Philosophy Now Forum

O Alex: Ok, but why do you say that pro-lifers would be ‘getting their way’ if ‘extraction’ was possible? Would you prefer the option of abortion still? The killing?
If ‘extraction’ was possible, women would be extremely careful in their contraception habits, because it would kill them to have their kid raised by others when they could be raising it on their own. But you are a woman and I’m not, so I can’t be adamant in my opinion.
So, the cost of this ‘extraction’, in my opinion would get less and less. But please, don’t bring up money when we talk about the lives of babies, fetuses whatever you want to call it. In the western world, we spend like crazy, anyway..

AS: No, please don't misunderstand me...I am not just talking about the money. I am also talking about the cost of lives and lack of food and resources and space that keeps our planet healthy.

Think about how many abortions are done everyday? Now think about if all of those abortions were extractions. Now think about what would happen if there was not enough food, space, water to go around? I believe it would be unhealthy to humans to live like that. I believe more would die.

But I will grant you that it will happen someday anyway...even if we allowed abortions forever. Just in the short time I have been alive I have seen the population explode. I am not a mathematician but I am sure someone could crunch the numbers based on statistics and figure out when our population will outnumber the amount of food source based on the growing population statistics.

But more than that information, I want to talk about human behavior and how we have changed our morality over the years due to necessity or technology. It once was considered immoral for women to have anesthesia during childbirth, to work, to vote etc. It seems a woman is always being blamed for being immoral when it comes to the basic rights that men enjoy. Even you blame her for not 'being careful' by getting herself pregnant...as if the man had nothing to do with it.

It is my observation that something similar to this is happening with abortion. And I believe in the future, when there is not enough food water space to go around...abortion will be common place...even considered practical. I know that is probably hard for you to hear...because of the aesthetics of morality that I was talking about, but I see no other way around it. If we can tell anything about human behavior...I see it coming to this point. And when it does...we will not see ourselves or abortion as immoral. We will turn it around at that point...and it will be very moral to have an abortion...and possibly immoral to have more than one child or even one child!. Perhaps there will even be a tax break to be sterilized like they do pound puppies...possibly at birth!

but I digress...vivid imagination here...lol. Anyway, it is what it is...things change...solutions are found...both good and bad...and morality gets caught up in the times. Please don't kill the messenger. None of the things I mentioned are my views.,..it's just where I see humanity heading...as we have little choice in the matter of Earth. Hopefully someone figures out how to colonize other planets...it is then your anti abortion message and extraction idea would flourish!

aaalexandros wrote: But, the woman should never try to 'out-trump' the kids, because kids are the most most basic infrastructure of our society.

Then you would not have a problem with chaz's scenario? If you truly believe that kids 'out-trump' all, then would you be happy to have one attached to you while waiting for a heart? Would you take care of the financial and educational needs of the ones who have been abandoned? Why is this always the mother's problem? Why not say that Man should never try to "out-trump' the kids?

What if the only way the extraction process would work is to implant the fetus somehow in a male instead of a 'test tube'? Would you be willing to carry the baby to full term?

aaalexandros wrote: The baby is not just a part of a body. It qualifies as much more..

Yes and No...I am sorry to tell you this but a fetus...who cannot survive on it's own... is 'just a part of a body'. Until it can survive on it's own those are just the facts....if the mother dies...the fetus dies....as being a 'part of her body'.

Lynn wrote:

artisticsolution wrote: I am sorry...I am having a blond moment...lol. What did I agree to?

Oh no, not that old excuse .

Many years ago at school, I watched The Silent Scream twice (I was in wrong place at wrong time I guess), a real time ultrasound imaging during a 12 week abortion. It is still an emotive subject for me and I hope never to be the position to make such a choice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq27UYHd ... re=related

I hear ya. I was never in the position to make such a choice...although I did have plenty of "scares". LOL I think the majority of women will understand what I mean here!

