PDA

View Full Version : Abortion: What's your opinion?


Jason Skywalker
02-06-2007, 04:28 PM
Recently here in Portugal, there has been a great discussion about abortions. Registed people will vote this February on day 11. about whether the abortion should permitted or not.

So, what's your view in all of this?

Diego Varen
02-06-2007, 04:32 PM
I think nobody should have abortion, unless the mother is in an ill condition, etc. If she got pregnant from a one night stand, then it was her fault.

Daft Adidas
02-06-2007, 04:35 PM
well it depends on what's happening at the time if you've well done it and realise your pregnant and think. I DON'T WANNA BABY! then that's bad. Then if you've got problemsi n your family then it depends IMO so if in the right circumstances then people should.

Pho3nix
02-06-2007, 04:36 PM
This has been discussed before in several previous threads.

My answer is still the same, Yes I believe women should have the right to abort. Under every circumstance.

Titanius Anglesmith
02-06-2007, 04:41 PM
A woman should be allowed to have an abortion, but only if her life is in danger.

Aurora Starfire
02-06-2007, 04:44 PM
I believe that NO one has the right to take an innocent person's life. Abortion is nothing less than the slaughter of innocent children.

Darth InSidious
02-06-2007, 04:47 PM
Again?

This thread will not end well or on-topic - mark my words.

Am I pro-abortion? No. Not even slightly.

1) As far as I am concerned, even the merest POSSIBILITY that a foetus is a living human being, and the life they WILL have, is worth too much to end it, no matter the reason.

2) A person must take responsibility for their own actions.

3) I believe ALL human life is sacred. That includes life that has not yet begun. A person who *will* be is worth just as much as a person who *is*. It requires a narrow attitude indeed to the fourth dimension not to see a future life as of equal value as a current life, IMO.

4) To quote another, "A life is a life, no matter how it begins. Why should that new life cease because of something not of its own doing?"

5) The effect upon the woman having the abortion can be quite horrendous.

Please note that if there is a conflict between the mother's life and the baby's, I believe in the Principle of Double Effect, which allows for such an issue to arise.

Biologically, there is little difference between a baby and a foetus. Shall we kill the born, too?

FHL, y'all.

Diego Varen
02-06-2007, 04:56 PM
Everyone who said no, all those points were what I was trying to say. Darth InSidious, you make the best points. How would you have felt if your parents had decided to have an abortion, when you in the womb?

Darth InSidious
02-06-2007, 04:58 PM
Everyone who said no, all those points were what I was trying to say. Darth InSidious, you make the best points.

Thank you :)

How would you have felt if your parents had decided to have an abortion, when you in the womb?
Presumably, you wouldn't. You'd be dead ;)


FHL, y'all.

Aurora Starfire
02-06-2007, 04:59 PM
Yes!! Thank you, Darth InSidious! And you too, Topsite! You're exactly right. Abortion is legal murder, plain and simple. What is the difference between aborting a fetus and killing a person on the street? One day, that fetus will be a person on the street.

Salzella
02-06-2007, 05:02 PM
if a baby will in any way make the mother's life worse, no-one can tell her she can't have an abortion.

Jason Skywalker
02-06-2007, 05:04 PM
Although, keep in mind though that the government will have actions for rape. If a woman is raped, then she has the whole right to abort, independently of what the results come.

Also, really? Dang.

Hayden Kered
02-06-2007, 05:09 PM
I do not believe in abortion for the same reasons Darth Insidious posted. IMO, if a woman is raped then she should have that right to do so. But I still have mixed feelings about that one.

Aurora Starfire
02-06-2007, 05:14 PM
Although, keep in mind though that the government will have actions for rape. If a woman is raped, then she has the whole right to abort, independently of what the results come.

Keep in mind that two wrongs don't make a right. Just because something wrong and terrible happened to you, that doesn't mean that you should do something wrong and terrible as well.

Negative Sun
02-06-2007, 05:19 PM
Yes, plain and simple, women have a right to decide what to do with their own bodies...

Keep in mind that two wrongs don't make a right. Just because something wrong and terrible happened to you, that doesn't mean that you should do something wrong and terrible as well.
How is it so wrong and terrible to NOT put a child into this world that the mother doesn't want, and every time she'll look at it she will be reminded of that first terrible thing, so what on earth is the point? Just because our "morale" dictates it or the law says so?

Hayden Kered
02-06-2007, 05:20 PM
Keep in mind that two wrongs don't make a right. Just because something wrong and terrible happened to you, that doesn't mean that you should do something wrong and terrible as well.
You've got a point there Aurora!

Titanius Anglesmith
02-06-2007, 05:21 PM
So does the woman's life not matter at all? If she is in danger of dying, should she not be allowed to have an abortion?

Anyone should be allowed to have an abortion if their life is in danger, or if she has been raped. A person should not have to go through the pains of childbirth and dedicate her life to raising a child that she does not want and never wanted.

Pho3nix
02-06-2007, 05:26 PM
Still, I think It's kind of useless to discuss this as we are all male. Moral lectures are one thing but It's about the woman and the child.

No one here knows what kind of feelings you have when being pregnant and being a mother.

Aurora Starfire
02-06-2007, 05:29 PM
The point is, that every life matters, including both the mother's life, and her child's life. If, as in your example, a mother does not want the child, or cannot afford to take care of the child, there is always the option of putting the child up for adoption. I personally know many people who would love to bring such a child into their home, because every life is precious, and to give an unwanted child the gift of a happy home, and most importantly, the gift of life, is the greatest gift anyone could give.

Oh, and by the way, I'm a girl. ;) And I belong to a large family, which is open to more life, and I know for a fact that there are few things that would make my mother happier than to be blessed with another precious child.

jonathan7
02-06-2007, 05:30 PM
I am a devout Christian and so biblically I should not agree with abortion, however if a woman has been raped, is the victim of child abuse or the child is because of incest then I believe a woman should of the right to choose if she wants an abortion. I have been unfortunate enough to see the effects of rape and the scars child abuse leaves on friends of mine and if they got pregnant as well, wether we agree or disagree I believe they should have the right to an abortion. Would you want to give birth to the child of a rapist? Psychologically speaking there is evidence that rapists have higher testosterone levels than the average male... so could the child go on to be a rapist? (its not a causal link, just an interesting thing to note, although the research into violent crime offenders is also contraditory like so many areas of psychology). So while I disagree with abortion in all other cases here I believe a woman has the right to choose due to circumstances well beyond her control being forced on her. And I don't think some of you should be so arrogant as to say what you would do in that situation, or as arrogant as to tell a woman who has been raped what to do, its their choice... who are you to tell them otherwise? My friends who have been raped will never recover; they carry scars that will last a life time, should they be made to have another scar?

Thats not intended as a flame but as Darth Insidious said this is a conversation in which passions will run high!

Titanius Anglesmith
02-06-2007, 05:33 PM
I am a devout Christian and so biblically I should not agree with abortion, however if a woman has been raped, is the victim of child abuse or the child is because insest then I believe a woman should of the right to choose if she wants an abortion.

~snipped~

So while I disagree with abortion in all other cases here I believe a woman has the right to choose due to circumstances well beyond her control being forced on her.
I agree 100%

Aurora Starfire
02-06-2007, 05:49 PM
By suggesting that a child born of rape could grow up to be a rapist, you are prejudging the child, without giving the child a chance to grow up and become a valuable member of society. If you tell someone, over and over, that they are bad, or the son of a rapist, or would grow up to be a rapist, what is that child going to think of himself? He's going to grow up believing that about himself, and by believing that, he'll become that. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that an innocent child (who happens to be the son of someone who raped his mother) is going to grow up to be a rapist. It's neither fair, nor true.

I'm sorry that such horrible things happened to some of your friends, and you're right, they shouldn't have to carry another scar, that of murdering their child. The psychological damage done to a mother who aborts her baby is catastrophic. And please, it's not "the child of a rapist". That child is the child of the woman who carries him.

Hayden Kered
02-06-2007, 06:04 PM
And please, it's not "the child of a rapist". That child is the child of the woman who carries him.
It does take two to make a child though.

Bimmerman
02-06-2007, 06:05 PM
I am pro abortion in every single concievable circumstance. A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body, and no male can say otherwise. A man's beliefs have absolutely no bearing on abortion, as we cannot have them. Completely for it in every way.

jonathan7
02-06-2007, 06:08 PM
By suggesting that a child born of rape could grow up to be a rapist, you are prejudging the child, without giving the child a chance to grow up and become a valuable member of society. If you tell someone, over and over, that they are bad, or the son of a rapist, or would grow up to be a rapist, what is that child going to think of himself? He's going to grow up believing that about himself, and by believing that, he'll become that. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that an innocent child (who happens to be the son of someone who raped his mother) is going to grow up to be a rapist. It's neither fair, nor true.

I'm sorry that such horrible things happened to some of your friends, and you're right, they shouldn't have to carry another scar, that of murdering their child. The psychological damage done to a mother who aborts her baby is catastrophic. And please, it's not "the child of a rapist". That child is the child of the woman who carries him.

You may want to notice I said the link wasn't casaul... meaning there are a variety of reasons the testosterone is high, however men in prison for the majority of studies do have much higher ammounts of testosterone. I also sited that it wasnt a definitive point only that it could occur. I didnt definatly say they would become a rapist. My argument is they should have the choice... not you forcing ur opinions onto them. Scar, whatever they will be scarred; abortion carries a horrible price for a woman, but so would 9 months just to have a child adopted or the life sentance that would be bring up a child who would remind you of the worst day of your life. Why don't you have some compassion and allow a person who is a victim of in my opinion the worst crime around the opportunity to make their own choice. If you wish to advice them not to do it, do so. But the world is an awful place because people have their beliefs and try to force them onto others.

Mace MacLeod
02-06-2007, 06:45 PM
***just an FYI Jason Skywalker, there is a forum in LF dedicated to the art of serious and potentially controversial discussions.***

http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=445

The Senate Chambers have seen many abortion debates which are worth looking at for your edification. No offense intended; they need fresh opinions in there anyway. The arguments have all gotten very...same-y. What you get when only about ten people go there regularly.

And abortion is just one of those topics I personally refuse to touch.

Samnmax221
02-06-2007, 06:51 PM
I'm pretty sure we've discussed this before, in fact I know we have. Anywho, I have a deep belief in personal rights and abortion happens to be one of them. Not sure how I play it if I accidentally (and it would be an accident) knocked up a chick, but being that there are precautions in place I hopefully won't have to deal with it.

MTV2
02-06-2007, 07:00 PM
there is too many of these threads around. this has asked liked 5 times already.

I think it's the womans choice what she wants to do.

Aurora Starfire
02-06-2007, 08:07 PM
Scar, whatever they will be scarred; abortion carries a horrible price for a woman, but so would 9 months just to have a child adopted or the life sentance that would be bring up a child who would remind you of the worst day of your life. Why don't you have some compassion and allow a person who is a victim of in my opinion the worst crime around the opportunity to make their own choice.

That is why I suggested adoption as a compassionate, life-giving alternative to abortion. 9 months is not too much to ask, in my opinion, if the alternative is cruelly mutilating and murdering an infant. I feel nothing but compassion and sorrow that those women have been physically and psychologically harmed, but the damage is further compounded by abortion.

If you wish to advice them not to do it, do so. But the world is an awful place because people have their beliefs and try to force them onto others.

So, if the mother of a 13-year-old son decides to kill him (for whatever reason), she should have the right to kill him, and we mustn't try to force our beliefs onto her? Please, that just isn't going to fly.

jonathan7
02-06-2007, 08:12 PM
So, if the mother of a 13-year-old son decides to kill him (for whatever reason), she should have the right to kill him, and we mustn't try to force our beliefs onto her? Please, that just isn't going to fly.

You then stray into the debate of when life begins. Out of interest why do you believe human life to be so sacred?

Emperor Devon
02-06-2007, 10:43 PM
This thread needs a good dosage of liberalism!

I myself am pro-choice to the extreme. If a woman wants to stop her preganacy, that's none of our business. Likewise, if she chooses not to, that still isn't.

Some reasons...

(1. Illegal abortions. You can ban abortion, but is that honestly going to stop people from having them? For some it will, but not all. This will only lead to illegal ones, that will be performed in less reputable hospitals (ones that are okay with breaking the law) that tend to use low-quality means of performing the abortions, which can often be a risk to the mother (and the fetus - they may only partially work). Some countries in the world have currently banned abortion under all circumstances (Chile, for instance). Pregnant women there who just don't want a kid often get their abortions done illegally (and less safely) or go to another country to do it if they able. Such a law is not entirely enforceable, and will only harm those who break it (which they have reason to - they're not all criminals).

(2. To fall back to an old argument, personal freedom. This statement would probably shock conservative old Republicans, but it's really none of our business what a pregnant woman chooses to do with her body. In fact, abortion laws remind me a bit of George Orwell's 1984. It's a rather scary thought that the government should have the right to tell people what to do with their bodies, no?

(3. What pregnancies have women go through. I've yet to see this mentioned, but pregnancies include a large amount of weight gained, (which can't always be worked off) morning sickness, cravings for certain foods (which may not always be healthy), having to eat more often, oftentimes kicking coming from inside the torso. This lasts for about nine months, and that's not even mentioning the actual part of giving birth (I don't think there'll be any moms who'll tell you that feels pleasant). And that's excluding the inability to do certain activities, and having to give up alcohal and other foods/drinks that are harmful for babies. It's a bit much to ask a good amount of people to put up with that and possibly have long-term symptoms (such as weight gained). It would be pretty awful for the government to make you go through all that, no?

(4. The old 'human life' argument. Quite frankly, it's not a person for the majority of the pregnancy. Although it may be several days before birth, who honestly would have an abortion at such a late time. The idea that an egg with sperm smeared over it is actually a human is absurd. It has no mind, and is incapable of thought. Claiming abortion should be illegal in order to save lives is akin to passing a law against kicking rocks IMO.

(5. The child. Adoption doesn't always and can't always happen - it's not the 'solve all problems' solution most people think it is. It can be quite traumatizing for the mother to give her new child away, but be only a burden if she keeps it (financial difficulties, not ready to raise a kid, etc). A child's life is rarely pleasant when its parent never wanted to have it or don't know how to take care of it. I knew of a kid who was only born because his mom made a mistake. His life sucked, and he ended up committing suicide.

(6. Involuntary impregnation. No, this isn't just rape (though that in itself is a major reason to allow abortion). What about random disasters like condom failures? What about peer pressure to have sex, or being drunk? Some of those factors are beyond individual control (like condom failures - there were a few people at my high school that happened to). The idea someone should have to give birth due to circumstances she can't change is ridiculous.

(7. Allowing abortion doesn't mean it always has to be used in the case of rape/condom failure/whatever. Most people forget that. If someone woman gets impregnated and decides to have the kid because she's not pro-choice, that's her choice. She doesn't have to have one. However, making it a requirement that every woman be unable to is rather much.

And that's not even mentioning how most people here are guys, and teens to boot. ;)

My two cents, as always!

SITHSLAYER133
02-06-2007, 10:54 PM
IMO its the mothers choice

and if she says yes i do want it then she can have it

SithRevan
02-06-2007, 11:07 PM
I don't think once your are pregnant you should be able to have an abortion unless it is the result of a rape or the baby is ill and will likely die after birth. My motto on this subject is if you make the bed lay in it because if you did the deed it is your responsibility to bring the child into the world, care for it, and raise it. Those are just my opinions on the subject though.;)

Totenkopf
02-06-2007, 11:36 PM
If the child is merely an extension of the mother, like say her arm or kidney or lung, then no man should ever have to support a child he doesn't want. Afterall, it's her body, not his. ;)

Sabretooth
02-06-2007, 11:45 PM
The one argument that always comes against Abortion is, murder of the baby. I ask this question, if the baby is not legally born, and is still part of the mother's body, how is it possibly to kill the baby by abortion. In my opinion, people should be given full right to abortion, as long as it is carried out legally.

Jae Onasi
02-06-2007, 11:51 PM
A Momerator note: This is a challenging subject to discuss and can get flamey if we all allow our emotions to overwhelm our courtesy for each other. Please remember to double-check your posts on this topic to make sure you're not coming across in an offensive manner.

Still, I think It's kind of useless to discuss this as we are all male. Moral lectures are one thing but It's about the woman and the child.

No one here knows what kind of feelings you have when being pregnant and being a mother.

Not all of us are male here. :)
And yes, I do know what it's like to be pregnant and be a mother, having two of my own. So, I have a little something to say on this. :)

@jonathan7--life begins at conception. Granted the baby cannot live out of the womb for another 21-ish weeks at the very minimum, but this baby still has a separate life with his or her own genetic structure and functioning cell life.

I felt my babies move long before they could live outside the womb. It was an amazing moment both times. They both did different things in the womb. My daughter was more active, my son had hiccups every day for about 4 weeks before he was born.

The repeated assumption here is that because a woman has been sexually assaulted, that she's automatically going to hate the baby. That's not necessarily the case. The baby is a separate person. It is possible, and very likely, to love the baby even if that baby was the result of a terrible experience. When I look at our children, I don't see them as the product of a great night with Jimbo. I see them as separate little people with their own lives, their own personalities, and their own unique and special ways they are a part of our lives and our family.

I'm not a big fan of abortion for multiple reasons. I couldn't do it myself for religious reasons. I understand others aren't going to share that same faith, and so I can deal with the existence of legalized abortion, though I don't like it much and it's very difficult for me to resolve that. However, in our zeal to protect the rights of women, we're doing a bad job of educating these same women about the negative effects of abortion in their lives. Obviously the most negative is the death of the baby, but there are also some negative effects on the woman, too. Abortion, while generally quite safe, is not a benign procedure. While very rare, women have died during the abortion itself or have died of complications later. It can have lasting negative effects on future fertility. It frequently has emotional effects--women often feel guilt over aborting their babies, among a number of other feelings.

I understand that there are some concerns about mother's health issues, but there are very few health conditions that require actual abortion, rather than early delivery of the baby. Most of the life-threatening pregnancy conditions affect the mother in the last trimester when the baby has a good chance of surviving.

(3. What pregnancies have women go through. I've yet to see this mentioned, but pregnancies include a large amount of weight gained, (which can't always be worked off) morning sickness, cravings for certain foods (which may not always be healthy), having to eat more often, oftentimes kicking coming from inside the torso. This lasts for about nine months, and that's not even mentioning the actual part of giving birth (I don't think there'll be any moms who'll tell you that feels pleasant). And that's excluding the inability to do certain activities, and having to give up alcohal and other foods/drinks that are harmful for babies. It's a bit much to ask a good amount of people to put up with that and possibly have long-term symptoms (such as weight gained). It would be pretty awful for the government to make you go through all that, no?

(said in the nicest way....) *Jae falls out of bed laughing*
Giving up alcohol or smoking or drug abuse is bad? I should abort a baby because I might crave fresh pineapple and scrambled eggs (most cravings are generally for healthy things, actually--mine all were)? I should justify abortion because a tiny baby weighing less than 8 pounds presses his or her foot up against the inside of my ribcage for a few seconds? How hard do you think an infant can kick? Press one finger into your abdomen a little bit. That's how hard a baby's kick feels. It doesn't hurt at all, and for most of those 9 months it feels a lot like gas moving around, to be honest.

While I agree that passing a watermelon through a straw, or trying to pass one if a woman ends up with a c-section, was not my idea of a good time, there are plenty of pain-relieving options that make it much less painful. Abortion is not pain free either--the cramps from that are very painful, and if one is having a late-term abortion, the experience is the exact same as giving birth--they just happen to kill the baby before it's delivered.

If I justify aborting a fetus because it makes me puke, does that give me the right to kill my kids because when they throw up the smell also makes me puke?

This does not take into account some of the health benefits of pregnancy/childbearing. Breast cancer risk decreases 7% for every birth and 4% for every year a woman breastfeeds. In one study, researchers found that women who had given birth once were 60% less likely to develop ovarian cancer than women who had not given birth, and they also found the overall risk of ovarian cancer droped 22% for each pregnancy. Ovarian cancer is a particularly deadly cancer, and dropping my risk nearly 50% is a big deal for me.

Morning sickness, cravings, and temporary weight gain are really bad justifications for the destruction of a baby. :)

Those of us who are uncomfortable or opposed to abortion should do something constructive about that--there are plenty of crisis pregnancy centers that could use volunteer help or supplies, and mothers who could use mentoring and support for going through with the pregnancy and either keeping the baby or giving the child up for adoption.

Emperor Devon
02-07-2007, 12:17 AM
@jonathan7--life begins at conception.

That's difficult to say. There's no denying the line is quite blurry - a baby one week before birth is more of a person than sperm that made contact with an egg three seconds ago. But what about if it's going to make contact with the egg in three minutes? In three hours? There's no clear line for when life begins. (Not that it matters much, IMO)

I couldn't do it myself for religious reasons. I understand others aren't going to share that same faith, and so I can deal with the existence of legalized abortion, though I don't like it much and it's very difficult for me to resolve that.

Your personal views are your personal views. It's quite respectable when one does not attempt to force them upon others - you look to be the only pro-life person here who doesn't want to make it illegal. That's quite laudable of you. :)

Obviously the most negative is the death of the baby, but there are also some negative effects on the woman, too. Abortion, while generally quite safe, is not a benign procedure.

Of course it isn't. By all accounts it looks quite painful, but whether they have the kid or not is their business.

Giving up alcohol or smoking or drug abuse is bad? I should abort a baby because I might crave fresh pineapple and scrambled eggs (most cravings are generally for healthy things, actually--mine all were)? I should justify abortion because a tiny baby weighing less than 8 pounds presses his or her foot up against the inside of my ribcage for a few seconds?

If a woman wants to abort a baby for those reasons, great! It's her choice - certainly not the one of elected officials who are total strangers to her.

Besides, petty tyranny is the worst form of it in some respects. ;)

While I agree that passing a watermelon through a straw, or trying to pass one if a woman ends up with a c-section, was not my idea of a good time, there are plenty of pain-relieving options that make it much less painful.

Though from all accounts, not entirely painless. Either way the government has no right to decide whether people should go through that or not.

If I justify aborting a fetus because it makes me puke, does that give me the right to kill my kids because when they throw up the smell also makes me puke?

Individuals have the right to do whatever they want to their bodies. It's your choice as to what clothes to wear, whether to get tattoos, to gain weight, lose weight, etc. Since the baby is another part of the woman's body at that time, then yes, she can. Since your kids are separate individuals (and obviously not part of your body), that does not give such a right.

This does not take into account some of the health benefits of pregnancy/childbearing. {snip}

And also the trauma that may come with giving the child away, or the thousands of dollars that comes with raising one. Kids aren't cheap.

Morning sickness, cravings, and temporary weight gain are really bad justifications for the destruction of a baby. :)

No, they're not. The justification is that it's the woman's choice - and it those are her reasons, good for her.

Besides, that's only one part (and not the best of) my justifications.

Det. Bart Lasiter
02-07-2007, 12:53 AM
I'd rather have legalized abortion than the forms it has taken throughout history: women throwing themselves down stairs, amateur home abortions that resulted in the death or injury of the woman most of the time.

In addition to that, I just don't think it's any of my business - my chances of getting pregnant are slim (WHAT HAS SCIENCE DONE?!) to nil.

Aurora Starfire
02-07-2007, 01:08 AM
Thank you, Jae!! Life does begin at conception, and it's good to hear from a mother about the subject (you people listen to Jae, now. She knows what she's talking about) ;)

You then stray into the debate of when life begins. Out of interest why do you believe human life to be so sacred?

First of all, I am a Roman Catholic. I believe that God knows and loves each human being, and endows them with an immortal soul at the moment of conception. Therefore, at the moment conception occurs, that "an egg with sperm smeared over it" is not any such thing, but is, in fact, a human being, with all the rights and privileges which any of you have. This includes the right to live. I think all of you, being alive and outside of your mothers' wombs, would prefer to retain that right, am I correct?
Second of all, I am the eldest of five girls. I have experienced my mother go through pregnancy and labor one time (:D) and witnessed her go through pregnancy and labor four times beyond that. I have felt my little sisters' feet kick inside her womb, and watched them grow from conception, to infancy, into the intelligent, loving people they are today. And they were ALIVE. They were HUMAN. And have been, and still are. I have seen the truth of life at the moment of conception; I've been there, heck, I've been IT, and anyone who holds that a fetus is "merely an extension of the mother" has probably not been around an infant, or a pregnant mother, very much. Do your kidneys have a heartbeat? can they have hiccups? can they move their arms and legs? No, because they are parts of your body. An infant in the womb does all of those things. To say that a fetus is "merely an extension of the mother" is to say that one of a pair of conjoined twins is "merely an extension of the other". Just because they are linked, doesn't mean they are not at the same time separate, living, human beings.
Would you kill a ten-day-old baby? No, I thought not. Then why would you kill a ten-week-old infant fetus? A fetus who could one day be your little brother, or sister, or best friend, or son-in-law?

Individuals have the right to do whatever they want to their bodies. It's your choice as to what clothes to wear, whether to get tattoos, to gain weight, lose weight, etc. Since the baby is another part of the woman's body at that time, then yes, she can. Since your kids are separate individuals (and obviously not part of your body), that does not give such a right.
Suppose your friend who lives next door tried to cut off his head. Wouldn't you stop him from doing it? Even though he wanted to do it? In your line of reasoning, you would have no right to stop him from cutting off his own head, because "it's his body, and he can do whatever he wants to it." If you allow the line of abortion to be crossed using this excuse, where will it end? By legalizing abortion, you are only a step away from legalizing the murder of human beings outside of the womb.

(1. Illegal abortions. You can ban abortion, but is that honestly going to stop people from having them? For some it will, but not all. This will only lead to illegal ones, that will be performed in less reputable hospitals (ones that are okay with breaking the law) that tend to use low-quality means of performing the abortions, which can often be a risk to the mother (and the fetus - they may only partially work). Some countries in the world have currently banned abortion under all circumstances (Chile, for instance). Pregnant women there who just don't want a kid often get their abortions done illegally (and less safely) or go to another country to do it if they able. Such a law is not entirely enforceable, and will only harm those who break it (which they have reason to - they're not all criminals).

Manslaughter is illegal, and yet people still do it. Does that mean we should make it legal, so that people can do it more "safely"? I'm sorry, but that argument simply will not hold water.

(2. To fall back to an old argument, personal freedom. This statement would probably shock conservative old Republicans, but it's really none of our business what a pregnant woman chooses to do with her baby.

Ok, you just said "it's really none of our business what a pregnant woman chooses to do with her baby", am I right? By this statement you mean that a pregnant woman can do whatever she wants with her baby, and we shouldn't interfere. Well, what's the difference between a baby a week before birth, and a baby a week after birth? There is no difference.
Look at a seed. You plant it in the soil, and water it, and a tiny plant emerges from the seed. It hasn't even poked its head up out of the soil yet, but is it any less a plant? Of course it's a plant. You'd laugh at me if I said it wasn't a plant. And if I dug up the tiny plant, and chopped it up, and threw it away, I would have killed it. But it was still a plant. And that's what you're doing with abortion. You have dug up a tiny human being, and killed it. But just because it hasn't emerged from the womb does not make it any less a human being.

ET Warrior
02-07-2007, 02:02 AM
life begins at conception. Heck, life begins before conception. Sperm and Egg cells are certainly not dead cells. Of course, for some reason not as many people are very upset about women menstruating and destroying what had the potential to become a human being.

However, in our zeal to protect the rights of women, we're doing a bad job of educating these same women about the negative effects of abortion in their lives.We're in agreement here, though I differ in who is most at fault. Honestly, if the anti-choice crowd would put more effort into providing information, counseling, and help for pregnant women, as opposed to making their giant billboards of abortions and screaming baby killer at everyone, they might actually help reduce the number of abortions, as opposed to accomplishing nothing.

It frequently has emotional effects--women often feel guilt over aborting their babies, among a number of other feelings.There are an awful lot of emotional effects of carrying a baby to term, let alone turning around and giving that child up for adoption. postpartum depression is a serious matter, in addition to the laundry list of potential medical complications that nine months of pregnancy and child birth can produce. Even if not life-threatening, they are still severe.

Morning sickness, cravings, and temporary weight gain are really bad justifications for the destruction of a baby.Use of the term "baby" is a common tactic of the anti-choice group, babies bring to mind pictures of adorable infants, as opposed to a messy conglomeration of cells or slimy alien looking things that exist at the time of most abortions.

I shall present a scenario, let me know what you think of it. This is not my work, I borrow from Judith Jarvis Thomson.
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him."

By legalizing abortion, you are only a step away from legalizing the murder of human beings outside of the womb.Ah, my old friend, the slippery slope argument. I do love it when that one comes up.

there is always the option of putting the child up for adoption. child.There are plenty of children who are already born, and living terrible lives who would love for somebody to adopt them. Do we really need to add to the problem? Courtesy of Human Rights Watch:Throughout the world an unknown number of children, most likely in the millions, are kept in orphanages and other non-penal institutions. Many of these children are kept in grossly substandard facilities and provided with inhumane care; some are left to die. Ironically, those responsible for nurturing and providing for the children they take into their care often physically and sexually abuse the children, and subject them to other cruel and degrading treatment.

if you did the deed it is your responsibility to bring the child into the world, care for it, and raise it. Just out of curiosity, do you believe that people who get robbed deserve it? I mean, we are all aware that there are such things as burglars out there, and these burglars tend to burgle. And so, by purchasing nice things and putting them in a house you made a decision to present a burgling risk. In fact, you don't even have steel bars on your windows and a security alarm system to prevent this burglarizing. And if you perhaps wake up in the middle of the night and catch this burglar in the act, do you not have the right to call the police, or at least chase them away with a bat? What if that burglar needed to sell that TV to pay for their next meal? What if they starve to death because you wanted to protect your things (which, by the way, you failed to take adequate measures to protect)?

Diego Varen
02-07-2007, 02:06 AM
Abortion is even worse when your pregnant for several months and have the abortion then. By then, the foetus will have grown inside the womb. Also Jae, thanks for your post. It is helpful to have it discussed by someone familiar with pregnancy, etc.

Emperor Devon
02-07-2007, 02:45 AM
(you people listen to Jae, now. She knows what she's talking about) ;)

Remember, she's only one side of the fence.

First of all, I am a Roman Catholic. I believe that God knows and loves each human being, and endows them with an immortal soul at the moment of conception. Therefore, at the moment conception occurs, that "an egg with sperm smeared over it" is not any such thing, but is, in fact, a human being, with all the rights and privileges which any of you have.

Your living, human being. (http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/exhibits/imgs/conception3.jpg)

Aurora, whether you believe in God and the principles commonly associated with that is your business. Even as an atheist, I have no qualms over it. However, doesn't it seem a bit much that you wish to force these views upon millions of people, of whom many of which (myself included) disagree?

Then why would you kill a ten-week-old infant fetus? A fetus who could one day be your little brother, or sister, or best friend, or son-in-law?

Hitler's mother tried to perform an abortion on herself.

In your line of reasoning, you would have no right to stop him from cutting off his own head, because "it's his body, and he can do whatever he wants to it."

An invalid argument... This is an actual person we are talking about, whose death would affect others. Not a mindless cluster of cells.

If you allow the line of abortion to be crossed using this excuse, where will it end?

That question is far more suitable towards pro-life arguments... If the government starts telling people how to deal with pregnancies, where does that end? It's an eyebrow-raising idea when one thinks about it.

By legalizing abortion, you are only a step away from legalizing the murder of human beings outside of the womb.

'Human beings' being the key term there...

Manslaughter is illegal, and yet people still do it. Does that mean we should make it legal, so that people can do it more "safely"?

The correct term in such an instance is 'criminal homicide'. And don't be silly. That's an oxymoron. ;)

Quite frankly, some women just won't want to (and haven't wanted to) have kids. Their only solution in this instance will be to go the less than reputable hospitals, or to perform the abortion themselves. (That can be done by clubbing themselves in the torso with blunt objects)

Remember, the reason there are even laws in the first place is to keep people safe. You don't need to know much about the human anatomy to tell that's generally an unhealthy thing to do.

I'm sorry, but that argument simply will not hold water.

Depends how many months it's been carrying weight. :xp: [/Terrible pun]

Ok, you just said "it's really none of our business what a pregnant woman chooses to do with her baby", am I right?

Thanks for catching that - I've not been getting enough sleep as of recently. Blasted typos...

Of course it's a plant. You'd laugh at me if I said it wasn't a plant.

I'd laugh at you if you said it was comparable to a human. ;)

You have dug up a tiny human being, and killed it. But just because it hasn't emerged from the womb does not make it any less a human being.

Things aren't so black and white... When is it a human being? When abortion is impossible without killing it? It has a brain, bones, organs and muscles then. What about several weeks before pregnancy? It's kicking then. What about in the first few months? It looks like baby crudely made out of play-doh, and isn't quite as intelligent. What about when sperm just makes contact with the egg? It doesn't even have a brain then. Or what about when it's about to?

No one can honestly say when life begins. The fact that it's not my business as to a pregnant woman's views on that, however, is indisputable.

SithRevan
02-07-2007, 03:16 AM
Just out of curiosity, do you believe that people who get robbed deserve it? I mean, we are all aware that there are such things as burglars out there, and these burglars tend to burgle. And so, by purchasing nice things and putting them in a house you made a decision to present a burgling risk. In fact, you don't even have steel bars on your windows and a security alarm system to prevent this burglarizing. And if you perhaps wake up in the middle of the night and catch this burglar in the act, do you not have the right to call the police, or at least chase them away with a bat? What if that burglar needed to sell that TV to pay for their next meal? What if they starve to death because you wanted to protect your things (which, by the way, you failed to take adequate measures to protect)?

Somebody steeling things and somebody steeling a life are two very different things. I know in the case of somebody steeling something you would definatly have the right to defend your home, yourself and your family. Now in the case of abortion you have women who have consented to sexual interactment with a partner without using safe sex procedures (and in some cases with safe sex procedures) that get pregnant and do not want the baby so they get an abortion which I think is wrong. If you did not want to have a baby you should not have done it or if you still wanted to have sex you should have used the pill and a condom to give you at least some sort of protection.

Also, in the case of somebody burglurizing a house to sell the things they get for money to feed themselves and thier families I could understand. I am not saying I would not be mad at the person if I caught them but I would at least give them some food or money so they could feed themselves.

Emperor Devon
02-07-2007, 03:41 AM
If you did not want to have a baby you should not have done it or if you still wanted to have sex you should have used the pill and a condom to give you at least some sort of protection.

If you've read any of posts, there's a part about condom failures in them. They don't always work (there were people at my high school that happened to). And that's not even mentioning how sex can feel better without a condom.

but I would at least give them some food or money so they could feed themselves.

The best response in such an instance would be to alert the police and have the criminals hauled of for breaking the law. If stealing things is responded to by a reward, why on Earth should they stop? Leeches don't stop sucking blood when they hit a large vein. The same applies to such criminals.

