Abortion

  • PolitiMAC

    Posts: 728

    Jan 11, 2014 1:07 AM GMT
    Hey everyone, how's it going?

    Well, this is certainly a case that causes a lot of controversy across many people and countries.

    You all know what it is, and this thread is about what people think.

    My position at the moment is that it should be legal, however with strict oversight as to WHYa woman should be able to get it. A foetus that is viable should NEVER be aborted, as they can have a life successfully if taken care of.

    And of course, the sick practice of murdering the child AFTER it has been born is absolutely out of the question, because that isn't abortion. That is downright murder/infanticide.

    My position in what a woman should do with an unborn child should she not want it (bad planning ahead), is that she should carry it either to term or until a premature birth can be induced (I favour the former of course) and then put it up for adoption! So many adoptive hopeful parents could be helped in this situation, straight or gay.

    In the end, I have to say that I really don't like abortion, and would prefer it not to happen, except in cases where the mother's life is in danger or there are foreseeable problems with the child (malformation or brain damage). Other than that, I don't see abortion as a very good way to address a problem. It's amazing how these women will willingly have unprotected sex and do this (unless of course, rape was involved).

    So what are your thoughts on abortion? Feel free to point out issues in my logic of it (just don't have a problem when I do the same to you icon_wink.gif )
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jan 12, 2014 12:39 AM GMT
    I'm pro-choice and believe it's none of our business as to why a woman wants to have an abortion.

    When a woman makes the choice to have an abortion, it is not a decision made lightly; the decision does not come easy. She is fully aware that she could bring to term a child and possibly raise it successfully, but under the circumstances that confront her, she is making a choice not to. I think we ought to respect her decision.

    Compelling the woman to have the child against her wishes runs contrary to the advocacy of smaller government, don't you think? I've seen conservatives rail against "the system" and liberals and democrats because "big government" is telling them how to run their lives, what to feed their children, etc., but apparently don't see a "big government" problem in telling a woman she must have that child?

    As for adoption, if only that solution were so simple. Yes, children do get adopted and are fortunate to sometimes end up in a loving home. However, not all children are so lucky, and they are aged out of the system. Where is the support? Where is the money to support not only the kids who are living in foster homes, but the ones making the tough transition once they hit 18 without being adopted?

    Unfortunately these programs face big cuts, as social programs usually do.
  • PolitiMAC

    Posts: 728

    Jan 12, 2014 2:09 AM GMT
    I'm not calling for compelling women to do anything, as I'm sure many others wouldn't either.

    I think that the argument of a woman just having final say leads to a problem. So many women do not have a problem with it, as you say.

    To many women, it's just another form of contraception. Get pregnant; get an abortion. Not all, of course, but don't say that it's some hard and super deep question to every woman.

    Social programs may face cuts, but many won't. I doubt that any government is going to seriously add more to the problem of adoption and foster care.

    My main problem with abortion is that it has some kind of sacred position these days where if someone says they don't like it, they're accused of being anti-women or something ridiculous. The 'system' is not the be all and end of adoption anyway. If people were told that the adoptive path was something else, the mother may make the decision to give it to adoptive parents.

    Not easy, potentially complicated, but it's a way.

    If a baby is healthy, I see abortion as a selfish path to take, as other parenting hopefuls could have that child as their own, so I suppose it's my own existence as a gay man that plays into that.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jan 12, 2014 3:00 AM GMT
    PolitiNerd saidI'm not calling for compelling women to do anything, as I'm sure many others wouldn't either.

    I think that the argument of a woman just having final say leads to a problem. So many women do not have a problem with it, as you say.

    To many women, it's just another form of contraception. Get pregnant; get an abortion. Not all, of course, but don't say that it's some hard and super deep question to every woman.

    Social programs may face cuts, but many won't. I doubt that any government is going to seriously add more to the problem of adoption and foster care.

    My main problem with abortion is that it has some kind of sacred position these days where if someone says they don't like it, they're accused of being anti-women or something ridiculous. The 'system' is not the be all and end of adoption anyway. If people were told that the adoptive path was something else, the mother may make the decision to give it to adoptive parents.

    Not easy, potentially complicated, but it's a way.

    If a baby is healthy, I see abortion as a selfish path to take, as other parenting hopefuls could have that child as their own, so I suppose it's my own existence as a gay man that plays into that.


