Question about abortion.

"He pecked for food and preened his feathers just like the rest of his barnyard buddies."

This story is complete BS. Yeah right. Pecked with what?
And the fact that it is from 1940 makes me think that even more.
And the owner was cool about it, huh? You wouldnt freak out that the chicken that you beheaded is still alive? And, one more thing, when he chopped it's head off, why did he just leave it there?

And when he chopped off its head, how come it didnt bleed to death? Maybe he was a nuclear powered chicken so he did not have blood. Or maybe, just after cutting his head of, the guy thought: "Oh my God, what have I done? I better try and save this chicken. I will start by stopping the bleeding, then tomorrow I'll try to attach its head back one, right after I finish mating my two-dicked horse with my two-vaginad cow"

Did he have any animals with 4 asses, like Mefesto in South Park :D

"he was a big fat chicken who didn't know he didn't have a head" - "he seemed as happy as any other chicken."

Know it with what? He didn't have a brain to process the thought, nor the eyes to establish that he doesn't have a head (yes, I know that it would require him to look in the mirror :) )

Weak chicken, A turkey would have made it for 28 months. :)

Did anyone actually look it up in guiness to verify it was true?

I asked somebody to do that. They first looked it up in a pint, then in a whole pitcher, then finally in a keg. When they finally came to, they were clutching the base of a porcelain font, and had a duck stuffed down their pants. They reported that they had been unable to find the fact in guiness, but were willing to try other beers.

The duck, of course, had little to say, but he was just a quack anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

Weak chicken, A turkey would have made it for 28 months. :)

Did anyone actually look it up in guiness to verify it was true?

---

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/...recordid=54463

I stay by my comments. The Ahole that added this to the book must have been drunk on his own beer at the time.

What's more, Mike's homepage sasy it was in 1940. The Guiness site says "On September 10, 1945", but, below the picture, under "when" it says 1947.

Quote:

---

I think we can all learn something from 'Mike'... I just don't know what exactly that is yet.

---

How to keep an open mind :bigyello: or maybe just 'If you're a chicken, avoid farmers with axes'

If you want to look something up in guiness, do you need beer goggles?

Quote:

---

What's more, Mike's homepage sasy it was in 1940. The Guiness site says "On September 10, 1945", but, below the picture, under "when" it says 1947.

---

I'd trust the GBWR over the home page, keep in mind that the homepage is a commercial venture someone's set up to sell TShirts and I doubt it's affiliated with Mike in any way (it was just the first link I could find). I do believe the GBWR though, it's not like it's a wikki or something so the entries are presumably well vetted (geddit, 'VETted'). I assume the photo was taken in 47, which is wholly possible if Mike lived for 18 months from September 45.

AAAaaaanyway. Back to the original topic.

I have decided to volunteer at the H5N1 decontamination group, and instead of killing all the infected birds, I'm going to bring them home an chop their heads of and see if they will survive. I'll make test groups of about 100 per species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

I stay by my comments. The Ahole that added this to the book must have been drunk on his own beer at the time.

What's more, Mike's homepage sasy it was in 1940. The Guiness site says "On September 10, 1945", but, below the picture, under "when" it says 1947.

---

It was in Life Magazine Oct 22, 1945 issue.


http://members.aol.com/ddsquirrel/2headlessrooster.jpg

http://www.2neatmagazines.com/life/1945.html
( Do a Edit..Find on Page for 'Headless Rooster' )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baja_yu

I have decided to volunteer at the H5N1 decontamination group, and instead of killing all the infected birds, I'm going to bring them home an chop their heads of and see if they will survive. I'll make test groups of about 100 per species.

---

I stand by my comments... again :D

I'm speechless......and I'll stand by that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

The original post attempts to set up a condradiction (and therefore paradox) of morality that an anti-abortion christian would be unable to answer - presumably in an attempt to debunk their belief system (eg. 'How can it be right while this contradiction exists?'). That contradiction only exists if the christian judges the balance of morality as displayed by the mother to be 'good'. I merely demostrated why, in terms of a christian outlook, the balance would not be 'good', ergo, there is no contradiction and the belief system stands up.

