PDA

View Full Version : A very Touchy Subject...


Commander Thire
12-04-2007, 10:09 PM
This topic is about abortion... A touchy subject for sure. Any way Even though I have strong Christian Beliefs I belive A woman should have the right to choose. Think About it. A woman gets raped. She gets pregnant why should she be punished more by having the child of a man she hates? Maybe Has Never even met? People That are pro life are usually Uber Mega catholics whose defence is that in the bible it says murder is wrong. They consider abortion murder. Well correct me if im wrong but doesnt a baby not breath in the womb therefore IMO its not alive. Its not like its done barbarically either its done in a contained enviroment and done in a very non barbaric manor. But then again who are we to draw the line of where a baby is alive... We need to consider all of this in this for this conversation. Lets Keep it Clean ok?

Arcesious
12-04-2007, 10:37 PM
I may be a christian but I think the mother deserves the choice in a situation such as this. I bet that God understands this kind of situation and has sympathy for the mother in aborting the baby, despite what the bible may say. (i'm implying that i believe God exists, yes, but that doesn't mean i'm saying you have to believe that everybody)

John Galt
12-04-2007, 10:38 PM
I am largely apathetic about abortion itself; I am more concerned with the constitutional implications of Roe v. Wade. I personally oppose abortion in theory, as I think people obtain their rights simply by being a human being, as opposed to having rights and freedoms "granted" to them by the state or some creator. In practice, however, defining when life actually begins is so difficult that I am at a loss as to a solution.

Aeroldoth
12-04-2007, 11:03 PM
In practice, however, defining when life actually begins is so difficult that I am at a loss as to a solution.
I use a very simple definition: when the umbilical cord is cut. Up until that time it is connected to the mother and therefore, IMO, part of her body and therefore her choice as to what to do with it. The instant that cord is cut however, it becomes a separate entity, and thus, "alive".

Basically, I believe that (unique, individual, separate) life begins at birth.

Web Rider
12-05-2007, 02:27 AM
I would not really define an unborn child as a "life to be" until about 6 months. And if you've gone through with the pregnancy to that point, I also feel that if you could put up with it for 6, you can do 3 more.

But I do believe women should have the choice, but I also believe in limitations. I don't think abortion should be used as birth control, hence, I would say no more than 2, maybe 3 abortions per year. Why? Well:
1: after getting pregnant the first time, and not wanting it, you're supposed to be more careful the second time
2: benefit of the doubt, 2 times, maybe one time you just really screwed up.
3: by the time you're on your 3rd abortion of the year, you're just too dang loose.

Jason Skywalker
12-05-2007, 07:01 AM
Lol, this is like what, the fifth abortion topic here? :D

Anyways, women should only have the choice to abort in extreme cases like rape and such. If it was consensual sex, i'm sorry for the language, but, screw you, you should have been more careful and responsible. Perhaps the baby will teach you that.

Tommycat
12-05-2007, 07:43 AM
I'm of two minds on the subject. I oppose Roe V Wade on the principle that it steps on the rights of the states to decide the matter.

Web Rider: In a majority of cases I would agree with you, however some men use pregnancy and children to chain their wives at home. I see it quite reguarly really.

As for rape being the only way to abort, I see in the future many women claiming to have been raped by a mystery man.

mur'phon
12-05-2007, 09:23 AM
I believe that women should be able to have an abortion untill the baby is developed enough that it can survive outside the womb, after that, the woman can still have an abortion if her life is in danger, otherwise the baby can, if the woman dosen't want it, be adopted away.
A problem with limitting abortion is that several people who can't legaly get an abortion, will end up aborting anyway, using mettods that are far more dangerous to the woman.

Dagobahn Eagle
12-05-2007, 09:56 AM
Anyways, women should only have the choice to abort in extreme cases like rape and such. If it was consensual sex, i'm sorry for the language, but, screw you, you should have been more careful and responsible. Perhaps the baby will teach you that.So if you get raped and can't prove it, you can't have an abortion?

Ray Jones
12-05-2007, 10:17 AM
Holy crap, 3 abortions per year? I mean it's not some kind of hobby, and sure as hell no fun. I'm also not sure if after I don't know how many abortions a woman would still be able to become pregnant.

Besides that, and moral/whatever aspects aside, I think making abortion illegal would drive those into illegality, who don't want to at least carry out a baby to give it free for adoption, with all unhealthy extras, because many "doctors" sure would want to make some money with that. And at least from that point of view "pro choice" is also "pro life".

Commander Thire
12-05-2007, 10:43 AM
It Shouldnt Be used as birth control only as a last resort for cases like: Rape, Condom Breakage, ETC

Divide&Conquer
12-05-2007, 11:55 AM
I'm pro choice, every one has the right to choose what happens in their life, and shouldn't be controlled by some one else. Especially by radicalists.

Think about it, the only way to get an abortion is to go to an abortion clinic, you can't get it done at the hospitals anymore. What if the child was still born and still in the womb. The mother, devastated by the loss of her child now has to go threw them, having pictures shoved in her face. That be even more crippling to the mother.