    If you're not compelling the woman to do anything, then why are you proposing that she have the child if it's a healthy fetus? That is compelling her to do something—you're forcing her to do something against her will.

    You really think abortion is just another form birth control many women? Something as casual as taking the pill? If there are any women who have a loose attitude towards getting an abortion, I'm confident their number is small compared to the number of women who wrestle with the idea.

    Taking the pro-life position isn't an anti-women, but the laws passed at the state level here in the United States from legislatures run by Republicans have hurt women's health care.

    Women who choose to have abortions are aware that adoption is a possibility. Why aren't you giving women credit? They know it's a choice, but have made the decision for abortion.

    I'm not sure why you think it's selfish just because there are people out there who want to adopt. I've got news for you: the supply is more than the demand. If someone wants to adopt, there is no shortage of supply.

    Sorry, but social programs do face cuts with austerity measures and budget constraints. There is not enough funding now, even in states that haven't tried to regulate abortion clinics out of business which is what Republican-controlled states are doing.
  • PolitiMAC

    Posts: 728

    Jan 12, 2014 4:06 AM GMT
    creature said
    PolitiNerd saidI'm not calling for compelling women to do anything, as I'm sure many others wouldn't either.

    I think that the argument of a woman just having final say leads to a problem. So many women do not have a problem with it, as you say.

    To many women, it's just another form of contraception. Get pregnant; get an abortion. Not all, of course, but don't say that it's some hard and super deep question to every woman.

    Social programs may face cuts, but many won't. I doubt that any government is going to seriously add more to the problem of adoption and foster care.

    My main problem with abortion is that it has some kind of sacred position these days where if someone says they don't like it, they're accused of being anti-women or something ridiculous. The 'system' is not the be all and end of adoption anyway. If people were told that the adoptive path was something else, the mother may make the decision to give it to adoptive parents.

    Not easy, potentially complicated, but it's a way.

    If a baby is healthy, I see abortion as a selfish path to take, as other parenting hopefuls could have that child as their own, so I suppose it's my own existence as a gay man that plays into that.


    If you're not compelling the woman to do anything, then why are you proposing that she have the child if it's a healthy fetus? That is compelling her to do something—you're forcing her to do something against her will.

    You really think abortion is just another form birth control many women? Something as casual as taking the pill? If there are any women who have a loose attitude towards getting an abortion, I'm confident their number is small compared to the number of women who wrestle with the idea.

    Taking the pro-life position isn't an anti-women, but the laws passed at the state level here in the United States from legislatures run by Republicans have hurt women's health care.

    Women who choose to have abortions are aware that adoption is a possibility. Why aren't you giving women credit? They know it's a choice, but have made the decision for abortion.

    I'm not sure why you think it's selfish just because there are people out there who want to adopt. I've got news for you: the supply is more than the demand. If someone wants to adopt, there is no shortage of supply.

    Sorry, but social programs do face cuts with austerity measures and budget constraints. There is not enough funding now, even in states that haven't tried to regulate abortion clinics out of business which is what Republican-controlled states are doing.


    I said that this is what I FEEL, not what I would act on.I would LIKE to have women not do this, but it's up to them at the moment.

    I don't see how it's the evil Republicans again who have hurt women. The way the Left carry on about them, you'd think they would have no support, yet they attract sometimes more than half of the entire vote.

    Again, I simply assert that there are ways to deal with these kinds of things that don't require abortion. Sure, it's always a way, but it is not used simply because a woman is so deeply traumatised by it all. If they really were, then they wouldn't have unprotected sex to put themselves in that position.

    Sure the nine months of pregnancy is not easy, but it's a way. That being said, I do concede that a lot of work still has to be done in order to make sure that that course of action can be properly facilitated.

    And YourName2000, simply trying to insult me is not helping your argument... If you actually had an argument.

    Also, I don't get acne anymore. I used to, but not anymore, so saying that I'm a "pimply virgin" like it's some slanderous title is ridiculous. So what if I've never had sex before? It'll happen eventually.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2014 4:06 AM GMT
    Considering that this board is full of men, the only answer should be that a woman should have a right to make that choice. None of us will ever be pregnant.

