To those pro life.....

[Utah]

Simple question......What do you do with all those extra babies if abortion is outlawed?

[sameoldsht]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you do with all those extra babies if abortion is outlawed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't think of anything worse than simply killing them en masse.

[Boris]

I say we eat'em!

[adios]

My take is that the demand for babies from those that wish to adopt far out paces the supply of available babies for adoption.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
My take is that the demand for babies from those that wish to adopt far out paces the supply of available babies for adoption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, these babies are wanted.

Just think in 25 years we could have a solvent Social Security system without raising taxes, just from all these extra babies. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[zaxx19]

Dont be outraged oh ye liberals but....

EVERY SINGLE HEALTHY WHITE BABY BORN IN THE U.S. WOULD BE ADOPTED.

Now go ahead and flame away....but its the truth and it really cant be debated.

[Dan Rutter]

adoption

[Utah]

"I can't think of anything worse than simply killing them en masse."

Respectfully, that doesnt address the question I asked.

[Beerfund]

Heres a partial list;

1. Use em for shark and other big game fish bate
2. Stuff em and sell em as Cabbage Patch dolls
3. Adoption
4. Suicide baby bombers
5. Send em to Canada and Mexico and let them do whatever it is the hell they do their.
6. Harvest their livers and other organs so drunks like me can live longer.
I'm sure there are more but I'm out.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Heres a partial list;

1. Use em for shark and other big game fish bate
2. Stuff em and sell em as Cabbage Patch dolls
3. Adoption
4. Suicide baby bombers
5. Send em to Canada and Mexico and let them do whatever it is the hell they do their.
6. Harvest their livers and other organs so drunks like me can live longer.
I'm sure there are more but I'm out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isnt OOT.

[andyfox]

Wow, I hate to agree with this poster, but his point is a valid one: your question doesn't matter if abortion is murder. We make whatever political or social arrangements we need to. What would the answer have been to Hitler if he had asked: "What do we do with all those extra Jews if we don't exterminate them?" The answer is that a human life is not "extra."

[Utah]

You are reading too much much into my question. I am not saying anything about whether abortion is right or wrong. I am simply asking about how we deal with the consequences if abortion is outlawed. I believe that is a legitimate question.

[zaxx19]

What are the "consequences".....

1) reduced need for immigration to prop up our 1st world demographics problem??

2) Young women taken time of work or university to have-raise a child(OK legitimate)

3) Younger median age for child rearers..(Id say this is a positive)

4) Less 1-2 child families and more 3-4 child ones(also probably a positive)

Got anything else in mind.....

[andyfox]

We'll have 301,000,000 people or 302,000,000 instead of 300,000,000. Or whatever. I don't see it as a problem. Problems attributed to overpopulation or "suplus" people are usually political problems.

[Utah]

Respectfully, your analysis is a faulty one. It is not an overpopulation issue. The issue is what do you do with a million young mothers with limited financial and emotional support needed to raise their child.

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]

Respectfully, your analysis is a faulty one. It is not an overpopulation issue. The issue is what do you do with a million young mothers with limited financial and emotional support needed to raise their child.


[/ QUOTE ]

Tell them:

1.They are idiots for getting pregnant in the first place
2.They should give the baby up for adoption
3.Stop getting pregnant if you dont want a [censored] baby!!!

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
EVERY SINGLE HEALTHY WHITE BABY BORN IN THE U.S. WOULD BE ADOPTED.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what do we do wiht the unhealthy and non-white babies?

[zaxx19]

So you are willing to outlaw abortions on healthy white ones.....

There goes most abortions. Wow, who knew it be that easy.

[nothumb]

Hey, Utah, very good question.

The problem is those young mothers, but it's also the back-alley abortions that can be a significant health risk. People are going to get abortions no matter what. If we agree that abortion is a major bummer, the best question to ask is how we can keep them to a minimum, and keep more people safe when they occur. I think education and the availability of birth control do a lot more to prevent it.

I hear that some health plans cover Viagra and not birth control. That more or less epitomizes the problem right there. The more I look at the abortion issue, the more I think society's view of women is a major impediment to preventing unwanted pregnancies.

BTW, zaxx is right, there might be unwanted pregnancies, but the white babies will be adopted. Others, not so much, and I see the consequences of that disparity at my job every day.

NT

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
The issue is what do you do with a million young mothers with limited financial and emotional support needed to raise their child.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that this is not a total number? Obviously, some mothers to be that have abortions do have the financial and emotional wherewithal to raise a child but choose not to. What proportion of the ‘abortion total’ do they represent?

And who makes the call as to the 'line' needed of financial and emotional support - the woman alone, family and friends, the State, through social agencies or services etc, or private organizations, that usually have some attendant political and/or religious agenda or slant (obviously some state services can be accused of bias also) etc.

-Zeno

[dcoles11]

If men were the ones that got pregnent and not women, their would be an abortion clinic on every street corner and it would be legal.

[Utah]

"If we agree that abortion is a major bummer, the best question to ask is how we can keep them to a minimum, and keep more people safe when they occur"

That kinda gets to one of my two major points. We havent really thought about the repercussions of what outlawing abortion would mean. Even if we decide that outlawing abortion is a good idea (a valid choice) we will have a mess on our hands. The whole argument over abortion seems to miss the point as it is a reactive strategy. Preventing pregnancies is the key.

"but the white babies will be adopted"

My other point is that adoption is not the panacea everything thinks it is. It is often torture on adopted children and it is emotionally destructive to birthparents. We are finding as a society that adoption is not what we thought is was. I believe that Australia, a similar country, has darn near eliminated adoption.

Also, pre Roe v. Wade mothers were basically forced to give up their babies during what is known as the "baby scoop" era. That would not be the case today.

