digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Nicaragua Bans Abortion

nytimes.com — The rights and safety of Nicaragua ’s women took a giant step backward last week when the country’s legislature passed a law criminalizing all abortions, with no exceptions. The previous law permitted an abortion if the mother’s life was in danger.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • JenadaeX, on 10/12/2007, -26/+14yes this is exactly what they need to do to fix all there problems....
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -27/+44This will simply force women to do it themselves endagering their lives even more than necessary. Banning abortion is just plain wrong.
    • L4stM4nSt4nding, on 10/12/2007, -50/+25Yeah, banning abortion would FORCE women to do that...not...ever heard of adoption?
    • mv10, on 10/12/2007, -19/+41Im liberal too, but Im sorry, but that blatantly-biased topic description (big step backwards) needs to be changed.
    • MarkStrube, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15L4stM4nSt4nding - Wow, what little you know about Nicaragua.
    • mc7winkie, on 10/12/2007, -27/+11What is wrong with putting up children for adoption? Really? There is not one solid argument I've ever heard for using abortion instead of adoption. Adoption allows you enrich someone else's life who may not be able to have a child.
    • slushpuppie, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4 @markstrube

      I'm not sure moral beliefs respect national borders.
    • MarkStrube, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14It's not a matter of moral beliefs, not everything is as easy to do in Nicaragua as it is to do here, especially things like adoption.

      When you make things like this illegal the people who want it just go to the black market, and it becomes more dangerous and more expensive. Ever heard of a little thing called the drug war? Or prohibition?
    • vhcougar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10i agree with mv10...leave your skewed opinions out of the description.
    • Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14mc7winkie - I don't think that there's anyone who argues that adoption's not a Good Thing, and the correct alternative for certain would-be parents. However, adoption is a lengthy process for all involved parties, and in the meantime, most children end up in the custody of the state. Even in America, 25% of children who are given over to foster care spend 5 -years- or more in the program, being moved from home to home. 10% wait more than 7 years, according to the ACLU. That's an entire damned childhood, friend. This is why the majority of children who enter the foster care system end up being returned to their birth parents or adopted by a close relative. More than 80% of the children waiting for adoption have special needs, and more than 51% are minority children. Lastly, the subtext to all of this is that you have prospective parents waiting years for 'healthy, white babies,' while more than 500,000 children (in the U.S. alone!) await permanent 'placement.'

      Now, consider the chances of a young, impoverished African woman finding a good home for her child. Look at the odds, along with the statistics about physical, sexual, and emotional abuse in the foster care system (again, American - think about how it might be in other parts of the world): group homes are host to more than ten times the rate of physical abuse and more than 28 times the rate of sexual abuse that's recorded in the general population, according to Johns Hopkins.

      Tell me that's how you'd want a child to grow up. Tell me that slipping out of existence as a cluster of cells isn't, by all accounts, preferable to a life of abuse, neglect, and emotional detachment. I don't have information on an African baby from a poor family and his or her odds of being adopted by loving, wealthy parents, but I'm going to go ahead and bet that they're not good.

      If adoption was as simple as, "I don't want this baby, but I want it to live, so you take it," that would be one thing. Adoption sounds good, and feels good. There are PLENTY of success stories. However, they absolutely -are-, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the exception to the rule. In the end, and statistically speaking, putting a child up for adoption in ANY country should be viewed with as much if not more trepidation than abortion.
    • r2d7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Nicaragua is very much a developing country. I was there about a month ago and while it may be portrayed as modernised it's not.

      Some corporations have moved in for their own purposes but overall the country is *very* much third world. In Managua there's a very modern and western mall, hotel and casino. The rest of the city ranges from poor to dirt-poor latina.
    • zonk3r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Well they may not have abortion but I hear they've got GREAT surfing:

      http://www.founditemclothing.com/t-shirts/surfnicaragua.html
    • jd5alive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2i happen to think that murder is wrong... how is that a step backwards?
    • jgo6d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I love how an issue as complex as abortion is seen as so black and white. I'd like to think that I am not the only one who would classify his or herself as neither pro-life or pro-choice because of the rash dogmatism that is offered by both camps.

      Abortion is an ugly thing and everyone should be focused on the pragmatic solution of minimizing the need for it. Unfortunately, I think that the zealotry of both sides of the debate precludes us from coming to an equitable solution. Instead, we'll continue to speak in sweeping absolutes and focus on how our team is so great and the other team is so evil.
  • nazuraki, on 10/12/2007, -15/+27I've always found the line conservatives seem to take on this interesting. Generally, they oppose abortion unless the mother's life is in danger, or the fetus is the product of rape or incest.

    So, essentially, their position is that it is okay to murder a baby (which they claim abortion is morally equivalent to) on the condition that it was conceived in rape or incest.

    How does that make sense?
    • slushpuppie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21 I will not attempt to answer your question, because I don't disagree (or agree either, for that matter) with the way you are thinking.

      But, I will say that issues such as abortion are nuanced enough to be more than a black and white issue. Obviously "pro choice" doesn't always (or ever, I'd suppose) equal "we love killin' babies," and, just as much so, "pro life" doesn't always equal "women have no control over what happens to them, no matter if their lives are in danger, no matter anything!"

      There is a lot of grey between "murder is wrong" and "huzzah for abortion!"
    • Machismo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17It likely comes down to a quality of life situation. Although the Catholic Church says abortion is wrong in all cases, except when the mother's life is in danger. That makes logical sense since one life WILL be saved (the mother's) if the abortion occurs, if the delivery is allowed one life MIGHT be saved (the child's) and another won't be saved (the mother's).Basically, a lesser of two evils.

    • mc7winkie, on 10/12/2007, -34/+14How many women honestly get pregnant when they are raped? Really? That argument always comes to play whenever there is an argument against the illegalization of abortion. The fact is this, how often does it happen? The answer, Next to never. They used to say abortion was fine if the mothers life was in danger. With modern medicine how often does that happen? Next to never. You know the simplest way so that we don't need abortions? Easier and less controversial than condom, birth control etc. DON"T HAVE SEX UNLESS YOU WANT A CHILD!! Is it really that hard?
    • Hindu_Wardrobe, on 10/12/2007, -14/+12@mc7winkie
      Unfortunately, that won't ever happen. People have sex for pleasure, because it's fun.
      Just look at these 16 year-old moms that seriously shouldn't have a kid. You know why they have a kid? Because they didn't believe in abortions. They didn't want the child, but they didn't abort it because they (or their parents) didn't believe in it. Trust me, I have friends like this.
      The world would be better (less populated) if people only had sex for procreation, but again, that will never happen. For now, we have abortions.
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10It's know-it-all's with no facts like you mcTwinkie that obfuscate reality.

      Source your opinions if you are stating them as fact.

    • mc7winkie, on 10/12/2007, -20/+6Furthermore even if the mother's life is in danger why not to the noble thing. Bring a new life into the world and sacrifice yourself. And while many will say you can't cite Christian ideals as a basis for the morality of something... the mother should strive to be Christ like and sacrifice yourself for the good of another.
    • davodavo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15So Twink, you're in favor of forcing that moral position on women? ***** you.
    • slushpuppie, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3@davodavo

      Every law is trying to put one person's (or a group of people's) morality on another.

      That's all law is.
    • Lewie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9mc7winkie, in what similar situation would you risk your life? It's easy making life-or-death decisions for OTHER people. Put yourself in the same situation, and you'll probably be singing in the Pro-Choice camp within a week.
    • mc7winkie, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3Wow, this is the most obscenely stupid argument I have ever heard. All of the pro-choice zealots, (yes I went there) want you to believe that ideas can not be forced upon anyone. While they are sitting right next to me saying, "How can you try and inhibit people and persuade their ideas, your ideas are all wrong listen to mine. They are the truly correct opinions." This is ***** and you should suffer the consequences of your irresponsible actions. A true mother would do anything for her child and would die to protect their child. Why is this no longer happening? Oh, what a cruel twisted society we live in.

      Edit* And yes I would gladly sacrifice my own life for the good of another. You throw about your predictions of someone's personality without meeting them. You sir are a bigot and unwilling to truly see what murder this really is. I would gladly die for the sake of a new life.
    • VTmruhlin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I look at it as a parental responsibility thing. Lots of pro-choice people argue that a woman's right to make choices about her body supersedes an arbitrary kids right to life.

      I agree with that viewpoint, but in most abortion cases, there's an additional factor to look at. That's not just an arbitrary kid; it's YOUR kid. Parents have more responsibility to take care of their kids. i.e. If you're too poor to feed your kids, go get a second job. Likewise, you've gotta carry the kid for 9 months until you can put it up for adoption and let somebody else take that responsibility.

      Then we get down to the definition of a parent. Is a rape victim considered a mother? I say no (unless she chooses to be). The reason we place that responsibility on the parents is because their choice created the kid. But in a rape, it wasn't her action that created the kid. It was the rapist's.

      When the mother's life is in danger, you're pretty much choosing the lesser of two evils.
    • VTmruhlin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6@Hindu_Wardrobe

      "Unfortunately, that won't ever happen. People have sex for pleasure, because it's fun."

      Lots of people gamble for fun too. So what do you say to a guy who gambes away his life savings? Do you let him walk away with all his money back, or do you tell him it's his own damned fault for gambling more than he could afford to lose?

