hell no!

Thats were I disagree, because its the most optionless option I've ever heard of. Either sleep well knowing you supported something, or sleep well knowing you didn't, but don't put in this little segueway to ease the two percent doubt you had about the latter option. I think if peole are against it but have some hesitation, and they still strike it down, than they have to deal with their hesitation, not create some silly little addition just to make themselves feel good. In court there is a disscussion about guilty unless there is reasonable suspicion. If you sit on a jury you can't say "guilty, except..." and still go through with the sentence. You have to make the call one way or another, can't have it both ways. You need to sleep well at night being fully aware of your judgement call. Rape and incest, etc, are such a marginal small part of the population to begin with that I don't like writing off their little non-choice as a deciding factor. I still stand by the fact you can't have it both ways, and need to live with whatever decision you make to the fullest.



No, and that's why I mentioned alot of what people say is riddled with paradox. Because its one, and one of the more important issues to me, but abortion stands at a cross section of everything from personal choice, class, science, federal vs. state rights, and social control. I think it has plenty to do with women's rights to choose, but the counter arguement is that many women are uncomfortable with it, and would "choose" to legislate it out of the books. So its more a question of timing, when is the choice to be made? Ahead of time through legislation (which eliminates it from the decision process when the event actually occurs) or at the personal time. I will always support the latter because 1.Like bABA said one can never anticipate what they will do when faced with the situation, and removing that decision altogether just isn't what I believe in, and 2. People change. Yes, believe it or not. I read somewhere (I will search for it now) that the younger generation is actually more secure in their denunciation of it because they haven't necessarily been faced with the issue. Older generation, regardless of if they opted to go through with an abortion or not have the priviledge of hindsight, and understand what the many questions that arise are. If we eliminate this when we're 21 and have to deal with it when we're 40, we might think differently, or rather, if we eliminate it by 21 and never have to deal with it, it leads to a very static social discourse. 3. There will always be the coat hanger.

As i said, there is also the way these issues play into greater agendas for (non)federal policy, what technologies science will invest in exploring, disillusioned minority (not racial or ethnic, I just mean as far as mass) voting trends, and constructions of gender forms which may or may not be all that productive.

You're trying to frame the debate over abortion in terms of women not being equal to men. To do that, you'd have to make to HUGE assumptions: a) most women support abortion and b) most men oppose abortion. Then it would follow that the general pro-life sentiment in America is cause by males being chauvinistic. But those assumptions are not substantiated by anything.

For the most part, pro-lifers are religious people, regardless of the gender, and/or people who believe that a fetus is a human being, and not a parasite feeding off of a woman. It has nothing to do with "male dominance".

makeshift, you weigh the costs.

If on one hand, if you think its the mother's life to decide, then the mnost she will suffer is 9 months of unwanted pregnancy, and its consequences and an extra mouth to take care of till a certain age and society's outlook on her. Yes, i make it sound small but its not. thats quite a bit. The only reason i say "most" is because many can suffer through less ... what i stated above is the max. Suffering atleast a 9 month pregnancy is a sure thing.

i do not know when life starts but the consequences of aborting means theres a possibility of killing someone off.

Now in one's mind, you weigh the probability on both sides and assign a weight to the consequences of each decision. whatever comes out on top is where you sort of lie in your opinion of it. To me, murder is a scary thing and if someone really feels that they might be killing someone off, most people will stop from doing it. Hell, i have issues killing "good" people in videogames cause i feel bad.


What about what krem said, hes right. A woman's right to choose plays more in favvor of her having a decision to "keep" the child. It wouldn't surprise me that if men had this right as well, they would love to exercise it to the fullest extent if they wished to. Noticed how many unwanted pregnancies result in single mothers cause they wanted to keep a child but the father didn't?

bABA, you seem to be under the impression that when most women get abortions, it's a "oh well I just don't want to be bothered right now" situation, and I can assure you that's the furthest thing from the truth. I used to volunteer time at the local Planned Parenthood chapter here, and I was able to spend a lot of time around women who had chosen to get abortions. I can assure you that for the large majority of them, it was a decision than they reached through weeks of counseling and anguish. This is not an easy decision for anyone to make. The key is for them to have the ability to make that decision.

