Women 'using web for abortions'

Originally posted by Sonya610

Originally posted by PellevoisinThe only scientifically quantifiable way to define human being is through the DNA itself. (Related to it are the structures generated by the DNA.)

Please, in a scientific manner, explain what makes the human animal so special. You respect science, and obviously understand DNA...please enlighten the rest of us.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by Sonya610]

There's a new book you can get called Human. Most of the science can be found there explained far more thoroughly than I can on an ATS thread.
Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

But he does have a point, yes a lot have good reasons and excuses, but what about those who don't? The regular sex without condom group.

What? You want to police the people and find out whether they had sex without a condom??? What about them? Are you going to ask, "Did the condom break or did you have sex without one?" before you allow an abortion? What do you think the answer will be?

Why does it matter. Although there are a small number of women who use abortion as birth control, most women who have had abortions have had only one. And only because a miscalulation took place - in rhythm method, or in where a relationship was going, or in how well set they were to afford a child, or whatever.

You would think that the fact they don't want a baby SO much that they are going to end it's life, would stop them? that they would have done everything they could to not get pregnant in the first place.

# happens. Some women HAVE done everything available and the condom broke, or they got pregnant even though they were taking the pill. And we keep skipping over the "passion of the moment" aspect. # happens.

Maybe we need to educate more women and men about this, it seems some of these guys "forget"?

Surely education would help. But when I took sex ed in Jr. High, they were very clear about the whole thing. There was nothing more really I learned later on that I didn't learn then. Maybe they don't educate anymore...? Even still, the "passion of the moment" leads to bad choices often.

Just to clarify I'm not talking about all men and women, there are many situations, like the one time passionate night without a condom etc, not them.

I'm talking about the ones that do it a LOT, everyday without protection but don't want a baby. It does not make any logical sense.

Again... The number of women who have had multiple abortions is a teeny tiny percentage of women who have had abortions.

Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 12/7/2008 by watch_the_rocks]

Originally posted by PellevoisinHuman: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique

Yes...I am quite sure it is so very enlightening. It proves without a shadow of a doubt how humans have souls, while other animals lack the same.

Sheesh. Okay nevermind.

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
The only scientifically quantifiable way to define human being is through the DNA itself. (Related to it are the structures generated by the DNA.)

While I agree with you on this, I also do not agree that merely because a particular DNA combination is growing in one's womb, one is obligated to bring it to term.

While I have little need for biblical scripture, I am willing to take the biblical God's assessment of when a soul enters the body, as an arbitrary point of reference.

While not ALL unwanted children are neglected and/or abused, nor do they ALL end up sociopathic, a much higher percentage do.

Virtually all mass murderers, killers, etc. had severe dysfunction in their childhood. And so my point is that it is counter productive to society at large to FORCE a pregnancy to term.

It should be a choice.

Originally posted by pureevil81
a womans right to choose is before she decides to spread.........well you get the idea, just the same as if a boy isnt ready to be a father, keep it in your pants, how can you really agree with the murder of life, even if it is still being formed?

Uh, yeah. That's been said over and over and over... It's working, too!

Heh. Not.

reply to post by budski


Well going back to the op, I wonder if the governments of the countries that have restriction on women right to chose, will ban women from using the Internet, or if they will be inspecting and tracking their mail.

It most be very hard to be a women with no rights in any of those countries that have power over the women reproductives parts.

I wonder if any of those countries track women sexual behavior also.

Originally posted by Sonya610

Originally posted by PellevoisinHuman: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique

Yes...I am quite sure it is so very enlightening. It proves without a shadow of a doubt how humans have souls, while other animals lack the same.

Sheesh. Okay nevermind.

No. It is nothing of the kind.

That you do not wish to read it is not a concern of mine.

"As wide-ranging as it is deep, and as entertaining as it is informative, the latest offering from UC — Santa Barbara neuroscientist Gazzaniga (The Ethical Brain) will please a diverse array of readers. He is adept at aiding even the scientifically unsophisticated to grasp his arguments about what separates humans from other animals. His main premise is that human brains are not only proportionately larger than those of other primates but have a number of distinct structures, which he explores along with evolutionary explanations for their existence. For instance, a direct outgrowth of the size and structure of the human brain, along with their origins in the complexity of human social groups, was the development of language, self-awareness and ethics. (Gazzaniga offers some surprising comments on the evolution of religion and its relation to morals.) Throughout, Gazzaniga addresses the nature of consciousness, and by comparing the intellectual capabilities of a host of animals (chimps, dogs, birds and rats, among others) with those of human babies, children and adults, he shows what we all share as well as what humans alone possess. (July)" Publishers Weekly

About the Author
Michael S. Gazzaniga is the director of the University of California-Santa Barbara's SAGE Center for the Study of the Mind, as well as its Summer Institute in Cognitive Neuroscience. He serves on the President's Council on Bioethics and is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Dr. Gazzaniga is the author of The Ethical Brain and lives in California.

