Abortion questions...?

Well I' telling who does decide here in Quebec, and who should decide in the US.We don't have any John Q style dilemna's here, no 5 year old boys die because their parents don't have the money. Our society has decided that everything possible will be done to save his life. That's the thing right, because you built a society where some women have no other choice but to abort, because she has no other option. And because of this, being against abortion passes as wanting to put her in a crappy situation.But what I'm saying in this thread is that we should give her other options. She should have so many better options, that abortion wouldn't even be an option anymore. Because many have said it in this thread: abortion is far from an easy thing for a woman. There are lot's of bad psychological effects that can come out of it (and I guess viewing it from an evolutionary POV it makes a lot of sense). So we as a society shouldn't feel comfortable about giving her abortion as her only option, letting her hurt herself.So the reality is that yo uclaim to want to give her the choice, but the only choice you are giving her is abortion. Nothing else. How many woman abort, but would have liked to have that child ?Because I totally agree with you guys: christianity, particularly in the US, is hypocrite. It is hypocrite because they are the most capitalists, and they should be the most socialists. They should be the ones voting for public health-care, public education system, etc. And so I agree with you when they come out against abortion, but don't give a cent when the child is born.But realize that is not the approach I am taking. I am a socialist, and I live in a socialist society. I am for the foetus and the mother, and both of them once it is born.

My ectopic pregnancy claim was perfectly legitimate. Two links were given showing that it does happen. I don't have any problem with people asking for references. I do, however, have a problem being called a ''self-righteous smug prolifers repeating the lies and half truths'', when that I have neither lied nor said half-truths anywhere in this thread. Of course, and I do when I can. And when I'm asked for references of claims I didn't think would be required (such as anecdotal personnal experiences), I give them when I can. And when I can't, I don't oblige people to believe me.

Reread the discussion. We were talking about saving a foetus by c-section, which is specifically at a lower limit of 25 weeks. My comments to which you were replying were in reference to that special case.Wanting my comments to apply to all abortion is moving the goalpost. If the mother's life is in danger, yes. Because my 100th cell position does not affect the abortion issue, but in vitro fertilisation and methods who prevent implantation of the embryo. After millions of years of evolution of psychological mechanism hardwiring a child's head to have a father and a mother, how good do you think it is to put him with two fathers or mothers ?

Very good; in fact far better than in many other possible scenarios.Now if you were advocating a strict licensing of parenthood, I might tend to agree with you.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Abortion will always be an option.What about a woman who is raped and gets pregnant? She'll always want the option of abortion. Some women will keep the child and love it regardless of its origins. Some will not. Who should decide which it will be?Your policy needs to deal with reality.Edited by ringo, : Added a question mark?

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

Nonsense. No such "hardwiring" exists.A human child can be raised by two capable male apes just the same.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Rape is the only case where I would consider abortion could still remain a better option for the woman because it is the only situation where the psychological effects of keeping the child could be worse then aborting it.Even in a society where there were all these better options, I would be the last person to judge a raped woman who would get an abortion.But if truely you are against abortion, but for the choice, then you should support what I have said, you should be in favor of giving the pregnant woman better options. Because that is not the case right now, right now, most woman only have the illusion of choice: the only choice they have is to abort.

How about two or three fathers and one mother? How about cultures where mothers, aunts, and grandmothers do the child-rearing, and fathers are rarely present?anthro.vancouver.wsu.edu/media/.../HewlettMacFarlan_rev_3-30.doc

Bullshit. Lets look at your original claim You have provided one case. One case, that was extremely rare. You are advocating for women to try to carry an ectopic pregnancy to the point of viability. This is ludicrous to an extreme. Why don't you ask a doctor about this idea? It is a death sentence to many women and all of the fetuses except for a very, very rare few. As I said before, consult the medical literature. Do you think any other pro-lifers will support your assertion? Lets see.The ectopic preganacy, calling the Quebec gov't "baby killers", your claim of the protest against a pro-life home for pregnant girls(maybe you will look into the reasons for the protests, hint, has to do with the lies they were telling the girls), your claim that pro-choice=pro-abortion, misconstruing the partee quebecois demand for certification for all pregnancy counselors.ABE Oh yeah and your not being ok with same-sex couple adopting. That sir is self-righteous. Then why must I continually have to ask you to back up your assertions with facts and sources? If you look back on this thread you continually made factual claims with no support. That is why you were asked to provide evidence. You should know that on a debate forum personal anecdote is worthless.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

