Did I, or any pro-choicer for that matter, say that abortion was "OK"? It's not. It's a fucking horrible thing. That is the one key flaw in the pro-life camp's argument. They seem to think that people just want to chuck abortions around as if they were contraceptives. But I would rather that a teenage girl have an abortion, get her life together and offer her later children a proper life.

Trust me - I've seen plenty of situations where kids' lives have been ruined by a careless night. In fact, I've even experienced one situation where a mother was abusing her kid by virtue of the kid being the product of rape.

And for the record, I'm fine with the death penalty for extreme cases, as in where the criminal is unrepentant and a genuine danger to other lives and society. What I don't agree with is the death penalty simply as a means to satisfy a need for retribution, nor do I find the electric chair, firing squads, hanging or other cruel and painful methods acceptable means of execution.

Sorry, I am making my statements mostly on what I see in media. It's hard to not see a show in United States with teenage pregnacy that isn't starting with "go abort this fucker right away!" logic. It is presented as contraception in my eyes. Especially in states where it's allowed almost until delivery.

True. But again, I am saying that this is still not the reason to choose "live or die". Many adult people here were abused when they were children and now they have normal lives. Go ask them if they rather be aborted. And even so, they are free to commit suicide anytime they want.

If you asked me, I'd rather have a abusive childhood or have no childhood at all.

Being abused as a child means that your life is NEVER normal, even in later adulthood.

It's easy to judge from the sidelines. Less easy when you've experienced it.

I have a problem here. I'm fairly pro-choice, in regards, I don't feel I have a right to preach to others how to live their lives and what they're supposed to do. I don't know everyone, I don't know of their positions, and I feel very uncomfortable judging them. It doesn't mean abortions are right, it's that my personal feelings don't matter in this case. That's where I think a lot of this argument tends to stem from, personal feelings to the exclusion of anything else.

But that's the 2 cents of someone who has spent quite a bit of time trying to establish a decision that makes sense to me. I'm actually pretty unsure of how I would go if I actually was in a position to make a meaningful judgement (Girlfriend being pregnant, family member considering and asking me for advice).

Nah, the other way around. It's way easier to just avoid the consequences by terminating the problem before it occurs.

I know, there are plenty who can't put their lives together because of their childhood and it's not their fault in the slightest. But on the other hand, there are plenty (my fiancee is one...) that have horrible childhoods and now live happility and passed through their problems.

And I don't see a "just cut the problem in the roots" argument an argument at all. You may figure out why.

What's next? Exterminating homeless because they have difficult lives too?

Again, I am pro-choice, but not coming from such 'arguments'. There are hardly any reasonable ones, but I think this thing is too difficult and non-paperwhite-clean to me to decide for everyone else. I'm just not seeking by force some arguments to "absolve" myself If I ever decide with my fiancee (we probably won't) to abort any pregnancy. But as hell it's not "saving the child from having difficult life".
Like killing a wife of an abusive husband is not saving her from abusing life.

I do. Abortion is not fucking horrible. It is a normal medical procedure that serves to get rid of an unwanted (unwanted by the woman, not "socially undesirable") pregnancy. It is more expensive and more risky than contraception, which is why it is not a viable alternative to contraception (prevention is better than cure). But nothing inherently monstrous about the procedure. Unwanted pregnancy is horrible. Cancer is horrible. Abortion and chemo aren't.

I found it very funny for a couple reasons. One: It's obvious that Mr. Mourdock has never read the Bible, at least not the parts about rape and the children of rape. Two: It's obvious that the people who say his view have nothing to do with Christianity have never read the Bible, at least not the parts about rape and the children of rape.

Deuteronomy 23:2 "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." A bastard is anyone who is born out of wedlock. This means the child of rape is either ineligible for Heaven or is ineligible to be part of the community until his/her Great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchild. However, that only happened if a woman was raped in a rural area as Deuteronomy 22:23 says a rape victim must be killed along with her rapist and Deut. 22:28 says she must marry him.

Why this stupid religion is still around is beyond me and why people have such stupid misconceptions of it is an exercise of ignorance.

I know people who had chemo that disapprove. And I think the emotional trauma women have due to abortions has nothing to do with a social stigma. Abortion is a women undeniable right. But comparing it to a appendectomy is just misogynist.

