AeAe: To be clear, I don't support abortions, but I recognize that people will kill people. It's just how the world is. To think otherwise is naive.

Or perhaps others might simply have a different definition of "person" than the one you're working with?

ace in your face: AeAe: itazurakko: AeAe: what the pro-choice'ers need to realize is that when you abort a fetus/embryo/whatever you want to call it - you are ending the life of person. You need to embrace that reality, warts and all.

What reality?

You're killing something that could have become a person without too much undue (or unnatural) intervention otherwise. Assume completely ignorant people operating purely on instinct in the wilderness, with some decent odds a kid would be born and survive.

But particularly at this stage (embryos) there's nothing THERE aside from that potential. No brain, no awareness.

I realize the religious assume that there's something else, there's a soul. But traditionally, they've not always assumed that the soul is there from conception, either.

Some huge percentage of conceptions are washed away naturally, they either don't implant or they spontaneously abort, and the mother doesn't even KNOW - there's not even a miscarriage to mourn.

I think that this is why there is a split in the 2 camps. Pro-lifers believe that the embryo is a human being ("potential person" argument aside), and pro-choicers do not.

Why would it matter to you if the embryo is a person or not? Because it's easier to accept that you're "terminating" a bunch of cells than killing a "living being"?

You can't argue it's not living, right?

Bullshiat. I think a fetus is a human being. That just doesn't make the argument that a woman has a right to her body any less valid. Strangers are human beings too, but if they try to touch any part of my body I am going to do everything it takes including kill them if they won't get the fark off. And its legal.

Hey, I was just responding to the other poster. I think it's a human being too. And, to your point, killing people happens. So my point is, you kill the fetus/embryo/cells/what-have-you and know and accept that that's what it is.

You don't have to have this huge guilt over it, but I think it's honest.

omeganuepsilon: cs30109: TofuTheAlmighty: Bronzed War God: And your choice is to kill and innocent child by a flip of the coin.

A fetus is not a child, numbskull. They have no conception of their own existence thus they have no rights.

Neither does a newborn. Should it be ok to kill them too?

That's certainly not ok if it's only for sport, that's just cruel.

If you are going to eat the meat however, that's ok.

Well done.

Biological Ali: AeAe: To be clear, I don't support abortions, but I recognize that people will kill people. It's just how the world is. To think otherwise is naive.

Or perhaps others might simply have a different definition of "person" than the one you're working with?

He's working with a sociopath?

mike143708: ace in your face: mike143708: Our doc never even suggested it to us.

Then, two weeks old:


Now, 1.5 years old, with their mama:

Did you act excited or upset and depressed when they told you it was triplets? Factor.

I was on cloud nine all day. We went around and told all our family members in person. The next morning I woke up in a cold sweat, laid in bed paralyzed with fear and wondering what on earth we were going to do with three babies. :)

Right. So it makes sense why they didn't suggest it. Had you burst into tears and starting screaming "oh no how can we do this, we can't afford 2 babies!?" the doctor may have treated you differently.

Biological Ali: AeAe: To be clear, I don't support abortions, but I recognize that people will kill people. It's just how the world is. To think otherwise is naive.

Or perhaps others might simply have a different definition of "person" than the one you're working with?

Well.. I wouldn't say that. My point is that pro-choicers and pro-lifers need to come up with the same terminology.

I suppose it might paint the pro-choice camp negatively if they start saying that a "life" is being terminated, but I say "so what?". We kill people all the time. Chimpanzees are known to kill infants from other groups; a lion taking over a pride will kill all the cubs;

This happens in nature and it happens with humans too.

crazyeddie: quoinguy: Given the speed of medical advancements it could be possible, before we're all old & retired, to grow a baby without the need for a woman's uterus.

1. In this hypothetical world, would you still force a woman to carry the baby in her own uterus, as opposed to transferring it to an external uterus?

2. Do you think that, in this world, pro-choicers would advocate that the woman should be allowed to KILL the fetus when she has the option to transfer it (assuming safely) to an artificial womb?

3. One of the ways they might be able to figure out how to do this is through stem cell research. Do you support federal funding for stem cell research?

4. If you are religious, please explain how this isn't "interfering with God's will" or "playing God and interfering with his Plans for you."

Please answer these questions. It will help me understand your character.

1. Transfer if that's what she wants and can pay for.
2. Yes--"pro-choice" is actually a false name for "pro-death"
3. No. Eugenics is the next logical step once we fully deny the value and importance of conception.
4. I'm actually not very religious and don't buy the "God's Plan" theory. In any religion dogmatic details create more problems than they solve.

AeAe: itazurakko: AeAe: You can't argue it's not living, right?

It's living, yeah. A living clump of cells, which COULD, possibly, with some odds, develop into a sentient being. But it isn't a sentient being yet. It will not know, ever, that it existed or that you killed it.

Remember, we're talking about EMBRYOS here.

I'm with you here, for the most part, except change "COULD" to "WOULD".

That embryo, unmolested, will become a person.
To be clear, I don't support abortions, but I recognize that people will kill people. It's just how the world is. To think otherwise is naive.

No actually. "Could" is completely acceptable because the MAJORITY of fertilised embryos are miscarried early on in the pregnancy, often without the mother ever having known about it.

