Abortion and the "soul"

[agnosticatheist]

At what point does the human fetus acquire a soul?

Until brain activity starts, the human fetus is technically just a non-conscious, non-sentient life form.

The hypothetical soul is what supposedly makes us human and "makes us special from the rest of the animal world". I think it is fair to say that everything that is claimed to be a function of the soul (consciousness/awareness, emotions, moral reasoning) are not possible without the brain.

If the human fetus does indeed acquire a soul when brain activity starts, then why is it wrong to abort the fetus before brain activity starts? It's nothing special before the brain activity starts. Sure, it has its own unique DNA. It is a functioning organism. But, the same could be said of a housefly, crocodile, etc. If any such organisms were presenting a problem, I would guess theists would have no objection to them being terminated...

[the_human_being]

[Replying to post 1 by Clownboat]

When I use the term "soul", I am speaking of a living creature. Man does not have a soul - man is a soul.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 1 by Clownboat]

When I use the term "soul", I am speaking of a living creature. Man does not have a soul - man is a soul.

Good luck with that. I've been doing that bit of semantic correction for quite some time now and being pretty completely ignored.

We pedants have to stick together on this matter, though. We have a body, we have a spirit, and together they make one soul.

[the_human_being]

[Replying to dianaiad]

Yes indeed. Seems some are more versed in dragons, fairies, unicorns, and come off appearing to be an 8th grade long-winded Socrates want to be.

I've followed your posts. You have totally destroyed his rambling arguments.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 133 by dianaiad]

My point was that if none of what I said (objections to things you said) mattered until I could show you they'd grow into sentient humans, then either the argument you said (i.e. future person) is a necessary qualifier for the other arguments, or none of your other arguments actually justify the conclusion.

I.e., if growing into a sentient human is a necessary qualifier, but is also sufficient, then it is the only argument you are putting forward. The other issues (eg "because they'll live if they don't die", "because everyone was an embryo", "its a human life", "it's got the DNA mapping of an individual") are not themselves supportive of the conclusion, just tangential.

And once again, why should someone find an embryo valuable - is there anything about the current embryo that a secular state should find valuable?


Once again with regards to semantics, most DO picture souls that way.
See merriam webster,
"the spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body and in many religions is believed to live forever"
" the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life"

@the human being
You could always, you know, address what's being said?
Could you explain why we should believe dragons don't exist but we should believe souls (or spirits or whatever you wish to call the 'immaterial consciousness') do?
Or do you think it's unreasonable to believe dragons don't exist, or even to claim to know they don't exist on Earth?

[Clownboat]

Why do you continue to disregard failed birth control and pregnancies that happen without consensual sex and sometimes without sex at all?

Why do you continue to claim that I have disregarded any of this?

Because your "it's so simple" scenario does not acknowledge failed birth control or pregnancies that happen without intercourse.

First, I have been extremely careful to exclude non-consensual sex (i.e., rape) from the entire discussion. So careful have I been about that that the word 'consensual' is consistently attached to the word 'sex.' So stop with this particular strawman, Clownboat.

You just said this:
So I say...it is your job to show me why it is 'OK" to kill that human who is doing nothing but what his or her mother invited him or her to do; exist.

Let me repeat: "nothing but what his or her mother invited him or her to do".
Sense when do mothers invite a fetus via methods of rape?

I have also addressed the issue of 'failed birth control.'

There is no excuse for 'failed birth control.' the odds of getting pregnant when one uses multiple methods of birth control properly are almost non-existent. In fact, I can't find any examples of a pregnancy that has resulted because of failed birth control when multiple forms are used, properly....but you are quite welcome to try.

See the bold to see where your argument starts to fail. When 2 methods fail, they should be using 3 right?

What you suggest is IMO not a reality, especially in religious circles. The girls in my private school were not getting pregnant due to failed birth control (obviously it happens though), they were getting pregnant because they were not using any birth control at all. Why? Because their birth control was abstinence.

I agree with you, if all our kids were to use condoms, the pill, spermicides, cervical caps, sponges, diaphragms, and vaginal rings, we would not have the unwanted pregnancies that we are talking about here.

I find you suggesting such a thing to be irresponsible personally. Not all kids will do as you expect and I think you know this and just don't care. To bad for them right, they invited this when they had sex right?

As for 'pregnancy without sex.'' Oh, come on. The VAST majority of pregnancies that result from non sexual activity are not only wanted and intended, they are expensive.

I'm not talking about those.

If you are talking about pregnancy as a result of contact with male ejaculate without penile penetration, you have a very limited definition of 'sex.' If a woman allows a guy to get that close, CONSENSUALLY, then they had both better be using birth control. She'd better be on the pill. He'd better be using a condom.

I don't care what you call it. I want you to accept that it happens or clearly state that it doesn't.