I did not see the movie...and I will not watch it as I have had my fill of trauma as a kid. I was forced to watch this film about the rapture one new year's eve by my family's church. It scarred me for life and made me run from the immorality of a church who could show such horrible adult fantasies to impressionable kids. It was abuse. and it was immoral. Luckily, I left the church and lived happily ever after.

artisticsolution wrote:I hear ya. I was never in the position to make such a choice...although I did have plenty of "scares". LOL I think the majority of women will understand what I mean here!

Yes, I took it as my cue to take control of my body, choosing to disregard church teachings as I saw fit, and I have been very lucky but I'm now in the dodgy forties...oh no! I would have probably been fine with the film about the rapture as it fits in with my dark, gothic nature lol! Ok, Hammer Horror, Dracula, etc .

Lynn wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:I hear ya. I was never in the position to make such a choice...although I did have plenty of "scares". LOL I think the majority of women will understand what I mean here!

Yes, I took it as my cue to take control of my body, choosing to disregard church teachings as I saw fit, and I have been very lucky but I'm now in the dodgy forties...oh no! I would have probably been fine with the film about the rapture as it fits in with my dark, gothic nature lol! Ok, Hammer Horror, Dracula, etc .

Control? There is no real control over such things....no birth control is 100%. The only way it abstinence and that keeps a girl too lonely as most guys move on to greener pastures or worse....the girl becomes married off to the first person who wants to bed her! Marriage due to horniness is not a good thing!

The film was horrible...it wasn't just the rapture...it was the humanity. I just wasn't ready for it as I still believed in santa claus...actually...I still do believe in santa claus a little..lol..he is much more moral than the Christian 'God'.

artisticsolution wrote:no birth control is 100%

Yes I agree, especially given that you may never know if you have self aborted because of the 'confident' way it worked
1. No egg is released to be fertilised by sperm.
2. The fluid in the neck of your womb thickens so it is more difficult for sperm to enter it.
3. The lining of your womb does not thicken enough for an egg to grow in it.

artisticsolution wrote:The only way it abstinence and that keeps a girl too lonely as most guys move on to greener pastures

I was a geeky girl so not many guys on the scene anyway however a touch of ingenuity can go a long way, and of course, lots of abstinence .

artisticsolution wrote:or worse...the girl becomes married off to the first person who wants to bed her! Marriage due to horniness is not a good thing!

Perish the thought! However, horniness within marriage is another matter .

Lynn wrote: However, horniness within marriage is another matter .

Very True! I like the way you think...probably because you are wiccan. I am very fortunate to have had a few wiccans as friends...I always enjoy their outlook on life!

artisticsolution wrote: I like the way you think...probably because you are wiccan

Thanks! Long may it continue. I was most fortunate that when I did eventually agree to wed, albeit traditionally, I got my wish for it to be on the summer solstice, which also turned out to be on the auspicious Honey Moon that year too .

artisticsolution wrote:

aaalexandros wrote: The baby is not just a part of a body. It qualifies as much more..

Yes and No...I am sorry to tell you this but a fetus...who cannot survive on it's own... is 'just a part of a body'. Until it can survive on it's own those are just the facts....if the mother dies...the fetus dies....as being a 'part of her body'.

But a fetus becomes a baby at some stage of the pregnancy as you said. Dependence is not the factor that qualifies a human life as part of a body as even a newborn infant is dependent. We are going in circles, and i must admit that the fact that you consider that a human life, can be treated like and be referred to as 'just a part of a body' is disturbing to the point that i don't think i will enjoy continuing this specific philosophical debate of ours.

Well, i hope we achieve more progress at convincing each other in other topics!

SpheresofBalance:I say that any particular life begins with that first cell division. But as to abortion, I believe that the point of cognition should rightfully be that line we draw in the sand.

This debate obviously stems for our individual fears of death. I see that we project our fears onto the fetus, and see it as ourselves, and that those that harbor the greatest amount of fear of this inevitable fate, are the ones that oppose abortion the most and scream the loudest. On the other hand, those that more readily accept it, have come to terms with their mortality, as certainly we all die.

