Audrey – Don’t worry. I’m sure he’s just a VERY naughty boy. No Judgement Day necessary.

Trade – “self serving" “self serving” “self serving” … do you work at a petrol station?
Seriously though, you are by no means, not by a LONG shot, the most interesting, intelligent, insightful or entertaining poster on this forum. No way. And I know you so badly want to be the guy who strolls in and makes all us feminazi, fag-hag, brain-washed-by-the-academy, pro-wymin’s rights squawkers look like childish buffoons playing in the adult world where men can take back everything they’ve had ripped from them by bleeding heart law-makers and lesbians, but really, in actual fact, looking at all the available evidence … you’re not.
SnoreFest 2007.
Gadget had buck-toothed religious zealotry.
Iain Hall has semantics.
You have … zzzz … wha’! Where was I?
Oh yeah.
You have the phrase “self serving” and the point that Audrey is wrong because her beliefs differ from yours. Or her argument style. Or her argument HAS style. Or something…
Before you respond, please order everyone a round of strong coffee.
However I WOULD like to hear more about this idea of yours that we men should only have sex with each other to keep the abortion rate down.

Donnie – You’re still asking everyone to take seriously a world in which sex is separated from procreation. Because of science. Uh-huh. Anyway …
I see what you’re saying here: “We are making abortion so easy that women will just start using it as contraception because they no longer take sex, procreation or pregnancy seriously!”
This is the same A changing to B will surely continue to C argument pattern (‘the slippery slope’) that the anti-gay lobby uses. Observe: “If we let men have sex with other men, then surely they will start having sex with children and animals! Who knows where it will end!”

Iain hasn’t answered this question yet and I’m sure you’ll dodge it too, but I’ll give it a shot:

Have you spoken to anyone who’s actually gone through an abortion?
Apart from Audrey?

”Iain hasn’t answered this question yet and I’m sure you’ll dodge it too, but I’ll give it a shot:

Have you spoken to anyone who’s actually gone through an abortion?
Apart from Audrey?”

Actually Franzy I have known two women who have had abortions and I was not a disinterested party in one of those cases .I was in fact quite horrified how one of them, a woman of Russian extraction just saw having abortion as another method of contraception. She had perfected that ability to dehumanize the fetus, to her it was nothing of consequence that she had procured an abortion.

With regard to the Trauma of adoption I think that hose that make such claims are very much overplaying their hands and that may of the women who were traumatized by adoptions in the fifties and sixties were traumatized by the prevailing paradigm that saw them coerced into adoption and the subsequent secrecy enforced by legislation that meant that they could never know of the fate of their child. A rather more open paradigm prevails these days and surely an act of aultruism, in giving a childless couple that which they want most in the world; a child to love and nurture, trumphs the expedient killing of an unborn child every time...

IAIN HALL: "Actually Franzy I have known two women who have had abortions..."

Actually Iain you would know many, many more - but I'm sure they'd never tell you about them.

Franzy - Once again instead of digesting my post raw, you have added your own flavours.

"You’re still asking everyone to take seriously a world in which sex is separated from procreation. Because of science."
I said it's making it a POSSIBILITY not a reality.
I actually had my tongue in my cheek about us industrious humans separating sex from procreation because i got the impression from Audrey's article that she might think abortion is somehow a valid method to enable 100% consequence-free sex (seeing as contraception only gives us about 99%).

"I see what you’re saying here: ““We are making abortion so easy that women will just start using it as contraception because they no longer take sex, procreation or pregnancy seriously!” "
Here you are turning things clearly stated as possibilities into absolutes and drawing broad generalities from what could easily be understood as qualified remarks, in order to ridicule.

"We are making abortion so easy" - Absolute. I would have said "easier".
"women will just start using it as contraception" - Generality and absolute. SOME women MAY do this (and some men MAY agree with it too).
"because they no longer take sex, procreation or pregnancy seriously!" - Generality and absolute. I'd say only women that already do not take sex, procreation or pregnancy seriously will POTENTIALLY see it as a means of contraception, or contra-reproduction.

Perhaps you haven't heard of prediction, a valid reasoning tool used to consider possible outcomes and consequences (including extremes) of courses taken in the present, so that the best decisions can be made to lead to a desirable future.
And need i mention Murphy's law?

ps. It could be argued that a debate is dying when you begin to squabble over semantics and syntax.

Well. This discussion is becoming nothing short of a 'hoot.'

Iain - You keep speaking of how important it is to distance humanity from sentience.
The problem here is defining humanity. Sentience is clearly a part of it - perhaps not all, though seeing as you appear to ascribe humanity to a foetus, I am curious as to why a foetus warrants this.

Is humanity about being unique or special? Aside from poking around genetically, I don't see how a foetus has had the chance to differentiate itself from other foetuses.

It hasn't had the chance to determine it's interests - it isn't gifted at the violin, and it doesn't have a particular penchant for devouring peanut butter. The unique tendencies that make us human have not yet been developed.

This, I suppose, could be said of babies, but even at the earliest ages, parents will tell you that babies have behaved differently to earlier siblings. Some cry, some don't. Some seem to like prams, while others like to be carried.

Is it then, the potential for these tendencies?
To me, this argument appears to hinge on the potential of such a foetus.

Well... I'm afraid in my eyes, it will never be as logical to argue on the basis of what may be, as opposed to what is.
At least in any way that we can determine.

franzy, get a grip lance-a-lot.

... argueing with yourself.

... agenda driven assumptions... 'zzz'.

... men's reproductive freedom = no straight sex? Bwahahahahaha. Reflects seperationist undertones of your ideology.

Man has sex with woman, woman gets pregnant, wants baby, he
doesnt, man walks away. Confused? Rights and freedoms... exerciced. Feewings have no beawing on weality's ugwy twuths.

Abortion debate is a red herring (its legal). Balance of sexual power is the issue. duh.

Politician Tiny Abutt is stirring the political pot.

Realise distiction between the 'debate' and the deed. She wants one, she gets one, no need to debate nor justify anything to anyone. Least of all a net forum.

Simply stated truth sans fuzzy filters... things that dont effect a person, dont effect a person. Its not that complexcated. Exposing contradictions of the debated red herring illustrates the ruse. You are hoping people cant tell the difference.

People have different outlooks. Thanks for imparting that wisdom. That's lost amongst ideologues who cherry pick the good (rights) and ignore all the rest (responsibilities).

Fuzzy thinking fundies love nebulous concepts like equality. The half-truth is the PERFECT lie. The most potent foundation upon which to construct ideology. Employ it WHEN IT SUITS YOU, tweak the spin when it doesnt.

Credibility. Rare thing for an 'ist' to possess. Double standards dont get taken seriously. You alienate obvious allies, relegating your movement to the shadow boxing of hazy talk-fests.

Used to be one of you. Weight of truth was too much to bare. The essence of your philisopy has some merit. The ways and cynical ends to which you twist it, l cant be part of that anymore. Haggle over titanic deck chairs. Ignore icebergs, especially big ones, most of which are hidden.

Do continue with third-rate attempts to distort by projecting your homo-erotic hangups. Too much fun.

Style, irrelevant. Some are trying to transcend the fog.

Ok, grass hopper, be at one, with your fog.

Life is long and there are brain cells to kill.

Let the byte sized fun continue.