Such a principle is entirely unethical. Looting, robbery, taking that which has not been earned and rewarding it is a betrayal of the human spirit, quite frankly. The best response would be for the government to help get them back on their feet so they can actually earn their next meals. If they continue to steal things, then they should naturally be put behind bars.

One must also consider the nature of people who resort to burglarly. Does someone who survives by leeching off and stealing from others really deserve any help in return for that?

Darth InSidious
02-07-2007, 07:09 AM
Some small points in answer, I hope, at least in part, to some of the points raised:

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Effect

2) In Britain pre-the 1967-ish act legalising abortion, almost all 'backstreet' abortions were performed in Harley Street surgeries (Harley Street, BTW, being where all the most expensive private surgeries tend to be...)

3) To say that the bonded sperm and egg do not constitute a person is to be 4-dimensionally narrow-minded in the extreme.

4) Judith Jarvis Thompson makes out that a baby is an unwanted, un-asked-for, unhelpful burden thrust upon the mother. Not true. 99.9% of the time, the woman CHOOSES to have sex, and should take responsibility for her own actions, IMO. Also, JJT is notoriously anti-male.

5) Almost all rape-induced pregnancies end in miscarriage.

6) If I choose you are annoying me, does that give me a right to crush your skull and then hoover you up?

7) NONE of us can live independently. We are in a symbiotic relationship with the environment around us, believe it or not. I'd be extremely surprised if any of you could survive in a vacuum beyond about 30 seconds.

Well, that's all I've got to say for now...FHL, everyone.

Jae Onasi
02-07-2007, 07:56 AM
Here's an interesting twist on this argument. Does the government have the right to force you to have abortion?

China does to control overpopulation.

Also, I heard, but have not confirmed so I may be wrong, that the UK is considering a bill that would require termination of all pregnancies where the fetus is diagnosed with Down's syndrome. I'll have to find more about that, so if you hate that idea, don't go bashing the UK just yet. :)

HerbieZ
02-07-2007, 08:42 AM
Also, I heard, but have not confirmed so I may be wrong, that the UK is considering a bill that would require termination of all pregnancies where the fetus is diagnosed with Down's syndrome. I'll have to find more about that, so if you hate that idea, don't go bashing the UK just yet. :)

Negatory. It's not and should never be an option here.

ET Warrior
02-07-2007, 10:11 AM
4) Judith Jarvis Thompson makes out that a baby is an unwanted, un-asked-for, unhelpful burden thrust upon the mother. Not true. 99.9% of the time, the woman CHOOSES to have sex, and should take responsibility for her own actions, IMO. Also, JJT is notoriously anti-male.You made up that percentage. If you didn't, I'd appreciate you cite a source to lend you some credibility, or I'll just ignore that number outright. Also, you seem to have ignored my statements about burglars, or perhaps I wasn't clear. You CHOOSE to own things that burglars might want to steal, so shouldn't YOU ALONE have to suffer the consequences of your choice to own those things? If you chase them out of your home you might be dooming them to die, and isn't all human life necessary to protect? Furthermore, just because a woman CHOOSES to have sex does NOT mean that a pregnancy is not an unwanted, un-asked for, unhelpful burden that will be thrust upon the mother.

Oh, and at what point did somebody being "anti-male" invalidate any opinions that they hold about things?

5) Almost all rape-induced pregnancies end in miscarriage.Once again, you're throwing out "statistics", but I'll ignore it unless you can provide some kind of source to back up your claims.

6) If I choose you are annoying me, does that give me a right to crush your skull and then hoover you up?Non-sequitur. This is not even remotely analogous to the current discussion.

I'd be extremely surprised if any of you could survive in a vacuum beyond about 30 seconds.Again...non-sequitur, (Though none of us could live less than 1 second in a vacuum, it still has no bearing on this discussion). You've particularly mis-labeled the relationship between fetus and mother. It is most certainly not symbiotic, but parasitic. A growing fetus provides no tangible benefits for mother. They make them sick, they steal nutrients from them, use their blood, etc.

Here's an interesting twist on this argument. Does the government have the right to force you to have abortion? No. That's every bit as terrible as the government having the right to tell you that you cannot have an abortion.

JasraLantill
02-07-2007, 10:18 AM
@Jae--I work in the NHS, and I haven't heard about any plans 'requiring' potential mothers to abort Down's syndrome foetuses. But there has been talk about 'allowing' NHS abortions when severe birth defects are detected in the last trimester, as well as a discussion about withholding life support for infants born too premature or with such substantial disabilities to have any substantial hope of ever living without permanent medical life-support assistance. This, of course, has sparked quite a stir among a lot of organisations for people with disablities, so I doubt that any kind of official 'law' will be passed anytime soon, one way or the other.

I don't normally get into these types of discussions, mostly because I figure that the 'abortion yes/no question' is one of those where the answers are always going to be pretty much based on the beliefs and/or morals of the person being asked. Opinions can be swayed fairly easily through debate, but trying to change someone's belief system is much, much more difficult.

I wouldn't consider myself strictly 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life'. The issue has far too many emotional, social, and medical aspects attached to it to have one simple solution for everyone.

Suppose my two cents to this discussion would be this: an abortion, whether illegal or legal, first trimester or last, for causes of circumstance or not, is a difficult decision for any woman to make, regardless of who is screaming on their respective podiums that it is wrong/right, moral/immoral, legal/illegal, etc., etc., etc... Thankfully, I don't live in China but in a 'free' society, where I believe it is a decision that should be made between the woman and her doctor, with the advice and support of her family, friends, and/or spiritual advisors, in accordance with legal guidelines, as applicable to her location.

((And is it just me, or does it seem like there are a disproportionate number of those who shout the loudest about this issue (not just here on LF, but just in general) who are male and thus shouldn't ever have to worry in the first place whether or not they would abort?))

Jae Onasi
02-07-2007, 10:52 AM
Again...non-sequitur, (Though none of us could live less than 1 second in a vacuum, it still has no bearing on this discussion). You've particularly mis-labeled the relationship between fetus and mother. It is most certainly not symbiotic, but parasitic. A growing fetus provides no tangible benefits for mother. They make them sick, they steal nutrients from them, use their blood, etc.


See post above for stats: pregnancy/nursing a child reduce risks of breast and ovarian cancer. The mother does get a benefit. We also get rid of periods and PMS for 9 months and sometimes longer since breastfeeding tends to suppress the menstrual cycle. Some of us think that's a great benefit.

Diego Varen
02-07-2007, 10:54 AM
Negatory. It's not and should never be an option here.

Agreed HerbieZ.

ET Warrior
02-07-2007, 11:00 AM
The mother does get a benefit. We also get rid of periods and PMS for 9 months and sometimes longer since breastfeeding tends to suppress the menstrual cycle. Some of us think that's a great benefit.And in general women's hormones during pregnancy cause them to be overly emotional (even depressed), they might end up sick every morning of every day until after child-birth (I hate throwing up once or twice a year because of sickness, I can't imagine it for 8 months), some women even DIE because of it. Reduced risk of cancer is a benefit, yes, but I would be VERY hesitant to call that a symbiotic relationship based on those aspects alone. Would you call Chicken Pox symbiotic because after it's over you're immune to the Chicken Pox?

Rogue15
02-07-2007, 11:30 AM
if the baby gets killed, the parent should die as well. in a fire. kill them both or none at all.

Ray Jones
02-07-2007, 11:35 AM
Actually, abortion and miscarriage are very close together. Some people seem to think that women who have an abortion are happy that they "got rid" of the "baby". The opposite is the fact, and in both cases it has a heavy impact on the woman's mental state. Miscarriage can be a very, very sad and bad thing to happen to a family, and so can be the necessity to decide whether abortion or not, and the abortion itself. The decision to abort a baby is often not an easy one, and I think it's another misconception in here, that women, or parents, decide by fingersnap to "get it done". Abortion of a child is a serious topic, and by all means, not a question of "killing innocent life" or not.

Who want you to decide about your life and family?


Oh, and ET you don't get sick every morning. This is totally different from woman to woman, and even pregnancy to pregnancy. During her first pregnancy, my girl wasn't sick for one single moment, believe it or not. The second pregnancy we only "discovered" because she was sick in the morning. Unfortunately, we didn't get the baby.. :.(




BTW, BIG advance of pregnancies: boobas incrediblos monumentalos ;

SithRevan
02-07-2007, 11:46 AM
If you've read any of posts, there's a part about condom failures in them. They don't always work (there were people at my high school that happened to). And that's not even mentioning how sex can feel better without a condom.

But at least if they had they would be protected somewhat.


The best response in such an instance would be to alert the police and have the criminals hauled of for breaking the law. If stealing things is responded to by a reward, why on Earth should they stop? Leeches don't stop sucking blood when they hit a large vein. The same applies to such criminals.

Such a principle is entirely unethical. Looting, robbery, taking that which has not been earned and rewarding it is a betrayal of the human spirit, quite frankly. The best response would be for the government to help get them back on their feet so they can actually earn their next meals. If they continue to steal things, then they should naturally be put behind bars.

One must also consider the nature of people who resort to burglarly. Does someone who survives by leeching off and stealing from others really deserve any help in return for that?

I agree with you that criminals should be put into jail and I never said that I would not call the police on them after I gave them the food. If you commit a crime you should get punished accordingly. I just don't like to see people suffer or fear for thier lives because they can't make ends-meat. Also I want to try to do the right thing in both cases.

Now another thing is thier family if they have one you have to consider that too. They did not do anything so if you had that burglur hauled off to jail they would likely starve or resort to other methods of getting food just like our burglur did. So I think in both cases you would be somewhat... screwed.

Aurora Starfire
02-07-2007, 12:05 PM
Remember, she's only one side of the fence.

No offense, but I haven't seen any other mothers come forward.

An invalid argument... This is an actual person we are talking about, whose death would affect others. Not a mindless cluster of cells.

As a matter of fact, an infant in the womb is also an actual person, whose death would affect others. What if your mother had aborted you before you could be born? You wouldn't be here to put forward your beliefs, which would affect all of us.

'Human beings' being the key term there...

No, "human beings outside of the womb" being the key term here.

Manslaughter is illegal, and yet people still do it. Does that mean we should make it legal, so that people can do it more "safely"?The correct term in such an instance is 'criminal homicide'. And don't be silly. That's an oxymoron.

The murderer could get hurt while he's killing his victim. My statement still stands.

Quite frankly, some women just won't want to (and haven't wanted to) have kids. Their only solution in this instance will be to go the less than reputable hospitals, or to perform the abortion themselves. (That can be done by clubbing themselves in the torso with blunt objects)

Quite frankly, I have a solution to this entire problem: If you don't want kids, abstain from sexual relationships, especially outside of marriage. I know some of you aren't going to like my solution, but there it is.

Remember, the reason there are even laws in the first place is to keep people safe.

Exactly. The problem is that there aren't any laws in place to protect human beings who have no voice in the matter, like infants in the womb.

I'd laugh at you if you said it was comparable to a human.

I wasn't comparing it to a human. You know that, and I know you know it. You just couldn't think of anything else to say to refute it :xp:

When is it a human being?

At the moment conception occurs.

Somebody steeling things and somebody steeling a life are two very different things.
Thanks for making this important distinction, SithRevan.

Non-sequitur. This is not even remotely analogous to the current discussion.
Actually, it has a lot to do with it. Because human life begins at conception, abortion is the killing of a human being, just like you are a human being, and killing the infant human being in the womb would be wrong, just like killing you would be wrong.

And in general women's hormones during pregnancy cause them to be overly emotional (even depressed), they might end up sick every morning of every day until after child-birth (I hate throwing up once or twice a year because of sickness, I can't imagine it for 8 months), some women even DIE because of it. Reduced risk of cancer is a benefit, yes, but I would be VERY hesitant to call that a symbiotic relationship based on those aspects alone. Would you call Chicken Pox symbiotic because after it's over you're immune to the Chicken Pox?

Now there's something that has nothing to do with the situation. Chicken pox??
Have you held a baby recently? Or seen a baby? Played with a baby? If you had, you'd understand why mothers go through all of that. Mostly mothers who abort their babies are first-time mothers, who haven't had a sonogram, or a chance to see or know what a baby is like. I know my mother would willingly go through all of it again, because the reward is beyond belief.

If the child is merely an extension of the mother, like say her arm or kidney or lung, then no man should ever have to support a child he doesn't want. Afterall, it's her body, not his.

If I hear another man say that it's none of his responsibility..... When a man and a woman have sex together, and that produces a child, then both the woman AND the man have a responsibility to the new life they created together. The child is not just part of a woman's body, it's part of a man's body too.

Jae Onasi
02-07-2007, 01:37 PM
And in general women's hormones during pregnancy cause them to be overly emotional (even depressed), they might end up sick every morning of every day until after child-birth (I hate throwing up once or twice a year because of sickness, I can't imagine it for 8 months), some women even DIE because of it. Reduced risk of cancer is a benefit, yes, but I would be VERY hesitant to call that a symbiotic relationship based on those aspects alone. Would you call Chicken Pox symbiotic because after it's over you're immune to the Chicken Pox?

What do you call them after they're born? Newborns still make a lot of physical demands on parents, in some ways more than during pregnancy. I had to nurse my babies every 2-3 hours and change their diapers all the time and deal with their crying and colic after they were born. I didn't have to do that before they were born. :) They didn't do a whole lot for me either before or after birth, but Jimbo and I didn't choose to have them for what they could do to benefit _us_. We had them because we wanted our family to grow, and we are happy to do the work involved in birthing and raising children. It's not a picnic 100% of the time, believe me. However, we still enjoy it the vast majority of the time.

Saying a woman in general gets over-emotional during pregnancy is over-stating the issue. Some women get over-emotional during PMS, so pregnancy benefits them. Some women get anemia from heavy periods. Pregnancy benefits them. Menstrual cramps tend to decrease and periods tend to get shorter and lighter after having babies. That's a great benefit for some of us. For some the physical relationship with their partner improves substantially during pregnancy. For many women with asthma or autoimmune problems like rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, or multiple sclerosis, being pregnant reduces their symptoms and problems dramatically, or eliminates those symptoms entirely. I wouldn't call my 50% lower risk of ovarian cancer, which is usually deadly, an unimportant thing. I may not have seen an immediate benefit while pregnant, but the chemical processes that lower the risk were happening while I was pregnant. You can hardly compare chicken pox to an often-fatal cancer.

Having had morning sickness, I can tell you it's a very strange experience, and there's no good way for me to explain it to someone who's never experienced it. It was different for each pregnancy, and my sister had a big problem with it and I didn't have it too bad. The issue varies widely from pregnancy to pregnancy and woman to woman. While barfing is barfing and it's not on my top ten list of fun things to do, you don't feel rotten like you do with stomach flu or a hangover. There were any number of times where I went to the bathroom, threw up, and then went to the kitchen and fixed a big breakfast because I then felt fine and in fact was starving. There are treatments for it if the morning sickness affects the mother to a significant degree, which is quite rare.

I actually enjoyed pregnancy for the most part--I was excited about each child that was going to join our family, and I don't know that I can adequately explain how it feels to be nurturing that life and doing positive things to help the baby grow and develop. In that respect, pregnancy was an emotional benefit to me. Both my babies responded to my voice and when I patted them through my belly, and while that's a very limited kind of relationship, it was there just the same. Now and then I still miss how it feels to have the baby moving around inside.

Some women do die in childbirth, and maternal mortality is indeed something the US needs to work on reducing--about half of those deaths are preventable with early care (e.g. identifying ectopic pregnancies early enough to treat them before they become life-threatening). The goal set by the World Health Organization is 3.3/100,000 births. However, women also die as the result of abortion--the CDC noted there was a 1.1 fatality rate per 100,000 abortions average from '72-'97. Abortion is not risk free.

Since I don't see abortion becoming illegal again, I think we do need to take steps to try to reduce it--improve contraception effectiveness, reduce the teen pregnancy rate, reduce risky behaviors that contribute to pregnancy, appropriately advise women of risks of abortion and its after-effects (we currently do a crappy job of addressing/dealing with the guilt and emotional issues that come with having an abortion), and support women better who are experiencing a crisis pregnancy.

And that's not even mentioning how sex can feel better without a condom
Without going into an inappropriate level of detail, I've heard this argument before, and it is the lamest, most idiotic excuse for not using a condom. It's also a load of BS. A microns-thin piece of latex membrane does absolutely nothing to diminish the experience. Trust me.

BTW, BIG advance of pregnancies: boobas incrediblos monumentalos
:rofl:
Too true. Jimbo didn't mind that effect one tiny bit. :brow: The effect tends to stay after pregnancy, too. :D

Negative Sun
02-07-2007, 02:36 PM
This thread needs a good dosage of liberalism!

I myself am pro-choice to the extreme. If a woman wants to stop her preganacy, that's none of our business. Likewise, if she chooses not to, that still isn't.

Some reasons...

(1. Illegal abortions...
(2. To fall back to an old argument, personal freedom...
(3. What pregnancies have women go through...
(4. The old 'human life' argument...
(5. The child...
(6. Involuntary impregnation...
(7. Allowing abortion doesn't mean it always has to be used...

And that's not even mentioning how most people here are guys, and teens to boot. ;)

By far the most sensible post in this entire thread, those analogies with murderers and burglars make no sense to your original point here...I think some of them are swaying a bit too far from the actual issue, which, in my opinion, got concluded with this post.

I'm a 20 year old male btw, but I've talked about this with my fiancée who totally agrees with me, to get another female opinion in here.

Henz
02-07-2007, 03:29 PM
I'm pro-choice.
I also think regardless of whether people think it's morally right or not, the choice HAS to be there. People against abortion can just not abort, people in favor would be stopped. I'm not promoting "abort abort abort!". Anyone considering abortion will be taking it very seriously. To take away that choice is not fair.

Ray Jones
02-07-2007, 03:39 PM
The effect tends to stay after pregnancy, too. :DHonour be to Ter Mightey Pregnancey! *bows*

Darth InSidious
02-07-2007, 03:41 PM
You made up that percentage. If you didn't, I'd appreciate you cite a source to lend you some credibility, or I'll just ignore that number outright. Also, you seem to have ignored my statements about burglars, or perhaps I wasn't clear. You CHOOSE to own things that burglars might want to steal, so shouldn't YOU ALONE have to suffer the consequences of your choice to own those things? If you chase them out of your home you might be dooming them to die, and isn't all human life necessary to protect? Furthermore, just because a woman CHOOSES to have sex does NOT mean that a pregnancy is not an unwanted, un-asked for, unhelpful burden that will be thrust upon the mother.
That's a completely silly counter-argument, and you know it.

Yes, I did estimate that figure, given that rape is pretty uncommon, and for the most part, it sexual relationships are CONSENSUAL :)

The difference is that a burglar is taking what you have worked for - sex, by comparison, is not something you work hard to achieve (unless you consider relationships hard work, in which case my advice would be to seal yourself away with your copy of World of Warcraft :) ), but something from which you derive enjoyment. Furthermore, if you don't know the risks involved in having sex, you shouldn't have it - likewise, if you leave your family silver on the window-sill, you're asking for trouble.


Oh, and at what point did somebody being "anti-male" invalidate any opinions that they hold about things?

It doesn't. It does, however, show the context of her comments, and highlight that her agenda colours her perceptions. To take an extreme example ( yes, I know it is extreme, and quoting Godwin at me in response is NOT an intelligent counter-argument), NOT mentioning her agenda would be like quoting Reinhard Heydrich and not mentioning the context of who, when, where, what he was, when it was said, to whom, in what context, etc etc. It is a basic requirement of an argument...

Once again, you're throwing out "statistics", but I'll ignore it unless you can provide some kind of source to back up your claims.

I'd like to see you list sources for all your comments, too, please, then. It cuts both ways. http://www.spuc.org.uk/students/abortion/rape
Correct, I got the actual facts of the pregnancy wrong, but guess what? A. I'm not a woman, and B. I therefore haven't been pregnant from rape. :)

Oh, and I am aware that yes, this website has an agenda. In case reading such a site is too offensive for you, the citation is Mahkorn and Dolan, Sexual Assault and Pregnancy: New Perspectives on Human Abortion, 1981.

Non-sequitur. This is not even remotely analogous to the current discussion.

Not according to the grounds for abortion in the UK. Another example: if I decide you *will* annoy me, does that give me the right to crush your skull and hoover you up? All right, not 100% analogous, but my point still stands that fundamentally, you are placing convenience before human life.

Again...non-sequitur, (Though none of us could live less than 1 second in a vacuum, it still has no bearing on this discussion).

Depends whether you took that lungful of air first :)

You've particularly mis-labeled the relationship between fetus and mother. It is most certainly not symbiotic, but parasitic.

And you'd know from personal experience?
:)

All right - what benefit does the environment get from humanity's existence? Both are parasitic, you are correct. Nonetheless, the point stands.

A growing fetus provides no tangible benefits for mother. They make them sick, they steal nutrients from them, use their blood, etc.

...Give them untold joy as they grow into an adult, etc etc...?

How is this any different to the way humanity acts towards the Earth? And I don't just mean in terms of environmental issues. You are correct in that I mislabelled the relationship between foetus and mother - I apologise. However, the point, as I said above, still stands.

http://www.afterabortion.org/rape.html - Incidentally, I found this site quite interesting, and thought you might, too :)

@Jae: Just another step toward the Brave New World of the future...

mur'phon
02-07-2007, 03:50 PM
Being an atheist and a beliver in the rights of the individual, I don't think anyone should force a pregnant woman to give birth. Helping her make the right decision for her, and telling her what you think she should do is good, but ultimately it should be her decision. In most cases, women don't wait until the last month before aborting. They do it early, and unless you belive that life start when sperm meet egg (nothing wrong with that), you can't call it murder.
As for those saying it's the womans choice, try staying in South-Africa for a while. There a lot of girls are forced to have unprotected sex with older males in order to earn enough money to survive, or because they are their current husbands and would beat them/kick them out if they refuse. A side effect of this is that they get hiv, eventualy aids, and likely their children will get it too. So, should theese women be refused the right to abortion? They choose to have unprotected sex after all.

And Jae, you are wrong if you think Devon's reason is the lamest one for not using a condom. Just look at these reason's commonly used in South-Africa, the sad thing is they are true. "Having unprotected sex with a virgin cures aids" and "I only did it to check if I was hiv positive" meaning having the girl test herself to avoid having to do it, and if positive, do it with a virgin.

Darth InSidious
02-07-2007, 04:20 PM
Being an atheist and a beliver in the rights of the individual, I don't think anyone should force a pregnant woman to give birth. Helping her make the right decision for her, and telling her what you think she should do is good, but ultimately it should be her decision. In most cases, women don't wait until the last month before aborting. They do it early, and unless you belive that life start when sperm meet egg (nothing wrong with that), you can't call it murder.
As for those saying it's the womans choice, try staying in South-Africa for a while. There a lot of girls are forced to have unprotected sex with older males in order to earn enough money to survive, or because they are their current husbands and would beat them/kick them out if they refuse. A side effect of this is that they get hiv, eventualy aids, and likely their children will get it too. So, should theese women be refused the right to abortion? They choose to have unprotected sex after all.

And Jae, you are wrong if you think Devon's reason is the lamest one for not using a condom. Just look at these reason's commonly used in South-Africa, the sad thing is they are true. "Having unprotected sex with a virgin cures aids" and "I only did it to check if I was hiv positive" meaning having the girl test herself to avoid having to do it, and if positive, do it with a virgin.
So...what's right should simply fit around what's convenient for humanity's wrongs?

In that case, I suggest you start spending 12 hrs at the gym every day, and always carry a large stick :)

EDIT: Y'know what? Believe what you will.

This debate is going nowhere, and I hate wasting time and getting nowhere :)

Q
02-07-2007, 04:22 PM
And abortion is just one of those topics I personally refuse to touch.
A wise decision. :)

Same here.

Emperor Devon
02-07-2007, 04:36 PM
Aurora, you seem happy enough to discuss this issue with me. Might I ask why you've dropped the most significant parts of it? :)

No offense, but I haven't seen any other mothers come forward.

There's some other moms at LF (not many), though they haven't posted here. A pity, it would be interesting to get, say, an atheist mother's perspective on this.

As a matter of fact, an infant in the womb is also an actual person, whose death would affect others.

It currently has no friends, no job, no role in society, no importance to the economy, and is a complete stranger to even the woman it's inside of. Not in much of a position to affect people.

What if your mother had aborted you before you could be born?

After deciding she wanted to have a kid, that would certainly be unique. I've heard of people who want kids and don't want kids, but ones who change their minds after getting pregnant is a new one (and by all accounts, quite rare).

No, "human beings outside of the womb" being the key term here.

It appears we're having a definition debate. From my perspective, it isn't a human being at that stage (reasons for why follow).

My statement still stands.

In the middle of a tar pit, metaphorically. You would consider 'safe murder' a term valid enough to debate? That belongs in a joke book, not a serious discussion. :)

Quite frankly, I have a solution to this entire problem: If you don't want kids, abstain from sexual relationships, especially outside of marriage. I know some of you aren't going to like my solution, but there it is.

Big Brother knows best! He'll tell us how to live! Let's all put our rights in his hands, because he knows best! :p

Exactly. The problem is that there aren't any laws in place to protect human beings who have no voice in the matter, like infants in the womb.

Going back to the 'what constitutes a human being?' debate. Since I think a fetus is as much a human as a rock is, there's hardly any reason to pass a law to protect it.

I wasn't comparing it to a human. You know that, and I know you know it. You just couldn't think of anything else to say to refute it :xp:

I addressed that in other parts of my post. :)

At the moment conception occurs.

Right, let's do a quick review of an egg right during conception...

Currently the egg is mass of cells that would look rather slimy in person. It currently does not possess a skeleton, a heart, a brain, etc. It is completely non-sentient and the equivalent of your average inanimate object in intelligence. It is incapable of emotion, thought, and all those qualities that separate human beings from stubs of broccoli. It has more in common with toothpaste than a living thing. Can you honestly say that is a person?

But at least if they had they would be protected somewhat.

Erm, my example?

I never said that I would not call the police on them after I gave them the food.

Let me get this straight... You'd give your own food to someone, and then have them hauled off to a place to that provides free meals? Devon is confused.

If you commit a crime you should get punished accordingly.

I would hardly call rewarding burglarly with food or cash a proportional punishment.

I just don't like to see people suffer or fear for thier lives because they can't make ends-meat.

And for that you would have people who can make ends meet suffer and possibly fear for their lives? Robberies are rarely nonviolent.

Now another thing is thier family if they have one you have to consider that too.

Yeah, the adults can go get jobs and enlist in a financial aid program. Not terribly much to ask of someone.

Ah well, this is getting off-topic. Suffice to say that crime is bad.

A microns-thin piece of latex membrane does absolutely nothing to diminish the experience. Trust me.

People I know personally would say otherwise. Without going into much detail, that can depend upon the condom and the state of what it's covering.

[Negative Sun]I think some of them are swaying a bit too far from the actual issue, which, in my opinion, got concluded with this post.[/quote]

A bit, yes. Most of the arguing I've been doing is unrelated to some of my original points.

Negative Sun
02-07-2007, 05:03 PM
A bit, yes. Most of the arguing I've been doing is unrelated to some of my original points.
That's cause you hit the nail on the head...And I don't think anyone (besides Jae maybe) is brave or stupid enough to try and argue those points.
I'd help you out but I think you've said it all, and I'm quite busy atm, but you've given me a good chuckle, it seems like common sense (or at least what I see as common sense) is scarce these days...

SithRevan
02-07-2007, 05:10 PM
Erm, my example?

Well the pill and condoms are supposed to protect against things like that right? So if they are using both they would be much safer and less likely to have this moral delema that we are here talking about.


Let me get this straight... You'd give your own food to someone, and then have them hauled off to a place to that provides free meals? Devon is confused.


I would hardly call rewarding burglarly with food or cash a proportional punishment.


And for that you would have people who can make ends meet suffer and possibly fear for their lives? Robberies are rarely nonviolent.

Ok well those last statements may have not come out how I planned them too but in anycase I would rather help somebody and resolve an issue in a non-violent way instead of getting angry, getting hurt, and possibly even being killed over something that could have been resolved.


Yeah, the adults can go get jobs and enlist in a financial aid program. Not terribly much to ask of someone.

Ah well, this is getting off-topic. Suffice to say that crime is bad.

Then why don't they? You see millions of homeless; jobless people all over the world who are barely surviving. I don't think it would be as easy as that to go out and get financial aid then in the process of that get your life back together.

Also, I do agree that crime is bad and should be dealt with definatly but you also have to understand that in some cases there are other circumstances that lead to those crimes being commited. Anyway though I agree we are getting off topic so I will just leave it alone from now on.:)

Aurora Starfire
02-07-2007, 06:40 PM
Aurora, you seem happy enough to discuss this issue with me. Might I ask why you've dropped the most significant parts of it?

Which parts did you think I dropped?

It currently has no friends, no job, no role in society, no importance to the economy, and is a complete stranger to even the woman it's inside of. Not in much of a position to affect people.

I've known some people like that :xp:

After deciding she wanted to have a kid, that would certainly be unique. I've heard of people who want kids and don't want kids, but ones who change their minds after getting pregnant is a new one (and by all accounts, quite rare).

Not as rare as one might hope. I don't suppose you've heard of George Tiller, a.k.a. "Tiller the Killer"? The stories are quite horrific. He is notorious for conducting late-term abortions.

In the middle of a tar pit, metaphorically. You would consider 'safe murder' a term valid enough to debate? That belongs in a joke book, not a serious discussion.

Well, if you're going to put my statement there, you'd better add in the term, "safe abortion", because there is very little difference between the two, which was the point I was making. Safe abortion=safe murder.

Right, let's do a quick review of an egg right during conception...
Currently the egg is mass of cells that would look rather slimy in person. It currently does not possess a skeleton, a heart, a brain, etc. It is completely non-sentient and the equivalent of your average inanimate object in intelligence. It is incapable of emotion, thought, and all those qualities that separate human beings from stubs of broccoli. It has more in common with toothpaste than a living thing. Can you honestly say that is a person?

Yes, I can. However, what I cannot do is make you understand my reasons. The reason that this "mass of cells" is a human being is that, at the moment of conception, God bestows an immortal soul upon this "mass of cells" which separates him or her from your stub of broccoli and your toothpaste. As a matter of fact, you're judging the fetus based on appearance, and what a slippery slope that is. Because the fetus, at that stage of development, does not look like a baby, does not mean that it is any less a baby. A shoot grown from an acorn does not look like an oak tree, but it is nonetheless an oak tree.

Samnmax221
02-07-2007, 06:51 PM
Safe abortion=safe murder.
Sounds like Propaganda to me.

Yes, I can. However, what I cannot do is make you understand my reasons. The reason that this "mass of cells" is a human being is that, at the moment of conception, God bestows an immortal soul upon this "mass of cells" which separates him or her from your stub of broccoli and your toothpaste.
When you come up with a way to See, hear, touch, smell, taste, or measure this "soul", we'll talk.

Aurora Starfire
02-07-2007, 07:10 PM
Sounds like Propaganda to me.

I was just simplifying my statement without explaining it all over again. But if you want propaganda, try this: "It's her body. It's her choice." People who believe in "choice" don't consider this fact: If an aborted child was given a chance to speak for himself, what do you think his choice would be? Would he choose death for his body? This is what you're really saying: "It's her choice. It's her child's body."

When you come up with a way to See, hear, touch, smell, taste, or measure this "soul", we'll talk.

My apologies. I forgot to clarify. I don't expect anyone who does not believe in God to understand my reasons. This whole issue is a matter of belief, whether you believe the fetus is a human being, or whether you believe the fetus is a piece of broccoli. I cannot force you to accept my belief, but neither can you force me to accept yours.

SilentScope001
02-07-2007, 08:50 PM
I was just simplifying my statement without explaining it all over again. But if you want propaganda, try this: "It's her body. It's her choice." People who believe in "choice" don't consider this fact: If an aborted child was given a chance to speak for himself, what do you think his choice would be? Would he choose death for his body? This is what you're really saying: "It's her choice. It's her child's body."

I think the fetus could choose to follow the will of the mother in this case. The mother knows what is in the best interest of the fetus, and the fetus will defer to her judgment on wheter the fetus wants to live or die.

Law states that if there is a person in a vegitvite state without a living will, then those who are connected to this person gets to represent the person, since they know this person and be able to decide what is in the person's best interest, what this person would want. It starts with spouse, and then move to family members, like parents.

So, using this law, if a person is a fetus, it is the mother who gets to decide, since the fetus is unable to communicate its desicion, and the mother, having a close connection to the fetus, would be able to accurately represent the wishes and desires of the fetus. If the female believes that fetus wants to die (because the fetus may not want to be a burden to the female, or if the fetus does not want to live in a world where he may not be taken care of very well), then it should express that wish and have the fetus die.

By forcing the fetus to live, you are not giving the fetus and the woman representing the fetus the right to choose. I think. Maybe, I'm wrong.
--
...Me, I don't care. This issue is distracting from the more important points...or not. Fact is, it cause a lot of conterversy and mayhem...and I'm sure future generations will just laugh at us.

Future Person 1: "Bah, people blow up abortion clincs, protests quite reguraly, and send up lawsuits up to the Superme Court...just to save a couple of fetuses?"

Future Person 2: "Hey, it's better than those NOW freaks who do pretty stupid protests and boycotts for something so insiginficant."

Furture Person 1: "Glad that we are civilized beings. Now to return to the topic of apples and organes..."

Future Person 2: "The Republican Army of Oranges has been oppressed for generations! It is up to the Democratic Knights of Apples to give up its crusade and stop the killing!"

ET Warrior
02-07-2007, 09:00 PM
Oh, and ET you don't get sick every morning.Yes, this is true. However there ARE women who do get sick every morning. There are women who end up so debilitated they can barely leave their homes during the last months of their pregnancy. Medical complications are not uncommon during pregnancy. There are many very tangible dangers in carrying a child to term.

This actually brings back into play the Violinist example, which was generally ignored earlier. What happens if you get drunk at a party and wake up and I have plugged myself into your circulatory system because otherwise I will die. You didn't ask for this to happen, but that is one of the inherent risks with drinking too much. Shoot, it might even be something that could happen to you just for falling asleep without adequately protecting yourself from people kidnapping you. Do you have the moral obligation to let me use your body's nutrients to keep my life going? I even have a voice! I am represented. I say I want to live, don't unplug me!

Yes, it would be extremely nice of you to keep me hooked up until my body started working again, but should you not have the RIGHT to say no? To say that your body is yours and I am not allowed to leech off of you?

What if your mother had aborted you before you could be born? You wouldn't be here to put forward your beliefs, which would affect all of us.In all honesty, if my parents had not wanted me, if I would have been an undue burden on the family, or if they had honestly just decided that they couldn't handle another kid, then they should have had an abortion. I never would have known, so how could I be upset about it? I currently love my family enough to know that I would want whatever had been best for them, be that having me or not.

