The Future of Abortion

[Baron Von PWN]

Very interesting thanks for sharing. I will have to see if I can't get a hold of that one.
Also the negative reviews on it are amusing. along the lines of "TLDR"

[john9blue]

Except the problem IS with what you said... and that it is far too simple. Its easy to put out slogans. Its hard to actually THINK about how other people feel, truly. Generally, you are able to do that. However, blasting me for explaining the very real reasons why some women might not want their genes mixed... and ignoring A. that its not actually my position and B. that there IS a basis in reality is not an example of thinking.

And... yes, it did hit a nerve. I have more than a few close friends who adopted kids who now have various special needs. One is likely to be institutionalized for life. Don't try to tell me that the parents just were not loving enough. and THAT... the "not loving enough" is the OTHER side to what you say. Because, if its all about nurture, then that means that every child who commits a crime, every child who has problems has parents who just did not do a good enough job of nurturing them... and that is total bull!

i was going to respond to this in a similar way to bbs...

To add this debate, I read a summarized version of The Nurture Assumption which was a long-term study conducted on biological twins with different parents (i.e. one stuck with the original parents, and the other did not). What they discovered was that the genes largely overrode their upbrining from their parents. In other words, even if a child was separated from her parent, the child's personality largely resembled the original parents'.


Then it went into the influence of peer groups--not quite "the environment," but more like one's immediate group of friends and others--a group with which the child identifies.

In conclusion, IIRC, the original parents' genes had a stronger influence over the "nurture assumption" (i.e. parental upbringing); however, the role of peer groups was perhaps equally as strong as one's genes. So in order of strength it's (genes ~= peer group), each of which > parental upbringing.

player, by "nurture" i don't mean only parents. perhaps "environment" would be a better word. and yes, there are a lot of things that are largely determined by heritability. but most of the factors that cause people to become selfish, heartless criminals are not among them.

[Symmetry]

how about you remove the words "plain and simple" from my post, and then re-read it. you'll find that it contains the exact same message that it did before! try responding to that, instead of doing a symmetry-style breakdown of a single word or phrase.

also, physical and mental health are somewhat related...

If you're using an incorrect term as one of your key points, and one of my key points is that the inflated rhetoric of those opposed to abortion is a problem, don't get pissy when I provide medical data disproving you.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, J9B, regarding the "nurture" issue with player, from what I recall the "nurture assumption" entails parental upbringing and not so much about the "environment" or peer groups.

BVP and I's following conversation goes into more depth:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177767&view=unread#p3885618

[john9blue]

how about you remove the words "plain and simple" from my post, and then re-read it. you'll find that it contains the exact same message that it did before! try responding to that, instead of doing a symmetry-style breakdown of a single word or phrase.

also, physical and mental health are somewhat related...

If you're using an incorrect term as one of your key points, and one of my key points is that the inflated rhetoric of those opposed to abortion is a problem, don't get pissy when I provide medical data disproving you.

i asked you to substitute "unborn human" for "fetus" in my posts, and (as usual) you insisted on waging war about your restrictive definition of "fetus" instead of addressing my actual argument, which would have been the exact same had i used the term "unborn human". you don't even understand the purpose of language. come back when you have something meaningful to say.

[Symmetry]

how about you remove the words "plain and simple" from my post, and then re-read it. you'll find that it contains the exact same message that it did before! try responding to that, instead of doing a symmetry-style breakdown of a single word or phrase.

also, physical and mental health are somewhat related...

If you're using an incorrect term as one of your key points, and one of my key points is that the inflated rhetoric of those opposed to abortion is a problem, don't get pissy when I provide medical data disproving you.

i asked you to substitute "unborn human" for "fetus" in my posts, and (as usual) you insisted on waging war about your restrictive definition of "fetus" instead of addressing my actual argument, which would have been the exact same had i used the term "unborn human". you don't even understand the purpose of language. come back when you have something meaningful to say.

Restricted by medical definitions of what a fetus is. With evidence. And with evidence that the majority of abortions are not of fetuses.

"Unborn human" is simply misleading.

[john9blue]

Restricted by medical definitions of what a fetus is. With evidence. And with evidence that the majority of abortions are not of fetuses.

"Unborn human" is simply misleading.

i'm sorry that my language is not politically correct enough for you. how does "pre-natal homo sapiens" sound?

[Symmetry]

Restricted by medical definitions of what a fetus is. With evidence. And with evidence that the majority of abortions are not of fetuses.