I think the stat for known miscarriages is 1 out of every 3 pregnancies, so even if you discount the unknown miscarriages, that's a pretty high number of pregnancies that never make it past the first trimester.

AeAe: Biological Ali: AeAe: To be clear, I don't support abortions, but I recognize that people will kill people. It's just how the world is. To think otherwise is naive.

Or perhaps others might simply have a different definition of "person" than the one you're working with?

Well.. I wouldn't say that. My point is that pro-choicers and pro-lifers need to come up with the same terminology.

I suppose it might paint the pro-choice camp negatively if they start saying that a "life" is being terminated, but I say "so what?". We kill people all the time. Chimpanzees are known to kill infants from other groups; a lion taking over a pride will kill all the cubs;

This happens in nature and it happens with humans too.

But the problem is that "life" does not necessarily mean "person". For example I don't (and I don't think too many rational people would) consider a braindead individual to be any more of a "person" than a corpse, despite the fact that the former is nonetheless still a "life".

Razzed: AeAe: itazurakko: AeAe: You can't argue it's not living, right?

It's living, yeah. A living clump of cells, which COULD, possibly, with some odds, develop into a sentient being. But it isn't a sentient being yet. It will not know, ever, that it existed or that you killed it.

Remember, we're talking about EMBRYOS here.

I'm with you here, for the most part, except change "COULD" to "WOULD".

That embryo, unmolested, will become a person.
To be clear, I don't support abortions, but I recognize that people will kill people. It's just how the world is. To think otherwise is naive.

No actually. "Could" is completely acceptable because the MAJORITY of fertilised embryos are miscarried early on in the pregnancy, often without the mother ever having known about it.

I think the stat for known miscarriages is 1 out of every 3 pregnancies, so even if you discount the unknown miscarriages, that's a pretty high number of pregnancies that never make it past the first trimester.

Well, the odds are in favor of carrying to term, then, right? 33% vs 66%?

crazyeddie: quoinguy: This whole discussion was to try and draw out the exact point you finally brought up. Agreeing that women own the vessel that grows another human life as it develops trumps all the other "it's her body" crap. Once she has sex and become impregnated it becomes the body of numerous people, and the smallest one has the right to come into this world, flawed legal arguments or not.


I'm afraid I don't follow your "logic." We seem to agree that her gender is the sole possessor of an organ capable of sustaining a fetus as it develops. How does it follow from this that she MUST use it for that purpose?

If by some miracle you were born with a teet that could nourish the world, would it become your obligation to be a milk machine (temporarily) in times of economic trouble, or would it continue to be your right to use your body is you wished?

logic fail.

There is no other mechanism to produce a body for a human child and once a woman hits the "create" button in her body there is another life [body] to now consider. The baby, fetus, or embryo isn't really hers to determine the outcome of, in many people's minds. And since we know that so far, all humans born seem to have a distinct personality and ability level, intelligence etc... there is a preponderence of evidence that terminating even one life in a cavalier and selfish manner diminishes the race. Each loss has an actual possibility to have been the person to have been the one to have solved as yet unsolved problems such as cancer, energy through fusion, or?

The ability to produce milk is different. We can grow food in areas once considered barren through our ability to understand the environment of some areas.

Your body is yours until you start making the bodies of others with yours. And since pregnancy is not cloning, women are not really making something of their own during pregnancy. I'm sorry you women are burdened by the way God or Nature made you but that's just the facts either take precautions or adopt out. (and no I'm not debating the rape and incest issue as that is a fractional percentage of abortions). Besides I know 2 beautiful women who were the products of their mother's being raped, how sad if I or others would have never known them.

That's for known miscarriages. Most experts agree that it's probably closer to 50/50, and some estimates venture that it may as high as 70% of pregnancies that spontaneously abort, although I think that number is high.

Biological Ali: AeAe: Biological Ali: AeAe: To be clear, I don't support abortions, but I recognize that people will kill people. It's just how the world is. To think otherwise is naive.

Or perhaps others might simply have a different definition of "person" than the one you're working with?

Well.. I wouldn't say that. My point is that pro-choicers and pro-lifers need to come up with the same terminology.

I suppose it might paint the pro-choice camp negatively if they start saying that a "life" is being terminated, but I say "so what?". We kill people all the time. Chimpanzees are known to kill infants from other groups; a lion taking over a pride will kill all the cubs;

This happens in nature and it happens with humans too.

But the problem is that "life" does not necessarily mean "person". For example I don't (and I don't think too many rational people would) consider a braindead individual to be any more of a "person" than a corpse, despite the fact that the former is nonetheless still a "life".

I get that, but I also get arguments that a clump of skin cells are "alive" and how is that "life" different from a clump of cells that will become an embryo?

The answer, of course, is that the skin cells will not become an infant.

