Abortion, conteception, stem cells

[ríomhaire]

Answer or DIE!

 

[Raziaar]

I personally voted no to stem cell,abortion, morning after pill(just think of how much faster disease will spread once kids don't need to worry about getting pregnant on top of it. THey worry about that more than disease, having all sorts of unprotected sex).

And yes to contraceptives.

 

[French Ninja]

Yes to all.

 

[Ikerous]

By "agrea" do you mean am i in favor of it happening, or of it being legal?
I'm not in favor of abortion... but i definitely think it should be legal...

 

[ray_MAN]

Yes to all. Most opposition is a load of religious bullshit, if you ask me.

 

[bvasgm]

^ What he said.

 

[AntiAnto]

Yes to contraception.
Yes to stem cell research
No to abortion.

 

[French Ninja]

Yes to all. Most opposition is a load of religious bullshit, if you ask me.

Ditto.
It's silly to protect things that arent even cells yet. Why are conservatives so protective over some sub atomic goop that might eventually become a republican?:E -Bill Maur, I'm Swiss, paraphrased by me of course.

 

[ríomhaire]

No to abortion
No to morning after
Yes to contraception
Yes to stem cell

 

[WhiteZero]

Theres no point in not doing stem cell research. If we didnt use steam cells for research, they'd just be discarded. Or we can use them and possibly find cures.

 

[WhiteZero]

IMO people shouldent tell women what they can and can't do with their body... or anyone else for that matter.

 

[The Monkey]

Yes to abortion
Yes to contraception
Yes to morning after pill
Yes to stem cell research

 

[CyberPitz]

yes2all

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

IMO people shouldent tell women what they can and can't do with their body... or anyone else for that matter.

An abortion isn't just affecting the woman's body, it's killing a baby.

 

[el Chi]

IMO people shouldent tell women what they can and can't do with their body... or anyone else for that matter.

To an extent I agree. If there was a national consensus on the matter, and only women were allowed to vote, I personally wouldn't have a problem with that. After all, it's their bodies and I think a lot of men find it easy to rail on and on about what a grotesque act it is when it is not something they will ever have to personally deal with.

Also I'm not sure where so many people - again, primarily men - get this idea that women consider abortion this easy way out. It's not a decision that is made lightly in the majority of cases.
If abortion is illegal all you do is open the gates to back alley abortionists, which harms the mother AS WELL far more than proper abortions carried out in hosptials by medical personell.

Abortion - Yes.
Morning after pill - Yes.
Contraception - Yes.
Stem cell research - Yes.

This topic has been discussed before in this folder and, like most threads in the politics forum, it spiralled on down into a bitter, hate-filled cesspool. Neither side willing to give an inch, mainly on sheer principle and furious idiocy rather than rational thought or common sense. And yes I apply that moreso to anyone who disagrees with me.
Restarting the thread can only go the same way.

 

[The Monkey]

An abortion isn't just affecting the woman's body, it's killing a baby.

It's never alive.

 

[ríomhaire]

IMO people shouldent tell women what they can and can't do with their body... or anyone else for that matter.

So do you think crack should be legal?

 

[Raziaar]

After all, it's their bodies and I think a lot of men find it easy to rail on and on about what a grotesque act it is when it is not something they will ever have to personally deal with.

I do think a man who would be the father of said child, should have a say in the matter as well... don't tell me they don't 'deal with it'.

 

[el Chi]

So do you think crack should be legal?

Except it's not quite the same though is it? Crack slowly destroys people's lives. Abortions are neither addictive (as far as I am aware), nor do they cause women's bodies to deteriorate as they go on. Crack is all but guaranteed to f*ck you up mentally, too; abortions are less likely to, although, as it is such a tough decision, it DOES sometimes mess women up.

Raziaar - Yes the potential father should have a say in the matter, but I feel that either way it is harder for women as they must also deal with the physical AND emotional results of whichever decision is taken.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Except it's not quite the same though is it? Crack slowly destroys people's lives. Abortions are neither addictive (as far as I am aware), nor do they cause women's bodies to deteriorate as they go on. Crack is all but guaranteed to f*ck you up mentally, too; abortions are less likely to, although, as it is such a tough decision, it DOES sometimes mess women up.

Raziaar - Yes the potential father should have a say in the matter, but I feel that either way it is harder for women as they must also deal with the physical AND emotional results of whichever decision is taken.

Father has to deal with emotional too. Horrible thought, what if you're married, and for some reason the girl you married turns out to not be how you thought they were (happens sometimes) and they abort your child. Good god..

It's never alive.

Yes, it is.

 

[el Chi]

Father has to deal with emotional too. Horrible thought, what if you're married, and for some reason the girl you married turns out to not be how you thought they were (happens sometimes) and they abort your child. Good god..

I completely agree that that WOULD be a horrible situation. However, I never said the man wouldn't suffer emotionally - quite the opposite. I merely said that women have to undergo the physical problems AS WELL.

Besides, I don't think the possibility that a woman might abort their child without consulting their partner is solid grounds for the abolition of abortions.

 

[Raziaar]

I completely agree that that WOULD be a horrible situation. However, I never said the man wouldn't suffer emotionally - quite the opposite. I merely said that women have to undergo the physical problems AS WELL.

Besides, I don't think the possibility that a woman might abort their child without consulting their partner is solid grounds for the abolition of abortions.