We see that our lives, although fraught with many problems, trials and tribulations, are still better than not to have experienced existence at all, as there are all those fun things that we enjoy, the beautiful things. How can we possible deny ourselves, and thus another life, those beautiful things?

But this view is wholly fueled by cognition. I would only miss it, because I have known it. If I had never known it, how could I possible miss it. Of course we also see that of potential, and this takes us back to that first cell division.

Like I told you before, I do not condone the ending of that potential, in and of itself. But I also see that there are other factors that I must consider, as this is in fact a multidimensional problem that concerns two lives, not just one. To be honest, in the face of our destroying the symbiosis of our planets biosphere, due to human selfishness that has been amplified by over population, I look to Spock's solution: 'when the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the one.' It's just a shame that they can't be apprised of the current human situation, as surely that's the only incarnation of the human animal, that would not be biased by their selfishness, and could be logically, self sacrificial, for the greater good.

aaalexandros: Thanks for this multifaceted post!

When do you think that cognition starts more or less? During the pregnancy or at the moment of birth? Cognition has a very small chance of occurring at the moment of birth since it is a gradual process..

Empathy is many times a projection of our fears or experience onto others, but there is also a more coldhearted(!) version of empathy like identifying oneself with any human life regardless of beliefs or emotions or even cognition.

I agree with almost everything you say in this post basically.

I understand that this is a multidimensional problem, but that multidimensionality should remain in the 'solution' phase of the problem as well. That is because, when we create monolithic solutions(resulting from a bipartizan viewing of the topic as 'woman's rights against fetus's rights') in a multidimensional problem, we offer a power of life and death that can, and will be abused..Resulting in today's casual approach to abortion..

It is the monolithic solution('a mother has the right to an abortion at all times') to this multidimensional problem that motivates me to cast light upon the fetus's existence as a human being..

Alex:But a fetus becomes a baby at some stage of the pregnancy as you said. Dependence is not the factor that qualifies a human life as part of a body as even a newborn infant is dependent.

AS:But the difference here is the newborn infant can be taken care of by others so can a fetus that is able to breathe on it's own. I think the problem here is that you objectify women without realizing it.

Do you not like my idea of extraction and the fetus being grown in your body vs. the test tube? Does that bother you? Would it take away your freedom? Funny how upset you get when we turn the tables and make you the woman!

Alex:We are going in circles, and i must admit that the fact that you consider that a human life, can be treated like and be referred to as 'just a part of a body' is disturbing to the point that i don't think i will enjoy continuing this specific philosophical debate of ours.

AS: This is a great example of the age old tactic of the way the patriarchal society seeks to silence women. They try to shame women into complacency by saying if she thinks a certain way she is "disturbing." Knowing full well that most women usually only desire to be seen as 'good' in societies eyes. It does not work on me...because I never had a problem with people thinking I am not 'good'. I know you are trying to silence people who make a pro choice argument. And what is worse isThe whole time you used the "I am only making a philosophical inquiry" so that you could be heard. However,The minute that someone challenges you , you shut the conversation down as "too disturbing" for your pure ears! I call that a dishonest debate. I also consider dishonesty to be immoral. You know full well a bunch of cells is not a baby! It is dishonest for you to even use the word BABY in this debate. You use it to sway your audience to your side. That also doesn't work on me.

Alex:Well, i hope we achieve more progress at convincing each other in other topics!

AS: I hope we can too...but this dishonest argument making of yours has got to go. I will call you on it every time...simply because I am probably the first woman you have ever met that does not care if people view her as "good" or not. I care about the freedom to verbalize an idea, first and foremost and not the popularity it will or will not bring me.

Perhaps you've heard the saying...'you can't con an honest man (or woman)'.

Alex:First of all, this is not a philosophical conversation, just a practical one. So, since you show so much disdain for a couple of cells I will accept it, practically, that is. But the basis of our argument is the fact, pretty well known, that the cells become a baby, before birth. And you have admitted it. If you want to retract your argument, please do, and we can argue on an another basis. For practical reasons, all my following arguments refer to the time, after the fetus becomes a baby inside a woman.

