To prevent pregnancy and abortion, we have this pill, but you're not allowed to use it. Enjoy having to raise that illegitimate child.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4923665/

"The Food and Drug Administration cited concern about young teenagers’ use of the pills in rejecting the move Thursday.

The decision overruled a recommendation from FDA’s own scientific advisers, who had overwhelmingly called easier access to emergency contraception a safe way to prevent thousands of abortions."

"To prevent pregnancy and abortion, we have this pill, but you're not allowed to use it"

To prevent pregnancy and abortion, you need to learn about pregnancy and abortion. This pill would actually result in more teen pregnancy and pregnancy in general. It would make your act of being a slut(male or female)much easier. Prevent pregnancy and abortion by education. Try to find a solution rather than way to make people less responsible. Here's a news flash for you. "Sexual intercourse has been determined as the number one cause of pregnancy." If there is anyone on this planet who hasn't heard this news, please pass it on to them. Convenience abortions should be illegal!!! Face your consequences.

By posting that topic, I didn't say "I doubt the efficiency of sexual education and it's ability to educate teenagers on sex." This link should be self explanatory:
http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/brates.asp
My position: I think sexual education is important when taught to a reasonable and responsive age group so that it will create responsible and intelligent women.

Here's something else to wrap your head around. This pill stops STDs? I had no clue! Hand me a million of this panacea so I can get to work.
The risk of STDs coupled with education should be enough to hinder "sluthood." Like I said, I don't doubt a responsible, sexually educated woman of her chastity. I'm sorry if I give them more credit than paranoia.

Quote: "This pill would actually result in more teen pregnancy and pregnancy in general."
You'll have to explain this logic. What's this pill do again?

My point is that an obvious compromise to the abortion issue falls flat because of management and (supposedly) administration.

Those numbers are deceiving. They represent the actual number of births not pregnancies, though pregnancies are also declining, which is good.

The birth rate in 2002 was 43 births per 1000 teens 12-19 yrs., down from 66 in 1970.

Teen pregnancy however, is at 90 per 1000 teens ages 12-19

The large difference between births and pregnancy is representive of the increase in abortions. We need to work to lower the pregnancy numbers, not the birth numbers. Out of every 1000 teens(12-19 yrs.) 90 become pregnant and 47 of those results in an abortion!

This pill is not a contraceptive. It's nothing more than a chemical abortion, and I am pro-life all the way, with no comprimise on this issue. This pill makes an abortion more convenient and less costly. If the pill is there the woman knows she can go to the store tomorrow or the next day, to get her abortion pill. This won't prevent pregnancies, it will only do what abortion is already doing, taking an innocent life.

http://www.abortbypill.com/

Folic acid for pregnancy:

http://www.softecare.com/Ingredients/folic_acid_spina_bifida.cfm



Omega3 fatty acids for pregnancy:

http://www.softecare.com/Ingredients/omega-3_fetal_development

How about closing your f*ing legs to prevent pregnancy?? Women have a lot to lose by having premarital sex so they should be more responsible. men don't get pregnant and cary a child for nine months so women should exercise a little more descretion, ey? either the woman has the child or lives with the guilt of an abortion for the rest of her life. just common sense talking..

Which was a point that was already discussed...

The topic basically came to a head when it hit on the personal beliefs of how a person measures this pill. (an abortion or an emergency aid to prevent a lifetime of guilt from a mistake) The discussion isn't going to move much further from there considering people don't usually change their belief system on the issue of abortion.

Alot of people seem to forget that humans are fallible. Then again, that last post pretty much proves it.

There isn't any pregnancy that should be considered a mistake. There is a thought process that is involved when you make the decision to have sex. There's no excuse for an unwanted baby when you know how easily it is to prevent pregnancy. It's grossly irresponsible. When you remove the consequences that are involved the lesson will never be learned, and people will continue to do the same wrong thing over and over. (by 'wrong thing' I mean sex.) The problem will only get bigger.

"(an abortion or an emergency aid to prevent a lifetime of guilt from a mistake)"

That's backwards. An abortion means living your lifetime with guilt. Wondering if you killed a boy or a girl. Wondering if the baby resembled you. Wondering and regretting.

How about the destruction of your childhood because the government wouldn't let you have control over your own body and wouldn't let you abort a child given to you by a rapist? Again, personal beliefs; we're going to end up arguing at walls.

granted, my section in quotes was in response to Jason's post. Sorry if it comes off as my own personal belief.