    During the last election cycle, we were subjected to such idiocy as "legitimate rape" and pregnancy through rape being a supposed gift to women, both comments from men running for office, who thankfully lost. Men being anti-choice is absurd.
  • PolitiMAC

    Posts: 728

    Jan 12, 2014 4:22 AM GMT
    blkapollo saidConsidering that this board is full of men, the only answer should be that a woman should have a right to make that choice. None of us will ever be pregnant.

    During the last election cycle, we were subjected to such idiocy as "legitimate rape" and pregnancy through rape being a supposed gift to women, both comments from men running for office, who thankfully lost. Men being anti-choice is absurd.


    By that reasoning, no one could have an opinion on anything to do with another country, right? A gay man couldn't talk about heterosexual relationships, right?

    It's a fallacious argument you are proposing that if one cannot do something or be something, then they cannot have an opinion to be respected.
  • PIccadilly

    Posts: 240

    Jan 12, 2014 4:59 AM GMT
    The pro-life vs pro-choice debate isn't focused properly. No one is asking the fundamental question: Why are woman having abortions? The simple answer is obviously unwanted pregnancies (except for the occasional pregnancy with complications). Reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions will reduce accordingly.

    Switzerland and the Netherlands are well known for their low abortion rates. You don't have to dig very deep to understand why: comprehensive sexual and contraception education, easy access to contraception (including the morning-after pill available without a prescription), family planing services, little influence of religion.
  • PolitiMAC

    Posts: 728

    Jan 12, 2014 5:15 AM GMT
    Piccadilly saidThe pro-life vs pro-choice debate isn't focused properly. No one is asking the fundamental question: Why are woman having abortions? The simple answer is obviously unwanted pregnancies (except for the occasional pregnancy with complications). Reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions will reduce accordingly.

    Switzerland and the Netherlands are well known for their low abortion rates. You don't have to dig very deep to understand why: comprehensive sexual and contraception education, easy access to contraception (including the morning-after pill available without a prescription), family planing services, little influence of religion.


    Agree completely.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2014 5:39 AM GMT
    YourName2000 saidSo we're gonna have a debate on the pros and cons of abortion here, are we? A bunch of gay men (and a couple of straight ones, like FIF of course, mustn't forget our straight trolls)? Not a single woman here? Led by a pimply virgin?

    Are we trying to give the GOP a run for their idiocy now?

    There's a level of stupid here rarely seen....most things this dumb die shortly after birth (no abortion required).


    So you really want to go at it again?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2014 5:55 AM GMT
    I think there's a level of chutzpah for men---and more especially gay men---to even have an opinion about this. Women control their bodies. Not some church, not even their male partners, the women themselves. To the extent that a man is involved, he may (in some cases) be owed the courtesy of being consulted, but that's about it.

    And the right-wing talking point that women choose abortion as a form of contraception is insulting and puerile. Especially with the range of contraception available and the physical unpleasantness of any abortion procedure. Abortions are generally sought for four reasons: contraceptive accidents (no method is 100%), forced pregnancies (rape), deformation of the fetus, and the health of the mother.

    The fanciful and ridiculous idea that anyone does it lightly for the hell of it is contemptuous of women in general, suggesting that they are so feckless that they would rather undergo a surgical procedure than use a contraceptive.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2014 5:56 AM GMT
    Aristoshark saidI think there's a level of chutzpah for men---and more especially gay men---to even have an opinion about this. Women control their bodies. Not some church, not even their male partners, the women themselves. To the extent that a man is involved, he may (in some cases) be owed the courtesy of being consulted, but that's about it.

    And the right-wing talking point that women choose abortion as a form of contraception is insulting and puerile. Especially with the range of contraception available and the physical unpleasantness of any abortion procedure. Abortions are generally sought for four reasons: contraceptive accidents (no menthod is 100%), forced pregnancies (rape), deformation of the fetus, and the health of the mother.

    The fanciful and ridiculous idea that anyone does it lightly for the hell of it is contemptuous of women in general, suggesting that they are so feckless that they would rather undergo a surgical procedure than use a contraceptive.



    "menthod"

    punny
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2014 5:56 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Aristoshark saidI think there's a level of chutzpah for men---and more especially gay men---to even have an opinion about this. Women control their bodies. Not some church, not even their male partners, the women themselves. To the extent that a man is involved, he may (in some cases) be owed the courtesy of being consulted, but that's about it.