Actually, it has a lot to do with it. Because human life begins at conception, abortion is the killing of a human being, just like you are a human being, and killing the infant human being in the womb would be wrong, just like killing you would be wrong.Actually, even if I accept your assertion that at conception the zygote is a full human with right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it STILL isn't comparable. If I am annoying him, he can leave. If I follow him, he can get a restraining order. These options are not exactly available to pregnant mothers. Furthermore, no matter how annoying I am, I am not leeching off of his body's nutrients to sustain myself. I am not taking up residence INSIDE of his body. I am not creating additional health risks, I'm not preventing him from working or going to school. The analogy does not hold.
Now there's something that has nothing to do with the situation. Chicken pox??That analogy was in relation to Jae's comment that a benefit of child birth was protection against certain types of cancers, making it not an entirely parasitic relationship. My rebuttal is that there ARE benefits from getting some diseases, but we don't call Chicken Pox a symbiote.
If you had, you'd understand why mothers go through all of that.Actually I have. I've got LOTS of family, and a lot of cousins, and plenty of them are and have been having kids for awhile. I don't really LIKE babies. They are highly overrated. And the benefits are not universal. Not all people want babies. Not all people love children. That's why abortion is an option and not a requirement.
If I hear another man say that it's none of his responsibility..... When a man and a woman have sex together, and that produces a child, then both the woman AND the man have a responsibility to the new life they created together. The child is not just part of a woman's body, it's part of a man's body too.What if you hear another woman say it? What if that other woman was you...like...a page ago?
And please, it's not "the child of a rapist". That child is the child of the woman who carries him.

What do you call them after they're born? Newborns still make a lot of physical demands on parents, in some ways more than during pregnancy.But there is still a major distinction at this point. If your child is misbehaving or causing undue stress, they can be put in one room, while you walk to the other room, and you are occupying different spaces. If you eat a hamburger, they aren't taking the nutrients from that food for their own. It is highly unlikely that any of their actions will result in you being rushed to the hospital to have your abdomen sliced open.
I actually enjoyed pregnancy for the most part--I was excited about each child that was going to join our family, and I don't know that I can adequately explain how it feels to be nurturing that life and doing positive things to help the baby grow and develop.But you WANTED children. You weren't dealing with the anxiety of potentially having a kid when you don't even know who the father is, when you're still trying to get through high school, when you have no method of supporting this child, when being out of work during pregnancy will result in lost income that could put you out on the street, or when you just deep down can't STAND kids. It's important to understand that not everybody is going to HAVE the same feelings that you do about pregnancy and child birth.

I actually have a friend who dated a girl for awhile, and then found out she was a single mother (They were both 21 at the time). As soon as he found out that she had a kid he couldn't keep dating her. He was only 21, he was in college, he just couldn't do it. Do you think that girl doesn't resent her child at times? How many single men her age are interested in dating into a family?
A microns-thin piece of latex membrane does absolutely nothing to diminish the experience. Trust me.And from experience, I can certainly state that is an incorrect assertion. I certainly think the reduction in the experience is worth the reduced chance of pregnancy, but there IS a difference.

That's a completely silly counter-argument, and you know it.I don't think it's silly at all. I am being GENUINELY serious here. Why is the risk of sex such that if we take the risk and get burned it's a "Too bad, so sad, deal with it" problem, but taking the risk of getting robbed such that we can chase of the robber, or call the cops and get our things back?
Yes, I did estimate that figure, given that rape is pretty uncommon, and for the most part, it sexual relationships are CONSENSUALSo you have never, EVER looked into rape statistics then? rape is uncommon? Despite the fact that one out of every six women in the United States is the victim of Sexual Assault, in 2004-2005, there were an average annual 200,780 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault, and Every two and a half minutes, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted. source. (http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html) Those statistics don't even take into account sex that may not have been entirely consensual, but wasn't reported so it doesn't make it to the statistics pages. In fact, some statistics suggest only 16% of rapes are reported. source. (http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php)
The difference is that a burglar is taking what you have worked forNot everybody works for their things. What if my TV was a gift from my extremely rich uncle? I didn't have to do anything for it, but I still put it in my living room as a lure for those darn burglars.
It does, however, show the context of her comments, and highlight that her agenda colours her perceptions.Well if her perceptions are so colored by her she-woman-man-hating behavior, then feel free to point out why the violin player analogy is flawed.
I'd like to see you list sources for all your comments, too, please, then. It cuts both ways.I generally make efforts to provide sources to actual statistics or quotes that I bring into any argument that are not purely of my own device. If I have failed to do that at some point please point that out so I can correct my mistake. I don't generally make up numbers without making it obvious that they are fabrications used for emphasis.
Not according to the grounds for abortion in the UK. Another example: if I decide you *will* annoy me, does that give me the right to crush your skull and hoover you up? All right, not 100% analogous, but my point still stands that fundamentally, you are placing convenience before human life.It is STILL a non-sequitur, though I will point out that the violinist analogy brings to light your point of "convenience" before human life.
All right - what benefit does the environment get from humanity's existence? Both are parasitic, you are correct. Nonetheless, the point stands.Except that the "environment" is a descriptor that we humans have given to a complex system of parasites, symbiotes, and all other manner of creatures. The fact that we exist off of the "environment" is merely an artifact of the existence of the "environment", and the fact that humans are a part of it. So again, non-sequitur, this does not compare to an organism living parasitically off of another organism.
...Give them untold joy as they grow into an adult, etc etc...?Which is not a universal benefit of having children. Children can DESTROY the lives of the mothers who have them. They can TAKE the lives of the mothers. Not every person will get any joy from having children, let alone "untold joy". This is the point of having a choice. Some people simply should not be having children. They then have the option of abortion. Some people will gain GREAT benefit from it, and they choose NOT to have an abortion.
foetus and motherI appreciate the...subtle attempt at spelling correction, but fetus is an acceptable alternate spelling.

God bestows an immortal soul upon this "mass of cells" which separates him or her from your stub of broccoli and your toothpaste.Separation of Church and State.

Aurora Starfire
02-07-2007, 10:00 PM
You don't like babies or children? Ah, well that explains it.

Separation of Church and State.
I already said I didn't expect any of the rest of you to share my belief.

In all honesty, if my parents had not wanted me, if I would have been an undue burden on the family, or if they had honestly just decided that they couldn't handle another kid, then they should have had an abortion. I never would have known, so how could I be upset about it? I currently love my family enough to know that I would want whatever had been best for them, be that having me or not.
So you'd prefer to be dead if your birth would have been a strain on your family's budget? I find that rather hard to believe. And, actually, based upon what I've said before, you would have known, because everyone has an immortal soul, destined for heaven. I know you likely don't believe this, but I do.


If I hear another man say that it's none of his responsibility..... When a man and a woman have sex together, and that produces a child, then both the woman AND the man have a responsibility to the new life they created together. The child is not just part of a woman's body, it's part of a man's body too.
What if you hear another woman say it? What if that other woman was you...like...a page ago?
And please, it's not "the child of a rapist". That child is the child of the woman who carries him.
I'm sorry, I phrased that poorly. Let me try again: "And please, it's not 'the child of a rapist'. That child is also the child of the woman who carries him." Both the man and the woman have responsibility. Not just the man, and not just the woman, but BOTH of them. Thanks for catching that; I was on my way out the door when I posted ;)

I believe I've stated my views on this subject fairly clearly. As I said before, I cannot force any of you to accept my views, but neither can you force me to accept yours.

What it comes down to, is this: If you believe in God, then it matters a great deal whether a fetus is aborted or not. If you don't, then it doesn't matter whether mothers choose to abort their children, because life has no meaning, no purpose.

ET Warrior
02-07-2007, 10:19 PM
You don't like babies or children? Ah, well that explains it.I will assume that remark is somehow intended to imply that my support for a woman's right to choose is somehow linked to my personal feelings towards infants? I assure you that is not the case.

So you'd prefer to be dead if your birth would have been a strain on your family's budget? I find that rather hard to believe. And, actually, based upon what I've said before, you would have known, because everyone has an immortal soul, destined for heaven. I know you likely don't believe this, but I do.I don't quite see why that is hard to believe. According to everything that I live my life by, I would never have known the difference, so I would prefer the people I love the most in my life wouldn't have been overly inconvenienced.
However, if I am to believe what you say here, it seems like I may have been better off anyway. If what I know about Christianity to be true, then my current beliefs and lifestyles are going to earn me a ticket to eternal damnation. If I'd been aborted I would've gotten a "Get out of Hell Free" card and been on the fast pass to eternal paradise. Seems like a pretty good deal.

I believe I've stated my views on this subject fairly clearly. As I said before, I cannot force any of you to accept my views, but neither can you force me to accept yours.The best part of my beliefs is that not everyone has to believe them. Merely respect them.

Jae Onasi
02-07-2007, 11:31 PM
Law states that if there is a person in a vegitvite state without a living will, then those who are connected to this person gets to represent the person, since they know this person and be able to decide what is in the person's best interest, what this person would want. It starts with spouse, and then move to family members, like parents.
So, using this law, if a person is a fetus, it is the mother who gets to decide, since the fetus is unable to communicate its desicion, and the mother, having a close connection to the fetus, would be able to accurately represent the wishes and desires of the fetus. If the female believes that fetus wants to die (because the fetus may not want to be a burden to the female, or if the fetus does not want to live in a world where he may not be taken care of very well), then it should express that wish and have the fetus die.
By forcing the fetus to live, you are not giving the fetus and the woman representing the fetus the right to choose. I think. Maybe, I'm wrong.


This is applicable when the person is in a _persistant_ vegetative state with no hope for recovery. An embroyo will not remain in a persistant vegetative state (unless it has some sort of disease or malformation), it will grow and develop and become a functioning human. This law therefore does not apply to fetuses.

@Emperor Devon--that first cell after conception may not be able to live outside the womb for another 21-22 weeks at the bare minimum. However, it has its own unique DNA pattern, its own cell structure, and by 10 weeks gestation will have its own heart that's beating.


This actually brings back into play the Violinist example,
This is an entirely inapplicable example. An adult trying to leech off another adult is wholly unlike what happens during pregnancy.

It is highly unlikely that any of their actions will result in you being rushed to the hospital to have your abdomen sliced open.
Good heavens, that is very dramatic. My c-section scar is a whole whopping 5 inches long if that. I hardly characterize that as having my abdomen 'sliced open'.

But you WANTED children. You weren't dealing with the anxiety of potentially having a kid when you don't even know who the father is, when you're still trying to get through high school, when you have no method of supporting this child, when being out of work during pregnancy will result in lost income that could put you out on the street, or when you just deep down can't STAND kids. It's important to understand that not everybody is going to HAVE the same feelings that you do about pregnancy and child birth.

Frankly, if I were in a situation where I just could not afford or did not want kids, I would not leave my fertility up to anyone else. I'd be taking care of my own contraception and not leaving it up to the man.

If I'd been in that situation in high school/college, couldn't stand kids, or couldn't afford to bring up the child, I would have given the child up for adoption. It's highly unlikely that post-partum recovery would put someone out on the street. That's where crisis pregnancy centers come in as a safety net--they provide a place to stay for women in difficult situations, and help them with baby supplies and so forth. Government agencies would provide intervention for the safety of the mother and child both. Furthermore, if a woman is in a low-income situation, medicaid (the american version) takes care of the woman and child's healthcare through the post-partum period for the woman and through childhood for the child. Women cannot be fired for giving birth because of FMLA (among other laws). The concern about a woman being out on the street after giving birth, while laudable, is happily largely unfounded because it would take an extraordinarily bizarre set of circumstances for that to happen. In addition, women do have to take some time off work after an abortion to recover from that procedure as well.

How many single men her age are interested in dating into a family? One of my best friends in undergrad did just that at age 23. He fell in love with a terrific gal who had had 2 kids from a previous marriage. Albert Pujols (Cardinals first baseman) at age 19 married a woman who had had a baby with Down's. Not every guy wants to marry a woman with kids and create an insta-family. However, plenty of guys do indeed do just that.

And from experience, I can certainly state that is an incorrect assertion. I certainly think the reduction in the experience is worth the reduced chance of pregnancy, but there IS a difference.Whew. If you can actually make the quantitative observation in the middle of The Wild Thang that something that is .0019 inches thick makes it X% less enjoyable than without, you've got a hell of a lot more willpower than I do. :)

They can TAKE the lives of the mothers.About 5-7/100,000 births. Risk of death from abortion is about 1.1/100,000 abortions over the last 20 years. The risk of a fatal car crash is 14-15/100,000. Your risk of getting struck by lightning is about .16/100,000. All of these are really small numbers, and I'm not quite sure what the excitement is all about. A woman has a small amount of risk of dying whether she carries the child to term or has an abortion, she merely trades one risk for the other.

SilentScope001
02-07-2007, 11:34 PM
This is applicable when the person is in a _persistant_ vegetative state with no hope for recovery. An embroyo will not remain in a persistant vegetative state (unless it has some sort of disease or malformation), it will grow and develop and become a functioning human. This law therefore does not apply to fetuses.

But I was trying to defend your position here. :xp: And according to several family members, there is the hope of recovery from comas that look suspiciously like PVS, but not really, therefore, it would be impossible to tell if it is a coma or a PVS, so let the person live.

I do think this law should be used as a guiding post however. After all, if a living person is unable to communicate his wishes, then his "next-of-kin" who knows what this living person wants should decide what is in the person's "best interest". It is only fair, we don't want to disrespect the living person's wishes unintentionally, and having the "next-of-kin" relate the wishes is a good way of making sure we respect the wishes of the person who is unable to communicate.

Emperor Devon
02-07-2007, 11:46 PM
Which parts did you think I dropped?

Parts #3-7, the majority of all my arguments.

I don't suppose you've heard of George Tiller, a.k.a. "Tiller the Killer"?

I have. He's managing a business, something well within his rights to do. If he has customers, he provides his services for them. He certainly doesn't force them upon people.

The stories are quite horrific.

Agreed. The audacity of Rachelle Shannon is disgusting. It's one thing to disagree with Tiller, but trying to kill him?

Well, if you're going to put my statement there, you'd better add in the term, "safe abortion", because there is very little difference between the two, which was the point I was making. Safe abortion=safe murder.

As proven later, that argument is invalid. At that point the fetus bears no human traits other this "immortal soul" (which you have been unable to prove the existence of). Since we can only debate with facts that are actually that (and not beliefs related to the supernatural), there is no way you can logically say that a fetus is a person. Thus abortion is not a form of murder.

at the moment of conception, God bestows an immortal soul upon this "mass of cells"

When you come up with a way to See, hear, touch, smell, taste, or measure this "soul", we'll talk.

Until you can do that, your argument carries no merit. We might as well debate the existence of shadow people.

it has its own unique DNA pattern, its own cell structure, and by 10 weeks gestation will have its own heart that's beating.

As do rats, moles, vermin, and other non-sentient and non-human mammals.

Det. Bart Lasiter
02-08-2007, 12:00 AM
Until you can do that, your argument carries no merit. We might as well debate the existence of shadow people.
I believe the correct term is "African-American" :)

Aurora Starfire
02-08-2007, 12:03 AM
*sigh* As I said before, I don't expect you to believe me, and I can't make you. I've laid out my case, and you've laid out yours. If we go much further, it will descend into mere arguing, if it hasn't done so already.

PS--You're defending Tiller?? Dear me..... there are few people I can think of who commit more atrocious acts than he does.

Samuel Dravis
02-08-2007, 12:17 AM
What it comes down to, is this: If you believe in God, then it matters a great deal whether a fetus is aborted or not. If you don't, then it doesn't matter whether mothers choose to abort their children, because life has no meaning, no purpose.What? Where did you pull this false dilemma from? The existance of God doesn't affect the value of a human life, nor do circumstances or anything else. I find it questionable how many people pull religion into this argument. It's not necessary and never has been; doing so only serves to make people ignore you since they realize you don't have a rational argument.

I think that everyone has inherent value. Sometimes that value may be outweighed (rarely!) by other factors, such as in self-defense, but even then the value of the attacker's life stays the same.

When talking about abortion we need to know whether the life is a person or not in order to make decisions based on that. So you see, I am against abortion not because it is against God's wishes, but because I believe there are not sufficient checks on the process to prevent a person from being harmed. Due to the vague nature of "personhood" it is very hard to determine that with reliability, so I tend to go to the least common denominator in order to avoid any possible harm to innocents. I accept that some people will disagree with me, but that's a problem of the different values people place on things, not arguements.

Emperor Devon
02-08-2007, 12:25 AM
I believe the correct term is "African-American" :)

Shadow people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_people)

*sigh* As I said before, I don't expect you to believe me, and I can't make you. I've laid out my case, and you've laid out yours. If we go much further, it will descend into mere arguing, if it hasn't done so already.

Makes me wonder why you even bothered in the first place. :)

Silence is concession, btw. :p

PS--You're defending Tiller?? Dear me..... there are few people I can think of who commit more atrocious acts than he does.

If you wish to debate Tiller's actions with me, please try and use logic and actual evidence to support your claims... Saying he commits "atrocious acts" is merely an unprovable opinion.

Aurora Starfire
02-08-2007, 12:53 AM
What? Where did you pull this false dilemma from? The existance of God doesn't affect the value of a human life, nor do circumstances or anything else. I find it questionable how many people pull religion into this argument. It's not necessary and never has been; doing so only serves to make people ignore you since they realize you don't have a rational argument.

I think that everyone has inherent value. Sometimes that value may be outweighed (rarely!) by other factors, such as in self-defense, but even then the value of the attacker's life stays the same.

When talking about abortion we need to know whether the life is a person or not in order to make decisions based on that. So you see, I am against abortion not because it is against God's wishes, but because I believe there are not sufficient checks on the process to prevent a person from being harmed. Due to the vague nature of "personhood" it is very hard to determine that with reliability, so I tend to go to the least common denominator in order to avoid any possible harm to innocents. I accept that some people will disagree with me, but that's a problem of the different values people place on things, not arguements.

Well, people asked why I consider life so sacred, so I told them ;)
I knew that including religion in my reasoning would cause some people to automatically disregard my arguments, but nevertheless, I'm not going to hide any of my reasons. I believe that all life is sacred, including life inside the womb, and my religion happens to play a part in that belief. If others choose to disregard my statements because of my religious beliefs, so be it.

Thank you, though, for standing up for life. Your arguments are good ones.

Makes me wonder why you even bothered in the first place.
Because, as you said, silence is concession.
If good men say nothing, then evil prevails.
And I'm not going to simply be quiet, I'm just going to stop answering arguments I've already answered. If something new comes up, I'll offer my opinion on the matter.

About Tiller, I'm trying to stay out of trouble and not go into graphic details about what he does, but suffice it to say that he performs what's known as "partial-birth abortions", which is the killing of fetuses which could survive outside of the womb. If they were to be delivered, then they would then be considered persons by those of you who don't believe fetuses are persons.

Emperor Devon
02-08-2007, 01:59 AM
I'm just going to stop answering arguments I've already answered. If something new comes up, I'll offer my opinion on the matter.

More like something old which never came up. My original arguments mention personal freedom, involuntary pregnancy, the downsides of adoption, and personal beliefs being imposed on the impersonal.

But that's your choice. I've already said all there really is to say on the matter, which the pro-life side of the issue, time and time again, has been unable to sufficiently refute.

suffice it to say that he performs what's known as "partial-birth abortions",

...which, I may point out, is done entirely due to a pregnant woman's decision. If Tiller didn't perform her abortion, chances are she'd just go to another clinic, or worse yet, possibly try to perform it herself. To blame Tiller is like a blaming a gun for shooting someone rather than the person who fired it.

If they were to be delivered, then they would then be considered persons

Inherently flawed logic. If the mother waited a few more weeks or months, they would be people. Were the mother to go along with her pregnancy for 9 months, they would be people. Were she not to use a condom/pills, there would be more people.

One of the problems with such an argument is the question 'where is it really murder?' Is it murder if the mother uses a condom/pills? Either way she's just stopped a person from existing - just the same as if she took a pill or had an abortion after having sex. She's stopped a person from coming into being either way, and it feels no physical pain one way or another. Is it murder for a woman to say 'no' if someone asks her to have sex? It goes back and back...

The only refute in pro-life arguments seems to be the immortal soul one... Which, conveniently, is entirely unprovable but entirely undeniable. ;)

Totenkopf
02-08-2007, 03:07 AM
@Aurora--I was being a bit toungue in cheek, hence the smiley. The underlying point though is not entirely invalid. If the father has no legal right to decide the disposition of the unborn child, neither should he then have any legal responsibilities upon its birth. I agree with the sentiment, though, that if you broke it you bought it. Afterall, making babies IS a team sport. :)

@ED--you do realize that she was talking about "partial birth" abortions, right? The only thing seperating that child from full legal rights is about a few minutes in the wrong place at the wrong time. ;)

@ET--your violin analogy only seems to work if the pregnancy in question results from rape or unintended sex (drunk sex, etc...). Otherwise it falls flat as even the statistics you cite show that the vast majority of sex appears in fact to be concensual. Not to mention, that there was nothing in that info that spoke to the numbers of pregnancies resulting from those alleged and/or conjured numbers of rapes. Fact is, the vast majority of abortions are not physically necessary, just convenient (except for the fetus/child of course). Also, your burglary argument is strained and applies only, once again, if comparing it to instances of rape. Otherwise, we're predominantly talking about consensual sex, where both parties are responsible for preventing unwanted pregnancies. If you're too worried about a "mistake", perhaps you should find other ways to "relieve the pressure" (cold shower, exercise.....get your mind out of the gutter. ;) )

The best part of my beliefs is that not everyone has to believe them. Merely respect them.
--actually, umm, no. Only respect your right to hold them.

Darth InSidious
02-08-2007, 07:15 AM
I don't think it's silly at all. I am being GENUINELY serious here. Why is the risk of sex such that if we take the risk and get burned it's a "Too bad, so sad, deal with it" problem, but taking the risk of getting robbed such that we can chase of the robber, or call the cops and get our things back?
You don't agree to be burgled. And as I said, if you leave the family silver on the window sill with the same window open, you're asking for trouble.

As I also said, for the most part, sex is a consensual decision. Unless women in the US are in the habit of showing off their genitals, and men are equally in the habit of sticking their dicks into the same areas without so much as a by-your-leave...

So you have never, EVER looked into rape statistics then? rape is uncommon? Despite the fact that one out of every six women in the United States is the victim of Sexual Assault, in 2004-2005, there were an average annual 200,780 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault, and Every two and a half minutes, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted. source. (http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html) Those statistics don't even take into account sex that may not have been entirely consensual, but wasn't reported so it doesn't make it to the statistics pages.

First of all, I'm not American, and in my country, the conviction rate for rape is still 7%.

Secondly, those statistics are quite clearly skewed. Unless most of what we hear about your country, and more specifically the Deep South is true...?

Third, define 'sexual assault'. As a phrase you can bend it to many meanings. Let us say it means 'non-consensual sexual acts' - sexual acts that both parties did not consent to - sexual acts one or another party didn't want to partake in. It's an easy warping to make, and results in blown-up stats like that.

To say nothing of 'attempted rape', a phrase which is distinctly vague, and could mean just about anything from a look in a direction the woman in question didn't like upwards.

Also, it isn't exactly unknown for women to make accusations of rape purely out of revenge, or for another quite petty reason. For example, a fair few years back in this country, a man was jailed because three girls accused him of sexually assaulting them as an excuse for being late to a class.

Further more, even your own source must admit that the number of assaults has fallen since 1993 by 69%.

I'd also be interested in knowing where, and from what kind of sample they compiled their statistics.

Stats are also notoriously easy to manipulate to your own ends. I hope I don't need to quote Clements on the three types of lies.

Also, even assuming you are correct, surely this indicates that sexual relations and life issues have become far too trivialised in western society, to the point where such things can be so widespread, and that a casual attitude to sex has far-reaching consequences?

In fact, some statistics suggest only 16% of rapes are reported. source. (http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php)

How would you know if they aren't reported? That's like saying that one in five people are completely invisible, inaudible and intangible to everyone else.

Not everybody works for their things. What if my TV was a gift from my extremely rich uncle? I didn't have to do anything for it, but I still put it in my living room as a lure for those darn burglars.
Nonetheless, there are precautions you can take in both instances, and once again you assume that a woman has no choice in the matter. At the very least she can dress in a way that doesn't provoke unwanted interest. For the most part, no woman is completely inculpable when it comes to whom she allows to stick their bits into her.

Oh, and stop distorting the issue. This is about abortion, not rape. And the number of women who even get to conception after rape due to the shock is extremely low, let alone the number who get much further in their pregnancy.

Once again, I refer you to Mahkorn and Dolan, Sexual Assault and Pregnancy: New Perspectives on Human Abortion, 1981.

Well if her perceptions are so colored by her she-woman-man-hating behavior, then feel free to point out why the violin player analogy is flawed.

That's a glib response which doesn't answer my point. In the violin player instance, you didn't know it was a risk of what you were doing. You would have to be pretty ignorant not to know what the possible consequences of sex are...

I generally make efforts to provide sources to actual statistics or quotes that I bring into any argument that are not purely of my own device. If I have failed to do that at some point please point that out so I can correct my mistake. I don't generally make up numbers without making it obvious that they are fabrications used for emphasis.
First off, congratulations on directing me to other sites which don't actually provide any explanations of where they got their statistics from. Very clever, I'm sure.

Secondly, enough with the superior attitude and loaded language. Or did you think I hadn't noticed? And please, don't claim that your use of language isn't deliberately derogatory - it's quite obvious you aren't stupid enough to use the word 'spouting' without knowing damn well about its negative connotations.

Third, using reason, and the grey matter between our ears, we can ESTIMATE numbers, and so come to a reasonable approximation, which is what I did.

Fourth, I'm arguing with someone on a forum. Do you really think total accuracy matters? It's not like I'm writing a paper for the Royal Society - I'm arguing the toss with someone who I don't know, and whose opinions frankly have no bearing upon my life.

It is STILL a non-sequitur, though I will point out that the violinist analogy brings to light your point of "convenience" before human life.
Except that the "environment" is a descriptor that we humans have given to a complex system of parasites, symbiotes, and all other manner of creatures.

Just like your body.

The fact that we exist off of the "environment" is merely an artifact of the existence of the "environment", and the fact that humans are a part of it. So again, non-sequitur, this does not compare to an organism living parasitically off of another organism.
But it is. We actively engage in things that harm the environment, and unlike the other relationships, give very little back. At present, the amount of harm we do is quite considerable.

Which is not a universal benefit of having children. Children can DESTROY the lives of the mothers who have them. They can TAKE the lives of the mothers.

They can also not do so.

As far as I am aware, and I admit that I am not well versed in this matter, the number of deaths in childbirth in this day and age are pretty miniscule. And homewrecking children are usually the result of badparenting, AFAIK. No doubt Jae can set one or the other of us right on this.

Not every person will get any joy from having children, let alone "untold joy". This is the point of having a choice. Some people simply should not be having children. They then have the option of abortion. Some people will gain GREAT benefit from it, and they choose NOT to have an abortion.
But when abortion is foisted as the best way to go, and several of my friends and family have had it practically forced down their throats that they should have abortions, it is not a fair choice. Further more, if it is a human life, what right have you to take away someone who may be the next Einstein. Sure they may not be, but is it worth the risk? Don't be so temporally narrow-minded.

I appreciate the...subtle attempt at spelling correction, but fetus is an acceptable alternate spelling.
Not if you've studied Greek ;)

Jae Onasi
02-08-2007, 09:50 AM
But that's your choice. I've already said all there really is to say on the matter, which the pro-life side of the issue, time and time again, has been unable to sufficiently refute.
The only refute in pro-life arguments seems to be the immortal soul one... Which, conveniently, is entirely unprovable but entirely undeniable. ;)
At the point that the cell has a DNA pattern unique from either mother or father, it's become a separate person. The fact that the baby cannot yet live on his or her own is not relevent to his or her personhood.
Abortion, particularly the late-term partial birth abortions, show a society's disregard for the right to live. Where do you draw the line at personhood? Conception? When the heart starts beating? When the fetus feels pain? When s/he can live outside the womb? When s/he's born? When the mother decides she wants to keep the baby after s/he's born? Conception is the definitive point in time where that person is formed. Just because it doesn't have all his or her parts yet does not mean s/he's any less a person. That's like saying a 5-month-old is not a person because s/he can't speak normally.
That being said, I can live with early term abortions, if unhappily. I don't like it, I'd never do it, and I'll work to help gals find alternatives, but I can grudgingly live with it. The very late-term abortions I strenuously object to. If you've carried a child 38 weeks and decide you don't want the child, just have the baby and give it up for adoption. Partial-birth abortions are barbaric in how they are conducted and in principle, and they are nothing more than a blatant example of the violence we allow in this culture. It is a very painful procedure for the baby. There have also been a couple instances where the child actually survived the procedure, was born, and was killed moments after birth. Unfortunately, there's been no definitive proof so there've been no murder charges brought to my knowledge. There are no maternal medical reasons to kill a full-term baby instead of letting the baby live--the mother has to give birth to the child whether the child is dead or alive, so the birthing process and health issues are exactly the same.

Stats: see my previous post. I put the stats there. :) The maternal and abortion related mortality rates are from the Centers for Disease Control. The lightning strike data is from NOAA. I can't remember exactly where I got the fatal crash data but I think it's derived from the NTSB.

For everyone, since I'm sensing a bit of friction in the last page or so, not bad, but something I wanted to address now before it goes farther. Ahto is a more casual and generally less serious forum than the Senate, and so arguments on controversial topics reflect this accordingly. It has a very different personality than the Senate. If you want a knock-down, drag-out Senate-style debate, there's an abortion topic there. We're not going to hold people to PhD level documentation (though citations are always good if you want your point taken seriously), and we're not going to get hung up on British vs. English spelling (which is off topic).

Everyone has done a nice job of keeping this discussion civil, and I'd like to see it continue that way.

JasraLantill
02-08-2007, 10:34 AM
DarthInsidious, I realise that this thread is veering dangerously off-topic, and you’ve said as much yourself, but what you’ve written in your last post has really struck a nerve with me. So much so, that I feel obligated to respond.

First of all, I'm not American, and in my country, the conviction rate for rape is still 7%.

Conviction rates only tell you the number of people who were charged, tried, and convicted of a particular crime, not the actual number of crimes that have been perpetrated. Point in case, I recently had something stolen (due to my own stupidity), so I did not report it to the police. That does not mean that a crime did not occur. It means that I just did not report to anyone that it did. Rape is a traumatic experience, and it’s probably because of opinions like this:At the very least she can dress in a way that doesn't provoke unwanted interest. For the most part, no woman is completely inculpable when it comes to whom she allows to stick their bits into her.that the crime goes unreported as often as it does. I know this for a fact. I’m one of those ‘unreported’ statistics.

I am not ‘for’ abortion as a primary method of birth control, especially in this day and age where information on the subject is widely distributed. Nor am I a fan of ‘late-term abortions.’ I am, however, not in favour of imposing my wilful opinions upon others in what is such an obvious personal and medical matter to the point of making abortion completely illegal in all cases. I’m not a big fan of cosmetic surgery for reasons of vanity either, but I’m not going to go out and campaign and picket against breast implants and face lifts in front of my local cosmetic surgery centre to make those procedures illegal.

Gestational time limitations for doctors being allowed to perform a legal abortion on someone, I agree with. But total illegality for abortion in all cases? No. I do not agree with that.

This is about abortion, not rape. And the number of women who even get to conception after rape due to the shock is extremely low, let alone the number who get much further in their pregnancy. Agreed. But had I been one of those women, I have no doubt in my mind that I would have aborted as soon as possible. ‘Accidental’ pregnancies are one thing. ‘Imposed’ ones are quite another. Had abortion been completely illegal where I lived at the time, I know I would have sought out someone to do an illegal one. My attacker broke the law when he assaulted me. I would have no qualms about doing the same to rid myself of anything he ‘left behind’.

I’m stepping down off my soap box now.

Jae Onasi
02-08-2007, 11:13 AM
Rape is a traumatic experience, and it’s probably because of opinions like this:At the very least she can dress in a way that doesn't provoke unwanted interest. For the most part, no woman is completely inculpable when it comes to whom she allows to stick their bits into her.that the crime goes unreported as often as it does. I know this for a fact. I’m one of those ‘unreported’ statistics.

Oh, sorry to hear that.
I agree with that comment, though--while a woman may dress provocatively, it in no way gives license for a man to sexually assault her. He's responsible for where Junior goes, not the woman. If he's getting too excited looking at her, he can go look at something else. Rape isn't typically about the sex itself, however. It's usually about power and control.

The pregnancy stat from a single unprotected encounter is an average 5%, whether that's from consensual or non-consensual sex. The sperm and egg don't care whether the woman was forced or not. About 25,000 women become pregnant each year in the US as a result of sexual assault according to the NSVRC.

lukeiamyourdad
02-08-2007, 11:19 AM
Abortion, particularly the late-term partial birth abortions, show a society's disregard for the right to live. Where do you draw the line at personhood? Conception? When the heart starts beating? When the fetus feels pain? When s/he can live outside the womb? When s/he's born? When the mother decides she wants to keep the baby after s/he's born? Conception is the definitive point in time where that person is formed. Just because it doesn't have all his or her parts yet does not mean s/he's any less a person. That's like saying a 5-month-old is not a person because s/he can't speak normally.



Welcome to the world of making laws. Usually, society decides this and accepts this. "This" being arbitrary laws. For example, the legal drinking age in most Canadian provinces is 18. In the United States, it's 21. Who's right, who's wrong? Nobody. Nothing happens in your body the day you get from 17 to 18 or from 20 to 21 that automatically makes you capable to drink alcohol. It's an arbitrary age, accepted by society and sanctioned by the system, that puts a limit.
As such, to answer the question :" Where do you draw the line at personhood?" There is only one answer possible:" Where society says so."


At the very least she can dress in a way that doesn't provoke unwanted interest. For the most part, no woman is completely inculpable when it comes to whom she allows to stick their bits into her.

You know, I'm going to put aside my scientist hat and put my normal human hat back on. This is frankly disgusting. So rape never occurred before the late 20th century? Armies who conquered all in their wake raped no one because they didn't revealing clothes? Wait, I'm sure that in Afghanistan, women, who are covered from head to toe, never are raped right? Honestly, that's the biggest load of bull ever. There is no excuse for a man to rape. Ever. Period.


Third, define 'sexual assault'. As a phrase you can bend it to many meanings. Let us say it means 'non-consensual sexual acts' - sexual acts that both parties did not consent to - sexual acts one or another party didn't want to partake in. It's an easy warping to make, and results in blown-up stats like that.

You actually say that you have no idea how those stats are made, so how do you it's blown up? You ask a fair question, but shoot yourself in the foot.
Second, the laws of a country define what rape is and the various cases of conviction for rape.

To say nothing of 'attempted rape', a phrase which is distinctly vague, and could mean just about anything from a look in a direction the woman in question didn't like upwards.

