80 replies to this topic

[eternaltraveler]

What I feel we need is a more rigorous definition of when life begins.

No of course we don't need this, nor is it relevant. Life began billions of years ago. Sperm and egg cells are alive before conception.

With the blurry lines that exist today, there is no easy way to determine when a fetus was aborted and a when human was killed. It is a dilemma in my mind anyway.

I think we can agree abortions in the first trimester are well outside of the danger zone, which is primarily where we are concerned from a stem cell research perspective. I've presented evidence that there is likely not a person present until after birth at some point, but I'm not going to take a hard line stance on that.

Edited by elrond, 20 November 2008 - 07:57 PM.

[VictorBjoerk]

I think abortion is a very good thing. Imagine if you have been raped and do not want the kid, of course you have to dispose it off. You have to develop a lot of consciousness before you should be considered a human being.

I think we should care a lot more about old people than fetuses, they deserve a lot of attention that they do not get. Instead they are treated with no dignity like some kind of funny animals or simply ignored.

[VictorBjoerk]

And all these tragic cases when 15-year old children accidentally becomes pregnant, should her life be destroyed by having children involuntary and the following duties etc or should she be able to get a new chance to continue a normal teenager's life?

[sUper GeNius]

And all these tragic cases when 15-year old children accidentally becomes pregnant, should her life be destroyed by having children involuntary and the following duties etc or should she be able to get a new chance to continue a normal teenager's life?

One word: adoption.

[Connor MacLeod]

Wow, an amazingly civil abortion debate! Let us keep it that way because it is an important issue from an immortalist perspective.

Yes, it is.

I am agnostic but I still have a problem with some abortions similar to others mentioning the "squeamishness" of terminating a developing human with hands, feet, a beating heart, brain activity - doesn't feel right to me.

Well, I'd say its much more than just squeamishness - its a core part of our humanity. I have a problem with abortion being turned into simple clinical procedure where the vast majority of people never see or even contemplate the horrifying aftermath that can result. I wonder how many late-term abortions there would be if the mother and father were required to hold the dead/dying fetus in their arms after the procedure.

[Iam Empathy]

This thread is like flogging a dead horse.

A woman's right to choose is a civil right.

Case closed.

Personally, I would never want my partner to have an abortion. But at the same time, I would never take that right away from another person.

Edited by Iam Empathy, 21 November 2008 - 06:30 AM.

[luv2increase]

honestly at this point I take everything he says to be a religious argument.

he was kind enough to illustrate this once more in another thread.

see http://www.imminst.o...&...st&p=278550

Your hatred of religion and those religious is undoubtedly clouding your judgment.


The fact is that the blastocyst or whatever you want to call it will inevitably become a walking and talking human being some day (GIVEN THE TIME OF DAY). There is no other way around it. You are negatively attributing the present time factor to a situation where it should not be applied.

When does age start for a person? We normally say once the person is born, but really isn't it literally started once the sperm and egg unite and the cells begin to divide? I would say so. You would not have the chance or opportunity of life without there being a sperm and egg. Once these two combine, it is a whole new ballgame. Killing an egg or flushing sperm down the toilet is NOT the same thing as flushing the matter of an undeveloped fetus down the drain.

Edited by luv2increase, 22 November 2008 - 04:19 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

Your hatred of religion and those religious is undoubtedly clouding your judgment.

on what basis are you assigning "hatred" to me? Whatever basis it is, you are incorrect in your assumption.

Killing an egg or flushing sperm down the toilet is NOT the same thing as flushing the matter of an undeveloped fetus down the drain.

please see [PMID]7117572

most fertilized eggs are flushed down the toilet without the woman ever knowing.

Edited by elrond, 22 November 2008 - 05:45 PM.

[JonesGuy]

A blastocyst will not become a person on its own, it needs to be nurtured and fed a specific set of nutrients at a specific rate. As elrond points out, this is true of fibroblasts as well. If you scratch your skin, you're killing a potential person.

I think that the earliest point to be even worried about killing a person is after the thalamocorticol projects have extended properly: without them, you cannot even create conscious thought. As well, you don't have to worry about even a smidgen of consciousness before the afferent projects start modifying the neocortex due to sensory input. This is why I don't worry at all about the first trimester.