Use a condom. Where? On his fingers? What about when he gets pre cum on his fingers while putting the condom on? Perhaps rubber gloves should be required to put a condom on? How ridiculous must this get?

Let's not get weird, here.

What you call weird, I just got done playing on my mens 4's volleyball team last night with my buddy and his 19 year old son that was conceived without any intercourse. The mother didn't even think to go after my buddy for child support until the kid was 3 (she was busy tracking down a past boyfriend that skipped town after she got pregnant).

What you call weird, is just a reality you need to come to terms with and your "it's so simple" is demonstrably wrong because of this.

Yes. It is simple. Make your choice before you have sex, and do what you need to do to prevent it. That's a lot simpler, a lot more moral, and a great deal less expensive both monetarily and healthwise, than an abortion.

Agreed (except for it being simple). Now do you agree that birth control can fail, that humans will fail to use it correctly and that unwanted pregnancies happen without intercourse?

You see, I agree with what you say and I will teach my girls to be responsible. Yet my agreeing with you does not make failed birth control and pregnancies without intercourse go away. Birth control will fail, humans will fail to use it correctly and pregnancies without intercourse will continue to happen. It just is NOT "simple" like you claim.

Who ARE 'these people?"

The father is Micheal and the son is Jess (father eventually got custody of the son and they have a great relationship to this day). That is as far as I will go.

If you don't want to drown, learn to swim, wear a life vest, or don't go near the water.

Or... don't breath underwater. No amount of swimming or wearing of a life vest will guarantee to help you if you plunge off a bridge into the water. But I'll just ignore those scenarios and claim it's simple, "don't breath under water if you don't want to drown".
Don't tell me my scenario wont work, because it will. Feel free to tell me my scenario does not reflect reality and then you may understand my point though.

Then you'll drown. However, I fail to see any analogy here to CONSENSUAL sex.

This scenario is not about sex. It is about "simple" fixes to a problem that don't apply to reality. You know, like expecting teenagers to use multiple forms of birth control.

The only people who drown are those who go in the water. If you want to go into the water, then take the proper precautions so that you won't drown.

The only people that get pregnant are those that have sperm fertilize an egg.
We cannot ignore cars that drive off bridges anymore than failed birth control, people failing to use it correctly and pregnancies without intercourse.

This is a very poor analogy.

I trust the readers will see what is taking place.

However, since you began it, I'll continue it.

Person A: If you don't want your baby to drown, don't take him in the water with you and ignore him.

This does not reflect your response though does it? You should stick to your guns don't you think and suggest that if you don't want your kid to drown, they should always be wearing numerous forms of flotation devices. Then ignore scenarios where your suggestion doesn't work.

Person B: But...what if I just really want to swim, and the kid is in the way?

If the kid has numerous forms of flotation devices, why can't you swim with the kid? Also, you are ignoring cars driving off bridges, submarine accidents, being stranded in the ocean, ect.... That happens you know.

Person A: If you don't want your baby to drown, don't take him in the water with you and ignore him.

Now you are sticking to your guns and ignoring scenarios where this doesn't apply like when a car goes off the road.

Person B: But...you aren't LISTENING to me! I just really want to go swimming and don't think this kid should be in the way!

Still ignoring real life scenarios. People drown every day without the intent of swimming being involved. Sometimes people drown without a kid being in the way.
Again... don't breath underwater if you don't want to drown is the only guarenteed way to not drown. Do you find my workable solution reasonable?

Don't accuse me of ignoring the plight of rape victims again. This isn't the first time you have done this, and it's not the first time I have pointed out, VERY clearly and specifically, that I am talking about consensual sex only.

You made your bed, you need to sleep in it. Not me. Do you deny saying the words I quoted you saying above? Do you accuse me of misquoting you when I responded to that statement? Should I have just ignored that statement as if you didn't say it because in a previous post you may have clarified non consent? IMO, your demands of me go too far. If you didn't mean it, then take this time to clarify rather than attempting to demonize me over it.

Don't accuse me of ignoring 'failed birth control methods' again, because I have addressed that. There is no such thing as a 'failed birth control method." There are people who fail to use them properly, but if multiple forms are used, there really is no statistical evidence that pregnancy will result anyway. Use the pill/implant/IUD...AND a condom, and you won't get pregnant.

Sure, and use a life jacket, a life preserver, a Mae West, a cork jacket, and a flotation suite and you wont drown. Expect in the instances where doing so (car off a bridge, submarine, being stranded in the ocean...) might not help.

(In an attempt to make a point)
Don't accuse me of not addressing drowning. I have explained a simple solution if you don't want to drown. Now stop pointing out that my scenario, thought true, does not reflect reality.

But if, against all the odds (and if that happens, I suggest that the next purchase should be a lottery ticket) pregnancy results, then....have the baby. You knew this was one of the possible consequences of having sex; if you absolutely, positively, CANNOT get pregnant, then either do something permanent about it or....(whisper this one) don't have sex. The life of a human is more important than your urge to scratch an itch.