---

But ... if a mother had the intention of sending her child to heaven thus avoiding the possibility of hell ... and knew the consequences of her action yet does it anyway. Isn't it a noble act?

A Christian (Muslim or Jew) might say that it is not up to the Mother to choose. But ... the intention is the same, the effect is the same (child goes to heaven), so wouldn't it still be noble?

Other people say that the premise that the child goes to heaven is wrong, that instead the child goes to limbo because of original Sin. Which brings another point, is it ethical for an unborn child to go to limbo? It had no control over the situation. Is Original Sin ethical?

Not to me it isn't. Original sin is part of the general christian anti-sex litany. Sex is good for everything except humans, apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

But ... if a mother had the intention of sending her child to heaven thus avoiding the possibility of hell ... and knew the consequences of her action yet does it anyway. Isn't it a noble act?

---

No. Read up on free will. It is up to the child to get his/herself into wherever, not the mother. Nobel? What does that have to do with anything? It's about sinner/non sinner.

Quote:

---

A Christian (Muslim or Jew) might say that it is not up to the Mother to choose. But ... the intention is the same, the effect is the same (child goes to heaven), so wouldn't it still be noble?

---

Again, It is not up to the mother. And has nothing to do with your definition of noble.

Quote:

---

Other people say that the premise that the child goes to heaven is wrong, that instead the child goes to limbo because of original Sin. Which brings another point, is it ethical for an unborn child to go to limbo? It had no control over the situation. Is Original Sin ethical?

---

Original sin means that humans are born, inperfect with a predisposition to sin. Mother Theresa, fictional aborted baby, and Ted Bundy were all born with original sin. Theresa followed the rules, Aborted baby didn't do a damn thing right or wrong, Teddie broke damn near every one of the rules.

Theresa and dead fetus will both end up in heavan eventually, teddie is screwed. It's that simple. Acording to those religons.

I think MasterBlaster said just about everything I would have done in response but this debate put me in mind of a psychology paper I read a while back. It basically postulated that humans NEVER commit an act which they themselves believe to be evil because we justify everything we do within our own moral frameworks before we do it. This applies to everything from mothers aborting their children on the basis that 'I could never have given it a happy life' to Dictators committing genocide on the basis that 'These people stand in the way of the greater good and therefore must be eliminated'. Of course, sometimes the moral framework is twisted enough to allow the sort of 'My benefit is more important than yours' decisions that would lead to burglary, for example, but the point is, in the perptrators mind, they have justified it to the point where they don't believe it's an evil act.

If we take that theory you could never judge an act as evil or good on the basis of the intention because the intention will never be evil. It will be, at worst, 'OK'.

I tried to go back and find the paper and a link or something but sadly couldn't so I really won't vouch for it's veracity and I'm sure I've just paraphrased over some of the key points. I think it adds something interesting to the discussion though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I think MasterBlaster said just about everything I would have done in response but this debate put me in mind of a psychology paper I read a while back. It basically postulated that humans NEVER commit an act which they themselves believe to be evil because we justify everything we do within our own moral frameworks before we do it. This applies to everything from mothers aborting their children on the basis that 'I could never have given it a happy life' to Dictators committing genocide on the basis that 'These people stand in the way of the greater good and therefore must be eliminated'. Of course, sometimes the moral framework is twisted enough to allow the sort of 'My benefit is more important than yours' decisions that would lead to burglary, for example, but the point is, in the perptrators mind, they have justified it to the point where they don't believe it's an evil act.

If we take that theory you could never judge an act as evil or good on the basis of the intention because the intention will never be evil. It will be, at worst, 'OK'.