Alex:But a fetus becomes a baby at some stage of the pregnancy as you said. Dependence is not the factor that qualifies a human life as part of a body as even a newborn infant is dependent.

AS:But the difference here is the newborn infant can be taken care of by others so can a fetus that is able to breathe on it's own. I think the problem here is that you objectify women without realizing it.

Alex:No, you are objectifying babies, with full awareness that you are doing so. It’s just a ‘part of my body’. Well, which part of your body would you sacrifice to avoid the drudgery of motherhood?

I guess none, just the part that that grew into a human life inside you. That makes perfect sense.

If your argument has to do with ‘ownership’ of what is inside you, well you should not have let it grown into a little baby before that becomes the case. You should be making your decisions earlier. Does that make sense to you?

AS:Do you not like my idea of extraction and the fetus being grown in your body vs. the test tube? Does that bother you? Would it take away your freedom? Funny how upset you get when we turn the tables and make you the woman!

Alex: Why would you want a man to get pregnant? Do you still follow the old dogma that men and women are the same, but the only factors differentiating them are societal ones?

If the motivation behind this argument is ‘come and see what we go through’ well, you do go through a lot in a pregnancy, and bringing up the baby. I would never, and could never , go through what you go through in a pregnancy, due to factors that have to do with brain structure..

But that doesn't mean that even if i could go through it, i would claim, i can end the process at any time during pregnancy, just because i changed my mind.

Alex:We are going in circles, and i must admit that the fact that you consider that a human life, can be treated like and be referred to as 'just a part of a body' is disturbing to the point that i don't think i will enjoy continuing this specific philosophical debate of ours.

AS: This is a great example of the age old tactic of the way the patriarchal society seeks to silence women. They try to shame women into complacency by saying if she thinks a certain way she is "disturbing." Knowing full well that most women usually only desire to be seen as 'good' in societies eyes. It does not work on me...because I never had a problem with people thinking I am not 'good'. I know you are trying to silence people who make a pro choice argument. And what is worse isThe whole time you used the "I am only making a philosophical inquiry" so that you could be heard. However,The minute that someone challenges you , you shut the conversation down as "too disturbing" for your pure ears! I call that a dishonest debate. I also consider dishonesty to be immoral. You know full well a bunch of cells is not a baby! It is dishonest for you to even use the word BABY in this debate. You use it to sway your audience to your side. That also doesn't work on me.

Alex: But you said that a bunch of cells becomes a baby inside you. Why are you denying your own assessment?

Secondly, almost everyone wants to be a good person. And believe me, any woman you will meet and tell her that you had the right to an abortion (after the time period it becomes a baby) because the baby is just a ‘part of your body’ would be a bit shocked. It’s not patriarchy, it’s common sense..

You must have a VERY good reason to have an abortion after that time period.
You must know, I would never legislate against abortion, but I would just shed some light into the fact that human life doesn’t begin at the moment of birth..

Alex:Well, i hope we achieve more progress at convincing each other in other topics!

AS: I hope we can too...but this dishonest argument making of yours has got to go. I will call you on it every time...simply because I am probably the first woman you have ever met that does not care if people view her as "good" or not. I care about the freedom to verbalize an idea, first and foremost and not the popularity it will or will not bring me.

Perhaps you've heard the saying...'you can't con an honest man (or woman)'.

Alex: Do you care about being good even if you are not perceived as good? Then why do you say that a woman has the right to end the baby’s life (when it becomes one) in all cases? If you are not saying that please clarify the maximum time in a pregnancy that a baby can be aborted..

Look, I could be wrong but you didn’t specify any time period for an abortion to be ‘right’..

Hi Alex,

I think I have been a little hard on you. I think the way we use language is vastly different. I will try to be more careful about the way I word things, but you should be forewarned that I am a blurter. I don't always know the 'proper' words to use, not to mention it takes me a long time to find them, so I just use the first words that come to my mind and hope my reader will fit together the pieces. I have noticed you have misunderstood me on several instances so I will try to show you where...so you can see some of the things you said...I said...do not make sense if you comprehended what I had said previously...which I think you did.