I doubt that's the case, but I understand the need to define every element. However, you seem to just try to play on the words. You know what it roughly is for most people. I think that it's necessary to have the definition, but no one is stupid enough to not know what it is.

Also, it isn't exactly unknown for women to make accusations of rape purely out of revenge, or for another quite petty reason. For example, a fair few years back in this country, a man was jailed because three girls accused him of sexually assaulting them as an excuse for being late to a class.

Which is one case. You keep talking about the need for "real" stats and bring up a single case here. So which is it? Actual general statistics or potentially marginal case?

Jae Onasi
02-08-2007, 12:00 PM
Welcome to the world of making laws. Usually, society decides this and accepts this. "This" being arbitrary laws. For example, the legal drinking age in most Canadian provinces is 18. In the United States, it's 21. Who's right, who's wrong? Nobody. Nothing happens in your body the day you get from 17 to 18 or from 20 to 21 that automatically makes you capable to drink alcohol. It's an arbitrary age, accepted by society and sanctioned by the system, that puts a limit.
As such, to answer the question :" Where do you draw the line at personhood?" There is only one answer possible:" Where society says so."


The drinking age was changed from 18 to 19 and then 21 because it was too easy for 18 year old high school students to get alcohol for their not-yet-18 year old high school buddies. In addition, the motor vehical accident rate was higher when the legal drinking age was 18. Also, the impulse-control centers of the brain don't quite fully develop until very late teens and into the early 20's. 20+year-olds theoretically have more control over drinking behaviors than teens as a result. So in this case, it wasn't a matter of an arbitrary 'because society said so', it was a matter of 'when we have 18 year olds drinking, they drink to excess more often and get in accidents more often than those who are several years older'. That decision was based on morbidity/mortality stats.

Setting the standard for when/when not to do abortions is much more arbitrary and far more difficult. Decisions are not getting made based on stats and research all the time. There's even arguments over whether women should be offered pain relief for the fetus for the abortion on the theory that it might discourage her from getting the procedure. We give our animals pain relief before we put them to sleep, for heaven's sake, and we're arguing about whether to do this for a human baby because it might 'bother the woman.' Sometimes this whole issue gets insane.

Aurora Starfire
02-08-2007, 12:51 PM
More like something old which never came up. My original arguments mention personal freedom, involuntary pregnancy, the downsides of adoption, and personal beliefs being imposed on the impersonal.

Fine, then. Point A: Personal freedom
I did already address this. A person does NOT have the freedom to harm another person.

Point B: Involuntary pregnancy
If you're talking about rape, there are several other people here discussing this better than I probably could. However, if you're talking about consensual sex, that's something else. When a man and a woman get in bed together, they should remember that the reason sex exists is not for the pleasure of the man and woman. That's just a bonus. The reason it exists is for the creation of new life.
In my personal opinion, if they do not want to create new life together, then they should hold off until such a time as they do. Otherwise (or in addition to), there is something called "Natural Family Planning", http://www.ccli.org/nfp which I recommend as a life-giving alternative to artificial birth control. (it also works much better than condoms/the pill)

Point C: The downsides of adoption
First of all, one of the chief reasons children are not adopted with greater frequency is the cost. It costs a HUGE amount of money to adopt a child, money which could be used to take care of the child, or two, or three. I know my family would adopt if we could afford the $30,000 it costs. But we can't, and so we aren't going to adopt anytime soon.
Now, it seems to me, that putting one's child up for adoption would be much less traumatic than killing one's child. I mean, at least she knows the child is alive, and has a chance for a happy life elsewhere.

Point D: Personal beliefs being imposed upon the impersonal
This statement confused me. I think you meant, "Personal beliefs being imposed upon others who don't share those beliefs" so that's what I'll address. First of all, it's a two-edged sword. Some of us believe that it's wrong to kill babies in the womb, but those of you who don't believe that have made it into law, saying that it's okay. What if the father of a child wanted the child to be born, but the mother didn't (for whatever reason)? As far as I can make out, the father has no say in the matter, even though biologically it's his child, too. What if the father wanted to take responsibility for his actions, and give the child he helped create a chance?
That said, the personal beliefs of abortion advocates say that a fetus isn't a person. But what if it is? It's better to err on the side of caution, or, as my mom says, err on the side of life, as the possibility remains that a fetus is a person. Better to be safe than sorry, as the saying goes.

There, happy now? :xp:

One of the problems with such an argument is the question 'where is it really murder?' Is it murder if the mother uses a condom/pills? Either way she's just stopped a person from existing - just the same as if she took a pill or had an abortion after having sex. She's stopped a person from coming into being either way, and it feels no physical pain one way or another. Is it murder for a woman to say 'no' if someone asks her to have sex? It goes back and back...

EDIT: Ok, this is my opinion, which I base upon the teachings of the Catholic Church, and those of my parents, since I have no personal knowledge of this stuff. My mom helped me clarify my thoughts about this. Any abortifacient contraceptive technology, such as abortion, the pill, etc. is morally unacceptable. In extreme circumstances, such as poverty, Natural Family Planning could be used to prevent pregnancy. This is not NFP's only purpose, however. To quote from the NFP site, "It can be used both to achieve and to avoid or postpone pregnancy."
And a word about murder. I have perhaps overused that word a little. Murder is willful, knowing destruction of human life, and most mothers who get abortions, or use abortifacient contraceptive technology, are not aware that the child they carry is really human. Those who have never been informed do not commit murder, but it still results in the death of the infant, which is morally wrong.

@Aurora--I was being a bit toungue in cheek, hence the smiley. The underlying point though is not entirely invalid. If the father has no legal right to decide the disposition of the unborn child, neither should he then have any legal responsibilities upon its birth. I agree with the sentiment, though, that if you broke it you bought it. Afterall, making babies IS a team sport.
My apologies if I offended you. But I believe that the father does have responsibility, and should have a say in what happens to his child. This does not change my belief that abortion is wrong, though.

Ok, if you don't like religion coming into this stuff, then let me rephrase:
What it comes down to, is this: If you believe that a fetus is a person, then it matters a great deal whether a fetus is aborted or not. If you don't believe that a fetus is a person, then abortion doesn't matter.

Totenkopf
02-08-2007, 01:23 PM
@aurora--no, you didn't offend me. Was only pointing out to you that misunderstood what I meant. My attitude is that you don't punish the child for the mistakes of the parents. My point about the legal aspect is that if men are to be cut out of the loop on the decision of abort or not, they should not be LEGALLY responsible for a child they did not intend. I agree that any man who puts himself in a situation where pregnancy becomes a byproduct of his behavior is, at the very least, morally culpable and should have to step up and be responsible. Afterall, it wasn't an "immaculate conception". ;)

-----------------------------

Originally Posted by DarthInsidious
At the very least she can dress in a way that doesn't provoke unwanted interest. For the most part, no woman is completely inculpable when it comes to whom she allows to stick their bits into her.

You know, I'm going to put aside my scientist hat and put my normal human hat back on. This is frankly disgusting. So rape never occurred before the late 20th century? Armies who conquered all in their wake raped no one because they didn't revealing clothes? Wait, I'm sure that in Afghanistan, women, who are covered from head to toe, never are raped right? Honestly, that's the biggest load of bull ever. There is no excuse for a man to rape. Ever. Period.

DI can correct me if I'm wrong here, but you did notice the word ALLOW? Women are responsible in as far as that is absolutely true. However, I agree that rape is different in as far as no normal woman seeks that kind of end. Just the same, his first statement isn't invalid. Just as a person who walks into a clearly marked minefield is partially responsible for their fate, so are women who dress provacatively in less than secure situations. This does NOT mean that the rapist (assuming he's found guilty) gets a pass. But it does raise a legitimate question in those situations as to how competent she is to make responsible decisions. If I call you the "n" word, and you're black, does that excuse your pummeling me? No. However, I draw unnecessary attention to myself by, frankly, being that stupid/indiscreet.
---------------------------------------


Originally Posted by DarthInsidious
Third, define 'sexual assault'. As a phrase you can bend it to many meanings. Let us say it means 'non-consensual sexual acts' - sexual acts that both parties did not consent to - sexual acts one or another party didn't want to partake in. It's an easy warping to make, and results in blown-up stats like that.

You actually say that you have no idea how those stats are made, so how do you it's blown up? You ask a fair question, but shoot yourself in the foot.
Second, the laws of a country define what rape is and the various cases of conviction for rape.

Well, I certainly hope rape laws are not as elastic as sexual harrassment laws. DI doesn't shoot himself in the foot insofar as that he's merely pointing out that the methodology for compiling such stats is rarely transparent. Frankly, we're often forced to make assumptions about the original data upon which the studies/reports are based, almost always knowing nothing about the primary source of the stats in the first place.

------------------------------------------



Originally Posted by DarthInsidious
To say nothing of 'attempted rape', a phrase which is distinctly vague, and could mean just about anything from a look in a direction the woman in question didn't like upwards.

I doubt that's the case, but I understand the need to define every element. However, you seem to just try to play on the words. You know what it roughly is for most people. I think that it's necessary to have the definition, but no one is stupid enough to not know what it is.

Ah, but in the case of "he said/she said" (Duke rape case for instance), it becomes a case of not resorting to divining the meaning of "roughly" in addressing that situation. Given the elasticity with which you approach the topic ("it's whatever society says it is"), that can also become the case for rape. Depending on who's making the rules, rape, like sexual harrassment, can become very loosely defined. While these things may get fairly ajudicated in the end, that's cold comfort for the falsely accused.
----------------------------------------------------------------


Originally Posted by DarthInsidious
Also, it isn't exactly unknown for women to make accusations of rape purely out of revenge, or for another quite petty reason. For example, a fair few years back in this country, a man was jailed because three girls accused him of sexually assaulting them as an excuse for being late to a class.

Which is one case. You keep talking about the need for "real" stats and bring up a single case here. So which is it? Actual general statistics or potentially marginal case?

It's obvious that his point here is that just taking a claim at face value can lead to warping statistics. I'm also somewhat curious as to whether they merely compile all CLAIMS of rape or just those that are credibly documented when reporting the number of alleged/proven rapes.
--------------------------------------------------
slightly off topic--That said, the personal beliefs of abortion advocates say that a fetus isn't a person. But what if it is? It's better to err on the side of caution, or, as my mom says, err on the side of life, as the possibility remains that a fetus is a person. Better to be safe than sorry, as the saying goes. ---this argument is very similiar to that made by many of the proponents in these threads about man's hand in global warming. Even if the data isn't exactly correct (and it ain't), isn't it better to err on the side of caution and enact draconian economic measures in case the sky might actually fall. Funny how many of those people are big abortion supporters (pro choice=pro abortion, it's irrelevant that they claim that they wouldn't personally have one). ;)

Darth InSidious
02-08-2007, 02:42 PM
DI can correct me if I'm wrong here, but you did notice the word ALLOW? Women are responsible in as far as that is absolutely true. However, I agree that rape is different in as far as no normal woman seeks that kind of end. Just the same, his first statement isn't invalid. Just as a person who walks into a clearly marked minefield is partially responsible for their fate, so are women who dress provacatively in less than secure situations. This does NOT mean that the rapist (assuming he's found guilty) gets a pass. But it does raise a legitimate question in those situations as to how competent she is to make responsible decisions. If I call you the "n" word, and you're black, does that excuse your pummeling me? No. However, I draw unnecessary attention to myself by, frankly, being that stupid/indiscreet.

Nope, that was precisely my point :)

Well, I certainly hope rape laws are not as elastic as sexual harrassment laws. DI doesn't shoot himself in the foot insofar as that he's merely pointing out that the methodology for compiling such stats is rarely transparent. Frankly, we're often forced to make assumptions about the original data upon which the studies/reports are based, almost always knowing nothing about the primary source of the stats in the first place.

Indeed.
If you take Freud as an example, he only intereviewed people with mental...question marks, shall we say?

What conclusion did he come to? That humanity was basically very screwed up, sexually insecure and dominated by maternal figures. Does this mean that his work applies to all the world? No.


Ah, but in the case of "he said/she said" (Duke rape case for instance), it becomes a case of not resorting to divining the meaning of "roughly" in addressing that situation. Given the elasticity with which you approach the topic ("it's whatever society says it is"), that can also become the case for rape. Depending on who's making the rules, rape, like sexual harrassment, can become very loosely defined. While these things may get fairly ajudicated in the end, that's cold comfort for the falsely accused.

Indeed.

It's obvious that his point here is that just taking a claim at face value can lead to warping statistics. I'm also somewhat curious as to whether they merely compile all CLAIMS of rape or just those that are credibly documented when reporting the number of alleged/proven rapes.
That was what I was highlighting, and the lack of info provided regarding that :)

DarthInsidious, I realise that this thread is veering dangerously off-topic, and you’ve said as much yourself, but what you’ve written in your last post has really struck a nerve with me. So much so, that I feel obligated to respond.
Fair enough :)

Conviction rates only tell you the number of people who were charged, tried, and convicted of a particular crime, not the actual number of crimes that have been perpetrated. Point in case, I recently had something stolen (due to my own stupidity), so I did not report it to the police. That does not mean that a crime did not occur. It means that I just did not report to anyone that it did. Rape is a traumatic experience, and it’s probably because of opinions like this:that the crime goes unreported as often as it does. I know this for a fact. I’m one of those ‘unreported’ statistics.

Quite. But how do you count the number of invisible people? Yes, I don't deny that crime goes unreported, but if its unreported, how do you find out about it?

I am not ‘for’ abortion as a primary method of birth control, especially in this day and age where information on the subject is widely distributed. Nor am I a fan of ‘late-term abortions.’ I am, however, not in favour of imposing my wilful opinions upon others in what is such an obvious personal and medical matter to the point of making abortion completely illegal in all cases. I’m not a big fan of cosmetic surgery for reasons of vanity either, but I’m not going to go out and campaign and picket against breast implants and face lifts in front of my local cosmetic surgery centre to make those procedures illegal.
You must admit, however, that the issues involved in abortion are somewhat larger in scale of importance than those involved in cosmetic surgery...

Gestational time limitations for doctors being allowed to perform a legal abortion on someone, I agree with. But total illegality for abortion in all cases? No. I do not agree with that.

But where do you draw the line? And how do you stop that line being pushed forward?

Agreed. But had I been one of those women, I have no doubt in my mind that I would have aborted as soon as possible. ‘Accidental’ pregnancies are one thing. ‘Imposed’ ones are quite another. Had abortion been completely illegal where I lived at the time, I know I would have sought out someone to do an illegal one. My attacker broke the law when he assaulted me. I would have no qualms about doing the same to rid myself of anything he ‘left behind’.
So...two wrongs make a right? By killing this new life, how do you erase the crime done against you?

This site might be of interest to you in this regard (http://www.afterabortion.org/rape.html) :)

Jae Onasi
02-08-2007, 02:52 PM
In my personal opinion, if they do not want to create new life together, then they should hold off until such a time as they do. Otherwise (or in addition to), there is something called "Natural Family Planning", http://www.ccli.org/nfp which I recommend as a life-giving alternative to artificial birth control. (it also works much better than condoms/the pill)


I'm going to disagree with you that Natural Family Planning works much better than condoms or the pill at preventing pregnancy, because clearly the research shows it does not. I'm not trying to prove you wrong so much as make sure people have the most accurate info possible on something like this.

These are from the US's FDA (Food and Drug Administration) office. Sorry for the weird formatting--it's off of a table. :) The first number right after each listed method is the typical use statistic, the second number is the lowest expected rate (described below).

The following table provides estimates of the percent of women likely to become pregnant while using a particular contraceptive method for one year. These estimates are based on a variety of studies.

"Typical Use" rates mean that the method either was not always used correctly or was not used with every act of sexual intercourse (e.g., sometimes forgot to take a birth control pill as directed and became pregnant), or was used correctly but failed anyway.

"Lowest Expected" rates mean that the method was always used correctly with every act of sexual intercourse but failed anyway (e.g., always took a birth control pill as directed but still became pregnant).

Method / Typical Use Rate of Pregnancy / Lowest Expected Rate of Pregnancy

Sterilization:

Male Sterilization 0.15% 0.1%
Female Sterilization 0.5% 0.5%

Hormonal Methods:

Implant (Norplant) 0.09% 0.09%
Hormone Shot (Depo-Provera) 0.3% 0.3%
Combined Pill (Estrogen/Progestin) 5% 0.1%
Minipill (Progestin only) 5% 0.5%

Intrauterine Devices (IUDs):

Copper T 0.8% 0.6%
Progesterone T 2% 1.5%

Barrier Methods:

Male Latex Condom1 14% 3%
Diaphragm2 20% 6%
Vaginal Sponge (no previous births) 20% 9%
Vaginal Sponge (previous births) 40% 20%
Cervical Cap (no previous births) 20% 9%
Cervical Cap (previous births) 40% 26%
Female Condom 21% 5%

Spermicide: (gel, foam, suppository, film) 26% 6%

Natural Methods:
Withdrawal 19% 4%
Natural Family Planning 25% 1-9%

No Method: 85% 85%


So, for the typical 'real people' use rate, there is a lower risk of pregnancy with the Pill or condoms than with NFP. Even with perfect usage, the Pill still provides a lower risk, and condoms (male version) show a slightly more effective alternative at 3% than the average with NFP (I split the middle between 1 and 9% and got 5%).

Aurora Starfire
02-08-2007, 03:09 PM
I'm going to disagree with you that Natural Family Planning works much better than condoms or the pill at preventing pregnancy, because clearly the research shows it does not. I'm not trying to prove you wrong so much as make sure people have the most accurate info possible on something like this.

Fair enough. I don't have a lot of stats and such, I'm just putting the information I do have out there. The biggest thing in its favor is that it is a healthier, nonabortive alternative to the pill. However, my mom did tell me that NFP has none of the problems condoms have in regards to how it feels. ;)

mimartin
02-08-2007, 03:15 PM
My personal opinion is abortion is wrong. Personally I’d make an exception for rape, incest and when the mother’s life is threatened.

However, I voted in the poll “Yes, I believe people should have the right to abort.” I did this because my personal opinion is just that, my opinion. I don’t believe people or governments have the right, or should have the right to govern morality. It is between that person and the own personal values to choice their own path.

Does that make me a murder for not doing something to stop abortion? Possibly, but that is between me and my maker and I will have to suffer for my judgment or lack there of. I just know the answer is not more killing or more stupid slogans.

The problem I have with the right to choice people is parent notification. A doctor can not set a broke arm on a child without a parent being notified, but the same child can get an abortion without the parent’s knowledge. That is just stupid. If my child is having any medical procedure I want to be notified.

JediMaster12
02-08-2007, 03:43 PM
This is a can of worms that will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Abortion is something that is not talked about around my family because then the ranting and raving start mostly with the support of religion and the like but I won't go there. I don't approve because it is not the baby's fault that its parents don't want it. It is still a person though I won't argue over what defines a person. I think Jae explained that in medical terms. I don't approve of it but I do know that even as early as the ancients in Greece and Rome, there were abortions though they are not all documented. Abortion seems to be a thing prevelant in every society. Some would call it an option. To use it as an excuse for birth control I don't buy it. There are other ways of preventing conception. Ever hear of a condom or abstinence? I am not going to vote on this issue nor do I wish to argue the merits of freedom of choice and pro-life and all that mess. This is an issue but it should not be a major one. I would call it a misdemeanor, forgive the use of criminal law terms, issue. Major issues I think that should be the focus of concern are our resources, our relations with other nations, the unemployment and economics at home, and a few others that I can't think of right now.

The problem I have with the right to choice people is parent notification. A doctor can not set a broke arm on a child without a parent being notified, but the same child can get an abortion without the parent’s knowledge. That is just stupid. If my child is having any medical procedure I want to be notified.
You know what will argued? The whole right to privacy issue. The doctor-patient privilege. I guess I am lucky that I am an adult in the US and don't need parental consent but like you I think the double standard is a load of bull. We have too many of those in this country and it makes me sick.

JasraLantill
02-08-2007, 04:23 PM
Quite. But how do you count the number of invisible people? Yes, I don't deny that crime goes unreported, but if its unreported, how do you find out about it?Hmmm....by counting the number of new calls to a rape crisis centres. By doing public surveys on the issue. By extrapolating figures on reported assaults against women where there is noted suspicion of a rape, but the victim was unwilling to co-operate further. And I'm sure if I wasn't feeling so incensed at the present moment, I could probably think of a few more methods for statistical investigation.
You must admit, however, that the issues involved in abortion are somewhat larger in scale of importance than those involved in cosmetic surgery...

But where do you draw the line? And how do you stop that line being pushed forward?I'll admit that my cosmetic surgery analogy isn't of the same emotional and political scale, but I still think it is wrong for me to impose my standards of morality on others who may not share the same social or religious values that I do. Making abortion completely illegal is not going to stop someone from getting one if they really want to. It just makes a traumatic procedure more traumatic, hazardous, and more expensive. Point in case, scores of Irish women cross the channel to come to the UK each year specifically to get an abortion as it's completely illegal in Ireland, proving that making the act illegal does not stop it from happening. It just happens someplace else and costs the woman more to do it. (I'd post a link for statistics on that particular factoid, but you can search the BBC website for them if you really feel the need.) And as far as drawing a legal line? How about drawing it between when the foetus can viably survive on its own outside the womb and when it cannot?

So...two wrongs make a right? By killing this new life, how do you erase the crime done against you?It does nothing to erase the crime nor the memory of it. But had I ended up pregnant, an abortion would've given me some small measure of retribution against my attacker. I certainly would not have wanted to have been 'forced' to bear any child of his. Why should I? Why should he be allowed to spread his genes into the gene pool without my consent? I stand by what I said earlier. Had I fallen pregnant, (and thank God I didn't,) there is no question that I would have sought an abortion as soon as possible. Legally or not. In my mind, it would not be getting rid of 'my child' but rather 'his leftovers.' Apologies if that sounds harsh or graphic, but that's how I feel.

Oh, and I took a look at article in the link you posted. Thank you for posting it, but I'm rather disappointed that Dr. Reardon didn't site any references (bar one from 1987) prior to 1979 to support his article. A lot of things have changed since then, especially in the handling and counseling of sexual assault/incest victims.

And I still do not agree with your assessment that a woman is 'inviting' someone to assault her by wearing what someone else considers to be 'provacative' clothing. That's akin to saying someone is 'inviting' someone to mug them when they decide to take a large sum of money from a cash machine. In both instances, it is the criminal who is responsible for perpetrating the crime, not the victim.

But the topic here is abortion and the Portuguese vote on the 11th of February, so I'm not responding to anymore comments. (It's just making me angry.) I already voted in the poll and said my two plus cents. But I am, however, interested to see what the Portuguese people decide, being for the most part a Catholic country. Should prove interesting to see if their decision will affect other European countries.

ET Warrior
02-08-2007, 05:22 PM
This is an entirely inapplicable example. An adult trying to leech off another adult is wholly unlike what happens during pregnancy. I don't quite understand how this is inapplicable. It seems to me that disconnecting yourself from a human life-form that is dependent upon your body for it's survival makes little difference if it is a cluster of cells or a fully developed adult. In fact, it seems much less humane to disconnect the adult, as the adult is already fully conscious, aware of what is happening, and able to feel pain. Not to mention already has a lifetimes worth of memories and experiences that you erase by letting them die.

If I'd been in that situation in high school/college, couldn't stand kids, or couldn't afford to bring up the child, I would have given the child up for adoption.Admirable, to be sure, but more children up for adoption means that there are more children who are already waiting for families to adopt them that will get looked over, and they get to continue on trudging through their miserable lives.

And of course, how would you have felt giving up a child in high school, moving on, getting married, having and keeping kids, and some day a 21 year old man shows up at your door and tells you that he is your long-lost son come back to find his mother. I'm sure some women can handle that, but there are certainly some people whose lives could again be destroyed by this.

One of my best friends in undergrad did just that at age 23. He fell in love with a terrific gal who had had 2 kids from a previous marriage. [...] However, plenty of guys do indeed do just that. Good on your friend, but that really doesn't change the fact that you have provided me with two stories of men who have done this, and I can give you a list of fifty or so college-aged men I personally know off the top of my head who wouldn't do that. fifty isn't that many people, but it's a reasonable cross-sampling of people and zero percent of them are interested in dating into kids. The girl my friend dated hasn't been able to maintain any kind of relationship for years because of her kid.

Whew. If you can actually make the quantitative observation in the middle of The Wild Thang that something that is .0019 inches thick makes it X% less enjoyable than without, you've got a hell of a lot more willpower than I do.Well, I certainly didn't come up with a percentage ;)

@ET--your violin analogy only seems to work if the pregnancy in question results from rape or unintended sex (drunk sex, etc...). Actually, combining my Burglar and Violinist analogies make this relevant for pregnancy in general. I have noticed that my analogies are, in general, getting glazed over with a "Oh, that's not actually relevant" or "Well the two things are far too different." But I honestly don't think you are taking any time to stop and THINK about these analogies. Why are the irrelevant? Why are they so different that it no longer applies?

It seems that for some reason being robbed is something that was involuntarily thrust upon you, but a sperm fertilizing an egg that you didn't want fertilized is voluntary? Despite the fact that the men and women may use protection, pregnancy can still result. That was involuntary, but the act of engaging in sexual intercourse is clearly the kind of risk that if we get burned we must deal with the results, whereas if we locked our doors but the thief broke the lock we are entitled to our right to A)repel that invader or B)have the police get our stuff back.

And even if my analogies are ONLY applicable to rape/drunken sex, they are STILL pertinent to the discussion of keeping abortion as a legal option.

Secondly, those statistics are quite clearly skewed. Unless most of what we hear about your country, and more specifically the Deep South is true...?I'm not convinced I know how it is that you know these statistics are clearly skewed. You said yourself you didn't know who or how they made these studies...
Here is a governmental source of rape statistics. If you want to ignore them, then I don't quite understand why you are trying to engage in debate...
Source (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm)
Further more, even your own source must admit that the number of assaults has fallen since 1993 by 69%. ...so if the numbers have dropped we can ignore the problem? I don't quite understand why the fact that rape number going down (while good news) should have any bearing on the fact that rape is still not an "uncommon problem".
surely this indicates that sexual relations and life issues have become far too trivialised in western society, to the point where such things can be so widespread, and that a casual attitude to sex has far-reaching consequences?Rape has been a human problem for as long as there is recorded history. It has nothing to do with 'western society' or the 'trivialization' of sex and life issues.
In the violin player instance, you didn't know it was a risk of what you were doing. You would have to be pretty ignorant not to know what the possible consequences of sex are...What if it was all over the news? The Music Lovers society is preying on sleeping individuals, breaking into their homes and hooking them up to dying musicians! You know the risks of sleeping without putting bars on the doors and windows.
First off, congratulations on directing me to other sites which don't actually provide any explanations of where they got their statistics from. Very clever, I'm sure.Yes, it was an intentional attempt to mis-lead you. I am so devious.
And please, don't claim that your use of language isn't deliberately derogatoryYou'd rather I lie to you and say that it is?
Third, using reason, and the grey matter between our ears, we can ESTIMATE numbers, and so come to a reasonable approximation, which is what I did. Except your approximation wasn't all that reasonable, nor was it a valid estimate. It was a random number that you threw out to support your position.
We actively engage in things that harm the environment, and unlike the other relationships, give very little back.Except the 'environment' is not a living, thinking organism. It isn't an organism at all. It isn't analogous to pregnancy.
They can also not do so....which is why abortion is not mandatory...

As far as I am aware, and I admit that I am not well versed in this matter, the number of deaths in childbirth in this day and age are pretty miniscule. And homewrecking children are usually the result of badparenting, AFAIK.Even if the deaths are a small risk, they are STILL A RISK. A woman should have the right to choose if she wants to put herself in that situation or not. And as for the part where I said it could destroy a woman's life, I meant very little about having bad children who make life hard. I was referring to a young woman who may have to drop out of high school because she cannot take care of a baby and go to classes. She will possibly be stamped with the label "slut" or "tramp" by anyone she interacts with. She may have difficulty finding a job that will allow her to work hours so she can still take care of her child, or they might just not hire her because "how can she be responsible enough to work if she can't even keep her pants on". I can come up with more examples if you really want.
But when abortion is foisted as the best way to go, and several of my friends and family have had it practically forced down their throats that they should have abortions, it is not a fair choice.I agree with you on this. I don't agree with people promoting abortion as a superior choice to adoption or keeping the child. I also don't agree with people promoting adoption or keeping the child as superior choices to abortion. It is a personal choice to be made on a case by case basis.
her more, if it is a human life, what right have you to take away someone who may be the next Einstein. Sure they may not be, but is it worth the risk?I love the what-if game! What if that person was going to be the next Hitler? What if they were going to cure cancer? What if they were going to create a nuclear explosive and detonate it in the middle of your home country? Of course, in the history of the world there was only one Albert Einstein, but there have been millions and millions of thieves, murderers, rapists, and all around bad people. So are you more likely to be aborting the next Einstein or the next mass-murderer?

Jae Onasi
02-08-2007, 05:37 PM
Quite. But how do you count the number of invisible people? Yes, I don't deny that crime goes unreported, but if its unreported, how do you find out about it?


Usually surveys, or as Jasra pointed out calls to rape crisis centers. Also, those cases where the cops are called to 'suspected' sexual assault can be counted against vs. those where a rapist is convicted.

The surveys are really easy:
1. provide the definition of rape and ask if the woman has ever had that experience.
2. then ask if she's reported it.

A lot of women will not report it to the cops for fear of retribution (the assailant threatens to hurt her again or hurt her family if she reports it), but will respond honestly on an anonymous survey.

OK, guys, where are you all getting the idea that it's partly the woman's fault for getting raped if she dresses provocatively, whatever that may be? If she was assaulted without the sexual component, is it still somehow her fault for dressing provocatively? I have a good friend who got raped when she was in high school. She never has dressed provocatively and never will. The boy came over to her home to study with her and took advantage of her. She didn't invite it, she didn't want it, she tried to push him away but couldn't. Yet some would still claim that she somehow 'deserved' it and she must have done something to encourage him. The truth is, the boy commited a crime, and she did nothing to deserve to be victimized.
It takes a remarkable amount of audacity to claim that the victim somehow invites the crime because the assault has a sexual component to it. The rapist is in control of his own actions and has sole responsibility for those actions, not her. It is this stereotype that actually stifles reporting of rape, because women are afraid they won't be taken seriously, or that the cop they're reporting it to will make them think that it was somehow their fault.

The problem I have with the right to choice people is parent notification. A doctor can not set a broke arm on a child without a parent being notified, but the same child can get an abortion without the parent’s knowledge. That is just stupid. If my child is having any medical procedure I want to be notified.

I'd be very angry if my daughter had an abortion without anyone notifying me about it. When I ask teens about their medical history, nearly all of them don't know a thing about it--99% of them look over at their parents for the answer. It's essential for the anesthesiologist/nurse anesthetist to have a good, accurate medical history to make sure there are not problems during a procedure, and 14 year olds just can't give a good history for the most part. I'd also like to make sure that whatever practitioner is seeing my kids that they're not total fruitcakes--there are bad doctors out there.
I know there's the argument 'what if it's a case of incest'--well, if it's incest, the child needs to be taken away from that parent immediately so it doesn't continue. The court-appointed guardian can then make medical decisions for that child.

Abortion is not risk-free, and I'd like to be involved in any of my kids' medical issues until they've reached the point where they can be responsible for it themselves.

lukeiamyourdad
02-08-2007, 06:56 PM
DI can correct me if I'm wrong here, but you did notice the word ALLOW? Women are responsible in as far as that is absolutely true. However, I agree that rape is different in as far as no normal woman seeks that kind of end. Just the same, his first statement isn't invalid. Just as a person who walks into a clearly marked minefield is partially responsible for their fate, so are women who dress provacatively in less than secure situations. This does NOT mean that the rapist (assuming he's found guilty) gets a pass. But it does raise a legitimate question in those situations as to how competent she is to make responsible decisions. If I call you the "n" word, and you're black, does that excuse your pummeling me? No. However, I draw unnecessary attention to myself by, frankly, being that stupid/indiscreet.
---------------------------------------

Jae said it best. What is a less then secure situation? Does rape only happen in dark alleys? Is the word "rapist" written on people's forehead? Your two examples are clearly invalid since in both cases, there's a clear and certain danger. No one knows if the guy walking behind them wants to commit a crime.
Even then, what is dressing provocatively? The definition would depend from one person to another. For some, showing a bit of cleavage is provocative. For others, it's showing their ankles. Hell, some get turned on by nothing. So this is a very "in-your-face" thing. You can't predict it. So you don't know if you're going to run through a minefield or not.



Well, I certainly hope rape laws are not as elastic as sexual harrassment laws. DI doesn't shoot himself in the foot insofar as that he's merely pointing out that the methodology for compiling such stats is rarely transparent. Frankly, we're often forced to make assumptions about the original data upon which the studies/reports are based, almost always knowing nothing about the primary source of the stats in the first place.

------------------------------------------

First of, we can only hope that laws are well made. If they're bad, try and elect people who will change them. That's it.
In the case of statistical analysis, you can only trust the credibility of the scientific source. Generally, the whole study is not offered on the internet (sometimes, it can be a few hundred pages long). However, there are other scientists who verify and proof read the study. I don't know if that's the case here, but if it is, the methodology probably respects all the established norms.



Ah, but in the case of "he said/she said" (Duke rape case for instance), it becomes a case of not resorting to divining the meaning of "roughly" in addressing that situation. Given the elasticity with which you approach the topic ("it's whatever society says it is"), that can also become the case for rape. Depending on who's making the rules, rape, like sexual harrassment, can become very loosely defined. While these things may get fairly ajudicated in the end, that's cold comfort for the falsely accused.
----------------------------------------------------------------

That's up to the legislative corp to provide those definitions. Usually, those definitions come from a consensus on what it is. To know more about policy making, read what Charles Lindblom wrote about incrementalism.


It's obvious that his point here is that just taking a claim at face value can lead to warping statistics. I'm also somewhat curious as to whether they merely compile all CLAIMS of rape or just those that are credibly documented when reporting the number of alleged/proven rapes.
--------------------------------------------------


ET said it anyway. Even if the number was lower, lower is still too high. Now, I realize that you can't eradicate raping, but if people decided that at 10 000 rapes per year, we stop fighting it...
Again, false accusations are probably marginal. They make a lot of noise when in the news, but that's it. It might change the number by an insignificant number.
I concede that we need to know what they're compiling, but it comes back to my scientific work argument. If it was proof read by the community, it's probably reliable.


(1)The drinking age was changed from 18 to 19 and then 21 because it was too easy for 18 year old high school students to get alcohol for their not-yet-18 year old high school buddies.(2) In addition, the motor vehical accident rate was higher when the legal drinking age was 18.(3) Also, the impulse-control centers of the brain don't quite fully develop until very late teens and into the early 20's. 20+year-olds theoretically have more control over drinking behaviors than teens as a result.(4) So in this case, it wasn't a matter of an arbitrary 'because society said so', it was a matter of 'when we have 18 year olds drinking, they drink to excess more often and get in accidents more often than those who are several years older'. That decision was based on morbidity/mortality stats.

