i can't think of a single case where anything could be placed above the
life of a child.

What those having unprotected sex need to realize is:::

What got you pregnant can also get you DEAD!! It is all about education.


Peace, love & wisdom

Lonely: You started out fine, talking about your personal views, but
then began a diatribe about how women who have abortions are the worst
sort of murderers. You had to have expected a reaction from someone.
In this case it was Sorority, who clearly has strong feelings on the
issue. You told her to "be happy" after she made her point _and_ after
she clarified her point, as if to say, "shut up already." She continues
to defend her position — not once that I noticed calling you names or
making personal attacks against you. She did point out (rather
forcefully) that a man cannot know what it's like to be vulnerable in
the ways women are. And when she accurately described the fetus as
parasitic, you tell her to get out of your thread, call _her_ a
parasite, and tell her how sick she makes you. Just what was your point
in starting this thread, entitled "Call me a fanatic in this one," if
not to start a debate and create some controversy? It seems that you
wanted someone at whom to yell, someone you could loathe and despise for
having taken the bait.

Now, having said that...

Sorority: Although I agree with parts of what you've said, I disagree on
some of your points. We agree on the outcome (the right for a woman to
choose to have an abortion), but not on all the ways of reaching it. In
particular, you claim that dependence upon the woman's body is
legitimate justification for abortion. However, what about conjoined
twins in adulthood? Suppose one twin has all his vital organs and the
other is lacking and requires his brother's body to survive? Can the
"whole" twin ethically decide to terminate his brother's life through
separation merely because he's technically a parasite? While there may
even be some legal grounds for doing so, it would certainly be a
dispicable thing to do. On the other hand, it's not always so clear-cut
as that. Suppose that the brothers, as they reach adulthood, are
putting way too much stress on the single heart they share. It could
function normally for one brother (the one with all the vital organs)
for the next 40 to 50 years, but shared will give out in 5 to 10 years.
This is an ethical dilemma, certainly, with a much larger "gray zone."
My point is that merely calling the fetus a parasite isn't sufficient
justification and attempts to make the situation less complex than it
is.

Consciousness and self-awareness are much better indicators, as the lack
of development means that it has not reached its potential and is
therefore not yet what one day it might become. In other words, the
fetus has not reached person-hood. Self-awareness, or development of
the ego, does not happen typically until about the age of two years.
That, however, cannot be the cutoff, because in some infants it may
happen as early as 18 months (maybe even earlier). But limiting it to
pregnancy and, preferably, before the third trimester (i.e., before the
nervous system is "on line" to avoid inadvertently causing even the
slightest pain) is the most ethical time to terminate pregnancy. The
reason I mention pain is not to spark debate over whether pain
constitutes person-hood, but just to point out that it's always better
to avoid causing _anything_ pain. I won't kick a dog, I don't use
"sticky" mouse traps, and I wouldn't want a fetus — despite having no
personal identity — to experience pain of any kind.

Ordinarily, I'd be in favor of "states' rights." In this case, however,
I see it as a different issue. Belief that the moment of conception is
the moment of "life" has no weight except through religious faith. A
mass of undeveloped cells isn't a person until true consciousness and
self-awareness develops — that is our only empirical evidence for
genuine personal identity, though an argument could be made for life
starting shortly after birth (because certain life functions begin at
that time). But, we must have cautious guidelines so that we never
accidently take a self-aware life — so pregnancy is a pretty clear-cut
"safe zone." Any state, or the federal government, banning a woman from
having an abortion on such grounds is tantamount to legislating religion
or faith — which IS against our Constitution. Many religions believe
strongly that a zygote is endowed with a soul and that is the beginning
of a life. Otherwise, it does not have any of the characteristics of
life at the early stages. Religious people should be (and are) free to
bring their children to term if they see fit, but should realize that
their beliefs in the areas of faith and religion cannot be
state-mandated.