"Unborn human" is simply misleading.

i'm sorry that my language is not politically correct enough for you. how does "pre-natal homo sapiens" sound?

It was simply wrong medically. And I showed why. At this point you're just being a bit silly.

[Baron Von PWN]

Hey, J9B, regarding the "nurture" issue with player, from what I recall the "nurture assumption" entails parental upbringing and not so much about the "environment" or peer groups.

BVP and I's following conversation goes into more depth:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177767&view=unread#p3885618

As I had learned the Nature vs nurture debate. Nurture was more seen as any non genetic factor. In other words the parts of us which are learned rather than simply coded out in the genes.

reading the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

it seems the traditional framing of nature and nurture is indeed the parental upbringing. The article also points out that nowadays its widely accepted to be some combination of the two which may vary depending on the individual. interesting stuff.

[PLAYER57832]

Do you really want to perpetuate the genes of a rapist?

That is part of the real question. Also, whether you have to actually bear the child or not, there IS a child that is partially you and partially a man who horribly hurt you. Children should be born of love, not hatred or anger.

oh wow.

so humans are genetically predisposed to behave certain ways? we shouldn't be held responsible for our actions? people should be held accountable for the crimes of their ancestors?

i just... it's so... graaaAAAHH

Technically she's right. Genetics > Brain Development > how we process emotions, but the rest of that she wasn't implying...and I certainly don't agree with it.

BMO

nurture > nature

and this is coming from a guy who is nothing like his parents

I agree (I am also nothing like my parents, but a personal anecdote doesn't help this conversation). The % effect of nurture on human development vs. that of nature may be higher, but by what degree? Is the difference 80% (90% > 10%), 40% (70% > 30%), or could it be something as marginal as 1% (50.5% > 49.5%), or somewhere among those values?

Regardless, it'd be lazy to not explore X% of the cause of someone's behavior when it's possible that the variance in behavior may be attributed to that percentage. Since we haven't postulated ITT that the explanation for the variance in behavior caused by nature is statistically insignificant, we can not yet dismiss it in discussion.

*rds goes back to not talking about stats*

BMO

YOu have it backwards. I never denied that nurture was important. John claimed that genetics were irrelevant, not really worth considering because nurture always outweighed nurther. I pointed out that this is proven false in many cases and in many more we just do not know.

This gets back to the basic question. If the result is unknown, who gets to decide. John and some others want to claim a "higher moral" fallback of "let the child be born". However, I point out that forcing someone to bear a child they really do not want is historically considered one of the harshest oppressions of women. BBS example gets around some bits, but not all of it. It still is telling a woman she has to allow a child she does not want to exist to be born.

I, personally, dislike abortion. However, the point is not what my values dictate. The point is whether I have the right to dictate to OTHERS their behavior. On that front, I find the right-to-life position very hypocritical (and often misinformed as well). Also, having lived in the south and gone to church with very conservative women, I think many men in this debate really don't get what their wives/daughters/sisters REAL positions are. Many women will only disagree with their "men folk" whne they have to or its a realtively "neutral"/"rightfully female" topic (like cleaning house, education of the kids, etc.) For some reason, the idea that women have a right to decide things about their own body is the FIRST thing men seem to deny women when asserting control.

[PLAYER57832]

Restricted by medical definitions of what a fetus is. With evidence. And with evidence that the majority of abortions are not of fetuses.

"Unborn human" is simply misleading.

i'm sorry that my language is not politically correct enough for you. how does "pre-natal homo sapiens" sound?

Science is neither politically correct nor of any other political slant.

That too many conservatives wish to claim otherwise is pretty telling, nor is this the only debate where that tactic is used.

[thegreekdog]

Because abortion isn't just about financial cost.

What else is it about? Other than in the context of rape, why would a woman want to have an abortion if the post-fertilized egg can be removed without cost to the woman?

I wonder if Symmetry has me on foe.

[john9blue]

YOu have it backwards. I never denied that nurture was important. John claimed that genetics were irrelevant, not really worth considering because nurture always outweighed nurther. I pointed out that this is proven false in many cases and in many more we just do not know.

This gets back to the basic question. If the result is unknown, who gets to decide. John and some others want to claim a "higher moral" fallback of "let the child be born". However, I point out that forcing someone to bear a child they really do not want is historically considered one of the harshest oppressions of women. BBS example gets around some bits, but not all of it. It still is telling a woman she has to allow a child she does not want to exist to be born.

okay, firstly, i never said genetics were irrelevant. i said that environment and upbringing were far more important factors and that aborting a rape baby because they have "bad genes" is a terrible argument.

second, there are some people that i don't "want to exist". does that mean i can go out and kill them? keep in mind that these people have actually DONE things that have made me wish that they didn't exist, unlike a fetus who hasn't done anything of the sort.

