Krellin, how are you defining it as not alive/human? And unborn babies genders can be detected at 18-20 weeks, at least. Which means they must have formed earlier.

It has a biological sex, not a gender.

The real question is : have you learned to win with Rosie yet??

I don't think so! Hahahaha lol

"It has a biological sex, not a gender."

Difference please? For the uneducated me?

Jamie thinks his hand is Rosie.

Yawn.

@ BillyRayCyrus:

Sex = whether it would be born with male or female genitalia
Gender = whether it is a man or a woman

(At least you didn't say Miley)

Is this a scientific distinction?

More social science than science science.

So.... Your definition?

I provided one! See above.

For further commentary, I refer you to our friends Professor G. Oogle and Dr. W. Ikipedia.

The distinction between sex and gender is not something I've just invented. Go do your own reading.

@cyrus.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314640/abortion-and-gender-gap-numbers-ramesh-ponnuru

Did you really need confirmation? It should be obvious.

"So rather than fix social stigmas and empower women, we kill the baby?"

Yes, since nobody seems to be actually working to fix social stigmas and empowering women. It's naive to delay what is (hopefully, in the long term) a stopgap measure just because we can't teleport to complete equality overnight. The right to choose is a part of what will make women more likely to realize their full potential.

Re: jury. Don't be an idiot. Women can kill adults. Men can kill adults. Peers. Women can give birth. Men cannot. Not peers.

---

Look, we're getting awefully close to something I'm not at all interested in, which is a full - on abortion debate. It was interesting to me while we were discussing the macro-argument, the reasons people feel as they do, and the question of arbitrariness and morality. Discussing whether or not it should be allowed is intensely boring to me. Sorry.

@Jamie Why thank you for that. So, from what I found, SEX is what sort of body you have, male or female, which is the sort of thing you put on a legal form. Gender is how culture sees them. In other words, sex is male and female, gender is masculine and feminine.

I guess it boils down to whether you think it is a person or not.

OK... So... How about, can women influence if men can... well, got to come up with something only men can do... ejaculate in public? So, women can't do that. So they shouldn't get a say at all!

That's just silly. Anybody can masturbate or expose themselves or act indecently.

Not ejaculate. So women shouldn't get a say.

You're being ridiculous. Ejaculating in public is a nonconsensual sex act upon the witnesses. That a penis happens to be involved is irrelevant.

Abortion is a nonconsensual death act upon the fetus.

But a vagina is absolutely necessary to give birth. If she wants to abort her fetus in public and make you watch, then we have something to talk about.

You are still avoiding the point that it goes against the will of the baby.

Which comes to the question, does the 'baby' have a 'will'. That's very hotly debated. Obviously it it doesn't have a will, you can't go against it.
Now it's very hard to ask an unborn baby if it wants to live. But there is scientific research on when foetuses start being capable of thought. (Lee, Susan J., et al. "Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence." Jama 294.8 (2005): 947-954.) This research done in 2005 suggests that foetuses gain cognitive reasoning abilities starting about 28 to 30 weeks into pregnancy. If we were to use that as a guideline, it would be far looser than what we already have at the moment.

So, an argument based on the will of the baby is unlikely to limit abortion.

Careful making the will argument. Did Terry Schiavo have a will when she was in a vegetative state that she would never return from? Does a person in a coma being kept alive by machine have a will? Does an old person who no longer has their reason about them due to Alzheimer's or dementia have a will? That is a very slippery slope you tread.

Exactly Draug. Can we put a bullet through the brain of a person in a coma? What is the difference between that and an abortion? There is a big difference between pulling the plug, and pulling the trigger.

How can any person that supports war on innocent people then be Pro-Life ??
Once the baby is born what kind of life will it have if it is not wanted ..... possibly a pretty shit life.
Where does the money come from to rear this unwanted child?
Who is going to love and care for this unwanted child?
Abortion may be killing an unborn child but so is supporting policies that deny women in foreign countries basic medicines so their children die needlessly from things like lack of basic medicines or no access to clean water.
It is the hypocrisy that is hurtful, not the sentiments.

Vote to shut down the US arms industry (the biggest killing machine ever in the history of the world) before you start to lecture me on human rights ..... STOP the killing of baby children on foreign shores.
When will it be time to support a policy of NO MORE WAR !!
Then let's discuss abortion.....

I've got to say I was surprised that most people here think that killing people in war is legal, like a declaration of war means everything's okay.

@Yellowjacket,

"@semck I think I understand now,"

Cool!

"but I think to make that argument you must focus too much on the first of the items on the list, and ignore the others. At the age of 3, a child can be given up for adoption with no health risk to the parent. Therefore killing it is not a valid option."

Well, I don't think I was ignoring them because they foil my argument. I focused on that one because my argument is *clearest* there.

But it works with the rest, too, maybe in more restrictive situations.

Off the top of my head: suppose a parent and 3-year old child were staying together in a cabin in the woods for two weeks, trapped by weather from getting out. The child quickly contracts flu, say, and we can assume that the conditions are such as would make it highly likely the parent would catch it. (Say highly likely = 20%). Also suppose the parent had a lot of risk factors for complications from flu.

Would the parent be justified in killing the child and throwing him out in the snow to protect his life? Flu's mortality rate is about 0.1%, which means 0.01% given the 10% chance of catching it. That's the same as the risk of death for a pregnant mother who goes to term in the United States.

So, killing is OK in this case? Or arbitrary line?

"It's true. I still can't get over the irony of a bunch of dudes sitting around yammering about an issue that isn't our own to decide."

But it's only not our own to decide if you already believe that the woman's right is greater, which is to say, if you already have decided.

I mean, I could argue that you and I shouldn't have any say in whether a husband kills his wife, because it's really a husband's place to decide; or that a millionaire should be able to kill his employees, because the decision is far more important to him than to us. But you probably wouldn't find that very convincing, right?

@Yellowjacket

Thank you so much for providing this reference.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314640/abortion-and-gender-gap-numbers-ramesh-ponnuru

It does make feel that all of those ''it is alright for men to talk'' type arguments which I have read on here in this and previous threads are just so much hot air. In case you are in any doubt here is the conclusion:

''If the Gallup and exit-poll data are right — and they’re consistent with other polls I’ve seen over the years — then it’s hard to see any evidence that differences between the sexes in views about abortion policy drive the gender gap between parties, in part because there’s not much evidence that such views vary much by gender.''

I have to say that my personal, necessarily limited female sample number would confirm this too and, indeed more so. To those men who might feel a touch guilty about harbouring a pro-life position, I suggest that you ask the women around you for their views - you might be surprised.

@Jamiet
''It has a biological sex, not a gender.''

If you object to the term gendercide that is fine with me, we will not fall out over nomenclature (if I can help it). In the context of the empowerment of women, however, I do find it surprising that a process which actually tips the balances of the sexes the male way does not raise more hackles with those on the pro-choice side of the debate.