1- I would bet that it's because at 18, you're still stuck in high school. In different education systems, this would probably be different.
2- I'd like to see that actual statistics on this. It could be a matter of interpretation. You need to look at long periods of time to conclude anything and it the accident rate has not risen again.
3- Alright, I got nothing to say.
4- Then why does the whole world, considering rationality, not push the legal drinking age up to 21? Why is it 16 in Belgium, 18 in other places and 21 in the US? If it was so evident and rational, why not? In most Canadian provinces, society considers that at 18, you're old enough to decide everything for yourself and that includes the decision to drink or not. It's totally arbitrary. You pointed out that the impulse control center didn't fully develop until the late teens to early 20's. However, why 21? Why not 22? Or 23?

JediMaster12
02-08-2007, 07:43 PM
A lot of women will not report it to the cops for fear of retribution (the assailant threatens to hurt her again or hurt her family if she reports it), but will respond honestly on an anonymous survey.
Jae you left out the part that women tend to feel ashamed and that it is their fault that they were raped.

It takes a remarkable amount of audacity to claim that the victim somehow invites the crime because the assault has a sexual component to it. The rapist is in control of his own actions and has sole responsibility for those actions, not her. It is this stereotype that actually stifles reporting of rape, because women are afraid they won't be taken seriously, or that the cop they're reporting it to will make them think that it was somehow their fault.
It is not the woman's fault. When you force someone against their will, it is a crime. In fact rape in the US is a strict liability crime, especially statutory rape of a minor. It is a felony with a penalty of serving 1+ years in a state prison. That boy you mentioned should have had his butt thrown in prison for that since she was a minor. Again what you said about it being the victim's fault is plain cruelty. It goes to show how our morals have declined within the last decade. It never ceases to anger me how little compassion people have for others who have been the victim of a crime. I was part of an armed robbery and the guy had the gun in my face telling me to get down on the ground. I know what it feels to be vulnerable and I sympathisze with the victims.

Quite. But how do you count the number of invisible people? Yes, I don't deny that crime goes unreported, but if its unreported, how do you find out about it?
Also you can look at the UCR, the crime report that the FBI puts out yearly. It has percentages of eight felonies based on the reports given by over 17,000 law enforcement departments around the US. It also has stats on Part II crimes bassed on the arrest record. The eight felonies are Part I crimes. There is a change over to NIBRS where it does the same thing. And like Jae said about surveys and the like.

Totenkopf
02-08-2007, 10:06 PM
Jae said it best. What is a less then secure situation? Does rape only happen in dark alleys? Is the word "rapist" written on people's forehead? Your two examples are clearly invalid since in both cases, there's a clear and certain danger. No one knows if the guy walking behind them wants to commit a crime. Even then, what is dressing provocatively? The definition would depend from one person to another. For some, showing a bit of cleavage is provocative. For others, it's showing their ankles. Hell, some get turned on by
nothing. So this is a very "in-your-face" thing. You can't predict it. So you don't know if you're going to run through a minefield or not.

Well.....if you're walking alone through Central Park (or any dangerous neighborhood) in a tube top and daisy dukes, it's a pretty good bet that you've just displayed verrrry poor judgement. It's no smarter than walking alone through a high crime neighborhood flashing your wealth ostentatiously. In neither case are the perps excused for their behavior, but your own stupidity is numbing. I don't discount that rapes are unpredictable, but they usually take place in dark or dangerous areas or somewhere with as few witnesses as possible. The unpredicability of rape doesn't invalidate my examples. You'd be closer to correct if you asserted they only took part of the problem into account.



First of, we can only hope that laws are well made. If they're bad, try and elect people who will change them. That's it.
In the case of statistical analysis, you can only trust the credibility of the scientific source. Generally, the whole study is not offered on the internet (sometimes, it can be a few hundred pages long). However, there are other scientists who verify and proof read the study. I don't know if that's the case here, but if it is, the methodology probably respects all the established norms.

Man, if only it were that easy to actually change things. Every election cycle politicians are elected to change things, but change often never really comes. Laws set precedents, and there damned hard to turn around, especially b/c lawyers are in awe of/love with precedent. Also, the problem with collecting statistics is, like that with polls, you have to invest a certain amount of credulity into the process. The designers of studies create/follow a paradigm that often does little to confirm the validity of their results. Using the Duke case as one example, she says one thing and the men contend something very different. Although this case is in the process of being legally addressed (very poorly, btw), the designers of studies ultimately are at the mercy of their supposedly randomly chosen subjects' veracity.



That's up to the legislative corp to provide those definitions. Usually, those definitions come from a consensus on what it is. To know more about policy making, read what Charles Lindblom wrote about incrementalism.

Cold comfort given the penchant on the part of lawyers/policymakers to let the "offended" party determine the nature of the crime.


ET said it anyway. Even if the number was lower, lower is still too high. Now, I realize that you can't eradicate raping, but if people decided that at 10 000 rapes per year, we stop fighting it...
Again, false accusations are probably marginal. They make a lot of noise when in the news, but that's it. It might change the number by an insignificant number.I concede that we need to know what they're compiling, but it comes back to my scientific work argument. If it was proof read by the community, it's probably reliable.

Problem with that line of reasoning is that you're arguing on the one hand for rape victim's to be spared the "indignity" of having an unwanted child, but then pretending like this subset effectively represents all cases. The problem with making statements like "false accusations are marginal" is no different from saying that a much greater number of crime X goes unreported. It's guessing, to be kind. Thus, even if you make the exception for females that are raped, you can't justify anywhere between 80-95% of most abortions. Trusting the "experts", as you seem to suggest, does nothing but demonstrate blind faith in a process. Statistics, as DI pointed out are
invariably that third class of lies and are often massaged by whomever cites them, usually for a policy end. ET's two examples fail b/c he's using a narrow subset of circumstances to define the whole picture. Even if you subtract rape/incest cases, the vast majority of abortions take place b/c they are seen as furthering the socio-economic ambitions of the people involved. Kid's inconvenient? Fine, temrinate it. End of problem (but not really). Most abortions are simply a matter of punishing the innocent for the "crimes" of the guilty.

@ET--I did read your examples and they failed for the reasons basically cited. Each case relies completely on the victim being unwitting. In the violin case, the victim is basically kidnapped and forced to be the lifeline for someone not even remotely related to them (except insofar as they are of the same species). In essence, they did nothing to put themselves in that predicament, unlike most couples who simply refuse to use discretion and/or control their passions. In the second case, again like rape, you have no real control over who the burglar is going to rob. Unless, of course, you put out a big sign that says "burglars welcome, please close door behind you on the way out". ;) In that case, you are much like people who find themselves in a "family way" b/c they were more intent on satisfying their hedonistic urges than in thinking through their situation. I said it before and it bears repeating. If you're going to be a lothario, check to make sure your gun is on safety (that may mean getting a vasectomy, they're reversable now). Otherwise, penetrating the target area may not be a viable option. BTW, that doesn't let the ladies off the hook.

lukeiamyourdad
02-08-2007, 10:56 PM
Well.....if you're walking alone through Central Park (or any dangerous neighborhood) in a tube top and daisy dukes, it's a pretty good bet that you've just displayed verrrry poor judgement. It's no smarter than walking alone through a high crime neighborhood flashing your wealth ostentatiously. In neither case are the perps excused for their behavior, but your own stupidity is numbing. I don't discount that rapes are unpredictable, but they usually take place in dark or dangerous areas or somewhere with as few witnesses as possible. The unpredicability of rape doesn't invalidate my examples. You'd be closer to correct if you asserted they only took part of the problem into account.

I don't doubt that there's a percentage of people who are not very smart. That's not the issue. The unpredictability of rape is still valid. You still provided two examples assuming that the person had the ability to make a rational decision. To make a rational decision, you need all the information, which the fact that it's a clearly marked minefield and a black guy gives the person all that's needed.
Your example about going through a dark place assumes that the person knows it's a dark and dangerous place. Also, Jae's example does not fit this at all. By the way, if we can't trust statistics, how do you know most cases of rape happen in dark or dangerous places?




Man, if only it were that easy to actually change things. Every election cycle politicians are elected to change things, but change often never really comes. Laws set precedents, and there damned hard to turn around, especially b/c lawyers are in awe of/love with precedent. Also, the problem with collecting statistics is, like that with polls, you have to invest a certain amount of credulity into the process. The designers of studies create/follow a paradigm that often does little to confirm the validity of their results. Using the Duke case as one example, she says one thing and the men contend something very different. Although this case is in the process of being legally addressed (very poorly, btw), the designers of studies ultimately are at the mercy of their supposedly randomly chosen subjects' veracity.


I have no real qualms with my legal system. It seems to be working alright, no matter what people say.
In the case of statistics, you have to understand that many "extreme" results can influence the final study. You only have to read the whole thing, see what most results are, what the average, the most common result, etc.


Cold comfort given the penchant on the part of lawyers/policymakers to let the "offended" party determine the nature of the crime.

What does that have to do with Lindblom's incrementalism? The laws, made by the legislative corp, evolve slowly, through trial and error. We all wish that a rational model was possible. However, considering that you never have all of the information needed to make a law or change it, the rational model is impossible. The majority of the populace thinks that it should be rational though, but it isn't.



Problem with that line of reasoning is that you're arguing on the one hand for rape victim's to be spared the "indignity" of having an unwanted child, but then pretending like this subset effectively represents all cases. Thus, even if you make the exception for females that are raped, you can't justify anywhere between 80-95% of most abortions.


Wait. I never said anything about abortion. I never said anywhere in this thread that abortion because of rape was a norm. I never even stated my opinion on it. I only answered Jae's question about where we should consider someone a person. It was as close as I got to abortion. The rest was about raping.

The problem with making statements like "false accusations are marginal" is no different from saying that a much greater number of crime X goes unreported. It's guessing, to be kind.

So I'm sure that bringing an example of a false accusation and making it so it could be widespread is not guessing?

Trusting the "experts", as you seem to suggest, does nothing but demonstrate blind faith in a process. Statistics, as DI pointed out are invariably that third class of lies and are often massaged by whomever cites them, usually for a policy end.

Of course they can be massaged. Of course they can be misquoted. Of course they can be done by morons who don't know what they're doing. It happens all the time. That's why you have to use your brain and read about it. Statistics, when done right, are an excellent source of information. They can rarely demonstrate a causal relation but that's not the issue. If you care so much about the way the study has been done, you have to read it yourself. I study in political science so I know darn well how misleading they can be but also how useful they are. If all statistics are inherently bad, it could be impossible to have the bigger picture.

Now there are two ways to make a study: one is qualitative and the other is quantitative. Many say qualitative is the only way to go. Many say quantitative is the only way to go. False debate since both complete each other. Qualitative study takes the form of interviews or observations and quantitative, you guessed it, statistics. More often then not, one comes in to confirm the results of the other.


ET's two examples fail b/c he's using a narrow subset of circumstances to define the whole picture. Even if you subtract rape/incest cases, the vast majority of abortions take place b/c they are seen as furthering the socio-economic ambitions of the people involved. Kid's inconvenient? Fine, temrinate it. End of problem (but not really). Most abortions are simply a matter of punishing the innocent for the "crimes" of the guilty.

It's fun that you say that statistics can't be trusted but you use words like "most" out of thin air. How do you know? I don't think you're wrong when you say that most abortions are a motivated by the person's socio-economic questions. I don't know in fact. It seems like it. However, just because it seems like it doesn't mean it is like it.

Totenkopf
02-09-2007, 12:29 AM
I don't doubt that there's a percentage of people who are not very smart.
That's not the issue. The unpredictability of rape is still valid. You still provided two examples assuming that the person had the ability to make a rational decision. To make a rational decision, you need all the information, which the fact that it's a clearly marked minefield and a black guy gives the person all that's needed. Your example about going through a dark place assumes that the person knows it's a dark and dangerous place. Also, Jae's example does not fit this at all. By the way, if we can't trust statistics, how do you know most cases of rape happen in dark or dangerous places?

Actually, you're wrong, it is part of the issue. I know the cult of victimology is very much in vogue these days, but that doesn't change the fact that people need to use common sense. Hopefully you noticed that I didn't contest that rapes can be unpredictable. They can also be predictable if you take into account the risky behavior people engage in b/c they think they should be able to do whatever, whereever and whenever they want. Walking alone at night in poorly lit areas is always something a women should avoid if at all possible. Drinking to excess and heavy partying can also lead to unwanted attention. I'd say, btw, that it may be axiomatic that a large percentage of rapes don't occur in broad daylight in the presence of a slew of witnesses. The exception to this would most likely be a war zone (think Berlin, Shanghai, etc..). I'd also be willing to bet that an equally large number of "dumb" women get raped as "smart" women b/c they don't use any common sense.


I have no real qualms with my legal system. It seems to be working alright, no matter what people say. In the case of statistics, you have to understand that many "extreme" results can influence the final study. You only have to read the whole thing, see what most results are, what the average, the most common result, etc.

Not being Canadian, or especially familiar with Canadian law, I won't comment on your system.



What does that have to do with Lindblom's incrementalism? The laws, made by the legislative corp, evolve slowly, through trial and error. We all wish that a rational model was possible. However, considering that you never have all of the information needed to make a law or change it, the rational model is impossible. The majority of the populace thinks that it should be rational though, but it isn't.

I didn't cite Lindbolm b/c I was specifically dealing with "sexual crimes" and not laws in general. The problem here seems to be an elasticity in defining the crimes. Perhaps that trend doesn't exist in Canada?


Wait. I never said anything about abortion. I never said anywhere in this thread that abortion because of rape was a norm. I never even stated my opinion on it. I only answered Jae's question about where we should consider someone a person. It was as close as I got to abortion. The rest was about raping.

Actually, the overall topic is abortion (not just rape), you cited ET and his position could be fairly summed up, in part, as abortion should be allowable b/c no victim of rape (who would suffer if abortion were outlawed) should be exempted from such a choice. As far as I've noticed, no one here has stated that rape was ok or excusable, just not as unavoidable as you seem to suggest.


So I'm sure that bringing an example of a false accusation and making it so it could be widespread is not guessing?


I think DI's point, he can feel free to correct me, is that there is no way to verify if the people cited in studies are essentially lying and that guestimating that the numbers of crime x is 3-4x the # reported is an unsupportable supposition. Anybody can make those kinds of claims about anything. The anecdotal evidence gathered in the studies is basically accepted on faith if it follows the study's script. I would agree that such a statement can be classified as guessing also.


Of course they can be massaged. Of course they can be misquoted. Of course they can be done by morons who don't know what they're doing. It happens all the time. That's why you have to use your brain and read about it. Statistics, when done right, are an excellent source of information. They can rarely demonstrate a causal relation but that's not the issue. If you care so much about the way the study has been done, you have to read it yourself. I study in political science so I know darn well how misleading they can be but also how useful they are. If all statistics are inherently bad, it could be impossible to have the bigger picture.

Now there are two ways to make a study: one is qualitative and the other is quantitative. Many say qualitative is the only way to go. Many say quantitative is the only way to go. False debate since both complete each other. Qualitative study takes the form of interviews or observations and quantitative, you guessed it, statistics. More often then not, one comes in to confirm the results of the other.

I got my degree in Poly Sci and have to say somewhat cynically that the reason that stats and studies are useful is B/C they are so misleading and can be massaged so easily and spoonfed to an often gullible/guileless public.


It's fun that you say that statistics can't be trusted but you use words like "most" out of thin air. How do you know? I don't think you're wrong when you say that most abortions are a motivated by the person's socio-economic
questions. I don't know in fact. It seems like it. However, just because it
seems like it doesn't mean it is like it.

Well, if the studies you seem to trust so willingly are any indication, then the statements basically hold up. Nevertheless, I shall endeavor in the future to preface such comments with qualifiers like....if stats/studies are to be believed..... ;)

JediMaster12
02-09-2007, 01:49 AM
As far as I've noticed, no one here has stated that rape was ok or excusable, just not as unavoidable as you seem to suggest.
Rape isn't excusable. At large by societal consent it is not ok.

Totenkopf
02-09-2007, 02:09 AM
You seem to misunderstand my statement. Luke appears to be stating that rape is unavoidable b/c it's somehow completely unpredictable. My contention is that people can avoid being raped, or signicantly reduce it's likelihood by using common sense. As we live in the real world, anything is POSSIBLE, but the PROBABILITY of something happening can be lessened by using common sense. Remember, I pointed out that the perp doesn't get a pass on his behavior regardless of the circumstances.

Ray Jones
02-09-2007, 09:07 AM
Nonetheless, there are precautions you can take in both instances, and once again you assume that a woman has no choice in the matter. At the very least she can dress in a way that doesn't provoke unwanted interest. For the most part, no woman is completely inculpable when it comes to whom she allows to stick their bits into her.That is wrong on so many levels. Firstly, every person is turned on by different things, heck, there are surely enough people who get "teh hawt" when they see someone wrapped up in a stinky yak-hair-wool-thinger. And secondly, what Jae said.

Do you really believe what you said?

Jae Onasi
02-09-2007, 10:58 AM
Anyone, male or female, traveling alone in a dangerous setting increases their risk of any crime. However, the fact remains that the criminal has to make the decision to commit the crime.
While we're on the discussion of stats--they have their uses. There may be biases and mistakes, but you can't ignore the general trends of _good_ studies done on thousands of people.
While we're on the subject of rape and walking in dark alleys...this comes from the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network.

Contrary to the belief that rapists are hiding in the bushes or in the shadows of the parking garage, almost two-thirds of all rapes were committed by someone who is known to the victim. 73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger – 38% of perpetrators were a friend or acquaintance of the victim, 28% were an intimate and 7% were another relative.

Most rapes are actually committed by someone the woman knows.

A '96 study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Aug;175(2):320-4; discussion 324-5.) noted that 50% of women who got pregnant as a result of rape chose to abort. About 32% had and kept the baby, about 6% carried the baby and gave the baby up for adoption, and about 12% of these women miscarried.
Normal miscarriage rates for women less than age 35 is about 15%.

I certainly can understand the desire to abort after rape, and I honestly can't blame a woman for wanting to do that. Actually, I thought the statistic for abortion after rape would be higher. I haven't seen much of anything addressing the needs of those women who choose to keep their babies (though my research has been admittedly brief)--they have some unique issues and challenges to deal with that other parents won't ever experience.

lukeiamyourdad
02-09-2007, 01:23 PM
Actually, you're wrong, it is part of the issue. I know the cult of victimology is very much in vogue these days, but that doesn't change the fact that people need to use common sense. Hopefully you noticed that I didn't contest that rapes can be unpredictable. They can also be predictable if you take into account the risky behavior people engage in b/c they think they should be able to do whatever, whereever and whenever they want. Walking alone at night in poorly lit areas is always something a women should avoid if at all possible. Drinking to excess and heavy partying can also lead to unwanted attention. I'd say, btw, that it may be axiomatic that a large percentage of rapes don't occur in broad daylight in the presence of a slew of witnesses. The exception to this would most likely be a war zone (think Berlin, Shanghai, etc..). I'd also be willing to bet that an equally large number of "dumb" women get raped as "smart" women b/c they don't use any common sense.

I was thinking about this in the morning and you assumed the fact that a causal relation or at least a statistical link exists between the way someone dresses and where they go, which I don't think there is, until you can provide something that proves at least a correlation. There was a series of rapes being committed here Montreal last year. Most of the victims were women, who came home late from a party or work who got raped in areas that you would never think a rape would occur. The study Jae quoted above seems to prove the contrary.

Can you lower the risks of getting raped? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. You know the irony of saying stats and studies are all biased and false? You're telling me that going alone in a dark place augments the chances of rape. In other words, if a study was made, it would show that more rapes occur in those areas. I know it seems like common sense, but even common sense assumes that some information is behind. You saying not to use statistics, but in your reasoning, you use them.



I didn't cite Lindbolm b/c I was specifically dealing with "sexual crimes" and not laws in general. The problem here seems to be an elasticity in defining the crimes. Perhaps that trend doesn't exist in Canada?

Except that sexual crimes require definitions, which are provided by the law. Talking about Lindblom was perfectly good. If there is elasticity in the definition, then it must be changed. To only way to do so is electing those who will or creating enough public outcry so that politicians don't have much of a choice but to start a social debate on the issue.

The problem in Canada of "mass-suing" for sexual harassment does not, at least currently, exist. The reason is that the legal system rarely gives a lot of money to the plaintiff. Considering that having a decent lawyer is still expensive and the gains are not worth the effort, unless you seriously have been sexually harassed, false accusations are not flung around so often. That's my take on it.




Actually, the overall topic is abortion (not just rape), you cited ET and his position could be fairly summed up, in part, as abortion should be allowable b/c no victim of rape (who would suffer if abortion were outlawed) should be exempted from such a choice. As far as I've noticed, no one here has stated that rape was ok or excusable, just not as unavoidable as you seem to suggest.

I think that I know it's about abortion. I can read thread titles.

I was actually not careful about what I quoted. I should definitely have been more clearer. I was specifically referring to these quotes:

...so if the numbers have dropped we can ignore the problem? I don't quite understand why the fact that rape number going down (while good news) should have any bearing on the fact that rape is still not an "uncommon problem".

Rape has been a human problem for as long as there is recorded history. It has nothing to do with 'western society' or the 'trivialization' of sex and life issues.

It was a bad mistake from my part.


I think DI's point, he can feel free to correct me, is that there is no way to verify if the people cited in studies are essentially lying and that guestimating that the numbers of crime x is 3-4x the # reported is an unsupportable supposition. Anybody can make those kinds of claims about anything. The anecdotal evidence gathered in the studies is basically accepted on faith if it follows the study's script. I would agree that such a statement can be classified as guessing also.

Of course people can lie. I've interviewed people who said they read a lot about some subject and proven that they don't know anything about it. You have to be able to discern the lies from the truths from the entire interview.

If they answered a survey, you can only hope that people are saying the truth because it's anonymous. It all comes down on how you build a survey. Racist people don't say that they're racist. In their heads, they aren't. You have to make your questions so they can indicate if the person is racist, based on what you defined as racist.


I got my degree in Poly Sci and have to say somewhat cynically that the reason that stats and studies are useful is B/C they are so misleading and can be massaged so easily and spoonfed to an often gullible/guileless public.

So you're trying to make me believe the fact that you got a degree in political science, without ever quoting a scientific article in any text you have written? No offense, but I doubt that you're such a genius that your word has strength of law.

They can be manipulated. Survey agencies have a tendency to say what their client want them to say. However, if it's published in a scientific journal with a review committee, I don't see how you can automatically conclude that it's a load of crap. You're basically saying that everything your colleagues have written is unreliable and useless.

Well, if the studies you seem to trust so willingly are any indication, then the statements basically hold up. Nevertheless, I shall endeavor in the future to preface such comments with qualifiers like....if stats/studies are to be believed..... ;)


I trust studies when they're well done. Your statements hold up, indeed, if the studies are right. However, since you dispute them, using them only when it forwards your own point is, and I say this politely, hypocrisy.

Jae Onasi
02-09-2007, 01:33 PM
OK, keep it civil, folks. The topic is hot enough, we don't need to make each other hot under the collar, too. :)

Darth InSidious
02-09-2007, 05:43 PM
Hmmm....by counting the number of new calls to a rape crisis centres. By doing public surveys on the issue. By extrapolating figures on reported assaults against women where there is noted suspicion of a rape, but the victim was unwilling to co-operate further. And I'm sure if I wasn't feeling so incensed at the present moment, I could probably think of a few more methods for statistical investigation.
Fair enough, OK.

I'll admit that my cosmetic surgery analogy isn't of the same emotional and political scale, but I still think it is wrong for me to impose my standards of morality on others who may not share the same social or religious values that I do. Making abortion completely illegal is not going to stop someone from getting one if they really want to. It just makes a traumatic procedure more traumatic, hazardous, and more expensive.

True, but it does reduce the ability of those doing so purely for convenience to do so greatly.

Point in case, scores of Irish women cross the channel to come to the UK each year specifically to get an abortion as it's completely illegal in Ireland, proving that making the act illegal does not stop it from happening. It just happens someplace else and costs the woman more to do it. (I'd post a link for statistics on that particular factoid, but you can search the BBC website for them if you really feel the need.)

Ah, well, here of course there's the question of who is then guilty of what...I'm not going to start the personhood argument, but if there is even the possibility that a foetus is a living creature, and that we are wrong, do we have the right to risk what may be murder?

Aren't we forcing our doctors to cross their oathes, in taking life, even if only future life, rather than preserving it?

And as far as drawing a legal line? How about drawing it between when the foetus can viably survive on its own outside the womb and when it cannot?
What about the point at which it is conscious of its surroundings? Is that not a prime mark of life? Or the point at which it fulfils all the hallmarks of life?

Also, it is always tempting for politicians to creep such boundaries ever more loose...It is generally harder to start such a thing completely, than just to tweak it a bit...and then a bit more, and a bit more...you see what I mean?

It does nothing to erase the crime nor the memory of it. But had I ended up pregnant, an abortion would've given me some small measure of retribution against my attacker. I certainly would not have wanted to have been 'forced' to bear any child of his. Why should I? Why should he be allowed to spread his genes into the gene pool without my consent? I stand by what I said earlier. Had I fallen pregnant, (and thank God I didn't,) there is no question that I would have sought an abortion as soon as possible. Legally or not. In my mind, it would not be getting rid of 'my child' but rather 'his leftovers.' Apologies if that sounds harsh or graphic, but that's how I feel.

It has been argued that the body of the attacked is simply invaded twice in such an instance...

As for spreading his genes, this rather raises the nature/nurture thing again, IMO...

Oh, and I took a look at article in the link you posted. Thank you for posting it, but I'm rather disappointed that Dr. Reardon didn't site any references (bar one from 1987) prior to 1979 to support his article. A lot of things have changed since then, especially in the handling and counseling of sexual assault/incest victims.

True. I will try to find something a little more up-to-date.

And I still do not agree with your assessment that a woman is 'inviting' someone to assault her by wearing what someone else considers to be 'provacative' clothing. That's akin to saying someone is 'inviting' someone to mug them when they decide to take a large sum of money from a cash machine. In both instances, it is the criminal who is responsible for perpetrating the crime, not the victim.

See below, posted by Totenkopf.

While we are on this, I would like to say that I was NOT in ANY way shape or form defending rapists, or claiming that their victims are in any way shape or form guilty of anything.

But the topic here is abortion and the Portuguese vote on the 11th of February, so I'm not responding to anymore comments. (It's just making me angry.) I already voted in the poll and said my two plus cents. But I am, however, interested to see what the Portuguese people decide, being for the most part a Catholic country. Should prove interesting to see if their decision will affect other European countries.
I'm sorry it's making you angry, and you are quite correct on the issue at hand. Its been interesting discussing this with you :)


I'm not convinced I know how it is that you know these statistics are clearly skewed. You said yourself you didn't know who or how they made these studies...

A rash comment. Nonetheless, I found the sheer numbers somewhat unbelievable...

Here is a governmental source of rape statistics. If you want to ignore them, then I don't quite understand why you are trying to engage in debate...
Source (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm)

Governments are not immune to skewing figures, but I'll let that pass for the moment.

Assuming the figures are wholly correct, first off, that's a worryingly high statistic.

Secondly, would it not be better to focus on preventing the rapes in the first place?

Third, we come back to the moral issue here - does even rape excuse the removal of a person from society in the future?

I don't have the answer - I'd say no, but I've not been in that position.

...so if the numbers have dropped we can ignore the problem? I don't quite understand why the fact that rape number going down (while good news) should have any bearing on the fact that rape is still not an "uncommon problem".

My point was simply that it was in fact decreasing as a problem - nothing more.

Rape has been a human problem for as long as there is recorded history. It has nothing to do with 'western society' or the 'trivialization' of sex and life issues.

True. Glib comment. Ignore it, please.

What if it was all over the news? The Music Lovers society is preying on sleeping individuals, breaking into their homes and hooking them up to dying musicians! You know the risks of sleeping without putting bars on the doors and windows.
What if it wasn't? What if you didn't watch the news? What if your TV was stolen last week? What if you live miles away from anyone else in the countryside?
Except the 'environment' is not a living, thinking organism. It isn't an organism at all. It isn't analogous to pregnancy.

No, but I though that sentience was not necessarily relevant...?


Even if the deaths are a small risk, they are STILL A RISK. A woman should have the right to choose if she wants to put herself in that situation or not. And as for the part where I said it could destroy a woman's life, I meant very little about having bad children who make life hard. I was referring to a young woman who may have to drop out of high school because she cannot take care of a baby and go to classes. She will possibly be stamped with the label "slut" or "tramp" by anyone she interacts with. She may have difficulty finding a job that will allow her to work hours so she can still take care of her child, or they might just not hire her because "how can she be responsible enough to work if she can't even keep her pants on". I can come up with more examples if you really want.
In the instance of possible death, the principle of Double Effect comes into play.

As for the difficulties of being young and having a child, the social stigmas cannot be helped, although we can try to make people more open-minded...And the difficulties of classes and managing with a child are not lost on me. I don't know what the situation is like in the US, but here we do give benefits to young, single mothers who lack support. And as for jobs, AFAIK, our legal system would see that as discrimination. It's not perfect, but there are ways around it. No, its not easy, but no-one ever said it would be.

I agree with you on this. I don't agree with people promoting abortion as a superior choice to adoption or keeping the child. I also don't agree with people promoting adoption or keeping the child as superior choices to abortion. It is a personal choice to be made on a case by case basis.
Well, this brings us straight back to square one, doesn't it?
Personhood vs Choice, Right to Life vs. Quality of Life, Absolutism vs. Relativism...In the end, it comes down to conscience...

I love the what-if game! What if that person was going to be the next Hitler? What if they were going to cure cancer? What if they were going to create a nuclear explosive and detonate it in the middle of your home country? Of course, in the history of the world there was only one Albert Einstein, but there have been millions and millions of thieves, murderers, rapists, and all around bad people. So are you more likely to be aborting the next Einstein or the next mass-murderer?
Not the point I was trying to make, though I take yours :)

The point I was trying to make was that by doing this, you effectively kill a person, if not by their being in the womb, then you at least kill that person twenty years from now - their future self you destroy by allowing the abortion to go through, or by performing it.

Sure, here and now, the question of life is debatable, but that person who would have been is not.

@Ray: I wasn't very clear, sorry. Totenkopf is having much more luck in describing what I mean than I am...

@ET: Yep, you're right, that statistic was complete rubbish. Nonetheless, in terms of provable rapes in the UK (and I mean by that, cases where the full extent of the law has been used to test and weigh all the evidence impartially), the figure comes out at about 93%. It may well be lower, but ultimately, I cannot prove empirically that it is so. I don't deny any of the arguments put forward for their being a silent majority - there may well be one. But since their cases do not come to court to be tried, I cannot in all honesty say one way or the other that it is so - I may suspect one way or the other, but do I have the evidence of legal proceedings to go on? No.

Totenkopf
02-09-2007, 06:39 PM
Gee, Luke, seems I've touched a nerve. Your petulant comment about my background notwithstanding, whether one cites an article as alleged proof of their point proves nothing either. Am I to take it that you're suggesting that I don't have a degree? Or is your sense of propriety offended b/c I don't go searching for a convenient article/study to buttress my views? I mean, equally politely of course (;)), that you've not exactly bowled me over with your towering intellect either.

Frankly, common sense dictates a lot of things that don't necessarily have studies (or at least till the 20th century, I suppose) to back up the logic and or prudence of certain acts. For instance, you should not need a study to tell you that unprotected sex could give you an STD, a child or both. Common sense should also tell you that trolling through an unfamiliar area in the dark is a very dicey proposition, especially by yourself. However, I fail to see how on the one hand you're willing to cede that something makes a lot of sense, but then seem to have to wait for someone to tell you it's ok to believe something you inately recognize as true. I guess you'd call it "deferring to the experts".

Fact is, I've never said that all studies and stats are false. I said they are unreliable insofar as you usually know nothing about the source. Your apparent blind faith in the process makes about as much sense as someone saying several centuries ago...."well the 'pick an authority figure' said it was so, so it must be. They all seem to agree." Just because someone has a degree after their name doesn't absolve them of biases or ulterior motives.

Also, and you touch on this, your placing an awful lot of faith in someone elses interpretation of events/info to classify people properly. You suggest that the conductor of a study will decide if someone is, for example, racist based on the surveyor's concept of racism. That automatically predisposes the study to bias. If the people conducting the poll/survey/study hold to the belief that opposition to affirmative action, for example,is racist, how do you want to bet they will classify you if you don't support that agenda? Presto, magico....you're now a statistical racist.

Unlike you, apparently, I don't go running for the nearest study to figure out if something makes sense or is ok. I point out that if one is to rely on these statistics, they paint a picture that often doesn't support the view they're trying to promulgate. That is not being hypocritical, but it may be hoisting you/them on your/their own petard. I'm somewhat curious as to by what authority you are competent to judge just how well done the studies are that you believe in anyway. Did you do an overview personally? Or are you just deferring to others again?

As to the casual link argument of yours, I can't make you recognize common sense against your will. What are you going to do with yourself if you don't have a study to tell you how to behave? ;)

I will say in closing here that one thing seems to be apparent here. Neither I nor DI have suggested that rape is ok or always preventable. It does appear that many of you have leapt to this erroneous conclusion. It's an imperfect world, and to suggest that certain behaviors don't have potentially disastrous results b/c some study hasn't given you that epiphany is both foolish and silly. So, is abortion to be made available to all women regardless of their circumstances or just to those that can prove they were raped? If your answer is the former, then rape is inconsequential as a rationalization for the right to abort as you've already decided it's largely irrelevant anyway. Basically put: she wants it dead, so off it goes, regardless of the reason.

BTW, for the record, this is NOT a trivialization of the emotional/physical pain rape victims endure and is not aimed at them. The point is that for those, like ET for example, that believe in the her body/her choice mantra, it is inconsequential to what degree rape is involved in what % of cases if there is to be no restriction on abortion in the first place. It's merely a tangential consideration in a much larger debate.

Emperor Devon
02-09-2007, 11:56 PM
The fact that the baby cannot yet live on his or her own is not relevent to his or her personhood.

No... But its inability to even think is.

Where do you draw the line at personhood?

Since there's no clear line where that is and abortion should be an individual decision, I say leave that to the individuals.

If you've carried a child 38 weeks and decide you don't want the child, just have the baby and give it up for adoption.

When it's at the point where a woman has to give birth after 9 months either way, I agree with you on that. However, my personal views are irrelevant. If a woman decides she wants a late-term abortion, that's not my business.

(though citations are always good if you want your point taken seriously),

I disagree. There are quite a few instances in this debate where citation isn't need; you don't need to quote any renowned experts on the subject of relative morality to know that a Big Brother-style government is bad. :)

and we're not going to get hung up on British vs. English spelling (which is off topic).