There isn't any pregnancy that should be considered a mistake. There is a thought process that is involved when you make the decision to have sex. There's no excuse for an unwanted baby when you know how easily it is to prevent pregnancy. It's grossly irresponsible...

By and large I agree with everything you've said. Pregnancy is easily avoidable, and having dropped the ball there, adoption is a loving last chance.

BUT...

Can you legislate these ideals? Should you legislate these ideals? Murder is the ultimate denial of one's rights but it deals ONLY with the concept that one life is taken. A pregnancy involves more than just the life of the child and childbirth is ALWAYS a risk to the mother's life. Please don't give me your magnanimous abortion right exception when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. The fact of the matter is that the process of giving birth is a risk to the mother's life regardless and many women die giving birth every year who's pregancies aren't considered 'high risk'. Can you pass a law compelling women to take that risk? Can you site any other legal precedence that compells any type of risk- with regards to a person's body-for the benefit or sake of another?

I know exactly which side of this issue I stand on morally and ethically. But legally...I'm not sure.

I think alot of people worry of the impact this pill would have when offered openly on the market. Personally, I don't think it will make that big of a splash. The pill is already nicknamed the "whore pill." Not many women would want to be affiliated in that respect. The threat of STDs is still rampant and many of those diseases are still untreatable. The population that remains cautious for that reason should still be cautious after this pill is introduced. If the question of virgins comes into play, many women will hold their chastity in high regard. The age of consent should still be around 18 all over the US. Improve sexual education immediately before and throughout high school and I believe you'll still have responsible young adults. The online statistics I posted further up should be reassurance that education is actually improving. Anybody who abuses this pill to a large extent will definitely feel the repercussions of their actions, even if it does not have to come out as the introduction of a new life that has the possibility of following in their mother's footsteps. I believe how well a person is raised is often expressed through how wanted a child is, and I believe every child should have a happy home. Youth are highly suggestable. The manipulation of youth towards religious violence should show these signs. It's much easier to dispel adversity when the person was not raised with it implanted in their youth. It's infinitely harder to raise a mistaken pregnancy into a great person. If a mistaken pregnancy is a "lesson" to teach, then more than likely the lesson will have to be taught to the "lesson", and therefore be carried thoughout the generations. I don't want a person's life to be no more than somebody's "lesson," nor do I want there to be infinite generations of children raised as "lessons" rather than people.

If this comes off as some type of second rate eugenics program, I had not intended it to be conveyed that way. "Happy home" is just a simple concept I am trying to introduce as a primer for values with which a child is commonly raised. There is some value to the preservation of family principles, no?

"That's backwards. An abortion means living your lifetime with guilt. Wondering if you killed a boy or a girl. Wondering if the baby resembled you. Wondering and regretting."

If the mother would consider all of these things, why would they abort the child in the first place? Nobody is forcing them to abort the child. What you provided doesn't seem like an example of an unwanted pregnancy.

"A pregnancy involves more than just the life of the child and childbirth is ALWAYS a risk to the mother's life. Please don't give me your magnanimous abortion right exception when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. The fact of the matter is that the process of giving birth is a risk to the mother's life regardless and many women die giving birth every year who's pregancies aren't considered 'high risk'"

I'm not into playing cute little games here, so if you are really just a moron, fine, but it seems you have at least some level of comprehension. Can you comprehend the difference between a known life threatening illness or condition, from the general risks of giving birth?

"How about the destruction of your childhood because the government wouldn't let you have control over your own body and wouldn't let you abort a child given to you by a rapist? "

Well, first of all being raped when your a child would pretty much rain on your parade. I don't think many people would argue against terminating a pregnancy of a rape victim.

I am against inconvenience abortions. I know some women who have had several abortions, most of them based on their bank account and social arrangements(employment, housing).
When you become pregnant, there are now TWO people involved, three if the male is still involved. Babies are created by/from two people, for those two people. There's no equal rights here though. He has just as much right too the baby as the woman. If women don't think so, then why do they force the male to pay if he doesn't want a child. The man is held at the mercy of the woman, that's not right.