Here is a negative review of the book from Salon Books: LINK

[edit on 11/7/08 by Pellevoisin]

Originally posted by Amaterasu

(point one)Virtually all mass murderers, killers, etc. had severe dysfunction in their childhood. (point two) And so my point is that it is counter productive to society at large to FORCE a pregnancy to term.

I cannot agree with your first point until I see some pretty convincing statistical data. You may have it absolutely correct, but I have yet to see the data to back it up and would be glad to read anything you think would make this point.

There are many circumstances in which the second point would either be untrue or could be addressed by society in different ways by removing an infant at birth from its biological mother and placing it with others to serve as caregivers, for example.

If the concern is for only psychologically fit and financially well-settled individuals to produce children, then a society may choose to steralise its poor and its mentally challenged. I believe taking such decisions is contrary to basic human rights, but it seems to be another potential end following on from the premise.

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Here's a question: can you remember what life was like at birth? No?? Well how do you suppose something that isn't even fully developed is going to know, either?

I think women have a right to an abortion, up to say 4 months. I don't like the fact people smoke, or do drugs, but others do. It's the same here - it's a personal choice.

As was said above - there are too many people on this planet, and having more just for the sake of morality is (frankly) stupid.

Well that is kind of illogical.

Do you remember what life was when you were 5 months old?

No, which exactly proves my point.

Originally posted by Pellevoisin

Originally posted by Amaterasu

(point one)Virtually all mass murderers, killers, etc. had severe dysfunction in their childhood. (point two) And so my point is that it is counter productive to society at large to FORCE a pregnancy to term.

I cannot agree with your first point until I see some pretty convincing statistical data. You may have it absolutely correct, but I have yet to see the data to back it up and would be glad to read anything you think would make this point.

I will see what I can provide...

There are many circumstances in which the second point would either be untrue or could be addressed by society in different ways by removing an infant at birth from its biological mother and placing it with others to serve as caregivers, for example.

True that there are circumstances where it might not be counter-productive. But overall, it is. Society already has the option of adoption, but unless the child is white-skinned (and preferably blue-eyed), the child has a low probability of being adopted. Foster care is rife with neglect and abuse, with many foster "parents" in it for the money and no regard for the child(ren) in their care.

And most of the non-white kids are living in "orphanages..."

Did you hear about a rather gruesome experiment that was done wherein they took orphan infants and raised them via robot? No human contact at all... Most died before 1 year of age. The rest were severely emotionally twisted.

Another group was tended to by humans but the rule was to have as little emotional and physical contact with the test subjects. These too had severe issues, though none died.

A third group was tended to and given physical contact, love and encouragement. All developed well and were emotionally adjusted.

What they concluded was that beyond food, clothing and shelter, love and human contact are vital for our survival.

So from this, even without statistics, I must conclude that neglected and/or abused children have a much greater likelihood of becoming sociopathic.

If the concern is for only psychologically fit and financially well-settled individuals to produce children, then a society may choose to steralise its poor and its mentally challenged. I believe taking such decisions is contrary to basic human rights, but it seems to be another potential end following on from the premise.

Why is that a better choice than to allow abortions...?

[edit on 7/11/2008 by Amaterasu]

reply to post by Amaterasu


What? yourself.

I never said anything about who should not have abortions etc.

You seem to ignore the fact that I'm talking about the women who have regular sex without condom, and you appear to think I'm talking about the women in the Sh't happens group.

All I said was, what about those who regulary have sex without a condom.
Obviously they are fully resposible, how can we minimize people who do this.

I never said anything about who should or should not have abortions, only how can we lessen the amount of women who get unwanted pregnancies.

You appear highly defensive with this, and appear to be seeing things I am not saying.

Have you had close personal experiences, could this be why?


[edit on 11-7-2008 by _Phoenix_]

reply to post by Pellevoisin


Ok... Serial killers:

www.wowessays.com...

www.macalester.edu...

www.trutv.com...

An excerpt from the last link:

Infancy is one of the most significant stages in the development of the human. Emotionally, infancy is crucial to the proper development of the adult personality (Vronsky 2004). The first twelve months are especially critical to the development of emotions such as remorse and affection. If a child does not receive adequate attention and physical touch during this time period they may suffer substantial personality disorders in the future (Canter 2005). In fact, there may be signs that the child has a psychopathic personality by the age of 2 (Vronsky 2004). The infant develops a sense of only itself. This is indicated by the absence of a range of emotions such as sympathy, remorse, and affection (Leyton 1987). Keeping in mind the idea that infant bonding is imperative to personality development, it is no surprise that a common characteristic of serial killers is that they were adopted (Leyton 1987). This may imply that as infants serial killers such as, David Berkowitz, Joel Rifkin, and Kenneth Bianchi did not receive proper attention as they were given up by their biological mothers for adoption during a vital period in their lives.

