Be one... with Yuri...

I am Yuri... oh baby

finished death to spies, and the series, you were sayin?

My opinion stands where it stands.

Here is what I think simple and plain:
The woman has the final word if she wants to abort the child or not.
The woman should always be allowed to abort before the 12th week.
She should try to see if there other options than abortion.
She should always discus it with the father (if possible) before she does it.

And I would be very happy if you answered my question as it was not meant to address you aggressively by any chance, just to be sure if I understood what you said right. You said "Just don't impose your view unto others..." which is why I wonder if you think that he shouldn't be allowed to spread his opinion or is it that you don't want his opinion to go into affect through law passing?

So what you're saying is "You can believe what you want, but you're not allowed to convince others to accept his view"?

I'm pro-choice, but I'm not one of those over active mega pro-choice people. I don't like abortion and I wish that every woman would keep her child if she could support it and even if she couldn't, perhaps set it for adoption, but I won't take the other option away from her. It's her choice, all I ask is that she spends time thinking about what she choice she takes.

"I don't like abortion and I wish that every woman would keep her child"

Are you male, by any chance? If yes, then please shut the bloody hell up, you're only being a part of the problem.

My opinion stands where it stands.

Here is what I think simple and plain:
The woman has the final word if she wants to abort the child or not.
The woman should always be allowed to abort before the 12th week.
She should try to see if there other options than abortion.
She should always discus it with the father (if possible) before she does it.

And I would be very happy if you answered my question as it was not meant to address you aggressively by any chance, just to be sure if I understood what you said right. You said "Just don't impose your view unto others..." which is why I wonder if you think that he shouldn't be allowed to spread his opinion or is it that you don't want his opinion to go into affect through law passing?

But if he believes that you are killing another human being, wouldn't it be morally objectionable for him to not to try to stop someone from doing it?

That actually depends on the cultural context in which the event takes place. Infanticide is quite common around the world. If they cant take care of a child, better to end it before it suffers. Such actions are not frowned upon by their peers as it is simply a part of life. There is no sense bringing an unwanted child into an over populated world. It sounds cold but its logical.

We don't put humans out of their misery in the way we do animals. Infanticide (forget abortion) is wrong regardless of the cultural context, because it deprives the child of the right to decide its own fate - that's what is meant by "right to life".

I know, but it just seems very wrong to me, the very idea makes me kind of sick.

No one "likes" the idea of it, but sometimes its necessary. We manage the populations of animals all the time, even by inducing abortions. We are animals too, so the same logic applies to an extent.

Humans' capacity for higher brain function and greater awareness is what makes our right to life more important than those of animals. It's more wrong to kill a human than a dog, just as it's more wrong to kill a dog than a fly.

Your first point is interesting - though of course, cats and dogs do not have higher brain functioning than humans at equivalent stages of development. I think potential for further development should play a role, at least after a certain developmental milestone has been reached.

And I think I disagree with your second point, though I would think mostly in terms of species (i.e. human rights apply to all humans, regardless of mental capacity). Natural rights are really categorizations of natural autonomy, the ability to make decisions about one's own existence and condition. Dogs are less able to do this than humans; in a sense, they have less free will and are driven to act much more by instincts and animalistic drives than by conscious, rational choices. And even more basic organisms such as bacteria have no conscious thought at all, simply reacting to stimuli.

When I speak of awareness I do not mean the awareness of being killed, but rather the awareness of life itself. The ability to experience life makes it more valuable.

Yes, but we have the capabilities for birth control options that are considerably cheaper and highly effective, with this in mind i see infanticide and abortion as barbaric solutions unless the mother is in severe risk due to the pregnancy.

That's like saying a normal menstruation is the equivalent of an abortion, they are completely different, they are not fertilized or viable for life...

but doesn't the name "feminism" still sound kind of one sided a bit?
I think women like you mentioned in the beginning should be called "Equal rights activists"

Do you work for Fox News...

If your gonna quote me use the whole sentence so you don't make me sound like a dick just for the sole purpose of disagreeing with me.

its okay tkfour just let the dumb little faggets who know nothing keep buying and wasting their money on consoles rofl dont need them in my game lobby on the pc anyways. fukin noobs

*Faggot