I tried to go back and find the paper and a link or something but sadly couldn't so I really won't vouch for it's veracity and I'm sure I've just paraphrased over some of the key points. I think it adds something interesting to the discussion though.

---

That's ok, I would expect that most people understand this to be the case anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I think MasterBlaster said just about everything I would have done in response but this debate put me in mind of a psychology paper I read a while back. It basically postulated that humans NEVER commit an act which they themselves believe to be evil because we justify everything we do within our own moral frameworks before we do it. This applies to everything from mothers aborting their children on the basis that 'I could never have given it a happy life' to Dictators committing genocide on the basis that 'These people stand in the way of the greater good and therefore must be eliminated'. Of course, sometimes the moral framework is twisted enough to allow the sort of 'My benefit is more important than yours' decisions that would lead to burglary, for example, but the point is, in the perptrators mind, they have justified it to the point where they don't believe it's an evil act.

If we take that theory you could never judge an act as evil or good on the basis of the intention because the intention will never be evil. It will be, at worst, 'OK'.

I tried to go back and find the paper and a link or something but sadly couldn't so I really won't vouch for it's veracity and I'm sure I've just paraphrased over some of the key points. I think it adds something interesting to the discussion though.

---

Very well, a mother carries the baby to term, and gives it up for adoption because she can't afford it. But it isn't adopted to the family practicing the one true religion. The child does not accept the one true religion, therefore, when he/she dies, he/she goes to hell and is tortured for all eternity.

The mother goes to heaven, and is judged a righteous person, and believes in God's judgment.

Is this correct? This has happened.

Oh lighten up ;)

I don't know that all religions feel that non-believers are damned, but that's a major reason why I don't believe in the religions that do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

The mother goes to heaven, and is judged a righteous person, and believes in God's judgment.

Is this correct? This has happened.

---

I hereby hand over my crown, You have officially beat me in the category of posting krap that doesn't make sense. :lol:

Keep this up and you'll suffer Hitler's fate in the movie "Little Nicky". :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

I hereby hand over my crown, You have officially beat me in the category of posting krap that doesn't make sense. :lol:

Keep this up and you'll suffer Hitler's fate in the movie "Little Nicky". :p

---

But if I accept Christ or Muhammed's gosphel as the word of God, that won't happen to me right?

I mean ... I shouldn't because you guy have no proof, your religious texts make no sense, and probably all this stuff is made up.

But ... WHAT IF YOU GUYS ARE RIGHT???

Wouldn't that suck?

ZOMG!!! I must become religious to avoid the possibility of Hell!!!

And after I become religious, I must never think ill of God or religion, because of the fear of Hell!!! Because eternal torture is pretty bad.

:lol: Hehheheh, I hope you like pineapples man :lol:

spiky end first hehe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx

But if I accept Christ or Muhammed's gosphel as the word of God, that won't happen to me right?

I mean ... I shouldn't because you guy have no proof, your religious texts make no sense, and probably all this stuff is made up.

But ... WHAT IF YOU GUYS ARE RIGHT???

Wouldn't that suck?

ZOMG!!! I must become religious to avoid the possibility of Hell!!!

And after I become religious, I must never think ill of God or religion, because of the fear of Hell!!! Because eternal torture is pretty bad.

---

I think you should go talk to a preacher if you're that conflicted. You haven't mentioned which religon you're referring to in all these posts, and you're making sweeping generalizations that don't apply to certain religons at all. In short, you're completely insane. :wave:

Actually, I'd say he's completely sarcastic.

For those of you who are being serious: I don't think there really is a biblical scripture that discusses what was asked, but you just have to realize God is a fair God.

Well, the governor of South Dakota has just signed the abortion ban bill.Man, you can never behold such arrogant power as a fundamentalist christian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

Well, the governor of South Dakota has just signed the abortion ban bill.Man, you can never behold such arrogant power as a fundamentalist christian.