Genevieve Marie: "A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. If our concern is about suffering in this universe, it is rather obvious that we should be more concerned about killing flies than about killing three-day-old human embryos... Many people will argue that the difference between a fly and a three-day-old human embryo is that a three-day-old human embryo is a potential human being. Every cell in your body, given the right manipulations, every cell with a nucleus is now a potential human being. Every time you scratch your nose, you've committed a holocaust of potential human beings... Let's say we grant it that every three-day-old human embryo has a soul worthy of our moral concern. First of all, embryos at this stage can split into identical twins. Is this a case of one soul splitting into two souls? Embryos at this stage can fuse into a chimera. What has happened to the extra human soul in such a case? This is intellectually indefensible, but it's morally indefensible given that these notions really are prolonging scarcely endurable misery of tens of millions of human beings, and because of the respect we accord religious faith, we can't have this dialogue in the way that we should. I submit to you that if you think the interests of a three-day-old blastocyst trump the interests of a little girl with spinal cord injuries or a person with full-body burns, your moral intuitions have been obscured by religious metaphysics."

- Sam Harris, on stem cell research. (


So the take home message is that Sam Harris doesn't understand the difference between germ and somatic cells?



as a guy, I limit my stance on abortion to going around not getting anybody pregnant, but I take umbrage at the bad science/weak ass analogy

ace in your face: Did you act excited or upset and depressed when they told you it was triplets? Factor.

I was on cloud nine all day. We went around and told all our family members in person. The next morning I woke up in a cold sweat, laid in bed paralyzed with fear and wondering what on earth we were going to do with three babies. :)

Right. So it makes sense why they didn't suggest it. Had you burst into tears and starting screaming "oh no how can we do this, we can't afford 2 babies!?" the doctor may have treated you differently.

Ah. I see your point now. To be fair, we found out in a separate ultrasound facility with no doctor present, but yes, by the time we got to our next appointment we were firmly committed to going through with it, and it probably showed, so our experience probably doesn't mirror that of most folks.

GT_bike: crazyeddie: quoinguy: This whole discussion was to try and draw out the exact point you finally brought up. Agreeing that women own the vessel that grows another human life as it develops trumps all the other "it's her body" crap. Once she has sex and become impregnated it becomes the body of numerous people, and the smallest one has the right to come into this world, flawed legal arguments or not.


I'm afraid I don't follow your "logic." We seem to agree that her gender is the sole possessor of an organ capable of sustaining a fetus as it develops. How does it follow from this that she MUST use it for that purpose?

If by some miracle you were born with a teet that could nourish the world, would it become your obligation to be a milk machine (temporarily) in times of economic trouble, or would it continue to be your right to use your body is you wished?

logic fail.

There is no other mechanism to produce a body for a human child and once a woman hits the "create" button in her body there is another life [body] to now consider. The baby, fetus, or embryo isn't really hers to determine the outcome of, in many people's minds. And since we know that so far, all humans born seem to have a distinct personality and ability level, intelligence etc... there is a preponderence of evidence that terminating even one life in a cavalier and selfish manner diminishes the race. Each loss has an actual possibility to have been the person to have been the one to have solved as yet unsolved problems such as cancer, energy through fusion, or?

The ability to produce milk is different. We can grow food in areas once considered barren through our ability to understand the environment of some areas.

Your body is yours until you start making the bodies of others with yours. And since pregnancy is not cloning, women are not really making something of their own during pregnancy. I'm sorry you women are burdened by the way God or Nature made you but that's just the facts either take precautions or adopt out. (and no I'm not debating the rape and incest issue as that is a fractional percentage of abortions). Besides I know 2 beautiful women who were the products of their mother's being raped, how sad if I or others would have never known them.

Well thats bullshiat. Lots of people WANT a baby until they are actually faced with carrying one and realize they don't have the physical capacity, monetary stability or the time to do so. You don't truly know until you are already pregnant. I also highly doubt you wander around all day sad about the people you don't meet because they were aborted.

GT_bike: I'm sorry you women are burdened by the way God or Nature made you but that's just the facts either take precautions or adopt out. (and no I'm not debating the rape and incest issue as that is a fractional percentage of abortions). Besides I know 2 beautiful women who were the products of their mother's being raped, how sad if I or others would have never known them.

And I'm sorry that nature didn't make you the one lucky enough to be born with a uterus, but them's the breaks, and that means you don't get to decide.

That's the way it's always been, throughout history.

downstairs: And what if the kid is born with some major medical problem that's not genetic, or at least would not have been present in the aborted kid?

Or heck, any headaches the alive kid presents in his life.

The Mom, while she'd never say it out loud, will always be able to fall back on "damn, I aborted the wrong kid". And the alive kid will absolutely be able to sense that.

yeah, everbody knows that twins are psychic!

..why do retards always think that any bullshiat they can dream up must be real, and have real consequences?

///Dewey, you're not half the boy your brother was! The wrong kid died!

Huge thread, but I'll add my two cents even though only the trolls and hardcore are still reading the thread.

I'm pro choice all the way, if it's done early enough.

Having said that, wanting to eliminate one and not the other is wrong unless there are explicit health dangers involved(other than normal childbirth risks)

Three children is not that much worse than two. If the economic strain is that close, get rid of them both, or carry them both to term and let the adoption people take them.

Picking and choosing like that can have a lasting psychological impact. It can also be a risk to the one that will remain, psychological(surfacing later in life obviously), but immediate health concerns. IF you're having a child that you are intent on keeping, they should be given all of the best possible, to include not taking risks before birth.