After the first trimester, legal concerns about slavery start to bother me. On the other hand, I wonder what my desires would be if I was at a cognitive equivalent of a 30 week fetus (due to brain damage, or whatever)

[Moonbeam]

No one compelled her to have a child, because no one compelled her to conceive.

You know nothing about real life, if you think that is true. That's a pretty sheltered existence. Human sexuality doesn't work like that.

One word: adoption.

You quit discussing this with me earlier in the thread. I hate to repeat myself, but it's as if you are so simple-minded and one-dimensional that you can't see any complexity whatsoever. Is that true with everything or just this issue? Does no response mean you completely shut your mind to what I said, or just couldn't be bothered to respond? Too much for you to think about all at once?

Surely you know there is a lot more to having a baby than being inconvenienced for nine months. Life is a little more complicated than that for most people. A lot of women who get pregnant accidentally are probably not going to be in ideal circumcstances for pregnancy to be just an "inconvenience". Not to mention twelve year olds, rape, incest, drug abuse, inability to support oneself or continue to work while pregnant, possible violent repercussions, etc.?

Would you make any exceptions besides the life of the mother? If so, aren't you making a decision based on something other than the fact that a genetically unique person is involved? If you think it's OK for you can make that decision, then why shouldn't the person who is much more involved in the situation than you decide if it is a good idea to continue the pregnancy or not?

Should society support the women while they are pregnant, then take care of them and the offspring afterwards? How about in cases where the fetus is found to be deformed or genetically messed up? Should the mother be forced to carry them, possibly to reject them after they are born? I guess we should get rid of prenatal testing, because the point of that is to discover these things in time to do an abortion.

Should all those embroyos discarded during IVF be implanted into women without their consent, if necessary? I would think according to your reasoning that would be necessary. Those embryos have unique genetics and and would develop into people if given a place to grow, and the women will just be a little inconvenienced.

I apologize to all for quoting myself.

[luv2increase]

Surely you know there is a lot more to having a baby than being inconvenienced for nine months. Life is a little more complicated than that for most people. A lot of women who get pregnant accidentally are probably not going to be in ideal circumcstances for pregnancy to be just an "inconvenience". Not to mention twelve year olds, rape, incest, drug abuse, inability to support oneself or continue to work while pregnant, possible violent repercussions, etc.?

A woman should not have unprotected sex if she doesn't want to become pregnant. It is as simple as that. Abortion is just a scapegoat for making bad decisions, being irresponsible, and being absent of morals.

[sUper GeNius]

You know nothing about real life, if you think that is true. That's a pretty sheltered existence. Human sexuality doesn't work like that.

I see. So you believe that many conceptions are beyond a woman's control and outside of her responsibility. If so, then we both have very different ideas of the phrases "free will" and "personal responsibility."

You quit discussing this with me earlier in the thread. I hate to repeat myself, but it's as if you are so simple-minded and one-dimensional that you can't see any complexity whatsoever. Is that true with everything or just this issue? Does no response mean you completely shut your mind to what I said, or just couldn't be bothered to respond? Too much for you to think about all at once?

Having a child "ruins" no one's life. I personally know several single mothers who had a child under less than optimal financial circumstances, and today they are so very happy that they brought the baby to term.


Jeez. Simple-minded? You're calling people names now? Feeling threatened? Angry? Frustrated that someone can't see an issue as you do?

Some issues are not complex. People tend to rise to the occasion. Hold them responsible, they become responsible. Make excuses for their behavior, then people tend to make excuses for their own behavior. What's your excuse?

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 23 November 2008 - 12:20 AM.

[Moonbeam]

I see. So you believe that many conceptions are beyond a woman's control and outside of her responsibility. If so, then we both have very different ideas of the phrases "free will" and "personal responsibility."

My opinion that you do not understand how life really works in the realm of sexuality is reinforced by that statement. (To further explain, since most people, especially when young, are not always paragons of self-control, foresight, wisdom, maturity, responsibility, etc., and when you are dealing with one the most powerful instincts that people have, which in many ways it is not always fully within "conscious" control, shit happens. My philosophy regarding free will is irrelevant.)

Having a child "ruins" no one's life. I personally know several single mothers who had a child under less than optimal financial circumstances, and today they are so very happy that they brought the baby to term.

Oh well, if you personally know several people, I guess that proves it.

Jeez. Simple-minded? You're calling people names now? Feeling threatened? Angry? Frustrated that someone can't see an issue as you do?

