a person. The father or other mother in today's world, has to get a say as well. There are more mother's today that go through pregnancy alone, and fair enough for them, if they want to abort then fine. But for couples who disagree with eachother, it's going to be both their child. The mother doesn't go through pregnancy alone, she has her partner.
Brendon Urie.. King For A Couple Of Days Age: 37 Gender: Female Posts: 2394
April 28th, 2007 at 01:19pm
Anji:
Polexia?:
Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo child-birth. No-one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. Whether a foetus has rights or not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue. Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed. Not everyone agrees that foetuses of two, four, eight, or even twenty weeks are children.
We aren't talking about a woman's body, it's what's in it. The child is only half her's. It takes two to make a person. The father or other mother in today's world, has to get a say as well. There are more mother's today that go through pregnancy alone, and fair enough for them, if they want to abort then fine. But for couples who disagree with eachother, it's going to be both their child. The mother doesn't go through pregnancy alone, she has her partner.
And her partner doesn't have a womb.
He shouldn't be able to force the woman to keep her child.
I feel sorry for him if he wants the child, but that doesn't make it his choice.
It's hers.
lyrical_mess Falling In Love With The Board Age: 33 Gender: Female Posts: 5278
April 28th, 2007 at 01:22pm
A child is not property. Humans are not property, in the flesh or still in the womb.
And the woman only made half of the baby. She feeds the baby through herself and keeps it safe for nine months. But there is still sperm. Most times, when a couple concieves, the man does not say anything along the lines of "You know, when this is over, my sperm is in your fallopian tubes, so its all yours buddy!"
The child is still in the care and responsibility of both parents.
India is going to end up as a homosexual country at this rate.
I see the word mother used to describe people who have abortions alot and I don't think they have the right to call themselves mothers.