Geez there’s feisty stuff going on here! Quite entertaining – if not very informative. Actually, I find it a pity that Col and Neo can’t get along. You both seem intelligent enough. Just as long as it doesn’t come to blows, OK?

Ambo, love the reaction you get from Tim… makes me smile. And you say smart things!

Tim (apologies for 'boy'. Consider me admonished)… hhhmmm… what to say. I do not want to offend but…
Ambo using what he uses as a tag is not advertising anything. You are assuming. For all you know, he could be a bank johnny. So, just leave that alone. It does you no credit, really.

As to your 4 classes of consideration – contraception, abstinence, sterilization, adoption. Well, 3 of those things are none of anyone else’s business, involve choices by 2 parties (for those in a relationship) and ultimately are not the bottom line in this discussion.

If we’re talking about the ethics of abortion, we should be talking about when a human becomes, well, human. If we’re talking about the high incidents of abortion, the first 3 become relevant – insofar as they are used in conjunction with education. As to adoption, what are your thoughts on my suggestion regarding pro-lifers registering to be adopters? Fairs fair…

You do seem to be hung up a little on the ‘bashing’ of men. Sometimes we deserve it, sometimes not. Why not try to take it on a case-by-case basis rather than over-generalizations that cannot be supported?

Di, I hope I have been balanced in my views (from a woman’s perspective)? Ultimately it is a personal choice. I would just hope that the woman has a decent, considerate man who is willing to carry his share of the load and provide support, whatever the choice.

Neo… I’m out of word and will get back to you. Suffice to say I will have issues with comparing unborn with ‘damaged’ (to use a phrase) humans…

Reason
(the tag associated with what the writer is trying to gain through dialogue rather than ranting… no spurious claims attached)

Reason - you can engage me in some dialogue any day as it continues to be compassionate, thoughtful and understanding.

Hello Di - can't believe this thread is still running.

Timkins - on the subject of Ambo - it is one thing to remain silent and be thought a fool, it is quite another to make a post and remove all doubt (apologies to Oscar)

Ambo - I don't care whether you're an ambulance officer or not (it really doesn't matter) - you are caring, compassionate and this website would be the poorer without you. I understand what you mean about sex education starting young and starting with respect for one another.

Of course I chose my tag because I am one part father and one part son and one part holy ghost - I suppose Timkins should phone god and complain about me. Then again may be I chose it because my favourite number is 9.

Di,
Thankyou for calling me names (EG “the Big T). It appears you cannot make a post without name-calling, flaming, or making irreverent comments and inferences about other posters, and rarely do you stay on topic. None of it is debate.

Reason,
I understand there is a considerable waiting list of couples wanting to adopt children (and I personally know of a couple that waited 9 years, and had almost given up hope).

I believe I already answered your question as to whether the foetus is human:-

- If the woman wants the baby, then the foetus is regarded as being human.
- If the woman doesn’t want the baby, then the foetus is not regarded as being human, (and it can be called a “bunch of cells” or a “pre-birth life form” etc).
I think there would have to be considerable evidence to disprove this.

While pregnancy may be an inconvenience to the woman at times, it is not necessarily a danger, and I think too many people now confuse the 2 due to pro-abortion brainwashing. But being within the womb of a mother, is now a very real danger to the unborn, and it is now the most dangerous environment that children are exposed to in our current society.

You say that issues relating to abortion (IE contraception, abstinence, sterilization, adoption etc) are mostly irrelevant, and it all has to do with the pro-abortion brainwashing term of “choice.”.

I suppose if someone does not “choose” contraception, abstinence, sterilization, adoption etc, then they should pay for their own abortions, as why should the public be forced to fund it.

Maybe counselling can help those people make more responsible and informed “choices”, particularly if they want 3 or more abortions.

Trinity,
In not one post has Ambo ever referred to facts, but uses anecdotal evidence, gossip and hearsay. This is very unusual for someone from the medical area, but very normal for a feminist or pro-abortion supporter. Ambo has yet to prove he / she isn’t a total fraud.

Timkins, I didn't call you the big T, I called you the big t, don't flatter yourself with a capital letter. I do stay on topic, when the tread is making sense and add to the debate, just because you throw all the stats and hyperlinks around doesn't make you the King of Great Debate. And your treatment of Ambo has been reprehensible and very Pollyanna, I don't see how you can redeem yourself from that action. Pollyanna is a name BTW, so I guess you can add it to the list of insults you have perceived from me.

I find it interesting that the big "t" confines himself to attacks on Ambo and exempts Kalweb. Interesting.

As Di says this attack is beyond redemption and will certainly be in my mind when reading future posts. Also an informed opinion based on experience is worth more than any amount of spurious links and the always manipulable stats.

I don't wish to exclude men from the debate but when I read the draconian pronouncements from people who will never experience pregnancy and who clearly dislike women and their supporters, I really want to say that unless you possess a womb you simply don't know what you are talking about. That pregnancy should be regarded as a minor inconvenience and following that time with adoption as no more difficult than selling a car is utterly absurd and underscores the ignorance by people who would force women through such an experience against their will.

Therefore, is Natasha out of step with public opinion? Clearly not. Are the anti-abortionists - always.

Trinity,
Thankyou for the name calling (eg the big "t")

“Always” is a very big word, and of course women should be allowed to do whatever they please, (but not men), and everything should be in “the best interests of the mother”, (but not the child), and fraud is not rife throughout abortion.

However!

Excerpts from ”Confessions of an Abortionists” Dr. Bernard Nathanson

“I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions….I was one of the founders of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968. …..It is important to understand the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law.

THE FIRST KEY TACTIC WAS TO CAPTURE THE MEDIA
We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one…..We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S...

THE SECOND KEY TACTIC WAS TO PLAY THE CATHOLIC CARD
We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its "socially backward ideas" and picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion...

THE THIRD KEY TACTIC WAS THE DENIGRATION AND SUPPRESSION OF ALL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION
…A favorite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy.

Why…Simple arithmetic at $300.00 a time 1.55 million abortions means an industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion.

AS A SCIENTIST I KNOW, NOT BELIEVE, KNOW THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION”

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a392350f73712.htm

Dr. Bernard Nathanson now supports life, not wide scale murder using fraud, or hiding behind brainwashing mantra terms such as “women’s choice”, or maybe call it what it is :- “abortionist’s choice”.