Imagine trying to console a young woman who is not ready to raise a child and had birth control fail on her. Would you really look at her and say, "buy a lottery ticket"?

And stop with the 'pregnancies that occur without sex' silliness. I mean, really. Stop.

The scenario is all too real.
Perhaps you should stop telling biological creatures who reproduce via sex to "not have sex". Or at least tell them and expect most of them to do it anyway whether you personally like it or not. What you suggest could only work in a perfect world and I believe that every person reading here knows that the world is far from perfect.
Therefore, I propose that what you suggest (even though I will try my best to instill it in my children) is not a reasonable suggestion and would result in many, many more unwanted pregnancies.

I may not like abortions, but I also do not like the idea of increase unwanted pregnancies nor the idea that a woman cannot control what happens to her own body.

What you propose I fear in reality is just taking one step forward in order to take two steps back.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1 by Clownboat]

When I use the term "soul", I am speaking of a living creature. Man does not have a soul - man is a soul.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/soul?s=t
soul
[sohl] Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
2.
the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come:
arguing the immortality of the soul.
3.
the disembodied spirit of a deceased person:
He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.
4.
the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
5.
a human being; person.
6.
high-mindedness; noble warmth of feeling, spirit or courage, etc.
7.
the animating principle; the essential element or part of something.

I accept that you use the word "soul" to mean something that is not found in dictionaries (IE: A living creature). Thank you for clarifying. Perhaps next time you can do so without being condescending, or better yet, use words in the English language that mean what you are trying to convey.

Please understand that when you mean "a living creature", but use the word "soul", it may be confusing for some of us unless you clarify. Also, it does not necessarily reflect an 8th grade education just because you are using words incorrectly.

Now I'm left to wonder if a virus is a soul, or bacteria, but I should probably let you settle down before asking for further clarification by what you mean when you say "soul".

[the_human_being]

[Replying to post 2 by Clownboat]


Did I not very plainly inform you that I got the definition from the Bible? Indeed I did. Right from the start.

[dianaiad]

Why do you continue to disregard failed birth control and pregnancies that happen without consensual sex and sometimes without sex at all?

Why do you continue to claim that I have disregarded any of this?

Because your "it's so simple" scenario does not acknowledge failed birth control or pregnancies that happen without intercourse.

First, I have been extremely careful to exclude non-consensual sex (i.e., rape) from the entire discussion. So careful have I been about that that the word 'consensual' is consistently attached to the word 'sex.' So stop with this particular strawman, Clownboat.

You just said this:
So I say...it is your job to show me why it is 'OK" to kill that human who is doing nothing but what his or her mother invited him or her to do; exist.

Let me repeat: "nothing but what his or her mother invited him or her to do".
Sense when do mothers invite a fetus via methods of rape?

They don't. An 'invitation' requires consent. Therefore, as I have repeatedly mentioned, I am speaking only about consensual sex.

....and it IS simple.

The vast majority of abortions are obtained by women who could very easily have prevented the pregnancy in the first place.

The CDC, in its 2010 report on abortion in America, states that there were around 765,651 abortions obtained that year. Of those, 1% were done because of rape or incest, and 3% or so were done to save the mother's life or because of her health. That means that 735,025 abortions were obtained by women who had consensual sex and simply were careless about birth control.

In the same document, the CDC said this: Unintended pregnancy is the major contributor to abortion. Because unintended pregnancies are rare among women who use the most effective methods of reversible contraception, increasing access to and use of these methods can help further reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States.

I have also addressed the issue of 'failed birth control.'

There is no excuse for 'failed birth control.' the odds of getting pregnant when one uses multiple methods of birth control properly are almost non-existent. In fact, I can't find any examples of a pregnancy that has resulted because of failed birth control when multiple forms are used, properly....but you are quite welcome to try.

See the bold to see where your argument starts to fail. When 2 methods fail, they should be using 3 right?

See what the CDC has to say about this. When THEY say 'very rare,' you can pretty much depend that they mean 'doesn't happen."

It's a non issue. However, if you really, really, really don't want to get pregnant, and if you do, you go immediately to the abortion clinic, then it seems pretty simple to me: make very sure you don't get pregnant in the first place. Do whatever it is you have to do to ensure that.

What you suggest is IMO not a reality, especially in religious circles. The girls in my private school were not getting pregnant due to failed birth control (obviously it happens though), they were getting pregnant because they were not using any birth control at all. Why? Because their birth control was abstinence.

If that isn't an example of 'there is no such thing as failed birth control, only people who fail to use it" I don't know what is. If their 'birth control' really was abstinence, they wouldn't have gotten pregnant. They weren't, evidently, using it.

I agree with you, if all our kids were to use condoms, the pill, spermicides, cervical caps, sponges, diaphragms, and vaginal rings, we would not have the unwanted pregnancies that we are talking about here.