Are you ignorant to how vulnerable the mother and child are during childbirth? Have you heard of the deaths of mothers after the childbirth due to the pregnancy? There's a reason why people go to a hospital during labor. If you suggest everyone get it done in a taxi cab, well I can't help your thought process there. If the pregnancy is prevented early on, you never even run into the case of a surgical abortion or unwanted labor, leaving out both life-threatening opportunities. You should stop measuring two life-threatening things. You'll begin saying "but we're not as bad as Saddam!"

"The online statistics I posted further up should be reassurance that education is actually improving."

WHAT STATISTICS??? The only thing your statistics show is that the rate of abortion has dramatically increased every year for almost 20 years. WHAT STATISTICS!!!!?????

What education is improving? The directions to get to the abortion clinics????

"Teen birth is down."

Ya, no schit, that's what happens when you have more abortions. However teen pregnancy continues to soar.

"The most common age group for abortions continues to be 20 to 24 years followed by those aged 25 to 29 and then teenagers 15 years and older."

This is from a previous post above:
Those numbers are deceiving. They represent the actual number of births not pregnancies, though pregnancies are also declining, which is good.

The birth rate in 2002 was 43 births per 1000 teens 12-19 yrs., down from 66 in 1970.

Teen pregnancy however, is at 90 per 1000 teens ages 12-19

"The large difference between births and pregnancy is representive of the increase in abortions. We need to work to lower the pregnancy numbers, not the birth numbers. Out of every 1000 teens(12-19 yrs.) 90 become pregnant and 47 of those results in an abortion! "

--------------------------------------------------------
Abortion figures on the rise

Jun 15, 2004

New figures show the number of women having abortions is continuing to rise with the highest number yet being recorded in 2003.

"The most common age group for abortions continues to be 20 to 24 years followed by teenagers 15 years and older, and then those aged 25 to 29."

"abortion rates have increased for all age groups over the past decade, ranging from a 70% jump in the 20-24 age bracket through to a 40% increase for those aged 15-19."

Education?

"There's no equal rights here though. He has just as much right too the baby as the woman. If women don't think so, then why do they force the male to pay if he doesn't want a child. The man is held at the mercy of the woman, that's not right."

I feel Jerry Springer situations coming on. It's a situation of disagreement, much like a disagreement over what home to buy. That level of family argument is definitely at the fault of both parties for not explicitly judging beforehand what to do in that situation. Nobody should be held at each others' mercy, but it is equally his fault for not predicting it.

If the abortion is an inconvenience, I wouldn't want that reflected in the child's upbringing.

Teen pregnancy is going down you idiot. I like how you can't read, especially when I provided the link and the person in the post you quoted explicitly agreed that TEEN PREGNANCY IS GOING DOWN. Abortion/birth comes after pregnancy, meaning less teenagers are getting pregnant in the first place. THIS PILL ISN'T IN THE OPEN MARKET YET meaning the "chemical abortions" aren't occuring in the statistics. I never thought idiots were so rampant these days.

"If the abortion is an inconvenience, I wouldn't want that reflected in the child's upbringing."

*If the abortion is made out of inconvenience

You wrote:
"the person in the post you quoted explicitly agreed that TEEN PREGNANCY IS GOING DOWN. Abortion/birth comes after pregnancy, meaning less teenagers are getting pregnant in the first place. "

No it doesn't you moron! Abortions are higher than ever!!
It means more of them are having abortions. Thats what the statistics show.
Oh my are you stupid or what!!?? What are you on. I suggest you click on that link "you" provided and read the caption above the chart,

it reads.........
"Chart below reflects births per 1000 teen girls aged 15-19. Numbers have been rounded to nearest whole number.)"

births, not pregnancies,
Here is your link retard:
http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/brates.asp

Notice how your link ends with "/brates" that means birth rate not "/prates" which means pregnancy rates.
You definately win first place in the moron category.

"Quote: ***MY QUOTE*** "This pill would actually result in more teen pregnancy and pregnancy in general."

You asked:
"You'll have to explain this logic. What's this pill do again?"

Wow are you dumb, dumb squared(dumb x dumb)
This pill aborts a pregnancy, it doesn't prevent it-STUPID.