When a woman has made a decision to bring the fetus to term, she enters
into a contract of sorts with the fetus (or, more specifically, the
future child). By making that decision, she is ethically bound to do
everything reasonable in her power to have a healthy child. She cannot
smoke. She cannot drink. She must have routine fetal monitoring by a
medical professional. If someone deliberately or negligently causes
harm or the destruction of this fetus, there should be a legal
consequence. I don't think that it should be called "murder" or
"manslaughter" because that really wouldn't be consistent. However, the
person in question will have taken something very personal to and valued
by the woman from her and has done irreparable harm (as the fetus in
question is unique and can never truly be replaced), and there should be
a significant penalty for having done so.

There is only one other point on which I disagree, Sorority: that men
have no say in this issue because they are unable to become pregnant or
give birth. I do agree that perspective is important and that it should
be weighted accordingly, but this is an issue that affects all of
society, not just women. If we were to discover that a two-month-old
fetus were self-aware, that would shift the issue from "women's rights"
to "human rights." Here's a different example: Suppose for a moment
that we are at war (I know it's difficult to envision, but bear with me)
and that I'm physically ineligible for combat duty. Does that mean that
I don't have the right to voice my opinion about the treatment of the
troops or whether they have adequate body armor, or regarding the
validity or effectiveness of the war effort? Of course not. I am
entitled to those opinions, even if I would never be in the troops'
position — it affects us all on some level. It is not that men do not
have the right to an opinion on the issue of abortion, but to have
significant weight it must be an opinion backed by a solid argument.
When in strict religious circles, the argument is solid to everone
hearing it by virtue that everyone agrees on the premise that life
begins at conception. Outside those circles, however, the argument
lacks the power it held because the premise is subjective on religious
grounds and is contested by many.

resserts you are absolutely right i need to work on that posistin of
saying that men have no right, i put way to much attentin on the female
alone, and not on the fathers wishes and that is something that i need
to further develop an opinion on etc.

I really enjoyed your post also! you made some very good assertions
and points!

wow that is a GIGANTIC posts. I'll read it maybe..after i rest

People, we do not live in a commune. We do not have socialized
medicine, we do not all share the fruits of our individual labors as an
extended family. We do not bear children with any idea that we may be
contributing the next best thing to humanity that ever existed. We do
not bear a child and then vote within a community on how to raise this
child nor is there even any personal contact between a baby and every
individual of a community. The fact is, many children do not even have
an extended family. We are a society of individuals, and it is my
choice to divulge my bodily functions or not. And what I divulge to my
physician is between me and my physician and can not, should not ever be
put in front of public eyes much less up for a vote.

If a woman laid an egg, who would know weather she nested with it or
not? Who would know that she just didn't throw it away? If a woman has a
fertilized egg and chooses not to sit on it, whose business is it but
hers?

I might add at this point, that you all seem to have concluded, with
rather harsh judgement, that women who have abortions are without
conscience, heartless and uncaring. To make such a decision, in
itself, is a weight that this person will bear for the rest of their
lives. I have seen it's affect. The reasons for such decisions, are
not within your realm of understanding, if you have never been there.
Yes, you may make moral implications, but I tell you it is through
ignorance that you do so. If you have not been there if you have not
walked that mile, even your morals can not hold up under scrutiny. You
can only imagine within the realm of your own being, your own life, your
own situations and these are still just imaginings.

As for the fathers - AB - when it is possible for a fertilized egg to
be painlessly, without affect, removed from a woman and allowed to
develop and thrive elsewhere, AND THE MAN is willing to take the burden
of all the expense and sole parenting rights, then I will agree that you
have a case. Until then, every man must know, that any seed they
deposit into a woman, is in the care of that woman until the birth of a
child. That means, she will do as she sees fit, because every minute of
every day that a woman is pregnant affects her, physically, emotionally
and financially. If any man is so damn interested in having a child,
then they need to petition the laws of their state to allow single
parent adoption. The prodigy of your seed is no more worthy of love,
devotion and commitment than an already orphaned child in existence.

Resserts makes some extremely lucrative statements pertaining to the
morals of religion. To base laws on such morals is counter to all that
this nation holds as self evident. The rights of equality for all, as
individuals. Until the act which sows a seed, becomes a viable fruit
capable of existence on it's own accord, it is part of the package of
the whole of the woman on whom it depends for it's continued
development.

