Excuse me? I didn't think there were anybody outside tribal witch doctors who believed this...


Anyways...



Firstly:
"If we take a complete set of DNA to equal one person"...
Except we don't. A cell in your fingertip has a complete set of DNA, that means nothing. So does a hair follicle. The standard of 'a complete set of DNA' is utterly meaningless.

Secondly:
Even if your point were true, which it is not, that still has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the previous threads on evolution. I am still waiting for you to make some attemopt to explain that link you vainly tried to forge.

Thirdly:
The 14th Amendment is actually quite clear.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States..."
The standard for the 14th amendment is 'born' or 'naturalised', which seems to be quite straight forward, if you have not yet been born, it does not apply.

Fourthly:
Your standard does not depend on biology, or at least not on any biology you have explained so far. Besiades, as I have stated numerous times, I trust the bilogical knowledge of a doctor over you, and every accredited medical association in the US: the AMS, the AMSA, the AMWA, the APA, they are all pro-choice.

Fifthly, if you believe that a zygote = a person and deserves full legal status, then you can answer the question I tried in vain to get Aevans to answer. Do you thus believe there should be a manslaughter investigation in the case of a miscarriage, and a murder investigation in the case of a woman using an IUD? In both cases, what you deem to be a full person has died, possibly by accident, possibly by agency. Cleary the police should be involved, right?

Yes I do think it is okay. What would be even better would be if those laws were
enforced more diligently.



But that imposition of financial obligation to the child is not going to be absolutely
enforced. Even if the state tracks down the father and manages to get some
sort of financial support for his child, there is no law that says the father has to
do anything beyond that. That would leave the child-rearing completely on the
mother. Maybe that sounds like a piece of cake to you, but then again, you don't
have kids. Take it from me, who had her kids under very good circumstances,
parenting is very difficult. For women with little education, little money, and no
committed partner, their chances are little for becoming good mothers
and raising happy individuals.

Keep in mind, not all of us share your views of when a human life becomes
a human life. You may feel morally superior in your views, but that is only
your belief or perception of what reality is.



IT is all perspective. So why must YOU push your perspective on an any woman
out there. Let the inidividual decide whether abortion is the right decision for her.
Why should you or any other man, collectively decide?




Who are you to judge? Why should your morality override another's??



Hmmm, it sounds to me like you are trying to push your ideas and ideals on others
whom you will never even know.



Well, since you put it that way. If Kivrothatovah wants her to have the child
she simply must do it.



It is amazing how quickly a woman is turned into a villian, lest we forget that
in each abortion there was a man's sperm that sealed the deal. Only men
are left off the hook because they are not the ones who have to physically
make a choice.



You are an idealist and I cannot fault you for wanting to view motherhood through
rose-colored glasses. You are not looking at all the variables involved in this
issue.

Why do people think that men are all pro-life? Did I miss something and an all-woman court decided Roe vs. Wade? If you weren't afraid of men then, why are you afraid of them now? Even Republicans like Arlen Specter are staunchly pro-choice these days! Are women the ones writing all the pro-choice laws in the state legislatures? Are women the ones upholding all the pro-choice laws in the courts? The whole question itself seems rather silly on the face of it, to me. Not only does it fly in the face of 30 years of legalized abortion, it also makes a ridiculous presumption: that most men prefer to keep the baby.

Of course, this is absurd. If most men preferred to keep their child and raise it, why are there so many single mothers in America? The fact is, abortion was the greatest thing that happened to male sexual freedom. Biologically speaking, the optimal behavior for men is to impregnate as many women as possible, and raise the children of the most desirable mother. Since men are mostly concerned with the impregnation aspect and not so much the subsequent child-rearing, it is far easier to pay a woman $300 to have an abortion than to pay $130,000 to raise a child to adulthood. With the advent of legal abortion, men could now buy their way out of fatherhood at bargain basement prices. Parental responsibility flew out the window. Women could no longer shame a man into marriage and child support. Now it required the full force of the law to make a man be a father against his will.

Do women like to be objectified? Then why do they accept $300 bribes to turn off their baby factories for some cheap man-thrills? Abortion is the ultimate tool of male objectification of women. Abortion absolves men of all fatherly responsibility and gives them complete sexual freedom to not only have sex with as many women as possible, but to do so with such callous indifference as to impregnate them as well, paying only a minor fine for the error. Abortion cheapened women all over America and put a price tag on their bodies the day it was legalized. And the brilliance of it was that women themselves demanded this "right". For the first time in history, women demanded the right to pay a man to commit medical violence against her body. In no other case is a doctor asked, let alone bribed, into causing injury to a woman with no therapeutic goal in mind.