      Sex for pleasure still ultimately reduces to gambling. And if you want to gamble, that's great. But when you lose, pay up.
    • automagically, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I agree with Slush about the gray areas. I personally would be pretty devastated if my girlfriend or wife aborted my child. But if she was raped or her health was in danger, I'd be all for it (a baby growing up without a mother is a tragedy in itself). But at the same time, I don't think anyone is more qualified of that decision than the mother. No congressman knows each individual woman's situation, and the variables in those situations are infinite.

      However, I do think the constitution needs to be more clear when it says "people". Does that include unborn babies? What about 3 months along, or 5 months and 18 days? Does the baby count as a "person" when it has fingers and bulging eyes, or when it starts wiggling and kicking in the womb? Everyone has their own opinion about this, but what exactly is a "person"?
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@VTmruhlin: "Sex for pleasure still ultimately reduces to gambling. And if you want to gamble, that's great. But when you lose, pay up."

      Ah, there it is: pro-life as punishment. Nine months of pregnancy followed by childbirth might be a horrible, painful, and dangerous experience, but you gotta make those sluts *pay* for having sex for pleasure, right?

      If someone gambles away his life savings, of course he doesn't get his money back, but he does get the same legal protections as everyone else who runs out of money. He can file for bankruptcy if he has debts he can't pay, he can sign up for food stamps or medicaid, etc.

      Abortion is simply giving pregnant women the same rights over their own bodies that everyone else already enjoys. If you have something in your body, growing against your will, then you should have the right to take it out even if it has human DNA - no matter how it got there. Maybe it's a tumor, maybe it's a fetus, maybe it's a famous violinist who's been implanted into your body by aliens; doesn't matter, it has no right to stay inside your body. If it can survive outside your body, then more power to it, but if not, your rights still come first.
    • smurfmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3>Furthermore even if the mother's life is in danger why not to the noble thing. Bring a new life into the world and sacrifice yourself.

      You're a moron. When a woman's life is in danger, the baby's life is in danger as well. In some cases it may be possible to save a baby if it's mature enough, but very often not ending the pregnancy means that both will die.

    • axiomata, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4>>>I've always found the line conservatives seem to take on this interesting. Generally, they oppose abortion unless the mother's life is in danger, or the fetus is the product of rape or incest. How does that make sense?

      The most famous argument was made by Judith Jarvis Thompson in her "Famous Violinist" analogy whic can be found here: http://www.utdallas.edu/~jfg021000/thomson.html
    • VTmruhlin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@Mr2001

      I'm curious. What's your opinion on child support? Is it ok that we "punish" fathers for having sex irresponsibly? If so, don't we have to apply the same standards to mothers?
    • PhantomBantam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2To answer your question...
      "So, essentially, their position is that it is okay to murder a baby (which they claim abortion is morally equivalent to) on the condition that it was conceived in rape or incest."
      (neutrally speaking)
      They do so because less abortions would be done all together. In other words, they do so as a compromise. There is an argument used in favor of pro-life which likens aborting the product of a rape as punishing a child for his father's actions. (neutrally speaking)
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@VTmruhlin: "I'm curious. What's your opinion on child support? Is it ok that we 'punish' fathers for having sex irresponsibly? If so, don't we have to apply the same standards to mothers?"

      First, banning abortion is *not* applying the same standards to mothers. You honestly think having a foreign thing growing inside you, living directly off of your body, and painfully forcing its way out is comparable to writing a check every month?

      Applying the same standards would simply mean that mothers have to financially support their children just like fathers do. And guess what: they already do, either by buying stuff directly (if they have custody) or by writing a check every month (if the father has custody).

      Now, as to your question, I don't think it's OK. (I don't think having sex when you don't want a child is "irresponsible" either, but that's a minor point.) I wouldn't mind letting fathers notify the mother that they don't want a child, and thereby giving up their parental rights and responsibilities, as long as they gave notice during the first few months of pregnancy so she could decide whether or not she wants to carry a fatherless child.
    • bobmagoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@Mr2001
      What did you mean by this letter from the father saying he doesn't want any of the responsibility of fathering the child? This hypothetical father ripped up that document when he decided to have sex. SEX MAKES BABIES is this really a hard concept to grasp, the schools teach it to kids around 6th grade and they seem to understand the process. Why do people suddenly forget how the reproduction process works when they get older? Like any other aspect of life, if you are going to make a decision, be prepared to accept the consequences.

      In your earlier post you equated a fetus with a tumor that was growing inside you against your will. The reason the baby is growing in the first place is a DIRECT RESULT of your will. And to put a baby and a tumor on the same moral plane is just disturbing in itself.
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@bobmagoo: "This hypothetical father ripped up that document when he decided to have sex. SEX MAKES BABIES is this really a hard concept to grasp, the schools teach it to kids around 6th grade and they seem to understand the process."

      Did you leave school at noon that day? Because I hate to break it to you, but sex usually doesn't make babies. A woman is only fertile for a few days out of the month, so most sex acts have no chance of fertilizing an egg at all. Most fertilized eggs (two-thirds, IIRC) don't implant, so they're just flushed right out.

      Now when you add in the various birth control methods in use today, the possibility of miscarriage after implantation, and the availability of abortion, the fact is that the link between sex and babies has largely been broken. Most people *don't* intend to have a baby when they have sex, and they can reasonably expect that they *won't* have one.

      "SEX MAKES BABIES" is a stupid catchphrase and it's no more accurate than "FOOTBALL BREAKS LEGS". Yes, you *can* break a leg playing football, but you probably won't, and it's foolish to claim that anyone who plays football has implicitly agreed to have a broken leg. It's even more foolish to claim that anyone who plays football and breaks his leg is failing to "accept the consequences of his decision" if he goes to a doctor and gets the leg treated instead of bleeding to death on the field.
    • jackminardi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1""SEX MAKES BABIES" is a stupid catchphrase and it's no more accurate than "FOOTBALL BREAKS LEGS". Yes, you *can* break a leg playing football, but you probably won't, and it's foolish to claim that anyone who plays football has implicitly agreed to have a broken leg. It's even more foolish to claim that anyone who plays football and breaks his leg is failing to "accept the consequences of his decision" if he goes to a doctor and gets the leg treated instead of bleeding to death on the field."

      Actually that is a completely incorrect metaphor. Sex makes babies is a valid argument to make because thats exactly what it is for, making babies. Football is not for breaking legs, so you can not claim that.

      Noone is asking someone with a broken leg to not treat it, they are simply asking a mother not to murder her child after she engaged in an act INTENDED to make a baby and that INTENDED outcome occurred.
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@jackminardi: "Actually that is a completely incorrect metaphor. Sex makes babies is a valid argument to make because thats exactly what it is for, making babies. Football is not for breaking legs, so you can not claim that."

      In humans, sex is not just for making babies. Sex is also for pleasure, bonding, money (if you're a prostitute), etc. You only need to look at the world around you to see that: most sex acts don't result in a baby, and there are a variety of products on the market designed to reduce or eliminate the chance of having a baby.

      In fact, humans are one of the only animals where the females have a sex drive during their infertile time. Most female animals have periods of heat, and the rest of the time they have no interest in sex. If sex were only for having babies, why would that be?

      Women after menopause, couples where one partner is infertile, and gay couples all can't have babies, but they still have sex - if sex were just for making babies, why would they want to do it?

      Quoting: "Noone is asking someone with a broken leg to not treat it, they are simply asking a mother not to murder her child after she engaged in an act INTENDED to make a baby and that INTENDED outcome occurred."

      Intended by whom? Certainly not the people having sex. Maybe *you* intend for her to have a baby, but she sure doesn't - that's why she wants an abortion.
    • jackminardi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2First off, let me tell you where you are wrong. Dolphins and pigs also have sex drives all the time. Along with humans, they are the only other animals to enjoy sex

      Humans enjoy sex because If they didn't they would not have as much of it. We have free will and instincts do not work on us. So if sex was only an instinct, it would not happen. The pleasure we feel from sex is called the reward. In psychology we have something called the operant stimulus and something called the reward. When we have sex (operant stimulus) we feel pleasure (reward). This is also why we enjoy the food we eat.

      The bonding you spoke of has evolved as a means of keeping the two parents together long enough to raise their child. The endorphins released in the brain during sex are the same as those released during child birth.

      Sex was INTENDED to make babies not because I wanted it to, but because that is its SOLE evolutionary purpose.
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jackminardi: "First off, let me tell you where you are wrong. Dolphins and pigs also have sex drives all the time. Along with humans, they are the only other animals to enjoy sex"

      Yup, that's why I said "one of the only", not "the only". But now you're wrong: plenty of other animals *enjoy* sex, even if their sex drives are only active when there's the possibility of reproduction.

      Quoting: "Humans enjoy sex because If they didn't they would not have as much of it. We have free will and instincts do not work on us."

      What, you think sex only feels pleasurable to humans and a couple other species? Every other animal just goes through the motions, getting no satisfaction from it? The orgasm just happened to evolve separately in humans, pigs, and dolphins, and it's missing from every other species?

      Quoting: "Sex was INTENDED to make babies not because I wanted it to, but because that is its SOLE evolutionary purpose."

      The history of evolution is full of examples where one process ends up being used for something else other than its original function. The fact is--and you've admitted as much in your post, BTW--that people have sex for purposes other than reproduction. Reproduction is one possible consequences of sex, but most of the time it's an *unwanted* consequence, which is why that whole contraception thing is so popular.