    And the right-wing talking point that women choose abortion as a form of contraception is insulting and puerile. Especially with the range of contraception available and the physical unpleasantness of any abortion procedure. Abortions are generally sought for four reasons: contraceptive accidents (no menthod is 100%), forced pregnancies (rape), deformation of the fetus, and the health of the mother.

    The fanciful and ridiculous idea that anyone does it lightly for the hell of it is contemptuous of women in general, suggesting that they are so feckless that they would rather undergo a surgical procedure than use a contraceptive.



    "menthod"

    punny

    Yeah, I saw that myself. And corrected it.
  • PolitiMAC

    Posts: 728

    Jan 12, 2014 6:30 AM GMT
    Author: Jennifer Oriel, The Australian:

    "SENATOR Cory Bernardi's book The Conservative Revolution has been portrayed as a tirade against women's reproductive choices. The senator's penchant for polemics certainly reaches a zenith when he describes pro-choice women as pro-death.

    But he is mostly concerned with conservative faith in the sanctity of life and countering an emergent discourse that would permit the murder of healthy newborns as "post-birth abortion".

    In the same month that The Conservative Revolution was published, Tasmania became the third Australian jurisdiction to decriminalise abortion. In other states and territories, it is effectively legal.

    Passage of the Tasmanian bill was saluted by its sponsor, Health Minister Michelle O'Byrne, who proclaimed "it brings our laws into the 21st century". Perhaps she hasn't read the science.

    Science on foetal development has raced light years ahead of abortion politics which remains mired in a 1970s time warp.

    The US constitutional protection of abortion arising from the 1973 Roe v Wade case rested on the balance between women's right to reproductive choice and the unborn's right to life.

    The latter was deemed to exist at foetal viability, then understood as 28 gestational weeks.

    To date, abortion laws have derived largely from political and moral opinion. But in 2013, the House of Representatives in the US approved the first science-based abortion laws.

    The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act recognises that major advances in fetal pain research and neonatal intensive care constitute a mandate for abortion law reform.

    Research has found that fetuses produce strong stress and avoidant responses to noxious stimuli at 20 weeks. Some studies on surgery in utero report fetuses as young as 18 weeks exhibiting pain responses.

    The founding father of the fetal pain capability field is professor of pediatrics, anaesthesiology and neurobiology Kanwaljeet Anand. Educated in medicine at India's Indore University, Anand completed his PhD at Oxford and post-doctoral degree at Harvard Medical School. In 2009, he was honoured with the world's most distinguished international award for pediatric medicine, the Nils Rosen von Rosenstein Medal.

    Anand's three decades of research have significantly influenced the new US approach to abortion, which introduces a 20-week limit for procedures. The research is compelling not only because of its quality and enlightening discoveries, but because its author is avowedly disinterested in its application to politics.

    Following his 2005 expert testimony on fetal pain to congress, Anand withdrew from public debates on abortion. He is equivocal about the new bill, but not the science that underpins it.

    While completing residency at a neonatal intensive care unit in the 80s, Anand observed post-operative newborns exhibiting signs of physical distress.

    On inquiry, he learned that they were not anaesthetised due to a general, yet unvalidated medical consensus that neonate nervous systems were too underdeveloped to sense pain.

    Anand's subsequent clinical trials established that newborns produce copious stress hormones during surgery without anaesthetic.

    Combined with pain avoidance behaviours and stress-induced post-operative distress, Anand concluded that they sensed pain.

    His recommendation to use anaesthetics reduced the mortality rate of neonates undergoing cardiac surgery from 25 per cent to below 10 per cent.

    Over time, Anand found that like their older counterparts, preterm babies as young as 20 weeks produce stress hormones and pain avoidance behaviours in response to noxious stimuli.

    Anand's research was so broadly accepted it produced a new global standard in pediatric medicine. But when the research leapt the boundary of science into the politics of abortion, it was suddenly refuted by everyone from pro-abortion lobbyists to a working party of the British College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

    The most commonly cited evidence against fetal pain capability is a 2005 literature review by Susan Lee et al, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It concluded that fetuses could not feel pain because their cortexes are not fully developed.

