You and Babe have something in common reagrding this subject: euphenisms. To her, a child in the womb is a foetus, a rather disassociative term for a human being; you use the term "take care of someone" (are you thus recognizing a child as a child?).

Why not just use this phrase: "I think that if a woman wants to kill her child or hire someone to do it, she should be able to do so without penalty."

What's all this? Everyone knows live begins at an erection.

Wow, there was a reason you didn't quote me I suppose. I give an example that no one can make you look after someone. There are no laws regarding that. It's just a matter of morality, not legality. You could bail on someone who can't fend for themselves and as the result they may die. So why on earth should there be a law that makes a woman spend her time on someone (for you) or something (for me) that she doesn't want? And BTW, the death of child as you want to put it, is byproduct of a woman not wanting the fetus. If you can extract it somehow and take care of it, I'm all for that. If not, then that's the way it is.

Mine did .

You can. It's called giving birth and parenthood.

At somebody else's expense? It's called slavery.

As I've posted previously: slavery versus human life. Ah. What an equvilency. AF, just state it. You advocate the killing of children for convenience sake.

Why should I? My post was clear as day. You can twist it all you want.

It's clear that "Forcing motherhood is akin to slavery" would not be the objective experience of the victims of the millions of Abortions, related miscarriages and outright massive slaughtering.

There's no way the objective impact of requiring mothers to birth a fetus of their own making could be even remotely compared with human bondage.

More examples above of just how far people will go to try and justify abortion. Hold to that position, if you must, but enough with the sorry ass excuses because none of them hold water. It is what it is, a woman who does it is what she is, and there's no getting around that.

You know AF, you and Babe might link arms as you march through the streets of Iran or America inveighing against slavery while chanting Kill the Children! Kill the Children!

Oh please! There's definition for each term. Slave is someone who is made to do something against their will.

If someone doesn't want to bear a child and state makes them to do so, they are the state's slave, plain and simple.

Your assessment of the situation stems from having no regard for mothers who carry their children, because that's such an everyday normal natural thing. Yet I suggest you take a look at the resources a woman has to provide for a fetus during 9 months. The bones and teeth that will decay as the fetus would suck all the calcium of her body. And plus, tumors are product of our making as well. So your argument is not applicable.

I suggest instead of slaving a woman who doesn't want to bear a child, put money out of your pocket and find a way to extract a fetus and raise it outside the womb. Then maybe you would realize the amount you should spend out of your pocket to bring a child to this life, never mind raising it later. Oh wait, you guys just wanna bring them here, but don't want to pay a dime extra in your taxes to raise them.

I'm sure my argument holds plenty of water, since these matters are non-issues in modern world across the pond.

Yes, because I have two daughters that I've sacrificed mightily to raise, I must be all for killing children. This post was nothing but inflammatory and asinine. Personally, I've always thought you to be an intelligent contributor to this board, so this post was a surprise.

I'm all for having and raising children, when a woman is willing and eager to do so. Since a woman can't always control that, then she should have a choice about impending motherhood.

Obviously, you and Ivy consider our point of view to be worthless, so why do you keep coming back here? Go do some marching on your own. At least maybe that will keep you busy so you don't come back here posting your worthless drivel.

Seems to me this thinking represents extremely careless hyperbole, or a lack of even basic elementary logics here, all to support an analogy not at all necessary for your argument.



Not exactly an amazing display on the mastering of the rules of evidence here
by asserting I have no empathy for my sisters you thereby dismiss my argument as somehow moot.
A whole conclusion out of nothing; nothing short of magic.



I'd rather use the money for preventive measures that educates children on the facts that contraception until very recently was very unreliable, and judging by the huge numbers of abortions that take place in modern societies, still is pretty unreliable.

Or instead of teaching them disdain for those who preach safety and abstinence, maybe direct their condemnation toward the media which inundates them with values of casual sex as increasingly normal and common.

(And perhaps sex education and birth control should indeed become more of an issue "across the pond", as developing nations are at the root of the Earth's overpopulaton.)

SB, there are no universal "one-size-fits-all" answers of course. After all, someone created freedom of belief for a reason.

Certainly you ladies and mothers deserve more than your fair say here because it's your bodies. I'm mostly arguing for the sake of debate anyhow, because were abortion actually illegalized we'd have more single teen moms than any society in history.

Because IMHO we live in a society where self gratification and preservation trumps all. I think this is inherently detrimental to any notions of a true society.

Sex outside of marriage is condemned by most religions for a very good reason, because Sex Leads to Babies. A society cannot support a load of fatherless children,hence the sexual restraints urged on women, and penalty for men sleeping with other men's wives, with virgins etc.

Lack of restraint creates weak people, driven by selfish goals, who are unable to perform any sacrifice, unwilling to make any effort and ultimately this affects the whole society and weakens it. Of course, it also makes people individualistic too.