---

Was he not elected by a majority of votes? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

Well, the governor of South Dakota has just signed the abortion ban bill.Man, you can never behold such arrogant power as a fundamentalist christian.

---

First off, you forget, the Senate passed it first: from the other day

Quote:

---

The measure, which passed the state Senate 23 to 12, makes it a felony for doctors to perform any abortion, except to save the life of a pregnant woman. The proposal still must be signed by Gov. Mike Rounds (R), who opposes abortion.

---

Secondly, even though that gov "opposes" abortion:

Quote:

---

In 2004, he vetoed a similar bill

---

Besides being used to save the life of a pregnant woman, what other circumstances would you deem abortion necessary?

What does the Christian faith think about abortion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RSV Bible, Exodus 21,22-25

When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIV Bible, Exodus 21,22-

f men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life . . .

---

Clearly the key phrase (here, in bold) determines what you should believe if you subscribe to a Christian philosophy.

The RSV version implies that if the woman get's hurt then it's 'eye for an eye' time, and apparently gives no value on an unborn child.

The NIV strongly implies life to the unborn child (talking of birth, in this case) and both mother and child are protected.

The linguistic fundamentals of which translation should be trusted conclude

Quote:

---

There is no miscarriage in this text. The child is born pre-maturely and is protected with the same sanctions as the mother. If the child is injured there is to be recompense as with the injury of the mother.

---

. . . and can be found here

Which, on the basis of the same analysis, means that the NIV version is more linguistically accurate, and that the right of life confer to both Mother and Child.

I think Google is amazing at resolving the most simple of questions "What does God think about abortion?" - which was the original question.

Quote:

---

Besides being used to save the life of a pregnant woman, what other circumstances would you deem abortion necessary?

---

The bill also makes it illegal to perform abortions in the event of rape or incest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sevenhalo

The bill also makes it illegal to perform abortions in the event of rape or incest.

---

Are rape and incest not illegal? :confused:

Hey has any one noticed if you highlight a confused smiley it sorta looks like Mr Yuck except purple? :confused:

Those acts are illegal, but the victim no longer has the option of an abortion if she is raped.

The victim is now being forced to contimplate felony charges or have psycological damage beyond any comparison.

If I am murdered do I have the right to contemplate coming back to life?

If you ask me after the crime is comitted, the psycological damage beyond any comparison has already been done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sevenhalo

Those acts are illegal, but the victim no longer has the option of an abortion if she is raped.

The victim is now being forced to contimplate felony charges or have psycological damage beyond any comparison.

---

This is murky grounds, and one which can spawn all sorts of extremes.

Say if, for instance, a women got so drunk that she hadn't realised that she was raped. The following evening she had consensual sex with her husband. Nine months later when the baby came out white instead of black like Mum and Dad they decide to have a paternity test. The husband is found not to be the father.

Does the woman still have the right to destroy the baby on that basis - being that it was a product of rape? Should the woman give the child away to spend a childhood in state care?

Clearly the answer lies at what point a lump of cells dividing becomes a human being and therefore inherits the same right to life as the rest of us.

I understand that this is taking it to it's extreme, and my point is only to state that there is nothing, at all, simple in dealing with cases such as this.

You have to use this in the same way you view the judicial system. It's better for 10 guilty men to go free then have 1 innocent man be sentenced.

What about a person who is out jogging and got attacked. The morning after pill isn't 100% effective (if that isn't being banned with the bill? I don't know), and there is a chance; even if it is slim, that they could still be carrying. By definition, this bill would still make it illegal.

I think the circumstances are murky if nothing else. They really did a horrible job wording what would consitute a valid reason for an operation. All of the words are set to "shoot first, ask question later" instead of some preemptive wording that might help her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I understand that this is taking it to it's extreme, and my point is only to state that there is nothing, at all, simple in dealing with cases such as this.

