Is "killing" a fetus and murdering someone the same?

This always subjective to human opinion. I mean using the situation with north korea as an example, you are advocating for the possibility of war, which means you have no regard for thier lives, they is a necessity for casaulties and as such you distance yourself from their situation, with a "better them than us" mentality, yet can say that abortions are evil because a mass of cells is to be considered a human. What makes the lives of any north korean less than the life of the fetus you are advocating for. It doesn't really, indocrinated people are simply following orders and are not evil by nature. I don't think there are actually many corrupt leaders in north korea because they grew up in this society, they are misguided at best.

But back to this topic of abortion, even myself, claiming to want to do what is best for humanity as a whole, is a hypocrite because I have no belief in the sactity of life. No life is sacred, no life is valuable, we are just sacks of meat on a planet that can be wiped out at any second. Our existance is unnoticable by the universe, and it is only humans that believe that we have any right to life. Nature kills itself all the time without remorse, and without regret. We seem to believe that we are so high above it, yet natural disasters put everything back in check.

What I really want to say is this, you can't declare war, then advocate for the sanctity of life. It doesn't work that way. You are either 100% against killing, or you are 100% for killing. There is no medium, and no exceptions. If you get to pick and choose what you believe is acceptable then so does everyone else, and that means your opinion means absolutely nothing because if someone wants an abotion and believes that war is evil, they are doing exactly the same thing as you, just on alternate points.

To be honest that post was mostly to get the discussion back on track considering how badly it was derailed.

Well maybe but it didn't because there was no argument in it to fuel the discussion.

I'd say it was successful. The discussion's back on track and no longer about North Korea and shit.

I dont see killing a fetus as being the same as killing a person, In my opinion if it hasn't been born and taken a breath for itself then it isn't human. If you 'kill' a fetus for stem cell research then good going. Stem cell research is the future for mankind seeing as we apparently arn't evolving anymore! :)

So where does that line exist for the U.S? We're the only country (to my knowledge) to have actually used a nuclear weapon against another country. In fact, we used it against civilians. Then we have countries who want nuclear weapons as a deterrent for U.S browbeating an coercion (a.k.a our foreign policy)



Remember that "brandishing a weapon" example I used. North Korea having the capability of launching a nuclear warhead with a chance of success of hitting the mainland U.S would count as "brandishing a weapon". However, considering the dubious claims of our current past administrations, plus our state controlled media, and the warmongering behavior of those involved in upper echelons of government leads me to believe that we're being played for fools.



The only solution a Fascist can think of to solve a problem is go to war. Apparently, no other option exists but, to declare war, initiate a nuclear war and ultimately lead to either the economic collapse, a military defeat when we wade into a quagmire of an ill-conceived invasion or mutual destruction via nuclear weapons.



You forgot C: Mutual destruction. We are talking about Nuclear States here.



You're being theatrical again. Also, nobody loves the people they fear. They resent them, they endeavor to undermine and ultimately defeat them. Tyrants and Dictators rule by fear. We're America and we're better than petty Tyrants and Dictators.



An Fascism can only solve problems by unless military expeditions into other countries.

Now, can we move this back to the actual topic, the whole "is killing a fetus and murdering someone the same?"

One of the reasons I am Pro-choice as well. If we consider a fetus a human life then that same line of thinking can easily point towards stopping whole fields of research and possible technological advancements. These organisms can be harvested for their stem-cells.

Interesting point to make, but to expand it more. Look at american history in all of it's wars since the second world war. In every single one of it's engagements, the americans have moved weapons into the areas around the conflicts, and threatened them before going to war. If north korea is threatening south korea and vice versa, which happens pretty much every day since the korean war, and america comes over and starts doing it's war drills, etc. Is that not america "brandishing a weapon". They are indirectly threatening a country.

And it's no wonder many poorer parts of the world hate america, because they do this constantly. They meddle in other peoples affairs, and they constantly threaten war on people.

We went over this with Jacob, but the U.S. is signatory to several treaties in an attempt to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Also, no one knew at the time whether the nuclear bomb would work or not.


This much is seen with Truman's regret over using the bomb. Had Roosevelt still been alive, perhaps the outcome would've been humanely different.