[elwoodblues]

Your post raises a good question. I've often felt that it is difficult to be pro-life and anti-welfare.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Your post raises a good question. I've often felt that it is difficult to be pro-life and anti-welfare.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most pro-life people are pro-welfare. Of course, being pro-welfare does not mean just throwing money at a bureaucracy without trying to help people pull themselves out of their temporary difficulty. Trapping kids in a long-term welfare culture would be very harmful for them, and we want them to prosper.

Trying to improve the welfare system is not anti-welfare as some demogogues would have you believe.

[Beerfund]

[ QUOTE ]
If men were the ones that got pregnent and not women, their would be an abortion clinic on every street corner and it would be legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Worst.....Post....Ever......

[dcoles11]

only because you are too stupid to understand it. with a name like beerfund, who cares what you think is the worst post ever.

[dcoles11]

Heres a partial list;

1. Use em for shark and other big game fish bate
2. Stuff em and sell em as Cabbage Patch dolls
3. Adoption
4. Suicide baby bombers
5. Send em to Canada and Mexico and let them do whatever it is the hell they do their.
6. Harvest their livers and other organs so drunks like me can live longer.
I'm sure there are more but I'm out.

.....worst attempt ever at trying to be funny and just coming off as sick.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
That kinda gets to one of my two major points. We havent really thought about the repercussions of what outlawing abortion would mean. Even if we decide that outlawing abortion is a good idea (a valid choice) we will have a mess on our hands. The whole argument over abortion seems to miss the point as it is a reactive strategy. Preventing pregnancies is the key.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are overstating the case here. One, most if not all pro-life advocates heavily promote abstinence and responsible sexual behavior. Two, criminal law is a reactive strategy too. We take measures to prevent crime but the next step is how we deal with it when it does happen.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your post raises a good question. I've often felt that it is difficult to be pro-life and anti-welfare.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most pro-life people are pro-welfare. Of course, being pro-welfare does not mean just throwing money at a bureaucracy without trying to help people pull themselves out of their temporary difficulty. Trapping kids in a long-term welfare culture would be very harmful for them, and we want them to prosper.

Trying to improve the welfare system is not anti-welfare as some demogogues would have you believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prior to welfare reform, AFDC actually encouraged abortion. The welface scam went something like this:

1. Woman gets pregnant and receives government welfare money.

2. After receiving money for a few months, the woman gets a government funded abortion.

and repeat 1. and 2. Starr Parker in her book, Uncle Sam's Plantation, describes this scam as she used it herself.

[elwoodblues]

The reason it was a dumb post was because it suggested 2 things: 1) abortion is illegal (because it would be legal if men got pregnant) and 2) that abortion is uncommon. Neither is true.

If your point was that abortion would be talked about differently were men to be pregnant, then you might have a point.

[Cpt Spaulding]

I figured it out!!!!!!!!! We are going to need more military soon, so every unwanted child can be sent UPS or FEDEX to the nearest military base (postage will be refunded). We can start training them at a really early age, and have them on the front lines by the time they are 9 or 10. I think this will solve the abortion issue....What's next?

[andyfox]

I don't see the "mess" we will have on our hands as any different than the "mess" we have now. There are tons of babies being born out of wedlock, both white and black. My problem with the question as posed by my friend Utah is that what we do with the "mess" should not be an issue if abortion is indeed murder. If it's not, the mothers and babies are people the same as the mothers and babies in currently unaborted situations.

[Utah]

It doesn't matter if it is murder or not. Outlawing abortion will have consequences. Agreed? What are those consequences and how do we deal with them?

I am not in any way implying that we should not outlaw abortion because it will cause a mess.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Most pro-life people are pro-welfare.

[/ QUOTE ]
Respectfully, I dont think that is true. I believe they are pro adoption/anti-welfare.

My belief is that that the pro life crowd (at least the religious segment of it ) strongly believes that children should be taken from poor unwed mothers and placed in wealthy religious 2 parent homes.

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if it is murder or not. Outlawing abortion will have consequences. Agreed? What are those consequences and how do we deal with them?

I am not in any way implying that we should not outlaw abortion because it will cause a mess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am very stong in my pro-life beliefs. But I am also realistic. If abortion were outlawed, the overwhelming % of babies born that would have otherwise been aborted will be born into poverty. The reason is simple: Anyone who desires an abortion and posesses the means (Likely anyone middle class or better) will simply travel to Canada or Europe to have the abortion performed. Those who can't afford the travel expenses will be the ones having the babies. How does society deal with this?

More welfare is certainly not the answer. I propose that if abortion were to be outlawed people should rely on the same thing they have relied upon for millenia - the family unit. Ironically, the growth of government involvement in our lives and the growing dependence on the nanny state has greatly weakened the family, especially in the lower classes. There would certainly be challenges to overcome, as 4 decades of damage could not be undone overnight. But I'd rather deal with those challenges than have any more innocent blood on my hands.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
the growth of government involvement in our lives and the growing dependence on the nanny state has greatly weakened the family, especially in the lower classes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not believe a word of this propagandist garbage. prove it to me with some stastistics, at least. I have never seen one credible study that supports your position.

maybe instead of looking for connections (that aren't there) to back up your ideology, you should look at the connections (that do exist- cultural, social, economic ones) and base your ideology upon them.

are you really blaming social welfare for things as diverse as the incresing divorce rate, the willingness and ability of women or men to raise children on their own, etc?

[ QUOTE ]
But I'd rather deal with those challenges than have any more innocent blood on my hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
that blood isn't really on your hands now, you oppose those that create that 'blood' and are firm in your position, which would be laudable, imo, if you weren't wrong in the first place /images/graemlins/tongue.gif (just kidding, it's debatable, but you shouldn't have to accept blame for something you are fighting against, if only metaphoricly)

[bholdr]

coat hangers in the bathtub.

[jcx]

This has been studied by the Mises Institute & The Heritage Foundation, among others. Since these think tanks obviously do not align with your political ideals, you'll pay no attention. Suit yourself. If you can come up with a valid "cultural" reason why the family, a constant since the beginning of recorded time, has taken such a horrific beating since the creation of the Great Society I'll listen. I think the real reason for your harsh response is you're po'd that I would if given the opportunity deny people the right to commit infanticide. In that case you could've saved us both some time and simply said so.