One poster mentioned that women aren't likely to die from abortion. It's true that childbirth itself is a sacrifice. It's also true that there are thousands, if not millions, of reported and especially unreported cases of women being permanently injured by an abortion procedure. This includes laceration and/or perforation of the uterus, leading to hemmorhaging and infection, and often times ultimately in sterilization. That's considered an "acceptable risk" to get rid of the "parasite". Unfortunately, most women aren't aware of the actual risk when they are "counseled" prior to receiving an abortion. And how many women are brave enough to sue an abortionist for injuries sustained during an abortion? If I had less scruples, I'd get into the abortion industry because it's got to be one of the most lucrative fields within the medical profession.

You don't need half the facilities of most surgery centers. To "cure" your patient, you only need to kill tissue, not restore it. You are far less likely to be sued for malpractice because the abortion process itself is so traumatic most women don't want to relive it in court. Low lawsuits mean malpractice insurance, if you need to carry it at all, is far lower than for doctors that actually perform therapeutic procedures. You can charge cash. You can turn patients away for inability to pay, since the vast majority of abortions are not medically necessary. It's a "doctor's" dream come true. It's no wonder abortionists are willing to travel from MN to SD to perform abortions. I assure you it's not altruism in their hearts...it's lucre. Not only do you get the cash for the procedure itself, if you are particularly unscrupulous, you can go ahead and sell that valuable fetal tissue on the black market for top dollar. All that fetal collagen must make the cosmetic companies drool with delight. Want to look young again? Try rubbing dead fetus on your face! It really works! No, seriously! Fetal collagen really does work wonders for old and wrinkled skin.

And what better people to have serving on the bench than old conservative white men? With black women having abortions at three times the rate of white women, blacks are voluntarily reducing their population growth at over 25x the rate of whites (blacks constitute about 11-12% of the general population). Other minorities are in a similar boat. Margaret Sanger, the revered founder of Planned Parenthood, had just this eugenic plan in mind when she started our favorite abortion mill. She even tried to recruit unsuspecting black preachers to explain the benefits of reduced population growth to their congregations. Well, abortion has been available to blacks for several decades, and I still haven't met any black people that attribute their success to the availability of abortion in their communities. But maybe they just aren't paying attention.

You see, Hitler was too aggressive. He forced sterilizations. If he were really smart, he would have gone the American way and just made abortion available to Jews, while denying it to Germans. That's the best form of genocide...the voluntary kind, where mothers send their own children to the blast furnace. It's a great form of population control, because not only is it socially acceptable, the populace outright demands it! Hitler would be squealing like a schoolboy if he saw the great strides in eugenics we have achieved over the last 30 years. The white race is losing out to immigration along the Southern border, but nationally, minorities are being kept in check by checking their fetuses into the Abortion Hotel. Go White Power! We are also keeping the lower classes in check because abortion rates are roughly negatively correlated with socioeconomic status. In plain English, poor people have abortions more often than rich people. Margaret would be beaming with pride. Genetic purity and harmony at last!

Of course, the ethical justification of abortion hinges on the claim that a fetus is not a person. Since we have no universally agreed-upon definition of "person", that holds water for now as a potentially valid claim. However, note that Roe vs. Wade essentially legislated the definition of "person" to exclude the unborn. However, it is interesting to note the schizophrenia we have on this issue with such laws as fetal homocide. It completely contradicts the principle of fetal non-personhood on which Roe is founded. But it's even worse. Let's ask pregnant women if fetuses are people. After all, they should know better than the rest of us, right? I mean, this whole thread is about respecting the woman's perspective and holding it in higest regard, right?

What do women do when they have a miscarriage? Well, almost universally, they mourn. Mourn what? I've never witnessed a woman mourning a wart being removed, or a cyst being excised. I've especially never witnessed a woman mourning a parasite being evicted from her body (which is exactly what some pro-choice supporters call a fetus). If you ask the woman what she is mourning, I assure you that the vast majority of them will tell you that they are mourning the loss of their baby. Their baby. How do we know that they think it's a baby, and not just a fetus? A person, and not just a clump of cells? Because often, they will hold funerals for the fetus. Yes, sometimes we hold funerals for dearly beloved pets, but I defy anyone to ask a woman who has miscarried and held a funeral if she would compare that funeral to one she might hold for a pet. I absolutely defy anyone to ask that question. Go ahead, make my day.

What about women who carry a fetus to term? Do they interact with the fetus as a person or a non-person? Well, for one, mothers often name their baby long before it is born. We name pets too, as well as inanimate objects. But by and large, we reserve our name for people. We give our names to our offspring. You might call your dog Sparky, but I'd be quite amused to see you call it Sparky Benjamin Johnson. Clearly, there is a higher status imputed to that growing fetus than to even a fully formed lesser animal like a pet. If a fetus is at least as valuable as a pet, and if pets are protected by cruelty laws, why not at least confer that level of protection to a fetus? We accept that pets must sometimes be put down because of illness. But wantonly killing a pet because it is no longer desirable is considered cruel and unusual. Why is killing something that many mothers name, and give their name to not considered equally cruel, if not more so? Mothers not only name their fetuses, they buy them clothes, they read to them, they play music for them. When was the last time you read to your cat or played music for it? These are not things you do for parasites or tumors. These are actions directed at persons, for their purported benefit.