Equal rights (that need to be balanced) :wink:

And still, I don't think it has to do with a woman being a woman, just ahhh you confuse me. But I don't think thats the case.

Well its not that easy, because it is clearly a sex related issue which the opposite sex gets to vote on. So I'm going to add that regardless of those "dirty males" (haha) who would support it, the males still get to vote. Lets take the result out of it and just say this is something that affects 50% of the population's bodies, but that the other 50% has a say in it. If there was a law that required all men to have Vasectomy as a form of birth contol, you'd be damn sure that men would freak out if women got to vote on the treatment of their testicles. Regardless of the women voted yes or no, guys would freak the hell out if we had a say in it. So yes, it does still have plenty to do with if a woman is making the choice or not.

First of all, the HUGE assumption you speak of isin't as far fetched as you're painting it to be.

Second, you're right, the majority of pro-lifers are religious people. Ever read the bible, Krem? It's like a handbook on how to supress women. Most religions contain ideas of supressing women.

I was actually going to bring this up, dolce. You beat me to the punch, though. Damn you! :razz:

It's a different issue, in that it's an issue of personal freedom, and should NOT be up to legislation. Nevertheless, it still happens, with poor people voting on how to spend rich people's money; old people voting themselves bigger Social Security benefits; young people voting on drivers' age limits, etc. That's the (very) ugly side of a welfare state.

Regardless, a vote on abortion would only be on the issue of life: is a fetus a human being? If it is, then abortion on demand is not justified in any way shape or form, regardless of whether women support it or not. If it isn't, then the decision should be at the woman's discretion.

yea, this is someplace where we definetely disagree. See, i dont think its about having to sleep a little better at night knowing i allowed someone the option. Just because i'm anti abortion in most cases means i dont address the issues where on feels its justified? Yes, its humiliating to you, the idea that a woman needs to prove that shes been raped. But what about that "one" woman, who doesn't think like you or some other person, who wishes to still get that abortion and willing to go through with it? What about that one society that doesn't treat something like this badly. Women do come out everyday, admiting to being raped and getting people convicted. What about cases where a woman really has nothing to prove. The rape happens, we all know it did, the person is even jailed .. she didn't have to come out at all and say it, people just knew what happened cause the guy was caught. Should i deny this woman?

I dont allow for "Exception cases" because i think it will allow all the women in this situation an outlet. I ask for it because not giving the option takes away any hope for that "one" woman who DOES want to go through with it.

And thats why i don't like the justice systems. Either right or wrong!?!?!? things are one way or another?? Thats the stupidest thing in this world, i know it makes things much more easier and it makes sense in a quirky kind of a way but it does not mean i support it. Thats why when you kill someone, there is murder 1, murder 2, manslaughter and things .. and you vote to see if the person fits those punishments or not.

Can you substantiate them with ANYTHING?

The Bible also talks about helping the poor with what you can. Does that mean it's related to how the women are valued? No, they're entirely separate issues.

No i'm not under that assumption even though it comes out like that. I do not like the idea of people HAVING the option to say "meh, why not?", not that every person does it.

And yes, that leaves 90% of the people who have some real reasons. I'm not willing to give only women a right to choose based upon 9 months of labour. People know the risks and consequences of something. Why is it that because its just someone's body (sorry for how harsh I'm sounding here), they have the right and the person who is most probably going to pay the bills for this (and looking at society's structure today, it IS the male whos the breadwinner and many dads DO indeed stay and look after their kids, whether due to legal reasons or personal reasons) have no right at all? In some ways, i think its hypocritical all together though I'm sure most will disagree with me on the subject.