Condoms, contaceptives, spermicides, sponges and anal sex will prevent pregnancy. Get out your dictionary and look up prevent and abort. This abortion pill prevents birth, not pregnancy.
Man are you grossly moronic! You don't get pregnant after birth. You have to be pregnant first, which is my point. We need to work on preventing pregnancy, then there wouldn't be a such a huge problem with abortions.

you wrote:
"the person in the post you quoted explicitly agreed that TEEN PREGNANCY IS GOING DOWN. "


Well, the genius who made that post happens to be me! During the period that that data represents there was an insignificant decline in pregnancy. I should have been clearer. That just shows how willing people are to support something as fact without even verifying it. I don't go by anyone's word. You should look at this as a lesson learned so you can avoid being disgraced again in the future. Pregnancies declined very little, especially after you see the enourmous increase in pregnancy through the 1980's into the early 1990's and peaked at an all time high in 1993 with 117 pregnancies per 1000 teens 15-19 years of age. Include include the data to encompass teens from 12-19 and the numbers go even higher. Those poll numbers had been compiled over two decades and some institutes compiled information reflecting 3 decades. One institutes findings was as of 2000, and the other institute quoted numbers indicative to the 2 decades prior to and ending in 2002.

Please note the date of the recent data that I posted today, you will see when this report came out(today!). Also note that the data I compiled in my original post also included younger teens. Unlike the data that your link provides(15-19 year olds)and only provides births*, my numbers included 12-19 year old pregnancies against birth rate, which gives you the rate of abortion. If you look a little closer you will see

I wrote:
"New figures*** (NEW) show the number of women having abortions is continuing to rise with the highest number yet being recorded in 2003.

"The most common age group for abortions continues to be 20 to 24 years followed by teenagers 15 years and older, and then those aged 25 to 29."

"abortion rates have increased for all age groups over the past decade, ranging from a 70% jump in the 20-24 age bracket through to a 40% increase for those aged 15-19."

****that was my entire post,it doesn't even mention pregnancy or births. You really don't understand the differences between pregnancy and birth!!! Those statistics are also across all age groups, not only teens.

Your quote:
"If the pregnancy is prevented early on, you never even run into the case of a surgical abortion or unwanted labor, leaving out both life-threatening opportunities."

You are so dumb you give retards a bad name. You truly have to be one of the stupidist people I have ever come across.

You:
"If the pregnancy is prevented early on"

Well gee, when else could you prevent it. Do you even know what the word prevent means? Prevent means it never happens. You don't become pregnant in the first place. What galaxy are you from??

I wrote:
"Can you comprehend the difference between a known life threatening illness or condition, from the general risks of giving birth?"

You replied with this moronic statement:
"Are you ignorant to how vulnerable the mother and child are during childbirth? Have you heard of the deaths of mothers after the childbirth due to the pregnancy? There's a reason why people go to a hospital during labor. If you suggest everyone get it done in a taxi cab, well I can't help your thought process there. "

You truly do not understand the differences between a life threatening situation in which you have no choice other than an abortion in order to save the life of the mother.... and the general risks that are assossiated with child birth. You cannot comprehend the difference. Pathetic!

You:
"you never even run into the case of a surgical abortion or unwanted labor, leaving out both life-threatening opportunities."

English isn't your first language is it? Other than RU486(abortion pill) there is no such thing as a nonsurgical abortion. Every abortion, early or late, is considered a surgical procedure. Maybe you are referring to partial birth abortion.??

Unwanted labor??? I can't stop laughing. I've never heard someone say that before. What does that mean?

"If the abortion is done because of inconvenience, I wouldn't want that reflected in the child's upbringing."

Are you suggesting that the child is going to have a difficult upbringing because it's parents wanted to abort it due to social and financial circumstances?

By your theory every child who has bad parents
should have been aborted!!!

I feel a little bad disgracing you like this because you cleary have a learning disability of some type. I know it is not nice to pick on the retarded or the uneducatable hydrocephaly impared people.

RYAN:
Your just as stupid as this guy. Are you brothers?

You:
"A pregnancy involves more than just the life of the child and childbirth is ALWAYS a risk to the mother's life. Please don't give me your magnanimous abortion right exception when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. The fact of the matter is that the process of giving birth is a risk to the mother's life regardless and many women die giving birth every year who's pregancies aren't considered 'high risk'."

You also have no understanding of the differences between a diagnosed life threatning condition that requires an abortion to save the life of the mother, and the general risks and complications of a child birth, which are always there. But there is a big difference between the fear of the general risks of child birth and a diagnosed life threatening condition that warrants an abortion. You and your brother just don't get it.