The only conclusion we can draw from this is that definition of fetal personhood is not static. It is not a property of the fetus itself, which is quite peculiar. It is a property of the pregnant woman. If the pregnant woman calls herself a "mother", then the fetus is a person enjoying the full protection of the law, including the right to life; hence, fetal homocide laws. If the pregnant woman calls herself a "victim", then the fetus is deemed a non-person, and tragically, this accusation carries with it the sentence of death. In what other instance is an innocent person's status and even fate determined by the proclamation of a single individual?

Not since slavery have Americans declared absolute sovereignty over another person, claiming the right to call that individual a person or a non-person depending on whether they were regarded as property or freedmen. And yet, this is exactly the same phenomenon we have today. A certain group of individuals possess a controversial personhood status under the law. Some laws grant those individuals to be persons, and thus free. Others grant the "owners" of those individuals property rights to those individuals, depriving them of personhood. In both cases, the law was used to oppress a certain class of individuals by pushing them outside of the "in-group". In the case of blacks, they were deemed "sub-human". In the case of fetuses, some go so far as to deny them any humanity at all. And yet there are those of us who see ourselves in both groups, and realize that the circle must widen, slowly, surely. And I am confident it will. Perhaps it will take a technological breakthrough to make it happen. Perhaps we will someday have a birth control solution that will give us near-perfect control over reproduction. At that point, there will be no moral justification for abortion, and our children will see us as just as barbaric as we see the slaveholders of yesteryear. We will witness the arguments over "property" and "privacy" in our history books and see the eerie parallels and wonder how many people had to die before we reached this level of advancement.

We think that because we are technologically advanced, that we are socially advanced. But we are not. We are just a bunch of hairless apes running around beating each other and killing our young. But eventually technology will save us. At least, let us hope. For the fetuses.

I don't think that women should be charged with murder unless they perform an abortion on themselves. The strictest criminal charges should be levelled at the one performing the execution, with the woman being charged as an accomplice. In the case of a miscarriage, there should only be an investigation if there is probable cause to believe that foul play was involved. Since it is almost impossible to determine whether foul play was involved with a miscarriage, it would probably be economically infeasible an unjust to pursue such cases, especially considering the trauma inflicted if the charge of foul play were wrong.

When it comes to IUDs and self-administered abortifacients, charges should be allowed if there is someone to bring them. Namely, the father. Otherwise, the state has little to gain by punishing women ex-post facto. I think pro-life advocates would merely like to remove the death-dealers from the loop, not persecute unwilling mothers.

lawnmower man:


Quite frankly, it is diatribes like yours that support my argument.

You seem to be claiming that abortions are what is stopping men from behaving
responsibly. Yet the statistics on single-parent homes (most of which are
headed by women) would prove that to be a fallacy.

Your post depicts women as idiotic fools who are nothing but pawns for men.
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you spew such hatred?

Sadly, there are attitudes like yours that exist in government. Men who feel
their views on women and abortion should override the fundamental rights of
the individual.

Why should your personal beliefs be forced on others?

For a man to tell a woman what she should do with her body and her life,
like you are trying to do in your post, is the ultimate form of OBJECTIFICATION.

No, it's not going to ABSOLUTELY be enforced. But that's not the point. It is enforced in many cases. I work for a bank and I see all the child support checks in peeps accounts.

You seem to be missing this point, again and again.

The question is, if a woman cannot be subject to having/not having a baby, then why should a father be subject to be forced to be a parent as well? You have been asked this at LEAST twice and never addressed it.

The only logical answer you could provide is that you support laws that slant TOWARD women's rights and against men's rights. In other words, there's no logic in your answer, simply that you support laws that favor YOU.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it's pretty hard to debate.

Again, this is the situation which to men seems unfair:

Decision on whether the baby should be born or not: Woman decides

Decision on whether the man has to financially support the baby: Woman decides

So it seems like a woman sits back, and if she doesn't want the baby, BUT THE FATHER DOES, she can say no. If she wants the baby, and the father does NOT, the father has to support the MOTHER and the BABY. And also, if the mother wants the baby AND the father does, the mother can decide to have custody without the father and make him pay anyway.

Yeah, that MALE DOMINATED gov't is really looking out for its own.

Personally I really have no problem with this, it's just another reason why men should stay the hell away from women.

The implication of the thread's original question is that if women had the sole jurisdiction over the legality, then it would be legal. Does history support this?

Certainly not in South Dakota, who's recent legislative actions inspired this thread.