As recently as a few months ago, secretary of state John Kerry dismissed the notion that they could hit the U.S. Homeland at the moment. Their nuclear capabilities however have improved dramatically, with their show of force against Japan and they are more than capable of hitting U.S. colonies(such as Guam) in the Pacific.

So, we wait a few more years under this armistice, the notion that North Korea would focus its attention on the economy and its citizens rather than its war machine is incredibly unlikely. Of course, they will continue to blame the West for "isolating" them and in your present nature, you're more inclined to believe that.

Only through having a tactical(and that doesn't necessarily mean nuclear) advantage is it possible to negotiate, to ensure that an isolated war state doesn't become a much bigger threat.

Unlike with Iraq(or even Iran), we know this to be a nuclear state. We also know it to be a nuclear state that has threatened to use said weapons against civilians
in Japan and thereby Asia, as well as citizens of the Americas.

This is a far more grave situation, with which if diplomacy cannot bring about a successful resolution, then we must undertake the measures that were taken in regards to Saddam Hussein. Either weakening or replacing the questionable regime in question.





Your picking up others habits of being intellectually dishonest, I won't continue the conversation if you continue this behavior. At no point did I declare even the slightest intentions to initiate a nuclear war, any contingencies revolved around disabling the Nuclear State threat. Systematic strikes against key military target points, so as to even prevent the ability of firing a weapon. North Korea's delivery systems are still very much ill-adapted to recent times, and thereby we can still set back their nuclear capabilities to a severe degree.

As compared to a more modern state like Iran(if they were indeed pursuing) where
the "military option" both wouldn't prolong it, nor would it be humane. It is only humane in this case, as a last resort. For I doubt that China or even Russia would be interested in rearming this renegade state.

Whereas a North Korean collapse(in the case of war) is rumored to be very well possible within months(irregardless of the nuclear threat), the more difficult proposition seems to be whether or not we can successfully translate North Korea into a state of peace

See this

If so, I'd urge our chief of staff to inform our military brass to prepare for
such contingencies within a 5 year window. Such information would not only be vital in the case of a North Korean collapse, but as we saw with Japan: Accidents can happen. A nuclear fallout from some abandoned power plant could cause even us
some major damage.

Also, I stated your intellectual dishonesty: I'm sure I made it clear enough for even a toddler to understand, I was referring in that segment to our failed episode in the Middle Eastern Terrain. Our "Hearts and minds" campaign has caused perpetual warfare in which our soldiers at the front have went through
several tours of duties, brigades going back out to the main front after only
a short while of rest.

Seeing as you're not a dumbass, it's plainly obvious you tried to stretch this statement into something it's not.





You forgot, as I said above: A: That this refers entirely to the situation in the Middle East. And that B: I said that any and all contingencies are geared towards preventing nuclear war. And that means the mission's primary goal, is to disable the enemy's nuclear weapons. By eliminating his "tactical advantage", the "hermit kingdom" will finally negotiate from a reasonable standing point, as it regards
Eurasia, America and the rest of the world.





Who said that I wanted to rule the Middle East?(A barren land ruled by religion, if there was the theory of oil in the Bush years, that theory has clearly failed to show itself considering the high gas prices and the Keystone Pipeline initiative.) All I want to do is force tactical defeat upon the terrorist groups.

Whereas the enemy has little remorse for maiming and killing children, we're
"preaching hearts and minds" as if that possibly makes a difference. Afghan citizens aren't going to be "moved" by some speech about democracy or some humanitarian assistance(and we have groups for that. Such as our involvement in the U.N.)

The citizens will be moved into understanding that A: The rest of the world rejects this nonsense and that B: The U.S. is so utterly superior that resistance is futile, the very act of terroristic resistance will equal death or captivity to a "resistance fighter."

Insofar as a group avows from terrorism and strives to actually improve the situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan, what reason would there be for the U.S. to be involved in that wasteful filth?

If you want me to make it perfectly clear how little I see the Middle East on the world stage: Whereas I'm unwilling to leave a vacuum in South Korea, I'm more than perfectly willing to leave a vacuum throughout the Middle East.

The vacuum will ensue an all out war between all of the religious factions from
Sunni to Shiite to Islam to Jewish. And a problem that has been bugging America
will finally be solved.