Hey!!! Don't insult me by coming at me with no knowledge of the facts. I only state facts that I find myself. I don't make reference to anyone else's posts unless I have verified them myself through my own research, and I do that in order to avoid what you and your hydrocephalic brother just walked straight into.

Are both of your hydrocephalic craniums conjoined??

I'm not into playing cute little games here, so if you are really just a moron, fine, but it seems you have at least some level of comprehension. Can you comprehend the difference between a known life threatening illness or condition, from the general risks of giving birth?

What's the difference to the woman? If you say that the general, uncomplicated risk of donating part of your liver results in 1 death in a 100 procedures, does that make the risk insignificant? Should that allow the government to compell donation so long as your odds aren't any worse than that 'general risk' number?

1400 women die giving birth everyday. While that's a world-wide figure and Americans suffer a lower, disproportionate number of fatalities (1 in 6000 births in the US results in death to the mother), do you have the right to force that 'general risk of childbirth' on anyone?

(No due respect, but your point lacks any discernable merit. Try to put a little more thought into your posts, otherwise you're just wasting bandwidth for someone doing something more worthwhile...like surfing porn. Moron)

Personally I'm still on the fence. While the child is the only innocent part of the equation he/she is not the only part of the equation as many Pro-lifers would have you believe. I think it's valuable to look at the issue from both points of view, not just the child's.

I will admit to being guilty of missing the note that the pregnancy data included the abortions because I have the balls to admit a mistake.

"You:
"If the pregnancy is prevented early on"

Well gee, when else could you prevent it. Do you even know what the word prevent means? Prevent means it never happens. You don't become pregnant in the first place."

OMG you figured out what I meant by that! AMAZING! Remember, we were talking about Sex-ed? Nevermind, it's too much of a task to keep you on one idea.

"Notice how your link ends with "/brates" that means birth rate not "/prates" which means pregnancy rates."

I told you it was on the same site. Excuse me if you need things spelled in speghetti o's.

"This pill aborts a pregnancy, it doesn't prevent it-STUPID."

I already made it explicit that I consider it an emergency contraceptive. You really lack in the reading department. Do you need the definition for contraceptive too?

"Other than RU486(abortion pill) there is no such thing as a nonsurgical abortion."

Hey genius, what did you think I was talking about when I specified that? hmm...

"Are you suggesting that the child is going to have a difficult upbringing because it's parents wanted to abort it due to social and financial circumstances?"

good lord, I thought you'd express some intelligence and know that a birth that is fostered through planning involves sacrifice. You're so busy thinking one sided that you can't even see anything logically anymore.

I'm pretty sure you're the one saying all Muslims need to die too, but are too cowardly to stick your name out. It's called hypocrisy my friend. All your bombs with Bush's seal of approval were dropping on Iraqi children. Why don't you fight for their rights?

"Unwanted labor??? I can't stop laughing. I've never heard someone say that before. What does that mean?"

delirious already.

unwanted - not wanted; not needed;
labor - The process by which childbirth occurs, beginning with contractions of the uterus and ending with the expulsion of the fetus or infant and the placenta.

I can't stop laughing either. You couldn't put two words together in your pea-brain and you expect me to give you credability. That's a laugh!

The whore pill isn't on the market yet most intelligent one.

last post mine again.

"emergency contraceptive"

It's not a contraceptive moron

"What's the difference to the woman? If you say that the general, uncomplicated risk of donating part of your liver results in 1 death in a 100 procedures, does that make the risk insignificant? Should that allow the government to compell donation so long as your odds aren't any worse than that 'general risk' number? "

You still don't get it.
You also have no understanding of the differences between a diagnosed life threatning condition that requires an abortion to save the life of the mother, and the general risks and complications of a child birth, which are always there. But there is a big difference between the fear of the general risks of child birth and a diagnosed life threatening condition that warrants an abortion. You and your brother just don't get it.

You don't believe there are greater or lesser risks involving health and illnesses? They're all equal?

"1400 women die giving birth everyday. While that's a world-wide figure and Americans suffer a lower, disproportionate number of fatalities (1 in 6000 births in the US results in death to the mother), do you have the right to force that 'general risk of childbirth' on anyone? "

Moron, there's a such thing as percent of risk involved. When a doctor diagnoses someone with a life threatening illness, that they have almost no chance of surviving without aborting the pregnancy, that's quite different than the general risks and complications assossiated with child birth. Because someone fears the general risks of child birth, it is not an excuse for getting an abortion.