Pro-life women in South Dakota legislature destroying myths about abortion laws
Of the 16 women in the South Dakota House and Senate, 11 voted in February for a bill that would ban all abortions in the state, unless it's necessary to save the mother's life
...
The bill crossed party lines, receiving the support of the majority of Democratic women (four out of five voted for it) and Republican women (seven of 11 supported it). The Senate sponsor was Julie Bartling, a Democrat.

I'm sure that the constituents of those people wanted them to vote that way. Democracy in action. You have to love it!

Precisely. Polticians, for the most part, are interested in the business of politics which is to get reelected or further the goals of their party. This happens only by voting in favor (especially on such a controversial matter) of what the people want. Doesn't seem like to far-fetched of a notion to me. It's apparent that the SD people voted for pro-life representatives...

Because once a baby is here the wishes of the father should not override
the NEEDS of the child. I happen to agree with you that it's not fair for
women to impose parenthood on men who have made it very clear before
the fact that they don't want to be fathers. However, once a child is
born the focus MUST be on the welfare of the child, at the expense of both
parents.



Not true. I support laws that will protect children. The issues of which I feel
most passionate are those that involve the rights of children.



Actually it's not the woman who decides on financial support for the child,
it's the state. And like I've said numerous times, even the state with its
"infinite power" cannot enforce child support laws effectively.



If men were the gender who gave birth, it would be the opposite. And our
population would probably be greatly diminished.



South Dakota is not indicative of the rest of the country, nor should it be.
It's pretty much a theocracy there. So of course the majority of women will
be anti-abortion. That's fine. They are entitled to their beliefs.

Vermillion:

One of my "witch doctors" has won the Nobel Prize, more specifically, Kary Mullis, in 1993, for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction, or PCR. I will let the scientists among us tell you how important the PCR was and is to modern science.

I would otherwise suggest that you visit:

http://www.theperthgroup.com/
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/perthgroup/
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/
http://www.rethinkaids.info/redirbody.cfm,id=80
http://www.duesberg.com/
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/kmdancing.htm
http://old.valleyadvocate.com/hiv-aids/i980714.html

Now, from that last, Dr. Mullis and the proverbial give-away:

"They say it's a blood-borne disease.

Well, they don't have any proof of that. There's no proof of it at all... Most viruses you get respitorially. There's very few organisms that are passed sexually. Even though we're real interested in it, it turns out our sexual organs are very small compared with our breathing apparatus, and we use them a lot less. And most contagious diseases are borne by air. There's no proof that you can't get HIV by just breathing their breath. It would scare the hell out of people if they knew they had to go on elevators with people with HIV, if the CDC ever reported that. But they have gone so far as to say that "deep kissing" what ever that means... Do you ever "deep kiss"?

I don't know. Maybe.

Well, I guess that means that you really stick your heads together. Well, if "deep kissing" can be a way, what about "deep coughing"? See, the whole thing is such a bunch of... It's so bad that when you stand up in front of a big audience, and you start talking like I've been talking to you, people just can't believe it...Right now in the United States there's a decline in the number of people who are supposedly infected with HIV. It's gone down from about 1 million to about 750,000, according to the CDC. At the same time, there's been a rise in syphilis and gonorrhea. So if you think that [HIV] is sexually spread, you have to deal with that."

Yeah, deal with that. We aren't being more protective when it comes to sex, and so our old "friends" syphilis and gonorrhea are on the rise. But, yet, the rate of transmission of the purportedly sexually transmitted HIV has gone down. As the man said, that dog don't hunt.

That being said, the point was that from a strictly biological perspective [as it were], there is only that single set of DNA that I once was and still am. All that has occurred in the interim is that the DNA copied itself and then differentiated [via "choosing" to express different portions of the master plan/program that it is] and then copied some more. And as I related, in strictly biological terms, all the organism is, is a means to make more DNA. Everything else is, again, simply your delusion. And that, whether you recognize the stark reality staring you in the face or not, is the link. Or should I simply say that I had hoped that the atheistic evoluntionary biologist could at least be aware of and otherwise have synthesized the logical outcome of his initial premise, but I suppose that in your case, I stand corrected in that regard.

Next item, your reading of the 14th. In rather serious error. The "born" and "naturalized" only apply to our definition of citizen persons, which is why one can still be a person but not a US citizen [and maybe not even a resident of any state]. So the unborn are not citizens of the US, but are residents of the state wherein they reside [assuming that they reside in a state and not some alien/foreign jurisdiction], and as "mere" persons, are entitled to not have a state deprive them of life without due process of law. And to the extent that we become a China or an India, and start aborting only the female, then add in the state denying some, the females, the equal protection of the law as well.