Alex:First of all, this is not a philosophical conversation, just a practical one. So, since you show so much disdain for a couple of cells

AS:First of all....I never said nor did I imply that I "Show disdain" for cells. They're cells for petes sake...not children! Yes, they have the potential to 'become' babies...but the fact is they are NOT babies yet. How can you show disdain to something akin to a blood clot? I will give you the benefit of the doubt though...as I really don't think you mean to be insulting. I just think you become emotional about existence....and I do not...at least not my own existence...and certainly not a bunch of cells....but I am more emotional for other people's existence...and even babies existence. But I just don't see a bunch of cells as a baby yet. And what a bunch of cells doesn't know...can't hurt it/them.

Also...what do we know of existence anyway? Why do you think existence is so important? Maybe if we started there I could understand where you are coming from. I mean....Did we know who we are before we were born? Will we remember anything after we are gone? Do you remember anything in the womb or before? Do you remember your birth? And in the grand scheme of everything that has ever existed, 70 or 80 years or so seems so trivial to me....

Alex:But the basis of our argument is the fact, pretty well known, that the cells become a baby, before birth. And you have admitted it. If you want to retract your argument, please do, and we can argue on an another basis.

AS:No, I don't want to retract my argument. I stand by my statement that a bunch of cells are a bunch of cells...nd nothing else...until which time they become a baby. Which I define as a separate entity which can breathe on it's own and does not need the host body to survive. I even said I thought that was 30 weeks gestation.


For practical reasons, all my following arguments refer to the time, after the fetus becomes a baby inside a woman.

Alex:But a fetus becomes a baby at some stage of the pregnancy as you said. Dependence is not the factor that qualifies a human life as part of a body as even a newborn infant is dependent.

AS:But the difference here is the newborn infant can be taken care of by others so can a fetus that is able to breathe on it's own. I think the problem here is that you objectify women without realizing it.

Alex:No, you are objectifying babies, with full awareness that you are doing so. It’s just a ‘part of my body’. Well, which part of your body would you sacrifice to avoid the drudgery of motherhood?

AS: Motherhood is not a drudgery for the woman who wants the baby. I don't see the problem here. For aesthetic purposes, have the cut off date for abortions to be around the 25 to 30 week mark. Until of course the world is too over populated to sustain life...then it really doesn't matter anymore does it? People will be dying off anyway. Would you give your spot on earth up so that a bunch of cells could see what existence was all about? Would you give up your existence so that a baby could see what existence is all about? You see...I am trying to take you to a time and place where you would have to make a choice. I am trying to get you to ponder just how much you love 'babies'. Practically speaking,if every cell was allowed to develop into a life for the purpose of experiencing 'existence,' there would be no room for the health of the planet...people would have to consider the dangers of overpopulation and make a choice....either their existence or a bunch of cells. Which do you think they would choose? Which would you choose?

Alex:I guess none, just the part that that grew into a human life inside you. That makes perfect sense.

AS:Are you talking to me? I have had 2 pregnancies and I have 2 children. How many children have you had?

Alex:If your argument has to do with ‘ownership’ of what is inside you, well you should not have let it grown into a little baby before that becomes the case. You should be making your decisions earlier. Does that make sense to you?

AS: Of course...it's called personal responsibility. And most everyone to police and punish everyone else. But rare is the person who looks inward...or punishes inward.

Alex: Why would you want a man to get pregnant?

AS: Because I am thinking of extraction (you brought it up)...I am simply thinking of how it could be done in the future... the best most logical way it could work. Practically speaking....why should the woman be forced to carry a baby full term if there are 'extractions' available? Right? So then...what is more comforting for a baby? To be in a test tube...or to hear a heartbeat. Now if they can grow a baby to full term in a test tube...they can certainly grow one in the father. So a man...who impregnates a woman who doesn't want a child.....could have his child 'extracted' from her...and implanted in him! It's a win win! Not to mention women who use their bodies for work...like models and athletes and such....they could implant a couples child in the father and he could carry the 'baby' for her! It's just 'practical' as you say.