      So, most people don't *intend* to make babies when they have sex. And that's really the only context in which it makes sense to talk about intent: the goals of people. Evolution doesn't have intent, and neither do genes or body parts. They have *functions*.
    • VTmruhlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1jackminardi missed the point of the football metaphor. It's not about bleeding to death on the field because "you deserved it". The important thing is that if you're worried about getting hurt, you shouldn't play football. Go play a safer sport like ping-pong.

      I'd say the closer analogy is that getting an abortion is like breaking your leg in a high school football game, then suing the school. Your fun activity resulted in an unwanted outcome. So instead of taking it like a man, you blame somebody who had nothing to do with it.
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@VTmruhlin

      Only if by "taking it like a man" you mean lying there on the field and doing nothing, letting the consequences wash over you without lifting a finger to mitigate them. That isn't taking it like a man; a real man stands up to bad situations, he doesn't give in. But giving in is really what you're recommending women should do if they get pregnant accidentally, isn't it? They should just stay pregnant. That's exactly like suggesting a football player who breaks his leg accidentally should just let it stay broken.

      I'd like to hear your thoughts on the other analogies that have been posted here, the violinist (axiomata linked to a better description of it than I wrote) and the kidney transplant. Do I have the right to disconnect a famous violin player from my body even if it'll kill him? Do I have the right to force you to give up your kidney to save my life? Because you seem to think abortion is "blaming somebody who had nothing to do with it", but just like in those two analogies, the purpose isn't to harm a third party, but to keep control over your own body in a situation where your rights fundamentally conflict with the third party's.
  • maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15too bad women don't run the world
  • Hindu_Wardrobe, on 10/12/2007, -23/+20God, that's ***** up.
    Why do these conservatives/evangelists care so much about what us females do to ourselves? Yes, we're going to hell, mmkay, I don't care.
    If they don't believe in abortions, then they can just not have one. Simple.
    Let me tell you, if I were to get pregnant at this age (and I'm 14), I would immediately have an abortion. It's my body, and I don't think people have any right to tell me what I can and can't do with it.
    Let me go to hell! I honestly don't care.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22You are female and 14? Hey baby, what's going on!

      You won't go to hell... But I will ..
    • slushpuppie, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20 They don't care about what you are doing to yourself... they care about what you are doing to another person's life who you created with your irresponsible actions.
    • TruthElixirX, on 10/12/2007, -14/+16Because, the baby, I mean fetus, has no say. Who speaks up for it? It isn't you I'm so much concerned for as it is the baby who gets no shot at life.
    • directedition, on 10/12/2007, -14/+21Why do conservatives care? Because you are the ones who seduced adam into eating the sacred fruit! God condemned women to suffer during child birth (which is why many ultra-christians are against pain relief during labor) to pay for her sin. Allowing abortion gives women some semblance of control over the world, and this can't be let to stand. After all, women exist to be items of sex: Numbers 31:17-18. In fact, it's perfectly fine to gift your virgin daughter to an angry mob to rape: Judges 19:22-24. But I don't know how much stock you want to put into this "God" character that keeps feeding these lines. He seems like a pretty rotten apple if you ask me.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16I love using religious peoples' own text against them... +digg
    • 0zzy, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5I was going to agree with you... but getting pregnant at 14... that just sounds irresponsible and whore-like. I wouldn't mind abortion so much in certain situations, such as:

      1) Real financial problems
      2) Dangerous to the womens health
      3) Rape

      But getting knocked up cause your sleeping around doesn't fit well with me. "Ah oh, I'm pregnant again... I'll call up Steve [Dr. Smith]."
    • MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -13/+16Wait.. I've got a better idea.. don't get pregnant.

      I don't get why people act all surprised when they get pregnant. When you engage in the act of reproduction, you just may reproduce, even when you take precautions. Don't try to blame somebody else. At 14, you know what you're getting into.

      Crying for an abortion in a situation you could have prevented is ridiculous. In fact, it is people like that who have ruined it for people who have a real need for an abortion (e.g. when the mother's life is in danger), as we see in this case. Most rational people will agree that if the mother's life is in danger, abortion should be allowed.

      Look, I'm not saying that teenagers cannot have sex. All I'm saying is that the end result has a chance greater than zero of producing a child. You have to accept that when you have sex. If you cannot accept that, you cannot have sex.

      For the record, I'm neither conservative nor religious.
    • L4stM4nSt4nding, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8Old testament, people. Get it right. Christians don't abide by it anymore.
    • Hindu_Wardrobe, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11Quit assuming I am sexually active, people.
      I am not sexually active. I'm disgusted at teenagers having sex at such an early age.
      I'm just saying that if I made the mistake of getting pregnant, I would abort it.
      I would admit that I'm stupid, irresponsible, whatever. And I'll admit that I can NOT, at this age, take care of a child. I'm not ready.
      People make mistakes. There's no way around it.
      Again, I'm not going around ***** everyone.
    • MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7Hindu_Wardrobe: You have to own up to your mistakes sometimes. You know, it'd be pretty easy if you could kill people to make your problems go away. Oh, did that guy get the job you wanted? Just kill him! That sounds pretty unreasonable but so does abortion (to some people).

      Getting pregnant is not the mistake. Having sex without being prepared for the consequences is the mistake. Yes, people will have sex anyway. That's reality. But by the same token, people should have to deal with those consequences. That's reality.
    • cool4u2view, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1214 and you aren't sexually active ... stay that way as long as you can...
    • smileygirl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Yes, its your body and your only 14---take care of it! Don't get pregnant in the first place and you won't have to worry about it. Regardless of the moral issues about abortion, it is a type of an operation and things could go wrong, so its better not to put yourself in that position in the first place.
    • Lewie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6smileygirl: Actually, in Roe v. Wade, it was found that first trimester, and even second trimester abortions are safer than actually going through with childbirth. That is part of the reason why abortions are legal.
    • tehbishop, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@Hindu_Wardrobe: Your body is your body, and no matter what laws people try to pass over you, there will always be enough of us out here to help you defeat that laughable attempt to control something which no one has the right to control except you.

      On the other hand, practice safe sex because even if you don't get a little parasite in ya, you might get some other woes that won't go away with a medical procedure. doh!
    • tehbmwman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6did tehbishop just call a fetus a "parasite"? God, thats low.
    • fraynelson, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Your abortion, Hindu, will kill someone else. The baby's DNA does not match yours. It is not you. It is not your belonging.
    • fsjonsey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Its your right to choose, but who cares anyway, you're not the one dying.

      I suggest you look at this link.

      http://www.abort73.com/HTML/AbortionPictures/images/abortion-22-01.jpg
    • jackminardi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I dont know why you liberals/democrats care so much about my money. Its MY money and I do not want to give it to people who need it more. GEEZ Im going to hell, why do you care????
  • PURDooM, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Now I am not one for banning abortion (pro choice FTW), but when people report stories they should do so without bias. Words like 'Giant step backward' don't convey a neutral viewpoint - they try to editorialize the news.

    I guess what I am saying is digg articles != neutral wikipedia articles, and it makes me dissapointed.
  • Metalcastr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8I don't condone abortion. But that's just me. You can think what you want.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Even if you don't condone it, women will do it anyway. Often, they will do it with a coat hanger or other sharp object. They frequently will injure themselves by accident and can also bleed to death. If proper antiseptic techniques are not followed they could die later by infection. If they don't succeed that could have their baby born with mutilations. Once born they would probably dump is somewhere or kill it.

      This is what happens when you ban abortion...is this what you want?
    • MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -13/+10billyboobs34: That is silly logic. Did you know that people sometimes hurt or kill themselves when they fail tests (be it high school, university, or whatever)? I think they should ban testing. Clearly, if you are a fan of testing, you are a fan of people killing themselves.

      Alternatively, think of it like this.
      Legal abortions = 100 babies dead (made up numbers)
      Illegal abortions = 2 mothers, 3 babies dead (made up numbers)

      Which is worse? Yes, I made up the numbers but I hope you see my point. You wouldn't see mass suicides of women if abortion was restricted or banned.
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5@billyboobs34

      Interesting assumption based on ZERO facts. How do I know this? Because I haven't forgotten reality and I remember that abortion has never been illegal yet, and yet so-called
      "home abortions" happen everyday already.

      You have a good point MatttK, and even though the made up numbers may be kind of low, by a factor of 10 or more even today when laws are still pending, you are not far off in your line of thinking. Legalizing abortion will be near catastrophic. Making it illegal may have some tragedy, but not more than already happens anyway. Of course you'd never hear it from the sensationalists like billyboobs34 who want abortion to be as convenient as getting fast food.

    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Zethris, your bookmark fell out of your bible...
    • rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@Zethris:

      "Because I haven't forgotten reality and I remember that abortion has never been illegal yet"

      Abortion was illegal in the US until just 30 years ago, when the US Supreme Court declared it legal. You haven't forgotten reality because you aren't living in reality.

      "Legalizing abortion will be near catastrophic. Making it illegal may have some tragedy, but not more than already happens anyway."

      Again, abortions in the US *are* currently legal, have been for 30 years, so talking about the potential consequences of "legalizing" it makes no sense--just review the current evidence. As for what happens when it is illegal, you can study the evidence prior to 1973.

      Now, either have the integrity to admit that you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about--not even the basic facts about "reality", or just go away.
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4@rationalist and the blowhard speaks again.