Next item, zygotes and full persons. You might as well have said, for all the integrity [or lack thereof] that such entails, that those who have more than a certain quantum of melanin are not persons either. Of course, we've been there and done that...and that wasn't and isn't any more or any less arbitrary than the trimester framework established in Roe v. Wade. And speaking of that case, I take it, then, that you wish to see that case overturned, given that those in the third trimester have not been either born or naturalized? The illegitimacy of Roe v. Wade is otherwise best illustrated by its trimester framework, more specifically, the more advanced our science becomes, the earlier will be the point of viability. As you can see, such framework does not speak all to just what the "being" in question is, but instead, to our hopefully ever-decreasing state of ignorance. And some wonder why some of the rest consider Roe v. Wade to be a legal absurdity wihout any basis in constitutional or other legal jurisprudence.



Oh, and by the way, if you want to cure "HIV/AIDS" in Africa, please provide the populace with potable water [think cholera], adequate nutrition, and reduce their exposure to otherwise known pathogens [think malaria and tuberculosis]. When you get through with that, add in some proper sanitation and general hygiene. And if you really have time and the will to make a difference, then add in some rudimentary medical care as well. You will save more lives by doing that than you ever will with your purportedly magic pills and your latex condoms. And after Africa, you can go to other places wherein people live in a rather abject poverty and solve their "HIV/AIDS" crises as well. I mean, didn't it strike you as a bit strange that an infectious sexually transmitted disease would pick as its target the 95% [according to the WHO] who just so happen to live below the poverty line? I am otherwise unaware of any evidence indicating that syphilis, gonorrhea, and/or herpes make the same distinction when it comes to infecting only the poorest among us...

And do you recall that story early on in the piece about those African prostitutes who were not dying of AIDS even though they were HIV positive? And do you recall that the theory was that they possessed some form of immunity from the disease? Yeah, they did. They sold their bodies for money and so had the money to buy potable water, adequate nutrition, a mosquito net, and some rudimentary medical care. And so they didn't die...and that was their immunity. Here's your link for the "immune" prostitutes of Nairobi:

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9710/25/kenya.aids/

As you can see, we are still waiting for that vaccine. Of course, as I said, they cannot give us one, since their vaccine is clean water, adequate nutrition, and a mosquito net. Oh, and note the speculation as to why they don't get infected via sexual relations, and then note the complete absence of any consideration of the possibility that HIV is not sexually transmitted.

And for more [ http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/world_2001/post-010511.html ]:

"But to scientists nursing fresh hope for a vaccine against HIV, the more relevant statistic is the number of men who risked contracting the virus from Kokutona: zero. In a prostitution career that has followed the terrible arc of the AIDS pandemic in Africa, Kokutona has never been infected, despite thousands of episodes of unprotected intercourse.

The natural resistance displayed by Kokutona, 42, was also documented in more than 100 other Nairobi prostitutes."

Natural resistance? No, a harmless passenger virus that is, rarely, if ever, sexually transmitted.

Lastly, re the rate of transmission and just why the virus could never have survived if it was and is sexually transmitted, and recall again our Nairobi prostitutes remaining uninfected despite thousands of unprotected sexual contacts [ http://www.libchrist.com/std/RiskFactorsHetero.html ]:

"In the nation's largest and longest study of heterosexual HIV transmission, UCSF researchers found transmission rates remain extremely low. Those rates, they said, could be even lower by eliminating certain risk factors identified by the study.

The researchers estimate the odds of a an HIV-positive male infecting a female partner in an unprotected sexual encounter is about 9 in 10,000 [my note, or 1 in 1,000]. The chances are even lower for female-to-male infections.
***
The fact that no transmission occurred among the 25 percent of couples who did not consistently use condoms shows that there is very low infectivity among heterosexual couples with one HIV-positive partner, according to the UCSF study. Infectivity increases greatly with injection drug use and the presence of an STD, as well as other factors such as risky sexual practices and lack of condom use."

Or as the abstract for Padian's study provides:

"Male-to-female transmission was approximately eight-times more efficient than female-to-male transmission and male-to-female per contact infectivity was estimated to be 0.0009 (95% CI 0.0005-0.001)."

0.0009? Or a roughly 1 in 1,000 chance that HIV positive him will infect HIV negative her through unprotected vaginal intercourse. And the rate, as stated, is even lower the other way. And no transmission among the 25% who did not consistently use condoms [and this is over a ten (10) year period]? You might as well just come out and say that HIV is not sexually transmitted.

And, no, I am not advocating "unsafe" sex, as our old "friend" syphilis is still in the Top Ten of worldwide infectious killers, and what with drug-resistance and all, things can only get worse...

And back to AIDS in Africa:

TC Ankrah, et al.,"The African AIDS case definition and HIV serology in medical in-patients at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Kumasi, Ghana," West African Journal of Medicine 13, No. 2 (1994): 98-101.

The abstract provides that the African AIDS case definition yielded a positive predictive value of 42%, i.e., 42% of the patients diagnosed as AIDS cases were HIV-positive, which means that 58% of diagnosed AIDS cases were HIV-negative. So, again, save your pennies, buy those water purification systems, teach them how to produce a sufficient supply of healthy foods and make sure that it's distributed on an equitable basis, bring some mosquito netting, and a doctor or two or three or four hundred thousand, and you will have solved HIV/AIDS in Africa...