Lol, I don't actually mean to offend you. Don't worry, if it bothered me to argue with people on the internet, I wouldn't do it.

I do think that your ideas about human behavior, and the way you ignore the more complicated parts of the issue and simply re-state your opinion that people should just "act right" and there wouldn't be any problems, are very simple-minded, yes.

Some issues are not complex. People tend to rise to the occasion. Hold them responsible, they become responsible. Make excuses for their behavior, then people tend to make excuses for their own behavior. What's your excuse?

Excuse for what?

[Connor MacLeod]

I see. So you believe that many conceptions are beyond a woman's control and outside of her responsibility. If so, then we both have very different ideas of the phrases "free will" and "personal responsibility."

My opinion that you do not understand how life really works in the realm of sexuality is reinforced by that statement. (To further explain, since most people, especially when young, are not always paragons of self-control, foresight, wisdom, maturity, responsibility, etc., and when you are dealing with one the most powerful instincts that people have, which in many ways it is not always fully within "conscious" control, shit happens. My philosophy regarding free will is irrelevant.)

There are some pretty powerful forces moving within my lions as well. If have sex with a woman who ends up getting pregnant, is it fair that I should be forced to pay child support for 18 years for a child I don't want?

[sUper GeNius]

I see. So you believe that many conceptions are beyond a woman's control and outside of her responsibility. If so, then we both have very different ideas of the phrases "free will" and "personal responsibility."

My opinion that you do not understand how life really works in the realm of sexuality is reinforced by that statement. (To further explain, since most people, especially when young, are not always paragons of self-control, foresight, wisdom, maturity, responsibility, etc., and when you are dealing with one the most powerful instincts that people have, which in many ways it is not always fully within "conscious" control, shit happens. My philosophy regarding free will is irrelevant.)

There are some pretty powerful forces moving within my lions as well. If have sex with a woman who ends up getting pregnant, is it fair that I should be forced to pay child support for 18 years for a child I don't want?

Yes. Use some of those powerful forces between your ears and slip a condom on first.

[thughes]

A woman should not have unprotected sex if she doesn't want to become pregnant. It is as simple as that. Abortion is just a scapegoat for making bad decisions, being irresponsible, and being absent of morals.

You are hopefully aware that no non-surgical birth control method is perfect right? The majority of accidental pregnancies I know about involve people responsibly using birth control and having it fail (the rest are teenagers of course).

Don't pretend abortion is something that its not, many cases involve responsible people who lost the odds.

So you believe that many conceptions are beyond a woman's control and outside of her responsibility

Is this really relevant? Pregnancy shouldn't be used as some sort of punishment, thats bizarre... as well as cruel and unusual given the amount of life changes and possibly permanent bodily changes a pregnancy makes.

... and the answer is yes, since birth control is not perfect some conceptions are really outside a person's control (unless you consider total abstinence even within marriage 'reasonable').

- Tracy

Edited by thughes, 24 November 2008 - 03:42 AM.

[luv2increase]

You are hopefully aware that no non-surgical birth control method is perfect right? The majority of accidental pregnancies I know about involve people responsibly using birth control and having it fail (the rest are teenagers of course).

Don't pretend abortion is something that its not, many cases involve responsible people who lost the odds.

When contraceptives are used correctly, the success rate is extremely high!

Also, do you not think that if a person were promiscuous that they should have the guy wear a condom??? This isn't only to not get pregnant, but it is also to prevent the acquiring of STDs.

When you think about it, a woman using the pill and who has many sex partners is already playing Russian Roulette with their health which can be potentially more bothersome than an unwanted pregnancy. This is of course if unprotected sex is being undertaken.


What do you think the chances of a woman getting pregnant is when she correctly uses birth control AND has her partner(s) use a condom? If she really really really didn't want to get pregnant, this would be the way to go. I've been with a few girls who abode by a program such as this... Sure, it isn't as fun for the guy, but it is the best method of the prevention of STDs and an unwanted pregnancy. It is the best of both worlds if one wants to partake in premarital sex!


Unprotected sex is irresponsible. There is no other way around that statement. This should be the real focus here.

Edited by luv2increase, 24 November 2008 - 04:33 PM.

[thughes]

When contraceptives are used correctly, the success rate is extremely high!