Again, I will say, until there is a viable alternative available that
would allow for the extraction and incubation of a fertilized egg. And
when the laws exist that hold either, the father or the community
responsible for the support of all unwanted pregnancies including all
medical needs, home care and education, through adulthood, I will
continue to be pro-active with a womans rights over her body.

I have allways supported my children.

I was not even consulted.

she was my wife.

AB - I was addressing your question, "what about the father", I was not
addressing you on a personal level. If you can not understand the
reasons behind your wife's actions, how can anyone?

That is the point. They were her actions, because it was her decision
to make. While you were affected by them, and I'm sorry you were, at
this time, we do not have the means to make possible an alternative to
override her, or any womans, rights concerning her body.

I do not mean for this issue to disregard the feelings or emotions of
any father, however, this is part of what a woman must consider when
coming to a final decision. The woman, not society, not the law. If
any conditions are placed on anyone's individual rights over their own
bodies, than the laws that were meant to uphold those rights are
erroneous, and do not give us rights at all.

Just to clarify:
I haven't degraded women. My only point is that that so called parasite,
is the most defenseless God's creature.
That little tiny baby has no means to talk, and it's just deprive of
life.
I won't ever waive this point.
I can waive too many things, but not this one.
I won't have to make this decision, thanks God i won't have to choice
dead instead of life.
Even if it's a parasital relationship, that parasite has a heart that is
bitting.
And if someday (God please don't ever allow this to happen), a child of
mine has to pass through that I may become in something like MIchaerl
Corleone in the Godfather I.
God forgive me if I'm wrong.
But I can't waive a little baby's life for any reason whatsoever.

and this is my bottom of line

I have been on both sides of the fence on this one. I was always against
abortion and felt for no reason whatsoever was ita viable option. I
learned diffrently i am raising a chil;d of rape she is my life and i
hope she never learns where she came from. when i was pregnant i wen as
far as making the appt and going to it and in the end i couldn't do it.
I know what it feels like and as men you will never know or be faced
with the decision for me the decision was wrong but i'll never say for
other women that it is. You can't say what would or would not do till
your there

redz post excerpt

As for the fathers - AB - when it is possible for a fertilized egg to be
painlessly, without affect, removed from a woman and allowed to develop
and thrive elsewhere, AND THE MAN is willing to take the burden of all
the expense and sole parenting rights, then I will agree that you have a
case. Until then, every man must know, that any seed they deposit into a
woman, is in the care of that woman until the birth of a child. That
means, she will do as she sees fit, because every minute of every day
that a woman is pregnant affects her, physically, emotionally
and financially. If any man is so damn interested in having a child,
then they need to petition the laws of their state to allow single
parent adoption. The prodigy of your seed is no more worthy of love,
devotion and commitment than an already orphaned child in existence.

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

well i was wondering when it was gonna come up but i never expected a
woman to bring it up

AND THE MAN is willing to take the burden of all the expense and

does this mean if the man say abort

that the woman should have to be willing to be take this burden

a tangled web we weave

Holy snapping duck poop! What happened here last night?




I have a story to share about this but no time now - I will be back

...the air in here is thick and hard to breathe...

don't be sad lovely

adj, the point is that women already have the burden and the choice
remains with them.

The burden for a man is knowing that any time they consent to giving up
their seed, they risk the "choice" of the woman into whose care that
seed was deposited.

"Any time", is not always limited to the flings, they also include, as
AB pointed out, acts within a committed relationship. This is the
burden of a man, it is the burden of a woman to make a choice in this
matter, as it affects her very being.

The burden for men is great. For if a woman stays the natural course,
the man involved, is then a father and that includes all the
responsibilities the law and general morals allow, and should be equally
met by both parties.

For this reason, I never discount the emotions of men who are, involved
in such issues. This is all part of the education process that should
be geared toward young men, before their young sexuality leads them into
such anguish.