Edited to add:

Results of the largest and longest study of the heterosexual
transmission of HIV in the United States:

"We followed 175 HIV-discordant couples over time, for a total of
approximately 282 couple-years of follow up...We observed no seroconversion after entry into the study."

Padian NS et al. Heterosexual transmission of Human Immunodeficiency
Virus (HIV) in Northern California: Results from a ten-year study.
American Journal of Epidemiology 146(4) (1997):350-7.

And see also:

Brody S, Lack of Evidence for Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency
Virus Through Vaginal Intercourse, Archives of Sexual Behavior
24(4) (1995): 383-393.

Edited once more to add:

"In one study, none of the husbands of four seropositive women were infected despite regular sexual contact for as long as three years. In another study involving 12 couples, no transmission from the infected woman to the male partner occurred after more than 100 sexual contacts. Thus, vaginal intercourse may carry a low risk to the insertive partner, as does anal intercourse."

Levy JA. The transmission of AIDS: the case of the infected cell. JAMA. 1988;259(20):3037-8.

"of >1,600 investigated monogamous sex partners of [HIV]-infected persons in North America and Europe, only about 15% are infected with HIV…this may be an overestimate…since some partners of intravenous drug abusers may share needles with infected mates…90% of 777 infected hemophilic men have not transmitted HIV-1 to their monogamous sexual partners…24 women who had >100 unprotected genital episodes with their transfusion-infected husbands...remained uninfected."

Holmberg SD et al. Biologic factors in the sexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus. J Infect Dis. 1989 Jul; 160(1):116-25.

"...we studied 50 sexually active couples with discordant antibody results, assessing the agreement between these serological results and those obtained by p24 antigen testing, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and culture. 49 of 50 seropositive sexual partners were also positive for HIV by PCR; the remaining seropositive partner was positive by culture. All seronegative partners also had negative results in the other three tests. Moreover, seronegative partners continued to have negative results in all tests for a mean follow-up period of 17 months despite ongoing sexual relations with their seropositive partners. Seronegative infection was not documented in these partners at risk for sexual transmission of HIV. HIV-negative individuals in stable, monogamous sexual relationships with HIV-infected partners apparently do not have a high incidence of infection despite continued sexual exposure…approximately one-half of each group reported some instances of unprotected intercourse…intercourse with outside partners was uncommon in both groups, as was current illicit drug use…All 50 index cases were positive for HIV by EIA and western blot [antibody] testing. All 50 historically negative partners were negative by EIA, and 47 were negative by western blot [the remaining 3 were classified as 'indeterminate']…None of the 50 seronegative partners had p24 antigen in their serum. 22 (44%) of the seropositive partners had detectable p24 antigen."

MacGregor RR et al. Failure of culture and polymerase chain reaction to detect human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in seronegative steady sexual partners of HIV-infected individuals. Clin Infect Dis. 1995 Jul;21(1):122-7.

"A highly selected cohort of 24 HIV-1 seronegative subjects with histories of multiple high-risk sexual exposures to HIV-1 were studied. The cohort [included 7] homosexual men who reported sex with multiple HIV-1-infected partners, [5] homosexual men with predominantly a single HIV-1-infected partner, and [13] heterosexual individuals reporting sex predominantly with a single HIV-1-infected partner…Among the individuals reporting exposure to predominantly a single HIV-infected partner, most were in long-term relationships involving unprotected sexual intercourse over many years during which time several partners succumbed to AIDS. All subjects were HIV-1 negative by commercially available enzyme-linked immunsorbent assay (ELISA) tests and by diagnostic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)"

Paxton WA et al. Relative resistance to HIV-1 infection of CD4 lymphocytes from persons who remain uninfected despite multiple high-risk sexual exposure. Nat Med. 1996 Apr;2(4):412-7

Huh? I never meant to imply anything of the sort. Abortion does not stop or prevent responsible behavior. What it does is enable irresponsible behavior. That's a pretty big distinction. Men can and do still act responsibly, for suitable values of "men". It's just that whereas, in the past, social stigma would put pressure on a man to "do right" by a woman and marry her and raise his children, abortion enables an alternative, because the man can simply elect to abort the child by giving the woman an appropriate amount of money. It is up to the woman herself whether she wants to accept the blood money or carry the fetus to term. Responsible behavior is not prevented. Irresponsible behavior is now allowed, on a most convenient level that was never before possible. Abortion allows men to act like deadbeat dads in full conscience.