It's equivalent to smoking and drinking while pregnant, needless risk.

hyper: "You can adequately raise a child on 40-50 G / a year and they turn out great."

Seriously? Where? I'm single, don't have debt (knock on wood) and can barely live on that much. Not in a major city, where most jobs are. If I live somewhere outside of the city the commute costs kill the savings.

With perhaps the exception of the extreme edge of high COL cities, a single person earning 50k a year is borderline wealthy.

Hell, my mom raised 3 kids on less than 25k a year, and we always had a roof over our head and food in our stomachs.

poekr: Charlie Freak:
I think abortion is abhorrent and extremely selfish (don't do the crime if you can't do the time). But I'll defend to the death your right to do it.


Ameritards: You're either pro-life or pro-Abortion.
Me: Uh, no. I'm anti-abortion.
Ameritard: Ah! So you're pro-life and seek to ban abortion.
Me: Uh, no. I am pro-choice.
Ameritard: So you're pro-abortion.
Me: Uh, no. Wrong again buddy.
Ameritard: u don't make no sense.

I'm with you. Nice to see that someone else in the world gets this.

AeAe: I get that, but I also get arguments that a clump of skin cells are "alive" and how is that "life" different from a clump of cells that will become an embryo?

The answer, of course, is that the skin cells will not become an infant.

Yes, it might develop into something that we properly consider a "person" at some future date. That doesn't imply that it itself is a person, though.

mike143708: Our doc never even suggested it to us.

I'm going to guess it's because your poker face covered the panic of your/your wife's "HOLY shiat! THREE??!?!?!" response. Either that or you were both genuinely overwhelmed with joy. either way, Congrats to you both. Great pic of the family tree, I think I have a similar one of my family at the Drive-Thru tree in the redwoods.

skinny-lil-b: Gdalescrboz: holy shiat. Could you imagine finding out at 15 that your parents offed your brother/sister at a whim and the only reason you are around is because you weren't as easy to get to as your twin for the vacuum? This is going to not only fark up the kid but the mom when she's looking at her 15 year old son/daughter and knowing there would be another one of them right there had she not killed him/her

oh bullshiat.

You would prefer irresponsible parents?

/and contrary - women don't sit around all day crying and thinking about that babby they coulda had if only they hadn't been so selfish. you need to stop listening to those pro-birthers lies.

/No, only the ones who aren't selfish, heartless biatches do that.

How could you kill a defenseless fetus like that? Have both kids. On their fifth birthday tell them that you only plan to keep one. You'll never see better behaved children.

ace in your face: GT_bike: crazyeddie: quoinguy: This whole discussion was to try and draw out the exact point you finally brought up. Agreeing that women own the vessel that grows another human life as it develops trumps all the other "it's her body" crap. Once she has sex and become impregnated it becomes the body of numerous people, and the smallest one has the right to come into this world, flawed legal arguments or not.


I'm afraid I don't follow your "logic." We seem to agree that her gender is the sole possessor of an organ capable of sustaining a fetus as it develops. How does it follow from this that she MUST use it for that purpose?

If by some miracle you were born with a teet that could nourish the world, would it become your obligation to be a milk machine (temporarily) in times of economic trouble, or would it continue to be your right to use your body is you wished?

logic fail.

There is no other mechanism to produce a body for a human child and once a woman hits the "create" button in her body there is another life [body] to now consider. The baby, fetus, or embryo isn't really hers to determine the outcome of, in many people's minds. And since we know that so far, all humans born seem to have a distinct personality and ability level, intelligence etc... there is a preponderence of evidence that terminating even one life in a cavalier and selfish manner diminishes the race. Each loss has an actual possibility to have been the person to have been the one to have solved as yet unsolved problems such as cancer, energy through fusion, or?

The ability to produce milk is different. We can grow food in areas once considered barren through our ability to understand the environment of some areas.

Your body is yours until you start making the bodies of others with yours. And since pregnancy is not cloning, women are not really making something of their own during pregnancy. I'm sorry you women are burdened by the way God or Nature made you but that's just the facts either take precautions or adopt out. (and no I'm not debating the rape and incest issue as that is a fractional percentage of abortions). Besides I know 2 beautiful women who were the products of their mother's being raped, how sad if I or others would have never known them.

Well thats bullshiat. Lots of people WANT a baby until they are actually faced with carrying one and realize they don't have the physical capacity, monetary stability or the time to do so. You don't truly know until you are already pregnant. I also highly doubt you wander around all day sad about the people you don't meet because they were aborted.

1. Don't have physical capacity - nature generally provides a miscarriage if factual.
2. Monitary Stability - whatever, teh lamest excuse evar! oh noes I won't be able to send my little snowflake to harvard or get him an iPhone for preschool, abort abort.
3. Time - see #1 take precautions. The human female body is programmed for pregnancy, unprotected sex is just roulette on when it is going to happen. Sorry it's a bother to be female and have the responsibility programmed into your body but that's Darwinism, God, the breaks, the inconvenient truth?
4. Wandering around in sadness? facepalm.jpg Perhaps meeting people who would have been probable abortion candidates in living breathing and grown up form are enlightening or at least thought provking experiences? It was and continues to be so for me.