In essence, if we're going to commit to this war, I'll remove the limitations on our army that's existed since Vietnam. Our soldiers do not double as diplomats, our diplomats serve diplomatic posts and have diplomatic meetings. Our civilian corps and our humanitarian people specialize in humanitarian assistance.

If we're not going to commit to this war, if people such as yourself believe our military must be "humanitarian" while keeping to their high standards, then we'll leave the Middle East entirely.





Incorrect, if I'm to reveal more of my foreign policy thoughts. I actually want to seek a long-term peace treaty(more like alliance treaty) with the Russian Federation. I also want to include Japan on these talks, resolving the Russian-Japanese "dispute" that actually technically keeps WWII alive.

With the two world powers(U.S. and Russia) as well as a historic financial and
military power(Japan), the world has clearly established leadership that avows changes for world peace. All 3 nations at one point or another distrusted each other but now they're aligned in the strongest terms.


I also want to reach out to European countries such as Germany and England. I believe a coordinated effort between developed nations can help those 2nd and
3rd world countries finally develop into the 21st century.

To renegade nations such as China, it leaves but two options. Either China agrees
to Humanitarian consent, it stops forced fertilization drugging of women and
respects the rights of people. Or, while the world moves ahead and resolves its problems, China is left behind both militarily and economically.


America is in the unique position where we literally don't have to have an enemy.
America has ruled the Western part of the world for the latter part of the 21st
century and with European/Eurasian cooperation, we can maintain this rule
on our section of the world sphere.

This opportunity only exists through economic reform, cracking down even harder
on terroristic activity, in much the same way Russia did under Putin's rule. Only by presenting an America that's willing and capable of leading, can America reclaim her economic and geopolitical advantages.

And it is only through those advantages that we can hold a position of neutrality.
Neutral nations such as Switzerland have economic and military strength, along with a determined will which is why they've been neutral for so long.

American Nationalism will once again determine American Foreign Policy for Americans. The vast majority of Americans want the war to come to an end, you can't dispute that my geopolitical thoughts would bring the war quicker to its conclusion, by removing the Vietnamese-like restrictions on our soldiers. The diplomatic job is reserved only for our diplomats.

North Korea is the greatest harbringer of trouble in the Eurasian Sphere. Even China honestly pails in comparison, as China has made clear that she doesn't really want a war on her frontiers.

If a neutral understanding can be had between the Chinese/Japanese regarding
disputed territory, then we would have essentially formulated a leadership for peace in the Asian Territories as well.







Most certainly, but not before pointing out that the discussion already shifted in that direction before you posted. I for example, just obliterated the notion that a fetus is not a living being.

And yet america's posturing in the pacific has been causing china great discomfort and anger for years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9268949/Chinese-anger-at-US-base-in-Australia.html
http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/06/04/hostile-us-posture-towards-china-provoking-anti-american-sentiment/

American bolstering in the pacific is forcing china to make tough decisions and while it does not currently want to start a war, if america were to up it's presence in order to fight against north korea, it would undoubtedly start a chain war with china, not simply because of previous alliegences, but because an overabundence of american presence in the asian territories is not welcome.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/01/22/23-Jan-13-World-View-China-warns-Australia-not-to-side-with-America-in-case-of-war
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/18/china-missile-us-north-korea
http://www.voanews.com/content/china-warns-against-foreign-military-buildup-in-asia-in-veiled-warning-to-us/1642258.html
http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/04/16/china-issues-warning-to-u-s-to-back-off-in-pacific-region/

China is clearly stating that america needs to back off, and if america wishes to start a war in the pacific, china will not be on thier side.

Did you read what you've linked? If not, I'll give a brief reply.

Australia exists on the Pacific Rim, and for years had been a British Colony(even if it disavows in a sense from the Crown, by keeping Elizabeth as the continent's Queen, I still contend it's a colony of the British). In WWII it had become a strict American Ally. In short, Australia had always been a pro-English continent(In fact, English is the de-facto national language).

Considering it's bilateral alliances, and the fact that it itself has never declared war. I consider our position in Australia to be a neutral one and thereby non threatening to legitimate Chinese aspirations.