[PLAYER57832]

Because abortion isn't just about financial cost.

What else is it about? Other than in the context of rape, why would a woman want to have an abortion if the post-fertilized egg can be removed without cost to the woman?

Just to continue with the "devil's argument" bit...

Some people cite population issues. Others feel that just bringing a child into the world involves a moral obligation and that passing that on to someone else does not, fundamentally remove the obligation encurred.

(sort of.. the baby might be Einstein, but might be Hitler.. and they don't want the responsibility of the risk).

[PLAYER57832]

YOu have it backwards. I never denied that nurture was important. John claimed that genetics were irrelevant, not really worth considering because nurture always outweighed nurther. I pointed out that this is proven false in many cases and in many more we just do not know.

This gets back to the basic question. If the result is unknown, who gets to decide. John and some others want to claim a "higher moral" fallback of "let the child be born". However, I point out that forcing someone to bear a child they really do not want is historically considered one of the harshest oppressions of women. BBS example gets around some bits, but not all of it. It still is telling a woman she has to allow a child she does not want to exist to be born.

okay, firstly, i never said genetics were irrelevant. i said that environment and upbringing were far more important factors and that aborting a rape baby because they have "bad genes" is a terrible argument.

Except, environment and upbringing cannot undo genetics, not really. Again, when you say that, it is, essentially, the blame the parents for crimes committed by their children, for children who are insane, etc. That is not biologically valid. Nor do I consider it morally valid.

second, there are some people that i don't "want to exist". does that mean i can go out and kill them? keep in mind that these people have actually DONE things that have made me wish that they didn't exist, unlike a fetus who hasn't done anything of the sort.

First off, when you tell a women she must bear a child she does not want, then like it or not, you ARE making that decision.

Second, the standard is that we get to decide those things once a child is born, even once a child is developed past 3 months, you have to have some serious justification for aborting. BUT.. up until 3 months, the life is so tenuous that science and the court have ruled it is a matter for the individual. It is very much a private medical matter and not something anyone else has the right to decide.

ELSE, you wind up with a circumstance where women have to justify and prove that any loss is a miscarriage, among other issues.

BBS is attempting to get around all that, but even if you remove the "have to raise it" and such issue, there are still moral issues that you simply choose not to consider "moral issues". BUT refusing to consider or discuss them doesn't mean they don't truly exist. It simply means you feel you have the right to decide this for other people.

There is a HUGE difference between the moral arguments of right and wrong for oneself and the morality that justifies telling someone else what to do. The Bible very much affirms that we are to pay great attention to our own personal behavior, but to pretty much ignore/forgive other people's behavior. The exception is when your actions will cause me harm.

In abortion, the typical fallback,the one you use above, is "we are not talking about the mother, we are talking about another human being". Yet, that argument is itself a very, very slipperty slope.... and it does not slide down into a position where I think you really want to be. See, if YOU have the right to tell a woman that she has to carry a child, then someone else has the right to decide that she should NOT carry that child. (aka China). The legal stance that "this is just a private matter".. up until the 3rd month, is really the best for all.

But, even in BBS scenario, you still do have the genetic and population issues.

[jay_a2j]

There is no "future" in abortion..... at least not for the aborted. I wish all these pro-choice drones would put themselves in the place of the child about to be killed. What if PLAYER didn't exist because her mom thought the population was too big, or that she wasn't "ready" to have a kid. Its all well and good to talk about the freedom to take someone else's life, but how about someone taking yours?

You people are the most selfish, unfeeling, morally bankrupt people alive.

[Baron Von PWN]

Because abortion isn't just about financial cost.

What else is it about? Other than in the context of rape, why would a woman want to have an abortion if the post-fertilized egg can be removed without cost to the woman?

Just to continue with the "devil's argument" bit...

Some people cite population issues. Others feel that just bringing a child into the world involves a moral obligation and that passing that on to someone else does not, fundamentally remove the obligation encurred.

(sort of.. the baby might be Einstein, but might be Hitler.. and they don't want the responsibility of the risk).

This is something I've been thinking as well. A person should be able to decide whether their genetic material is propagated in the form of another human being.

Ultimately I think it is a moral issue that for most would lead to the "eviction" option, however some may still feel obligated to abort. So that option should remain open.