Biological Ali: AeAe: I get that, but I also get arguments that a clump of skin cells are "alive" and how is that "life" different from a clump of cells that will become an embryo?

The answer, of course, is that the skin cells will not become an infant.

Yes, it might develop into something that we properly consider a "person" at some future date. That doesn't imply that it itself is a person, though.

Well, I think there's some hair splitting here, but it really WILL become a person (odds in favor).

But regardless, "potential person"/"real" person, I say if the woman wants to kill it, go right ahead.

Canned Tamales: downstairs: And what if the kid is born with some major medical problem that's not genetic, or at least would not have been present in the aborted kid?

Or heck, any headaches the alive kid presents in his life.

The Mom, while she'd never say it out loud, will always be able to fall back on "damn, I aborted the wrong kid". And the alive kid will absolutely be able to sense that.

yeah, everbody knows that twins are psychic!

..why do retards always think that any bullshiat they can dream up must be real, and have real consequences?

///Dewey, you're not half the boy your brother was! The wrong kid died!

So you are saying that you can detect BS like in this one post but a child cannot detect false parental love from words and actions on a daily basis in the same home after years and years? Gotcha.

I bet your services are in great demand in many law enforcemenmt offices.

girljen: Couldn't finish TFA. This article makes me want to run to my twin brother and cling to his leg FOREVER. As a twin, I cannot even imagine life without my brother.

Now I'll admit, I did a full-on happy dance when I heard only ONE heartbeat after finding out I was pregnant. But if there would have been two heartbeats, I would have done everything in my power to have two healthy babies.

I am in the same boat as you, but I am one of four. There was a big sigh at the ultrasound when they said one.
I too would have done everything in my power to have the two healthy babies.

/currently pregnant with her first singleton.

GT_bike: 1. Don't have physical capacity - nature generally provides a miscarriage if factual.

Are you trolling? Because people have died terrible deaths in childbirth throughout history and still do. Sometimes the baby also dies, not always.

Molavian: Unlike most Farkers.

Heh.

CreamFilling: How could you kill a defenseless fetus like that? Have both kids. On their fifth birthday tell them that you only plan to keep one. You'll never see better behaved children.

LOL. Gotta be sure to kinda give them the eye every so often when you're in the kitchen using the big knife, too...

AeAe: Well, I think there's some hair splitting here, but it really WILL become a person (odds in favor).

Actually, it's not hair-splitting, given that a lot of them don't end up as infants, very often through entirely natural process - and sometimes, the mother might never even know that she was pregnant to begin with. Is there a "person" involved in these cases as well? Now I don't know the numbers offhand so I couldn't tell you the odds but I do know that it happens often enough that it carries some serious implications for anyone who defines "person" in this manner.

GT_bike: ace in your face: GT_bike: crazyeddie: quoinguy: This whole discussion was to try and draw out the exact point you finally brought up. Agreeing that women own the vessel that grows another human life as it develops trumps all the other "it's her body" crap. Once she has sex and become impregnated it becomes the body of numerous people, and the smallest one has the right to come into this world, flawed legal arguments or not.


I'm afraid I don't follow your "logic." We seem to agree that her gender is the sole possessor of an organ capable of sustaining a fetus as it develops. How does it follow from this that she MUST use it for that purpose?

If by some miracle you were born with a teet that could nourish the world, would it become your obligation to be a milk machine (temporarily) in times of economic trouble, or would it continue to be your right to use your body is you wished?

logic fail.

There is no other mechanism to produce a body for a human child and once a woman hits the "create" button in her body there is another life [body] to now consider. The baby, fetus, or embryo isn't really hers to determine the outcome of, in many people's minds. And since we know that so far, all humans born seem to have a distinct personality and ability level, intelligence etc... there is a preponderence of evidence that terminating even one life in a cavalier and selfish manner diminishes the race. Each loss has an actual possibility to have been the person to have been the one to have solved as yet unsolved problems such as cancer, energy through fusion, or?

The ability to produce milk is different. We can grow food in areas once considered barren through our ability to understand the environment of some areas.

Your body is yours until you start making the bodies of others with yours. And since pregnancy is not cloning, women are not really making something of their own during pregnancy. I'm sorry you women are burdened by the way God or Nature made you but that's just the facts either take precautions or adopt out. (and no I'm not debating the rape and incest issue as that is a fractional percentage of abortions). Besides I know 2 beautiful women who were the products of their mother's being raped, how sad if I or others would have never known them.

Well thats bullshiat. Lots of people WANT a baby until they are actually faced with carrying one and realize they don't have the physical capacity, monetary stability or the time to do so. You don't truly know until you are already pregnant. I also highly doubt you wander around all day sad about the people you don't meet because they were aborted.

1. Don't have physical capacity - nature generally provides a miscarriage if factual.
2. Monitary Stability - whatever, teh lamest excuse evar! oh noes I won't be able to send my little snowflake to harvard or get him an iPhone for preschool, abort abort.
3. Time - see #1 take precautions. The human female body is programmed for pregnancy, unprotected sex is just roulette on when it is going to happen. Sorry it's a bother to be female and have the responsibility programmed into your body but that's Darwinism, God, the breaks, the inconvenient truth?
4. Wandering around in sadness? facepalm.jpg Perhaps meeting people who would have been probable abortion candidates in living breathing and grown up form are enlightening or at least thought provking experiences? It was and continues to be so for me.