    Unlike Anand's research, the publications of Lee et al and the British working party aim explicitly at challenging abortion law reform to recognise fetal pain capability.

    Anand criticised Lee et al's review as methodologically unsound and substantively incorrect because it precluded the finding that premature infants process pain in a region known as the subplate zone, which is developed at a fetal age of 17 weeks.

    While the discovery that fetuses are capable of pain at 20 weeks constitutes a new field of inquiry for the ethics and practice of abortion, advances in preterm infant care pose an empirical challenge to the 24-28 week fetal viability standard of abortion law.

    Infant mortality is steadily decreasing in Australia, including among premature babies born before the 28-week upper limit for legal abortion.

    In a longitudinal study of more than 24,000 infants treated in Australian neonatal intensive care units, researchers Yvonne Feng et al found the mortality rate of extremely premature infants fell from 10.2 per cent between 1995-2001 to 7.1 per cent in 2001-2006.

    They attributed improved survival rates to "groundbreaking therapies" that "significantly improved the survival of critically ill newborn infants, especially those born at the cusp of viability between 22 and 24 weeks' gestation".

    Most Australian states and territories have made some attempt to balance fetal right to life with women's right to abortion by setting gestational thresholds between 16 to 28 weeks. But limits to abortion can be overcome by gaining the consent of two doctors.

    While the pro-abortion lobby claims late-term abortions are harm-free procedures performed in response to grave medical danger, most Australian laws permit them on social, economic or psychological grounds.

    The claim that abortions performed mid to late pregnancy are harm-free is at least made questionable by the science on fetal pain capability and evidence of partial birth abortions occurring under even the most stringent conditions.

    A 2011 West Australian government inquiry found that several fetuses survived attempts to abort them in the state's only approved provider of late-term abortions. The babies were born alive, but perished in hospital after receiving no post-natal care.

    Methods of termination listed in the minister's response were suction curettage, dilation and curettage, dilation and evacuation and vaginal prostaglandin or analog instillation. These methods can include gradual dismemberment of the foetus to enable extraction.

    The continuing sanction of late-term abortion despite the science on fetal pain capability demands a federal response. Let it be led by reason."


    Sorry for the space taken up, but the paper needs a subscription to read fully.

    This is some of the reasons why I'm not so close minded to discussing changes to abortion laws and acceptance like some here.

    The stupidity of suggesting that men can't have an input because we can't get pregnant is an unbelievably foolish assertion. Discuss an item on its merits and not based on political correctness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2014 6:41 AM GMT
    PolitiNerd said
    blkapollo saidConsidering that this board is full of men, the only answer should be that a woman should have a right to make that choice. None of us will ever be pregnant.

    During the last election cycle, we were subjected to such idiocy as "legitimate rape" and pregnancy through rape being a supposed gift to women, both comments from men running for office, who thankfully lost. Men being anti-choice is absurd.


    By that reasoning, no one could have an opinion on anything to do with another country, right? A gay man couldn't talk about heterosexual relationships, right?

    It's a fallacious argument you are proposing that if one cannot do something or be something, then they cannot have an opinion to be respected.


    A gay man talking about straight relationships is not comparable. You can observe many relationships and to an extent, relationships aren't always that different, rather they be gay or straight. I'm just not seeing the logic starting a thread about abortion on a gay male message board. Sure, it can be discussed, but it's not as if anyone here can really ever be pregnant or fully weigh what goes into reproductive choice for women.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2014 6:47 AM GMT
    PolitiNerd said Discuss an item on its merits and not based on political correctness.

    1. The term "political correctness" is one of those meaningless placeholders right-wingers use to try to shut down their opponents' point of view. I'm trying to explain to you why almost no one here pays attention to your ideas. It's partly because you have a whole stupid bag of right-wing tricks and blather that stand in for the more difficult process of thinking. When you repeat that crap, it's automatic to tune you out.
    2. I didn't say a man can't have an opinion. I said it's chutzpah to think that his opinion (if he even has one) should carry any weight whatsoever. It should not. PERIOD.
  • PolitiMAC

    Posts: 728

    Jan 12, 2014 6:54 AM GMT
    Aristoshark said
    PolitiNerd said Discuss an item on its merits and not based on political correctness.