[PLAYER57832]

There is no "future" in abortion..... at least not for the aborted. I wish all these pro-choice drones would put themselves in the place of the child about to be killed.

You make a HUGE assumption that we don't. See, that is the problem. WE DO understand. Yet, to contrast, you want to utterly deny any impact to the woman involved.

What if PLAYER didn't exist because her mom thought the population was too big, or that she wasn't "ready" to have a kid.

Once AGAIN, jay, those are not "my" arguments. In fact, I don't think those are good reasons to have an abortion. So stop debating me on that. Its not my position at all!

Its all well and good to talk about the freedom to take someone else's life, but how about someone taking yours?

You people are the most selfish, unfeeling, morally bankrupt people alive.

Read through the abortion thread... AGAIN. I lay out my REAL position very well, more than once.

And stop pretending that you actually understand anything until you ACTUALLY START STUDYING FACTS instead of just rhetoric.

[PLAYER57832]

Because abortion isn't just about financial cost.

What else is it about? Other than in the context of rape, why would a woman want to have an abortion if the post-fertilized egg can be removed without cost to the woman?

Just to continue with the "devil's argument" bit...

Some people cite population issues. Others feel that just bringing a child into the world involves a moral obligation and that passing that on to someone else does not, fundamentally remove the obligation encurred.

(sort of.. the baby might be Einstein, but might be Hitler.. and they don't want the responsibility of the risk).

This is something I've been thinking as well. A person should be able to decide whether their genetic material is propagated in the form of another human being.

Ultimately I think it is a moral issue that for most would lead to the "eviction" option, however some may still feel obligated to abort. So that option should remain open.

Yeah, the problem is that we just don't know enough about these things.

My real problem is that we, as a society, are not even close to being able to even debate and discuss these issues intelligently, never mind come to a consensus. My fallback when there is unsurity is always to allow the individual to decide, rather than society.

[john9blue]

Except, environment and upbringing cannot undo genetics, not really. Again, when you say that, it is, essentially, the blame the parents for crimes committed by their children, for children who are insane, etc. That is not biologically valid. Nor do I consider it morally valid.

for f*ck's sake player, i'm NOT putting all of the blame on the parents for how their kid turns out. "environment and upbringing" includes everything about the kid's life, from their friends to their schooling to their socioeconomic situation. i already said this.

for someone who writes such long posts, i would expect you to read past the first paragraph of other people's posts. everybody is a hypocrite these days.

First off, when you tell a women she must bear a child she does not want, then like it or not, you ARE making that decision.

Second, the standard is that we get to decide those things once a child is born, even once a child is developed past 3 months, you have to have some serious justification for aborting. BUT.. up until 3 months, the life is so tenuous that science and the court have ruled it is a matter for the individual. It is very much a private medical matter and not something anyone else has the right to decide.

ELSE, you wind up with a circumstance where women have to justify and prove that any loss is a miscarriage, among other issues.

BBS is attempting to get around all that, but even if you remove the "have to raise it" and such issue, there are still moral issues that you simply choose not to consider "moral issues". BUT refusing to consider or discuss them doesn't mean they don't truly exist. It simply means you feel you have the right to decide this for other people.

There is a HUGE difference between the moral arguments of right and wrong for oneself and the morality that justifies telling someone else what to do. The Bible very much affirms that we are to pay great attention to our own personal behavior, but to pretty much ignore/forgive other people's behavior. The exception is when your actions will cause me harm.

In abortion, the typical fallback,the one you use above, is "we are not talking about the mother, we are talking about another human being". Yet, that argument is itself a very, very slipperty slope.... and it does not slide down into a position where I think you really want to be. See, if YOU have the right to tell a woman that she has to carry a child, then someone else has the right to decide that she should NOT carry that child. (aka China). The legal stance that "this is just a private matter".. up until the 3rd month, is really the best for all.

But, even in BBS scenario, you still do have the genetic and population issues.

i love how you phrase it as if I'M directly being condescending towards some hypothetical struggling mother, instead of me simply advocating for a policy change in government.

why don't i try your method of argument:

player, how DARE you tell me that i need to give up thousands of MY OWN dollars every year that I EARNED through hard work, just to support our inept, bloated bureaucracy! you can't tell me what to do with my own money!

and how DARE you tell me that i need to care about the environment! this is my property and i'll do what i want with it. if i want to leave my styrofoam cup on the sidewalk, then who are you to impose your morality on me?

^ this is how you actually debate, except instead of money and styrofoam cups, you're dealing with future human lives.