Lots of potential dads out there who want to have their babies, going through serious emotional struggles as the babies get killed off.

 

[Reaktor4]

So do you think crack should be legal?

Obviously it should be.
Anyway, yes to everything apart from abortion. I believe abortion is only right if the woman was raped or if the baby has some horrible disease which would only result in a painful and unpleasant life for it.

 

[The Monkey]

Yes, it is.

Perhaps, but if is to be human it must be aware of its own existanse, and a its brain must work. Foetuses does meet this requirerments, and can therefore not be called human, how ever, since it meets most definitions of life, one, I suppose could call it life, but not human.

 

[ray_MAN]

If it is not conscience of its surroundings, it is not alive. If there is no brain activity it is not alive. Simple as that.

 

[Raziaar]

Monkeys are aware of their existence. About 98% of their DNA is exactly like that of a humans... and they can learn and communicate with language, experience love, anxiety, depression, friendships, bonding, you name it. Yet we still don't consider them to have rights, and test on them all the time like the savage little animals that many people think of them to be, despite those characteristics that we have long used to distinguish ourselves from all other forms of life, as the dominant, intelligent lifeform. Apes and monkeys exhibit nearly all of those abilities.

It doesn't have any relevance, other than the point I want to make that the human regard for life is individualistic and very self serving, and in my opinion, the way we view life needs to be changed. Thats my opinion anyways, and sorry for the wildly outrageous, relatively off topic post I just made here. Heh.

 

[The Monkey]

Monkeys are aware of their existence. About 98% of their DNA is exactly like that of a humans... and they can learn and communicate with language, experience love, anxiety, depression, friendships, bonding, you name it. Yet we still don't consider them to have rights, and test on them all the time like the savage little animals that many people think of them to be, despite those characteristics that we have long used to distinguish ourselves from all other forms of life, as the dominant, intelligent lifeform. Apes and monkeys exhibit nearly all of those abilities.

It doesn't have any relevance, other than the point I want to make that the human regard for life is individualistic and very self serving, and in my opinion, the way we view life needs to be changed. Thats my opinion anyways, and sorry for the wildly outrageous, relatively off topic post I just made here. Heh.

Monkeys and apes can't write a book or hold an intelligent conversation. They can't build a civilization and most importantly; they can't feel compassion. But you're right, they are aware of life, (at least the apes are, I'm not sure about the monkeys) and that something uniqe in animal life. But a slug is not aware of life, a fetchus in in the third month is not aware of life.

 

[el Chi]

Lots of potential dads out there who want to have their babies, going through serious emotional struggles as the babies get killed off.

Which was exactly what I was saying in the post you quoted.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say?

 

[Raziaar]

Which was exactly what I was saying in the post you quoted.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say?

I'm just saying... that despite the acknowledgement of the suffering that the men go through too(which I doubt many even actually feel!), the general consensus is that the men have no right to decide what to do with their child... the child that they helped make. You cannot have a child without a man and a woman, and just because the woman is culmination of the final brewing pot for that baby to develop, I don't think it should mean that she automatically gets more rights than the loving, caring husband/boyfriend/lover who would like to bring that child into the world, and raise it.

 

[el Chi]

I'm just saying... that despite the acknowledgement of the suffering that the men go through too(which I doubt many even actually feel!), the general consensus is that the men have no right to decide what to do with their child... the child that they helped make. You cannot have a child without a man and a woman, and just because the woman is culmination of the final brewing pot for that baby to develop, I don't think it should mean that she automatically gets more rights than the loving, caring husband/boyfriend/lover who would like to bring that child into the world, and raise it.

A fair point. However I do think that the woman should have more say, because it's their body and the amount of changes and worries and pains and ailments over the better part of an entire year that must be dealt with by them (granted, they may have support of their partner) to the end of becoming the mother of an unwanted baby?
It should, at least in theory, be a joint decision between both parties, however compromises have to be reached at certain points and, whilst I am detracting nothing away from the man's emotional investment, I would consider the woman first amongst equals, so to speak.

 

[Raziaar]

Monkeys and apes can't write a book or hold an intelligent conversation. They can't build a civilization and most importantly; they can't feel compassion. But you're right, they are aware of life, (at least the apes are, I'm not sure about the monkeys) and that something uniqe in animal life. But a slug is not aware of life, a fetchus in in the third month is not aware of life.

I've heard that monkeys are intelligent enough to be able to be able to communicate with sign language about their physical and mental well being. I don't have the time right now to go out and prove that, but its not really a point I care to argue too much, as it doesn't relate too much to the topic. I just wanted to point out that we as humans are completely selfish when it comes to regard for life for that which is less developed than us, even in the case of same species. Yes, i'm sure at a certain young stage in the development of a foetus, it really us nothing more than a collection of cells, but there's no fine, magical line which can truely define at which point in the body a foetus goes from non-life, to life. To hear most pro-abortionists speak, its as if they think a developing baby is not deserving of life until it passes that mighty canal into the open air, which I think is bogus. Have you seen an underdeveloped foetus that needed to be removed from the mother to be further incubated? With its pretty much fully formed body, opening and closing eyes, and bodily movement. I don't see how you can look at that, and tell me it is just an unliving blob.(and note, I dont say 'you' as in you specifically. Its a general term here)