Well, hallelujah. So what IS your problem with me?

I find you suggesting such a thing to be irresponsible personally. Not all kids will do as you expect and I think you know this and just don't care. To bad for them right, they invited this when they had sex right?

Actually, yes. If they are old enough to have sex and get pregnant (or get a girl pregnant) they are old enough to take responsibility for not doing so.

THERE is where the responsibility is ours; parents, teachers, etc., it is OUR job to make sure they do know what needs to be done.

As for 'pregnancy without sex.'' Oh, come on. The VAST majority of pregnancies that result from non sexual activity are not only wanted and intended, they are expensive.

I'm not talking about those.

You mean, like I'm not talking about non-consensual sex? you don't seem to give a good hoot what I'm not talking about when you start attacking my position.

If you are talking about pregnancy as a result of contact with male ejaculate without penile penetration, you have a very limited definition of 'sex.' If a woman allows a guy to get that close, CONSENSUALLY, then they had both better be using birth control. She'd better be on the pill. He'd better be using a condom.

I don't care what you call it. I want you to accept that it happens or clearly state that it doesn't.

Can pregnancy happen without penile penetration? OK, sure...but 'sex' is considerably wider an area than that, isn't it? The idea is to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. If the ejaculate is close enough to the vagina to make that journey, then those two people are engaging in the activity for which birth control was invented.

You may as well be claiming that 'withdrawal' isn't really sex because the man 'pulls out' before ejaculating.

Oh.

Wait.

That's EXACTLY what you are claiming, isn't it?

Sheesh.

Use a condom. Where? On his fingers? What about when he gets pre cum on his fingers while putting the condom on? Perhaps rubber gloves should be required to put a condom on? How ridiculous must this get?

Don't ask me. Argue with the CDC. Seems to me that you are the one who is getting ridiculous, coming up with all these incredibly outlandish and unlikely scenarios. However, what part of 'multiple forms of birth control' seems to have whooshed RIGHT over your head?

Let's not get weird, here.

What you call weird, I just got done playing on my mens 4's volleyball team last night with my buddy and his 19 year old son that was conceived without any intercourse. The mother didn't even think to go after my buddy for child support until the kid was 3 (she was busy tracking down a past boyfriend that skipped town after she got pregnant).

Right. He just phoned his sperm in. E-mailed it to her.

Give me a break. Clownboat.

What you call weird, is just a reality you need to come to terms with and your "it's so simple" is demonstrably wrong because of this.

Yes. It is simple. Make your choice before you have sex, and do what you need to do to prevent it. That's a lot simpler, a lot more moral, and a great deal less expensive both monetarily and healthwise, than an abortion.

Agreed (except for it being simple). Now do you agree that birth control can fail, that humans will fail to use it correctly and that unwanted pregnancies happen without intercourse?

It's simple. Make your choice before you engage in the activity that might result in pregnancy.

.............and that includes any torturous athletics that might get you 'pregnant without intercourse.' Great googly moogly.

You see, I agree with what you say and I will teach my girls to be responsible. Yet my agreeing with you does not make failed birth control and pregnancies without intercourse go away. Birth control will fail, humans will fail to use it correctly and pregnancies without intercourse will continue to happen. It just is NOT "simple" like you claim.

It is simple.

Make your choice before you engage in sex.
Realize that, even if you do use multiple forms of birth control, you just might (no matter how infinitesimal the chance might be) get pregnant.
If it is so important to you that you not have a baby that you will, quite literally, end a human life in order to prevent that, then either do something permanent about it, or DON'T HAVE SEX.

It absolutely boggles my mind that someone can go into a Las Vegas Casino and gamble, betting money he doesn't have, and putting his family and even his life at risk, and when he loses, he doesn't get to say 'sorry, I didn't mean it, I don't want to pay you'. The gambler who loses is expected to pay up. It was the risk he took when he made the bet.

And that's only money.

Yet when the woman bets that she won't begin a new human life, and loses THAT bet, suddenly she gets a 'do over?' That's not money. That's a real, honest to goodness, human life. That she began. That she will end.

Who ARE 'these people?"

The father is Micheal and the son is Jess (father eventually got custody of the son and they have a great relationship to this day). That is as far as I will go.

OK...but in order for his sperm to get into contact with her egg, they had to be close enough...and naked enough...to qualify for 'we should use birth control before we do this.'

If you don't want to drown, learn to swim, wear a life vest, or don't go near the water.

Or... don't breath underwater. No amount of swimming or wearing of a life vest will guarantee to help you if you plunge off a bridge into the water. But I'll just ignore those scenarios and claim it's simple, "don't breath under water if you don't want to drown".
Don't tell me my scenario wont work, because it will. Feel free to tell me my scenario does not reflect reality and then you may understand my point though.

Then you'll drown. However, I fail to see any analogy here to CONSENSUAL sex.