[BigBallinStalin]

This gets back to the basic question. If the result is unknown, who gets to decide. John and some others want to claim a "higher moral" fallback of "let the child be born". However, I point out that forcing someone to bear a child they really do not want is historically considered one of the harshest oppressions of women. BBS example gets around some bits, but not all of it. It still is telling a woman she has to allow a child she does not want to exist to be born.

Well, not quite. The woman doesn't have to allow a (potential) child to live. She can allow the fetus or [insert whatever stage of development the proto-human is in, Symmetry] to be aborted. Of course, given the alternatives, to me that doesn't seem right. And even considering extreme examples like the genes of the rapist one, I still don't find that to be a good enough reason because (1) what exactly is the rapist gene? Is there such a thing? and (2) usually rapists (from what I recall) are usually that way because of the circumstances of their upbringing.

Of course, they may have some genetic disposition to violence (maybe), but I think that minor influence would be offset by the parental upbringing and positive impact of peer groups in Newbornistan.

So, my position deals with idealistic consequences. Although it is unrealistic in today's world, it may not be unrealistic in the future. If people can still weigh the consequences of each option side-by-side and still deny eviction while voting for abortion/termination, then someone seems wrong with them.

I, personally, dislike abortion. However, the point is not what my values dictate. The point is whether I have the right to dictate to OTHERS their behavior. On that front, I find the right-to-life position very hypocritical (and often misinformed as well). Also, having lived in the south and gone to church with very conservative women, I think many men in this debate really don't get what their wives/daughters/sisters REAL positions are. Many women will only disagree with their "men folk" whne they have to or its a realtively "neutral"/"rightfully female" topic (like cleaning house, education of the kids, etc.) For some reason, the idea that women have a right to decide things about their own body is the FIRST thing men seem to deny women when asserting control.

I agree that women reserve the property rights of their bodies.

I'm not here to dictate what's best for other people, but I am here to listen to the reasons given for aborting the fetus or [insert whatever stage of development the proto-human is in, Symmetry] given the circumstances of the OP. My conclusions probably won't lead to a moral obligation for all, but if anyone chooses abortion in the OP, then they should at least be able to understand the strengths and weaknesses of that position, and finally make a well-informed decision.

[PLAYER57832]

This gets back to the basic question. If the result is unknown, who gets to decide. John and some others want to claim a "higher moral" fallback of "let the child be born". However, I point out that forcing someone to bear a child they really do not want is historically considered one of the harshest oppressions of women. BBS example gets around some bits, but not all of it. It still is telling a woman she has to allow a child she does not want to exist to be born.

Well, not quite. The woman doesn't have to allow a (potential) child to live. She can allow the fetus or [insert whatever stage of development the proto-human is in, Symmetry] to be aborted.

A technicality not even worth debating. Now you are just trying to debate at what stage a fetus becomes human. Not getting into that debate right now.

Of course, given the alternatives, to me that doesn't seem right. And even considering extreme examples like the genes of the rapist one, I still don't find that to be a good enough reason because (1) what exactly is the rapist gene? Is there such a thing? and (2) usually rapists (from what I recall) are usually that way because of the circumstances of their upbringing.

Of course, they may have some genetic disposition to violence (maybe), but I think that minor influence would be offset by the parental upbringing and positive impact of peer groups in Newbornistan.

That last is closer to what I was suggesting, but the point is you can have whatever opinion, no one really knows for sure. The question then is how sure you have to be before you get to tell other people what to do. In general, the legal/moral precedent in our country is that without overriding evidence, the individual most concerned gets to decide. In the case of children, that is the parents.

So, my position deals with idealistic consequences. Although it is unrealistic in today's world, it may not be unrealistic in the future. If people can still weigh the consequences of each option side-by-side and still deny eviction while voting for abortion/termination, then someone seems wrong with them.

I am not really arguing the point. The question I answered was "why would anyone...?"
That is the question I answered.

[BigBallinStalin]

I guess player doesn't like discussing the future of abortion.

[PLAYER57832]

Except, environment and upbringing cannot undo genetics, not really. Again, when you say that, it is, essentially, the blame the parents for crimes committed by their children, for children who are insane, etc. That is not biologically valid. Nor do I consider it morally valid.

for f*ck's sake player, i'm NOT putting all of the blame on the parents for how their kid turns out. "environment and upbringing" includes everything about the kid's life, from their friends to their schooling to their socioeconomic situation. i already said this.