Who is any one really to deny a person the right to chose what goes on in their own personal life. Certainly not them, especially if they aren't willing to be open to the person side of events that happened. Its fine to get your views heard, but forcing it upon some one else is just idiotic and selfish.

Rogue Nine
12-05-2007, 12:14 PM
Think about it, the only way to get an abortion is to go to an abortion clinic, you can't get it done at the hospitals anymore.
There are still a number of hospitals that will offer abortion services. Few and far between, but still present.


What if the child was still born and still in the womb. The mother, devastated by the loss of her child now has to go threw them, having pictures shoved in her face. That be even more crippling to the mother.
If the baby is stillborn, then it is already dead and an abortion would be moot. As such, this example really has no bearing on the topic at hand.

Dagobahn Eagle
12-05-2007, 12:26 PM
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, distribute condoms and support comprehensive sex ed. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. Jumping up and down and yelling 'ABORTION IS TEH SIN&WR0NG!!1' won't help the tiniest bit.

Darth InSidious
12-05-2007, 01:17 PM
*Groans*.

Couldn't we have a sticky to the effect that this conversation has been held sixteen-trillion times and that we have exhausted all novelty and possible benefit in having it?

MdKnightR
12-05-2007, 01:21 PM
I am largely apathetic about abortion itself; I am more concerned with the constitutional implications of Roe v. Wade. I personally oppose abortion in theory, as I think people obtain their rights simply by being a human being, as opposed to having rights and freedoms "granted" to them by the state or some creator. In practice, however, defining when life actually begins is so difficult that I am at a loss as to a solution.

Very good answer! I feel much the same way. Personally, I think that the government should not be a "third wheel" in the doctor-patient relationship. Abortion is a medical procedure and should only be performed at the advise of a doctor. The courts should have chosen to stay out of it IMHO.

As for what Commander Thire said about it not being barbaric, I suggest he read up on Partial Birth Abortions and see if that changes his mind.

Web Rider
12-05-2007, 03:01 PM
Holy crap, 3 abortions per year? I mean it's not some kind of hobby, and sure as hell no fun. I'm also not sure if after I don't know how many abortions a woman would still be able to become pregnant.

Besides that, and moral/whatever aspects aside, I think making abortion illegal would drive those into illegality, who don't want to at least carry out a baby to give it free for adoption, with all unhealthy extras, because many "doctors" sure would want to make some money with that. And at least from that point of view "pro choice" is also "pro life".

from what I've read having an abortion reduces chances of another pregnancy only slightly less than actually giving birth to a child.

Jae Onasi
12-05-2007, 04:04 PM
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, distribute condoms and support comprehensive sex ed. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. Jumping up and down and yelling 'ABORTION IS TEH SIN&WR0NG!!1' won't help the tiniest bit.

How about supporting the women who find themselves in crisis pregnancies to get the help they need to deal with that pregnancy? There are a lot of crisis pregnancy centers that could use things like formula, diapers, maternity clothes, funds, and volunteer help. We need to address the major reasons women decide to abort once they find themselves pregnant, and solve those issues, too.

Jason Skywalker
12-05-2007, 04:53 PM
So if you get raped and can't prove it, you can't have an abortion?

I didn't say that.

Corinthian
12-05-2007, 06:06 PM
Abortion is wrong. Even in the case of rape. Yes, rape is a terrible, terrible thing, but the child shouldn't have to suffer for the crime of the father. The child has committed nothing wrong, he doesn't deserve to die. Yes, it's hard for the woman, but it's only nine months of her life. Then she can give the child up for adoption or something. I don't think anyone's life should be extinguished so that someone else can be more comfortable within their little world, no matter how traumatic the experience. Pain can be recovered from. Death is permanent.

El Sitherino
12-05-2007, 06:31 PM
the child shouldn't have to suffer.
There is no suffering where there is no ability to grasp ones own existence.

I have no issues with abortion. Making it illegal will not stop it, and will not solve anything. You'll have more death, more suffering and sadness. This is another case of logic > faith. Even if you're a person of faith, you have to think about what has more positive humanitarian effects.

Web Rider
12-05-2007, 06:32 PM
Abortion is wrong. Even in the case of rape. Yes, rape is a terrible, terrible thing, but the child shouldn't have to suffer for the crime of the father. The child has committed nothing wrong, he doesn't deserve to die. Yes, it's hard for the woman, but it's only nine months of her life. Then she can give the child up for adoption or something. I don't think anyone's life should be extinguished so that someone else can be more comfortable within their little world, no matter how traumatic the experience. Pain can be recovered from. Death is permanent.

Are you a woman? no...
Are you currently pregnant? not being a woman, you're not.
Have you ever been...oh wait, not a woman.
Have you ever been ra...wait, not a woman, so extremely unlikly.

So I wouldn't go around saying that "pregnancy's not so bad" or "it's only 9 months". And, you've had...how many traumatic experiences?(equal or worse than rape). yeah, I really wouldn't be talking.