Which does not include South East Asia. I mentioned the contested islands, China once had a stake in them.(Around 14th-15th century A.D), then the Chinese left. And the Japanese inherited the territory ever since.

It's only now a problem since the Senkaku islands have been found to have rare minerals! Similar pressure has been given to Vietnam and other developing Asian Continents, under that guise it promotes as "harmony among the Asian States."

My position, and the U.S. position is as followed: Agreements in Eurasia are crucial to American interests. As a European Nation, the security of Europe and Asia, of our direct brothers and sisters in effect is of top priority.

Said bilateral agreements cannot be said in any way to threaten China(since China benefits). The only "threat" is against Chinese expansion, which we are of course opposed to.

If a Eurasian war were to occur, it's quite obvious that the Chinese military build up would be responsible, as well as it's encroachment on South Asian states. We're doing nothing more than following our obligations to our Eurasian and European brothers and sisters and allies. An alliance that
formed even before the First World War, an alliance that China has always
distanced itself from.

For China to proclaim it will defend a territory that it has ignored at best or tried to subjugate at worst, is completely laughable.

Of course they distanced themselves. America formed a alliance with england before the first world war, as a support for global english power. But there was a very important event that happened just before the first world war in china, it was called the boxer rebellion. If you aren't familiar with it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion

Which lead to the civil war in 1911, which europe literally tried to screw china out of becoming a democratic nation because a democratic china even for a brief period would not give them money and control. That is something very important to remember here.

Ignorance or complacency is no excuse for atrocities. Still didn't really answer the question though. Where does the line exist for the U.S. how far do our provocative actions have to go before it crosses that line and we become hypocrites?




I am skeptical of our corrupt, war-mongering, war profiteering government, belligerent, and bullying government. America stays on the brink of war with almost every damned nation on the planet if they don't fall in line with us. Our media provokes conversations about war with China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, and a host of other nations that don't fall in lock step to the U.S march. I've even heard the media try to start a dialogue of going to war with France, FRANCE! Why? because they criticized Bush!

Coming to the reality that our government lies and that special interests profit from the U.S's constant military engagements world wide is enough to turn any intelligent person into a skeptic when it comes to the state controlled media's message that every non-capitalist country is attempting to undermind the U.S because "hurr, dey's jelly of ur freedums"





Initiating a military strike against a nuclear nation will result in retaliation. If North Korea is so eager to utilize their nuclear arsenal as you keep claiming then it's logical that they will retaliate with a nuclear weapon or weapons to "wipe us off the planet in a sea of fire".



That's initiating a military confrontation with North Korea, they will retaliate. If you miss even 1, just 1, single, solitary missile site they will retaliate and if that missile site happens to be armed with a nuclear missile or missiles, they will launch a nuclear weapon or weapons at us. Congratulations, you just started a nuclear war! May not have been your intention but, actions have bloody consequences!



The link is more of an argument against war considering we'd have to deploy a full 1/3rd of our entire military



From you're own article.





If the U.S strikes a nation. That nation will not accept a peace deal until it is beyond the shadow of a doubt that they will not win. If we strike from a range (using missiles, aircraft or drones) we will have no guarantee that the strike will be accurate or effective at disabling the site. We could not secure the site without forces on the ground. Forces, which by the way will face an almost endless stream of insurgences (considering this is the middle east) to harass our forces which would turn the theater into a bloody quagmire.

It doesn't take much effort to understand this extremely simple concept. You're refusal to accept that wars are bloody, costly affairs that this country can ill afford especially after a decade of war is just astounding.

But, I give you too much credit.



You obviously want U.S dominance over the middle east. You want billions of people to live in fear of the U.S and it's military superiority. That's about as close to 'ruling" as you can get without being a de facto leader.

"hurr, there's no war for oil cuz gas prices are high" is possibly the simplest and idiotic arguments I've ever heard.

OPEC enjoys high crude oil prices. In fact, a state department report back in 2010 stated that Iran would collapse in on itself if the price of a barrel of crude oil declines beyond a certain point. That was the cornerstone of Herman Cain's policy with Iran, drill for more oil to reduce the global price beyond a certain threshold which would cause Iran to collapse due to a reliance on high crude oil prices to fund it's government.

So like Iran, high crude oil prices are a boon to oil companies who can charge a premium for their oil.