This scenario is not about sex. It is about "simple" fixes to a problem that don't apply to reality. You know, like expecting teenagers to use multiple forms of birth control.

I expect people who are old enough to get pregnant to use birth control, and I expect those in charge of those people to have made darned sure that they know about, and have access to, birth control.

It IS simple.
But 'simple' isn't always 'easy.'

But Clownboat, there are real lives at stake here, and I'm not talking ONLY about the lives ended as a result of abortion.

The only people who drown are those who go in the water. If you want to go into the water, then take the proper precautions so that you won't drown.

The only people that get pregnant are those that have sperm fertilize an egg.
We cannot ignore cars that drive off bridges anymore than failed birth control, people failing to use it correctly and pregnancies without intercourse.

This is a very poor analogy.

I trust the readers will see what is taking place.

So do I. I don't think the readers will see what you think they see.

However, since you began it, I'll continue it.

Person A: If you don't want your baby to drown, don't take him in the water with you and ignore him.

This does not reflect your response though does it? You should stick to your guns don't you think and suggest that if you don't want your kid to drown, they should always be wearing numerous forms of flotation devices. Then ignore scenarios where your suggestion doesn't work.

Person B: But...what if I just really want to swim, and the kid is in the way?

If the kid has numerous forms of flotation devices, why can't you swim with the kid?

The operative term, which you are ignoring, is 'ignore him.'

Also, you are ignoring cars driving off bridges, submarine accidents, being stranded in the ocean, ect.... That happens you know.

Person A: If you don't want your baby to drown, don't take him in the water with you and ignore him.

Now you are sticking to your guns and ignoring scenarios where this doesn't apply like when a car goes off the road.

I am telling you that your analogy isn't...analogous.

Person B: But...you aren't LISTENING to me! I just really want to go swimming and don't think this kid should be in the way!

Still ignoring real life scenarios. People drown every day without the intent of swimming being involved. Sometimes people drown without a kid being in the way.
Again... don't breath underwater if you don't want to drown is the only guarenteed way to not drown. Do you find my workable solution reasonable?

Don't accuse me of ignoring the plight of rape victims again. This isn't the first time you have done this, and it's not the first time I have pointed out, VERY clearly and specifically, that I am talking about consensual sex only.

You made your bed, you need to sleep in it. Not me. Do you deny saying the words I quoted you saying above? Do you accuse me of misquoting you when I responded to that statement? Should I have just ignored that statement as if you didn't say it because in a previous post you may have clarified non consent? IMO, your demands of me go too far. If you didn't mean it, then take this time to clarify rather than attempting to demonize me over it.

WHICH statement? WHERE have I ever included rape victims in this?

My position on pregnancies that are the result of rape is this...and I have said this before;

If I were raped and got pregnant as a result, I would keep the baby, counting that baby as the only good thing about the rape, as the baby is, inarguably, THE most innocent victim of that rape and doesn't deserve capital punishment for an act he had nothing to do with. However, that's my position. I do not judge any woman who cannot handle raising, or being pregnant with, a child of rape. However, when a woman makes that decision, the rapist should be charged with rape AND with murder, because the entire thing is on him.

the thing is, though, that abortions sought because of rape are 1% or less of all abortions sought. I would be ecstatic if we could lower the abortions sought in this country from over 760,000 to 7600.

Indeed, it seems that the rate of abortion IS coming down...slowly, but still...and it's coming down BECAUSE people are beginning to be more responsible with using birth control.

Don't accuse me of ignoring 'failed birth control methods' again, because I have addressed that. There is no such thing as a 'failed birth control method." There are people who fail to use them properly, but if multiple forms are used, there really is no statistical evidence that pregnancy will result anyway. Use the pill/implant/IUD...AND a condom, and you won't get pregnant.

Sure, and use a life jacket, a life preserver, a Mae West, a cork jacket, and a flotation suite and you wont drown. Expect in the instances where doing so (car off a bridge, submarine, being stranded in the ocean...) might not help.

Going into a consensually agreed upon sexual experience is a lot more like, oh, hang gliding than driving...especially driving off a cliff. Prepare properly, take care of your equipment, and you are a lot less likely to die than you are by getting into an airplane and a LOT less likely to die than you are while driving.

Use analogies that might actually apply here, Clownboat.

(In an attempt to make a point)
Don't accuse me of not addressing drowning. I have explained a simple solution if you don't want to drown. Now stop pointing out that my scenario, thought true, does not reflect reality.

But if, against all the odds (and if that happens, I suggest that the next purchase should be a lottery ticket) pregnancy results, then....have the baby. You knew this was one of the possible consequences of having sex; if you absolutely, positively, CANNOT get pregnant, then either do something permanent about it or....(whisper this one) don't have sex. The life of a human is more important than your urge to scratch an itch.

Imagine trying to console a young woman who is not ready to raise a child and had birth control fail on her. Would you really look at her and say, "buy a lottery ticket"?