I'm not a woman. I'll never be pregnant, and I'll never be raped. That's why it's not my place to say "no, you can't".

El Sitherino
12-05-2007, 06:35 PM
Have you ever been ra...wait, not a woman, so extremely unlikly.
Men get raped too. They just don't have to worry about something possibly popping out 9 months later.

Unless they somehow get a well timed stone or cyst-thing.

Web Rider
12-05-2007, 06:38 PM
Men get raped too. They just don't have to worry about something possibly popping out 9 months later.

Unless they somehow get a well timed stone or cyst-thing.

Which is why I said extremely unlikly, the rate of male rape to female rape is like 1:10000. Aside from molestations as small boys by other men, there are VERY VERY few times when men get raped.

Corinthian
12-05-2007, 06:53 PM
What in the hell does that have to do with anything? I don't have to drink poison to know that it's gonna kill me. Pain is temporary. Death is forever. That's how it works, Web Rider. How is sacrificing the baby going to help cope with the pain anyway? What, is she going to put the mutilated corpse on an altar and offer it to some God so he will comfort her? Killing the baby isn't going to make anything better, and from what I've heard, it's not unlikely that it'd make it worse.

Ravnas
12-05-2007, 06:55 PM
Personally, I'm Pro-Choice but I think it be better if(Warning, Major Idealistic Idea Here) That We should focus on Making the World a place where that doesn't have to be an option for Women. But if it was an accident then You're Screwed.

Web Rider
12-05-2007, 07:01 PM
What in the hell does that have to do with anything? I don't have to drink poison to know that it's gonna kill me. Pain is temporary. Death is forever. That's how it works, Web Rider. How is sacrificing the baby going to help cope with the pain anyway? What, is she going to put the mutilated corpse on an altar and offer it to some God so he will comfort her? Killing the baby isn't going to make anything better, and from what I've heard, it's not unlikely that it'd make it worse.

Poison =/= pregnancy for the exact reasons I stated. Not everyone cannot get pregnant, therefore you have NO idea how it will affect a person. Pregnancy and the hormones created by it vary from person to person. Not to mention the fact that first you were horribly violated by another person, and now you have to stress over the fact that you've got their child growing in you. Every moment of that pregnancy is a reminder of what some horrible person did to you.

"The innocent speak highly of justice for they have never felt it's wrath."

You cannot make a statement presuming to know how something feels if you've never felt it. Have you been raped? Then don't say "it's easy to overcome", have you ever been pregnant? then don't say "it's only nine months."

Arcesious
12-05-2007, 07:29 PM
My views of this heavily conflict right now. i believe that a baby has a life the instant it's brain is fully formed and it can move and has a heartbeat. But then the problem is that the mother shouldn't be forced to have the baby after being raped... I understand corinthians veiw completely, but then i understand how it is for the mother to go through that, and at this moment i can't resolve it. My religious percpetion on this matter however is not the problem with why i can't resolve this now.
However, i do believe that abortion is completely wrong when the mother and the father specifically did you know what without a condom, and then decide later to kill the baby when they could have used a condom in the first place to avoid havign to kill a baby's life.
I hoept his thread get's resolved to a good conclusion becasue I can't reslve this in my midn at the moment now.

Web Rider
12-05-2007, 07:32 PM
However, i do believe that abortion is completely wrong when the mother and the father specifically did you know what without a condom, and then decide later to kill the baby when they could have used a condom in the first place to avoid havign to kill a baby's life.

I generally agree that if two people are fooling around, and neither attempts to use protection, and the girl isn't already on birth control, then "sucks to be them". If they don't want it they can give it up for adoption, but I don't think being idiots entitles them to getting an abortion.

Corinthian
12-05-2007, 07:53 PM
That's a logical fallacy, Web Rider. I've never been shot, but I can tell you it would hurt. I never said getting over it would be easy, but it is surmountable, unlike having your skull pierced and your brain sucked through a hose down a drain. I pity the mother, but I don't think murdering her child is going to make anything better. Doesn't the world already have enough misery and death that having legalized death clinics is a bad thing? Every time an abortion is done, that's one more child that will have had it's entire life cut short before it even properly begins. So, tell me, Web Rider, how can you say that being aborted is less cruel than being raped?

Web Rider
12-05-2007, 08:38 PM
That's a logical fallacy, Web Rider. I've never been shot, but I can tell you it would hurt.
I'm sure the first time you tell a pregnant woman you know exactly how she feels, she's be totally understanding that a man, who could never be pregnant, thinks he knows what pregnancy is like.

I never said getting over it would be easy, but it is surmountable, unlike having your skull pierced and your brain sucked through a hose down a drain. I pity the mother, but I don't think murdering her child is going to make anything better.
Because I'm sure that all the rape victims you've talked to have told you that they'd rather bear the child of somebody who violated them in that manner than have an abortion.