    1. The term "political correctness" is one of those meaningless placeholders right-wingers use to try to shut down their opponents' point of view. I'm trying to explain to you why almost no one here pays attention to your ideas. It's partly because you have a whole stupid bag of right-wing tricks and blather that stand in for the more difficult process of thinking. When you repeat that crap, it's automatic to tune you out.
    2. I didn't say a man can't have an opinion. I said it's chutzpah to think that his opinion (if he even has one) should carry any weight whatsoever. It should not. PERIOD.


    Odd how your claims that "no one here pays attention to [my] ideas" when I get several tens of views on this post and I have had at least 100 on others in the past.

    Yet again, your non-argument is to try and insult and slander.

    Amazing how you kind of people can get ahead in life when you're so arrogant and bitter.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2014 6:57 AM GMT
    PolitiNerd saidAmazing how you kind of people can get ahead in life when you're so arrogant and bitter.

    I really appreciate your tender concern. I've done just fine, thanks.
    What an idiotic thing to say.
    As to being bitter, I could list all the ugly and stupid things you've called liberals in just the month or so you've been here. But you don't interest me enough to bother.
    I'd say you're the bitter one.
  • PolitiMAC

    Posts: 728

    Jan 12, 2014 7:00 AM GMT
    Aristoshark said
    PolitiNerd saidAmazing how you kind of people can get ahead in life when you're so arrogant and bitter.

    I really appreciate your tender concern. I've done just fine, thanks.
    What an idiotic thing to say.
    As to being bitter, I could list all the ugly and stupid things you've called liberals in just the month or so you've been here. But you don't interest me enough to bother.
    I'd say you're the bitter one.


    Please, show me these slanderous words I have spoken to you or called Leftists.

    I'm sure I could find a fuck load more from you and far worse.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 12, 2014 5:30 PM GMT
    Are there any first world countries where abortion is illegal?

    I ask because having the government preside over a woman's uterus seems barbaric in this age of women's rights over their bodies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2014 5:44 PM GMT
    humans hunt and kill endangered species every day (and each other) and you're worried about a few abortions (with 6 billion people on the planet no less), give me a break
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2014 5:49 PM GMT
    I vow to never have an abortion. My Brothers, how many of you will join me in this great personal sacrifice?
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jan 12, 2014 6:25 PM GMT
    PolitiNerd said
    Piccadilly saidThe pro-life vs pro-choice debate isn't focused properly. No one is asking the fundamental question: Why are woman having abortions? The simple answer is obviously unwanted pregnancies (except for the occasional pregnancy with complications). Reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions will reduce accordingly.

    Switzerland and the Netherlands are well known for their low abortion rates. You don't have to dig very deep to understand why: comprehensive sexual and contraception education, easy access to contraception (including the morning-after pill available without a prescription), family planing services, little influence of religion.


    Agree completely.


    I'm glad you agree with this position, but I hope you know that in America the socially conservative members of the Republican party, which has a stronghold on the party, are against the above.

    Even Paul Ryan, the VP choice for Republicans in the 2012 elections, holds the belief that life starts at conception and supports measures to ban contraceptions. I don't recall if Mitt holds those positions, but his VP pick does.

    But I will have to agree with PolitiNerd in saying that it shouldn't matter if we're men or gay men to have an opinion on this subject.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2014 7:09 PM GMT
    Don't feed the Troll....not all RJ members understand that the English used by many English speakers is not the same English with the same meaning and connotations, especially in a conversation on cultural and political point of contention, universally around the world. Unfortunately, some members launch these "academic" threads for the sole purpose of watching the argument. The OP is doing just such a thing by punching all of the common buttons. This is not a "debate" as the OP states in his profile that he is fond of....rather it is instigation and antagonism....the action of a TROLL....don't feed the troll.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • PolitiMAC

    Posts: 728

    Jan 13, 2014 10:34 AM GMT
    kiwiLifter saidThe issue is the ethics of killing an unborn child / fetus - is it acceptable, if so under what conditions?

    All members of society have an interest in how this issue is dealt with. Not just those that have a vagina.

    Why should feminist arguments be accepted as gospel truth and that they represent how women feel. The majority of women don't consider themselves feminists and with good reason.


    I agree completely. The PC don't accept this, and resort to abuse. You know the ones who do it. Humanity is something that we all can have an input to.