As for your brother:
Nice attempt to justify your stupidity.

"unwanted - not wanted; not needed;
labor - "

so they were just against having the labor and not against having the actual baby? I guess people get abortions because they don't want to go into labor? They want the baby but not the labor.

You're an inarticulate uneducatable person. It's quite clear why dropped out of school.

moron, can't even cover your own tracks. You truly are a disgrace to all retards.

"good lord, I thought you'd express some intelligence and know that a birth that is fostered through planning involves sacrifice. You're so busy thinking one sided that you can't even see anything logically anymore."

Ya, and...............

What the **** moron. That wasn't the point stupid. Answer the question?
"Are you suggesting that the child is going to have a difficult upbringing because it's parents wanted to abort it due to social and financial circumstances?"

"Why don't you fight for their rights?"

Why don't they fight for mine?

"It's not a contraceptive moron"

Your personal beliefs. The people who developed it granted it that name. And by "that name" I mean "emergency contraceptive." I thought you might need that clarified because of, well y'know, your reading issues.

"You're an inarticulate uneducatable person. It's quite clear why dropped out of school.

moron, can't even cover your own tracks. You truly are a disgrace to all retards."

Insults instead of accepting you couldn't interpret two words put together. Excellent. And I'm the one covering my tracks! What a laugh! What's the result of labor? Is it a child?!?!

"Are you suggesting that the child is going to have a difficult upbringing because it's parents wanted to abort it due to social and financial circumstances?"

Obviously not if I said "and know that a birth that is fostered through planning involves sacrifice." You and your reading comprehension issues. And you say I dropped out of school.

Someone doesn't want a child and you're still going to push the issue? There are still well known and established risks in any pregnancy. You're going to make them take that risk on their life just for your ideals? Just because one thing is less life-threatening than another doesn't mean it's "ok" to force it to that point.

"Why don't they fight for mine?"

Because you're not worth fighting for.

"Nice attempt to justify your stupidity."

Right back at cha

"Are you suggesting that the child is going to have a difficult upbringing because it's parents wanted to abort it due to social and financial circumstances?"

Obviously not if I said "and know that a birth that is fostered through planning involves sacrifice." You and your reading comprehension issues. And you say I dropped out of school.

I misread your posts on that sentence both times. Sorry for that. Ironic what I said isn't it? I meant to snip this:

"If the abortion is conducted because the pregnancy is an inconvenience, I wouldn't want that reflected in the child's upbringing."

Nowhere did I state that it should lead to an abortion though. You came to that conclusion yourself. We call it pro-choice because we respect the choice of the mother, we don't decide for her.

"uneducatable ..."

isn't a word. Sorry fella.

Reverend cowardly anonmymous guy writes: Because someone fears the general risks of child birth, it is not an excuse for getting an abortion.

Morally, maybe not. Legally, yes in fact it is.

Let's say your child, someone you brought into this world through your actions needs a bone marrow transplant. You're the only matching donor. If you don't donate the child will most certainly die. There is some significant pain, but virtually no risk in donating. Should the state legally compel you to donate? (of course, the ethical choice is clear, but that's not the point) If your answer is no, how can you reconcile it with legally compelling a woman to give birth who faces a far greater physical committment and far greater risk? The only real difference is that one child has been born the other not.

There is more than one side to this issue. Obviously, you have no intention of looking beyond the one side you see. I feel sorry for you. You are obviously way too threatened to see things any other way than you always have. Just continue to hide your head and keep your view of the world safe.

BTW. Your 'liberal' use of insults to all who oppose your opinion reveals the desperation you must be feeling defending a position that you're obviously seeing more and more as indefensible. You really are quite transparent.

Could you be any dumber?

Let's say your child, someone you brought into this world through your actions...

Actions= a conscious decision that you're responsible for

....needs a bone marrow transplant. You're the only matching donor. If you don't donate the child will most certainly die. There is some significant pain, but virtually no risk in donating. Should the state legally compel you to donate?

Your a moron. A giant one! Did the mother make a conscious decision that resulted in the baby needing a bone marrow transplant?

(of course, the ethical choice is clear, but that's not the point)

It's nowhere near as clear as the unethical choice of an abortion is! When you compare your hypothetical to abortion, it becomes ambiguous in comparison.