Well, what about the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis that were killed during the ethnic cleansing that followed the US' ill conceived invasion of Iraq? It was mostly the conservatives who wanted to do that. Or, how about the people who die early because they can't afford treatment for things like cancer?

I'll give you a bit of leeway on the death penalty because you're not American, but in America the people who are in support of the death penalty frequently don't care whether the individual is actually guilty of the crime, and I regularly see comments from people suggesting that the execution take place immediately without benefit of appeal.

I honestly don't believe that you would support the death penalty with no possibility of appealing it. (Assuming of course that you support it at all which I have no idea about)

But yeah, the penalties I see people suggesting that claim to be conservative are mindblowing. Just today I saw somebody suggest sexually assaulting a rapists with brooms as a part of the punishment for the crime as well as even less civilized options.
Unfortunately, it's rather more complicated than that. I'm not sure about Germany, but in the US, you're talking roughly 20% of the adult population having been molested prior to the age of 15, which is a huge number.

The honest truth is that in 70% or so of the cases the sexual misuse or abuse wasn't violent and we don't necessarily have the expected issues from the sexual abuse. We do however tend to suffer from the consequences of ill conceived advocacy efforts which tend to delegitimize the issues arising from the much more common non-violent sexual abuse.

Unfortunately, folks on both sides of the aisle tend to get the wrong and there's a ton of misery and maladaption which happens as a result. My only issues with sex are the direct result of being communicated to over and over again about how it's men that abuse kids not any of the other possibilities and good luck getting any help as most psychologists have similarly ignorant views.

I read an interesting article about the death penalty, or rather the psychological side of it. It basically said that humanity as a whole is a willingly murderous kind. People who want the death penalty are already willing to kill other people in the first place, just looking for an excuse to go with it. They are obviously lacking the inherent refusal to kill. This is hypocritical, because you condemn somebody for something you are willing to do yourself. Which again, leads to a whole different level of psychological and criminological issues such as "scapegoating".

I always find it very telling when people support the death penalty. Though, most are just people trying to sound tough.

That's consistent with the state of things in the US. There's more concern for the victims than for the family of the accused and it's become a common saying to claim that "justice delayed is justice denied." Completely ignoring the fact that innocent people can and almost certainly are executed from time for lack of care and diligence.

But yeah, the general attitude seems to be one of a lynch mob rather than a legitimate desire for justice.

So what's causing it then, magical womanly nurturing instinct? Women don't experience emotional trauma when disposing of an unfertilized egg.

First of all, it is a little bit more invasive than disposing an unfertilized egg. Considering your views on women, I can understand that you aren't really well versed in woman biology. But let me just tell you that a pregnancy is not a cold. Even taking "the morning after pill" is a very, very unpleasant experience, to say the least.

And there is emotional involvement coming from the very fact that the woman has to decide if becoming a mother and giving birth is something she wants and can do. Most other medical procedures do not involve making a difficult choice. Only in the worst forms of cancer treatment. Which apparently for you, is also quite ok. Heck, for what do I need that second lung anyway.

The very fact that a woman has to face questions about the rest of her life is a very, very emotional thing. Or are you also saying getting married is just like signing a insurance contract?

Why are we always ignoring fathers in this? Why it's only woman's decision to keep the baby, but after she gives birth, suddenly , she wants money and support from a father, who had nothing to say few months ago?

"You don't give birth so you have nothing to say!" contra "You ARE a father of this child, so you better support it!"

Or should it be like this: if a father doesn't want a baby, and the mother wants it, father can't force her to terminate pregnancy, but the mother cannot require any financial or even moral support from the father. Yes or not?

Because, it is the woman's body. And, at the end of the day, it is the mother who will be responsible for the child.

I'm not downplaying the emotional trauma of the father, but it is the women call to make. (And it's not like the father had nothing to do with her becoming pregnant ;-.). You simply cannot force a woman through a pregnancy only because the father said so. Abortions laws are very complex and take the health of the foetus and mothers into account to weather an abortion is legal or not.

Considering those issues, the fathers position, while significant, still plays the second fiddle. We have similar moral dilemmas always when a close relative has to make a call about life and death. On person has to make the call. And that should the person who is the most involved.