Welcome to Gaia! ::

Aye, as part of the Alliance, I admit that the only Abortion thread there is highly unused. You know, I used to highly dislike I.Am, but he's a great guy! And yummy too, if you chew on his head in the right places. 4laugh

((If you check out the guild, you'll see a topic about Women's Thong Underwear, the Sickening Thiness of Models, our favorite books, and best of all, WHY PANTS ARE SO EVIL! gonk ))

Is a virus or a bactiera a human? I don't beleive in the concept of personhood so such a thing dosn't matter to me, only humanity. SInce a virus is not human, then I see nothing wrong with wiping it out of existence. So, no, even if it was consentuale sex and she contracted some form of STD, I see no problem with her tyring to get treatment for it.

And once again, your perception comes form the idea that the woman's comfert is worth more then the life of the human she (more often then not) willing went throug a process that caused its creation. We think more about life. So, no, we don't think more about the fetus. We think more about the life of that fetus. It dosn't seem to me that you are grasping the concept of life over comfterbility. Why is one human's comfert worth more then another human's life? Thats what we see. We do not see a mother, we do not see a fetus. What we see our humans, one of whom is saying her comfert trumps the life of the other.

No one ever said that the human concieved through rape didn't deserve life (except for quite a bit of the choicers). You simply assumed that. Where as rape is tragic and I feel every atempt should be made to convince that woman to keep the child as it is guilty of absolutly nothing other then coming into existence at an innopropriate moment in an inopertune time, and that every atempt should be made to try and make the woman comfertable with the pregnancy, the fact is, like the blood transfuison argument, if she did not participate in the cause, she should not be completly held responcible. The thing is, hardly any of us support abortion done in case of rape. Many of us however beleive that since she did not concent to the sex, she did not consent to somthign that caused the creation of the child with in her, she isn't responcible, even thouhg the child deserves life and love as much as she does.

I disagree with everything I have just said, and i do not in any way support abortion done for rape, but what can I say? It was all forced on her, was it not?

I'd be glad to toss any of you that want to join, an invite. I'm currently more WoW addicted than usual, so Peer is running the show. He's toned down alot though, love him for that really.

You cannot compare a non-human organism to a human organism. Unless you believe that they should have equal rights to humans. Meaning unless that you think it should be ILLEGAL to kill them, you cannot say "Well if she got [enter whatever here], you don't disagree with her getting rid of that."

Also a virus isn't alive, scientifically. Basic biology. So you cannot actually kill a virus, because it's not alive to be killed.

Now I speak from a legal stand-point, pretty much always. Because as most people in here know, my mother is a lawyer. So I grew up learning about things in a legality sort of way.

Legally speaking, in order for abortion to become illegal there would have to be some sort of proof that the mother has responsibility to take care of the child (continue the pregnancy). Now if it was possible, in the case of rape, if a child was concieved I'd be all, "The father should have to carry the child, since he is solely responsible for its existance." however because you cannot do that, and (obviously) the mother has no responsibility for, or part in, the conception of the child there is no proof of responsibility for it.

I feel like I'm rambling, and I apologise. Another way to think of it, if that made no sense what-so-ever is a car crash. Now this will have to be a magical car crash because pregnancy cannot be completely replicated, however imagine an instance where you're speeding down the highway. You're not drunk but maybe going a little bit fast (to replicate the risk involved) and you have your seatbelt on all that fun stuff. Now imagine that because you're going so fast that you fail to realise that you're on the wrong side of the road and crash into another car.

Somehow you both magically survive only when you wake up, you're short a kidney. Not because it was taken from you but it just magically disappeared and ended up inside of the person whose car you crashed into. Now because you crashed into their car, say you destroyed both of their kidney's and somehow if they have yours for the next 40 weeks they can re-develop their own and yours will come back to you, once again magically. If you were to take this person to court and say "I want my kidney back." firstly I highly doubt you would win the case. Secondly, even if you did win the case you would be charged with manslaughter, in the very least. Because it was due to your actions that the person became dependant on a part of your body and then once again it was due to your actions that they were killed.

Now this works, because you can prove in court that you have a responsibility to this person's life because it's due to your actions that they're in that state. However in the case of rape think of all of that happening once more, only this time you're driving safely, on your side of the road and now you have someone ramming you with their car onto the other side of the road where it all begins again. This is not your fault. This means that in court they could not prove that you would have a responsibility towards the person who now has your kidney and you have a much higher chance of being able to get it back.

However I would still consider it extremely immoral and unethical to force the person to give it back. But I don't think that legally we could bar them from the ability to do so.

Oh no, they wouldn't have stolen it. They would have had no part in it what-so-ever, infact no one would have. It just would have kinda magically have been given to them. It could never happen this way, of course. However like I said, nothing completely mimics pregnancy.

Edit: Though I agree. I had a coworker whose granddaughter was having kidney problems and the doctor's thought she migt need a transplant, so I went into my doctor's and asked if there was any way I'd be able to give her my kidney if she needed it and he family couldn't. Turns out that it's EXTREMELY difficult to match a kidney well enough that it won't reject, even within the family. And they never match perfectly. So chances that I could actually donate to her and have it match were extremely slim, but it turned out that she recovered without needing a transplant.

Not her comfort. Her ownership of her body.

That's the thing though. Pro-Choicers DO see a woman and a fetus. That is what the problem is. We are looking at indivuals involved, and you seem to be looking more at what you view to be the larger picture.

Pro-Lifers seem to be more conserned with keeping the fetus alive than any other aspect of the situation that the woman is in and that the fetus will live in once born. That is why I say that it looks to me as though Pro-Lifers pay more attention to the fetus.

But fine. If it means so much to you for me to be incorrect, I'm wrong. It doesn't look that way. I am completely mistaken and you are correct. How dare I make an observation about a group of people I have been paying attention to that you don't completely agree with. Go off and find some other person to pick on to make yourself feel better. Once again I'm allowing the anger I see in your posts to get to me too much, so I'm going to put you back on my ignore list, for my own mental wellbeing. I'm sorry that I can't say anything that doesn't annoy you, and I'm sorry that I'm unable to handle your words and so I just can't read them anymore.

I wasn't comparing human life to any other sort of life. I was assuming that Pyro and divine didn't equate human life with other sorts of life. And so stating that I was under the impression that the consequences of sex only should not be changed in any way if a human fetus was involved, rather than pubic lice or some other sort of life.

Oops! My mistake. I wasn't thinking. Thanks for pointing that out.

My boyfriend's father is a lawyer.

I'd sort of like to see some proof that having sex indicated that the woman would need to be responsible for any resulting pregnancies. I don't think this is likely to happen, but it would make abortion illegal.

It would still be my right to demand my kidney back. I wouldn't, but it would be my right.

In this case, manslaughter would be a proper charge. But in the case of pregnancy, the fetus dies due to all fetii being unable to survive outside of the womb. My removing it isn't what causes it to die, my having sex isn't what caused it to be unable to survive out of the womb. While I see what you are getting at, I don't think that people who choose to abort should be charged with manslaughter.

I think that I wouldn't want my kidney back either in this case, but I do think it would be my right to demand it back.