If your answer is no, how can you reconcile it with legally compelling a woman to give birth who faces a far greater physical committment and far greater risk? The only real difference is that one child has been born the other not.

There is more than one side to this issue. Obviously, you have no intention of looking beyond the one side you see. I feel sorry for you. You are obviously way too threatened to see things any other way than you always have. Just continue to hide your head and keep your view of the world safe.

Your view is a threat to humanity. My view supports LIFE!!!!!!~! Yours = DEATH!!!!!!!! Tell me something Mr. Liberal, if I shouldn't be telling people what to do based on my meter of morality, then why are you so comfortable doing so!!???!!!??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Your liberal hypocracy bullsh!t makes me want to puke!!

BTW. Your 'liberal' use of insults to all who oppose your opinion reveals the desperation you must be feeling defending a position that you're obviously seeing more and more as indefensible. You really are quite transparent.

You're the one with narrow thinking moron. You only see your side, and your side is one of ambiguousness. You've said the child has no right to take the life of the mother, then why does the mother have a right to take the life of a child, a child she created by making a conscious decision, but to you liberals, a conscious decision doesn't necessarily mean that you're responsible for making that decision. You always find an excuse or someone else to blame!

Tell me something Mr. Liberal, if I shouldn't be telling people what to do based on my meter of morality, then why are you so comfortable doing so!!???!!!??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Your liberal hypocracy bullsh!t makes me want to puke!!

"uneducatable ..."

isn't a word. Sorry fella.

You dumb asssed moron! You're telling someone they're using a word that really isn't a word, and you use a word in your critique that isn't a real word!!! LMMFAO!!!

That's so friggin funny!!!!!!

You do know that 'fella' is a made up(informal, slang) term, and not recognized in the english language as a word of?

Abortion is wrong 'cuz it means killing innocent humans. I know that someone you think that if the mother would die during labor or pregnancy abortion should be ok. I still disagree. First of all, the cases where an abortion is performed in order to save the mother represent a VERY small number of abortions being made. As far as this pill goes, you have no way of knowing after a couple of days if your child will be healthy or not. Therefore the "mother is going to die" argument can not be use in this instance (the pill). So let's all agree that this pill kills innocent humans simply because it is more convenient that way, if not, please explain how this pill could save a mother from certain death.

So what do we do when there is a great chance that the mother would die from pregnancy? can we force them to still have a child and possibly die? or should the question the do we allow them to kill someone else in order to live?

If you do think that it is right to kill someone else in order to live yourself then where do you draw that line?

I'm doing my best to decipher your cryptic english. It's not easy.

This is my last comment on abortion, you say the same thing over and over.

To have an abortion because you're unable or unwilling to be responsible for a conscious decision that you made is wrong and should be illegal.

The only logical excuse(not of medical credibility) would be:

"I had no idea that's how babies were made."

I'm not sure, but I doubt anyone who is having sex doesn't know this.

Having an abortion simply because you were irresponsible should be illegal.

Abortion is wrong 'cuz it means killing innocent humans.

Not entirely true.

I know that someone you think that if the mother would die during labor or pregnancy abortion should be ok. I still disagree.

So you're saying it's not OK? You're against abortion??

First of all, the cases where an abortion is performed in order to save the mother represent a VERY small number of abortions being made.

GREAT!!! EXACTLY!!! That means that all other abortions are done simply not to inconvenience the mother who has made an irresponsible decision. You've echoed my point!

Your argument is so frigging ambiguous. You're trying to
say, I think, that someone has no right to use moral clarity to have an abortion when it comes to an obvious medical condition diagnosed by a obstetrician/medical doctor.

If you can't determine the difference between having an abortion so you won't be inconvienced(no moral clarity) and having an abortion because it's the only way to save your life, you have no moral clarity yourself.

You're making a poor comparison of someone who wants to have an abortion because she made a poor decision, to someone who doesn't want to have an abortion, but it's the
only way she can survive. Could you imagine being faced with that decision?

I guess not, because you have no moral clarity. Especially when you yourself admit that there are very few cases were someone has to make that decision.

As far as this pill goes, you have no way of knowing after a couple of days if your child will be healthy or not.

Right, but what's the arguement? It's OK to kill the baby if you don't know of any medical reasons or risk factors, risk factors that you yourself say are extremely rare?