---

It is simple. Don't get pregnant if you don't want a child. I dont want lock-jaw so I get a tetnas(sp?) shot ervery 6 years or so. I don't want malaria so I get a shot when I go somewhere that there is a chance I can get it. If someone doesn't want a child, why not get a shot once a month to keep it from happening? They are free in the US if you can't afford one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

It is simple. Don't get pregnant if you don't want a child. I dont want lock-jaw so I get a tetnas(sp?) shot ervery 6 years or so. I don't want malaria so I get a shot when I go somewhere that there is a chance I can get it. If someone doesn't want a child, why not get a shot once a month to keep it from happening? They are free in the US if you can't afford one.

---

Ok - and I'm searching for an example here . . .

Say if that the only way to prevent a woman becoming pregnant is by a condom. Are you going to insist that all rapists wear condoms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

If someone doesn't want a child, why not get a shot once a month to keep it from happening?

---

And it's still not that simple. If they wanted a child themselves ?

Under what circumstances should those who engage in incest willingly be allowed to terminate their pregnancy with abortion?

Certainly, if it can be determined that the fetus will be damaged in the extreme physically, I would say that abortion should be allowed, {as with any such circumstance outside of incest}.

But if it is determined that the fetus will develop into a healthy child, then shouldn't it be allowed to live?

Furthur, Why should Abortion be allowed upon the fetus if that fetus was conceived from rape?

Finally, is the "morning after" pill considered abortion there? I hope not.
{edit...I see that has been already questioned...}

MB, that's just... I mean, seriously... You want women to take contraceptives just incase they get raped? I don't even know how to respond to that. There are so many moral grounds, personal freedoms and individual opinions you just trampled on.

But it's your opinion. So... I'll leave it there.

Clearly the answer lies at what point a lump of cells dividing becomes a human being and therefore inherits the same right to life as the rest of us.

That is not the only way to prevent pregnancy. there are hundreds of birth control medications. I'd be willing to bet that at least one will work for a woman without resorting to a jimmy.

If they wanted a child, there, they just got one. Who really cares who the return to owner tag in the DNA belongs to? If you raise the child, you'll always be the one they call mommy or daddy. I'm not down playing the trauma caused by a rape. That is absolutly horrifying to a person. But prenancy and rape are two different beasts. They should not be mixed legally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sevenhalo

MB, that's just... I mean, seriously... You want women to take contraceptives just incase they get raped? I don't even know how to respond to that. There are so many moral grounds, personal freedoms and individual opinions you just trampled on.

But it's your opinion. So... I'll leave it there.

---

No, I want women who do not want children to take contraceptives. I apologize if I didn't get my point across clearly. I have no problem trampeling on moral grounds if it keeps me from trampeling on common sense.

A child of rape is a memory of that experience that will last forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

No, I want women who do not want children to take contraceptives. I apologize if I didn't get my point across clearly. I have no problem trampeling on moral grounds if it keeps me from trampeling on common sense.

---

My eleven year old daughter is very likely to start menstruating in the next year.

She is too young for medical contraceptives to be prescribed, or bought, as it's illegal for her to have intercourse (thank goodness)

What do you suggest, MB?

Rape in itself is an experience of hell that will last for ever. The child had no say in the matter. If a person is too much of a sissiebiatch to think about someone other than themselvs and end the life of a potentially successfull law abiding citizen to make themselvs feel better about something horrible that happended to them, well I guess I stand corrected. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

My eleven year old daughter is very likely to start menstruating in the next year.

She is too young for medical contraceptives to be prescribed, or bought, as it's illegal for her to have intercourse (thank goodness)

What do you suggest, MB?

---

Are you not her father? Have you checked you local sex offender registry yet? Do you screen her friends, phone calls, internet usage? Do you know where she is and who she is with every second of the day?

Are you being sarcastic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

Are you not her father? Have you checked you local sex offender registry yet? Do you screen her friends, phone calls, internet usage? Do you know where she is and who she is with every second of the day?