1. Other than my personal experiences, no.

2. Huh? Again, i'm not sure what you mean. I must have not gotten a very good night's sleep.

But should the decision on if its a life or not be left to the woman's discretion? That's the point. What if all the male doctors said yes and the female doctors said no. There bias even in the judgement call on when life starts, and as we've stated a million times its not definate. Science has gender related bias just like everything else. There weren't even female doctors until a few decades ago! Ever try to find a doctor who's sympathetic and knowledgeable to transgendered identity? Seriously, medicine has a white straight male bias just like many other fields. You're also assuming every woman would be for it, but as your "dirty men" joke pointed out, opinions lie all over the place. So who gets to make the decision and when. When is a big issue I think fails to get taken into account. That legislation is passed saying abortions are allowed doesn't mean they are either necessary or a preference for everyone, so the decision still gets made not to go though with it, but when the questions are actually faced and by the people who are facing them.

As to your social security message, old people may vote for it, but young people do as well because they anticipate getting old, there is a difference. They are still voting on issues that will affect them unless they discover the fountain of youth. Few men I know anticipate becoming women.

makeshift, check your pm.

Hypothetical questions, in this case, are a waste of time since the percantage of men who think abortion should be legal is about the same as the percentage of women.

And just because (if that were the case) women say no, a fetus is not a life, doesn't mean that's true, and regardless of what popular opinion is, if it IS a life the government has the obligation to protect it.

Unfortunately I don't see how this can be scientifically proven, one way or another.

well Rod, its pretty dependan on how we choose to define life.

If life is defined as having A, B, and C properties, and if a fetus meets the criterias, voila, life. The thing is, definations can change from time to time and across borders.

No, check YOUR PM. :razz:

To clarify my position a bit: I believe that it is up to ALL people to decide when a human life starts. Not up to doctors only. Not up to the courts. Not up to the religious right or the militant left. Not up to men and not up to women. It is up to all people. I am not assuming anything about women's positions on the issue; in fact I believe the majority of women are against abortion as well, but that is completely beyond the scope of this argument.

What's the supposed bias over the abortion issue? Why would it be coming from men? Men are expected to support their children (as they should be), so why shouldn't men support abortion then?

That's absolutely besides the point. It should not be the right of anyone to vote how I should spend my money now, or 40 years from now. It's about personal freedom, i.e. the right to choose. Few urbanites anticipate moving out to the boondocks, yet the rural PA residents feel perfectly comfortable in voting to give themselves a nice phone system at the expense of Philadelphia residents, and Phila. residents in return feel it's OK to tax residents of Harrisburg to pay for their SEPTIC mass transit system.

Welfare? Abuse of eminent domain? Emergency relief for airlines after 9/11? Government grants for science? How many more examples do you need of people voting on how others' should go about their business?

But like I stated earlier, there's a difference in most people's mind between, a tree and a human being (even an ant for that matter), yet they are all forms of life.

Which is why I'm not really against abortions before the 3 month period. But after that...

1. I guess it's pointless to discuss it, then. I, personally, have never seen a man go: oh, I believe abortion should be illegal because them ho's need to be kept in check.

2. WHat I mean is that just because the Bible has some questionable parts, does not mean that any issue that is raised by it has some anti-female connotations.

Hypothetical questions are necessary because I'm not dealing with, as I stated, what the sentiment of men or women is per se, but who ultimatley gets to make the call.



And if male doctor's say it is, that doesn't mean its true either. Yes it is probably not going to be scientifically proven, so who gets to make the decision and when is all I am asking. This is only one angle, since one could also approach this from other platforms like if the state or the federal gets to decide, etc.

But no worries, if its proven that life begins from conception or when there is a zygote, I'll be senator of New York by then, and will quickly introduce vasectomy legislation since once the sperm hits the egg it'll be too late. Then we'll see what kind of an uproar there is about when a baby is considered a life. But as a comfort to y'all gentlemen, it apparently doesn't affect sexual pleasure or performance at all.

Of course, that will be debated until scientifically proven as well, or perhaps the ladies will get to make the call on how they feel performance has been affected over decades of trial and error? That sound like fun, but could be a bit tricky of a judgement call considering performance can be debateable regardless. :wink:

I agree that not every issue in the bible is anti-women (obviously), and I understand that everyone that reads the bible isin't anti-women, but to deny that it is loaded with them is just being ignorant.