      No woman/guy/it the lack of a law does not make things legal or illegal. There have been no formal laws put in place to make abortion legal or illegal. There just has been precedent from a court ruling to go by. That is all.
    • zigspective, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@MatttK

      Although the numbers are complete *****. I personally would not care if that were 1000 fetuses and 2 possible mothers or 10000 fetuses and 1 possible mother. The loss of those fetuses have no effect compared to the loss of a woman because of an illegal abortion. They had family and friends who will suffer from their loss. As much as social conservatives would like to argue the opposite, the truth is the loss of a fetus or embryo does not have the same effect on a family as the death of someone they have to able to share time and develop memories with. People don't have funerals or wakes for miscarriages.
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Actually, some people do have funerals for miscarriages. They're kooks IMO, though.

      To put it bluntly, fetuses are expendable. If you lose one, who cares: there are more where that one came from. Each one might have unique DNA, but that doesn't make it special... just like no two snowflakes are alike, but you don't cry when one melts, because there are a million more in the sky, and there'll be even more the next time it snows. What makes a person special and irreplaceable is the experiences that have made up his life and the ways in which he has touched other people's lives.

      I can certainly sympathize with the grief someone would feel after losing a fetus if they'd been looking forward to having a child, though.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7only court rulings... Zethris who do you think interprets law in this country... the judicial branch!
    • TrnsltLife, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@Mr2001

      I guess the question is, how many experiences is enough? Like, a baby at 1 day doesn't have many more experiences than a baby at T-5minutes, but that baby can be aborted no problem right? If 1 day, what about 1 year? What about age 12? "Kid, I realized I can't really be a good parent to you. And you're not really an experienced and contributing member of society, so... Don't worry, you won't feel a thing." *BANG*
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@TrnsltLife

      I'd say birth is fine line to draw. Every fetus experiences basically the same thing until birth--a womb is a womb--and perhaps more importantly, everyone else experiences that fetus the same way. (I suppose some might kick more than others, or whatever, but that's like saying this snowflake is special and we must preserve it because it's bigger than some others - finding another one that fits the bill is trivial.)

      Quoting: "Like, a baby at 1 day doesn't have many more experiences than a baby at T-5minutes, but that baby can be aborted no problem right?"

      Er, no, I don't think anyone here has said that. Perhaps you're missing the point of abortion, which is to end a pregnancy quickly. A baby 5 minutes before birth can easily be removed without harming it.

      Quoting: "If 1 day, what about 1 year? What about age 12? "Kid, I realized I can't really be a good parent to you. And you're not really an experienced and contributing member of society, so... Don't worry, you won't feel a thing." *BANG*"

      First, this is a false slippery slope, because you're starting from a false position.

      Second, the combined experiences of a 12 year old child are not reproducible in the same sense as those of a fetus (who doesn't even have a working memory, for god's sake... when was the last time you remembered anything from when you were less than a year old?), and neither are the experiences of everyone who has interacted with that child - those people will realize that the child they knew is gone, and 12 years later, there might be another child but they'll know immediately that it's not the same person at all. Even identical twins have had different lives and grown into different personalities by that age.

      Finally, the uniqueness of a person's experience and the effect he's had on the lives of others are not the only reasons not to kill him. That isn't to say your theory has no use at all - I suppose if an evil dictator chained up a 12 year old boy and a 35 year old man, and forced me at gunpoint to choose which one he'd kill, I'd have some use for it. But in everyday life, there are few such stark conflicts between the rights of one person and the rights of another.
  • gxcdesign, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4I oppose abortion for personal reasons, and from my experience only sluts/huers/prostitutes take advantage of abortion for the most part.


    Either way no honest married couple ever considers abortion.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6The Catholic Church also hates birth control, so what you have is a growing theocratic colony instead of an actual democratic state. What would seal this article for me is the sale of birth control. You'll probably find that it is generally unavailable to people who want it in that country as people in this country have tried to refuse its sale to people (with opposition from our government that probably would not exist in Nicaragua to the same degree).

    I want to hear a bit more on that part.
  • L4stM4nSt4nding, on 10/12/2007, -21/+13Hindu Wardrobe,

    It's NOT your body you moron. Fetus =/= you. Don't want the little fetus to magically pop up inside you? Then, don't ****. Simple. I don't care what you do with your body, but I do care what happens to the fetus. Why? Human rights ftw.

    On a side note, since this will get dugg down into eternity, I'll just remind you readers of this. We humans define death as the heart stopping (re: no pulse). Guess when the fetus gets it's own little heartbeat. You guessed it! They get one in three weeks. If you abort a fetus after 3 weeks, you just committed murder by our owns laws. FAIL.

    Edit: why did this end up here...WTF...
    • reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16So you'll only have sex when you want a child?

      I guess you won't be getting laid that much.
    • L4stM4nSt4nding, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9HA, not bad, I'll give you that. Sex after marriage ftw, my friend.
    • Hindu_Wardrobe, on 10/12/2007, -12/+12First of all, the reply button is what you want. Write. It. Down.
      Secondly, it *is* part of my body. It's inside of me, it's feeding off of me, it needs me to grow. Without me, it would die.
      So technically, a fetus is, well, a parasite.
      Parasite: "an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host"
      Fits it perfectly. If the baby is unwanted, it provides no benefit whatsoever.
      Keep your evangelist beliefs to yourself, and respect my pro-choice beliefs, and I will leave you alone.
      And who's to say that you can control the fetus's non-existant life? (I say they are "alive" once they can live outside of the mother's body.)
    • davodavo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11If a fetus can't survive outside the mother's body, then for all intents and purposes it's part of the mother. It draws nutrients from the mother, its entire existence is dependent on the mother's. It might as well be a parasite, if it can even be considered alive.
      It's her body until it can be sustained outside her body.

      edit:Hindu beat me to the parasite analogy.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8You claim it is not her body, but if a woman dies does not her fetus die shortly after. Child birth will shorten a woman's life span and during the birth itself there is ALWAYS a chance of death (of the mother).

      If someone is going to cause you bodily harm or even death in this country you have a right to defend yourself.
    • L4stM4nSt4nding, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Funny you all completely ignored my second argument. Oh, that's right, you have no valid conuter-argument against it.

      You're right, a fetus is pretty much like a parasite. However, last time I checked, a parasite was NOT part of the host. Living off the host =/= being part of the host. Get it right, people.
    • TruthElixirX, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4If its part of the mother then why do we send people to therapists for cutting their wrists?
    • slushpuppie, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10@reddevil

      It's not "only have sex when you want a child."

      It's "only have sex when you are prepared to take responsibility for the situation that may result from your actions."

      Responsibility, FTW. In government, in religion, and in ourselves.
    • davodavo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7The point is, it's living off the host, possibly against the host's will.
      Your second argument is a straw man. "We humans" define death as the permanent cessation of brain activity.
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9@L4stM4nSt4nding Just about exactly what I was going to post.

      Stem cell research, I am all for it (do your research from real researchers, not lobbyists, and you will be too).

      Summary abortions, like the liberals want, are murder bottom line. I take issue with the many within this barbaric group who not only want "abortion/pro-choice rights" but want to make it as easy and convenient as getting a cheeseburger at McDonalds. Which leads to the "designer baby" generation. It is so vein, so selfish. So vile. It cannot be anything but evil.

      The only reason why there are SOME situations that are accepted is because 1. The choice of being responsible and abstaining from sex was taken away from you originally (rape/incest) and 2. You should be given a choice to decide based on your beliefs if pregnancy will put your life in danger after only finding out after conception. But then thats only if you are willing to make the sacrifice of your life as a Mother or not, or ultimately if you'd both die carrying to term.
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5@Hindu_Wardrobe

      You like many others of your Ilk are sick and twisted in the head. A parasite?
      What the hell are you then?
    • N432SEAN, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2@Hindu_Wardrobe

      I'm not following the parasite isn't alive logic. Parasite != Zombie
    • L4stM4nSt4nding, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Brain activity stopping defines death? I must have missed the memo, otherwise, most of the idiots in this comment section would already be dead.
    • MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7L4stM4nSt4nding: Insults get you nowhere, FYI. :p
    • Bhima, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10@Hindu Wardrobe: Keep standing up for yourself!

      You're going to hear a lot of really whacked out ***** from the religious zealots but that's only because they honestly believe the lies they spread. For some reason when presented with a 14 year girl on digg I thought of the MIT commencement address that Kurt Vonnegut (A fine, fine author) never gave. They aren't his words and they damn sure aren't my words but they are a far sight more instructive, amusing and basically worthy than anything you are going to read on this thread:

      "Ladies and gentlemen of the class of '97:

      Wear sunscreen.

      If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it. The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by scientists, whereas the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience. I will dispense this advice now.

      Enjoy the power and beauty of your youth. Oh, never mind. You will not understand the power and beauty of your youth until they've faded. But trust me, in 20 years, you'll look back at photos of yourself and recall in a way you can't grasp now how much possibility lay before you and how fabulous you really looked. You are not as fat as you imagine.

      Don't worry about the future. Or worry, but know that worrying is as effective as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubble gum. The real troubles in your life are apt to be things that never crossed your worried mind, the kind that blindside you at 4 pm on some idle Tuesday.

      Do one thing every day that scares you.

      Sing.

      Don't be reckless with other people's hearts. Don't put up with people who are reckless with yours.

      Floss.

      Don't waste your time on jealousy. Sometimes you're ahead, sometimes you're behind. The race is long and, in the end, it's only with yourself.