[sirio11]

Well Im pro-life and anti-welfare in general.

David C

[sirio11]

I think a good idea is to look at the countries that outlaw abortion. How are they doing?

[bholdr]

well, f**k me. i had a nice, well thought out response all typed up and one misclick and it's gone- you'll have to live with the short version:

"since these think tanks obviously..."

any think tank, liberal or conservative, that sets out with the goal of promoting a certian ideology, instead of investigating things and drawing conclusions from their results, is IMO, not a proper "think tank" but rather just another propaganda factory. but, that being said, gimme a link, i promise to read and consider it's contents. i do prefer credible arguments to pure opinion, but whatever... and why did you assume that you know my ideology?

"if you can come up with a valid "cultural"...

sure. how 'bout: 1- the incresed cultural acceptance of divorce 2-the incresed cultural acceptance of single parenting 3- the decresed cultural tolerance for domestic abuse, and the resulting increse women's willingness to extricate themselves from those relationships. 4- some people just don't place as much value on 'the family' as you do these days. 5- incresed gender equality, allowing women the CHOICE of raising children on their own, instead of NEEDING a husband. 6- higher standard of living, it is now feasable, even practical, for a single parent to raise a child.
etc, etc...

"I think the real reason for your harsh response is you're po'd that I would if given the opportunity deny people the right to commit infanticide"

huh? i never said anything about that. but, since you brought it up, believe it or not, i am strongly anti-abortion, esp "abortion on demand" that which is not a medical or economic nessecity. however, i do not think that we can ban it without stepping on a whole slew of other important rights, such as that of a woman to make descisions about thier own body, for example.



"maybe instead of looking for connections (that aren't there) to back up your ideology, you should look at the connections (that do exist- cultural, social, economic ones) and base your ideology upon them."

ok that does look a little pissy, but what i was trying to imply is this: your statement looked like you simply took two things you don't like- the decline of the nuclear family and social welfare- and arbitrarily connected the two, without considering the social, economic, and cultural factors at work.

[bholdr]

good point.

[zaxx19]

My belief is that that the pro life crowd (at least the religious segment of it ) strongly believes that children should be taken from poor unwed mothers and placed in wealthy religious 2 parent homes.


WHAT THE HELL IS THIS BASED ON...

Got some quotes from prominent and respected Pro-life people to this effect.....

Or, are you just setting up straw men to knock down??

[bholdr]

huh? was this posted in the wrong place? am i missing something?

???

[dcoles11]

Which was exactly the point. If men got pregnent, abortion would not even be an issue. I said abortion would be legal if men got pregnent instead to high lite the fact that the outlawing of abortion would not even be an issue. I also said abortion clinics would be on every street corner to illustrate how common place it would be if men were the ones that got pregnent. I guess i'll have to dumb down all my comments for this crowd. I used this quote in a debate at my university and it was well recieved by my professors, so I could care less if you think it was a dumb statement.

[dcoles11]

the irorny of your statement is, if abortion was made illegal, the babies born into these poor families would be likely canidates for the military when they became of age.

[zaxx19]

Which was exactly the point. If men got pregnent, abortion would not even be an issue. I said abortion would be legal if men got pregnent instead to high lite the fact that the outlawing of abortion would not even be an issue. I also said abortion clinics would be on every street corner to illustrate how common place it would be if men were the ones that got pregnent. I guess i'll have to dumb down all my comments for this crowd. I used this quote in a debate at my university and it was well recieved by my professors, so I could care less if you think it was a dumb statement.

Post Extras:

Your in college??? Im guessing its a state school...correct?? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Utah]

"WHAT THE HELL IS THIS BASED ON..."

Please note that I said "my belief". I did not state it as fact.

It is based on a lot of things - past actions {baby scoop) era, experiences of friends with unwanted pregnancies, personal comments heard, comments from leading religious pro adoption groups (e.g., National Council for Adoption), comments from George Bush....etc.

Sorry, I do not have the time to find supporting material today.

[Utah]

It is a weak argument because it doesnt directly address the issue. It makes a comment only on how society can treat men and women differently. It doest address the direct issue of morality, when life begins, and the consequences of ones action.

Just because men could do it (or get away with it depending on your view) says nothing about whether it should or shouldnt be allowed.

But hey, if praise from one's teachers is all you need more power to ya.

Oh yeah, on the face of it your argument is also wrong. It is pure conjecture based on an outdated model that men can do whatever they want in a male dominated world. If that is so, why do men lose almost every custody case? Why are fathers so easily stripped of their parental rights?

[zaxx19]

Ya ...you might wanna contact CBS when you have the time bc they might be able to hook you up with some cooked up quotes that would validate your ridiculous assumptions.....

Oh and if we are basing this on like 1930's politics I guess the democrats lost the election bc they took for granted their stranglehold on the southern states....

Oh but I forgot you have "personal comments" to fall back on. This is some solid evidence man.

Seriously you should write for the NY times seems like prefer writers who will just invent liberal crap up when it suits them.

Oh, I hope your black(you know those NY liberals like to parade around their lawn jockeyes to show they are "enlightened" while at the same time sending their kids to 100% white private schools in Long Island so they can go to 95% white private universities in the Northeast.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess i'll have to dumb down all my comments for this crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do. You're much too smart for me.

[Utah]

You are going to give me an identity crisis. Just last week I was called a neocon by Cyrus.

You certainly seem to like being a wise ass. However, are you a gambling man? I bet you $100 dollars that by the end of the week I can find 8 quotes to support my argument (i'll even throw one in from President Bush). We can use the same model Andyfox and I used to bet on this board. I'll PM you if you are up to the challenge.

This is a topic I know a hell of a lot about and which you know seem to know very little.

And, by the way, I am definately not liberal and I am pro life.