1.false
2.false
3.false
4. false

Look up the preeclampsia, stroke, heart attack cardiomyopathy, Hyperemesis gravidarum, exsanguination, gestational diabetes, placenta previa, etc etc etc. Some people don't have the resources (monetary or time related) to just not work for the whole 9 months of pregnancy (plus for at least 6 weeks thereafter) , and some people don't want to risk death at all by being or staying pregnant. You are not only extremely ill informed about the dangers associated with pregnancy, you are a complete moran who can't be bothered to even consider them. You don't care about human life at all unless its a fetus. If its a womans life you could give a shiat. So fark you and your ignorant misogyny.

Unlike most of you, I really don't have a problem with this. They obviously don't have the resources/time/energy to deal with 3 kids, but they do have it for 2. Why would you shortchange the other kids time/resources/energy raising them, when you can get rid of one fetus before it becomes a child?

Sounds like it's a win win situation, except for those of you who think that fetuses are already children, with souls, personalities, and feelings about whether they should be born or not.

Buffalo77: FTFA: he said the evidence now suggests that reducing twins to a singleton leads, on average, to better outcomes.

I am guessing not so much for the aborted twin.

Pregnancy reduction carries an increased chance of miscarriage but a decreased chance of premature delivery.

Reducing a healthy twin is just wrong. I personally can only imagine very extreme circumstances in which I would terminate a pregnancy. Basically they would have to tell me they were 100% sure I would die if I didn't end it.I would still see if there was an option for premature delivery to give the baby a chance in that case.

itazurakko: GT_bike: 1. Don't have physical capacity - nature generally provides a miscarriage if factual.

Are you trolling? Because people have died terrible deaths in childbirth throughout history and still do. Sometimes the baby also dies, not always.

Are you saying that a good portion of the abortions are because mama is too tight, might bleed too much during birth or have precipetous drops in blood pressure causing death?

Or are you dragging the maternal death statistics of 3rd world countries where good medical services, along with lack of access to abortions for that matter, into the argument?

US women are at #116 or 8 per 100,000 in world stats.


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_mat_mor-health-maternal-mortality

ace in your face: GT_bike: ace in your face: GT_bike: crazyeddie: quoinguy: This whole discussion was to try and draw out the exact point you finally brought up. Agreeing that women own the vessel that grows another human life as it develops trumps all the other "it's her body" crap. Once she has sex and become impregnated it becomes the body of numerous people, and the smallest one has the right to come into this world, flawed legal arguments or not.


I'm afraid I don't follow your "logic." We seem to agree that her gender is the sole possessor of an organ capable of sustaining a fetus as it develops. How does it follow from this that she MUST use it for that purpose?

If by some miracle you were born with a teet that could nourish the world, would it become your obligation to be a milk machine (temporarily) in times of economic trouble, or would it continue to be your right to use your body is you wished?

logic fail.

There is no other mechanism to produce a body for a human child and once a woman hits the "create" button in her body there is another life [body] to now consider. The baby, fetus, or embryo isn't really hers to determine the outcome of, in many people's minds. And since we know that so far, all humans born seem to have a distinct personality and ability level, intelligence etc... there is a preponderence of evidence that terminating even one life in a cavalier and selfish manner diminishes the race. Each loss has an actual possibility to have been the person to have been the one to have solved as yet unsolved problems such as cancer, energy through fusion, or?

The ability to produce milk is different. We can grow food in areas once considered barren through our ability to understand the environment of some areas.

Your body is yours until you start making the bodies of others with yours. And since pregnancy is not cloning, women are not really making something of their own during pregnancy. I'm sorry you women are burdened by the way God or Nature made you but that's just the facts either take precautions or adopt out. (and no I'm not debating the rape and incest issue as that is a fractional percentage of abortions). Besides I know 2 beautiful women who were the products of their mother's being raped, how sad if I or others would have never known them.

Well thats bullshiat. Lots of people WANT a baby until they are actually faced with carrying one and realize they don't have the physical capacity, monetary stability or the time to do so. You don't truly know until you are already pregnant. I also highly doubt you wander around all day sad about the people you don't meet because they were aborted.

1. Don't have physical capacity - nature generally provides a miscarriage if factual.
2. Monitary Stability - whatever, teh lamest excuse evar! oh noes I won't be able to send my little snowflake to harvard or get him an iPhone for preschool, abort abort.
3. Time - see #1 take precautions. The human female body is programmed for pregnancy, unprotected sex is just roulette on when it is going to happen. Sorry it's a bother to be female and have the responsibility programmed into your body but that's Darwinism, God, the breaks, the inconvenient truth?
4. Wandering around in sadness? facepalm.jpg Perhaps meeting people who would have been probable abortion candidates in living breathing and grown up form are enlightening or at least thought provking experiences? It was and continues to be so for me.