That's 'off-topic'. :xp:

Fine, then. Point A: Personal freedom
I did already address this. A person does NOT have the freedom to harm another person.

If you're talking about rape, there are several other people here discussing this better than I probably could.

No, people who haven't been raped can talk about it. Surely you have an opinion, given how major a part of the abortion debate it is?

When a man and a woman get in bed together, they should remember that the reason sex exists is not for the pleasure of the man and woman. That's just a bonus.

Can you really expect people to remember that? :)

I mean, at least she knows the child is alive, and has a chance for a happy life elsewhere.

ET has addressed that part already... Orphanages are not always pleasant. And that's not even mentioning the trauma the mother might experience upon giving her child away.

What if the father of a child wanted the child to be born, but the mother didn't (for whatever reason)?

What if I wanted Jae to wear a t-shirt every day with 'I'm going to get PWNED on my duel with Devon!!!' printed on it? What if I'd made the shirt myself? I'd want that, but Jae's a separate person. The same instance applies to the father in this case - he's not the one who's going to give birth to it, and it's not growing in his body.

That said, the personal beliefs of abortion advocates say that a fetus isn't a person. But what if it is? It's better to err on the side of caution, or, as my mom says, err on the side of life, as the possibility remains that a fetus is a person.

We've already gotten into the person debate... Unless you can prove that souls exist, it has no bearing in this discussion.

Better to be safe than sorry, as the saying goes.

Better safe than sorry? Either impose your own views on people that can't be proven true, or take away their rights? :)

There, happy now? :xp:

No. :xp:

Any abortifacient contraceptive technology, such as abortion, the pill, etc. is morally unacceptable.

Again, we've gotten into that. Unless you can prove that souls exist, (which seems to be the prime reason you think life begins at conception) any arguments you have related to it possess no merit.

Samnmax221
02-10-2007, 12:11 AM
Any abortifacient contraceptive technology, such as abortion, the pill, etc. is morally unacceptable.
I don't spose' you'd mind explaining the reasoning behind not using any sort of contraceptive, even condoms?

lukeiamyourdad
02-10-2007, 12:49 AM
Gee, Luke, seems I've touched a nerve. Your petulant comment about my background notwithstanding, whether one cites an article as alleged proof of their point proves nothing either. Am I to take it that you're suggesting that I don't have a degree? Or is your sense of propriety offended b/c I don't go searching for a convenient article/study to buttress my views? I mean, equally politely of course (;)), that you've not exactly bowled me over with your towering intellect either.

No, I just want to know how you can get a degree without quoting other people. I'd love to know, it'll make it easier for me.

DI's original claim was that dressing provocatively was a highway to getting raped. Which he has not proven, nor you as matter of fact, the correlation. Unless you can provide a valid source, it remains inexistent for now.

I'm not saying that someone should rest their butt on studies alone. Your views, are your views and a view is not a verifiable fact. However, when claiming the women who dress provocatively have more chance of getting raped, I ask it again, where is the evidence?

Frankly, common sense dictates a lot of things that don't necessarily have studies (or at least till the 20th century, I suppose) to back up the logic and or prudence of certain acts. For instance, you should not need a study to tell you that unprotected sex could give you an STD, a child or both. Common sense should also tell you that trolling through an unfamiliar area in the dark is a very dicey proposition, especially by yourself.

The reasoning behind not doing either of those acts, is not motivated by some "common sense". For example, going through a dark alley and increasing the risk of crime against you. You don't know this for a fact. However, the information you have gathered points to it being more dangerous. Your parents have told you to avoid dark places. Your friends have been mugged in a dark place. The reasoning you made in your head, is based on these informations, tells you to avoid a dark place, because it looks like so. Is it really so? I'm sure that if I did a research, I'd find a study to back that up. However, this is not the issue. You speak of it as fact, without providing anything to back it up. The problem is that, hypothetically speaking, you could always find that studies made on the issue proved that going into dark alleys wasn't more dangerous.

For the unprotected sex example, the reasoning is the same. If nobody told you that you could get an STD, a child or both, you would not know. You do need a study to tell you what the chances are.


However, I fail to see how on the one hand you're willing to cede that something makes a lot of sense, but then seem to have to wait for someone to tell you it's ok to believe something you inately recognize as true. I guess you'd call it "deferring to the experts".

The problem with personal reasonings is that they're very much subjected to the person's bias. If you and everyone around you got mugged by black people, would "common sense" not dictate that black people commit more crimes then others?

I fail to see how you can interpret the infinitely complex reality so easily with this "common sense". In fact, I totally fail to understand how someone who is a political scientist, decides to rely on "common sense".


Fact is, I've never said that all studies and stats are false. I said they are unreliable insofar as you usually know nothing about the source. Your apparent blind faith in the process makes about as much sense as someone saying several centuries ago...."well the 'pick an authority figure' said it was so, so it must be. They all seem to agree." Just because someone has a degree after their name doesn't absolve them of biases or ulterior motives.

If they're unreliable, might as well be false. Might as well stop gathering statistics. Never did I say that a study could not be biased by the person who made it. That's why you need to check their methodology yourself. And to claim that an entire journal's scientific panel is totally biased, that's bold. It can be possible however. You can always detect the allegiance of the person in their text and their interpretation of the results. However, disputing the numbers, if the methodology has been correctly respected according to current scientific protocol is another thing. You'd have to make a counter study and try and find the opposite result, usually by following the same process.

Also, and you touch on this, your placing an awful lot of faith in someone elses interpretation of events/info to classify people properly. You suggest that the conductor of a study will decide if someone is, for example, racist based on the surveyor's concept of racism. That automatically predisposes the study to bias. If the people conducting the poll/survey/study hold to the belief that opposition to affirmative action, for example,is racist, how do you want to bet they will classify you if you don't support that agenda? Presto, magico....you're now a statistical racist.

Except that you forget that the definition is contestable. If the study included people who simply opposed affirmative action into the "racist" category, the methodology will be contested.

Of course, you can always point out the mistake, whether it was willful or not is unimportant, and point out in your "rebuttal" of sorts that the maker of the study included people that weren't racist because of your definition of racism. You point out the flaw and that's it.

Note that I never said that DI's questioning of ET's posted study were wrong, I even said that they were good questions, though I did consider them a futile exercise, considering the subject.

Unlike you, apparently, I don't go running for the nearest study to figure out if something makes sense or is ok. I point out that if one is to rely on these statistics, they paint a picture that often doesn't support the view they're trying to promulgate. That is not being hypocritical, but it may be hoisting you/them on your/their own petard. I'm somewhat curious as to by what authority you are competent to judge just how well done the studies are that you believe in anyway. Did you do an overview personally? Or are you just deferring to others again?

Then who are you to decide that something that makes sense is inherently true? Many things that seem to be common knowledge are not inherently true. For example, someone can say that the province of Québec is more to the left, if you consider the media and everything related. However, once you get out of the city of Montréal, you'll notice that it's not as left as the media portrays it.

You are subject to your own personal bias that stops you from seeing the larger picture, as we are all.

As for who I am to judge the studies, well, nobody. I just check out if it's well done, if the makers have well defined their...definitions, if they have respected their protocol (randomly chosen candidates, etc.), if it has been reviewed by a panel of scientists. Generally speaking, when they're published in scientific journals, they're well done. Doesn't mean that you can't find any criticism, but it does mean that it's reliable enough to quote.


As to the casual link argument of yours, I can't make you recognize common sense against your will. What are you going to do with yourself if you don't have a study to tell you how to behave? ;)

I will assume you mean causal and not casual. I reiterate what I said above. You and DI suggested that women who wore provocative clothes were more prone to getting raped, which I ask again, where is the evidence? Common sense? You're a scientist, you should know better then to use that kind of argument in a debate.

Easy example. In Hungary, women are exhibitionists. Is the rape number higher there? I don't know, I don't have the stats. But it could be lower then in places where women are covered head to tow. The opposite is also true. Assuming that it's lower or marginally higher, using the same study with the same questions asked and the same definitions, it would mean that, against common sense, wearing provocative clothing does not incite raping.

A closer to political science example. Wilson and other institutionalists have long thought that giving a country the necessary democratic institutions was enough to consolidate democracy. However, against what seemed easy to understand, (after all, who doesn't want to be "free"?) the Weimar republic and the Taisho democracy disappeared, replaced by dictatorships supported by the people.

Q
02-10-2007, 01:09 AM
I don't spose' you'd mind explaining the reasoning behind not using any sort of contraceptive, even condoms?
That's (generally) a Catholic thing. Hence the gigantic Catholic families. No disrespect intended towards Catholics, but most Protestants believe that contraception is acceptable when used by married couples.

JediMaster12
02-10-2007, 01:25 AM
Better safe than sorry? Either impose your own views on people that can't be proven true, or take away their rights?
Don't go there ED with stripping away of rights. I had enough of that in history today with the Japanese Internment camps. What my understanding is that she is trying to emphasize that if two people are going to engage in sexual relations, they would be aware of the consequences. I believe she was trying to say that if you don't want pregnancy to happen then you should take measures to prevent it.

Emperor Devon
02-10-2007, 03:19 AM
Don't go there ED with stripping away of rights.

It is the stripping away of rights, minor or major. The government telling people people whether they can get rid of a mass of cells in their bodies or not would constitute as that - the decision isn't being left in the hands of the people it affects.

Darth InSidious
02-10-2007, 09:33 AM
@ED: It's not about rights, but beliefs, IMO.

You are forcing your moral code to override ours. Whether yours leaves room for 'you to believe what we want to believe' is neither here nor there. Your moral code, in this case, if I understand it correctly, saying 'believe what you will, and leave the questions open', is still a moral code, and is still overriding another person's.

I also have yet to see an answer to the question of temporal narrow-mindedness.

@LIAYD: Sorry, but 'women in Hungary are exhibitionists'? Very off-topic, but could you please explain your...conclusion in this regard?

Emperor Devon
02-10-2007, 12:20 PM
You are forcing your moral code to override ours.

Far less so than the pro-life side of the issue in that case... If a woman gets raped and doesn't want to have an abortion because it goes against her beliefs, then great, she can have the kid.

Unless one of the principles of your moral code is forcing it upon others without their consent and whether they agree with it or not, you can hardly say that.

Your moral code, in this case, if I understand it correctly, saying 'believe what you will, and leave the questions open', is still a moral code, and is still overriding another person's.

...

I also have yet to see an answer to the question of temporal narrow-mindedness.

From me? Remind me what it was, in that case.

Aurora Starfire
02-10-2007, 12:26 PM
No, people who haven't been raped can talk about it. Surely you have an opinion, given how major a part of the abortion debate it is?
Well, if you insist upon me saying something on the subject, let me recommend the article Darth InSidious mentioned earlier. There's nothing I could say, really, that isn't explained better there.

Can you really expect people to remember that?
Perhaps not while they're actually doing it, but they should bear it in mind beforehand and afterwards.

ET has addressed that part already... Orphanages are not always pleasant. And that's not even mentioning the trauma the mother might experience upon giving her child away.
You didn't even address the fact that most women are far more traumatized by abortion than giving up their child for adoption. In fact, many women feel a lot of guilt and regret over their abortions.
As for orphanages being unpleasant, perhaps you've been reading too much Oliver Twist ;) On a more serious note, orphanages are a lot less common today than they were many years ago, at least in the US. And many children who are adopted live happy, healthy, normal lives with their adopted families. I have relatives who adopted children, at least one of whom was an arranged adoption (that is, arranged with the mother to legally adopt her child, who was not yet even born), and a good friend who was adopted, as well.

What if I wanted Jae to wear a t-shirt every day with 'I'm going to get PWNED on my duel with Devon!!!' printed on it? What if I'd made the shirt myself? I'd want that, but Jae's a separate person. The same instance applies to the father in this case - he's not the one who's going to give birth to it, and it's not growing in his body.
Er, that has very little correlation to the topic. A shirt is totally, completely, utterly and irrevocably different from a baby. And it doesn't change the fact that the baby is a part of the father, as much as it is a part of the mother. The mother supports the child while he is growing in her body, and the father supports the child while he is growing outside of the mother's body. At least, that's what happens when the father takes responsibility for his actions, including helping to create the child. Some fathers, notably the ones who claim that it's "the woman's choice" try to absolve themselves of any responsibility so that they don't have to support their child.

We've already gotten into the person debate... Unless you can prove that souls exist, it has no bearing in this discussion.
Better safe than sorry? Either impose your own views on people that can't be proven true, or take away their rights?
It has as much bearing as your "choice" argument. Can you see a decision? Can you touch it? Hear it? Smell it? Taste it? Sure, you can see/feel/hear/smell/taste the RESULTS of that decision, but not the decision itself. So, until you can prove that choice exists, it has no bearing in this discussion. (this is not to say that I disbelieve in free will or choice, but merely to point out one thing: All of you who say that the soul has no bearing unless you can prove its existence are not thinking logically. There are plenty of things you DON'T dispute the existence of, but you can't detect them any more than a soul)
As for imposing my views, I believe that Darth InSidious answered that very well.

Again, we've gotten into that. Unless you can prove that souls exist, (which seems to be the prime reason you think life begins at conception) any arguments you have related to it possess no merit.
Stalemate. Your arguments possess no merit either. (See my above statement) And actually, that's only part of the reason, though an important part. Another part is that any life that will be a human being that even you can recognise is a human life. And it is wrong to take a human life.

I don't spose' you'd mind explaining the reasoning behind not using any sort of contraceptive, even condoms?
No, I don't mind. What I said was that any abortifacient contraceptive technology is morally unacceptable. However, I also do not hold with artificial means to prevent conception, but those which merely prevent conception, not kill already conceived fetuses, are less morally wrong than abortifacient contraceptives. Still wrong, but less so.
My reasoning for it being wrong is that the act was created so that a man and a woman could create new life together. The preventives take that away from the act. Cheapen it. Few people realize what a sacred gift it is, to be able to create life. The irony is that man has been given the secret to the creation of new life, and instead of rejoicing in that gift, he cheapens it, and works to find other, more "scientific" ways of the creation and preservation of life.

Totenkopf
02-10-2007, 01:54 PM
Easy example. In Hungary, women are exhibitionists. Is the rape number higher there? I don't know, I don't have the stats. But it could be lower then in places where women are covered head to tow. The opposite is also true. Assuming that it's lower or marginally higher, using the same study with the same questions asked and the same definitions, it would mean that, against common sense, wearing provocative clothing does not incite raping. A closer to political science example. Wilson and other institutionalists have long thought that giving a country the necessary democratic institutions was enough to consolidate democracy. However, against what seemed easy to understand, (after all, who doesn't want to be "free"?) the Weimar republic and the Taisho democracy disappeared, replaced by dictatorships supported by the people.

Basically same here as well. They were engaging in little more than wishful thinking in the hope of avoiding another world war in the future (or at least their own future). Common sense would have informed them that merely bestowing the mechanism without actually changing the culture itself would not give them the desired result. They were also, perhaps, guilty of neglect. They planted the seeds of democracy in rocky soil and basically left it to fend for itself. No wonder it failed. In the face of a vocal and militant plurality in both countries, democracy either died or became dormant.

Once again, though, as I said, if rape is to be considered a reasonable cause to allow abortion, it must be admitted by the other side that it is also the exception (unless your a militant feminist, who thinks all hetero sex is rape), as that is what the stats they rely on tell them. So, even if you allow such acts to result in abortion, you're still faced with the grand majority of abortions being little more than retroactive birth control b/c two people wouldn't control themselves responsibly. For those people, the robbery analogy doesn't hold up, unless they are robbing themselves. Same for violin society, because most women are not uwitting participants in their own pregnancies.

I snipped off topic comments. Discussion of common sense vs research vs. other stuff would make another fine thread or PM material. --Jae

lukeiamyourdad
02-10-2007, 03:45 PM
Also, I was very careful to avoid making "foot down" statements. In other words, I did not say for fact that I knew that Hungarian women were less prone to getting raped. I'm just asking that if that was the case, there would not be a correlation between clothing and rape.
I snipped off topic comments. Discussion of common sense vs research vs. other stuff would make another fine thread or PM material. --Jae

Jae Onasi
02-10-2007, 11:59 PM
No, I don't mind. What I said was that any abortifacient contraceptive technology is morally unacceptable. However, I also do not hold with artificial means to prevent conception, but those which merely prevent conception, not kill already conceived fetuses, are less morally wrong than abortifacient contraceptives. Still wrong, but less so.
My reasoning for it being wrong is that the act was created so that a man and a woman could create new life together. The preventives take that away from the act. Cheapen it. Few people realize what a sacred gift it is, to be able to create life. The irony is that man has been given the secret to the creation of new life, and instead of rejoicing in that gift, he cheapens it, and works to find other, more "scientific" ways of the creation and preservation of life.

I've heard in evangelical communities as well as Catholic that some think the Pill is an abortifacient. I find this very odd, since the Pill acts to prevent ovulation, so no egg is released. If there's no egg, there's no conception, and thus no baby is killed by the Pill. The medication does cause changes in the uterus that make it hostile for embryo implantation (which I think is what the pro-Life groups are concerned about in case an egg did for some odd reason get released), but that's irrelevent if egg fertilization never happens. I can't characterize this particular medication as an abortifacient.

The 'morning after' pill (aka emergency contraception or EC) could technically be characterized as an abortifacient since it will work to prevent implantation of an existing embryo. However, this medication, which is basically a souped up version of the Pill, still is designed to prevent ovulation more than anything else, rather than kill an embryo.

I disagree that "The Act" is designed merely for procreation. It also makes an important contribution to the depth of the marriage relationship as a whole.

Aurora Starfire
02-11-2007, 11:22 AM
The 'morning after' pill (aka emergency contraception or EC) could technically be characterized as an abortifacient since it will work to prevent implantation of an existing embryo. However, this medication, which is basically a souped up version of the Pill, still is designed to prevent ovulation more than anything else, rather than kill an embryo.

My apologies, that's the one I meant. I'm not very familiar with all the different stuff, so if I make a mistake like that, feel free to correct me ;)

I disagree that "The Act" is designed merely for procreation. It also makes an important contribution to the depth of the marriage relationship as a whole.

This is a good point, too. Now that I think of it, my mom did mention that part of it, but it was a while ago, and I forgot :xp:

Jason Skywalker
02-11-2007, 03:27 PM
'Case anyone cares, the Yes option won the poll, so now women can abort freely in Portugal.

mur'phon
02-11-2007, 04:55 PM
No, they can't, just read in an online newspaper that due to the low number of people bothering to vote, the vote is invalid. So, while the pro-choice gained a majoroty, you still need to get raped in order to be able to abort. But before the pro-life people begin to party, it should be noted that around 10 000 women are sent to hospital with injuries resulting from illegal abortion.
Too bad, that law semmed in desperate need of changing

Jae Onasi
02-11-2007, 11:35 PM
Ten thousand seems an awfully high number in a country as small as Portugal.

Negative Sun
02-12-2007, 04:35 AM
It's quite possible, I believe it has a dense population like the rest of Europe...

Jason Skywalker
02-12-2007, 05:06 AM
Well, most people didn't vote. This is the responsibility of the people you see...

JediMaster12
02-12-2007, 02:03 PM
True that it takes the people to vote.

*sigh*

It looks like people are more in favor of what they can do to their bodies but as I said in the ethics thread, the moral compass points you in the direction you should take but it doesn't make you go there. What to do next...

SilentScope001
02-12-2007, 04:56 PM
Hm...let me ask just one, ONE question to the Pro-Lifer crowd. I'm just curious, just all.

Suppose that the fetus is indeed a living being with a soul and when you are killing it, you are killing a human being.

Why are you angry about it? The fetus gets a one-way ticket to Heaven, or to Baby Hell (which isn't that bad). After all, he has done no bad deeds [expect, say, maybe the Original Sin], and the fetus just live his life normally, so the fetus is purely good and therefore gets to go to a Better Place (tm). So, is abortion really that bad a deed as you claim...because the fetus is going to Heaven and living a better life than the life he would be living if he was indeed born and grow up in this world. It no longer have to worry about the agonies of living in this world, it can now live peacefully in the Afterlife, and very gladly I might add.

And what if the fetus becomes an adult and does bad deeds and goes to Hell? Wouldn't it be much more better for the fetus to be aborted so that it does not go to Hell?

Aurora Starfire
02-12-2007, 05:04 PM
Um, because God specifically said, "Thou shalt not kill"?

Further, if God's only intention was for us to go to heaven, He would have simply created us there, and not here. What He wants, I believe anyway, is for us to choose Him of our own free will, for us to want to be with Him, and to choose to do the right thing because He wants us to.

mur'phon
02-12-2007, 05:06 PM
Ten thousand seems an awfully high number in a country as small as Portugal.

Not when the population is around 10 000 000. And its probably more, since the penalty for trying to/abort, is several years in prison. Now how many would go to a hospital unless severly injured when you risk geting arrested.

SilentScope001
02-12-2007, 05:12 PM
Um, because God specifically said, "Thou shalt not kill"?

Oh, that rule.

Okay, just was wondering. Now I can leave.
---
Wait, murphon, I think voting is not really that invalid. The reason is that in stasticis, if you poll 1000 random people, you can figure out what, for the most part, most people believe in, with an error precentage of +2% points.

So, for the most part, the elections are valid, since a random group of people voted in Portgual. And if the elections are very close to the wire,and it does not exceeds the 2% margin of error, then they are just arbitrary (a problem of democracy here).

Jae Onasi
02-12-2007, 08:04 PM
Hm...let me ask just one, ONE question to the Pro-Lifer crowd. I'm just curious, just all.
Suppose that the fetus is indeed a living being with a soul and when you are killing it, you are killing a human being.
Why are you angry about it?

For the same reason I get angry about anyone getting killed--the killer has just violated that person's fundamental right to life.

JediMaster12
02-12-2007, 09:15 PM
You said it better than I could Jae. The unfortunate thing is that in today's world people kill, the hint being the war on terrorism, etc.

Emperor Devon
02-13-2007, 02:59 AM
I'll address the other half of your arguments in my next post. It's getting late over here.

There's nothing I could say, really, that isn't explained better there.

At afterabortion.org?

Ah yes, your typical anti-abortion site. Naturally, it gives us the vision of a mother strapped to an operating table while a masked stranger slowly snuffs out the innocent life inside her, despite her please for him to stop.

Hardly a source I'd consider valid... It makes the abortion look to be a horrible experience the woman has no choice over. Quite the contrary - she chooses to have it done, she pays for it, and that's that. Sounds more like purchasing a service than "medical rape" as the site puts it. (And that's not even mentioning the total lack of evidence it has that says she can't change her mind, supposing she'd even do so at that stage)

The only real argument there was that most raped women choose to have kids, which means you should ban abortion just for the hell of it. Simply because 75% or so of the people raped chose to do that means you should force the other people to? No logical reasoning was provided, and that's not even mentioning their sourceless statistic about raped women.

In essence, it says that if some people choose to do something everyone else should be made to. You would consider that sufficient justification for no abortion in the case of rape?

Perhaps not while they're actually doing it, but they should bear it in mind beforehand and afterwards.

Would be a nice thing for them to bear in mind, but I doubt they would, unfortunately.

You didn't even address the fact that most women are far more traumatized by abortion than giving up their child for adoption.

Seeing an infant taken away to likely never be seen again is one thing... Removing a mass of mindless cells from your body is another.

But hey, that's their choice. I don't think it's reasonable for the government to babysit its populace down to that level.

As for orphanages being unpleasant, perhaps you've been reading too much Oliver Twist ;)

:xp:

The source ET provided addresses that well enough IMO. I'm not going to spend too much time explaining one of the more minir reasons.

Er, that has very little correlation to the topic. A shirt is totally, completely, utterly and irrevocably different from a baby.

In a sense, not particularly.... You're attempting to force your own views on someone who doesn't want them, and for what reason? They're your own views, and to deny them is to oppress them.

machievelli
02-20-2007, 11:07 PM
As a male in my fifties, who is not linked to a paternalistic religion, I can have only one stand on this.

I do not have to carry the child, supply it's needs (carrying it to term, Comfort or nursing) I should have no opinion. It is not my body that is being used by this child.

Do I have a say as the father? Yes, but my vote boils down to the equivalent of a non-permenant member of the security council She must, by definition, have the final veto.

Part of the problem Ihave with the right to lifers is the commercials they do with adopted kids and saying 'all were unwanted ptegnancies'.

Well It ain't necessarily so. I spent a year in the Lena Pope Home in Texas. Not as an orphan, but as someone stashed there while my mother fought a very nasty divorce back in the sixties.

Exactly two of my sisters were worth adoption then, one about 18 months old, the other just under a year old. The other for, with me at 13 the oldest of those dropped were not.

The man who ran the boy's wing had been raised there, four of the older inmates who left in that year had spent their entire lives in the home.

When i arrived there were 32 kids in the boys wing. when I left there were forty, and that includes the ones who left.

Empty every orphanage, regardless of their ages. Have every kid in a home. It doesn't have to be an Ozzie and Harriet home, just a home where they have someone to call mom and dad of their own.

When that happens I will cheer the right to lifers on. Until then they are not worth the powder to blow them to hell.

Achilles
02-21-2007, 03:26 PM
I think that every woman should have the right to an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of rape or if it puts the mother's health at risk. Even if I were to accept the argument that a fetus is a human life (which I don't, uniformily), I still wouldn't be willing to state that an unborn human has more "value" than fully developed and matured human.

I do not condone abortion as a form of birth control, except in the cases where another form of contreception was used but failed (the only form of contreception with 100% effectiveness is abstinence). I am not opposed to requiring that all women receive counseling prior to the procedure as part of deterence program. I realize that it would be difficult

I think that making abortion illegal only increases the prevelance of back-alley abortions and/or intentional miscarriages. Additionally, it completely ignores the women's privacy issues raise in Roe V. Wade.

machievelli
02-21-2007, 04:00 PM
I think that every woman should have the right to an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of rape or if it puts the mother's health at risk. Even if I were to accept the argument that a fetus is a human life (which I don't, uniformily), I still wouldn't be willing to state that an unborn human has more "value" than fully developed and matured human.

I do not condone abortion as a form of birth control, except in the cases where another form of contreception was used but failed (the only form of contreception with 100% effectiveness is abstinence). I am not opposed to requiring that all women receive counseling prior to the procedure as part of deterence program. I realize that it would be difficult

I think that making abortion illegal only increases the prevelance of back-alley abortions and/or intentional miscarriages. Additionally, it completely ignores the women's privacy issues raise in Roe V. Wade.

All valid points except for one. Using abortion in the event of an unwanted pregnancy is like playing poker with money and having the other guy say 'oh, it's all for fun. Give me back my money'.

In a rape or incest situation I am all for it because in those cases the woman has no choice as to whether she will even commit the act let alone bear a child. But if she used a form of birth control and it happened, she should accept her mistake and deal with it. As the old saying goes, you place your bets, you take your chances.

Achilles
02-21-2007, 06:05 PM
All valid points except for one. Using abortion in the event of an unwanted pregnancy is like playing poker with money and having the other guy say 'oh, it's all for fun. Give me back my money'.
So if a couple takes precautions but the precautions fail, they should just throw up their hands and say "oh well, looks like we're having a baby"? They obviously were not trying for a child. Also assume that this is a first-trimester abortion and not one of the 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions that the ultra-conservatives use as a rallying point against the procedure.

But if she used a form of birth control and it happened, she should accept her mistake and deal with it. As the old saying goes, you place your bets, you take your chances. I think that you and I are in agreement that it shouldn't be used as a casual form of birth control. I do not agree that "accept the mistake and deal with it" is responsible action or beneficial for anyone involved (especially the potential child).

I think the "you made your bed, now sleep in it" argument relies heavily upon the assumption that the female "should have known better". Catholics teach that contraception is a sin. Ultra-conservatives don't want safe sex taught in school (and I'm willing to bet they aren't teaching it at home either). I don't think it's reasonable to expect young women that are intentionally left in the dark to accept consequences that they can't foresee.

So again, I'm not advocating abortion as a form of contraception, however I believe that it is a necessary evil that we will have to live with until our culture adopts a more mature attitude about sex and sexual health.

jonathan7
02-21-2007, 06:14 PM
So if a couple takes precautions but the precautions fail, they should just throw up their hands and say "oh well, looks like we're having a baby"? They obviously were not trying for a child. Also assume that this is a first-trimester abortion and not one of the 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions that the ultra-conservatives use as a rallying point against the procedure.

I think that you and I are in agreement that it shouldn't be used as a casual form of birth control. I do not agree that "accept the mistake and deal with it" is responsible action or beneficial for anyone involved (especially the potential child).

I think the "you made your bed, now sleep in it" argument relies heavily upon the assumption that the female "should have known better". Catholics teach that contraception is a sin. Ultra-conservatives don't want safe sex taught in school (and I'm willing to bet they aren't teaching it at home either). I don't think it's reasonable to expect young women that are intentionally left in the dark to accept consequences that they can't foresee.

So again, I'm not advocating abortion as a form of contraception, however I believe that it is a necessary evil that we will have to live with until our culture adopts a more mature attitude about sex and sexual health.


Hmmm, I'm torn biblicly I shouldnt agree with abortion however I'm definatly in favour of any woman who is the victim of rape, incest or child abuse HAVING THE CHOICE of if she wants an abortion. I also agree that if people are going to have them its better to have abortion legalised than backstreet. And I would rather it was legalised and safe than illegal and highly risky. Slightly off topic but I'm definatly in favour of the legalisation of prostitution and some drugs. Only because people are going to do them regardless so its better to have it legalised, under control and done safely it also reduces the blackmarket potential.

machievelli
02-21-2007, 06:14 PM
No my Greek Friend. What i am saying is that if you play russian roulette, it is not mine or societies fault if you blow your brains out. A lot of those who use abortion as a cure end up having the state (As in you or I) paying for it.

I do not at any time suggest this is a woman's fault. If you have a woman rip the condim off and throw it away as I had happen once, it is her fault. If the guy refuses to wear one it is her fault only in that she allowed him to procced. I blame the guy for being such a wuss

Negative Sun
02-21-2007, 06:20 PM
All valid points except for one. Using abortion in the event of an unwanted pregnancy is like playing poker with money and having the other guy say 'oh, it's all for fun. Give me back my money'.
What defines "unwanted pregnancy" though, if you use contraception but it fails, should you still have that child even though you cannot possibly provide for it and it would ultimately ruin your life? Even if you give it up for adoption, you will have lost a few months of your life carrying that child, I think giving it away at that stage would be harder than having an abortion, like Devon said, after a few weeks it is still only a lump of cells...

machievelli
02-21-2007, 06:22 PM
Slightly off topic but I'm definatly in favour of the legalisation of prostitution and some drugs. Only because people are going to do them regardless so its better to have it legalised, under control and done safely it also reduces the blackmarket potential.

I think they should not only legalize prostitution, but anyone who live off the proceeds, except for Madam's that actually supply something beyond the next fix and a beating, should be tried in violation of the 14th Amendment. If beating, brutalizing, forcing a person into an addiction then forcing them to work so you can make money does not violate the anti-slavery laws, I don't know what does.

What defines "unwanted pregnancy" though, if you use contraception but it fails, should you still have that child even though you cannot possibly provide for it and it would ultimately ruin your life? Even if you give it up for adoption, you will have lost a few months of your life carrying that child, I think giving it away at that stage would be harder than having an abortion, like Devon said, after a few weeks it is still only a lump of cells...

As the pro choice say, and I agree, 'you don't trust me with the choice, but you trust me with a child?'

mach--don't double post! :xp: --Jae

jonathan7
02-21-2007, 06:27 PM
I think they should not only legalize prostitution, but anyone who live off the proceeds, except for Madam's that actually supply something beyond the next fix and a beating, should be tried in violation of the 14th Amendment. If beating, brutalizing, forcing a person into an addiction then forcing them to work so you can make money does not violate the anti-slavery laws, I don't know what does.

Exactly and I have friends who are prostitutes and the only reason they still are is they are addicted to heroin. I'm a devout Christian but it amuses me when Churches etc protest against it being legalised, given that most of them are middle class Christians who have never been in an inner city to know what its like. The only way to stop it is by legalisation; it would also mean you could stop STI's and STD's by having the prostitutes have a check once a month and having to use condoms etc. I don't agree with prostitution but people are going to do it regardless of laws or what I think so better to have it safe than not.

Negative Sun
02-21-2007, 06:32 PM
Exactly and I have friends who are prostitutes and the only reason they still are is they are addicted to heroin. I'm a devout Christian but it amuses me when Churches etc protest against it being legalised, given that most of them are middle class Christians who have never been in an inner city to know what its like. The only way to stop it is by legalisation; it would also mean you could stop STI's and STD's by having the prostitutes have a check once a month and having to use condoms etc. I don't agree with prostitution but people are going to do it regardless of laws or what I think so better to have it safe than not.
That's a very good issue you are touching there, maybe worth having its own thread?

Not touching that one with a 10 foot pole in a PG-13 forum. :) --Jae

lukeiamyourdad
02-21-2007, 06:37 PM
Exactly and I have friends who are prostitutes and the only reason they still are is they are addicted to heroin. I'm a devout Christian but it amuses me when Churches etc protest against it being legalised, given that most of them are middle class Christians who have never been in an inner city to know what its like. The only way to stop it is by legalisation; it would also mean you could stop STI's and STD's by having the prostitutes have a check once a month and having to use condoms etc. I don't agree with prostitution but people are going to do it regardless of laws or what I think so better to have it safe than not.

I agree with you on this issue. Although success rates of legalizations around the European countries for example, have been relatively low. From personal research, I'll get back to you with more data if I can find it, only 9% of prostitutes in the Netherlands work in legality.

It's mainly problematic due to the stigma that a prostitute is a "bad person". Even legal ones, hide their job from their relatives. However, when you see these people, out on the street in "normal" clothing, you'd never know. The same for porn stars. I've read some of their blogs and they seem like nice people to hang out with. Of course, they maintain their sex kitten image but other then that, they really are just like everyone else.

The same goes for prostitutes. Just normal human beings who have their problems like everyone else. Legalizing would allow better check ups, less STD's being transmitted and a legislation that properly protects them. It won't solve every problem, but it'll make it easier for many.

machievelli
02-21-2007, 06:42 PM
All of the negatives about prostitutes are moral complaints, usually not even medical onee. I thought the way they handled 'the Girl Next store' with the nice girl who just ha[ppened to make money that way, sounded good.

Jae Onasi
02-21-2007, 07:31 PM
Ultra-conservatives don't want safe sex taught in school (and I'm willing to bet they aren't teaching it at home either). I don't think it's reasonable to expect young women that are intentionally left in the dark to accept consequences that they can't foresee.