---

She is going to New York for 10 days this October: I am not going with her, and neither is her mother. I have placed my faith in the ability of her teachers to be surrogate parents. If one of those does not live up to 'standard' and she gets into some sort of trouble (unlikely, I know) then I cannot subscribe to your philosophy that if she didn't want to get pregnant she should have loaded her body with hormones to prevent it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

Are you being sarcastic?

---

To you, yes:p

to yrwyddfa absolutly no sarcasm there. I checked the registry in my state and damn near had a heart attack. The world is an ugly place unfortunatly. parents have the responsibility to protect their children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

to yrwyddfa absolutly no sarcasm there. I checked the registry in my state and damn near had a heart attack. The world is an ugly place unfortunatly. parents have the responsibility to protect their children.

---

I've worked in the Prison System in the UK; I am well aware of how ugly the world really is. (Tabloids haven't even started to get close, btw - nor has your local registry; that's just the tip of the iceberg)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

She is going to New York for 10 days this October: I am not going with her, and neither is her mother. I have placed my faith in the ability of her teachers to be surrogate parents. If one of those does not live up to 'standard' and she gets into some sort of trouble (unlikely, I know) then I cannot subscribe to your philosophy that if she didn't want to get pregnant she should have loaded her body with hormones to prevent it.

---

If she was going to visit the south american rain forrest for 10 days would you not get her a malaria shot? I guess my point is, people look at birth control like it is a big deal. It's not. It's not like they're pumping her full of horse amphetemines(sp) and making her run around a race track or record a Black Sabbath album. At the worst, her meunnstration cycle will be regulated to a consistant scheduel and you will know exactly when to, get the hell out of the house for a few days.

Yes, but accodring to yrwyddfa it is impossible to legally obtain contraceptives for her at her age (Understadnably). So by your logic what are you supposed to do in that case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

Yes, but accodring to yrwyddfa it is impossible to legally obtain contraceptives for her at her age (Understadnably). So by your logic what are you supposed to do in that case?

---

How the hell is it "(understandably)" illegal for a girl capable to concieve a child to safely prevent herself from having an unwanted child?

Do it the old school way. Foller her around with a shotgun until she's 18 years old. I don't know man. I don't know the law in the UK. In the US, It is not illegal. It has to be prescribed by a doctor. So let me get this straight. In the UK it is illegal for an underage girl to prevent pregnancy using medication but is legal for her to get an abortion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

How the hell is it "(understandably)" illegal for a girl capable to concieve a child to safely prevent herself from having an unwanted child?

Do it the old school way. Foller her around with a shotgun until she's 18 years old. I don't know man. I don't know the law in the UK. In the US, It is not illegal. It has to be prescribed by a doctor. So let me get this straight. In the UK it is illegal for an underage girl to prevent pregnancy using medication but is legal for her to get an abortion?

---

I am not prepared to argue this, anymore.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion; and I am mine.

To reiterate: I do not believe it should be necessary to load my daughters body full of hormones to mitigate the risk of rape and subsequent pregnancy. If you think this is the right thing to do in any legal, moral, of religious sense then that's up to you. I simply do not think this is right

sorry to bother you ppl, i am not a regular member of world events, but i have been reading this thread, few posts only and no sarcasm, no offence, but the topic is full of foolishness, and i can't believe that there are ppl in world like MasterBlaster.

@MasterBlaster,

firstly, what you said is your view, and what i might say in few sec. mins, are my views, but it is not logical; on moral, psychological grounds, on grounds of mutual understanding, mutual respect among children & parents (or between spouses), for women to take contraceptives.

1) how can you relate rape/ pregnancy with dieseases like malaria? :confused:

2) you also questioned the freedom / positive thinking of women in whole.
it's like just stay at home from the fear of being hurt in a major accident, dont buy anything in life from the fear that someone will destroy it, dont earn money because someone will steal it.