      Remember compliments you receive. Forget the insults. If you succeed in doing this, tell me how.

      Keep your old love letters. Throw away your old bank statements.

      Stretch.

      Don't feel guilty if you don't know what you want to do with your life. The most interesting people I know didn't know at 22 what they wanted to do with their lives. Some of the most interesting 40-year-olds I know still don't.

      Get plenty of calcium. Be kind to your knees. You'll miss them when they're gone.

      Maybe you'll marry, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll have children, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll divorce at 40, maybe you'll dance the funky chicken on your 75th wedding anniversary. Whatever you do, don't congratulate yourself too much, or berate yourself either. Your choices are half chance. So are everybody else's.

      Enjoy your body. Use it every way you can. Don't be afraid of it or of what other people think of it. It's the greatest instrument you'll ever own.

      Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your living room.

      Read the directions, even if you don't follow them.

      Do not read beauty magazines. They will only make you feel ugly.

      Get to know your parents. You never know when they'll be gone for good. Be nice to your siblings. They're your best link to your past and the people most likely to stick with you in the future.

      Understand that friends come and go, but with a precious few you should hold on. Work hard to bridge the gaps in geography and lifestyle, because the older you get, the more you need the people who knew you when you were young.

      Live in New York City once, but leave before it makes you hard. Live in Northern California once, but leave before it makes you soft. Travel.

      Accept certain inalienable truths: Prices will rise. Politicians will philander. You, too, will get old. And when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young, prices were reasonable, politicians were noble, and children respected their elders.

      Respect your elders.

      Don't expect anyone else to support you. Maybe you have a trust fund. Maybe you'll have a wealthy spouse. But you never know when either one might run out.

      Don't mess too much with your hair or by the time you're 40 it will look 85.

      Be careful whose advice you buy, but be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia. Dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than it's worth.

      But trust me on the sunscreen."
    • Hindu_Wardrobe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7I had higher expectations for the digg community.
      I thought you were people that would respect my beliefs. I will respect yours if you will respect mine.
      But apparently your undeveloped minds make you think that insulting me, calling me an irresponsible whore, among other things, will make you a better person than me.
      And you tell all your buddies to digg you, bury me, and manipulate the digg commenting system.
      I don't care what you say about me. This is the Internet.
      Insulting people over the Internet is pointless.
      Yes, I did just insult people. Oh well, I'm kind of angry right now. I'm an idiot, I know. Want me to say something else about myself?
      Just remember this: my decisions affect you in no way whatsoever. Again: let me go to hell. It's my body, it's my choice. If youn don't believe in it, don't do it! You have every right to that! I think that's awesome of you to be able to take the responsibility of having a child.
      Oh, what am I doing? I'm feeding the trolls once more.
      Flamewars lead nowhere, folks. I'm out of this silly discussion. Or at least for now. ;)
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2@Bhima being a "religious zealot" as you put it is sounding much better than being a "baby killing zealot" right about now. Especially after that long drawn out post of gibberish you wasted so much time to find and post.

      @Hindu_Wardrobe Get over yourself Woman/Guy/It already. Sheesh.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I love how people on digg comment about abortion when they have no scientific nor informative background. They claim the moral high ground when there is none.

      Yes, a fetus is a parasite until the moment it's born! This is a fact so live with it.
    • ThatGeek, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5@Zethris, why thank you for calling me a vile twisted muderous bitch

      and other than that, i see no support behind your argument that makes me into a vile twisted bitch

      @N4323Sean or whatever your dumbass name is

      are you as much of a dumbass as your name suggests?

      do you understand the definition of a parasite?
      my websters says

      "an organism living in, with, or on another organism''

      thus, a fetus can be described as a parasite, whether or not it is wanted

      and thus, parasites are not zombies, so shut up
    • slushpuppie, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0 @billyboob

      kettle, pot, black.
    • nosmelc, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5As far as being a parasite, the fetus is the same species and I would venture to guess that in most cases the parasite is not of the same species. Also, the parasite often (not always) reproduces in the host organism.
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1@ThatGeek, Never used the word Bitch you added that yourself. Sounds like you are a bit unsure and have some conscience adding that on your own accord. Is that what you call yourself when you look in the mirror? Please go seek some help before you do more damage to yourself and others you may influence.
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1@nosmelc Totally correct. But sensationalists only work and give half of the truth that sounds the most inflammatory. That is how they work to try to pique an emotional response and irrational/illogical though processes to get you to join their cult hive mind of total anti-society counter existence line of thinking.
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@slushpuppie: "It's 'only have sex when you are prepared to take responsibility for the situation that may result from your actions.'"

      I agree with that statement entirely.

      However, some people seem to think the only way to take responsibility for getting pregnant is to give birth. That's just ridiculous. It's like saying if you're playing football, and you break a bone, then to "take responsibility for the situation" you have to just lie there bleeding on the grass. But that's wrong - going to the doctor to get a cast isn't cheating, it's a responsible way to handle the situation. Similarly, if you become pregnant, putting an end to the pregnancy is also a responsible way to handle the situation.

      Of course, if you're really responsible, you should be trying to avoid pregnancy in the first place - but that doesn't mean you can't have sex. If you're playing football, you wear pads and a helmet; if you're having sex, you use birth control, condoms, whatever. You do what's necessary to avoid a bad situation, and then if you get in that situation anyway (contraception isn't 100% effective), you do what's necessary to get out of it. That's responsibility.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5nosmelc,
      "most cases", "not always"

      Are you trying to make some kind of point here?

      The human fetus is a parasite of its mother. In this case it is the same species, and it doesn't reproduce in the same organism in which it lives..
    • ThatGeek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@Zeth

      yes, i know, i need so much help

      but, you have to support your argument that we are infact proponents of "murder bottom line. I take issue with the many within this barbaric group who not only want "abortion/pro-choice rights"" and calling us liberal barbarians
    • Bhima, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@Zethris: I'm not sure how I turned into a "baby killing zealot" that must be one of those religious zealot mind tricks... sorry I'm not weak minded, such tricks don't work on me.

      As far as spending time to find my post: being able to successfully use google and having the ability to spell simple English words this does not present much of a problem to me. I find the text amusing and insightful (particularly the bit about sunblock)... far more than frothing vitriol that spews from the mouthes such as yours.
    • sulthernao, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Wow, talk about overkill.

      But while we are on this Baby == parasite (which it is, go read the book called Genome, and you'll see).

      Why do you ask is a baby a parasite? I'll explain.

      It's because we are the by products of a long a destructive war between the X and Y chromosones. Male Fetuses (Feti?) are one weapon that the Y chromosone uses against the host mothers (X chromosone carriers).

      The male fetus creates testosterone and other hormones that hurt the mothers body, the mother counteracts with hormone supressant (for the the making of testosterone and other male hormones), and when this supressant is in overload mode, homosexual males are born. This of course is to stop the spread of the Y chromosome (homosexuals can't reproduce, obviously).

      Also this explains why the Y chromosome is so small compared the X chromosome. (the ration of X to Y is 3:1, and thus the Y is constantly under attack).

      "Prolife" neoconsare so funny... you guys don't want contaceptives, nor abortion, yet you allow the use of firearms and don't allow stem cell research.
    • Casework, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3At best, a fetus could be considered a parasite until it could survive without the mother. What is the earliest case of a fetus surviving without the mother? 18 weeks. Abortions are still performed well past that mark. So, at best, your argument can only validate a portion of abortions.

      I understand this issue is very personal to a lot of people, but you have to also be willing to step back and look at the facts. How do we define life? A heartbeat? Fetuses develop beating hearts within 3 weeks of conception -- that's before a mother could even realize she is pregnant. Or do we define life as one being able to react to its surroundings and environment? Again, fetuses react to what is going on the in womb long before a lot of abortions take place.

      If a fetus is human(at whatever point), then the mother's rights do not automatically have power over the child's. Pro-choice supporters best arguments should be as to when a fetus can be defined as a human, not about the rights of the mother, because you can't fully argue for the rights of someone if it ignores the rights of another.

      A lot of people want to say life begins at birth, but let me ask you, what does passing through a vagina have to do with sentience? If a fetus can survive at 18 weeks, how can it be considered nothing more than tissue until another 18 weeks pass and the child is born?

      I think the bulk of this issue lies with the lack of definition of so many aspects to it.
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Casework: "If a fetus is human(at whatever point), then the mother's rights do not automatically have power over the child's. Pro-choice supporters best arguments should be as to when a fetus can be defined as a human, not about the rights of the mother, because you can't fully argue for the rights of someone if it ignores the rights of another."

      Nope. Sometimes one person's rights fundamentally conflict with another's, and it's not possible to respect both at the same time.

      For example, let's say I need a kidney transplant, and you're the only person around who can provide a kidney in time. If you don't give me one of your kidneys, I'll die. I have a right to live, but you also have a right to hang onto your own body parts. Do you think I should be able to *force* you to give up a kidney against your will to save my own life? (I don't. For another example, see the violinist scenario I posted earlier.)