Yes.

Because the odds that she got pregnant because 'her birth control failed on her' are, according to the CDC, extremely unlikely. She either failed to use it properly, or failed to use multiple forms.

If the sex was consensual, then she went into the experience knowing full well that it could end up in pregnancy. That's why people have invented multiple forms of birth control.

If this girl were my daughter, I would love her, console her, not blame her...and I would take care of her with every emotional and financial resource I have until that child is born, and support her in her decision either to raise the child or give that child to someone who wants it.

As it happens, my daughter would probably give all her rights in heaven and hell to have the chance to raise the baby that this inconsolable young woman. She's been pregnant eight times, lost seven of those pregnancies before they were three months along, and the one who made it to 28 weeks died before she was five hours old.

I'm not the person who would be good at supporting the decision to deliberately kill an unborn human, and you don't want to even whisper about this where my daughter could hear you.

SHE would be on the floor begging that young woman to keep the pregnancy and give the baby to her.

And stop with the 'pregnancies that occur without sex' silliness. I mean, really. Stop.

The scenario is all too real.
Perhaps you should stop telling biological creatures who reproduce via sex to "not have sex".

guess what. It's possible.

Guess what else: we are SUPPOSED to be thinking, reasoning beings whose brains are in control, and who just might be able to consider that the life of another human MIGHT be more important than the urge to scratch an itch.

Or at least tell them and expect most of them to do it anyway whether you personally like it or not. What you suggest could only work in a perfect world and I believe that every person reading here knows that the world is far from perfect.

It's not. Which is why birth control was invented.

Therefore, I propose that what you suggest (even though I will try my best to instill it in my children) is not a reasonable suggestion and would result in many, many more unwanted pregnancies.

I SUGGEST that women (and men) who engage in sex use multiple forms of birth control if they want to prevent pregnancy.

So, by the way, does the CDC.

I may not like abortions, but I also do not like the idea of increase unwanted pregnancies nor the idea that a woman cannot control what happens to her own body.

What you propose I fear in reality is just taking one step forward in order to take two steps back.

I PROPOSE that adults capable of having sex and getting pregnant take actual responsibility for preventing it if they don't want it, using readily available and inexpensive multiple forms of birth control.

I PROPOSE the insane idea that even in an imperfect world, this is possible for reasoning, thinking human beings.

I PROPOSE that doing so is a lot easier, cheaper and considerably simpler than saying 'oops' and going to get a medical procedure that is more expensive, a lot more invasive, and results in the loss of a life.

No, it's not a perfect world. That's not an excuse for giving up. It's a reason to make it a better one.

[Clownboat]

....and it IS simple.

The vast majority of abortions are obtained by women who could very easily have prevented the pregnancy in the first place.

Do you hold that it IS simple for the non vast majority of abortions too?
Not drowning is simple too, don't breath underwater. Is it realistic to expect that and is it realistic to expect victims trapped underwater by some method to exercise such a simple notion? Of course not, and I feel the same way about expecting hormonal young adults to not have sex. Some will not have sex, but not the VAST MAJORITY.

It's a non issue. However, if you really, really, really don't want to get pregnant, and if you do, you go immediately to the abortion clinic, then it seems pretty simple to me: make very sure you don't get pregnant in the first place. Do whatever it is you have to do to ensure that.

Got it, like making sure your condom never breaks. How do you do that?
Or, making sure you never forget to take the pill. Do you really expect teenagers to never forget? Condoms will break, people will be forgetful and unwanted pregnancies will occur due to this.
It just is not a simple as you think it is.

If that isn't an example of 'there is no such thing as failed birth control, only people who fail to use it" I don't know what is. If their 'birth control' really was abstinence, they wouldn't have gotten pregnant. They weren't, evidently, using it.

Ding ding ding! All forms of birth control fail, even abstinence. It is not simple like you claim. Effective if everyone put it into practice, but to expect such a thing seem irrational IMO.

Parent: So your condom broke, she forgot to take the pill and you failed at abstinence? Go buy a lottery ticket!

Well, hallelujah. So what IS your problem with me?

You personally? Nothing. I'm a fan. However, what you propose is not something that will happen in reality. Just like not breathing underwater in order to avoid drowning will not always work in reality either.

Actually, yes. If they are old enough to have sex and get pregnant (or get a girl pregnant) they are old enough to take responsibility for not doing so.

Great, so they need to decide to attempt to keep the unwanted fetus or decide to not attempt to carry it right? I ask because it seems like you want to take the decision part of it out of the equation and IMO you need to decide if attempting to bring up a fetus is responsible for you to do or not. It seems like they are only responsible before the conception, afterwords you would make the ability to responsibly decide what to do away from them. Ironic.

THERE is where the responsibility is ours; parents, teachers, etc., it is OUR job to make sure they do know what needs to be done.