No, you made that claim. I don't agree its true, becuase many conservative parents today take the stance that they can and should controll their children's environment very closely.

for someone who writes such long posts, i would expect you to read past the first paragraph of other people's posts. everybody is a hypocrite these days.

Debate means people disagree and discuss that disagreement. To disagree with you doesn't make me a hypocrit. Sorry, but it doesn't.

First off, when you tell a women she must bear a child she does not want, then like it or not, you ARE making that decision.

Second, the standard is that we get to decide those things once a child is born, even once a child is developed past 3 months, you have to have some serious justification for aborting. BUT.. up until 3 months, the life is so tenuous that science and the court have ruled it is a matter for the individual. It is very much a private medical matter and not something anyone else has the right to decide.

ELSE, you wind up with a circumstance where women have to justify and prove that any loss is a miscarriage, among other issues.

BBS is attempting to get around all that, but even if you remove the "have to raise it" and such issue, there are still moral issues that you simply choose not to consider "moral issues". BUT refusing to consider or discuss them doesn't mean they don't truly exist. It simply means you feel you have the right to decide this for other people.

There is a HUGE difference between the moral arguments of right and wrong for oneself and the morality that justifies telling someone else what to do. The Bible very much affirms that we are to pay great attention to our own personal behavior, but to pretty much ignore/forgive other people's behavior. The exception is when your actions will cause me harm.

In abortion, the typical fallback,the one you use above, is "we are not talking about the mother, we are talking about another human being". Yet, that argument is itself a very, very slipperty slope.... and it does not slide down into a position where I think you really want to be. See, if YOU have the right to tell a woman that she has to carry a child, then someone else has the right to decide that she should NOT carry that child. (aka China). The legal stance that "this is just a private matter".. up until the 3rd month, is really the best for all.

But, even in BBS scenario, you still do have the genetic and population issues.

i love how you phrase it as if I'M directly being condescending towards some hypothetical struggling mother, instead of me simply advocating for a policy change in government.

You are advocating a policy change in government that will impact women very negatively. Claiming that you know better than women on this is pretty condescending.

why don't i try your method of argument:

player, how DARE you tell me that i need to give up thousands of MY OWN dollars every year that I EARNED through hard work, just to support our inept, bloated bureaucracy! you can't tell me what to do with my own money!

No dice, because you benefit from our society and all those things you put forward as "waste" -- like education, welfare, health care (note.. I realize you don't actually do that, this is a hypothetical, but I am responding in kind to your rant)

and how DARE you tell me that i need to care about the environment! this is my property and i'll do what i want with it. if i want to leave my styrofoam cup on the sidewalk, then who are you to impose your morality on me?

Exceot your styrofoam cups, etc very much DO impact me directly. Me having an abortion doesn't impact you.

^ this is how you actually debate, except instead of money and styrofoam cups, you're dealing with future human lives.

No, but nice try... and note that I was still able to answer every one of your supposed exaggerations anyway.

See, that is what real debates are about.. finding truth, not just pushing out what you think and declaring everyone else wrong.

The difference is that when I say you are wrong, it is because the science or other evidence shows it or becuase you are being inconsistant. In this case, there is a bit of both. Many people here are quite happy to argue "freedom", but seem to think that women making their own personal medical decisions is neither personal, nor about freedom. Yet, the truth is that no other issue has so influenced the RIGHTS of women, and the ability of women to do as they wish, than having control of our reproductive abilities.

You can hide behind whatever rhetoric you wish, but the bottom line is that without access to both birth control and SAFE abortions, women don't have anything close to freedom.

[PLAYER57832]

I guess player doesn't like discussing the future of abortion.

Funny, seems like I engaged you pretty well. Wonder why you are now on the defensive? Maybe because I actually refuted a couple of your points....

The problem is that society takes a walk when it comes to discussing the gritty details of abortion, euthanasia and medical science advances. There are a whole slew load of issues, all inter-related, and all come down to do we have the right to decide life and birth.

EXCEPT.. the problem is we have already decided. We have decided that we have the right to promote whatever kind of human life can be made to breath, regardless of what that actually means because, in some people's minds, there is this idea of "hope" that should outweigh any reality on the ground. Yet, what they call "hope" is, in fact something very diffferent to many of the people actually involved in these choices and decisions.

And that is without even getting into the monstrous denial of cause and effect when it comes to funding. Its SUPREMELY hypocritical that many of the same people who will fight further payments for heatlh care, welfare and even education are quite happy to insist that women bear any fertilized egg, and that the only "correct" way to avoid that is just to not have sex at all... (even if married, or whatever).