      I believe that "person" means more than just a human individual, it depends on sentience, and therefore a fetus is not a person and doesn't have the same rights as, say, someone like me. But I also believe that even if it *were* a person--if there were a full-grown violinist in that womb instead of a fetus--then the mother's rights would *still* have to come first. Some pro-choicers only believe one or the other, but I think most believe both just like I do.
  • gurgg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8my logic is this: you cannot ban anyone from doing anything, you can make it illegal but it never really quells the problem, look at how drugs are in the US and other countries
    so sure abortion is illegal, but it isnt banned; and if Nicaragua is anything like the US, its going to lead to alot of home abortions- and i dont even want to imagine what a Nicaraguan botched home abortion looks like
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2This home abortions thing is a non-issue. It happens all the time anyway because of fear of going to the clinics and having their parents or community peers find out. That is an ufortunate effect of societal taboos already in effect. No law would change that.

      Making it illegal will only make those who regularly get abortions and sex it up day in and day out (oh, because it's natural and free and "love" bull *****) go to these guys too and hopefully a bit of Darwin will start happening with these people.

    • VTmruhlin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It's always strange when people use back alley abortions as a supporting argument for making/keeping it legal. You've gotta remember the people you're arguing against think abortion is murder.

      So when you say "women might hurt themselves getting an illegal abortion" your opponent hears "women might hurt themselves while committing an illegal murder". It's hard to be sympathetic, and many would consider it a GOOD thing.
    • KOSmurfy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"This home abortions thing is a non-issue. It happens all the time anyway because of fear of going to the clinics and having their parents or community peers find out. That is an ufortunate effect of societal taboos already in effect."

      ...and creating a fear of going to prison would have no effect on this at all?

      er... what?
  • davodavo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1"This Latin woman-girl-child could as easily be from Asia, India, the Middle East or Africa. Born into her economic and sexual caste. No way out. At most a baby-machine, and not a very good one at that.


    The cameras aren't rolling for a photo-op , as in the White House. But if they were, they might be filming in black and white or perhaps in a reddish hue as she takes the can or small paper box and adds water to help it go down a little better. It's extremely bitter, burning - extremely alkaline or acidic- as she swallows it.

    But a minor bitter pill to swallow in a life filled with bitter pills. No birth control pills though, or RU-486.The US government with its protestant-fundamentalist leaders is united with the Catholic Church to see to that.

    This Mexican , Nicaraguan, Peruvian, Guatemalan or Columbian girl-child swallowed her bitter brew in hopes of a lucky, safe abortion-away from the scrutiny of a prying and unhelpful Church and State -WAS SHE RAPED? Or was she the victim of her own hormone ecstacy or hormone hell, performing a reproductive behavior that in the end only led to grief? Is it really any of our business? Perhaps it was a minor brief pleasure, (or perhaps it wasn't), in an otherwise dreary, marginalized life where tortillas to quench that other drive-satiating a lingering hunger, is sometimes extremely hard to come by.

    If she is a rural illiterate woman she might even occasionally envy the neighbor's cow, who is plumper and better fed than she. And more capable of producing milk than she would ever be. At least the cow, the cow could eat the grass now that the forest was cut and gone.

    If this woman-girl-child is one of the urban poor, the millions upon millions driven to the city as population pressures make living off the land increasingly impossible, her plight is perhaps even worse, if that's possible.

    This Latin woman-girl-child could as easily be from Asia, India, the Middle East or Africa. Born into her economic and sexual caste. No way out. At most a baby-machine, and not a very good one at that.

    If she is of the urban middle class she may find an expensive dehumanizing illegal abortion, perhaps with dubious results. But if you're the 'doctor' - who's going to complain about a few complications from an illegal abortion?

    The police working for the church and state won't help. Maybe they’ll rape her for her efforts. Who's to complain? She was the one who had the illegal abortion. Both a criminal and a sinner.

    Back to the poor campasina girl-child who has swallowed her bitter potion and is now writhing on the dirt floor of the family's one room scrap and cardboard shack-still muddy from leaks of the last rain.

    Her mother has returned from her three or four mile walk into town to purchase a little bit of milled corn flour -hardly enough to stave off the hunger of her several children through the night.

    And now to find her eldest daughter writhing on the floor, vomiting blood,as if her insides were dissolving. She'll be dead before her mother puts together the pieces. Although never the bigger picture of the religious holy men kissing W's ass in Washington. The son of the landowner next door will never confess his role in the nightmare. (Not that he's rich, not that he could afford another mouth to feed). But he'll never experience the nightmare or really be touched by it any more than W and his high priests will be by their religio-political decisions.

    Had things gone right the abortion would have occurred, and although internal damage and pain would have lingered for some time, this girl-child(murderer?) would have survived. Now she would be saved the slow recovery, for she was now dead in her mother's arms, after releasing her last gasp, her not so silent scream.

    And perhaps just as well, for with her poor malnourished body, the only milk she may have provided might have come from a few drops she might have stolen(a thief?)from the landowner's cow next door.

    If she were caught she might be raped again. A vicious cycle.

    Meanwhile, back in Washington D.C., W, the 'education president', takes his photo-ops with the very religious, pious, and of course affluent, men whose reproductive politics, ignorance, and laws just caused the death of this woman-girl-child (were they her true murderers?)"
    http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/106078.php
  • swiftwings88, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6took a step backwards in your mind ya damn hippie

    @machismo

    Theology major, in the Catholic church, abortion is always wrong
    in the extraordinarily rare case of a potentially lethal ectopic pregnancy, all efforts mus be made to save both lives

    for example if the doctor attempts to reimplant the embryo in the uteran wall and it dies, that would be called the principle of double effect and in which an effort to save both lives killed the child

    but you can never, as a catholic intentionally abort a fetus

    it is a mortal sin and is grounds for excommunication
    • mc7winkie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2That is true except for the excommunication. You must though however go and participate in the sacrament of reconciliation and repent for your sin.
    • N432SEAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@"took a step backwards in your mind ya damn hippie"

      The rest of your comment was informative, but what was with your first sentence? Was it meant as an insult?
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Catholic dogma in general really has lost face overall and just should roll over and die quite frankly. That religion is a corrupted joke and has been for thousands of years, even since the day they paid Pilot to make it look like the Jews influenced him to crucify Jesus and then kill his apostles going completely apostate.

      Catholics hold no bearing other than the fact that they are like the AOL of religions, they count you in their billions of members, even if you had long since switched to another better provider of Spiritual Service 10 years, or more, ago.

    • mc7winkie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3@ Zethris

      In what way has it been a corrupted joke. The Church's dogma has remained steadfast for over a two thousand years. Your comparison to AOL is actually the corrupted joke. Why don't you take some time today to thank the Church for providing you with many of the great arts you will find, the protection from the Mongols, and the collection of historical documents. The Church has put some truly magnificent things in the world as well as people. If only you would open your eyes...
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Keep believing that. Ignorance is bliss, right?

    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You must be really blissful then Zethris...
  • jackminardi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7I completely agree. we need to give people all of our money so they can have abortions. I propose we start a new government agency just for abortions. what they would do is go around and steal money from republicans and give it to teenage girls who couldn't keep their pants on so they can kill their baby.

    hell, i would personally shoot the fetus is i wasn't so busy having all my girlfriends abortions.
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Morbid and sick, but funny because it's true.
  • imightbewrong, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2i've concluded that the quality of digg comment wars is rapidly declining, before version 3 they were much more interesting
  • growler1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@Zethris

    "This home abortions thing is a non-issue. It happens all the time anyway because of fear of going to the clinics and having their parents or community peers find out. That is an ufortunate effect of societal taboos already in effect. No law would change that.

    Making it illegal will only make those who regularly get abortions and sex it up day in and day out (oh, because it's natural and free and "love" bull *****) go to these guys too and hopefully a bit of Darwin will start happening with these people."

    You, sir or madam, seem to be the opposite of the "liberals" who in your view want "summary abortions" that will (slippery slope) lead to "designer babies."

    In the article it says that doctors who suspect that their patients of having abortions must report them to the police. Sometimes they spend up to 30 years in prison for late term abortions.

    Do you honestly think this is a good system? I have never liked the idea of ending a pregnancy, but I believe that is an individual's choice.

    Which is worse, a life never given the chance to take place, or a government that legally owns the bodies of its citizens, whether they be women, men, children, gay men or women, etc.?

    I would posit that when your body, and the functioning of your body is not your own, it is a form of slavery.


    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2It is the individuals choice to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions or not. In society that is a positive thing. In Rome, that was their downfall through their pride, arrogance, and vanity.

      If one gets pregnant, there has been a common sense in place for millennia that has kept our species alive, that is to not kill the very thing to further along our existance. Even the Romans in all their destructive pride and vanity knew this. They developed an early form of adoption.

      What is really the problem here is the filth and propaganda that has perpetuated since the 50's and 60's with people giving others only half truths and telling them that. thats all they need to know. The ignorance and lack of education truly lies within the unfortunate majority of digg users here. Seek out true facts, not sensationalist romantical drivel . It is your responsibility to become educated and then realize the the real truth with first letting go of your pride and vanity. The challenge is up to those few here who might listen to this appeal.
  • TruthElixirX, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5How come Scott Peterson was tried for both his unborn child's death and his wife?
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Because there's a law allowing for an extra charge when you kill a fetus while you're attacking the mother.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Plus she was 33 weeks pregnant... With hospital care the baby may have survived outside the body.
    • TruthElixirX, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Semantics, you people are great at arguing semantics.
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1They invented the semantical arguments, thats why they have pretty much destroyed the constitution and amendments. It's all up to "Interpretation" if you change the meaning of words and context, then that somehow suddenly makes what wasn't previously true, true. This is also known as hypocrisy with double standards.
  • foobar5892, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Here's an idea: If you make a decision that might have unpleasant side-effects then either try to prevent them or just don't do it. Try abstinence next time. Removing a (potential) human life does not solve the problem, it merely eliminates it. Kind of like suicide or the war in Iraq.
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8What makes you think women who have abortions don't try to avoid getting pregnant? Birth control doesn't always work, you know.
    • slushpuppie, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1 @Mr2001

      Exactly.