We "liberated" them (i.e invaded), installed a corrupt government headed by a corrupt, nepotistic, thug, continued occupying their country for a decade.

You think the "preaching hearts and minds" is going to have an affect on a population when they are under military occupation? I hope to god you're not that fucking stupid.



Death threats will do nothing to these people. We're fighting individuals who will blow themselves up in the hope of taking 1 U.S soldier down with them. These religious fanatics don't care if the world is against them, it only emboldens them by enforcing the notion that the world has "turned away from Allah".



I believe we should leave the middle east because we're hypocrites. The U.S wouldn't permit another country to perform the same actions as us. Plus, our military should exist to protect the American citizens at home, not act as the global police force.





You're utterly divorced from reality. Russia isn't a world power anymore. The last whispers that Russia was even relevant to the world happened in late (October) 2012.

If anything "keeps WW2 alive" it's the Japanese/Chinese relations with many Chinese hating the Japanese for the war crimes committed during Japans invasion and subsequent occupation but, I give you too much credit.



I like how you praise a tyrant known for incarcerating political opponents and then stating how he's an example we should immulate. Much like how members of congress called the T.E.A. party domestic terrorists and the Obama administration was targeting groups with differing political ideologies. Yeah, this Fascist shit hole of a police state is such a lovely place to live. Of all the countries in the world, you pick Russia as a place we should emulate.

I've been giving you far, far too much credit as a human being.



Even when I have no expectations of you, you somehow manage to continue to disappoint. This comment is literally so uneducated and idiotic I don't even know where to begin.



You're concept of turning our soldiers into butchers would bring about an end of the war as the American people will lose the stomach for such mindless, barbaric bloodshed. Our soldiers are not butchers and as someone attempting to enlist, I am disgusted by the fact you're allowed to call yourself an American, let alone breath.

Your sexual fetish for bloodshed and gore turns my stomach.

Technically you cannot kill a fetus. Wether from a theological standpoint (breath of life) or scientific standpoint (lacks a nerve network), a fetus is not a human being right after conception.

An abortion is, for reasons related to the scientific standpoint, allowed for up to 3 months after conception. That's because, until that time, the fetus is physically unable to feel and the self-awareness of a human sets in about 10 minutes after birth. A human that has never been self-aware is technically not alive.

I agree with Jacky, and I am surprised that this is even a question. Roe vs Wade was set out what, 40 years ago now? Although I don't know the exact wording of the verdict, I'm pretty sure that by making abortion legal, it is not, in fact, at all able to be even compared to killing a person.

Now after reading the thread (and wading through some rather platitudinous side topics about war, imo) there seems to be more a question of the morality of the act of abortion, or at least to pretend that Roe vs Wade never happened, and to be our own little jury on the matter. That being said...

There is no reason to believe that removing cells from a body is murder. You would just as soon remove a benign tumor from your body as get an abortion if you didn't have any qualms about the 'potential life' of the fetus, statistically speaking it would be much safer than giving birth anyway. Just because someone got pregnant, does not mean they are under any obligation to anyone to remain so, and terminating that pregnancy is simply not the same as killing an autonomous, sentient, self-sufficient being. Whatever moral compass that is pointing you in the direction of 'all life is sacred' is nice I suppose, but that is a -large- assumption stating that a bunch of cells clinging to a woman's uterus are 'alive'. Even if you make the argument that the individual cells themselves are alive, it's not as though they chose to come into existence. Nothing that's created within a woman's body and has yet to be born chooses, believes or strives for anything, it is simply following the instructions for reproduction that every woman's body performs, and has no mind of it's own to decide otherwise. Besides, as was stated somewhere earlier, even if you believe all life is sacred, humans are designed to ingest dead things, whether animal or plant, to survive.

By living, you are doing so off the life of other things, and it's fine to believe in sanctity of life, but it's impossible to believe that nothing is ever allowed to die. If you goad yourself into believing that a zygote, embryo or fetus is the same as a living person, not only are you comparing every human being that ever lived to nothing more than a mindless parasitic clump of cells, you hold the 'life' that they might live so sacred that the wills of the potential parent(s) are completely disregarded, holding human life in probably a higher respect than that of any other life form on earth, not to mention the fact that the mother could die in childbirth and you are condemning her to take that chance. Abortion became legal because people realized the need for it to be legal, that forcing every woman who became pregnant to carry that pregnancy to term is wrong when she does not want a child.