1.false
2.false
3.false
4. false

Look up the preeclampsia, stroke, heart attack cardiomyopathy, Hyperemesis gravidarum, exsanguination, gestational diabetes, placenta previa, etc etc etc. Some people don't have the resources (monetary or time related) to just not work for the whole 9 months of pregnancy (plus for at least 6 weeks thereafter) , and some people don't want to risk death at all by being or staying pregnant. You are not only extremely ill informed about the dangers associated with pregnancy, you are a complete moran who can't be bothered to even consider them. You don't care about human li ...

Look up 8 deaths out of 100,000 pregnancies in the US and suck it. Well informed indeed. All your rebuttal are fail.

GT_bike: US women are at #116 or 8 per 100,000 in world stats.

Eight per 100,000 in rural Alabama?

No?

GT_bike: Are you trolling? Because people have died terrible deaths in childbirth throughout history and still do. Sometimes the baby also dies, not always.

Are you saying that a good portion of the abortions are because mama is too tight, might bleed too much during birth or have precipetous drops in blood pressure causing death?

That's an interesting point, that ill-intent by the mother means that they won't have any complications.

Biological Ali: AeAe: Well, I think there's some hair splitting here, but it really WILL become a person (odds in favor).

Actually, it's not hair-splitting, given that a lot of them don't end up as infants, very often through entirely natural process - and sometimes, the mother might never even know that she was pregnant to begin with. Is there a "person" involved in these cases as well? Now I don't know the numbers offhand so I couldn't tell you the odds but I do know that it happens often enough that it carries some serious implications for anyone who defines "person" in this manner.

It's about 30%. Some people do feel that they suffered losing a child when they miscarry, and as you said, some don't even realize they were pregnant and miscarried at all.

I don't see how defining an embryo as a "person" an issue if the woman does miscarry. It happens.

And maybe, ultimately, some people can only go thru the abortion if they de-humanize the embryo. No one wants to think they are ending the life of another person (or "mass of cells" if you like).

GT_bike: Are you saying that a good portion of the abortions are because mama is too tight, might bleed too much during birth or have precipetous drops in blood pressure causing death?

I'm saying that your comment that if a mother isn't physically able to have a baby, then the problem will solve itself by a natural miscarriage is bullshiat.

Is what I'm saying.

AeAe: And maybe, ultimately, some people can only go thru the abortion if they de-humanize the embryo. No one wants to think they are ending the life of another person (or "mass of cells" if you like).

Let's call him "Stan."

itazurakko: I'm saying that your comment that if a mother isn't physically able to have a baby, then the problem will solve itself by a natural miscarriage is bullshiat.

And you're explaining this to an anti-abortion person who thinks that a fertilized egg is magically a human being... why?

bigdavediode: And you're explaining this to an anti-abortion person who thinks that a fertilized egg is magically a human being... why?

Because it's tangential? If he wants to say the women should just suck it up and die, fine (though I won't agree). But to deny that the choice comes UP is just silly, regardless of the opinion on abortion itself.

ytterbium: I just wanted to add a bit more: when I was on an expecting multiples board, another member on fertility pills ended up with 5 live embryos. She decided to take two out, and she was so scorned by the rest of the board, she left. I was one of the few who supported her.

My point is, selective termination makes sense when you overdo the implanting or take fertility drugs. But, IMHO it's absurd with only twins if both are healthy.

Okay, I'm adding this way late, but there are reasons to not carry twins. Carrying twins is harder on the woman's body and increases the risk of potential harm to the fetuses. Any pregnancy carrying twins or more is considered high risk, and the greatest risk is premature birth, which means the babies are not fully developed to face the world. There's also low birth weight risk, which can also mean there also might be problems with lung development, fighting off infections, etc. There's also a lot more unpleasant risks, but you get the point.

One comment I read in a book on the changing ideas on reproduction with the technologies developed in assisted reproduction ("Everything Conceivable" by Liza Mundy) is that it's a bit odd that we go crazy over a woman drinking a light amount of alcohol when pregnant, which has relatively low risk to the fetus, but we're happy as a clam when women carry twins or triplets, not realizing there's plenty of risks for that.

So all of you who think this woman is awful: what's the limit for selective abortion? Is it okay to go down from three to one? Five to three? Five to one? What's your cut-off? Who's going to help you raise those twins or triplets? There's probably not going to be enough milk to go around, so forget about exclusive breast-feeding. There's almost double childcare costs, clothing, food, and let's not forget a college education. Yes, there are a few of you on here who have twins and triplets and couldn't imaging life without them. I respect your choice. It's great if you had no problems during your pregnancy, but that doesn't mean every twin pregnancy does. There are also those who keep suggesting adoption. Which baby are you going to give up? How's your family going to respond when you tell them that one baby is going to go live with some other family?

bigdavediode: itazurakko: I'm saying that your comment that if a mother isn't physically able to have a baby, then the problem will solve itself by a natural miscarriage is bullshiat.

And you're explaining this to an anti-abortion person who thinks that a fertilized egg is magically a human being... why?

It's not magic, it's tragic!

Millions and trillions of sperm have died horrible deaths striving for that, and now that it's accomplished, you wish to destroy it willy nilly?