      Motorcycle helmets, parachutes, bungie cords, seat belts, etc. What do all of these have in common? None of them "always work;" however, when we put ourselves into a situation where we have to rely on any of these things we must also accept what will result should they fail.

      Responsibility.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6You have a chance of killing someone everytime you drive your car. If you don't want to take responsibility for killing someone by accident then dont drive. /Sarcasm

      If a person took precautions and still got pregnant by total accident or if a woman got raped why must she have the child if she doesn't wish to?

      We do NOT have to accept the result if things should fail. There are solutions to problems. Why have a baby born into poverty needlessly when waiting a few years until a couple is financially ready to have a child would be so much more beneficial to everyone including a child..
    • foobar5892, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1@Mr2001: Then don't have sex. Easy.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Abstinence doesn't work, it goes against human nature and average social interaction.
    • slushpuppie, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1 @billybob or boob or something, I don't remember.

      I am not against abortions in all cases. I think it is ridiculous to draw a black and white line on such a nuanced issue. But two points:

      1. As far as "solutions to problems:" In general, I don't view a human life as a problem looking to be solved.

      2. Yes, I think that if you aren't willing to accept that you could get in a crash every time you drive the car then you shouldn't drive. I think this is obvious. My wife doesn't like to drive when it rains--- why? Because the odds that just such a thing might happen increases to the point that she is no longer willing to accept the chance. We all do this every day.

      /Sarcasm not needed here.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7If I walk up to your wife with a gun and threaten to kill her then do you not have a right to defend her and yourself?

      If a man rapes your wife and she becomes pregnant will you raise that child as your own. Every single day of it's life would remind your wife of what she went through. If she didn't want to have the child... if she didn't want a part of HIM living inside her would you support her decision?
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@slushpuppie: "None of them 'always work;' however, when we put ourselves into a situation where we have to rely on any of these things we must also accept what will result should they fail."

      Correct. A pregnancy can result from failed birth control, just like a few broken bones (if you're lucky) can result from a failed seat belt. That's just a fact; no one can do anything about it. Cause leads to effect.

      But this argument isn't about that, it's about *what to do afterwards*. Do you just lie there bleeding on the street and say "Oh well, I guess I deserve to die because I knew there was a chance the seat belt might fail", or do you call for help so you can go to the emergency room and try to stop your bleeding? The latter, I hope.

      Going to the emergency room after a car accident *is* taking responsibility. You got yourself into a bad situation, now you're doing what you can to pull yourself out of it. Likewise, if you have sex and get yourself pregnant, responsibility means you do what you can to deal with it - childbirth and abortion are both responsible options.
    • slushpuppie, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0 Did you reply before even reading my comment?

      "I am not against abortions in all cases."

      There is not a black and white line to be drawn.

      However, in the general day to day course of things: I don't support abortion. Are there situations where I would support abortion and even seek if out (if I were a woman in those circumstances)? Of course their are.

      Every case is different and what is right and wrong is very face specific. There are no overarching answers, each case must be weighed on its merits.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"There is not a black and white line to be drawn."

      You say that, but we are talking about Nicaragua who DID just draw a black and white line to ban abortion in ALL cases.
    • slushpuppie, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0 (the last comment was @billy, btw)

      @2001: I agree with you. Some might argue that it becomes different when you are no longer taking responsibility for yourself and forcing your desires on a third party (the unborn baby). And, usually, one of the arguments I hear for abortion is "don't force your beliefs on another person." I agree with this. But it goes both ways.

      @billy, again: this particular comment thread had nothing to do with Nicaragua, IIRC.
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@slushpuppie: "Some might argue that it becomes different when you are no longer taking responsibility for yourself and forcing your desires on a third party (the unborn baby)."

      Well, by going to the emergency room after a car accident, you're forcing your desires on the hospital staff, since they're legally required to treat you even if you can't pay.

      In fact, any option you choose to deal with your pregnancy forces your desires on the fetus. If you give birth and raise it yourself, then you're forcing it to be your child for its entire life; if you give it up for adoption, you're forcing it to be someone else's, giving it an entirely different set of experiences, personality, future potential, etc. If you make it live, you force it to undergo every hardship and bit of suffering it'll ever have throughout its life; if you abort it, you prevent it from having any experiences or future at all.

      But really, isn't that what being a parent is all about, making choices on someone else's behalf?
  • joekewle, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3One small step backwards for "womens rights" one giant leap forward for the rights of the unborn. They are people too you know.
  • Sublime059, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Fetuses are not people for Christs sake. They are ***** parasites. They feed on the host until they are born as human ***** children.

    All you pro-lifers care about is getting tons of unwanted children to be born and then have miserable lives. Why would you wish that upon millions of kids?
    • slushpuppie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6 "***** parasites"?

      "feed on the host"?

      i mean, i can accept people not being "pro-life," but you are the first person who seems to be strait up anti-life.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7He is stating fact about human life, a fetus is a parasite and feeds on it's host. If you don't like the way humans are reproduced then please stop being a human.
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Thats how these people are slushpuppie. They are truely sick in the head. They call anyone who dares to try to have a child and a family "Breeders" they want population reduction solely because that means "more for them". They call unborn babies parasites. Where did it start? For the younger crowd it came from when TV and Movies starting making pregnancy seem more like an inconvenience rather than a blessing or great opportunity to expand your legacy/family/heritage/productivity. For the older crowd making these TV shows and Movies, it came from them being in the baby boomer generation and having to share with 2 or 3 or more brothers and sisters. They are nothing more than selfish children teaching other children to be selfish too by infesting their minds with the idea that pregnancy of any kind is to be dreaded because that means "less for you" suddenly.

      This is the twist that they fail to ever see. As I say with most of my last posts, it holds true here as well:

      We are so screwed.
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@Zethris:

      TV and movies, huh? No, I think reality provides enough of a deterrent. Pregnancy and childbirth are unpleasant, painful, and dangerous; raising a child is expensive, frustrating, and lasts for your entire life. I can hardly blame anyone for thinking "expanding your legacy" isn't worth all that. There are plenty of other ways to expand your legacy.

      BTW, pro-choice has nothing to do with population control, and you're the only one here putting forth that "more babies means less for me" argument. I've never seen it anywhere before, actually. Did you make it up?
  • CanceledCzech, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Hurray progress! "Nicaragua: Leading The Way To The Future"
  • chriscrob, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3This is incredibly biased. And not accurate.
  • coolbrorican, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Some of the statics on abortion in Latin America was very interesting. Regarding Nicaragua I'm just curious why they took away abortions even if such an abortiong would save the mother's life.
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1At least now we can see a little bit if what the liberals say is true will really happen. We now have an archetype to watch of a country who has outlawed abortion. Only difference is, there would be a lot more support systems in place here than there would be over there, it will be interesting to see if the amount of deaths somehow rise any substantial amount from a so called rise in home abortions.
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1If there are, I would be one of the first to say mea culpa. But somehow, I am not so sure I will have to.
  • vhcougar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4okay i have a question. and this is serious, so digg me down for all i care, as long as i get an answer.

    why would a woman want to get an abortion?

    i mean, like, besides "the baby is slowly killing you! get rid of it or you'll die!"
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Rape, Incest, or if she can't afford the baby nor the cost of the birth. Babies are expensive. If you read through the above comments it might be a little more clear.
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3In other words vhcougar to translate what billyboobs34 was saying: "babies = less for me so I would get rid of mine in a heartbeat"

      typical.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7You must not have a woman in your life Zethris nor empathy...
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Maybe she just doesn't want a baby, and doesn't want to go through 9 months of physical and hormonal torment in order to get it out of her. (I hope we don't have to explain all the reasons why someone might not want a baby at any particular point in their lives!)
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2I have a lot more empathy in a speck of calcium inside my pinky finger nail than you will ever have in your entire body. I am part of the voiceless babies you condone the murder of. That, my friend is real empathy. I empathize with them if they were to have a voice and a way to reason and plead for their lives. To voice that they too, like you, want to have the right to try to experience life and grow. Also eventually achieve what they would hope for both temporally and spiritually (if any).

      I would even empathize and fight for YOUR life had YOUR mother considered abortion. Even if you still resulted as a proponent of a form of cold blooded pre-meditated murder as you are now.

      P.S. I am engaged to be married to a "breeder" in December thank you. I have a wonderful life. I just wish others would wake up and do the same.

    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@Zethris: "I empathize with them if they were to have a voice and a way to reason and plead for their lives."

      Too bad you don't empathize with the grown people who *have* a voice and a way to reason, who have actually had experiences and touched other people's lives. I gotta say, that kind of empathy seems a lot more important to me.
    • tehbishop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8To me, it's a simple matter about who controls my wife's body. Only she does, and I will defend her with my life, laws be damned. To think that someone honestly thinks that they can regulate her body is funny to me simply because she's going to do what she wants to do.
    • vhcougar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I don't get how "Rape, Incest" is a valid answer, but it can't honestly cost that much more to have a baby than to have an abortion.