Of course, not all women are idiotic fools; and I would go so far as to say that most of them are not. But I would ask you to inquire of the single mothers in our society whether they prefer to be single mothers or married mothers. In my experience, single mothers are single by circumstance, not by choice. Is yours significantly different? Also, you seem to miss some extremely important points. Much of the point of my post is that it is women who are the true victims in abortion. And if we as a society have any compassion at all, we should recognize that and do something about it. Almost every day I see women who proudly show off pictures of their babies or their nieces and nephews or goddaughters and godsons. Never in my life have I heard a woman proclaim that abortion was the smartest choice she ever made. On the contrary, of all the public statements I've heard from women who have had an abortion, none have expressed anything other than regret, remorse, and inconsolable pain. I've never met a women who underwent an abortion and was "happy" about it. On the other hand, there are countless stories of women who have considered abortion, then thought better of it, and never regretted their choice to keep the baby. Is abortion rights really a victory for women? If so, which ones? The ones having abortions, or the lobbyists receiving funding? From where I'm standing, the people who profit the most from abortions are abortionists, not ex-mothers. And that's a tragedy...for the WOMEN.

I oppose abortion because I care about women. I think that we should hold them in higher regard. I think that we should protect them. And I defy anyone to claim that abortion is good for you. It's a risky procedure with high stakes and virtually guaranteed pain of both a physical and deeply psychological nature. I've never seen glowing testimonials from post-abortive women. Have you? Abortion isn't just hard on the fetus. It's hard on the mother, too. Yes, the MOTHER. A large proportion of abortions are performed on teenage mothers, under compulsion and duress from their family and their boyfriends. Please, please, please, tell me how abortion is "liberating" these young, helpless women by giving them "control" over their reproduction??

Consider rape/incest. It's a favorite flash point for the pro-choice camp. Now consider that the majority of pregnancies due to rape are the result of incest. Makes sense, doesn't it? Furthermore, consider that in the vast majority of the cases, the incest victim is young, and wants the baby in order to expose the abuse. Now, think back when John Kerry mocked a parental notification law because in the case of incest, a girl would have to notify her own father to have an abortion...his remark, I hope, was only intended to be off-the-cuff. But the sad fact is, he hit much closer to the mark than any of us would like to admit. In an embarrassing number of cases, Mr. Kerry's scenario corresponds directly to reality, and the father has all but an omnipotent choice in whether his daughter has an abortion. Society will support him, because it will assume that the girl has been sexually reckless with her peers. Society will also look down on the girl, and look approvingly upon the father. And not only will an abortion clean up the little mess caused by this wicked man, it could well render the helpless victim sterile for life. WHERE IS THE JUSTICE IN THAT?!? When I said that abortion enables men to behave irresponsibly, I meant it quite seriously. Most people don't take stock in all the ramifications of freely available abortion.


The problem is, you seem to think that this issue is about control. Granted, for some (perhaps many), it is. Not for me. I'm no more interested in telling a woman what to do with her body than I am in telling a woman what clothes to wear or how to do her hair. I trust that most women are sensible enough to do well on their own. Even when it comes to abortion, I have never personally told a woman to have one, or not to have one. I don't feel that is my place, and I have never even picketed an abortion clinic. What is important to me is educating the public. Abortion is far more than a simple "You're trying to control my body/No I'm not" debate, and anyone who thinks it boils down to that has not carefully considered the issues. Like any choice, the merits of the options should be weighed by their effects, not by the political will of those influencing the choice. And when it comes to abortion, I see nothing but pain and suffering for everyone involved, except for the abortion clinic, which laughs all the way to the bank.

My original post was intentionally satirical, which seems to have eluded you. I intentionally exaggerated a ridiculous point of view to illustrate how harmful abortion really is to so many groups of people. If I offended you as a woman, I apologize. That was not my intent. If I offended your moral sensibilities with my caricature of heartless evil, that was exactly my intent. But I fear you didn't take the points to heart. I invite you to read the post again considering that ultimate goal I had in mind.

The fact that disturbs me is that the vast majority of women who clamor for abortions have never had one or even been put in a situation where they felt they had to consider it as an option. And what is curiously absent is a vocal group of post-abortive women speaking out about how important it is to protect this "right". There are plenty of success stories of people who were aided by various social programs, and plenty of those people are more than happy to step forward and tell their story, complete with its happy ending. Yet there is a profound absence of such stories from the abortion camp. It is not just that society looks down on women who have had an abortion. How could it, when 60% of us think it's a fundamental right? The women themselves are terribly ashamed, and the pain of the experience is so real that they never want to relive it again in public. My heart goes out to those women; and if abortion is ever made illegal and women are held criminally liable for having one, I would personally argue for each woman that her sentence be commuted to "time already served." The abortion itself is a punishment that will live with the woman forever. We don't need to punish her again.

I see what you are saying here, lawnmower man. I really do. However, it's
important to remember that abortions are sought from women of all
demographics. And it's not abortion that is the real problem. It's the solution
to the problem, which varies as much as the women who seek that solution.
I'm not happy about abortion. But I understand that until deep-seated, festering
social issues are resolved abortion will be a viable solution for certain
circumstances. Is it used as birth control? Maybe by a small percentage of
women, but that is the way it goes with anything.