3) even women have right to enjoy freedom equally. do you take necessary precautions when you step out of your home in the morning.

probably NO, because you are positive that nothing will happen to you.

4) even if it is legal to get contraceptives at any age, it is not seriously good for little girl's health. i dont know if i am right, but even prolonged use of contraceptive pills results in degradation in health of 30+ women, thats why medics suggests husband's to undergo the surgery if they dont want more children.

5) i dont know your definiton of rape, but for me, forced sexual course by a women, even if the convicted is women's husband is rape.

what yrwyddfa said is true and completly relevant, it's a matter of understanding and good positive attitude that nothing will happen to her daughter.

Harsh Gupta (sorry for being sarcastic, your posts made me)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I am not prepared to argue this, anymore.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion; and I am mine.

To reiterate: I do not believe it should be necessary to load my daughters body full of hormones to mitigate the risk of rape and subsequent pregnancy. If you think this is the right thing to do in any legal, moral, of religious sense then that's up to you. I simply do not think this is right

---

Did I say "mitigate the risk of rape and subsequent pregnancy"? No, I said to "mitigate the risk of pregnancy". Period, in any woman old enough to have a child and who does not want one.

No unwanted pregnancies = no need for abortions

Now if there is a doctor in the house to see if
- effects of abortion >= -effects of birth control

BTW no one answered my question:
In the UK it is illegal for an underage girl to prevent pregnancy using medication but is legal for her to get an abortion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harsh Gupta

sorry to bother you ppl, i am not a regular member of world events, but i have been reading this thread, few posts only and no sarcasm, no offence, but the topic is full of foolishness, and i can't believe that there are ppl in world like MasterBlaster.

@MasterBlaster,

firstly, what you said is your view, and what i might say in few sec. mins, are my views, but it is not logical; on moral, psychological grounds, on grounds of mutual understanding, mutual respect among children & parents (or between spouses), for women to take contraceptives.

1) how can you relate rape/ pregnancy with dieseases like malaria? :confused:

---

It's preventable just like malaria and that was my basis for the comparison. Don't try to think to much into it. and for the 10th fooking time, I was speaking of pregnancy in general, not just rape related.

Quote:

---

2) you also questioned the freedom / positive thinking of women in whole.
it's like just stay at home from the fear of being hurt in a major accident, dont buy anything in life from the fear that someone will destroy it, dont earn money because someone will steal it.

---

I am not questioning freedom. If a woman does not want a child, pardon me if I think it is much eaiser to "Not get pregnant in the first place" than to get pregnant and have to go throug an invasive surgery. I know that it is possible to have severed limbs reattached but I am not going to stick my finger in a running lawn mower to clear a clog.

Quote:

---

3) even women have right to enjoy freedom equally. do you take necessary precautions when you step out of your home in the morning.
probably NO, because you are positive that nothing will happen to you.

---

Yes, every morning I do not open my front door, then jump in front of a bus.

Quote:

---

4) even if it is legal to get contraceptives at any age, it is not seriously good for little girl's health. i dont know if i am right, but even prolonged use of contraceptive pills results in degradation in health of 30+ women, thats why medics suggests husband's to undergo the surgery if they dont want more children.

---

Really? wow, thanks for the info Dr. contraceptives are commonly used in young women for reasons other than to prevent pregnancy.

Quote:

---

5) i dont know your definiton of rape, but for me, forced sexual course by a women, even if the convicted is women's husband is rape.

---

WTH does that have to do with anything? I was not defining rape.


There are two sides to the abortion argument. The only way to settle it is to find an alternative solution. Personally, I could care less if you get knocked up and decide to get a kid cut out of you. Not my problem. I'm not for or against the laws concerning abortion. IMHO, It is a subject that shouldn't even be considered for a law. . I was just suggesting that there may be an eaiser way.

and in response to your personal insult. Please read the rules for this forum and then kiss my arse.