And before someone mentions it again, please drop the adoption argument. It is HIGHLY unrealistic to expect even a fraction of children that would result from the pregnancies abortions terminate to find homes.

A fetus is still in early development. I don't personally approve of abortion, especially in the latter stages of gestation, when a heart and brain have started developing. At that point, I would feel personally responsible for the life. This however, is how I would feel about my own pregnancy, and does not reflect my objective opinion on abortion itself.

Murder is when you kill someone that is out of the womb. They are a person. They speak, they think, they have mortal fear. They can feel love, pain, loss. They can rationalize. They are sentient.

When a fetus is in its earliest stages, it is naught but a cluster of dividing cells. A zygote. It's strands of DNA that have the potential to become a person, but are not yet woven into one. Aborting this cellular mass is not murder, it is removing the possibility that the potential person would come into existence, not terminating one that already does.

My Grandmother actually roped me into a conversation in the car about this very subject, a month or so ago.

"If you're okay with abortion, then you should be okay that your brother was beaten to death when you were 9. They're both babies, so you should be fine with it."

Abortion and murder are not the same. Not by a long shot.

A fetus is not a person yet its just cells until a certain point that's why people think hard if they should have an abortion until its a person waiting to be born

No, I'm sorry but it'll never be the same. Although there are some exception.
IMHO, I think that if a woman (with or without her partner support) choses to terminate the growth of the fetus (in the legal stage) it'll only affect her. It cannot be compared to a feeling of losing someone you have created memories with. The person who was killed had her/his own life, friends, goals, love. He/She existed. He talked, walked, jumped, smiled. He was here, out in the world living and breathing.
A bunch of cells together is only important to the person who wants it (or not). And ending it's life will only matter to the same person. No colateral damage there. Hence, your body your choice.
Giving it to adoption is such crap. Some kids are lucky to find someone, with good intentions, who will give them all the love and care they need.
But who wants that? Everybody wants a DNA copy to hear comments like 'she/he looks just like you!' and low about how the kid is her own flesh and blood 'cause blood runs ticker than water or some bullshit like that. My own friend of many years looked at me like I was crazy for not wanting to 'birth' a child and thinking about adoption. Because you know, only having your own will give you the feeling of being a mother!
I won't even go down the road of the women's right or I won't be getting out of here. Pro-lifers, always come with 'what if X had been aborted?' Well, what if Hitler had been aborted? Or any other potencial criminals, racists and other bad people? Wouldn't the world be a better place? Things don't work like that, honey. If abortion is so bad why are women who have children just to 'trap' a man not being judged too? All they get is something like 'oh, you have it so hard...' and 'she really wanted your baby and she loves you a lot'. If rapists got the same slap on the wrist... When I see a pro-life post all I think is 'Life quality doesn't matter. Just quantity...'
You want to see less abortions? Don't teach kids about abstinence! Teach them about the importance of self-esteem, respect, love and safe sex. Banning 'sex' from the household is not going to make them stay away from it. The forbidden fruit is always seeked.
Instead of trying to ban abortions, give free pills and condoms. Stop giving so much support for people who don't work and have lots of kids. Stop making pregnancy something to be proud about unless you're in a serious relationship. (I understand that relationships fail but 5 kids of 5 different fathers?!)
If you glorify pregnancy all you'll get is a bunch of horny teens and young adults wanting to get featured in teen mom/to get all the rewards they're entitled for being knocked up.
I don't believe any man or woman who practise safe sex should be punished for enjoying themselves. Forcing them to have an unwanted child is just that - severe and permanent punishment. It feels like they want us back in 1500.

This is quite a clutter and so I'll respond to each individual point.

1)It's quite arrogant that you said that it would only affect her, particularly with or without the man's consent. Did you ever remotely consider that the man might want a child or a family? Does it not affect the man when his dreams are effectively denied by bigoted, sexist law(ironically, in favor of the female)?