Its high yes, but not as high as you think. I believe current statistics for the pill are roughly: 5 out of 100 couples with an unwanted pregnancy every year. That adds up (as I know well from my own acquaintance pool, which seems to be particularly unlucky). This is a bit dated, but I don't think there have been many advances:

http://www.fda.gov/F.../conceptbl.html

I'm not personally in favor of surgical methods, which are superior. Seems to me they may entail health risks (that exceed the health risks of an abortion).

Also, do you not think that if a person were promiscuous that they should have the guy wear a condom??? This isn't only to not get pregnant, but it is also to prevent the acquiring of STDs.

I absolutely agree. Thats got nothing to do with the point I was making however. You need to separate "unwanted pregnancy" from "promiscuity" in your mind. One happens frequently without the other.

What do you think the chances of a woman getting pregnant is when she correctly uses birth control AND has her partner(s) use a condom?

Seems a bit extreme to use 2 forms of birth control. At that point, its just as easy to get an early term abortion, chances are you'll only need 1, if that, in your entire life. Its only an issue with people with religious or moral objections to abortion. If I had religious issues with abortion and really didn't want to get pregnant, I'd use 2 forms of birth control or a surgical method. I don't, however.

Unprotected sex is irresponsible. There is no other way around that statement. This should be the real focus here.

I imagine you think responsible birth control should be taught in highschool then? I'd have to agree if thats the case. Thats where a good percentage of unwanted pregnancies caused by carelessness happen. A lot of the high teen pregnancy rate can be traced to bizarre religious objections to actually teaching teens how to be responsible with sex.

Responsible sex, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with my point, however. Preventing women from getting abortions IMO is immoral regardless of how they got in that condition. Pregnancy should not be used as a punishment.

The point of my earlier post was that your assumptions that only, or even mostly, "immoral" (by your standards, meaning promiscuous outside of marriage I assume) women have unwanted pregnancies is completely false. There are also a fair amount of unplanned pregnancies within marriages or monogamous relationships. Whatever moral stance you take, you need to face the harm done to monogamous couples with an unplanned pregnancy as well (not to mention pregnancies as a result of rape).

- Tracy

Edited by thughes, 24 November 2008 - 05:11 PM.

[cyborgdreamer]

At what point does a brain become conscious? When does it develope the emotion systems that lead to the fear of death? Does a fetus feel pain when it is aborted?

Whether abortion is moral should depend on how the fetus feels about it. If the fetus doesn't care whether it is aborted, then why should I? On the other hand if the abortion carries a greater negative value for the fetus than pregnancy carries for the mother, it shouldn't be aborted.

Until we know more about prenatal consciousness, I think it's best to keep a abortions to the period when the embryo's brain isn't much larger/more developed than an insect's.

[Zenob]

At what point does a brain become conscious? When does it develope the emotion systems that lead to the fear of death? Does a fetus feel pain when it is aborted?

Whether abortion is moral should depend on how the fetus feels about it. If the fetus doesn't care whether it is aborted, then why should I? On the other hand if the abortion carries a greater negative value for the fetus than pregnancy carries for the mother, it shouldn't be aborted.

Until we know more about prenatal consciousness, I think it's best to keep a abortions to the period when the embryo's brain isn't much larger/more developed than an insect's.

Its a safe bet that consciousness isn't going to occur prior to development of a brain and a central nervous system. This will do nothing to dissuade the religious right however. They think that as soon as a sperm touches an egg that's when it "gets its ghost". They ignore facts, science, reason, etc when they formulate their positions on things like this and base them entirely on their beliefs in stone age mysticism.

[luv2increase]

When contraceptives are used correctly, the success rate is extremely high!

Its high yes, but not as high as you think. I believe current statistics for the pill are roughly: 5 out of 100 couples with an unwanted pregnancy every year. That adds up (as I know well from my own acquaintance pool, which seems to be particularly unlucky). This is a bit dated, but I don't think there have been many advances:

http://www.fda.gov/F.../conceptbl.html

I'm not personally in favor of surgical methods, which are superior. Seems to me they may entail health risks (that exceed the health risks of an abortion).

Also, do you not think that if a person were promiscuous that they should have the guy wear a condom??? This isn't only to not get pregnant, but it is also to prevent the acquiring of STDs.

I absolutely agree. Thats got nothing to do with the point I was making however. You need to separate "unwanted pregnancy" from "promiscuity" in your mind. One happens frequently without the other.