[zaxx19]

strongly believes that children should be taken from poor unwed mothers and placed in wealthy religious 2 parent homes.

This is the quote I was discussing....we are on the same page here correct??

If we are, you are not gonna find a ton of quotes by Bush saying children of single unwed poor mothers should be "snatched" and given to more socio economically desirable parents.


EVEN IF HE BELIEVE THIS HE IS SIMPLY TO POLITICALLY SAVVY TO SAY IT.


You might find quotes implying that 2 parent households are more desirable....or that higher incomed families are better equipped to raise a child...BUT THATS A LEAP FROM WHAT YOU ASSERTED.

Sorry about the tone of the my initial response but your post seemed to be similiar to alot of posts on here attributing horrible "beliefs" to conservative activists when there is little if any evidence of them holding them.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ QUOTE ]
Your in college??? Im guessing its a state school...correct??



[/ QUOTE ]

You're. I'm. It's.

Arrogant twit.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Oh yeah, to answer the first question, we should grow them 'till they're 5 and then throw them to the OOT crowd.

[KJS]

For me the question is what do you tell the parents of the woman who died in some back alley abortion clinic or bathtub?

"I know we used to have the option of having a professional do this in a sterile environment but..."

KJS

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
For me the question is what do you tell the parents of the woman who died in some back alley abortion clinic or bathtub?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you tell the grandparents of the thousands of babies who die every year now?

Answer: Well, your daughter/daughter-in-law decided to kill your grandchild because it interferes with her lifestyle choices.

[RogerZBT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For me the question is what do you tell the parents of the woman who died in some back alley abortion clinic or bathtub?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you tell the grandparents of the thousands of babies who die every year now?

Answer: Well, your daughter/daughter-in-law decided to kill your grandchild because it interferes with her lifestyle choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah... those are the same.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For me the question is what do you tell the parents of the woman who died in some back alley abortion clinic or bathtub?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you tell the grandparents of the thousands of babies who die every year now?

Answer: Well, your daughter/daughter-in-law decided to kill your grandchild because it interferes with her lifestyle choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah... those are the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah... a thousand babies die for every one woman who dies from abortion complications. But Hey, they're just babies... who cares?

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
Answer: Well, your daughter/daughter-in-law decided to kill your grandchild because it interferes with her lifestyle choices.


[/ QUOTE ]

what would you tell the woman that has to have a cecarian section performed because abortion's illegal?

"well she would've been fine, but now she'll never be able to have a natural childbirth, because the government forced an operation on her."

that's the problem with banning abortion, there is no way to do it without stepping on a whole bunch of other important freedoms. Our sovereignty over our own bodies, for example.



here's some moore for your consideration, cut and pasted from n earlier thread, i haven't the time to paraphrase it all here:

often, it can be terribly cruel to not abort a life. What about the 'crack baby' that will spend it's whole in vegitative agony, never being able to communicate or in any way live a valuable life? or the child that will obviously die minutes or days after birth, the child born with a defective heart or spine? do we commit those children and their parents to such unnessacary suffering only to appease the religious 'values' of non-participants? if these examples seem extreme, that's because they are. but i'd like to see someone who's anti-abortion draw a CLEAR line between such examples and more moderate developmental problems, such as down syndrome. it simply cannot be done without being able to know the future.


anti-abortion activists who make exceptions (and i know this isn't all of you) for things like rape, incest, and yes, even the health of the mother, are trying to have it both ways: first they say that all life is sacred, then they say if you're baby's father is your cousin, that baby's life is not sacred. which is it? or when they say that the protecting health of the mother is the only legit reson for having an abortion... are they saying that the abortion has to save the mother's life to be considered? or must it only protect her ability to have children later in life? the slope is very slippery here, and the agrument also depends on knowing the future outcome perfectly

just some thoughts about how it would be impossible (imo) to create an abortion ban that allows legitimate abortions but not 'abortion on demand', which is really more of the point of this debate.....

and i am strongly against any abortion of a viable child, but i believe that the solution lies not in the law, but in better education, a more targeted and effecient welfare system, and both sides of the debate becoming more reasonable and actually discussing solutions, instead of holding such ideologicaly rigid positions that no progress or debate is even possible. The abortion debate has always been much more complicated than "killing babies" vs "women's rights", and until we all admit that and stop being so inflammatory, the status quo will continue.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
If men got pregnent, abortion would not even be an issue. I said abortion would be legal if men got pregnent instead to high lite the fact that the outlawing of abortion would not even be an issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if space aliens had the babies? no waaaayyy we'd have abortions then. jeez. your 'argument' is pure speculation, and has no bearing on this debate.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess i'll have to dumb down all my comments for this crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]
they are dumb enough already, trust me.

[zaxx19]

Im not really sure why people seem to care about the grammar and-or spelling on internet message boards...

I do remember reading somewhere that anal retentiveness is correlated rather strongly with overachievement-a modest intellect-and a preoccupation with recognition from others and a host of sexual dysfunctions.

Im 0 for 4.....Strangelove whats your batting avg on these???

[bholdr]

you're just as arrogant for pointing out minor grammatical errors.

i suppose that makes me arrogant for pointing that out.

or maybe i'm being ironic?

who knows?

Can we get spellcheck on this site, already!? i'm sick of embarrasing myself every time i try to spell the word 'nessacary'.

[zaxx19]

I will never point out grammatical errors. I will however point out when words(which have actual meanings) are used incorrectly. Feel free to take me to task for this any time you feel I have grossly misused a word.

GET IT THROUGH YOUR ANAL HEADS; THIS IS AN INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD, NOT AND ENGLISH COMP CLASS. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Broken Glass Can]

When someone argues the exceptions (the rare medical complications, the crack baby) you know you are not engaged in honest discussion. It is the everyday routine abortions that are the primary concern here.

Like self-defense, the particulars of a case can be argued. I believe self-defense is a legit reason to have an abortion btw, but it really has to be legitimate self-defense (which is quite rare).