It's also quite incorrect to say that there was no collateral damage. The only basis of this argument is that the fetus isn't conscious of its surroundings.(I won't say it's not alive, because it is. Otherwise bodily functions to develop the human frame would cease.) But what if the fetus were conscious? Or in other words, what if the developing human child could oppose its maker?

Abortion is not justifiable, that life doesn't only belong to the mother and a woman who honestly believes that crap is truly naive.

2) We apparently believe all life is equal. If we believe that, then it's not on the mere fact that Hitler was born. But what was Hitler exposed to? What made Hitler the way that he was?

Oh, I don't know? His druken, abusing father? The death of his mother? This is not justification, but it is reasoning. The same is said for every person who ever committed a crime. I don't sympathize with Ted Bundy, but if we can psychologically find out what made guys like that tick we can possibly save thousands of lives.

Abortion is not a solution to crime, that video that was posted earlier merely attempts to make the correlation. If, however the family was a stable, middle class family to begin with, it would have been able to successfully give birth.

In other words, true family planning is far from abortion, but rather the insurance that families are being born in a lifestyle and a neighborhood congruent with positive child development.

3)Of course, it would be better if a child could be born, raised and loved by its biological parents. This, however doesn't disqualify adoption as an option. There are many women who would want to be mothers, but due to biological complications or accidents who can't give biological birth. And I disagree that only a biological child will give you the feeling of it being your child.

That's a pretty selfish way to look at it, and if someone looks at it that way I will admit that it does bring into question whether or not that person is fit to be a mother.

A mother's job is to have unconditional love for her children. It's not merely a "job", it's a requirement!

Oh, and before you say "woe is me", the same responsibility falls on the father.
Which is why in fact it is more difficult with fathers of more than one child than it is for a mother. A mother can unconditionally love her children, a father is a child's possession. Both the son and daughter develop a father complex(as identified in Freud's psychology)

4)Why aren't women judged for baiting men with a child? Ask your biased Family Courts! Not only are men routinely denied visitation rights, but in most cases pay child ailmony. Do women have to pay for anything? Not necessarily. Its these very pro-feminist forces by the way, that destroy the concept of a family.

So when you talk about teaching the value of children's lives, the value of self-esteem, respect and love. The current society throws all of these things away. After all, you said it yourself: It only means something to her(to you as the female). Your partner? To damn with him.

It's neither about promoting abstinence nor about "safe sex", neither help.

You think the pill is fool proof? Do you think it's constantly on a girl's mind to take one? Do you really honestly believe it's safe to take drugs to have sex?
We're told its safe, but a skeptical mind is necessary.

The fact is, it's a loss of morality. And that is what leads to the "16 and pregnant." These kids are out on the street, precisely because of feminist rhetoric. Because feminist ideology impressed these young girls with the concept of "it's their body".

Yes, it is your body. That's why you must exercise responsibility and proper judgment. A reckless "choice" to destroy your body, is still a reckless choice no matter how much you want to justify it to yourself.

Only, these pregnancies, as you note also negatively harm society with dead beat fathers(as well as welfare mothers), impoverished children, etc.

So it's not a choice that's just on the mother.

5)While sex can be pleasurable, it should have its own merits and responsibility. Much the same way as driving is very pleasurable. Life itself can be pleasurable, but we have the duty to treat our lives and others with dignity.

If you're in a relationship for sex's sake alone, then you're in a relationship for all of the wrong reasons.

If you're having a one night stand for mere pleasure, then you're merely satisfying your own vanity.

My philosophical position is based on the fact that I'm alive and yet I don't know who my father is. I value my life, but I wish I knew who my father was.

I'll have children and be a responsible father, but I'll only do so with a woman who unconditionally loves her children and her family.

First of all, I don't see myself as a feminist but I like to have the same rights as any other human being. This view on equal humanity affects my views and my actions tu make my life and those who are in touch with me linked with it.