A lot of what makes people pro or anti choice stems from their beliefs on when
"life" begins. It's hard to find points of agreement when points-of-view are
so different. But aside from all of that, we must focus on reality. The reality
is that abortion serves a purpose that in many cases is viewed as the lesser of
two evils. For you to judge each case from the context of your personal
experiences, religious beliefs, and moral outlook is inappropriate and egocentric.

You may feel in your heart that abortion is wrong and should never be an option.
But others do not share your views. And you must grant the individual the right
to choose what is right for him/herself.

The thread is about men in government deciding what should be done about
abortion. The answer is that men in government shouldn't be deciding at all.
Nor should women in government. It is a personal and private decision that
must ultimately be made by the individual woman in the context of her situation.

If you want to cut down on the need for abortions, then we need to raise the
level of education and awareness on all levels of society. Banning abortion
won't stop abortion. It will make the process dangerous for women.

By the way, I did read your whole post and I'm not responding to every detail,
but you made some valid points and I can see you feel very deeply on this
matter and I appreciate that.

Yes well, you and he, are wrong.

Start a thread on this if you wish, but to pick up little tidbits of stuff from newspapers around the world and form your theory is one thing. To IGNORE the mountains of clear biological proof of HIV being a blood/fluid transmitted virus is another entirely. I'm not going to have that crazy debate in this thread.




You seem very good at calling people delusionsal (amusing considering how you started this post) but in fact your insults have no link to your previous assertions, and nothing whatsoever to go on. Yes, a zygote has a single set of DNA. So does a bit of skin on your toe. So does a vertebral disk, and so on. I have said three or four times the owning of a full set of DNA is not a valid measure of anything. You can, of course, feel free to AGAIN ignore this point, and insult me again if you like, but that changes nothing.

EVEN IF your point were factual (which it is not) that still provides no link whatsoever to the previous thread on evolution whatsoever. So either provide a link, or drop it.




Not only is it not a logical outcome, but there is in fact NO LOGICAL LINK WHATSOEVER. I have aksed you time and time again to provide one, and all you do is assert there is a link, and then throw around insults. Well bully for you, but it advances not your argument (or your reputation) one whit.



That is complete and utter fiction.

You may hold that opinion, that a zygote is a person, and thats entirely up to you and your right, but my point was not about YOUR OPINION about which I care not at all. My point was what is and is not within the constitution of the United States.

The constitution never makes any sort of comment about personhood at all, nor is it about personhood, nor was I TALKING about personhood, and your attempt to read this into the text of the constitution is fantasy.

What the constitution does is deliniate a set of rights and privilidges, and then explain explicitly WHO is covered by those rights and privilidges, and that is 'people born or naturalised in' in the United States. Thats all it says. So, chapter and verse, the unborn are not covered by the constitution. Now YOUR OPINION may then lead you to say that despite that fact, they are still people, but don't call my post 'in error', when everything I stated was factually true, you ofered no evidence to contradict it, then tried to read YOUR OPINION into the text when it is not there.


As to your next point, I actually agree. RvW, IF their desire was to follow the constitution of the United States, SHOULD have overturned the anti-abortion laws entirely, and left it at that. Specifc rulings on trimesters were probably not within the purview of the court, according to their job, which it interpretation of the constitution, anti-abortion laws should have simply been abolished, and that was that.

Listen, you have every right to your opinion, but back off on the rhetoric, accusing others of delusional or being wrong when you then provide no reasoning behind your insults whastoever, except that it is 'your opinion'.



Blah, blah, blah, Off topic rant about how the entire western world is wrong about HIV, millions of people who have contracted it directly from liaisons with HIV infected people or blood transfusions with infected blood (including a friend of mine) are just massive coincidences, blah blah blah...

Hey, if a woman can decide to have a baby, then she can support it. If she can't support it, maybe she shouldn't have it? No? Or maybe that option of having/not having a baby should not be hers then your point is valid.

Your logic is similar to Bush invading Iraq on false pretenses then saying "well since we're here let forget that I lied to the American public and spend billions a day".

Once you jump to "the baby is here", you're avoiding the main discussion. SHOULD THERE HAVE BEEN A BABY? If a woman has the right to choose, she has the ability to take care of the baby on her own.

Actually I think you are avoiding the "main discussion".

It has been shown time and time again that a woman's ability to financially support a child is far less than a man's. Women are paid less and statistically poorer so where is this supposed equal standing or ability you claim exists?

And what world is this where a child has only one parent? We all know children don't have one parent. This belief that a woman should entirely take the responsibility of a child really seems to exclude men and their role and importance in their children's lives. A child should be afforded the love and care of both parents, but at the very least both parents should be asked to take on some level of responsibility.