What do you think the chances of a woman getting pregnant is when she correctly uses birth control AND has her partner(s) use a condom?

Seems a bit extreme to use 2 forms of birth control. At that point, its just as easy to get an early term abortion, chances are you'll only need 1, if that, in your entire life. Its only an issue with people with religious or moral objections to abortion. If I had religious issues with abortion and really didn't want to get pregnant, I'd use 2 forms of birth control or a surgical method. I don't, however.

Unprotected sex is irresponsible. There is no other way around that statement. This should be the real focus here.

I imagine you think responsible birth control should be taught in highschool then? I'd have to agree if thats the case. Thats where a good percentage of unwanted pregnancies caused by carelessness happen. A lot of the high teen pregnancy rate can be traced to bizarre religious objections to actually teaching teens how to be responsible with sex.

Responsible sex, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with my point, however. Preventing women from getting abortions IMO is immoral regardless of how they got in that condition. Pregnancy should not be used as a punishment.

The point of my earlier post was that your assumptions that only, or even mostly, "immoral" (by your standards, meaning promiscuous outside of marriage I assume) women have unwanted pregnancies is completely false. There are also a fair amount of unplanned pregnancies within marriages or monogamous relationships. Whatever moral stance you take, you need to face the harm done to monogamous couples with an unplanned pregnancy as well (not to mention pregnancies as a result of rape).

- Tracy

It just goes to show that your stance is based on a possible dislike of children, pregnancy, and childbirth. In reply to your last statement, a couple or single woman can always adopt their child. There are many families out there unable to have children. This would be an extreme blessing to them. If not for yourself, or you are unable to take care of the child, then give it to a couple who can. Pregnancy and childbirth are beautiful and should never be looked at in a bad light.

[sUper GeNius]

At what point does a brain become conscious? When does it develope the emotion systems that lead to the fear of death? Does a fetus feel pain when it is aborted?

Whether abortion is moral should depend on how the fetus feels about it. If the fetus doesn't care whether it is aborted, then why should I? On the other hand if the abortion carries a greater negative value for the fetus than pregnancy carries for the mother, it shouldn't be aborted.

Until we know more about prenatal consciousness, I think it's best to keep a abortions to the period when the embryo's brain isn't much larger/more developed than an insect's.

So you would have no problem with assited suicide, or suicide in generlc then, right? And perhaps young infants dying. I can't see someone getting a 3 mo old child to "care" about living or dying.

Negative value? Shouldn't it be assumed that removal from existence has about the most negative value of any alternative? Maybe one would make a case for extreme and continual torture being worse than death, but carrying a child for 9 months?

[JonesGuy]

Well 'removal from existence' could be deemed to have a negative value, but it's only possible to be removed from existence if you already exist. Before a certain stage of development, there is no mental being. If you abort before this stage, there is no mental entity being removed from existence.

Cyborgdreamer: a fetus cannot feel pain before 22 weeks. In that, the pain cannot be transduced to the cortex.

Edited by QJones, 24 November 2008 - 07:48 PM.

[thughes]

It just goes to show that your stance is based on a possible dislike of children, pregnancy, and childbirth. In reply to your last statement, a couple or single woman can always adopt their child. There are many families out there unable to have children. This would be an extreme blessing to them. If not for yourself, or you are unable to take care of the child, then give it to a couple who can. Pregnancy and childbirth are beautiful and should never be looked at in a bad light.

Wishful thinking nonsense, I'm afraid. You're seeing what you want to see, because you religiously want to believe pregnancy is always a good thing. Its not. Pregnancy can be extremely difficult, including for some people a great degree of illness and pain, and considerable loss of work, even with our modern medicine. Plus there's a fairly severe amount of pain at the end (especially in the developing world which lack good painkilling drugs in many situations) combined with the possibility of unwanted permanent or long term bodily changes. Its also sometimes still fatal in the developing world. I thank the Catholic Church for making it fatal again in some parts of South America /sigh.

Now, there's certainly nothing wrong with deciding to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term to make some other couple happy, seriously thats an awesome thing to do, but to force the choice on them? It would be a terrible thing to make a woman go through all that illness, loss of work, pain, and permanent bodily changes involuntarily, when a simple medical solution exists and there's no reasonable moral objection except superstition. AFAIK its the moral equivalent of torture.