Jae goes off on a soap-boxy kind of rant.... :D

Actually, ultra-conservatives do talk about it with their kids, but the emphasis is on abstinence, which is the best way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. We feel how it's currently taught in school is actually encouraging promiscuity to some degree because there's little or no discussion of abstinence. I don't understand why it's so difficult to say in sex ed class "You know, if you don't do it at all, you're not going to get pregnant and you're not going to get a nasty disease." It almost looks like the curriculum is saying "Oh, we know you're all hormonal teenagers who are going to screw anything that's not nailed down, have at it, just do it with a condom and here's how to apply it. Oh, and if you get pregnant, here's the nice lady from the local abortion clinic (who's waiting to take your dollars and/or state funding) who will take care of your 'little oops'. She'll tell you all about how it's not that big of a deal, and here's how to get help so you don't even have to tell your parents!!!" Yes, I did have public school sex ed, before you all howl at me that it doesn't work that way....

We don't like the casual attitude towards sex that permeates our culture--it's something special, not a romp with whoever you feel like 'hooking up' with this week. It has important emotional and potential physical effects that shouldn't be taken lightly. We want it couched within the context of marriage, and we do talk about birth control since it's important for family planning. We talk about STDs because it happens and the topic needs to get addressed so we have good info. We also talk about abortion, especially since it's a hot topic, but we don't gloss over the realities--it comes with some health risks and emotional/guilt risks. We want our kids to know just what the procedure does to both mother and baby, and that's something played way down if it's even taught at all in the public setting. We discuss right and wrong approaches on this topic (bombing clinics is bad, helping women in crisis pregnancies or who have had abortions in the past and are having trouble dealing with it is good)

We're not idiots on sex--we know that kids (and adults :) ) can and do have their hormones/emotions get the better of them, and they're not always going to be abstinent. However, we want them to know that they can be abstinent, and they have support for that philosophy from some of the people around them.

Allronix
02-21-2007, 08:29 PM
Warning: This is the rant of a Socialist and Pagan, raised by a mom who did the paperwork for an OB/GYN clinic. My brother in law is a school teacher in a low-income district with many "at risk" families, and my spirit-sister is a widow on disability trying to raise a kid alone. Therefore, the opinions below are blunt and more than a little insulting in places.

First of all, a lot of the arguments against abortion are based in religion. Now, seeing as I am a non-Christian in the US, I'm already worried about the enroachment of a church I don't worship getting to call the shots on laws I have to follow. This is also my quibble regarding gay rights as well. My faith does not have a problem with it, but the politicians in the US almost always have to give lip-service to the Christian faith to get votes. Your church can say all it likes about the topic. If your faith forbids it, then by all means follow your conscience. However, not everyone to goes to your church/mosque/temple and you should not expect them to follow your faith's strictures.

And tied into the religious argument is a VERY crass observation I made some years ago. Most of the "pro-lifers" I've run across don't appear to care about the woman in question, and once the baby's born, they don't care about the baby either. Therefore, I concluded a while back that they aren't really in to to "save kids." It's all about turning a "bad" (read: sexually active) woman and turn her into a "good wife/mommy," since their religion views sex - even within marriage - as shameful unless it's for the express purpose of baby-building. (And here's where I express annoyance at St. Augustine for popularizing the notion). Catholic dogma is STILL expressing this view.

And you notice that the people who are screaming loudest against abortion are also the ones picketing the school, wanting to reduce sex ed to "cross your legs until your wedding night?" They're also that pharmacist who won't do his job and stock birth control pills and the "health insurance" companies that will pay out the nose for Viagra but not birth control pills, depo shots, or the IUD. Study after study has proven that the "abstinence only" approach DOES NOT WORK! They postpone sex for anywhere to 6-18 months, on average, but it will not stop them from having sex. Hell, going back 60 years or more, 9 out of 10 Americans still have sex outside of marriage. Yet, the young people who need birth control the most either doesn't know that it's effective (since they've only been told an exaggerated failure rate) or can't get it. If you don't want abortion, then why the hell aren't you screaming with us "baby killing" pro-choicers about getting COMPREHENSIVE sex-ed and readily availible birth control?

Oh, and as for personal experience? The young ones who were told up-front about sex and knew they could get contraception were not the ones who wound up being pregnant at 16. The kids who were never told anything about sex other than "don't do it" were the ones who were searching for a pregnancy test. This is why Mom gave my twin and I "the talk" when we were 5, and made sure we were well-read. The early and blunt education was one of the main reasons I held off on sex until I could afford contraception...as in, my early 20's. My nieces are 20 and 17 and they STILL hold off because they were told the facts early and often.

Adoption? Child Protection services are overloaded and overbooked as is. The caseworkers get paid as much as a drugstore clerk and are treated with less respect. Plus, IVF and other reproductive technologies pretty much kill the demand. Why take in someone else's kid when you can have a little bundle of joy with YOUR genetics? Sad to say, the "It's MY genetics" is the primary reason most people want a kid in the first place. Plus, if the kid is the "wrong" race, has a birth defect, etc. then it's pretty much condemned to Foster Care Hell. So, we can pretty much write off that "feel good" option.

Now, in the US, we have overcrowded and poor-quality schools coupled with a health system that can't find its rump with a GPS. We work more hours than the Japanese at jobs that are much less stable and pay much less than our parents' jobs. Over 2/3 of the people showing up at soup kitchens and food banks are parents with full-time jobs. How are you expecting those kids to be fed, housed, educated, get access to a physician, and have a good job waiting for them when they come of age?

There's also the matter that human overpopulation is a problem. We're killing ourselves over lack of clean water, food, and shelter. We're using up and wearing out Nature at a faster rate than she can replenish. We need contraception. We need to slow our birth rate and find methods other than that Ponzi scheme (social security or elder pensions) to sustain our aged. Bottom line is that fewer humans will relax the burden we place on our resources.

So, bottom line. Keep it safe, keep it legal, but work harder on making it the LAST resort.

References:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16287113/?GT1=8816&print=1&displaymode=1098 - Even Grandma had premarital sex
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/ - Doctors denounce abstinence-only education
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm - Impact of abstinence-only education, state by state
http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/STDs/tb/2443 - Abstinence-Only Programs May Withhold Valuable Health Information
http://www.foodbankmoc.org/Hunger.htm - Stats on the working poor

lukeiamyourdad
02-21-2007, 09:31 PM
This is an old sex survey done by durex, a condom making company.

http://www.durex.com/CA/gss2004Content.asp?intQid=391&intMenuOpen=9

Interesting data and I haven't detected a "use durex condoms" message.

An interesting correlation is between the age of sex ed in Germany and their percentage of safe sex. They do have sex earlier, but the difference between most developed country is relatively small.

On the opposite side, India and Vietnam who give sex ed at a later time seem more prone to unprotected sex. It actually makes sense, as having been in Vietnam, I've seen 25 years old guy who still act like retarded teenagers when it comes to sex, while here in Canada, I've noticed much more maturity.

Achilles
02-22-2007, 02:55 AM
Hmmm, I'm torn biblicly I shouldnt agree with abortion however I'm definatly in favour of any woman who is the victim of rape, incest or child abuse HAVING THE CHOICE of if she wants an abortion. I also agree that if people are going to have them its better to have abortion legalised than backstreet. And I would rather it was legalised and safe than illegal and highly risky. Then it sounds like we're in agreement.

No my Greek Friend. What i am saying is that if you play russian roulette, it is not mine or societies fault if you blow your brains out. A lot of those who use abortion as a cure end up having the state (As in you or I) paying for it. I think your analogy is slightly off-topic. Usually those playing russian roulette understand the potential consequence of their actions. In other words, it seems you're basing your argument about abortion on the assumption that all women have been properly educated about sex and/or specifically safe sex. Many religions (and surveys show that most of the world is religious) admonish sex education in favor of an "abstience only" approach. I'm all for abstinence only but only when you're offering it as an alternative. Otherwise it's a form of bait-and-switch.

I do not at any time suggest this is a woman's fault. If you have a woman rip the condim off and throw it away as I had happen once, it is her fault. If the guy refuses to wear one it is her fault only in that she allowed him to procced. I blame the guy for being such a wuss And I'm familiar with situations in which the condom broke, resulting in an unplanned pregnancy. Do you want to compare anecdotes or do you want to debate the issue?


Jae goes off on a soap-boxy kind of rant....

Actually, ultra-conservatives do talk about it with their kids, but the emphasis is on abstinence, which is the best way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. We feel how it's currently taught in school is actually encouraging promiscuity to some degree because there's little or no discussion of abstinence. I don't understand why it's so difficult to say in sex ed class "You know, if you don't do it at all, you're not going to get pregnant and you're not going to get a nasty disease." It almost looks like the curriculum is saying "Oh, we know you're all hormonal teenagers who are going to screw anything that's not nailed down, have at it, just do it with a condom and here's how to apply it. Oh, and if you get pregnant, here's the nice lady from the local abortion clinic (who's waiting to take your dollars and/or state funding) who will take care of your 'little oops'. She'll tell you all about how it's not that big of a deal, and here's how to get help so you don't even have to tell your parents!!!" Yes, I did have public school sex ed, before you all howl at me that it doesn't work that way....

Really? Do you have examples? Let's try a little logic exercise:

Public schools should not teach safe sex because:

A) It promotes promiscuity
B) It is not the school's place to do so
C) It reenforces the message promoted by parents at home

Which of these do you think is The Right's documented argument for opposing safe sex ed in public schools? If you do it differently in your home, then great, however realize that you seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

PS: Just so I'm not accused of using the begging the question fallacy, I submit that the answer is A.

We don't like the casual attitude towards sex that permeates our culture--it's something special, not a romp with whoever you feel like 'hooking up' with this week. It has important emotional and potential physical effects that shouldn't be taken lightly. We want it couched within the context of marriage, and we do talk about birth control since it's important for family planning. We talk about STDs because it happens and the topic needs to get addressed so we have good info. We also talk about abortion, especially since it's a hot topic, but we don't gloss over the realities--it comes with some health risks and emotional/guilt risks. We want our kids to know just what the procedure does to both mother and baby, and that's something played way down if it's even taught at all in the public setting. We discuss right and wrong approaches on this topic (bombing clinics is bad, helping women in crisis pregnancies or who have had abortions in the past and are having trouble dealing with it is good) Just so I'm clear is this the same culture that glorifies violence while vilifying sex? FWIW, I submit that one of these things is a natural process while the other is not. My 2 cents. I also submit that I can find many more examples of how our culture supports casual violence than it does casual sex.

I agree that sex is a emotional, physical, and spiritual experience that should be taken seriously and context should be provided by parents. The unfortunate reality is that this does not always happen. Problem? Yes. Is abortion the answer? Not always. My argument is simply that if no one has provided the context than the woman should not be held responsible for a "bad" decision. She was not given the prerequisites necessary to make a responsible decision. Kill all the embryos? No, but give the women a choice without the unnecessary stigma provided by the right.

machievelli
02-22-2007, 03:09 AM
Then it sounds like we're in agreement.

I think your analogy is slightly off-topic. Usually those playing russian roulette understand the potential consequence of their actions. In other words, it seems you're basing your argument about abortion on the assumption that all women have been properly educated about sex and/or specifically safe sex. Many religions (and surveys show that most of the world is religious) admonish sex education in favor of an "abstience only" approach. I'm all for abstinence only but only when you're offering it as an alternative. Otherwise it's a form of bait-and-switch.

And I'm familiar with situations in which the condom broke, resulting in an unplanned pregnancy. Do you want to compare anecdotes or do you want to debate the issue?



a "bad" decision. She was not given the prerequisites necessary to make a responsible decision. Kill all the embryos? No, but give the women a choice without the unnecessary stigma provided by the right.

Actually, that was I who said that not Jonathon. But Iused that analogy because the condom can break (It has happened to me before) the girl can decide not to use it, or the guy will refuse to. So what they have done is loaded that one round and pulled the trigger. They know as that player does that the bullet might be next in the chamber and they do it anyway. Instead of dying, they get a chance to name a baby. Forcing the woman to have the child in most cases is dead wrong, but the right to lifers keep creating more restrictions.

If it is an oops, I concede that allowing them an abortion would help them try to not make the same mistake again but as a taxpayerI see no reason why i should have to pay for it. I just had to deal with a welfare mother I knew in Long Beach CA who got an abortion about as often as she had to pay her rent. All of it on the State dime.

Condom manufacturers have themselves added the disclaimer that the only truly safe sex is abstinence because their lawyers tell them that it stops them from being sued.

YOu are right though that it is absurd to think someone will automatically 'grow up' if they suddenly are forced to raise a child. Robert Asprin in the book little Myth Marker pointed out that society automatically assumes you are competent to raise a child, even if you are not competent enough to manage your own life. Having a parent talk to the child about sex is much better than a school doing it for the reason Jae pointyed out, but most parents seem to feel it's like any other distasteful subject. If you don't mention it, the child won't consider it. This as we all know, doesn't work.

Achilles
02-22-2007, 03:32 AM
Actually, that was I who said that not Jonathon. But Iused that analogy because the condom can break (It has happened to me before) the girl can decide not to use it, or the guy will refuse to. So what they have done is loaded that one round and pulled the trigger. They know as that player does that the bullet might be next in the chamber and they do it anyway. Instead of dying, they get a chance to name a baby. Forcing the woman to have the child in most cases is dead wrong, but the right to lifers keep creating more restrictions. These aren't the same thing. Sitting down to play russian roulette knowing that the gun is loaded and could potentially kill you is not the same thing as sitting down thinking that the gun is loaded with blanks or not knowing about the game and thinking that you're sitting down to tea. Poor analogy, but I'm trying to keep with your theme.

If you're aware of the risks and choose not to heed them, that's completely different from not being aware of the risks at all. In either case a woman should have a right to an abortion (because you cannot currently regulate one without the other). Some form of counseling should be required, but that option hasn't been brought into the dialog yet.

If it is an oops, I concede that allowing them an abortion would help them try to not make the same mistake again but as a taxpayerI see no reason why i should have to pay for it. I just had to deal with a welfare mother I knew in Long Beach CA who got an abortion about as often as she had to pay her rent. All of it on the State dime. I could be wrong, but I believe that Planned Parenthood is privately funded. The only case I can think of where taxpayers would have to foot the bill is when the mother carries the child to term and then turns it over to the state or if she's on welfare and uses state-funded health-care to pay for the procedure. In the second case, which costs the taxpayers more: Supporting a child to the age of 18 or a one-time medical procedure in the first trimester?

Condom manufacturers have themselves added the disclaimer that the only truly safe sex is abstinence because their lawyers tell them that it stops them from being sued. Because condoms sometime fail making them less than 100% effective? Your point is....?

YOu are right though that it is absurd to think someone will automatically 'grow up' if they suddenly are forced to raise a child. Robert Asprin in the book little Myth Marker pointed out that society automatically assumes you are competent to raise a child, even if you are not competent enough to manage your own life.
I don't think I raised that point, however I absolutely agree with it.

Having a parent talk to the child about sex is much better than a school doing it for the reason Jae pointyed out, but most parents seem to feel it's like any other distasteful subject. If you don't mention it, the child won't consider it. This as we all know, doesn't work. Having the school mention it is better than having no one mention it at all. If all parents were willing to step up, then it wouldn't be necessary for the schools to mention it at all. Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen. It also doesn't stand to reason that parents oppose sex education in schools because it reinforces what they teach at home. All of the arguments that I've heard (which, admittedly, probably do not accurately comprise all arguments) state that safe sex promote promiscuity, while abstinence only is preferred.

jonathan7
02-22-2007, 09:25 AM
Then it sounds like we're in agreement.

Yeh shocking as it is I think we are;). But then I take a slightly different line from alot of Christians/Religious people. I'm British, but heres how I think laws in a country should work; Freedom of speach should be upheld unless it is talking about hurting another group (e.g. Islamist Terrorists preaching hate), I also think law and religion should be kept quite seperate and that freedom of religious rights should be kept. I believe Religion should be kept seperate as although as a Christian I believe my take on morality is correct I'm sure alot of the worlds Jews, Muslims and Athiests would argue the same. And even if you do have Christian laws in a country people are still going to sin regardless of laws; and where do you want to go with that? So for example I think Civil Partnerships between Gay people should be allowed; I don't agree with it, but its there lives and I will try to talk to them to persuade them that I am right, I won't force them to adhere to what I believe... Which is what I think certain people in this thread think should happen. Have I explained myself well there?


Really? Do you have examples? Let's try a little logic exercise:

Public schools should not teach safe sex because:

A) It promotes promiscuity
B) It is not the school's place to do so
C) It reenforces the message promoted by parents at home

Which of these do you think is The Right's documented argument for opposing safe sex ed in public schools? If you do it differently in your home, then great, however realize that you seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

PS: Just so I'm not accused of using the begging the question fallacy, I submit that the answer is A.

Jae are you seriously saying that sex ed shouldn't be taught in schools? Kids will do whatever they want to regardless of what you do or don't teach them. I'm from Britian and have been taught Sex Ed since I was 10 years old... I'm now 22 and still a virgin because of my faith. People will choose to do what they want regardless of what parents/church leaders etc teach. Lots of teenagers rebel its part of growing up. My parents are both Christians but had a very hands off apprach to me growing up, dad especially was like 'your old enough to make your own decisions now'. This in actual fact meant I didnt rebel nearly as much as other kids of Christian homes because I didn't have reason too, where as others lost their virginity and did other things such as drugs. Teenagers make mistakes regardless of what you teach them... sure teach abstinance as a PART of sex ed, but you must teach everything else so they are in possession of all the facts incase they decide to have sex at least it will be protected.

Just so I'm clear is this the same culture that glorifies violence while vilifying sex? FWIW, I submit that one of these things is a natural process while the other is not. My 2 cents. I also submit that I can find many more examples of how our culture supports casual violence than it does casual sex.

As a Psychologist this is why I think America has such a high percentage of Serial Killers, to me it defies belief how its quite acceptable for children to watch violence in America but anything sexual is shocking. Violence is a far more un-natural act than sex.. (infact sex is quite a natural act, seeing as everything bigger than aphids has it).

I agree that sex is a emotional, physical, and spiritual experience that should be taken seriously and context should be provided by parents. The unfortunate reality is that this does not always happen. Problem? Yes. Is abortion the answer? Not always. My argument is simply that if no one has provided the context than the woman should not be held responsible for a "bad" decision. She was not given the prerequisites necessary to make a responsible decision. Kill all the embryos? No, but give the women a choice without the unnecessary stigma provided by the right.

I would rather in this case that someone didnt have an abortion. Indeed in the U.K ny argument is our population is getting older so abortion should be made illegal (apart from rape, child abuse and incest) because we need more children to make the workforce younger! But if someone is going to have an abortion I would rather it was done legally and safely than illegally and with great risk.

Achilles
02-22-2007, 06:10 PM
Inspired by Jae's earlier post, I thought I would dig around online to see if any states had their sexual education standards posted on the internet. Here is a sample of the standards as they exist in my state (Arizona):

1. Content of instruction: Common schools and high schools.
c. All sex education materials and instruction shall be age appropriate, recognize the needs of exceptional students, meet the needs of the district, recognize local community standards and sensitivities, shall not include the teaching of abnormal, deviate, or unusual sexual acts and practices, and shall include the following:
i. Emphasis upon the power of individuals to control their own personal behavior. Pupils shall be encouraged to base their actions on reasoning, self-discipline, sense of responsibility, self-control and ethical considerations such as respect for self and others; and
ii. Instruction on how to say "no" to unwanted sexual advances and to resist negative peer pressure. Pupils shall be taught that it is wrong to take advantage of, or to exploit, another person.
a. >All sex education materials and instruction which discuss sexual intercourse shall:
ii. stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are mature adults;
iii. Emphasize that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only method for avoiding pregnancy that is 100 percent effective;
iv. Stress that sexually transmitted diseases have severe consequences and constitute a serious and widespread public health problem;
v. Include a discussion of the possible emotional and psychological consequences of preadolescent and adolescent sexual intercourse and the consequences of preadolescent and adolescent pregnancy;
vi. Promote honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage; and
vii. Advise pupils of Arizona law pertaining to the financial responsibilities of parenting, and legal liabilities related to sexual intercourse with a minor.(you can find a more readable layout about 80% down the page on this (http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/emc300/azstandards/comprehensiverationale.htm) site.)

This seems pretty consistent with the curriculum that I was exposed to 15 years ago when I was a high school student (although we also learned about contraception which isn't explicit here). Considering that Arizona consistently ranks last in national education surveys, I imagine it's safe to bet that the sex ed standards in other states are likely to be just as good or better than these.

CSI
02-27-2007, 10:32 PM
By judging the topic, I decide to take a more neutral position: If the newborn is in mother's womb for 3 months, it's okay to make abortion...But older than 3 months? Nope.

Younger than 3 months old: it's a fetus. [Biologically] That doesn't mean it doesn't have a life. [Morally].

Older than 3 months: It's now shifted to matured Fetus. It became to the last stage of becoming a baby. Then it's a LIFE now. If people would go abortion, they should be judged by Class 1 Felony: Murder, Degree 1.

The Constitution granted people personal freedom to deal with personal matter--Legally. So far, no evidence that abortion is illegal...

Peace...

SilentScope001
02-27-2007, 10:36 PM
By judging the topic, I decide to take a more neutral position: If the newborn is in mother's womb for 3 months, it's okay to make abortion...But older than 3 months? Nope.

I hate artifical distinctions because it looks stupid.

Doctor: "I'm so...so sorry, Ms. Smith. You see, you came into our office about the abortion 91 days after the fetus is offically born. Now, we are able to terminate the fetus ethically if the fetus is 90 days or younger, since he is a fetus.

But since your fetus is 91 days old, it looks to me that we cannot kill a living being. I'm sorry, you'll have to be stuck with it. If only you came to our office a day earlier...oh well."

machievelli
02-27-2007, 10:37 PM
By judging the topic, I decide to take a more neutral position: If the newborn is in mother's womb for 3 months, it's okay to make abortion...But older than 3 months? Nope.

Younger than 3 months old: it's a fetus. [Biologically] That doesn't mean it doesn't have a life. [Morally].

Older than 3 months: It's now shifted to matured Fetus. It became to the last stage of becoming a baby. Then it's a LIFE now. If people would go abortion, they should be judged by Class 1 Felony: Murder, Degree 1.

The Constitution granted people personal freedom to deal with personal matter--Legally. So far, no evidence that abortion is illegal...

Peace...

The primary arguments against abortion come from the bible where it says 'you knew me in the womb' implying that a fetus is a baby.

The other is that the Jews themselves under their law defined a fetus over 8 days as a baby, and a mother could be tried for infantcide if she miscarried

machievelli
02-27-2007, 10:45 PM
Go back a couple of pages

As Jae commented, because instead of suggesting abstinance as a possible choice, they just say 'be careful.

Achilles
02-27-2007, 10:50 PM
Hi there,

By judging the topic, I decide to take a more neutral position: If the newborn is in mother's womb for 3 months, it's okay to make abortion...But older than 3 months? Nope.

Younger than 3 months old: it's a fetus. [Biologically] That doesn't mean it doesn't have a life. [Morally].

Older than 3 months: It's now shifted to matured Fetus. It became to the last stage of becoming a baby. Then it's a LIFE now. If people would go abortion, they should be judged by Class 1 Felony: Murder, Degree 1. If you don't mind me asking, why use the demarcation between embryo and fetus as a threshold? The anti-abortion camp feels that life begin at the moment of conception. Some members of the pro-abortion camp feel that third trimester abortions should be ok.

Also, can any woman have an abortion for any reason during the first trimester? If a mother's health is at risk should the first-degree murder charge still apply? Couldn't the mother claim that it was self-defense?

Thanks in advance for your response.

Jae Onasi
02-28-2007, 02:08 AM
You all make sure your articles and posters and pictures and comments don't stray out of the PG-13 realm, now. This is not a sex-ed class. I'll be snipping the comments not related to abortion later after I get some sleep.

Mama Jae thanks you for staying on the topic of abortion.

machievelli
02-28-2007, 10:01 PM
I didn't get to read the comment that prompted sanmax's which I recieved but in no longer posted.

However I believe it was in reply fo one of SS001's using the Canterbury tales as proof of sexual promiscuity

However I would add if that is the case that a lot of very risque stuff was written during the 'more straitlaced' Victorian era

As for the subject, both are trying to prove that the problem stems from the society it is part of.

That would be because I deleted all the off-topic stuff not related to abortion. ;) You all stay on topic now, please. --Jae

LittleRamona
03-01-2007, 05:14 PM
I can not believe that in this day in age, with the amount of domestic abuse, rapes and other kind of disgusting problem in this society, people are still so adamant that a woman should keep her "child" even if it were not in her nor the babies best interests. I'm female, and no one would dare tell me to keep my child if I could not provide a secure childhood, there are already too many messed up children already because of irresponsible parents. There is already enough c**p going on in the world today to grow up in and that child shouldn't have to suffer emotional stresses at home.
Pregnancy is already enough to go through(so i'm told) when you have a support system, never mind if God forbid, the woman conceived from being attacked, the emotional stress for that is enough to scar the woman for life, even with help, why should that child suffer too? As for the religious part of it...In my opinion, if God doesn't understand and forgive that the decision that woman makes is the best for the child, especially like I said in a situation where she was attacked, then He/She is not really God...

CSI
03-01-2007, 09:51 PM
Hi there. If you don't mind me asking

No problem, Achilles. I'm glad to answer your question you have.

why use the demarcation between embryo and fetus as a threshold? The anti-abortion camp feels that life begin at the moment of conception. Some members of the pro-abortion camp feel that third trimester abortions should be ok.

That's a very good question, indeed. In my opinion, we need to set a border of legal and illegal abortions. Think about it--why do scientists seperate the different stages of insects?

Also, can any woman have an abortion for any reason during the first trimester? If a mother's health is at risk should the first-degree murder charge still apply? Couldn't the mother claim that it was self-defense?[/b]

Oh, that doesn't apply. Unless it's emergency and upon doctor's approve, then it's legal regardless of how old the fetus is.

Thanks in advance for your response.

No problem.

Jae Onasi
03-01-2007, 10:29 PM
Well, there are different stages in embryo/fetal development, but it's a little more complex than insects....

Emperor Devon
03-01-2007, 10:43 PM
That's a very good question, indeed. In my opinion, we need to set a border of legal and illegal abortions.

We already have ('we' being the U.S. that is). After Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, women cannot have an abortion if it involves giving birth to the infant in any event. Personally I think there's some sense in that - with abortions that late, she'd basically giving birth to a corpse over a live baby. But what the heck, it's her decision.

Think about it--why do scientists seperate the different stages of insects?

I don't quite see the relevance of that. Most of the people here have probably killed hundreds if not thousands of adult insects, which makes the whether they're larvae or mature irrelevant.

We already have a system for the development of a fetus, if that's what you were getting at, measured in weeks. The fetus is usually full-term at the 37th week, starts moving at 20-21 weeks, etcetera.

But it's an unreliable system for judging when something is alive. At the 40th week it's basically a live baby inside a woman. At the first week it's about as sentient as a rock. Since there are so many different opinions about when it's truly 'alive', the best solution would obviously be to let individuals make their own moral choices based on their own standards of morals. The government telling people what's ethical and what isn't sounds disturbingly like A Brave New World or 1984 to me - people we don't even know deciding for us what's ethical and what isn't.

Oh, that doesn't apply. Unless it's emergency and upon doctor's approve, then it's legal regardless of how old the fetus is.

Ah, but with that perspective you're already heading into a grey area. What kind of emergency, and what qualifies as one? Certain death if she has the kid? A risk of death, or possible injury in some other manner? A large financial setback? And that's not even getting into the doctor's approval part...

'Emergency' is quite relative - both universally and to the individual, not to mention the grey area that comes with it. Obviously some ermergencies are greater and smaller than others - being unable to work off the weight gained during pregnancy is undesirable and preferably avoided in the eyes of most women, yet it's obviously a more urgent matter if they could die during childbirth.

The best solution - let the individuals decide what constitutes as an emergency for such matters, like with their own moral code.

Achilles
03-01-2007, 11:58 PM
That's a very good question, indeed. In my opinion, we need to set a border of legal and illegal abortions. I would like to be able to say that I agree. As I have stated earlier, as a rule I don't believe that abortion should be used as a form of contraception, however I also believe there are exceptions. Additionally, I feel that there are some cases in which abortion should be allowed, but of course, there are exceptions to that as well. The problem isn't that most people don't recognize that there's a problem. The problem is that the solution is not a simple one.

Think about it--why do scientists seperate the different stages of insects? I understand that demarcation is necessary. My purpose was to better understand why you selected that particular point in development. Ultra-sounds have a certain margin of error in their ability to accurately access embryonic development. Picking an arbitrary point, such as embryo to fetus, could mean that some doctors could find themselves on trial for murder after performing (what they thought to be) a legal abortion. Would hate to see perfectly good OB/GYNs in court because of less-than-perfect technology.

Oh, that doesn't apply. Unless it's emergency and upon doctor's approve, then it's legal regardless of how old the fetus is. Obviously there will be exceptions. Would it surprise you to learn that lawmakers have tried to create laws that make abortion illegal even in these circumstances? Got to the Supreme Court but they voted it down because it didn't include a clause for the mother's health.

I tried to find a source that was spin-free. This was the best I could do for the amount of time I was willing to invest. Clicky (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6450160)

Take care.

machievelli
03-02-2007, 12:31 AM
All right I keep getting dinged for double posting or because I’m not on topic, so I’ll ask Jae to please read this thoroughly before deleting it because the examples I am going to be using are not always either medical or even related to the topic.

First Jae, you mentioned that a lot of people have claimed that birth control pills are abortefficients. As far as I know, only one variety was proven to be, and that brand was removed from the market. The normal form of birth control pills is to convince your body that you are already pregnant so that you will not ovulate. No egg, no baby. It doesn’t always work but what does?

Others have said the Pill is an abortifacient--I happen to disagree with that stance, but I brought it up as something some groups believe. :) --Jae

The problem is that if one is, then all are, an argument used by the Gun control lobby since before most of you were born. They especially love to use slanted statistics to ‘prove’ their contention. The AMA is not above this either. In the 80s series of the magazine penthouse (Yes I did read the articles) the commented that several drugs had been labeled as highly efficient in cancer treatment because the labs that did the tests counted everyone who died while being treated as ‘unrecoverable data’ and struck them from the records. When the Russians tried to market an anti-cancer drug here the AMA set up test cases and didn’t bother to tell the patients the dietary restrictions such as no more than 200 ML (a half pint) of alcohol a week and only 100 grams (three plus ounces) of red meat a week. So when they kept to their normal high protein high alcohol diets, it didn’t work so they could fail it.

The Anti-gun lobby under the Clinton Administration and Janet Reno in particular filed a study in 1999 that stated that 2300 children had been killed the previous year by hand guns. What they did not mention was that the study took everyone from birth to 20 years old and labeled them as kids (Just as I do with all of you) and didn’t break down the demographics, so that a ‘child’ who was a gang banger himself who got shot was there right along with the guy who got shot by the police robbing a store.

Achilles and ED, you’ve been going around the morality and safety issue but like the gun control lobby, the Anti-abortion faction doesn’t want anyone to have the right to have an abortion. Like the other argument they keep hemming it with qualifiers. While I accepted the basic premise of the recent bill here in California that would have required underage girls to get parental permission before getting an abortion, struck as one add mentioned against the brick wall of ‘if I were a child molester and my daughter is pregnant by me, maybe I want her to have it because it might be a girl I can molest later’.

And I do not see what moral high ground can be claimed by organizations that even if unintentionally created the men who bomb abortion clinics, literally stand in your way and even drag you from the door if they feel the need, or shoot clinic doctors and label it retroactive abortions.

As I commented in a segment of my recent work MOML a part only three people on this site have seen, God or the Gods do not need our help to punish the wicked, and there is nothing in the bible that says you have that right. In fact Jesus said it best;

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Achilles
03-02-2007, 02:12 AM
Achilles and ED, you’ve been going around the morality and safety issue but like the gun control lobby, the Anti-abortion faction doesn’t want anyone to have the right to have an abortion. Like the other argument they keep hemming it with qualifiers. I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here.

machievelli
03-02-2007, 02:25 AM
I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here.

That when it comes to a 'moral' obligation to stop someone from doing something, as with both abortion and gun control, you don't just try to put a stake in it's heart. The Gun control loby tried that back in 1971 when they took an 'either or' referendum and removed the oppsing view which was mandatory sentencing limits that punished a gun toting criminal more harshly than some one with any other weapon. They lost that vote with 75% voting against total handgun confiscation even in heavily liberal Massachussets.

Instead what they do is try to pass laws that limit what can be owned. Trying to have ammo banned as a hazardous substance like explosives, meaning you require a Federal permit to buy it. Trying to use a Saturday Night Special law that would have labeled a 2,000 dollar target pistol as one because of it's caliber. Banning Assault Rifles without even defining the term, then the Clinton pushed lawsuits trying tomake manufacturers to blame for the use of them

The abortion rights people have done the same. They decide unilaterally that someone who isn't threatened by the child's birth (Mothers who might die in the attempt) should be forced to have the child and lobby for that.

They try to get the age limit set so that something like 30 percent of those most likely to need it cannot get them without parental approval, or require 'counseling' before allowing it. The fact that the counseling they demand would move the girl into the second trimester, when the danger to the mother skyrockets is secondary, because the next step is to refuse abortions if 'the mother's life might be in danger' then late term abortions get added to the list.

Put them all together and it's saying 'we will do everything we can to make sure you can't get an abortion, but we're doing it out of worrying about your health and safety, not because of any moral or religious qualms'. Just as the anti-gun lobby wants to remove those guns to 'protect the innocent'.

Achilles
03-02-2007, 02:33 AM
In that case:

I'm well aware of The Right's stance on this. I don't rant about it because I don't think it bears repeating. In the mean time there is a lot of gray area in this issue and I do think that deserves some discussion.

FWIW though, I agree with you that both extremes have it all wrong. I think The Right's (not-so) hidden agenda is slightly more sinister than The Left's, but then again I don't think either group has a firm grasp on reality 100% of the time.

machievelli
03-02-2007, 02:37 AM
FWIW though, I agree with you that both extremes have it all wrong. I think The Right's (not-so) hidden agenda is slightly more sinister than The Left's, but then again I don't think either group has a firm grasp on reality 100% of the time.

Never said the left was right. Just that we do not have a moral right to force someone to bear a child and as a man who doesn't have that problem it is doubly so.

Achilles
03-02-2007, 02:53 AM
Never said the left was right. ...and I never said that you said that :D

Just that we do not have a moral right to force someone to bear a child <snip> I don't think I've said anything here that would contradict that. Hence, why I'm unclear how I got looped into post #172.

Jae Onasi
03-02-2007, 12:36 PM
FWIW though, I agree with you that both extremes have it all wrong. I think The Right's (not-so) hidden agenda is slightly more sinister than The Left's, but then again I don't think either group has a firm grasp on reality 100% of the time.

I'd agree on that point in general (both extremes are rather flakey), though I disagree that the Right's agenda is more sinister--at least the Right is up front about it. You won't ever hear the Left talking, for instance, about the profit they make providing this 'service to women', or the emotional and physical pain it can cause. They didn't even want to see a law passed that would inform women that they could order pain medication for the fetus they were aborting because 'oh, that might convince women not to go through with it.' So now not only are we allowing barbaric procedures on not-yet born babies, but people aren't even allowed to tell a woman what she could do to minimize the pain to the baby. Heaven forbid we cut into profits. Animals get better treatment than that when they're put to sleep.