Can we agree not to kill the healthy babies who pose no risk to the mother's health (99%+ of all abortion situations). A baby is entitled to self-defense too, but can not act to defend itself.

[John Cole]

They are not "babies" some might say; they are fetuses. Perhaps you will note a difference.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
They are not "babies" some might say; they are fetuses. Perhaps you will note a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is another way to avoid discussion - quabble over words. These are all human, just in different stages of the life cycle:

fetus
baby
toddler
preteen
teen
quarterlifer
middle age
old & decrepit

I am against killing people in any of these life stages. How about you?

[zaxx19]

Ok I will note this.

Now will you join science and note its a human being??

P.S. So when prospective parents talk about a sonogram and looking at "the baby" you would correct them??

Or if a pregnant lady said :

"I cant sit in the smoking section its bad for the baby" would you correct here??

[John Cole]

Well, I might "quibble" over words or "squabble" over words, but I think I shall not "quabble" over words. If you think that an adolescent and a fetus are the same, I suggest you include fetuses in the census and buy life insurance policies for as many as you can.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ QUOTE ]
Im not really sure why people seem to care about the grammar and-or spelling on internet message boards...

I do remember reading somewhere that anal retentiveness is correlated rather strongly with overachievement-a modest intellect-and a preoccupation with recognition from others and a host of sexual dysfunctions.

Im 0 for 4.....Strangelove whats your batting avg on these???

[/ QUOTE ]

Im now thinking I should have made several gross technical errors in the post so the vector of my vituperation wouldnt go over your head.

Ask yourself this: have I ever before pointed out the poor punctuation of anyone but you?

Its not like I give a [censored] about punctuation.

[Broken Glass Can]

They are not the same, any more than men and women are the same, but they are all human.

Can't we just respect their being human?
Can't we discuss and respect their life and death issues like all other humans?

[zaxx19]

They dont have to be the "same" as adolescence in order to be protected from have scissors inserted in their heads and having their brains sucked out.

And you make this point yourself. I mean if Adolescents are the same as adults why cant they vote, drink, buy porn, or gamble legally??

The law treats different aged persons differently. It doesnt mean that intrinsic basic rights shouldnt be respected for all humans in the USA.

[John Cole]

Okay, now that you realize I'm not just debating words--I hope--I can address your question. First, "the human" does not necessarily include fetuses. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. Nature performs its own abortions all the time, and they are called miscarriages. Many women who suffer miscarriages do indeed feel that they have "lost the baby," and I won't dispute this for a minute. Yet, I think you wish to say that all women must regard a fetus as a human life, and I am not willing to make this same claim. That's why we have different sorts of terminology, and I think our world would be better off if no one needed an abortion. However, this does not seem to be the case.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Saying it is so doesn't make it so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science says so. There is something called DNA, and all human fetuses have human DNA. To say they are not human is kind of silly.

Natural abortions (miscarriages) occur all the time, so does disease and accidental death in all human age groups. The fact that this happens doesn't mean it is open season on the killing of people.

[Utah]

Why not include sperm? Is that not life? Does something magical happen at conception? If so, what?

[bholdr]

"When someone argues the exceptions (the rare medical complications, the crack baby) you know you are not engaged in honest discussion."

...And when someone ignores the exceptions, they are oversimplifying a complicated issue, which, though i won't call it dishonest, is at least disingenious. At least try to answer my (very reasonable) questions, instead of just saying "that's not honest" and dismissing them, or don't bother to respond at all. i'm willing to be convcinced that i'm wrong, but you're not trying to do that- all you're doing is repeating the same stale talking points every other 'anti-choice' fanatic repeats.


again:

HOW would you ban abortion without infringing on other , equally important rights? (body sovergnty, religious and reproductive freedom, etc)

this is not a viable solution:
"Like self-defense, the particulars of a case can be argued."

you would be asking a woman and her doctor to go before a judge for permission for a medical procedure. also, doctors would be criminally liable for momentary life/death descisions (and don't bring up malpractice, you're talking about legislative medicine) a conservative like yourself should have no difficulty seeing the problem with that.

stop looking for black and white answers to very grey problems.

[dcoles11]

listen little boy, just cause someone makes a point that you don't like dosen't mean its wrong. I guessing you were home schooled or went to some glorified day care private school. you sure do have alot of time to make post on this site, lack of a life?

[dcoles11]

thank you, I guess his private school education didn't pay off.

[dcoles11]

I have no idea why some (notice I said some, not all) of you guys even worry about the question of abortion. You will ever have to deal with it, with number of post you put on here, its not like your spending alot of time with women or anything. I don't know how I let myself get sucked into this internet message board aruguement, believe me i'm ashamed of myself. I guess some people get their rocks off by being the biggest bad ass on the message boards, wooooo hooo! These discussions would go much better if you'd learn to respect other people's ideas and if you disagree with them post your ideas, when you resort to personally attacks cause someone has a different belief on a subject you pretty much end all intelligent conversation and it becomes what this basically is, which is a "im smarter than you, you spelled that word wrong, you went to a state school, my dad can beat up your day, type of thing." Take a break tomorrow from the endless posting and go to a bar, its Thursday night, college night! Get a few beers, talk to some women, it will be ok I promise. I'm sure i'll get replys to this about how dumb I am, but just know while your typing up your reply bashing me, i'll be drinking a cold one sandwiched between a couple of cheerleaders. CHEERS!!! p.s. for those that post intelligent arguements on both sides of the discussion I am not talking about you, please do not be offended.

[bholdr]

WOW!