      Really, I don't get people that would rather kill a living thing than go through some discomfort for a year...that's just so...selfish, I guess. I dunno, I just think it's kind of horrible.
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@vhcougar

      Delivering a baby can easily cost ten times as much as aborting, AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong, someone). It's also more dangerous, and it can result in permanent bodily changes. Laughing that off as "some discomfort" is just ignorant.
  • meebs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4There's one thing I don't get about this whole debate. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, at what point do you believe that the government should have the power to regulate what its citizens do with their bodies? You may be morally opposed to abortions or to anything else for that matter: gay marriage, polygamy, whatever. That's fine. There are plenty of arguments both for and against each. But it is my opinion, humble as it may be, that government should not adjudicate either way on such issues. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. If you're opposed to polygamy, don't marry more than one person. If you're against abortions, don't get one. But at the point where we believe that it is our RIGHT to force other people into believing what we believe, we have jumped into murky waters. For the same reason that terrorists will never make us believe what they believe through brute force, I think that legislating morality is bound to fail. These are personal matters, let's keep them that way.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5There are many government services (in this country) that are affected. This is why the government feels the need to regulate... that and the country is run by religious nut jobs.
    • BitDrifter, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Because they are not just making decisions about their "own bodies" they are making also making decisions about the baby (body) growing in them. A woman joined at the head (share blood vessels) with her sister could not kill her sister, because she is killing another in the process. Abortion is no different.
    • BitDrifter, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3My edit time ran out on the above comment, so I posted this one.
      ----
      Because they are not just making decisions about their "own bodies" they are making also making decisions about the baby (body) growing in them. A woman joined at the head (share blood vessels) with her sister could not kill her sister, she could not say "Well no one has a right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body" and then kill her sister. Abortion is no different, except that the baby cannot plead for its own life, and so it is dehumanized.
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Anarchy also never works, so there is always going to be some regulation and rules for society sake that need to be in place. I just wish those who want to destroy society in the guise of "saving society" would stop and do the math and realize that committing genocide is not the way to go to further along our society.

      Those born of the baby boomer generation will begin dying off in 30-50 years, the huge growth of children will have gone down because economically it isn't sound to have 3-5 or more kids like it was in the baby boom. Average gen-xer has 1-2.5 children. So this argument of over-population is totally moot. It will balance itself out, just beyond the foresight of the people who are proponents for abortion and population control.

      Routine abortions are what needs to be abolished and never discussed again.

      Circumstantial abortions should be supervised heavily in that the person considering it is truly given education about it without sensationalist garbage from either side. Then as long as they meet strict criteria (victim of rape/incest, carrying the baby to term would have a certain percentage chance of death for the mother and/or baby anyway.) they are given a legal choice knowing full well that it is a choice she is making for both her and on the baby's behalf.


      P.S. Economics would have no legal standing.

    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@BitDrifter:

      I'm not sure what the law says about it, but the scenario you mentioned is hardly cut-and-dry.

      There's a well-known thought experiment that some people use to think about abortion in less loaded terms... imagine that you're abducted by aliens one day, and the next day you wake up and find that someone has been connected to your body, so that he depends on you for all his bodily functions. You have to eat for him and go to the bathroom for him, you have to avoid taking medications that he's allergic to, and so on. He can't survive on his own anymore, so if you cut the connection, he'll die. And finally, there's no question that he's a sentient person: you recognize him immediately as the world's most famous violin player.

      Now, the question is, does he have a *right* to keep using your body to stay alive, even though it drastically lowers your own quality of life? Or does your own bodily autonomy give you the right to cut him loose?

      Does it make a difference why you want to cut him loose: what if he has an infection that will spread to you and kill you both? What if it's painful to have him connected, you're throwing up every morning, etc.? What if you can't keep working at your job with him there? What if you can't take some medication you need because he's allergic to it? What if you just don't like the way you look in the mirror with this dude hanging off of you, or you don't like violinists?
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@Zethris:

      If you think it's murder (genocide), why would you make an exception for rape and incest? Are you saying it's OK to murder someone if his parents are criminals?
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@Mr2001

      You can try to play the devils advocate in this case, but your rebuttal needs fine tuning.

      Ultimately, as someone who is supposedly pro-choice, you should be the first to recognize when a choice has truly been taken away via rape and incest. Thus the fine tuning part.

      The choices here are to be responsible for your actions and then face up to the consequences of your actions. When that is taken away, all bets are off, and you should have the choice to come to term with the child, or if you are able to cope with the moral ramifications, choose to have an abortion. Being given your ability to have a choice back as fast as possible is the FIRST thing that should happen when such a violation of rape or incest occurs.


    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@Zethris:

      "When that is taken away, all bets are off, and you should have the choice to come to term with the child, or if you are able to cope with the moral ramifications, choose to have an abortion."

      What moral ramifications? Are you saying it's immoral to bear a rapist's child, even more so than killing it?

      Please don't try to blur this with appeals to the word "choice". I'm trying to understand your thoughts here, not my own. I want to know why *you* think abortion is OK in those cases, since you wrote below "killing a baby no matter where it happens to be located, is murder."

      I mean, I can understand why a pro-lifer might support the death penalty (no idea if you do or not), because that's killing a person for his own actions, and that might be justified if he brings it on himself. But the fetus hasn't brought anything on itself here, right?
    • pedrito77, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0Then I am asking you; at what point does the goverment say when human life starts???

      may I remind you that abortion is BANNED in all earth nations? they just don't agree when the ban starts; ones say at the moment of conception, others 3 months later, others 4 months, even others say 5 months after conception.
      then again, I am asking you; where does the goverment let you terminate an embryo or a fetus?

      thank you.
    • tehbishop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@pedrito77 who said: "where does the goverment let you terminate an embryo or a fetus?"

      You presume that the government has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body, which is a bad assumption to begin with. Were I living there, her choice would be upheld and if people that disagreed with me had to suffer, that's just too damned bad. I guess that's the outcome of trying to push a certain morality on those that disagree with it.

      Freedom.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Pedrito, usually abortions are only banned when the fetus would feel pain which is after about 26 weeks and during the third trimester... before this time the fetus would feel nothing.

      Once a person finds out they are pregnant this should give them plenty of time to abort. It's cheap and affective.
    • pedrito77, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0tehbishop.

      I do not presume that; it is a fact; there are laws; at some point after the conception the goverment shall say: you can not terminate this; do I understand for your words that you agree that moment should be never? and by never you mean 9 months after the conception?....

      Will you legalice abortion after 8 months of pregnancy????.....

      ok then, we just disagree when to abort, but we agree in something at least...
  • Bozodog, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Even though I am pro-choice, (although I think abortion should be very rare) I dugg this story as inaccurate because the description is political opinion, not news.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I think you forgot to read the news part of it...
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3No you are right bozodog. IF there is political opinion within the headline, it should be in political news, no exceptions.

  • tehbmwman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3One of the fundamental issues with pro-choice spin is they immediately as no separation between church and state. Therefore, anyone who could possibly be against abortion is a "religious zealot" attempting to impose their religious views on you.

    Give me a break. Some people take moral stands for reasons other than religion. If someones morals come only from religion, and not from experience, passion, and love, I don't believe they are truly a moral person.

    Just because I don't believe in murdering babies (not "parasites"; come on, technicalities are no reason to classify a fetus as such) does not mean I'm a religious zealot, so stop classifying me as such.
    • Zethris, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Here! Here!

      I am against most religions in general. I find the vast majority to be a severe travesty that we are lucky as a species to even have somehow survived thus far.

      But I also know that killing a baby no matter where it happens to be located, is murder.

      Going further and obfuscating and blurring the line further by calling them parasites is pretty twisted in and of itself. What does that make us all?
    • tehbishop, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7to me it comes down to this simple reality:

      My wife's body is her own. You do not own it, I do not own it, a parasite by definition of ANY type does not own it; no one but she has the right to choose what to do with her body, and as her husband, I will support her and defend her and give my life to see that her freedom of choice is upheld. I will do what I have to do to make sure this happens. I will break the laws, and anyone that would step in my way of defending my wife will have made a life changing mistake.

      If your actions try to take my wife's freedom of choice away, I have a problem with you. You don't get to decide for her, and you never will. If you presume to think about anything past the fact that your decisions would take her freedom of choice away, that's for you to decide. Just know that all I'm going to see is you trying to control the love of my life, and I will solve the problem one way or another.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Zethris, you may call them whatever you want. They are, in fact, parasites. This is not saying that parasites are bad. You may not understand the term "parasite".

      We are all parasites until birth. We are all animals that eat the dead animals and plants... Why do you insist on denying who you are as a human being.
  • danakin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I had an interesting conversation with a lady the other day about abortion. We were discussing our views, and I said I was opposed to abortion unless the mother's life was in danger or in cases of rape and incest. Her response threw things into perspective a little:

    "My mother was raped. I am the product of that crime"

    The thing is, in any case, it is still human life. Raped or not. There is always adoption.
    • billyboobs34, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Her mother made a choice to keep her child. The question is would you deny choice to those women?
    • Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I have more respect for her position than yours. If you think abortion is murder, then you should be opposed to it in all cases, no matter how the fetus was conceived.

      However, adoption isn't some magic solution. You still have to go through months of suffering while this unwanted thing grows inside you, shoves your organs around, sucks your nutrients and dumps its waste into your system, and fills you with hormones; you have to go through the painful and dangerous process of childbirth; and then if the baby isn't healthy and white, it probably won't get adopted anyway! See the stati