And surprisingly, I adore children. I don't personally want any, but they are wonderful beings.

Did you at least get the message that unwanted pregnancy != unmarried promiscuity? /sigh

- Tracy

[thughes]

Negative value? Shouldn't it be assumed that removal from existence has about the most negative value of any alternative? Maybe one would make a case for extreme and continual torture being worse than death, but carrying a child for 9 months?

I'm beginning to think a lot of males live in some sort of "pregnancy is so simple" utopia, lol. You need to be around some pregnant women who have had some real and severe issues. May expand your horizons a bit =)

- Tracy

[Shepard]

I'm beginning to think a lot of males live in some sort of "pregnancy is so simple" utopia, lol. You need to be around some pregnant women who have had some real and severe issues. May expand your horizons a bit =)

- Tracy

See here, the white man has been telling other people how to live for a long time. We don't need you "free thinkers" and "women" to go around messing up the system.

[luv2increase]

Did you at least get the message that unwanted pregnancy != unmarried promiscuity? /sigh

Think about that for a moment. If one is having premarital sex without protection, there is a high chance that person will become pregnant. If the person is having multiple partners without protection, the chances are extremely greater. I would put anything on it that the majority of women becoming pregnant before marriage do have multiple sex partners or have had multiple sex partners. If they aren't or hadn't, they are irresponsibly not using any sort of protection, most likely.


You know what would solve ALL unwanted pregnancies and STDs? Wearing a condom and responsibly taking birth control and not taking anything while on the birth control which could potentially nullify the effects of the birth control like anitbiotics; this would do it for atleast 99% of the cases.

[thughes]

Think about that for a moment. If one is having premarital sex without protection, there is a high chance that person will become pregnant. If the person is having multiple partners without protection, the chances are extremely greater. I would put anything on it that the majority of women becoming pregnant before marriage do have multiple sex partners or have had multiple sex partners. If they aren't or hadn't, they are irresponsibly not using any sort of protection, most likely.

You know what would solve ALL unwanted pregnancies and STDs? Wearing a condom and responsibly taking birth control and not taking anything while on the birth control which could potentially nullify the effects of the birth control like anitbiotics; this would do it for atleast 99% of the cases.

You are hung up on this premarital sex thing aren't you? Here's some stats for you: Over 18% of abortions are by married persons:

http://www.abortionn.../fastfacts.html

That's a lot of people. Over 7.5 million married persons having abortions yearly... So, a majority of abortions are certainly by unwed women (no saying what percentage are in monogamous relationships of course), but certainly not a *vast* majority.

Also, a bit about statistics. You could solve 99% of unwanted pregnancies with extreme methods of multiple birth control if you wanted, that would still leave 42000 annual cases worldwide. Plus, such extreme birth control methods are not affordable, if even available, to much of the developing world, so your suggestion isn't even practical. Its also rather inconvenient, instead of going overboard I think people should choose a fairly reliable birth control method, then turn to early term abortion if it fails.

Mind you, to me reducing the incidence of abortion is a health issue, not an ethical issue. Its an expensive and more risky form of birth control.

On the bright side, if reducing the incidence of abortion is what you are after, get on board with teaching responsible birth control in schools, and providing birth control to the poor and to the developing nations, you can make a real difference there (without impacting anyone's rights)

My point remains, pregnancy should not be used as a punishment, and in any case a large amount of people with unwanted pregnancies did not get there by being irresponsible, so its unfair to characterize the issue of abortion as one affecting only promiscuous unmarried people.

- Tracy

[Moonbeam]

Abortions will happen whether they are legal or not. Hardly anybody thinks that women who get illegal abortions should be locked up. Why make unenforcable laws that aren't punished anyway? The only result of making them illegal is to make them more dangerous. Why not be practical? If sex ed is taught in schools from an early age, birth control is easy to get, and abortions are available as early as possible, the end result would be fewer overall, and late-term ones only in cases of danger to the mother.

[luv2increase]

My point remains, pregnancy should not be used as a punishment

I am sad that you continue to refer to pregnancy as punishment. I can't fathom how anyone can determine those two words go hand-in-hand. If you continue to believe that way, I'm sure you believe that no one who commits a crime or does anything wrong should be punished for doing so? You don't believe in reprocutions? You believe individuals should not be held accountable for their actions?