Don't take my antoginism as an insult, i'm always a little edgy. I was just reacting to the bizzare and meaningless things you said in this thread- that you continued to back up even after the nonsense of it had been pointed out:

"If men were the ones that got pregnent and not women..."

when beerfund had the gall to say "worst post ever" about
your little statment you responded with:

"only because you are too stupid to understand it."

and then, in the intrest of reasonable discussion, elwoodblues clarified:
"The reason it was a dumb post was because it suggested 2 things: 1) abortion is illegal (because it would be legal if men got pregnant) and 2) that abortion is uncommon. Neither is true."

you respond with more insults:
"I guess i'll have to dumb down all my comments for this crowd. I used this quote in a debate at my university and it was well recieved by my professors"

nobody here gives a flying f**k what your professors think- when you cite them in this manner, it makes you sound like the ugly girl that says "my mom says i'm pretty". i'm not trying to insult you, just pointing out how you're being perceived. and i garuntee you, nobody here is even remotely dumb.


and the most schocking, off-base, ironic, hypocrytical post on the politics forum so far this year.....

"These discussions would go much better if you'd learn to respect other people's ideas and if you disagree with them post your ideas..."

do you see how terrible you look to the other posters here right now? that's either incredibly hypocrytical, or an attempt at some real king-hell irony... i think the former.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"I don't know how I let myself get sucked into this internet message board aruguement, believe me i'm ashamed of myself. "

It's ok, we're ashamed of you, too.

"i'll be drinking a cold one sandwiched between a couple of cheerleaders."
maybe you and sup bro should hang out- you'd get along great. he was all-county in '95, you know.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not include sperm? Is that not life? Does something magical happen at conception? If so, what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cmon Utah, that sort of rhetoric is beneath you. A sperm is nothing more than a carrier for half of the DNA for a human being. Our body constantly produces and abosorbs them. Something magical does happen at conception. Namely, you now have a genetically complete being. The only thing left now is for it to continue to develop, as we do for our entire lives. Whether your want to attach some sort of religious signifigance to this or not is up to the individual. As I told Daliman, if you believe in the intrinisic value of human life, which isnt an exclusively religious view, and science tells us life begins at conception, then I feel you should be hard pressed to condone abortion. (Please note I mean you in the general sense. /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

[dcoles11]

Hahaha, I knew you'd be the first to reply!!! You are right though, I did do alittle of what I say I hate, which is resort to name calling, sometimes its hard to take the high road when everyone wants to build themselves up by saying how stupid everyone else is. I like my statement, we are arguing about a matter that we really don't know much about. I'm know feminist but none of us know what its like to get pregnent and see our furtures put in jepordy. Women def. have the tougher end of the stick here and all my statement was trying to illustrate was the fact that its very easy for men to take the moral high ground on the abortion issue because it really dosen't happen to them. Do I like abortion, no, I don't think anyone gets excited about the idea of it, but I think the fact that there is such much debate from each side shows that this isn't an easy arguement. I dont think anyone is stupid for hating abortion and I dont think anyone is stupid for thinking we need it, the answer just isn't that clear cut to me.

[RogerZBT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah... those are the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah... a thousand babies die for every one woman who dies from abortion complications. But Hey, they're just babies... who cares?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say no one cares. I said they weren't the same.

And that argument would have been a actual respons to the previous poster instead of dismissing him with a flawed analogy.

[Utah]

I am merely making a scientific inquiry. Life is not made from whole cloth. The sperm might not be a complete human being but it is human life building material isnt it?

If we remove the religious elements, then the only thing that happens at conception is that there is now a complete unit versus components. To me, that is not spectacular. It is simply a step in the process of life.

I consider myself prolife, but I have zero problem with the destruction of an embryo immediately after birth.

I simply cant see a consistent logical model describing "life" that makes senses. I wonder if it is a phony concept in itself.

[mojorisin24]

What's wrong with state schools, almighty Zaxx?

[bholdr]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I like your statment too, but you really need to CONTEXTUALIZE it. ('context', is, btw, my very favroite word) It's hard, sometmes, to remember, that online the delicate nuances of speech don't translate well, and one must be specific to the point of exaustion in order to avoid misinterpretation and confusion.

GL in your future posts: there is a lot to be learned on this forum, it's one of the best political discussion forums that i've found on the web.

I fully aggree that trhere are many complicated issues that too many people see only in black and white...

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
If men were the ones that got pregnant and not women, their would be an abortion clinic on every street corner and it would be legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Absolutely.

No more need be said.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason it was a dumb post was because it suggested 2 things: 1) abortion is illegal (because it would be legal if men got pregnant) and 2) that abortion is uncommon. Neither is true.

If your point was that abortion would be talked about differently were men to be pregnant, then you might have a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point was clearly this :

Abortions would be both openly performed and legal. As well as considered to be pefectly normal, as normal as having a nose job.

About the legality angle, you should understand that abortion is NOT legal everywhere. (Note: The United States is not "everywhere".)

[zaxx19]

Nothing wrong with UT UM UVA BERKELY UNC UF UWISC im probably forgetting someone here.

There is also nothing wrong with certain depts at certain schools: i.e. ENG/ Comp SCI @ Illinois is world class---
Journalism @ Mizzou---Creative writing @ Iowa or Ole Miss.

[Cyrus]

: After reading a bunch of posts in a thread, replying under the last post he reads - instead of going back to the post he wants to reply to.

The result of a private college education?

[Cyrus]

I like fetuses with plenty of red hot tasty tomato sauce on top. Slowly cooked over real fire, in a big casserole. And some trimmed cheese before serving, to take the edge off.

Wow. Just thinking about 'em fetuses makes me drool!

..Oops, what?

I thought this was about fetuccini.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You are going to give me an identity crisis. Just last week I was called a neocon by Cyrus.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll settle for just con, then.

The French definition, of course.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Science tells us life begins at conception.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither Philosophy nor Science "tell us" any such thing.

Unless you are referring to Creation Science. (Note polite lack of quotation marks around the last word.)

[Cyrus]

Briefly :

- A fetus is a human being without conscience or will.

- There is no cut-off point at which science accepts a fetus to be a human being. This is like the philosophical question about the heap of sand (when does it become one, after adding a grain of sand on top of another?). We resolve this rather arbitrarily by setting a time period of 90 days after conception. Messy, legalistic but what else is there?