Alex:Do you still follow the old dogma that men and women are the same, but the only factors differentiating them are societal ones?

AS: Well, if extractions become possible in the future...wouldn't they be 'equal'? Isn't it practical that they are...I mean since women are fast becoming indispensable to the work force. Don't you see that femininity will never disappear...men and women will always be attracted to each other. Just as they have been down through history. In fact...it is the woman who says what men will be attracted to....as she is always changing herself. If fashion says that blond hair is in...and she dyes her hair blond...ya'll get a boner still. If she get reubensque or twiggy like..ya'll still get a boner. If she doesn't have the right to vote...or she becomes your boss...ya'll still get a boner....don't you see. Whether or not you like the future 'woman' now or not doesn't mean the 'future' guy won't like her...of course he will....because man always follows woman...always has and always will. If she says jump...ya'll say "how high" (with boners of course.) lol

Alex: I would never, and could never , go through what you go through in a pregnancy, due to factors that have to do with brain structure..

AS: But your type is fast dying out...and a new breed is taking over...men who actually like their children are taking your place. And I am sure...in the future...if things like "extractions" become possible...some men will be either carrying their child...just like they are carrying them , diaper bag and all, now. That is...if they want them...and the woman doesn't. Still...I think the majority of women will want a baby...that won't change... I am only talking about the "mistakes" and one night stands in which the women wants an abortion and the man doesn't.

Alex:But that doesn't mean that even if i could go through it, i would claim, i can end the process at any time during pregnancy, just because i changed my mind.

AS: I didn't say anytime during the process you should be able to change your mind. Don't you remember me agreeing that at 30 weeks or so it is a baby?

Alex: But you said that a bunch of cells becomes a baby inside you. Why are you denying your own assessment?

AS: Where did I lose you here? A bunch of cells is not a baby. But it has the potential to become a baby.

ALex:You must have a VERY good reason to have an abortion after that time period.
You must know, I would never legislate against abortion, but I would just shed some light into the fact that human life doesn’t begin at the moment of birth..

AS: I agree. Only I would not "shed" some light other than education for all....meaning I would not single out the pregnant woman to punish in a scolding type way.

AS:First of all....I never said nor did I imply that I "Show disdain" for cells. They're cells for petes sake...not children! Yes, they have the potential to 'become' babies...but the fact is they are NOT babies yet. How can you show disdain to something akin to a blood clot? I will give you the benefit of the doubt though...as I really don't think you mean to be insulting. I just think you become emotional about existence....and I do not...at least not my own existence...and certainly not a bunch of cells....but I am more emotional for other people's existence...and even babies existence. But I just don't see a bunch of cells as a baby yet. And what a bunch of cells doesn't know...can't hurt it/them.

Alex: My point was, that I could get into the philosophical argument of existence, and argue it for the intermediate time that the cells become a baby, but already from the previous post, I said that that I would be referring to the time period after it qualifies as a baby...


AS:Also...what do we know of existence anyway? Why do you think existence is so important? Maybe if we started there I could understand where you are coming from. I mean....Did we know who we are before we were born? Will we remember anything after we are gone? Do you remember anything in the womb or before? Do you remember your birth? And in the grand scheme of everything that has ever existed, 70 or 80 years or so seems so trivial to me....

Alex: But you don’t remember anything about the first couple of years either, at least consciously, that doesn’t mean you did not exist or feel at the time.



Alex:But the basis of our argument is the fact, pretty well known, that the cells become a baby, before birth. And you have admitted it. If you want to retract your argument, please do, and we can argue on an another basis.

AS:No, I don't want to retract my argument. I stand by my statement that a bunch of cells are a bunch of cells...nd nothing else...until which time they become a baby. Which I define as a separate entity which can breathe on it's own and does not need the host body to survive. I even said I thought that was 30 weeks gestation.