But not ok to abort if mothers life is in danger post 25 weeks?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Maybe in Quebec. In Texas you can't drive down a major highway or look in the Yellow Pages without seeing ads for "abortion alternatives."

What about the woman's opinion? What if she thinks the psychological effect of raising a child in poverty could be worse than aborting it? Why should your opinion override hers? How is that fetus less of a person than the wanted fetus? I haven't said one single word against alternatives. I suggested that you, personally, could be doing more to help provide those alternatives. Until those alternatives are universally available, lobbying against abortion is the wrong approach.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

quote:

---

You have provided one case. One case, that was extremely rare. You are advocating for women to try to carry an ectopic pregnancy to the point of viability. This is ludicrous to an extreme. Why don't you ask a doctor about this idea? It is a death sentence to many women and all of the fetuses except for a very, very rare few. As I said before, consult the medical literature. Do you think any other pro-lifers will support your assertion?

---

That's not what he advocates. Read his posts.Only the abdominal pregnancy has carried to term that I know of. The other organs aren't large enough and Slevesque knows that. He's saying that if the fetus can be carried to the point of viability outside the womb without harming the mother, he feels that the attempt should be made. Only the abdominal pregnancy would allow that possibility. He's not saying that all ectopic pregnancies should be forced to continue until they burst.

quote:

---

But not ok to abort if mothers life is in danger post 25 weeks? Message 355

---

His point was that after 25 weeks the child should be able to survive outside the womb with help and therefore no need for abortion. Keep up. See his Message 339.

Bullshit read his post.He presented a bizarre alternative to aborting an ectopic pregnancy. It was presented as if it was a very viable alternative to aborting ectopic pregnmacies. Then he found an article that showed one extremely rare and bizarre ectopic pregnancy that did resolve the way he suggests. If you read the article the doctors did not realize it was ectopic until very far along in the pregnancy. Are you sure he knows this? If this is true why didn't he say abdominal ectopic pregnancies in his first mention of ectopic pregnancies. I think probably because he was unaware of it until he researched it after he tried to peddle the pro-life crap he was using. That is pro-lifer utopia talk. Things are not this simple and cut and dry in pregnancies, or for that matter anything in life. There would be circumstances where an abortion may be needed if the woman's life is and danger and the fetus would have a very difficult or not very likely chance of survival outside of the womb. The pro-life camp wants to make it black and white. it is not black and white. There are many scenarios, but they want it to be a simple scenario.Baby gets born, no matter what the circumstances or issues. Pro-lifers pat themselves on the back and let the mother and child fend for themselves. Then condemn them if they need any public support. And god forbid we let the fags adopt the kid.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

No, purpledawn understood perfectly what I am trying to say. I have already explained what happened in a previous post, but jsut for you I'll repeat it again here.I had read an article about an ectopic pregnancy in which the foetus was saved. I did not know if this was rare or common, all I knew was that it happened.So when I said ''when the foetus can be saved he should be'', and was asked for a specific example, I thought about that one. Once again, I did not say if it was rare or common. I simply said that it can happen a circumstance that you can either abort or try to save the foetus, and in those circumstances you should try to save it.Then you asked for an example, and I linked you one. And you started piling crap on me. Funny then, that I specifically said in one post not to try and make it seem as if I'm trying to paint this in black and white. In fact, it seems you are the one painting it that one. I am the one effectively saying that each case is different, and that in those cases where the foetus can be saved, it should. And in those cases where we can't save mother and child, then we should abort. I have been saying this throughout this issue.