- Our (mostly male) fear to "kill babies" (i.e. fetuses) would be explained by our fear of not being born ourselves. Although denied and buried, we know that our chances of being here (here and now) are so small as to render the word "probability" completely menaningless.

- The morality of the issues related to giving birth is defined by males. The stamement posited by dcoles11 stands: If men had pregnancies, we would treat the matter completely differently. (This, too, is a matter of horrible chance: If the female human was killing off most of her male lovers after coitus --like some species of insects do-- our whole moral code would be completely different.)

- Abortion on demand is debatable. Especially when we take into account its consequences, i.e. less regard for proper contraception. It is also questionable from a scientific point of view (and I'm not referring to the pseudo-scientific evidence of cries of pain from aborted feruses!)

- Religion must be taken out of our considerations completely! (But if we could manage that, we would reach a stage in our civilisation where we would not have debates about abortion!)

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
- A fetus is a human being without conscience or will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it open season on severely mentally ill and coma patients?

[ QUOTE ]


- There is no cut-off point at which science accepts a fetus to be a human being. This is like the philosophical question about the heap of sand (when does it become one, after adding a grain of sand on top of another?). We resolve this rather arbitrarily by setting a time period of 90 days after conception. Messy, legalistic but what else is there?

[/ QUOTE ]


Science recognizes the existence of DNA at all stages of human development.

[ QUOTE ]


- Our (mostly male) fear to "kill babies" (i.e. fetuses) would be explained by our fear of not being born ourselves. Although denied and buried, we know that our chances of being here (here and now) are so small as to render the word "probability" completely menaningless.


[/ QUOTE ]

What a load of Freudian crap. Defending another person's life has little to do with fear, and your statement is quite sexist. Are you suggesting that women don't care about babies' lives as much as men do?

[ QUOTE ]

- The morality of the issues related to giving birth is defined by males. The stamement posited by dcoles11 stands: If men had pregnancies, we would treat the matter completely differently. (This, too, is a matter of horrible chance: If the female human was killing off most of her male lovers after coitus --like some species of insects do-- our whole moral code would be completely different.)


[/ QUOTE ]

More sexist crap. Maybe if we call babies "insects" no one will care about their survival.

[ QUOTE ]

- Abortion on demand is debatable. Especially when we take into account its consequences, i.e. less regard for proper contraception. It is also questionable from a scientific point of view (and I'm not referring to the pseudo-scientific evidence of cries of pain from aborted feruses!)

- Religion must be taken out of our considerations completely! (But if we could manage that, we would reach a stage in our civilisation where we would not have debates about abortion!)

[/ QUOTE ]

The science of the issue is against abortion, the killing of a life with human DNA. It is weak to throw a religion straw man into your argument. Does that mean you can't debate on the basis of logic?

"Thou shall not kill" is in the bible, should we decriminalize murder because you could characterize murder as a religious issue?

Both murder and abortion are killing human life, regardless of whether religions agree or disagree with that simple fact.

[Utah]

I really hate agreeing with you.

[Utah]

LMAO - I had to go look that up with a translator.

Well played /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Neither Philosophy nor Science "tell us" any such thing.

Unless you are referring to Creation Science. (Note polite lack of quotation marks around the last word.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the science of which I speak is embryology specifically. There are plenty of excerpts on the web from various medical textbooks and dictionaries which state as much. At conception you now have a genetically complete human life, that only now requires time to continue to mature.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I will however point out when words(which have actual meanings) are used incorrectly
...
THIS IS AN INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD, NOT AND ENGLISH COMP CLASS

[/ QUOTE ]

The word "And" is being grossly misused here. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Utah]

xx

[KJS]

And which do you think the grandparents would mourn more? A dead grown daughter or her aborted fetus?

In my opinion, this goes to the heart of the matter. Most adults don't see all forms of human life as equal. That is why the parents in question would go to great length to bury, honor and grieve the death of their daughter but not her aborted fetus. (Ever see a fetuses grave in a graveyard, aborted or miscarried?) They see their daughter as a grown, productive individual, which in their eyes makes her more valuable and special then the fetus she is carrying. Given the choice of having one or the other in their life, they would choose the daughter.

I know that is a crass view and considered immoral by many, but it is most people think, aside from a small majority. It is the reason that most people may be against abortion, but think it needs to be legal: because they do not want to lose a daughter, sister, mother, whatever because she did not have access to a safe and legal abortion. Bottom line: they care about her more and if she makes the choice to abort her fetus, they want her to be able to live through it.

KJS

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
And which do you think the grandparents would mourn more? A dead grown daughter or her aborted fetus?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever been around a family that has lost a very young child, or a mother who has lost a baby through miscarriage?

Do we discard the baby born of a mother who dies in childbirth? Heck no.

Babies are worthless in a societal sense, they only eat, cry and poop. But many parents would give their lives for that non-productive uneducated baby. I think you underestimate the value people put on a baby's life.

[KJS]

But I am not talking about babies. I am talking about unborn fetuses which cannot survive outside the mother.

KJS

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
Briefly :

- A fetus is a human being without conscience or will.

[/ QUOTE ]
You called a fetus a human being? An unfortunate slip,
or do you really have a soul buried somewhere in there?

[ QUOTE ]

- Religion must be taken out of our considerations completely! (But if we could manage that, we would reach a stage in our civilisation where we would not have debates about abortion!)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe religion comes up in the debate enough. Our neocon President certainly doesn't invoke the Gospels when discussing whether a fetus qualifies as a human or not, but I will:

Luke 1:13-15

But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb."

Luke 1:43-44

"But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

Then again, I suppose Elizabeth could've just had gas. Just in case she didn't, I interpret these passages as saying the unborn fetus is a human being, not some piece of protoplasm to be cut up and thrown in a dumpster. I don't write this thinking you or anyone is going to have some epiphany. But for those who do believe in the Bible, it is impossible to separate our beliefs from the debate because doing so would be tantamount to condoning murder.

