Big Nana,

Of course there are women who have abortions because they (and their partners) had been careless when it came to contraception - on multiple occasions, too, for some - but this is a far cry from implying that abortion is used as an alternative to contraception, as though one could duck down to the abortion clinic on their lunch break once every month or two and have an abortion.

Either way, this is not an argument against abortion, but an argument for better education and better solutions to the underlying social problems that contribute to unwanted pregnancies.

--

Not_Now.Soon,

Thank you for actually answering my question (somewhat, at least). You’re the first I’ve ever encountered who didn’t do their best to evade it.

<<I'm not arguing a forced organ donation.>>

So, can I take it then, that you believe it would be wrong to force a mother to donate a kidney to her child? If so, then you are affording more rights to foetuses than you would to a child who had already been born. This is an inconsistency in your position which has not yet been justified.

<<I'm saying that you can't kill for the sake of convience.>>

Denying one’s own child a kidney would effectively be killing that child if no other donors could be found, yet we still wouldn’t force the mother to donate a kidney in such circumstances. We may be appalled by such a refusal, but I don't think many would agree with forced organ donation in such circumstances.

<<Tell me a right that is worth more then being alive and why that should trump a child's rights (all of them) before they are given the chance to be born.>>

Sure: the right of others to not have their bodies used to sustain one's own life. Your right to swing your arms ends at my face.

"Sure: the right of others to not have their bodies used to sustain one's own life. Your right to swing your arms ends at my face."

The unborn child, being what it is and where it is, has every right to use the body in which it was conceived.

//People get stupid when drinking//

No, not necessarily. Ethanol has a biphasic dose response, and a mild dose can actually work as stimulant and improve cognitive function in the short term. Case study here:

http://www.videobash.com/video_show/mitchell-amp-webb-s-inebriati-the-knights-tippler-1453942

//people having sex changes the relationship and adds hardships with strings to muddle through.//

No, not necessarily. Sometimes it's just nice and fun.

//as well as to not have sex until your married in a committed relationship//

Nah, bugger that for a joke.

//Moving on to addictions of sex, very comparable to being an alcoholic.//

No, not in any way, shape or form. Frankly, I'm a bit dubious about the whole 'sex addiction' thing anyway... but even if we take it for granted that it's a behavioural addiction like problem gambling, it's still in a totally different ballpark to a chemical addiction. When somebody is withdrawing from gambling, you hand them a tissue box. When they're withdrawing from drugs, you hand them a spew bucket and a tissue box. When they're withdrawing from alcohol... you keep an eye on them to make sure they don't die. Nobody dies from 'sex addiction' withdrawals. They don't shiver, they don't sweat, they don't hallucinate, they don't have seizures, they don't defecate themselves and vomit, and they don't die.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

//Moving to the harm done while drunk, crimes linked to drinking, and families broken from adultry. They both show that when done outside the scope of what's mature and resonable both sex and drinking are wrong//

Who said anything about 'adultry'? Or even adultery? I'm not married, and I don't shag women that are: thus, no adultery. Just what is your problem with fun between consenting adults, Cromwell?

//Drunk driving and killing a person is very compatible to having sex and then killing your baby.//

Yeah, you really haven't got the hang of this analogy thing, have you?

Drunk driving is always dangerous. Having sex is not.

"That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-seventeen, he may not have realized the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas... and, Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom! Oh, no! I can wear French Ticklers if I want."

//Since you're making a habit to quote out of context, I want you to read it all again. Let it sink in. I'm not against sex. I'm against sex out of marriage.//

No, I picked up on that. But as I said before...

Why wait till you're married? I mean really, what's the point? Do you think you'll go to hell if you don't? Because if you're Catholic you can get absolved for minor transgressions like that, and nobody cares if you're a Protestant, especially not Jesus.

//And finally yes people who have sex out of marriage are very close to whores and prostutes//

More vile abuse, eh Cromwell?

My, that's a fine looking hole you've dug for yourself.

To AJ Phillips and Toni Lavis. Are you guys reading eachother's points? One says that abortion is not a contraceptive, and the other's whole point in the conversation to allow abortion is because sex is fun.

AJ Philips.

[Either way, this is not an argument against abortion, but an argument for better education and better solutions to the underlying social problems that contribute to unwanted pregnancies.]

Don't have sex before being ready to have children. Problem of unwanted pregnancies at least 85% solved.

[Tell me a right that is worth more then being alive and why that should trump a child's rights (all of them) before they are given the chance to be born.

Sure: the right of others to not have their bodies used to sustain one's own life. Your right to swing your arms ends at my face.]

That right is given up when they choose to have sex. If they get pregnet they have a responsibility to let that baby live for the term it takes to be born. Being alive is a greater right. All other rights stem off of first being alive in order to have any rights at all.

Toni Lavis.

[No, not necessarily. Sometimes it's just nice and fun.]

That's no excuse to kill off a child in an abortion. Your fun to shag with a woman is not a reason to support abortions. With the scope of this topic pertaining to abortions, you're going to great lengths to avoid the topic of abortion. Address the point you are making.

"Abortions are ok because sex is fun."

NO! They are not ok!

Is Mise,

Yes, the unborn human child has the right to use the body it was conceived in, but not against the wishes of the person who owns that body. If the child who has already been born does not have the right to use its mother’s body against her wishes, then neither does the unborn child.

It’s one thing to claim that the unborn human child has equal rights to everyone else, it’s another thing to afford it special rights just because one day it could be a person. There is no justification for the latter.

--

Not_Now.Soon,

I don’t think Toni Lavis is saying that abortion should be allowed because sex is fun. I think his point about sex being fun is an aside to a more fundamental point (i.e. that the expectation that one abstain from sex until marriage is unreasonable).

Besides, there is no rule saying that pro-choicers must agree with each other on every point. I have already conceded a couple of points that other pro-choicers here were not willing to concede, in order to get to what I believe is a more fundamental point.

<<Don't have sex before being ready to have children.>>

Yes, it’s all very well to say that, but that’s not always going to happen. We need to be realists about the problem if we’re going to reduce it, and the statistics across the US (as we’ve discussed before) demonstrate what an utter disaster the approach of preaching abstinence is.

<<That right is given up when they choose to have sex.>>

No, it’s not. Again, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and applying your assumption to every sexual encounter should conjure dystopian, 1984-style images. Just as forcing someone to donate an organ should.

<<Being alive is a greater right.>>

So, you WOULD force a mother to donate an organ then? You don't think your right to swing your arms necessarily ends at my face?

Just how do you propose we force women to see their pregnancies out and ensure that they don’t resort to dangerous backyard abortions or suicide?