We can not conclude that a woman who becomes pregnant, has disregarded
her role in a consensual sex act. This, you see, is where ALL people
must understand the difference lies. We can not make ALL pregnant women
choose the same natural course that leads to birth, because; the
situations of conception, or that arise,(for a woman)after conception,
are subjective.
We can not be privey to them all and we, not being where she is, can
never determine a proper course of action for her. Only she can do
that.

This is where her burden lies, because at this point, either way she
chooses, will affect her for the rest of her life. Her choice is never
easy. These, along with disease, should always play the largest part in
sex education.

This is not a stand against men or any single man, it is not a stand
against religion. This is the only possible logical conclusion, at this
time, for people who expect entitlement to certain inalienable rights.
Those rights include what a person does with their own body.

I have not read this entire thread but will share two stories that have
shaped my views of the topic.

Things are not as final as they sometimes appear.



My friend and her husband had two children and made a difficult
decision to terminate a third pregnancy about 3 years ago. It was a
heart wrenching decision for them. Their daughter was less than a year
old and their son was about 4 at the time.

They never spoke about it after but my friend did have a tattoo placed
on the inside of her wrist - a flower with an "A" in the center....a
reminder of the unborn child.

When their daughter had started to speak, my friend noticed that she
would talk a lot to herself. One day the little girl spoke a name ...
an unusual name with multiple syllables...it was the name given to the
unborn child....the source of the 'A' in the tattoo.

My friend's instinctual reaction was one of fear. But she did not want
to frighten her daughter so remained calm. She asked her to repeat the
name and she did. Then my friend asked her who that was ... her
daughter looked elsewhere then back to her mom and said 'sister'.

I was at their home a couple of months ago and was chatting with the
little girl who is not almost 4. I asked her what she was doing. She
relied, "oh nothing, I am just talking with my sister". I smiled and
said, "really? What are you talking about?"

She said, "she is deciding whether to come."


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


I lost a child - not through a decision but through a natural abortion -
a miscarriage at the end of the first trimester.

A year later I was in an airport terminal. A large European woman
watched me and looked in my direction for nearly an hour. It was very
uncomfortable. Her granddaughter was with her and she finally spoke
saying that her grandmother said my son was beautiful and very curious
and playful.

I had a shocked look on my face as I looked around me for a child
playing. There were no children at my gate. The old woman just gave me
a wink and chuckled then gave a message to her granddaughter to
translate ... it was just two words... "you know". A knowing smile and
a single nod ... and nothing more form her.

The following summer I was at a work related conference in Ontario. An
old aboriginal woman was staying in the same hotel. She started
chatting with me during breakfast. She said, "when did you lose your
son?"

Shocked, I asked what she meant. She said, "there is blonde boy with
you with the most beautiful smile and curious nature."

I said, "I don't have a son." She said, "yes you do and he chooses to
walk with you from the other side."

I asked why. She replied, "because that is what you both need"

There have been 4 other incidents - too many for me to just dismiss.
They all describe a little boy who presents himself as a 3-4 year old
with blonde curly hair, a bright smile and curious & playful nature.

Not a ghost, just a boy without an earthsuit who may still choose to
join me on this side. And if he doesn't....our journey together is
still fulfilled.

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

Things are not what they seem. That which we view with such anger or
disgust ... looks different from a different vantage point.

"When we change the way we look at things ... the things we look at
change."

No black and white - just shades of gray and spectacular 3-D
technicolour.

ArtGurl, you bring tears to my eyes, but mostly they are tear of joy.
Joy because others have given you their insight, and that insight has
given you so much more in joy & light than your grief can hold a candle
to.

Maybe it also shows, for those who would choose to believe it, that
nothing we could ever do or say can stop or change the journey that any
life force is meant to take.

I believe that Red.

Life has a way of finding its way.
We have a way of finding our life.

Who is to say that the woman who has an abortion doesn't require that
for her life to unfold in the way that it must? Who is to say that the
fetus didn't come in just for that purpose? For that moment of learning
and advancement...just maybe that WAS the purpose...

...just wondering out loud tonight...

ArtGurl, those are awesome accounts!