Doesn't the world already have enough misery and death that having legalized death clinics is a bad thing? Every time an abortion is done, that's one more child that will have had it's entire life cut short before it even properly begins. So, tell me, Web Rider, how can you say that being aborted is less cruel than being raped?
I don't know, you're the one telling women who've just been raped and are now pregnant that they need to suffer through the next 8-9 months bearing the child of the man who raped them. So you tell me: why do you insist on creating more suffering?

Corinthian
12-05-2007, 09:15 PM
Wait. I think it's wrong to wholesale slaughter innocent children, and I'M the one creating more suffering? You've got a screwed up perception of suffering, my friend.

Web Rider
12-05-2007, 09:22 PM
Wait. I think it's wrong to wholesale slaughter innocent children, and I'M the one creating more suffering? You've got a screwed up perception of suffering, my friend.

I take it a vegetarian? If not, then where do you get off?

I don't consider them children, and do not prescribe them rights, same as all other children(who are only granted rights through their parents). In fact, up till about the 6th month, I don't even consider them human. So I justify it the same way I justify eating a steak.

It's not human.

Corinthian
12-05-2007, 10:14 PM
How can you say they aren't human? They have a human genetic code, and are, thus, human. I mean, DNA is the root of all life, if you have DNA, you are alive, and if you have Human DNA, you are Human.

Web Rider
12-05-2007, 10:31 PM
How can you say they aren't human? They have a human genetic code, and are, thus, human. I mean, DNA is the root of all life, if you have DNA, you are alive, and if you have Human DNA, you are Human.

My finger has human DNA. I will not be a murderer if I cut it off. A fetus is entirely dependent on the mother for life, in the case of rape, the unwilling host. It is an extension of herself, take it out, it dies. It's not human.

"human" is more than simply DNA, otherwise we would have prescribed equal rights to all of humanity long ago. Mental capacity is also a requirement, people with mental disorders are not prescribed an equal lot in life. People with major retardation are barely given rights.

Survivability is another. People who cannot survive on their own are generally regarded as less than human. When people look at the man hooked up to a dozen machines to keep him alive, we really don't see that as human. They may have been human, but they have progressed to an inhuman state.


There is no suffering caused in the abortion of a fetus. Most emotions felt by the mother afterward are remnants of the hormones in her body from the pregnancy, and often happen just the same as when a woman gives birth. The fetus does not feel pain. It does not realize that it is about to die. it doesn't even know it exists. It's no more human than my hand, it couldn't live without me, and therefore I have final say in what happens to it.

I attribute these same powers to a woman who's fetus is no more than an extension of herself. She does not suffer from the abortion any more than a mother who gave birth, she didn't want it, and she solved her problem the way she felt was best. The fetus doesn't suffer because it's incapable of doing so. I impose no suffering or pain on anyone that they did not choose themselves.

You on the other hand choose to for a woman who was disgustingly violated for reasons of pleasure and power to carry the child as, for at least 9 months a constant reminder of what that rapist did to her.

Corinthian
12-05-2007, 10:46 PM
Your finger is a section of a living organism, not another creature altogether. So I'll rephrase. The child is alive because it has UNIQUE DNA. Are you happy now? After all, DNA is big thing that separates animate from inanimate.

How do you know the fetus is not aware it's alive? I mean, by that token, we could say that infants aren't alive either, given that we have no evidence of them being aware of them being self-aware. And really, a child doesn't even understand the concept of self-awareness, so maybe he's not self-aware either. You nurture a nest of vipers right there.

I take it you think that still-living people in comas should also be put down since they're incapable of caring for themselves? Or is the right to be killed with a pair of scissors reserved for those who haven't had a chance to live yet? And what about children? Most children couldn't fend for themselves.

How do you know no suffering is caused in the abortion of the fetus? Did you get aborted, and are now speaking from beyond the grave? That's a totally illogical statement. You're speaking from a perspective you can't possibly understand, and you get after me for suggesting that the pain of death is less than the pain of rape?

The woman's suffering is irrelevant. She's going to carry this with her no matter what and killing the baby won't make her life any easier.

Web Rider
12-05-2007, 11:49 PM
The woman's suffering is irrelevant. She's going to carry this with her no matter what and killing the baby won't make her life any easier.

that's really it then. You value an unborn over a living woman, I value the woman over the unborn(and unwanted).

and that's all that really needs to be said.

Corinthian
12-06-2007, 12:01 AM
Actually, I value both lives. The difference is, killing the unborn won't help the woman in any appreciable, lasting way and will probably hurt her, too, whereas letting the unborn live may help the woman and is unlikely to do any permanent harm. The woman's suffering is irrelevant not because I don't care, but because she's going to suffer whether the baby lives or dies.

Web Rider
12-06-2007, 12:05 AM
Actually, I value both lives. The difference is, killing the unborn won't help the woman in any appreciable, lasting way and will probably hurt her, too, whereas letting the unborn live may help the woman and is unlikely to do any permanent harm. The woman's suffering is irrelevant not because I don't care, but because she's going to suffer whether the baby lives or dies.

So MORE suffering is OK because she's already suffering.