And until that is done, it would be harmful to assume our youngsters know what needs to be done. Since some don't know what needs to be done, or haven't had proper training on birth control, it is not as simple as you say.

It is our responsibility to teach, why aren't you being responsible in acknowledging that not all kids have received proper training though?

You mean, like I'm not talking about non-consensual sex? you don't seem to give a good hoot what I'm not talking about when you start attacking my position.

The way you phrased it and the way I read it seemed to not account for rape victims. Either way, now that you have been clear one again, why are you OK with a rape victim murdering a baby? (Kinda fun turning that one around, but funness aside, I am curious about your answer). Why are you pro-abortion when it comes to rape? Or is it more that you are pro-choice in that instance?

Can pregnancy happen without penile penetration? OK, sure...

Your "it's simple" claim suffers from this admission. It's not simply a matter of not having sex when teenagers unaware of pre-cum get fingers involved without any penile penetration happening.

but 'sex' is considerably wider an area than that, isn't it? The idea is to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. If the ejaculate is close enough to the vagina to make that journey, then those two people are engaging in the activity for which birth control was invented.

Sex is not an area, and my point is to show that pregnancies happen without any sex at all. Did your claim change from "don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant"?

You may as well be claiming that 'withdrawal' isn't really sex because the man 'pulls out' before ejaculating.

Oh.

Wait.

That's EXACTLY what you are claiming, isn't it?

Nope
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sex?s=t

Use a condom. Where? On his fingers? What about when he gets pre cum on his fingers while putting the condom on? Perhaps rubber gloves should be required to put a condom on? How ridiculous must this get?

Don't ask me. Argue with the CDC. Seems to me that you are the one who is getting ridiculous, coming up with all these incredibly outlandish and unlikely scenarios. However, what part of 'multiple forms of birth control' seems to have whooshed RIGHT over your head?

But I am asking you. You purport using numerous forms of birth control, I am asking about a very real scenario, and that is pregnancies that happen without any sexual intercourse. Why is wearing rubber gloves when putting on a condom ridiculous, but expecting teenagers to use multiple forms of birth control not? Again, my point is to show that your scenario is not as simple as you claim. The scenario I mention is all to real and your solution is ineffective towards the people I mention and therefore cannot be considered simple.

Right. He just phoned his sperm in. E-mailed it to her.

Give me a break. Clownboat.

Perhaps you are not very versed in the different forms of intimacy? Let me assure you that there was zero penile penetration. It involved hands down pants and all this happened while in a parking lot.
You do not deserve a break on this one, especially if your reaction is based on ignorance.

Agreed (except for it being simple). Now do you agree that birth control can fail, that humans will fail to use it correctly and that unwanted pregnancies happen without intercourse?

It's simple. Make your choice before you engage in the activity that might result in pregnancy.

That is a non answer.

.............and that includes any torturous athletics that might get you 'pregnant without intercourse.' Great googly moogly.

I am not here to educate you on different ways that people get intimate. Trust me that penile penetration is not always required.

It is simple.

Only when you ignore real life scenarios or when you expect teenagers of all people to always act responsibly.

Yet when the woman bets that she won't begin a new human life, and loses THAT bet, suddenly she gets a 'do over?'

Like it or not, IMO it is her decision to make, not yours or anyone else.

It's just a clump of cells to many people (you and I may disagree). I can only imagine that you have some cells you would love to remove too, you don't value them, and you cannot force people to value their clump of cells either whether you claim it just might become a person or not (again, late term abortions are not being discussed here by me).

That's not money. That's a real, honest to goodness, human life. That she began. That she will end.

Only if you continue to forget that nearly 70% of conceptions abort naturally. Most abortions happen without the mothers consent.

OK...but in order for his sperm to get into contact with her egg, they had to be close enough...and naked enough...to qualify for 'we should use birth control before we do this.'

You are wrong. They were not naked and in fact were in a public parking lot. Obviously, fluids were exchanged, but she didn't even consider him to be the father until the guy she was sleeping with was found and a paternity test done him that come up negative. Three years past before my friend found out he was a father.

I expect people who are old enough to get pregnant to use birth control, and I expect those in charge of those people to have made darned sure that they know about, and have access to, birth control.

IMO, your expectation are outside of reality.

It IS simple.
But 'simple' isn't always 'easy.'

It's only simple if it is also not applicable to some people, but if it's not applicable to a certain amount of people, how can you call it simple?

But Clownboat, there are real lives at stake here, and I'm not talking ONLY about the lives ended as a result of abortion.

There are many people that will disagree with you about calling a clump of cells a real life at stake. The teenage girl/boys life I agree are at stake, I just feel like they need to decide what is the best course of action for them, not anyone else.