I found much more, googling "serial killers childhood studies," but that should be a good beginning to proving what I said is true.

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

You seem to ignore the fact that I'm talking about the women who have regular sex without condom, and you appear to think I'm talking about the women in the Sh't happens group.

No... I'm asking how you would differentiate.

All I said was, what about those who regulary have sex without a condom.
Obviously they are fully resposible, how can we minimize people who do this.

Hmm. I was thinking that they are NOT fully responsible... Else they would be ensuring as best they can that they do not get pregnant. And then asking, what about them? We can offer education - which most get. Most women who do not take precautions do know that they could become pregnant, and, knowing that they still behave as they do.

So education is not likely to be the answer. And then...the only other answer is to police their sexual habits. Does that sound like a good solution to you?

I never said anything about who should or should not have abortions, only how can we lessen the amount of women who get unwanted pregnancies.

And I was throwing out extrapolations from what you said. And I say that the only "solution" to eliminating the problem of couples not taking precautions is to police sexual behaviors, which isn't a solution in my freedom-loving book.

You appear highly defensive with this, and appear to be seeing things I am not saying.

Have you had close personal experiences, could this be why?

LOL! I am defensive of freedom. I am defensive of choice. I see so many ways freedom is slipping, and forcing women to maintain and bring to term the cells developing in their bodies is anti-freedom, and will only result in a black market abortion situation. Abortions will become (as they were before legalization) dangerous and deadly - to both the fetus and the woman.

Just as making drugs illegal did nothing to stop drug use, pushing it into the black market, so will making abortions illegal.

You'd think we would learn.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Well then, that actually does prove the point you argued earlier..doesn't it?
And since I was adopted at birth, and raised by not loving parents, but babysitters..
OH my! Looks like I have the mind of a serial killer!
Time to start my list.

Originally posted by Amaterasu


Hmm. I was thinking that they are NOT fully responsible...

I understand all your views and mostly agree.

It's just this bit? If a woman or man regularly have sex without a condom, they ARE fully responsible for their actions, they know what they are doing. They are guilty for this. Not saying anyone should stop them having an abortion of course, but it IS all their fault for getting into a situation they did not want.
In my opinion pretty dumb haha.

Originally posted by RubyGloom
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Well then, that actually does prove the point you argued earlier..doesn't it?
And since I was adopted at birth, and raised by not loving parents, but babysitters..
OH my! Looks like I have the mind of a serial killer!
Time to start my list.

Maybe you developed snideness instead of sociopathic behavior...

Geez.

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

Originally posted by Amaterasu


Hmm. I was thinking that they are NOT fully responsible...

I understand all your views and mostly agree.

It's just this bit? If a woman or man regularly have sex without a condom, they ARE fully responsible for their actions, they know what they are doing. They are guilty for this. Not saying anyone should stop them having an abortion of course, but it IS all their fault for getting into a situation they did not want.
In my opinion pretty dumb haha.

Yes, I agree with you in this. My point is that there is nothing beyond policing people's sexual habits that can be done. So we must accept this behavior as part of freedom, and accept that there will be a need for abortions, either legal, safe and clean or illegal, deadly and dirty.

These are our choices, and I believe the sanest choice is to offer legal, safe and clean ones.

[edit on 7/11/2008 by Amaterasu]

reply to post by Amaterasu


Haha I'm glad we can agree.

To me it's still hard to come to a decision, I think I would be happy if they at least put the legal time limit for abortions down a few weeks. Like I said earlier, by 16-18 weeks they are already moving, sucking their thumb, showing signs of life. But yet they put the limit to 24 weeks?? What do you think about that? Do you think it's wise to at least put the limit lower.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

A womans body is not only her body by that time at 24 weeks, there is another "life" inside of her, it's not "only" her body anymore. People should remember that.

So what do you think about time limits?
Let me show you this that might change your mind. Before babies are 24 weeks, they CAN feel pain. They say that it's very likely that they would feel 'excruciating pain'.
www.dailymail.co.uk...

[edit on 11-7-2008 by _Phoenix_]

Another interesting article:

query.nytimes.com...

Discussing orphans adopted from Romania.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Thank you for providiing the links. Now what to do with the information.

Can one look at serial killers and find issues from childhood? The answer seems obviously, "Yes."

Does it mean every person having such issues in childhood will become a serial killer? The answer is 'No'.

- - - - - - -

Although the idea is of Nazi and Russian Communist provenance, sterilising the poor and mentally challenged costs less money and resources in the long run, it is maintained. So Cost/Benefit analysis is on the side of forced sterilisation rather than providing abortifacients and abortive surgeries which can have messy consequences of women dying because of the abortions or dying due to the compounds like RU486, or in small cases they result in failure with children born alive who will then need to be killed after birth if not in the process of being born alive.

As far as I am concerned all of these ideas in the paragraph above come from the same nightmare vision of eugenicists of which I want no part.