Here's a situation for you.
Girl is raped. Girl becomes pregnant, child is unwanted, but she plans to go through with it. She has so much stress over it, she miscarries. Now, not only was she raped, but because she didn't have an abortion(which was her decision), she is in for more suffering now over losing a child. Meet my ex-girlfriend, it wasn't my kid, I'm still a virgin, we had broken up and were friends at the time.

And you want to FORCE these kinds of situations on women?

If you want proof of want stress can do, look it up. I've done it before, it's not pretty.

Corinthian
12-06-2007, 12:17 AM
And you think that deliberately killing the baby would have been a better result than the baby accidentally dying?

No, I don't want to force this situation on women. However, this is a situation where to a human with a moral compass that points north, there's no comfortable solution. Yes, it's easier, maybe even less traumatic for the woman if she aborts the baby. I won't give that up, but I'll admit there's a possibility. But the most terrible emotional trauma in the world can and has been recovered from. There isn't a therapy that can bring someone back from the dead.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I don't even need to crack a Bible to tell me how evil Abortion is.

Web Rider
12-06-2007, 12:36 AM
And you think that deliberately killing the baby would have been a better result than the baby accidentally dying?
yes, because to have done so you would have thought of it as "aborting what somebody forced upon you" whereas when it's lost it's "losing something that was yours."

No, I don't want to force this situation on women. However, this is a situation where to a human with a moral compass that points north, there's no comfortable solution. Yes, it's easier, maybe even less traumatic for the woman if she aborts the baby. I won't give that up, but I'll admit there's a possibility. But the most terrible emotional trauma in the world can and has been recovered from. There isn't a therapy that can bring someone back from the dead.

I don't even need to crack a Bible to tell me how evil Abortion is.
Hey, here's a shocker, that's all just nice sentiment. Those documents have ZERO legal weight. In fact, to prove this, I submit how people under the age of 18 do not have those rights. Not to mention they aren't even rights. They're just nice sentiment put forth by the founding fathers.

Corinthian
12-06-2007, 12:41 AM
*Sigh* I wasn't making a legal statement. Most of the arguments in here have no real standing on anything other than personal opinion, including yours. So basically, your only argument in there is that the Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document, and thus renders my point obsolete. Yeaaah.

yes, because to have done so you would have thought of it as "aborting what somebody forced upon you" whereas when it's lost it's "losing something that was yours."

Yeah, because there totally aren't, you know, hundreds of stories about women who felt horrible after their abortions, far worse than they did before. Nope, nope. I must have completely imagined those.

Web Rider
12-06-2007, 02:19 AM
*Sigh* I wasn't making a legal statement. Most of the arguments in here have no real standing on anything other than personal opinion, including yours. So basically, your only argument in there is that the Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document, and thus renders my point obsolete. Yeaaah.
I was under the impression you were arguing that fetuses were humans and therefore should have the "right" to "life, liberty, and the prusuit of happiness", but we don't technically have that right, so...therein lies my confusion.

Yeah, because there totally aren't, you know, hundreds of stories about women who felt horrible after their abortions, far worse than they did before. Nope, nope. I must have completely imagined those.
links? I haven't heard of any myself, so it's news to me.

Tommycat
12-06-2007, 09:13 AM
I was under the impression you were arguing that fetuses were humans and therefore should have the "right" to "life, liberty, and the prusuit of happiness", but we don't technically have that right, so...therein lies my confusion.


links? I haven't heard of any myself, so it's news to me.
Couple of hairs to split. It has been argued successfully that the Declaration and constitution work hand in hand. So technically those rights are there. The constitution was intended to secure those rights.

As far as the women feeling worse afterwards, they are out there. Many of them. Pretending they don't exist is about the same as pretending the women who feel no guilt don't exist because there's no quantitative resource gathering those statistics.

Ray Jones
12-06-2007, 11:00 AM
I haven't heard of any myself, so it's news to me.It's not an easy thing for a woman, neither physically, nor psychically.

Darth InSidious
12-06-2007, 12:08 PM
...I think you mean "psychologically", Ray?

Unless you mean the increased theta-band brainwave emissions during the third trimester...

:xp:

[/windu6]

Salzella
12-06-2007, 01:23 PM
Personally I am 100% Pro-choice, I don't think it's the right of anyone or any organisation to dictate a childbirth, which should really be the woman's choice alone.

Corinthian
12-06-2007, 02:55 PM
Shouldn't it be a joint choice between the mother and her child? I mean, children do have rights.

MdKnightR
12-06-2007, 03:47 PM
Before I say anything else, let me remind everyone that I believe that abortion is a medical procedure that should only be performed with the advice of a doctor without government interference.

That being said, I find a lot of validity in Corinthian's arguments. No matter how you try to rationalize it, abortion is the ending of a life (or a "potential life" if you prefer). Bottom line, it prevents a human being from living. Abortion is akin to euthanasia of the elderly. Should the courts get involved in it? IMHO no. Doctor-patient relationships should not be infringed upon. If a woman's life is in danger because of a pregnancy, or if a person is terminally ill and wants to partake in doctor-assisted suicide, ultimately it is a medical procedure performed with the advice of a doctor and the consent of the patient.