Family values are indeed necessary, because they offer a valuable alternative to the disgusting pursuit of personal pleasure only (I'm not against pleasure but against hedonism as a solid basis for society).

I could be wrong, but I share with many churches the idea that strong families are essential to personal power and liberty, and even wealth, and that destroying the family leads to governmental authority over the people, and poverty.

Casual abortion standards undermine these values among many others.

Don't have sex. Use birth control. Put the child up for adoption.

There's three choices right there.

And when all is said and done, you still advocate the killing of children to satisfy one's needs.

The last one? Really? And the first two are not choices in the case of rape or even marital rape. And a case of he said, she said.

Frank, you say you rather spend your money on something else? Oh, well, I suppose the issue of saving unborn is not really important to you. It is convenient to make someone already pregnant to finish the term, because that doesn't cost you a penny. I think the sensible thing for you to say, was that you would be willing to pay more taxes to pay women who would sue the state for not letting them have an abortion. At least they would become paid slaves.

And I said modern world across the pond, meaning Europe. In other countries abortion is an issue and not sure what you meant, but are you suggesting world domination by overpopulation should be in EU's agenda to combat that of developing nations?

Because earth is already overpopulated. There's only room for 1 in about ten or so with natural resources of Earth. Oh, China, here we come.

I've already said that an exception could be made in the very rare case of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger. But let's not kid ourselves. The vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with those things.

Making an exception means requiring a person to go to court and prove rape. Many cases, it's her word against his. By the time you go through the process, it's too late to have an abortion.

I don't have any information on what's the demographic of reasons for abortion. I think the law has to rule on a worst case scenario. And laws usually don't have anything to do with morals. There's always plenty of room to abuse the legal system, it's not just this case.

I'm going so far as to say abortion for the sake of convenience is morally wrong. Still it shouldn't be illegal just because some abuse this law.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Afs. But aren't the Iranian abortion laws very strict, if not particularly effective?

I'm only asking with the interest of someone who lives outside your country (I'm not getting involved in the morality debate). I found a very interesting article here.

Let me know what you think .

When you get back to planet Earth, please let us know.

Firstly, if the possibility of pregnancy is the real reason why most religions condemn sex between an unmarried man and woman, why do they condemn homosexuality as well, where this possibility doesn't exist at all? Secondly, the idea that sex outside of marriage is wrong is hardly consistent with a belief in "personal power and liberty."

Vito C, if there's a question in your vague post regarding my OP I can't find it, sorry.

afsaneh, I was talking about finding permanent solutions to this problem; notably replacing the valorization of sex with higher moral values & sex education.

But perhaps expand on your pro life = pro slavery analogy again, I'm awaiting arrival of the group who are always quick to cry foul-play here whenever Conservatives invoke the slavery comparison for anything.

Yes, the article is quite accurate except on one point that I'll get to it. Let me just throw this in here, we can't plead self defense in case of a murder. Women who kill their rapist would face death penalty. Since the life of a man is worth twice as a woman, a woman is also forced to pay as much as her worth of life to the family of the victim as well. Not sure laugh or cry at this one.

As far as abortion goes: Premarital sex is a no-no. A marriage could seriously go wrong if groom finds out the bride is not a virgin on the wedding night. That's true for about 80% of Persian men, give or take. However, recently most youngsters engage in sex before marriage. Doctors are very cooperative though, they mend hymens, perform abortions and you just name it. You can always find a doctor who does it. And if you live in a big town, you can bet, it's safe too. It's not some back alley OR with a shady doctor. Since honor and reputation depends on it and things can get bloody messy, most doctors being sympathetic, don't say no to women who come to them.

During first trimester, the fetus is not considered a human being according to our interpretation of Quran. Therefore there's no penalty practically.

You know that morals are subjective, right? Unless you're willing to invest in finding ways just as I described, this problem is here to stay.

I guess I just can't support the arguer that says, "you as a society couldn't/shouldn't prevent me from having unprotected pre marital sex, and guess what, when/if I get pregnant or sick, you society may have to foot the bill."

But if we society are required to fund their little bundle of subjective morality, then we have every right to try and systemically solve the problem through morality based education, no matter how 'subjective' those morals are, which I consider to be instinctual modes of preservation and survival more than anything else.

Of course, it starts in the home, and most parents today are perfectly willing to let their children objectify themselves in the social meat market without any regard for the long-term systemic sociological problems it can yield.

Let me stir some shit up with a question. If abortion was illegal again reverting pre-Roe/Wade, should women who aborted their fetuses be charged with murder or manslaughter or similar charges you would expect for a homicide?

Should the death penalty be considered?

Once it was made illegal, they should certainly be charged with something. And not just a slap on the wrist, either. I wouldn't see it really any different than them killing their child after it was born. Again, we're not talking about cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. So, I'd certainly call for the death penalty. Not much worse than a mother having her own child killed.