Dude you are completely off the hook. Better yet, completly disconnected, not even a busy signal going on.

Therefore the "mother is going to die" argument can not be use in this instance (the pill). So let's all agree that this pill kills innocent humans simply because it is more convenient that way, if not, please explain how
this pill could save a mother from certain death.

You're so ambiguous I can't figure out what side of this issue you're trying to support. Are you related to John Kerry? His views are also extremely ambiguous.

So let's all agree that this pill kills innocent humans simply because it is more convenient that way

That's exactly what this pill is, a more convenient method of killing a baby that you feel may be an inconvenience.

So what do we do when there is a great chance that the mother would die from pregnancy?

Not pregnancy in itself, but from a diagnosed medical condition. In many pregnancies that are diagnosed to have potential difficulties during birth, such as size of the baby/mother, prematurity or exceeding the length of
gestation, amoung others, doctors may recommend cesarian section or abortion. That choice is the mothers to make.


can we force them to still have a child and possibly die? or should the question the do we allow them to kill someone else in order to live?

If you do think that it is right to kill someone else in order to live yourself then where do you draw that line?

Do you also realize the mother has to make a choice about living and dying. Could you imagine that decision?!?!? Do you have any idea how many women will not make the decision to abort and take the risks because she wants her
baby so much. Do you know how many women die making that choice? Do you know how many babies survived their mother and were raised by their fathers because the mother made that choice? That's how bad they wanted their child. They gave their lives for their child!!!!

That really tears me up inside. I'm not a woman, but if it came down to my life or my childs, I couldn't choose my life over my childs. I would have to take the risk.

You're killin' me man, really. C'mon! Where is your moral clarity. I'm almost to the point of crying as I write this. Do you realize when a mother carries a baby to full term, or near full term, she does so because she wants to have her child, as opposed to someone who takes the morning after pill or shows up at a clinic to have an abortion.

This is an obvious case of moral clarity. Like I said, if you don't see it as such, you have no moral clarity.

In our current form of government, excluding none, I believe they will never make abortion illegal. It must be changed in society. With our current form of society,
it's not going to happen. But it needs to, oh how it needs to!

Abortion is only one of the many issues that needs to be changed by society before it's to late.

Do not be confused, abortion is 'NOT' a religious issue, no more than stealing, murdering or treating people as you wish to be treated is.

You don't have to be religious to share these beliefs.

People have for years wrongly referred to the abortion issue as a women’s rights issue. We have hotly debated the cause for years that a woman should have the right to choose to have a child or not. Where are the father's rights in all of this?

The father should have a say in whether or not a baby comes to term. We need to fight to give the father a voice in this matter. If BOTH parents do not agree that the child should go to term then it should be aborted...plain and simple. If we can get enough pro choice candidates in office we stand a chance of getting legislation that will give both parties an equal voice in this life-altering decision.

I suppose the father should have a voice in terminating an unwanted pregnancy, if the he were willing to undergo a uterus transplantation – it’s been done with mice - (along with removal of the male genitalia and hormone injections) and take the baby to term with all the humiliating and painful side effects and probings and what not and then the actual birth, likely by caesarian, and then the years of breast feeding. So he’d also have to undergo a viable breast transplant. And that’s just for starters.



Americandane

The father should have a say in whether or not a baby comes to term. We need to fight to give the father a voice in this matter. If BOTH parents do not agree that the child should go to term then it should be aborted...plain and simple.

And in the incredibly unlikely event of a tie (mother says no, father says yes or vice versa) what's the deciding factor?

In the event of a tie the fetus would be aborted. As it stands now the female has complete control of the decision making process. If she says abort, abort it is. If she decides to carry the baby to term then a child is born. The father has absolutely no say in this decision whatsoever.

What I am advocating is if the child is unwanted by EITHER party it would be aborted. I am not advocating women’s rights or men’s rights only the right that both parties should have in the decision as to whether or not to bring a child into this world.

So you're saying if either parent says abort (no consensus required) the child is aborted?

IE... Mom wants to keep the child, Dad doesn't, the baby goes bye bye?

I believe the woman holds a veto card based soley on her own vested interest (her life, her body, her rights concerning her body). But in a case when a mother willingly submits herself to carry the child and the father simply doesn't want it, and this in itself results in an aborted child, then it does sound a lot like murder.

Not sure you're going garner alot of support from either side of the political spectrum on that one.