Unfortunately, since the intervention of the government (Roe v. Wade), abortion has become more of a means of birth control than anything else. The mantra has become "You Rape 'em, We Scrape 'em. No Fetus Can Beat Us." And that is just plain wrong.

To Web Rider: I can't speak for Corinthian, but for the record, I am a vegetarian with an adopted child. :D In essence, I have put my money where my mouth is.

Corinthian
12-06-2007, 04:11 PM
The thing is, I cannot think of a case where the mother was in serious danger if she went through with the pregnancy, knew it beforehand, and where an abortion would have helped.

Ray Jones
12-07-2007, 09:03 AM
Cancer.

...I think you mean "psychologically", Ray?No, because actually I meant, err, yes, uhm, naja, a typo, indeed, a pretty ugly typo it was. >_> ^^

Web Rider
12-07-2007, 09:36 AM
The thing is, I cannot think of a case where the mother was in serious danger if she went through with the pregnancy, knew it beforehand, and where an abortion would have helped.

Well, there are all the adverse effects that STDs can cause on birthing of children. As well as the occasional woman dies from pregnancy or becomes infertile.

Corinthian
12-07-2007, 02:26 PM
That's not what I asked. I put up three criteria: Serious danger, knew, abortion would help. I can't think of a single case where the woman knew beforehand that she would die in birth. And who aborts to save themselves from becoming sterile?

Ray Jones
12-07-2007, 02:41 PM
When cancer is detected during pregnancy, it becomes a possibility that your criteria are met.

MdKnightR
12-07-2007, 02:52 PM
The thing is, I cannot think of a case where the mother was in serious danger if she went through with the pregnancy, knew it beforehand, and where an abortion would have helped.

My stepdaughter has congestive heart failure. The doctors have told her that having another child could very well end her life. In the event that she got pregnant again, abortion could well be her only option to live.

Pho3nix
12-07-2007, 04:04 PM
This topic has been discussed before. In numerous threads.

My answer is still the same, Pro-Choice. I consider the option to do an abortion to be a human right.

Corinthian
12-07-2007, 04:06 PM
Alright. Fair enough. And how rare is that form of heart failure, or forms of cancer that would make giving birth/caesarean section fatal, or be fatal before that was even a choice?

mimartin
12-07-2007, 04:57 PM
Unfortunately, since the intervention of the government (Roe v. Wade), abortion has become more of a means of birth control than anything else.Wasn’t there government intervention into this question before Roe v. Wade? My understanding is there were laws on the books at the time preventing abortion in the United States and according to the decision of the Supreme Court most of those laws violated a constitutional right to privacy. So I’d say government intervention into the question of abortion goes back longer than Roe v. Wade.

I did not vote in the poll because I do not see this issue simply as some people. While my personal beliefs are anti-abortion, why should my personal beliefs be placed onto another? If you force women to give birth to unwanted children, what will happen to these children? If you only allow abortion in extreme case, who will decide when the case is extreme, the woman and the doctor or the government? Are we going to force a rape victim to defend herself in open court to prove that she was indeed raped in order to terminate the pregnancy? Is she to be victimized twice?
I believe that abortion is a medical procedure that should only be performed with the advice of a doctor without government interference.I agree with this statement. I would add, that a parent or guardian should be involved in the decision if we are talking about a minor.

Achilles
12-07-2007, 05:02 PM
I agree with this statement. I would add, that a parent or guardian should be involved in the decision if we are talking about a minor.Unless, of course, the parent/guardian was the one to do the impregnating. Hence why I disagree with this caveat based on the rationale that you provided for rape above.

mimartin
12-07-2007, 05:09 PM
Unless, of course, the parent/guardian was the one to do the impregnating. Hence why I disagree with this caveat based on the rationale that you provided for rape above.Very good point and one I did not even consider. I concede the point because I could not agree more with you.

Achilles
12-07-2007, 06:34 PM
"Undue burden", ftw! :)

Aeroldoth
12-07-2007, 06:51 PM
Wasn’t there government intervention into this question before Roe v. Wade?
Abortion has been legal, then illegal, then legal, then illegal, many times.

why should my personal beliefs be placed onto another?
Absolutely.

If you force women to give birth to unwanted children, what will happen to these children?
This is the major point for me than most never seem to address in abortion debates. After forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want... what then? How can life for an unwanted, unloved child be good?

Those who are against abortion call it murder. I call an unwanted life torture. And, IMHO, torture is the worse of the two.

Corinthian
12-07-2007, 07:31 PM
Easy to say when it's not your life being snuffed out, Aeroldoth. Obviously, no adopted child is ever happy.

Achilles
12-07-2007, 07:55 PM
And the orphaned children that are never adopted?

There seems to be a misconception that all children that are put up for adoption eventually are adopted.

It really does seem to me that adoption (or lack thereof) has almost nothing to do with abortion debate. We may eventually get to a point in our society where every orphan is adopted, but that won't eliminate the issues surrounding a woman's right to choose whether or not to have a child.