1) I'm sorry but you are wrong. That life belongs to the mother and maybe the father (if he's involved).
When I (wanted) child is born it's in the law that the mother is responsoble for it since birth till adulthood. Anyone who lays a finger on that child has to "pay the bill" with the mother.
So you cannot say that it is not her place to make any decision concerning the fetus INSIDE her.
A fetus cannot survive OUTSIDE the mother's womb. It can only breath, eat and crap through a tube... Reminds me of a coma patient, do you believe family members can't take decisions for them too?
It's so arrogant and misogynist for you to assume that just because the father wants the child the woman should birth it.
If the couple is in a serious relationship, surely they have talked about the furute and if it includes children or not. It's their decision but the woman has the final saying. If the man dares to say "If you do it, I'll break up with you." for me is a sign of the beginning of an abusive relationship. How dare he to not support her decision if she does not feel ready.
In case you don't know, unless the mother is ill, very ambitious and carrer oriente (in other words busy), it is the woman who does 90% of the childrearing.
Abortion is justifiable. We are all free to do what we want as long as we don't steal someone elses freedom.
(It is ironic how a law the favors women is somehow sexist for YOU...)

2)You just slapped away and totally ignores the question I made similar to yours. Well...what if?
Now it's about how they grew up. Excuse me, but you cannot chose where you are born and raised, and it's not an excuse to kill, terrify and torture people!!
But you know what? It's our nature... Our selfish nature to dominate and rule others. Just humans being humans I guess...

3) I see no difference. Born and raised by biological or adoptive parents is the same as long as they care and love the child. None is better than the other. They serve the same purpose.
I'm sorry but my views on adoption will not change. People would rather pay billions to see if they can have the DNA replica than go to an institution and give a better life to a child that is already there. The romantic complex of "giving him a child" has been implanted on humans brains quite well. They reject every being with no blood ties.
"Adoption is defined as bringing a stranger into our family line." Cold and cruel like reality.
I don't know if she will be fit or not, but her view made me see how we (humans) are. My own cousin is thinking about divorcing a man just because he's sterile. Here we are in a dying planet and we cannot think of anyone but ourselves.

4) "It's hard to prove" they said. Feminists have nothing to do with the new family concept. The faminists I learned about in school, just tried to make man and women stand in the same ground. In case you don't remember, we weren't allowed to vote and such.
My mother never married my father, my mother always supported me, he was allowed to visit anytime he wanted, however he didn't do it very often as he had a family. He didn't pay anything to my mother, he just brought gifts occasionaly.
He wasn't very present in my life...
What I'm trying to say is, men aren't being discriminated. Some women are bitches about visitations and CS and some men just don't care about the child they have. We women are not picking on you guys. Normal women suspend visitation if the fathers behavior is questionable.
I'm sorry but promoting safe sex has helped in my high school. It was a public school and only 2 teen pregnancies in there. They talked to us a lot about safe sex and we talked among each other and encouraged each other to stick to our beliefs.
Do you really believe the pill fails that much? Or that girls are just airheads and forget about taking a pill everyday? I'm sorry but you sound very naive. I'm actually laughing right now.
If a woman has decided to not get pregnant, she will not get pregnant unless she wants to. (Or the partner messes with her BC) Those oopsies are very intentional, believe me. In the end, the decision to get pregnant, continue or terminate said pregnancy lies on the woman.
Your attack on feminists is sounding a lot more like an attack on women. (I don't know if it's the writing...) I agree that modern feminism in some countries shiped from "power to women" to "glorify pregnancy and all mothers" and that gives the wrong idea to impressionable youngsters. But if the parents have intelectual conversations with their children, it may help them communicate and shate their views possibly putting the child in the right path. I couldn't talk to my mother about my views as she was always busy, but having such conversations with my friends helped me.
Morality is usually taught in the household. I was taught not to steal, lie, harm other etc but I was also taught that my body belongs to me. I may want to share the ownership with someone I love but that is up to me. My mother and all the mothers of people I know must have done something right.

5) I don't see how two adults consenting on a no strings attached relationship can be seen as disrespecting each other or stepping on each other dignity. If they are both aware of what the other wants and are using protection, I say go for it. They're living their lives.
If they want to have a one night stand, they should do it.
The keyword here is protection. If you're not using it you're inviting not only a 'surprise' pregnancy but also STDs. And for being that stupid they get no sympathy for me, only a 'bed made lie'.
Who am I to judge who someone is having safe sex with? If it maker her happy, I'll shut up till she acts dumb.
I can see that your views are somewhat conservative, given your background. (You're not alone in there) I noticed it on your reply in the family part, but I have to tell you, everything, every concept is dynamic... It'll never stay the same.