Alex: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ness-arise
It seems a bit earlier in this article, and most sources claim it is at least 6 or 7 weeks earlier than you claim, but just searching for this on the net, I was disgusted to see, that this topic of fetal consciousness is taken over by pro-choicer s and pro-lifers yelling “kill it, it doesn’t feel a thing” or “throw the woman in prison, it’s conscious at 8 weeks”. .



Alex:No, you are objectifying babies, with full awareness that you are doing so. It’s just a ‘part of my body’. Well, which part of your body would you sacrifice to avoid the drudgery of motherhood?

AS: Motherhood is not a drudgery for the woman who wants the baby. I don't see the problem here. For aesthetic purposes, have the cut off date for abortions to be around the 25 to 30 week mark. Until of course the world is too over populated to sustain life...then it really doesn't matter anymore does it? People will be dying off anyway. Would you give your spot on earth up so that a bunch of cells could see what existence was all about? Would you give up your existence so that a baby could see what existence is all about? You see...I am trying to take you to a time and place where you would have to make a choice. I am trying to get you to ponder just how much you love 'babies'. Practically speaking,if every cell was allowed to develop into a life for the purpose of experiencing 'existence,' there would be no room for the health of the planet...people would have to consider the dangers of overpopulation and make a choice....either their existence or a bunch of cells. Which do you think they would choose? Which would you choose?

Alex: For ‘aesthetic purposes’? Not for humanitarian ones? This attitude puzzles me..

You say that the cut-off date of 25 to 30 weeks would cause overpopulation and then you ask me if I want to give my position in this earth for a couple of cells. But after 25-30 weeks they are not a couple of cells, and of course I would not stoop down to the level of allowing babies to be killed because they have no say..Just to save ‘my spot’.

But your statement is factually wrong as well.
Quoting from this Wikipedia page:

…‘’http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termi ... _pregnancy
• Canada: During the year 2003, 6.5% of induced abortions were performed between 13 to 16 weeks, 2.2% between 17 to 20 weeks, and 0.8% over 20 weeks. This sample included procedures carried out in hospitals and clinics.[6]
• England and Wales: In 2005, 9% of abortions occurred between 13 to 19 weeks, while 1% occurred at or over 20 weeks.[7]
• New Zealand: In 2003, 2.03% of induced abortions were done between weeks 16 to 19, and 0.56% were done over 20 weeks.[8]
• Norway: In 2005, 2.28% of induced abortions were performed between 13 to 16 weeks, 1.24% of abortions between 17 and 20 weeks, and 0.20% over 21 weeks.[9] Between February 15, 2010 and December 1, 2011, a total number of ten abortions were performed between 22 to 24 weeks. These have been declared illegal by The Norwegian Directorate of Health. [10]
• Scotland: In 2005, 6.1% of abortions were done between 14 to 17 weeks, while 1.6% were performed over 18 weeks.[11]
• Sweden: In 2005, 5.6% of abortions were carried out between 12 and 17 weeks, and 0.8% at or greater than 18 weeks.[12]
• United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.[13] Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there are no precise data for the number of abortions performed after viability.[13] In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 people’’…

As you see, the people that go through an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy are very few,(thank god!) and if these abortions were banned, it would cause a very small increase in population..
F.e, multiply those percentages with the abortions per year, let’s say, in the U.S.( about a million) and then compare that number(about 15.000) with the number of births.(about 4 million). No real change as far as overpopulation goes..



AS:Are you talking to me? I have had 2 pregnancies and I have 2 children. How many children have you had?

Alex:Zero. But I guess one has to go through motherhood to be qualified to call a baby “a body part’..



Alex:If your argument has to do with ‘ownership’ of what is inside you, well you should not have let it grown into a little baby before that becomes the case. You should be making your decisions earlier. Does that make sense to you?

AS: Of course...it's called personal responsibility. And most everyone to police and punish everyone else. But rare is the person who looks inward...or punishes inward.

Alex: Yes indeed, instead of punishing irresponsible contraception habits, some women choose to punish ..the baby. That is the very definition of punishing..inward..




Alex: Why would you want a man to get pregnant?