Corinthian
12-07-2007, 08:11 PM
The natural human instinct is self-preservation. Thus, it's hardcoded into our minds that Life > Death. No matter how bad it gets, it can still get better when you're alive.

Why does a woman have the right to kill her own child, even if that child is not yet capable of living outside the womb? What makes a fetal child have less rights than older child? Should children be tied to the whim of their parents until they're capable of supporting themselves without help? Because, I mean, if the woman has a right to choose to kill a fetus because now, she's inconvenienced, should she have the right to snuff out her toddler because she needs to pay for a babysitter when she wants to go out?

Dagobahn Eagle
12-07-2007, 08:30 PM
Why does a woman have the right to kill her own child, even if that child is not yet capable of living outside the womb?The same reason she has the right to menstruate away unused eggs. The same reason why a man has the right to masturbate. Because sperm, egg, and embryos are not humans.

Because, I mean, if the woman has a right to choose to kill a fetus because now, she's inconvenienced, should she have the right to snuff out her toddler because she needs to pay for a babysitter when she wants to go out?Trivializing much:rolleyes:?

And who aborts to save themselves from becoming sterile?Err... those who want have more kids? Am I missing something here?

Achilles
12-07-2007, 08:59 PM
The natural human instinct is self-preservation. Thus, it's hardcoded into our minds that Life > Death. No matter how bad it gets, it can still get better when you're alive.I might be inclined to agree with much of what you say here. I think the biggest difference between us is going to be our definition of "life". You're clearly thinking along the lines of "third trimester/clearly alive" whereas I'm thinking "first trimester/does not meet criteria for 'alive' or second/third trimester/medical necessity", etc.

So, yes, if we were talking about an sentient organism that was clearly alive, I would agree. A mother should have a very good reason for aborting any child once that is clearly alive. Since the U.S. has existing laws that already support this thinking, I don't think you'll have to do much to sway the legal and medical communities.

Why does a woman have the right to kill her own child, even if that child is not yet capable of living outside the womb?Again, you're thinking killing a child (late 2nd trimester/3rd trimester) whereas I tend to consider the majority of abortions, which are in the 1st trimester (an aborted fetus).

I would like to think that I could answer your question specifically, however your question isn't very specific to begin with. Are we talking about a 13 year old girl that has been raped by a family member? A woman in her late thirties that finds out that her child is going to be born with severe birth defects due to complication with her fertility treatment? I would tend to think that the specific source of that woman's rights are going to stem from slightly different ethical arguments.

What makes a fetal child have less rights than older child? Because a fetus is not a child. What makes a house fly have less rights than humpback whale (the latter protected by international law due to its endangered status...at least last time I checked)?

Should children be tied to the whim of their parents until they're capable of supporting themselves without help? Certainly not. Did someone suggest that?

Because, I mean, if the woman has a right to choose to kill a fetus because now, she's inconvenienced, should she have the right to snuff out her toddler because she needs to pay for a babysitter when she wants to go out?Well, clearly you presume much in your scenario. Perhaps you have a more realistic argument that we could consider with greater seriousness?

Web Rider
12-07-2007, 08:59 PM
That's not what I asked. I put up three criteria: Serious danger, knew, abortion would help. I can't think of a single case where the woman knew beforehand that she would die in birth. And who aborts to save themselves from becoming sterile?

Lots of people who ya know, want to have kids again.

How about an entopic pregnancy, one where the embryo attaches itsself to the wall of the fallopian tubes?

I agree with this statement. I would add, that a parent or guardian should be involved in the decision if we are talking about a minor.
Involved, but not have any actual say, if the parent wants the child and is willing to raise it as parents and the daughter is willing to do that, OK, but I don't think parents should have the right to tell you to get an abortion or prevent it.
In addition to Achilles point, I think the impregnated child should be allowed to see the doctor first, as while alone they may tell them that it was the father, or uncle who did it.

Easy to say when it's not your life being snuffed out, Aeroldoth. Obviously, no adopted child is ever happy.
Anti-choice is easy to say when you're not getting pregnant and know you never will.

Why does a woman have the right to kill her own child, even if that child is not yet capable of living outside the womb? What makes a fetal child have less rights than older child? Should children be tied to the whim of their parents until they're capable of supporting themselves without help? Because, I mean, if the woman has a right to choose to kill a fetus because now, she's inconvenienced, should she have the right to snuff out her toddler because she needs to pay for a babysitter when she wants to go out?

for the exact points you mention, a baby can be left at home, even for an extended preiod of time and while it is harmful to them, it will not kill them. Hypothetically remove the fetus from the womb and it dies, not in an hour, not in a day, but right then.

mimartin
12-07-2007, 09:33 PM
Involved, but not have any actual say, if the parent wants the child and is willing to raise it as parents and the daughter is willing to do that, OK, but I don't think parents should have the right to tell you to get an abortion or prevent it.
In addition to Achilles point, I think the impregnated child should be allowed to see the doctor first, as while alone they may tell them that it was the father, or uncle who did it.Already conceded the point, I did not think this one out from every angle, I’ll admit I was plain stupid. I was putting myself in the place of the parent and I personally would like to know about everything involving the health of someone I am responsible for. I also know I would never do such a thing. As to an uncle doing it, well there would be a very late term abortion in my family and it would not involve the minor. So yea, I’ll agree the child needs to see the doctor first.