[Broken Glass Can]

You've never seen how delicately people treat pregnant women? Unborn babies are appreciated too, even if your only sight of them is an ultrasound.

Besides, are we now saying we can kill off the unwanted in our society? Open season on the bum down the street?

[KJS]

I don't enjoy trading analogies and hypotheticals, it clouds the issue at hand, IMO. If I started it by turning around the question in your original post, I apologize.

So let me be as explicit as I can, so this can be my last post in this thread:

A lot of Americans believe it is OK to kill unborn fetuses.

Call it murder, infanticide, whatever to try to draw attention to the moral implications, but that is just the truth. There are many women who get pregnant but don't want a baby (and men who get them pregnant and don't either). Our government officials realized 32 years ago that this was a fact and that the risk of those women being injured or killed doing something they were determined to do (kill their fetus) was not worth it. They decided these womens' rights was greater that their of their fetus, which is not viable without them. So they made abortion safe and legal. And I think they made the right choice choosing adults over fetuses because adults are valued more than fetuses and women (and men) make choices based on self-interest first, even when that choice results in a dead fetus.

You might this this law is immoral based on religious principles about the sanctity of life, and you are entitled to that opinion. But bear in mind this country is not a theocracy. We have numerous laws which conflict with morality (capital punishment, for example) and always will.

KJS

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of Americans believe it is OK to kill unborn fetuses.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of Americans used to think slavery was OK too.

[ QUOTE ]
women (and men) make choices based on self-interest first, even when that choice results in a dead fetus.


[/ QUOTE ]

Americans also make choices that result in drunk driving, rape, murder, and all sorts of criminal and not criminal acts.

What people want and what choices they make individually does not preclude society from passing laws that overrule certain individuals' choices.

[ QUOTE ]
You might this this law is immoral based on religious principles about the sanctity of life, and you are entitled to that opinion. But bear in mind this country is not a theocracy. We have numerous laws which conflict with morality (capital punishment, for example) and always will.


[/ QUOTE ]

Note, you bring religion into this. Science alone, the DNA of all humans at all stages of life, is enough for me to conclude that all humans are worthy of living at all stages of life.

I think in future generations, people will wonder why we devalued this group of humans so much (unborn babies), in the same way we now wonder how Americans devalued blacks so much in previous centuries (that we could deem them slaves).

[John Cole]

Yes, and a hair strand from a human head has human DNA, but the barber still sweeps the floor and throws it out with the trash. (And, no, don't bother to reply with what I'm sure your next leap of logic will lead you to.)

[John Cole]

I'm not sure Cole Porter mentioned seahorses in the original, did he?

[lastchance]

There are only two possible reasons any human is superior or different to an animal:
A) Soul
B) Brain

For the religious, who believe in a soul, I can easily see their position very easily.

For the nonreligious, who do not believe in a soul, well, since I am one of them, I can easily see that position either.

This is the basic distinction between people who believe in abortion, and those who don't, besides those who are trying to be politically correct.

If you believe in a soul, I cannot see how you could support abortion. If you do not believe in a soul, well, you could still be pro-life, but not likely.

I think this is the main point of the abortion debate.
[ QUOTE ]
Science alone, the DNA of all humans at all stages of life, is enough for me to conclude that all humans are worthy of living at all stages of life.

[/ QUOTE ]
DNA is just strands of biological molecules. Nothing special about it, except that our bodies use it to create things. It's just blueprints. Every one of our cells has DNA, and there's nothing speical about any of them.

What is truly different between humans and chimps is the what the DNA creates.

Again, the main difference between chimps and humans is either A) A soul, or B) the brain.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe in a soul, I cannot see how you could support abortion

[/ QUOTE ]

You could believe that humans aren't ensouled until later (birth, for example).

[lastchance]

True dat.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I interpret these passages [from the Bible] as saying the unborn fetus is a human being, not some piece of protoplasm to be cut up and thrown in a dumpster.

[/ QUOTE ]

We cannot take the word of the religious books as verbatim, scientific truths. They are not and were not meant to be. They were moral codes for human behavior. If we accept the Bible's rulings on one issue, uncontested, we must accept everything.

Guess what? Man has progressed. (Religious folks think the oposite!) "Nothing is written". We don't have to accept anything uncontested!

Religion needs to be taken out of the discussion, unless we want to resort to an Iran-like theocracy. No two ways about it.

[ QUOTE ]
You called a fetus a human being? An unfortunate slip, or do you really have a soul buried somewhere in there?

[/ QUOTE ]

A human fetus will grow to have the physical attributes of a human being. After birth, it will gain conscience and eventually will. Apologies for not being precise and comprehensive. (I never will.)

PS : I do not know what is this "Soul" you're talking about. I guess it's time to raid again the old collection.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
For the nonreligious, who do not believe in a soul, well, since I am one of them, I can easily see that position either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Serge Gainsbourg would be proud.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Cyrus]

No, because Cole Porter didn't know that it's the male (http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/wf/bc/bc95spr.html) seahorse that gets knocked up and has to carry the fetus around till birth!

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
No, because Cole Porter didn't know that it's the male (http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/wf/bc/bc95spr.html) seahorse that gets knocked up and has to carry the fetus around till birth!

[/ QUOTE ]

You are showing your ignorance here. Unlike mammals, who have live births, seahorses lay eggs (like birds and fish [they actually are fish btw, not horses /images/graemlins/blush.gif]).

Carrying around fertilized eggs in a sac is not the same thing as being pregnant (or "knocked up" as you call it).

Do you consider a bird's nest to be pregnant too? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Seahorses ... are fish btw, not horses.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have won many bets involving seahorses. To show.


[ QUOTE ]
Unlike mammals, who have live births, seahorses lay eggs. Carrying around fertilized eggs in a sac is not the same thing as being pregnant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is. They wear the same line of "comfortable" clothes.


[ QUOTE ]
Do you consider a bird's nest to be pregnant too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. With promises.