AS: Because I am thinking of extraction (you brought it up)...I am simply thinking of how it could be done in the future... the best most logical way it could work. Practically speaking....why should the woman be forced to carry a baby full term if there are 'extractions' available? Right? So then...what is more comforting for a baby? To be in a test tube...or to hear a heartbeat. Now if they can grow a baby to full term in a test tube...they can certainly grow one in the father. So a man...who impregnates a woman who doesn't want a child.....could have his child 'extracted' from her...and implanted in him! It's a win win! Not to mention women who use their bodies for work...like models and athletes and such....they could implant a couples child in the father and he could carry the 'baby' for her! It's just 'practical' as you say.

Alex: The female brain has a vast number of white cells (6 or 7 times more than a male) connecting the two hemispheres , so females have a naturall aptitude towards emotional intelligence(connection of logic with emotions). The memory function is also somewhat different, I little bit more tedious to detail.
All these things were developed through evolution, and are of great help in the motherhood experience.
Men wouldn’t necessarily make bad ‘gestators’ but we are not cut out for this extremely demanding and draining task. Due to brain structure differences. There would be nothing practical about trying it either, one should not experiment with such basic human functions..
Any deviation we tried against the nature of homo sapiens, has kicked as right back in the butt.. But I guess that is jumping to another topic..




Alex:Do you still follow the old dogma that men and women are the same, but the only factors differentiating them are societal ones?

AS: Well, if extractions become possible in the future...wouldn't they be 'equal'? Isn't it practical that they are...I mean since women are fast becoming indispensable to the work force. Don't you see that femininity will never disappear...men and women will always be attracted to each other. Just as they have been down through history. In fact...it is the woman who says what men will be attracted to....as she is always changing herself. If fashion says that blond hair is in...and she dyes her hair blond...ya'll get a boner still. If she get reubensque or twiggy like..ya'll still get a boner. If she doesn't have the right to vote...or she becomes your boss...ya'll still get a boner....don't you see. Whether or not you like the future 'woman' now or not doesn't mean the 'future' guy won't like her...of course he will....because man always follows woman...always has and always will. If she says jump...ya'll say "how high" (with boners of course.) lol

Alex: ‘Equal’ doesn’t mean the ‘same’ and it seems that you have missed that conclusion that is screaming at us in the western world in the last 30 years..Trying to bring pregnancy to men is defying that very basic truth of gender differences..
And, I am sorry to have to bring it out to you, but it seems that men are ‘jumping’ lower and lower with or without boners, wherever in the world your kind of reasoning has been followed, divorce rates have climbed to over 50%..
Many people choose to be single nowadays, at record rates..
And the way you imply that a men’s only reason to be attracted or influenced or ‘controlled’ by a woman, is because of the ‘boner’, is a bit sexist towards.. women..




Alex: I would never, and could never , go through what you go through in a pregnancy, due to factors that have to do with brain structure..

AS: But your type is fast dying out...and a new breed is taking over...men who actually like their children are taking your place. And I am sure...in the future...if things like "extractions" become possible...some men will be either carrying their child...just like they are carrying them , diaper bag and all, now. That is...if they want them...and the woman doesn't. Still...I think the majority of women will want a baby...that won't change... I am only talking about the "mistakes" and one night stands in which the women wants an abortion and the man doesn't.

Alex: No, your ‘type’ is dying fast. After many men were ‘feminized’ in an effort to ‘jump’, then women said they don’t like these ‘pussies’.. ‘Where are the real men?’ ‘Where have the men gone?’..



Alex:But that doesn't mean that even if i could go through it, i would claim, i can end the process at any time during pregnancy, just because i changed my mind.

AS: I didn't say anytime during the process you should be able to change your mind. Don't you remember me agreeing that at 30 weeks or so it is a baby?

Alex: It is at 1 or two months earlier than that, and abortion statistics show that people understand that.(look at the data above).
So, basically, even if your wording is different to mine, we have at least agreed on one thing. Abortions should not happen after the time it qualifies to be a baby..