Neigh I say, thou shalt not make their sacrifice worthless!

Sperm are people too, after all.

/amidoingthisrite?

GT_bike: ace in your face: GT_bike: ace in your face: GT_bike: crazyeddie: quoinguy: This whole discussion was to try and draw out the exact point you finally brought up. Agreeing that women own the vessel that grows another human life as it develops trumps all the other "it's her body" crap. Once she has sex and become impregnated it becomes the body of numerous people, and the smallest one has the right to come into this world, flawed legal arguments or not.


I'm afraid I don't follow your "logic." We seem to agree that her gender is the sole possessor of an organ capable of sustaining a fetus as it develops. How does it follow from this that she MUST use it for that purpose?

If by some miracle you were born with a teet that could nourish the world, would it become your obligation to be a milk machine (temporarily) in times of economic trouble, or would it continue to be your right to use your body is you wished?

logic fail.

There is no other mechanism to produce a body for a human child and once a woman hits the "create" button in her body there is another life [body] to now consider. The baby, fetus, or embryo isn't really hers to determine the outcome of, in many people's minds. And since we know that so far, all humans born seem to have a distinct personality and ability level, intelligence etc... there is a preponderence of evidence that terminating even one life in a cavalier and selfish manner diminishes the race. Each loss has an actual possibility to have been the person to have been the one to have solved as yet unsolved problems such as cancer, energy through fusion, or?

The ability to produce milk is different. We can grow food in areas once considered barren through our ability to understand the environment of some areas.

Your body is yours until you start making the bodies of others with yours. And since pregnancy is not cloning, women are not really making something of their own during pregnancy. I'm sorry you women are burdened by the way God or Nature made you but that's just the facts either take precautions or adopt out. (and no I'm not debating the rape and incest issue as that is a fractional percentage of abortions). Besides I know 2 beautiful women who were the products of their mother's being raped, how sad if I or others would have never known them.

Well thats bullshiat. Lots of people WANT a baby until they are actually faced with carrying one and realize they don't have the physical capacity, monetary stability or the time to do so. You don't truly know until you are already pregnant. I also highly doubt you wander around all day sad about the people you don't meet because they were aborted.

1. Don't have physical capacity - nature generally provides a miscarriage if factual.
2. Monitary Stability - whatever, teh lamest excuse evar! oh noes I won't be able to send my little snowflake to harvard or get him an iPhone for preschool, abort abort.
3. Time - see #1 take precautions. The human female body is programmed for pregnancy, unprotected sex is just roulette on when it is going to happen. Sorry it's a bother to be female and have the responsibility programmed into your body but that's Darwinism, God, the breaks, the inconvenient truth?
4. Wandering around in sadness? facepalm.jpg Perhaps meeting people who would have been probable abortion candidates in living breathing and grown up form are enlightening or at least thought provking experiences? It was and continues to be so for me.


1.false
2.false
3.false
4. false

Look up the preeclampsia, stroke, heart attack cardiomyopathy, Hyperemesis gravidarum, exsanguination, gestational diabetes, placenta previa, etc etc etc. Some people don't have the resources (monetary or time related) to just not work for the whole 9 months of pregnancy (plus for at least 6 weeks thereafter) , and some people don't want to risk death at all by being or staying pregnant. You are not only extremely ill informed about the dangers associated with pregnancy, you are a complete moran who can't be bothered to even consider them. You don't care about human li ...

Look ...

You farking idiot. A lot of people have abortions because of those issues and therefore never actually die. Duh.

Plus, are those 8 per hundred thousand not important? Those 8 people don't count?

omeganuepsilon: ... Sperm are people too, after all.

/amidoingthisrite?

Potential people

/technically it's true
//"potential" is what apparently makes us human?

mike143708: Now, 1.5 years old, with their mama:
/i>



You store them in a rectum? Or was that Halloween, and they went as polyps?

AeAe: It's about 30%. Some people do feel that they suffered losing a child when they miscarry, and as you said, some don't even realize they were pregnant and miscarried at all.

I don't see how defining an embryo as a "person" an issue if the woman does miscarry. It happens.

And maybe, ultimately, some people can only go thru the abortion if they de-humanize the embryo. No one wants to think they are ending the life of another person (or "mass of cells" if you like).

It's not just a matter of semantics, or of peoples' coping habits, or what have you. The most important point here is one of jurisprudence - if we designate some entity as a "person" then we instantly confer upon it all the rights and privileges associated with being a "person".

And if every embryo is a "person", that would mean further that not only is every single abortion an act of homicide, but that every single miscarriage is a potential act of negligent homicide (depending on lifestyle choices that the mother made that may have contributed to the probability of miscarriage). Now at this point we could use increasingly archaic and convoluted logic to start carving out exceptions, arguing that these are in fact instances of justifiable homicide, somehow - and continue inventing exceptions for every new situation where our definition brings us to morally untenable conclusions (my personal favourite is the "rape exception" which, while perhaps emotionally satisfying is nonetheless inconsistent because the suffering of the mother ultimately has no logical connection to whether the fetus, as a person, has a right to life).

Or, we could go right back to the beginning and start over, and pick a definition that doesn't require us to jump through so many hoops to maintain.