Achilles
03-02-2007, 12:56 PM
Per your own forum rule, would you mind linking to some additional information on that?

Without knowing more about that particular claim, I can only hypothesize, however I suppose one could also assume that The Left opposed the measure because they viewed it as a play from The Right. Considering that embryos don't have even a rudimentary nervous system until the latter part of the first trimester, pushing for pre-natal pain killers seems a little manipulative.

Also, I don't think being straight-forward about their agenda makes the far-right any more squeaky clean. Some of the methods discussed in this article (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1590444,00.html) don't seem any more honorable than those you described above. Their agenda is entirely faith-based and they are bound and determined to see it approved whether it's ethical or not (no concession for rape, incest, women's health, etc).

machievelli
03-02-2007, 01:13 PM
Their agenda is entirely faith-based and they are bound and determined to see it approved whether it's ethical or not (no concession for rape, incest, women's health, etc).

The problem with using faith based morality is it only works acceptably if it is your faith. As a Pagan, I am sick unto death of being told 'god' or 'allah' says when they are not part of my religion. If the only way to explain why it must occur is your god, it is like Johnny Cochrane playing the race card in the OJ trial. It is not germaine, but plays to the groundlings well.

Like being condemned to a hell I do not believe in, or worshiping their 'bad guy' because I am not part of their faith. To tell someone who has made a moral decision of their own, and will face their god when that time comes, I do not condemn those using rational reasoned arguments. Only those who think their 'god' wants them to use force or violence to promote it.

As I said, if their God is so weak that he cannptstop them himself, or will handle it when they stand in judgement, we have no right to interfere with their choice. After all, every religion teaches that we have free will... As long as we are willing to pay the piper after the last dance.

Jae Onasi
03-02-2007, 01:16 PM
Actually, the forum rule says quotes are not required, but if they are used, to give a citation. :)

I heard it on a radio program some months ago--the speaker was a nurse who had worked in an abortion clinic for a long time, and then got out of the system at some point. The pain killer option was for 2nd/3rd trimester babies. I'll have to search for the link, but have to finish my story for Tales from Javyar's Cantina contest first. :)

I certainly don't consider bombing abortion clinics and harassing people honorable, however, informing women that the baby is alive and not 'just a little mass of cells' is not dishonorable--it's honest. No one is forcing those women to go into those pregnancy crisis centers, either--the women choose to go there. If they were dead-set on abortions, they wouldn't darken the doors of those centers, they'd go straight to Planned Parenthood or their doctor instead. I see nothing wrong with making sure women have _all_ the information they need to make this very important decision, including what is going to happen to them potentially physically and psychologically and what is going to happen with their babies.

Achilles
03-02-2007, 06:23 PM
I heard it on a radio program some months ago--the speaker was a nurse who had worked in an abortion clinic for a long time, and then got out of the system at some point. The pain killer option was for 2nd/3rd trimester babies. Did the radio piece mention that the use of pain-relieving drugs may increase the level of risk in some cases? Also, the scientific evidence that is offered to show that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks is not uncontested (doctors in the UK recommend medication after 26 weeks).

I certainly don't consider bombing abortion clinics and harassing people honorable, however, informing women that the baby is alive and not 'just a little mass of cells' is not dishonorable--it's honest. Depending on the stage of development, the embryo might be nothing more than "a little mass of cells".

I think if these tactics are being used in an attempt to "guilt" an already emotionally distraught woman out of an abortion, then it is dishonorable. Manipulating someone for your agenda is deceitful.

No one is forcing those women to go into those pregnancy crisis centers, either--the women choose to go there. If they were dead-set on abortions, they wouldn't darken the doors of those centers, they'd go straight to Planned Parenthood or their doctor instead. Let's think this one through: If the only sex education they are being exposed to is abstience only, then how in the heck would they know the difference between a Focus on the Family funded clinic and Planned Parenthood? If Clinic A is being funded by conservatives and backed by faith-based legislation and Clinic B is privately funded, which do you think is going to be able to do more "out reach" (marketing)?

I see nothing wrong with making sure women have _all_ the information they need to make this very important decision, including what is going to happen to them potentially physically and psychologically and what is going to happen with their babies. I agree. I think counseling is a great idea. You and I probably disagree on who should do it and what their agenda should be though.

Allronix
03-03-2007, 12:36 PM
First off, Planned Parenthood is a hell of a lot more than the "abortion factory" and "promiscuity promoter" its critics have smeared it with. When I was young, uninsured, and flat broke, it was the only place I could get a check-up. Fortunately, as Seattle is a liberal enclave, I wasn't having to run the gauntlet to get a freaking Pap smear.

As for "profit?" Well, they're apparantly working for a clinic I haven't run across. Most of them are barely making the rent and end up passing the hat since most of their clientele is low-income, uninsured, working-poor, or all of the above. Again, the folks who can least afford another mouth to feed.

Jae Onasi
03-03-2007, 02:13 PM
First off, Planned Parenthood is a hell of a lot more than the "abortion factory" and "promiscuity promoter" its critics have smeared it with. When I was young, uninsured, and flat broke, it was the only place I could get a check-up. Fortunately, as Seattle is a liberal enclave, I wasn't having to run the gauntlet to get a freaking Pap smear.
I agree with you on that--they're incredibly helpful in that regard and for a newly-married broke college student, I needed the help and (surprise!) I utilized their health and bc services. It would have been very amusing if I had to run a gauntlet given the fact that I could never have an abortion myself (though I can live with other women deciding to do so). However, even the very conservative Missouri Ozarks region understands the idea of birth control, even if they don't agree with all the services Planned Parenthood provides.

As for "profit?" Well, they're apparantly working for a clinic I haven't run across. Most of them are barely making the rent and end up passing the hat since most of their clientele is low-income, uninsured, working-poor, or all of the above. Again, the folks who can least afford another mouth to feed.
There are a number of non-profit and private organizations that support Planned Parenthood (among other similar organizations), and they receive about a quarter of their annual revenues from that. For the fiscal year ending June 2005 (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/report-05.pdf), over a quarter of Planned Parenthood's total revenue of $882,000,000 came from the government. PPFA made a profit of almost $60 million that year, and that's pretty darn good for a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation.

I'm not saying eliminate Planned Parenthood at all--they have some great services and some great education programs, and I wish some of my evangelical brothers and sisters could appreciate that. I'm just saying that the fact that they make money is very carefully kept as quiet as possible. They're not going to survive as a corporation if they're not fiscally responsible, and making money is even better. It does present somewhat of a conflict of interest, however--an organization that makes money off of abortion services is of course going to promote that option as part of their services. They're not going to say much, if anything, that detracts from providing that service. With that in mind, there would be a financial disincentive to completely disclose the full ramifications of abortion if that resulted in a woman choosing to keep the baby and not have an abortion.

@Jonathan7--no, I'm not saying we should be teaching abstinence-only exclusively and then have a cow when a woman doesn't understand how she got pregnant and now wants an abortion. Teaching abstinence exclusively and solely while being anti-abortion is kind of weird to me. I just think abstinence should get appropriate attention, not be taught exclusively (as some of the ultra-conservative pro-life groups suggest), but not poo-pooed out of hand by the ultra-liberal pro-choice/abortion camps, either. I do think we have an over-promiscuous society and a little sex-crazy (the debate over public breastfeeding being just one example of the nutsoid attitude towards female anatomy in the US), but teens are eventually going to grow up and many will get married and have families, and they need to know how to handle family planning.

@Achilles--painkillers are risky for the whom? The baby? S/he's about to be aborted anyway. For the mother? Doubtful, since the amount of pain-killer used on the baby would not be enough to affect the mother to any degree. The dose used for the baby would be much, much smaller than an adult dose, and so would have essentially no maternal effect as a result.

The ultrasounds are not used to 'guilt' a distraught woman into choosing to carry her baby. Quite frankly, it they're not already, ultrasounds should be part of the care provided to every woman prior to an abortion to make sure the doc is aware of any structural anatomical anomalies that could complicate an abortion procedure.

Rabid pro-choicers way underplay the physical/mental/emotional risks to a mother and baby, and rabid pro-lifers way overplay those same risks. I think there needs to be a good balance of information--this is an incredibly difficult decision for the vast majority of women and they need solid information without hyperbole from either side. Abortion's not something I prefer to see done myself, but if a woman absolutely needs to go through with an abortion, I want her to have a good understanding of what's going to happen to her.

Achilles
03-03-2007, 07:50 PM
PPFA made a profit of almost $60 million that year, and that's pretty darn good for a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation. At the risk of splitting hairs, non-profits don't make a profit. They have "surplus revenues" (preferred terms vary) that are supposed to go back into the operation for the next fiscal year.

I'm not saying eliminate Planned Parenthood at all--they have some great services and some great education programs, and I wish some of my evangelical brothers and sisters could appreciate that. I'm just saying that the fact that they make money is very carefully kept as quiet as possible. I'm sorry, I'm going to need for you to explain this one to me. What do you mean by, "the fact that they make money is very carefully kept as quiet as possible."?

They post their balance sheets on the Internet and file all their forms when they're supposed to. So how are they very carefully hiding the fact that they are increasing revenues?

They're not going to survive as a corporation if they're not fiscally responsible, and making money is even better. It does present somewhat of a conflict of interest, however--an organization that makes money off of abortion services is of course going to promote that option as part of their services. They're not going to say much, if anything, that detracts from providing that service.
Hmmmmm....

Abortion

It is the policy of Planned Parenthood Federation of America to ensure that women have the right to seek and obtain medically safe, legal abortions under dignified conditions and at reasonable cost.

Abortion services must include information on the nature, consequences, and risks of the procedure, and counseling on the alternatives available to the woman, so as to assure an informed and responsible decision concerning the continuation or termination of pregnancy. (emphasis added by me)

Abortion must always be a matter of personal choice. Planned Parenthood recognizes its responsibility to guard equally against coercion or denial of services in connection with a patient's decision about continuing a pregnancy. No one should be denied abortion services solely because of age, or economic or social circumstances. Public funds should be made available to subsidize the cost of abortion services for those who choose abortion but cannot afford it.

Planned Parenthood has the responsibility to provide access to high quality, confidential abortion services directly through the affiliates' own medical facilities and/or indirectly through referral to other competent medical facilities in the community, especially in areas of unmet need for abortion services.

[Adopted 1984]
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/mission-and-policy-statements.htm


Now to be fair, I can't prove that they actually live up to their mission. Can you prove that they don't? This really sounds like something that you believe is true but might not be.

With that in mind, there would be a financial disincentive to completely disclose the full ramifications of abortion if that resulted in a woman choosing to keep the baby and not have an abortion. Again, I can't prove that you're wrong, but that doesn't mean I think you're right either. Maybe some supporting evidence?

@Jonathan7--no, I'm not saying we should be teaching abstinence-only exclusively and then have a cow when a woman doesn't understand how she got pregnant and now wants an abortion. Teaching abstinence exclusively and solely while being anti-abortion is kind of weird to me. I just think abstinence should get appropriate attention, not be taught exclusively (as some of the ultra-conservative pro-life groups suggest), but not poo-pooed out of hand by the ultra-liberal pro-choice/abortion camps, either. I do think we have an over-promiscuous society and a little sex-crazy (the debate over public breastfeeding being just one example of the nutsoid attitude towards female anatomy in the US), but teens are eventually going to grow up and many will get married and have families, and they need to know how to handle family planning. Didn't you snip a bunch of my safe-sex posts on the basis of being off-topic? Is it allowed or isn't it? Thank in advance for clarifying.

@Achilles--painkillers are risky for the whom? The baby? S/he's about to be aborted anyway. For the mother? Doubtful, since the amount of pain-killer used on the baby would not be enough to affect the mother to any degree. The dose used for the baby would be much, much smaller than an adult dose, and so would have essentially no maternal effect as a result. The mother. Your doubt is not sufficent cause for it to magically be untrue.

There is also little information on how women might be affected by the application of fetal anesthesia, perhaps in addition to their own anesthesia. What will doctors tell women about the potential hazards posed to their own health of additional anesthesia? The language specified by the bill makes only one mention, in the final sentence, that "there might be some additional risk to you associated with administering such a drug."
http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/120406hr6099.html
-Requires the “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure” to state that evidence exists suggesting fetuses/unborn children 20 weeks or more into development are capable of experiencing pain, and that the woman may request pain-reducing drugs for the fetus/unborn child, and that there may be additional risks associated with the use of some pain-reducing drugs
http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3927


Regardless, your response is dangerously close to being a red herring. My point was to find out if the piece you heard was balanced or if you were forming your opinion based on conservative propaganda.

The ultrasounds are not used to 'guilt' a distraught woman into choosing to carry her baby. Quite frankly, it they're not already, ultrasounds should be part of the care provided to every woman prior to an abortion to make sure the doc is aware of any structural anatomical anomalies that could complicate an abortion procedure. You're willing to state that no conservative funded clinics are doing this? Surely you and I can agree that even if an ultrasound is deemed necessary for the reasons you state, there is a way to do it that will minimize how much the mother is exposed to (I'm thinking privacy screen and headphones, for starters). It seems to me that if the intentions were pure, these clinics would have thought of that already. Of course, I suspect that their intentions aren't pure though.

Abortion's not something I prefer to see done myself, but if a woman absolutely needs to go through with an abortion, I want her to have a good understanding of what's going to happen to her.You keep coming back to this point and rather than assume that I know what you mean, could you please tell me what it is that you think women aren't being told now that they should? Also, if possible, could you state what evidence you have that supports this view?

Thanks again.

SilentScope001
04-10-2007, 02:57 PM
Sorry for bumping this post, but here is a new prespective on the abortion debate (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/controversy_in_captivity).

BruceLee_Reborn
04-15-2007, 12:34 PM
I'm not sure if their "panda translator" is bs, or creepy. if it's genuine, then that's really freaky. i guess it is rather like rape. i think that abortion (human) should only be allowed if the baby's birth would be regreted by the parents and adversly effect their lives (horribly, like the kid has no limbs and a foot on the side of it's head) and if the child, once capable of feeling such a way, wished it had never been born. of course, you can't know any of that for sure till the child is born, except for sonograms and the like.

SilentScope001
04-15-2007, 01:00 PM
I'm not sure if their "panda translator" is bs, or creepy. if it's genuine, then that's really freaky.

A little note: That video came from The Onion website, which is a satritical newspaper that print satires that appear to be news stories. So, the video isn't real, but it is satritical, funny and has a point.

Sorry for the confusion. :)

BruceLee_Reborn
04-15-2007, 01:22 PM
well, that's a relief. next thing ya know, it will be fish going pro-life:)

Gargoyle King
04-16-2007, 08:51 AM
Abortion is a topic that doesn't bother me. There are however certain exceptions to this:

(1). For selfish reasons.
(2). If the child is close to becoming a viable feotus (thus the potential to live).
(3). For any other perculiar reason such as religous practices.

Reasons why women should have the right to do so:

(1). Too young (the 13-17 age).
(2). Can't financially support - thus avoding the child growing up in an unsuitable environment.
(3). If the woman has been raped, and has became preganant because of it.
(4). Health Reasons.
(5). Forced/Pressurized into the decision of a child by a partner.

There are always selfish/reasonable explanantions why abortion occurs. However in my opinion the decision of having a child will always be up to a woman - as it is her body and can do as she sees fit with it.

Achilles
01-15-2009, 06:40 PM
Sorry to resurrect such an old thread.

I had an opportunity to listen to a several people speak about the Pro-Life movement today and I thought the dialog was worth sharing with those that were interested in the topic but may have missed it.

Link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99409402)

Synopsis:
Barack Obama's election dealt a blow to abortion opponents, who now have less hope of overturning Roe v. Wade during his term. Experts weigh in on the possibility of shifting the movement's strategy from court battles to a focus on services to reduce or eliminate abortions.

Guests:

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice

The Rev. Thomas Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theologiocal Center at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue

jrrtoken
01-15-2009, 06:43 PM
Meh, they'll probably resort to clinic bombings again. Ho-hum.

Achilles
01-15-2009, 06:52 PM
Not surprisingly, it did come up. A little bit surprisingly, I believe it was the Reverend that mentioned them.

Typically I only keep count of the logical fallacies used when listening to a caller or when I have it on one of the conservative stations, but today was a special exception.

Web Rider
01-15-2009, 08:18 PM
Not surprisingly, it did come up. A little bit surprisingly, I believe it was the Reverend that mentioned them.

Really? I mean, considering the religious fundamentalism the world around I don't find it all that surprising that it's the Reverend that thought of it.

Achilles
01-15-2009, 08:31 PM
I said "a little bit surprisingly". And only because I've been listening to this show for more than a decade and don't recall ever hearing a guest say anything like that.

Jae Onasi
01-15-2009, 09:21 PM
Meh, they'll probably resort to clinic bombings again. Ho-hum.

I seriously hope not, but it's unfortunately likely to happen. I prefer to take a positive route and contribute to our church's efforts to support women who are in a crisis situation but choose to give birth to their babies. We help them through the pregnancy and after birth with basic necessities like formula, diapers, getting them hooked into local agencies (e.g. Medicaid if they don't have any health insurance, WIC, etc.). We encourage and support them in their work on their diplomas and degrees so that they can support their family better. Pro-lifers need to not be destructive, but to work on activities that are productive and help our community instead.

Achilles
01-15-2009, 09:25 PM
Pro-lifers need to not be destructive, but to work on activities that are productive and help our community instead. Well, selected activities anyway. "Productive" and "help" are relative terms.

Jae Onasi
01-15-2009, 09:28 PM
OK, just to clarify, are you saying that helping women get basic health services, needed baby supplies, and furthering their educations to help support their families are neither productive nor helpful?

If not, what do you consider productive/helpful? If those do fall into the helpful/productive category, are there other things we could be doing to support women who choose life?

Achilles
01-15-2009, 09:44 PM
Those things are all well and fine.

What might be more helpful and more productive would be to encourage fewer unintended pregnancies in the first place (via means that actually work in the real world rather than a narrow, ideology-based option which proves time and time again not only to not work but put young people at increased risk of other bad things).

That way there would be some common ground with the pro-choice community and both groups could work together instead of wasting a lot of time talking past one another. I think both groups would be perfectly happy seeing abortion rates dramatically reduced.

Jae Onasi
01-15-2009, 10:57 PM
What might be more helpful and more productive would be to encourage fewer unintended pregnancies in the first place (via means that actually work in the real world rather than a narrow, ideology-based option which proves time and time again not only to not work but put young people at increased risk of other bad things).

That way there would be some common ground with the pro-choice community and both groups could work together instead of wasting a lot of time talking past one another. I think both groups would be perfectly happy seeing abortion rates dramatically reduced.

I don't disagree with you one bit on that--I prefer a more balanced approach where we're open about how people get pregnant/STDs and how to avoid getting STDs or getting pregnant before we're ready. Fundamentalists tend to forget there's no sexual desire on-off switch that we can leave off until we're married and then flip to the on position on our wedding nights.

Kids are going to get information from somewhere if they aren't getting it from their parents--I'd prefer they at least got correct information. We've told our son he can ask us any question about sex anytime, and he's taken us up on that. Mind you, it was a bit uncomfortable for me when he asked me instead of dad the mechanics of male gay sex and I explained the details, but I just answered it matter-of-fact like any other question he asks. I'd like to see acknowledgment that we need to wait until we're ready to handle sex emotionally and physically, and that we can't get pregnant if we're abstinent--I don't think that's emphasized enough, particularly the 'emotionally ready' part. However, in case nature prevails and we feel the call to hump like bunnies, we need to know we can use methods a, b, and c to avoid making little bunnies before we're ready to care for them appropriately. I think it's important to have this kind of information well before the wedding night if someone chooses to be abstinent until then anyway, because married people need family planning information just as much as unmarried people do and need to make necessary preparations.

Achilles
01-16-2009, 11:20 AM
Great post, Jae. I think you're absolutely right that abstinence needs to be part of a comprehensive sexual education program, but that the reality is that it cannot be the whole enchilada.

I also think that you're right that people are often not prepared for the other, non-physical aspects and I think it would be great to include that as well, if it isn't already (oxytocin release and its effects on bonding behaviors, etc).

If we could do all that, I think unwanted pregnancies would diminish, as would the need for the majority of abortions.

JuniorModder
11-17-2009, 11:38 AM
Abortion is wrong, the baby is still alive. But if you ban it, then people will die because they're doing it improperly in secret. I think that people should try to look down upon abortion, and then in the future, because culture frowns on it, people will be less likely to abort.

So I think, Abortion is wrong, but people should have the option to abort.

JuniorModder

Alexrd
11-17-2009, 02:53 PM
Recently here in Portugal, there has been a great discussion about abortions. Registed people will vote this February on day 11. about whether the abortion should permitted or not.

So, what's your view in all of this?

Before the referendum, the portuguese legislation had already an exception to raped or unhealthy women who are free to make an abortion until a certain time of pregnancy. As such, I've voted "No". Lately, the government had tried to solve problems like abortion and euthanasia by promoting abortion at any situation if it's the choice of the woman, and legalize euthanasia, even if the person is not psicologically healthy; instead of investing on:
- a good sexual education program with abstinence included,
- palliative cares that are lacking on this country...

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Web Rider
11-18-2009, 04:38 AM
Abortion is wrong, the baby is still alive. But if you ban it, then people will die because they're doing it improperly in secret. I think that people should try to look down upon abortion, and then in the future, because culture frowns on it, people will be less likely to abort.

So I think, Abortion is wrong, but people should have the option to abort.

JuniorModder

No offense, but social stigmas do little good for society other than create outcasts and force people into bad situations. Abortion isn't the problem. The problem is an overly sexually-unprotected society, a new style of parenting that obsesses over protecting your child from reality, a failing education system, and the dissolving of normal social structures of support.

You will find I think, that if you teach people to be safe, and not be stupid, and provide them with ways to find support, instead of rejection and ridicule, then you will see a reduction in the numbers of abortions. You can't raise a child without the social support(not government support) of friends and family.

Darth Avlectus
11-18-2009, 04:59 AM
No offense, but social stigmas do little good for society other than create outcasts and force people into bad situations. Abortion isn't the problem. The problem is an overly sexually-unprotected society, a new style of parenting that obsesses over protecting your child from reality

OR not having decency of doing Jack $#@% about their kids getting off into it at an early age--overexposure when young and no guidance.

OR the parents are misguided and ignore the kid altogether which is just as terrible as the other two.

In all 3 cases the common denominator that makes it contributory to today's problems is a lack of parental involvement, degree of discretion to a particular family notwithstanding.

, a failing education system, and the dissolving of normal social structures of support.

I would concur here. Community outreach isn't what it used to be even 10 years ago. Especially when you consider that there are so many ways to "escape" reality for anybody and everybody. I find this disturbing. And yet we attempt to curtail this problem only to run into conflicts with too much government involvement and control conflicting with our rights.

You will find I think, that if you teach people to be safe, and not be stupid, and provide them with ways to find support, instead of rejection and ridicule, then you will see a reduction in the numbers of abortions. You can't raise a child without the social support(not government support) of friends and family.

Very good point.

I think one thing that gets confused is the element of fear. Often times when a teacher is trying to impart a lesson of wariness to his/her students, reasoned opposition occurs in the charge of fear mongering. A distinction ought to be made between fear mongering, as opposed to fear of reality. Too often I don't see this distinction made.

There is nothing wrong with teaching fear of reality, but it must be done in a caeful manner that ultimately gives a student a healthy respect for outcome.

...Just my opinion, I guess.

Darth Darkus
11-18-2009, 07:20 AM
Abortion is a great band!!! jk

do whatever you feel is the right thing for you! No matter what religions or politicians have to say about it! It's YOUR life not theirs....

Sabretooth
11-18-2009, 07:36 AM
do whatever you feel is the right thing for you! No matter what religions or politicians have to say about it! It's YOUR life not theirs....

Yes well, the trouble is, these religions and politicians happen to influence lawmakers and then you can't exactly do whatever you feel is right without getting into jail. >_>

ForeverNight
11-18-2009, 08:14 AM
do whatever you feel is the right thing for you! No matter what religions or politicians have to say about it! It's YOUR life not theirs....

By the same token, the Baby is still alive, wouldn't that mean that it's their choice and not yours?

Darth Darkus
11-18-2009, 08:33 AM
Yes well, the trouble is, these religions and politicians happen to influence lawmakers and then you can't exactly do whatever you feel is right without getting into jail. >_>

then you should move somewhere else! if lawmakers don't follow the interests of their citizens then it is what I call a hypocritic democracy!

By the same token, the Baby is still alive, wouldn't that mean that it's their choice and not yours?
Today 01:36 PM
have you been able to make any choices until you've reached certain age? and imo, if it isn't born it isn't a person that can make any choices...
+ abortion is only save until a few weeks after begin of pregnancy and I wouldn't consider that a baby at that point... it's pretty similar to a tapeworm, it's inside of you and it's alive but you don't want it so it has to go!

Sabretooth
11-18-2009, 10:29 AM
then you should move somewhere else! if lawmakers don't follow the interests of their citizens then it is what I call a hypocritic democracy!

Again, that is well and good, but what if the anti-abortion citizens get a majority over the pro-abortion citizens? That wouldn't be a hypocritical democracy, nor would it be particularly liberal. Democracy is rule of the majority, and does not necessarily entail liberty and freedom.

Also, switching countries is neither very easy, nor the most expedient solution to any given problem (with exceptions including having a bounty set on you, or committing treason, or maybe both).

Darth Darkus
11-18-2009, 11:17 AM
good point, still I think the majority shouldn't be able to tell someone what is good for her/his body and what not it's YOUR body and you should be able to do what you want with it. I mean this is medieval crap, if everyone says you're a witch you don't automatically become one. So if everyone says God is against abortion or whatever that doesn't make them right just because they're the majority...

JuniorModder
11-18-2009, 12:01 PM
good point, still I think the majority shouldn't be able to tell someone what is good for her/his body and what not it's YOUR body and you should be able to do what you want with it. I mean this is medieval crap, if everyone says you're a witch you don't automatically become one. So if everyone says God is against abortion or whatever that doesn't make them right just because they're the majority...

The thing is, God is not in the majority. I bet more people will have an abortion because it is a easy and lazy way of ridding oneself of discomfort, than there are people who don't get one because it is disobeying God.

JuniorModder

Astor
11-18-2009, 12:17 PM
The thing is, God is not in the majority. I bet more people will have an abortion because it is a easy and lazy way of ridding oneself of discomfort, than there are people who don't get one because it is disobeying God.

That's an unfair and gross misrepresentation of abortion. While i'm sure there are some that abort because they see a child as an inconvenience, I find it unfair to simply lable everyone who has an abortion as 'lazy'.

Web Rider
11-18-2009, 02:30 PM
The thing is, God is not in the majority. I bet more people will have an abortion because it is a easy and lazy way of ridding oneself of discomfort, than there are people who don't get one because it is disobeying God.

JuniorModder

Woah there, I think you need to take a step back if you're gonna start throwing around accusations that women who seek abortions are "lazy" and taking the "easy way out". How many children have you raised? Have you ever counseled someone before an abortion? Have you ever adopted a child? Or even offered a pregnant woman considering an abortion that you'll adopt her child?

These are not generally people who go out and say "Oh look I'm pregnant, time to cut it out!". These are real people who are having serious life issues and have decided after lots of thinking that this is their best option.


And to give you fair warning, the "God says so, and that's all there is to it." argument won't fly well here.

Jae Onasi
11-18-2009, 02:59 PM
Woah there, I think you need to take a step back if you're gonna start throwing around accusations that women who seek abortions are "lazy" and taking the "easy way out".The vast majority of women seeking abortions are not looking for the easy way out, nor are they lazy. They often times have significant social or financial issues, however.
How many children have you raised?2
Have you ever counseled someone before an abortion?Yes.
Have you ever adopted a child?No
Or even offered a pregnant woman considering an abortion that you'll adopt her child?Yes. One of my co-workers was dating a guy. She had infertility problems and never expected to get pregnant. When she found out she was, the guy walked out on her. Point Man and I knew her financial situation was very difficult already, and offered to adopt her child. Unfortunately, she declined, but she was incredibly touched by the offer.

And to give you fair warning, the "God says so, and that's all there is to it." argument won't fly well here.For some, it doesn't, true. I think it would be interesting to explore WHY God said so, however.

urluckyday
11-18-2009, 03:03 PM
Okay, I know this scenario is kinda outlandish, but I thought of it the other day and I've been wondering.

What if a man is raped by a woman (it can happen), and she is impregnated? Can the man choose to have the child aborted? I know that it's not him whose going to go into labor or anything like that but some people may consider that a personal issue to have a son or daughter in the world. I think that a raped woman should have the opportunity to have an abortion, but also a raped man should be able to decide. Just something for thought...

mimartin
11-18-2009, 03:12 PM
Most likely a raped man will never come forward, but under you scenario, I do think the man should be allowed that right. Rape is a crime and the women that performed the rape forfeited her right by perpetrating the crime. After all, if I steal the Hope Diamond and I’m caught, I’m not allowed to keep the diamond.

Ping
11-18-2009, 03:45 PM
Abortion is one of the few issues where I really don't know which side to take. On one hand, it's that person's choice to have an abortion, and if a woman is raped and impregnated...Well, you get the picture.

On the other hand, is it really right to take a life legally? Is it really right to take the life of someone who hasn't even been born yet? I really have mixed feelings about this, and I can never really decide if abortion is right or wrong.

mimartin
11-18-2009, 04:03 PM
I really have mixed feelings about this, and I can never really decide if abortion is right or wrong.Same here.

In my opinion, the only real question that matter is when does life begin. Until that can be scientifically answered to everyone’s satisfaction, then there will always be debate, even amongst our own self. (Please don’t try to reply with life begins at conception. This question has been asked and attempted answered many times in this thread. Unless you have made a substantial scientific breakthrough in the last 10 months (The time this thread laid dormant), then you cannot possible answer this to my satisfaction.)

Trench
11-18-2009, 04:18 PM
In my opinion, the only real question that matter is when does life begin.

Think about it this way: even if the "life hasn't begun" yet, you're still preventing a person from living. Snuffing out a life that hasn't even had a chance to take place. In my opinion that qualifies as murder.
Still not sure about my position with "special cases".

mimartin
11-18-2009, 05:07 PM
I'm preventing a person from living when I use birth control too. So I guess I am a murderer in your eyes. Lucky me, and a lot of other people the legal system is not seen through your eyes.

Trench
11-18-2009, 05:12 PM
I'm preventing a person from living when I use birth control too. So I guess I am a murderer in your eyes. Lucky me, and a lot of other people the legal system is not seen through your eyes.

I never said it went that deep. :¬:
I'm just talking about once the process of development has started.
*grumbles incoherently to self*

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-18-2009, 05:19 PM
*grumbles incoherently to self*that's your entire argument fyi

e: on second thought, i like your logic. any ladies out there wanna help me save a life? these sperm cells ain't gonna last forever unless they're properly stored

Totenkopf
11-18-2009, 05:35 PM
In my opinion, the only real question that matter is when does life begin...

The question isn't really about when life begins so much as viability outside a womb. The only real difference between the zygote and the newborn is about 9-10 months of physical development. Even a newborn has zero chance of viability left to it's own defenses.

As to the birth control argument (specifically condom), how droll. :xp: In that case it's like the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. You're not killing something that doesn't yet exist. Hell, with that kind of thinking, everyone who's ever played with themselves, been blown or performed deviant sex acts is probably a mass murderer. ;)

mimartin
11-18-2009, 06:00 PM
Was not my logic, but saying by preventing life from taking place you could include that and a whole lot more. Even someone that happens to have an involuntary dream would be guilty, if you defined it as preventing life from taking place.

9 months seems to make a big difference to me. However, I'm done with this, all this logic has already been covered in this thread unless something new comes in, I'm done. See post 219.

JuniorModder
11-18-2009, 06:39 PM
I agree with TMM. Once the process has started, it is murder to stop it. Saying that it isn't truly alive is a common excuse to make the aborter feel less guilty.

JuniorModder


EDIT: Some people do believe that using birth control, and not going through the motions on getting pregnant is as bad as abortion. So they have lot's and lot's of children (IE: the Duggars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18_Kids_and_Counting)), and I respect that.

Astor
11-18-2009, 06:45 PM
I agree with TMM. Once the process has started, it is murder to stop it.

What about in special circumstances, such as a choice between mother and baby?

Or if the woman is victim of a violent sexual assault? Should she be expected to carry that baby to term, in spite of what it represents to her?

I can probably guess at your answer, but i'm still interested in hearing it.

JuniorModder
11-18-2009, 07:30 PM
I think that unless having the baby will kill the baby and the mother, she should not have an abortion. Even the circumstance you mentioned, I think that she should have the baby, if she can't handle caring for a baby, she should put it up for adoption.

JuniorModder

jonathan7
11-18-2009, 08:20 PM
I think that unless having the baby will kill the baby and the mother, she should not have an abortion. Even the circumstance you mentioned, I think that she should have the baby, if she can't handle caring for a baby, she should put it up for adoption.

Not only do you fricking resurrect a thread I never wanted to see again, and post nothing at all new to the topic, indeed there have been far better articulations of your argument but you then to top it all off, come out and post the utter totality of not caring about a woman who has been raped and attempt to force upon her and victimise her 9 months of hell even more for an evil perpetrated on her. Should she wish to keep it, that should be her decision, should she not wish it, then she should be allowed to have an abortion.

Given that I really, really doubt you actually read this thread before necroing it, I'm going to repost something I posted ages ago.

I am a devout Christian and so biblically I should not agree with abortion, however if a woman has been raped, is the victim of child abuse or the child is because of incest then I believe a woman should of the right to choose if she wants an abortion. I have been unfortunate enough to see the effects of rape and the scars child abuse leaves on friends of mine and if they got pregnant as well, wether we agree or disagree I believe they should have the right to an abortion. Would you want to give birth to the child of a rapist? Psychologically speaking there is evidence that rapists have higher testosterone levels than the average male... so could the child go on to be a rapist? (its not a causal link, just an interesting thing to note, although the research into violent crime offenders is also contraditory like so many areas of psychology). So while I disagree with abortion in all other cases here I believe a woman has the right to choose due to circumstances well beyond her control being forced on her. And I don't think some of you should be so arrogant as to say what you would do in that situation, or as arrogant as to tell a woman who has been raped what to do, its their choice... who are you to tell them otherwise? My friends who have been raped will never recover; they carry scars that will last a life time, should they be made to have another scar?

Generally I wished to post this, and I can't recall if I did before, but in terms of anti-abortion argument, I think this is as good as it comes;

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. "

mimartin
11-18-2009, 08:58 PM
Can't play by the rules. Try to resurrect this thread now.