My position on pregnancies that are the result of rape is this...and I have said this before;

If I were raped and got pregnant as a result, I would keep the baby, counting that baby as the only good thing about the rape, as the baby is, inarguably, THE most innocent victim of that rape and doesn't deserve capital punishment for an act he had nothing to do with. However, that's my position. I do not judge any woman who cannot handle raising, or being pregnant with, a child of rape. However, when a woman makes that decision, the rapist should be charged with rape AND with murder, because the entire thing is on him.

You say the fetus doesn't deserve capital punishment, yet you would allow it here. Why are you pro-abortion in this instance, but not when a condom breaks or when a pregnancy happens without any intercourse?

Going into a consensually agreed upon sexual experience is a lot more like, oh, hang gliding than driving...especially driving off a cliff. Prepare properly, take care of your equipment, and you are a lot less likely to die than you are by getting into an airplane and a LOT less likely to die than you are while driving.

Humans are biologically creatures that exist due to the act of sex. We are not predisposed to hang gliding or driving. There is not biological reproductive act involved with hang gliding nor driving.

Use analogies that might actually apply here, Clownboat.

Pot, meet kettle.

If the sex was consensual, then she went into the experience knowing full well that it could end up in pregnancy.

What about the times when there was no sex at all? Should we all just shove our heads in the sand and forget those people? I know, let's do that and then even call it simple.

If this girl were my daughter, I would love her, console her, not blame her...and I would take care of her with every emotional and financial resource I have until that child is born, and support her in her decision either to raise the child or give that child to someone who wants it.

And if you were that girl, I would do what I could to make sure you are allowed to make the decision that you feel is best for you.

As it happens, my daughter would probably give all her rights in heaven and hell to have the chance to raise the baby that this inconsolable young woman. She's been pregnant eight times, lost seven of those pregnancies before they were three months along, and the one who made it to 28 weeks died before she was five hours old.

I am sorry about the losses. Truly, but I think we can all see where you derive the emotional side of this argument and I can't help but wonder if the emotions are clouding your view of reality. That would explain the "too bad for you, you had sex" attitude.

I'm not the person who would be good at supporting the decision to deliberately kill an unborn human, and you don't want to even whisper about this where my daughter could hear you.

This further concludes my emotional assumption.

SHE would be on the floor begging that young woman to keep the pregnancy and give the baby to her.

She would understand that the decision is not hers to make I would trust? Take all the emotion out of this scenario and think about who should make the decision to attempt to carry or not.
- The mother?
- The father?
- The parents of the woman?

IMO, the host is most qualified and I will continue to refuse to believe that all people will use multiple forms of control, or will abstain from sex, or that they will never get pregnant without actual intercourse.

Perhaps you should stop telling biological creatures who reproduce via sex to "not have sex".

guess what. It's possible.

I agree it's possible, now do you agree that it is not a realistic expectation for most teenagers?

Guess what else: we are SUPPOSED to be thinking, reasoning beings whose brains are in control, and who just might be able to consider that the life of another human MIGHT be more important than the urge to scratch an itch.

Great, now allow the potential mother to think and reason with her brain to decide to attempt to carry a fetus to term or not.

It's not. Which is why birth control was invented.

It was invented because sex is not about making babies. You don't seem to get that though. Perhaps that is because of the 8 losses your daughter had and I mention that as an observation, please believe me that I do not mean to make light of it.

I SUGGEST that women (and men) who engage in sex use multiple forms of birth control if they want to prevent pregnancy.

I hear your suggest and continue to personally find it ignorant to think most of our teenagers will do as you say. Yet there it is, your simple solution. Would it work? Yup, kinda like how not breathing under water would stop you from ever drowning.

I may not like abortions, but I also do not like the idea of increase unwanted pregnancies nor the idea that a woman cannot control what happens to her own body.

What you propose I fear in reality is just taking one step forward in order to take two steps back.

I PROPOSE that adults capable of having sex and getting pregnant take actual responsibility for preventing it if they don't want it, using readily available and inexpensive multiple forms of birth control.

I got that, like I said, I feel you are proposing one step forward to just take two steps back.

I PROPOSE the insane idea that even in an imperfect world, this is possible for reasoning, thinking human beings.

To expect such a thing is foolish though.

I PROPOSE that doing so is a lot easier, cheaper and considerably simpler than saying 'oops' and going to get a medical procedure that is more expensive, a lot more invasive, and results in the loss of a life.

Agreed, but let's not forget all the people that will fail at it.

No, it's not a perfect world. That's not an excuse for giving up. It's a reason to make it a better one.

I purport making rational decision, not giving up.

[Peter]

What is best for the unwanted child?

To be aborted.
To be raised by the state.
To hope the parents change their minds.
To grow up hungry, ignorant and poor.
To be adopted by a loving family.
To be raised by grandma.
To be sexually molested by uncle Joe.

Dare I say it but abortion is evolution. If parents are wired to kill their kids they should for the good of the human race. Let's remove any genetic predisposition there might be to be bad parents. It works for me.