Easy to say when it's not your life being snuffed out, Aeroldoth. Obviously, no adopted child is ever happy.Who is to say the child will be given up for adoption in the first place? We see on the news at least every other month about a new born being found in a dumpster. How many are never found? How many more would show up there without legal abortions?

PoiuyWired
12-07-2007, 10:27 PM
If you want to reduce the number of abortions, distribute condoms and support comprehensive sex ed. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. Jumping up and down and yelling 'ABORTION IS TEH SIN&WR0NG!!1' won't help the tiniest bit.

^^
QFE.

Plus, the world is overpopulated as is, do you really want to bring in an unwant child that would probably be unloved?

Abnormal human spawn and dangerous pregnancy and such events aside, I do think that sometimes it would be nice to just end it early if the pregnancy is not wanted. That is on top of the over population, the how a kid can be expensive, and how ie may be a burden and how it takes so much resources financially, physically and mentally.

Personally I think that if seomeone is not prepared and ready to accept the pregnancy then don't let it be born. Its not a good thing for the parents and definitely not a good thing for the new born.

Samuel Dravis
12-07-2007, 10:49 PM
What does it mean to be alive?
What does it mean to be sentient?

But it's not possible to give an answer that includes all possible definitions of alive or sentient, because those concepts are not sharply defined. That is a good thing, certainly, because it allows us to call many things alive and sentient which might fall outside of a more concrete definition. However, it also means that this debate will go absolutely nowhere, because people use specific definitions of "alive", "sentience", etc., while discussing this topic.

Those concrete definitions are not what we mean by "alive", just as when we talk about "games" we don't simply mean "moving carved shapes around on a field in accordance with certain rules." While this definition may fit "board games", not everything we call a game is described by it.

An early fetus can be said to be alive just as correctly as it could be said to not be, and to argue that it is one or the other is simply a misunderstanding of how we use the word. If specific definitions are used and are understood by all parties, then progress can be had. --But not until then.

Achilles
12-07-2007, 10:58 PM
What does it mean to be alive?
What does it mean to be sentient?

But it's not possible to give an answer that includes all possible definitions of alive or sentient, because those concepts are not sharply defined.Well, we do know what "dead" is, correct? So if something is either "alive" or "not alive" it would seem that we could simply test for "not aliveness". If a 87 year old man no longer has a heartbeat or brain activity, we would declare him to be dead (or for the sake of my argument, "not alive"). By the same criteria, a 4 week old fetus with no heart (let alone heartbeat) or brain (let alone brain activity ) would also meet that "not alive" status.

"Sentient" might be tougher to define and if you are taking me to task for using the term, I acknowledge my having been corrected and thank you for doing so.

Wrong. I don't care whether it's first, second, or third trimester, really. It's just as evil to kill a child no matter how old the child is.You choose to define "child" arbitrarily. I do not.

How does it not meet the criteria for alive? It's obviously animate. It's cells are reproducing. Hell, it HAS cells. So do mucus and fecal matter. How far would you like to take this?

Once it is clearly alive? From what I remember, the criteria for Alive is that it is capable of cellular reproduction. That's pretty much the meat of what goes on in the womb. Yes, that is one of the criteria that are necessary to meet the requirements of life.

I don't care what the cases are. The baby doesn't deserve to die, no matter how screwed up it might be when it's born, physically, or how terrible the mother's pain is. And we're uncaring monsters? Nice.

How is the fetus not a child? Okay, if you prefer, we can use the term infant. I refuse to use the term "Fetus", as it's one of you Pro-Choice types little tricks for making us forget that your precious 'fetuses' are a member of the Human Species. The medical term is "fetus". Before that they are "embryos" and before that they are "blastocysts". I'm sure someone with more medical knowledge than I could break those distinctions down further. "Child" is reserved for actual children, just as "infant" is usually reserved for actual infants. I don't think we're going to get very far arbitrarily assigning values to labels.

With that out of the way, would you please be so kind as to answer my question? TIA.

Yes. You're pro-choice. A big part of the Pro-Choice movement is the idea that a woman should have the right to kill the baby for any reason. I mean, good grief, if it were only in genuinely reasonable cases, I wouldn't mind nearly as much. I am not "pro-choice", I am pro-abortion. I have never been part of any organized abortion movement, so I'm not sure how cleanly your labels will apply.

A big part of my rationale for supporting abortion rights is that I do not believe that the government has the right the force a woman to have a baby. The government already has laws in place that restrict 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. Fetus' don't have heartbeats or nervous systems in the first trimester.

Yes, I am aware that eventually it will likely develop a great deal of cognitive capabilities, but only if it is given enough time and the proper conditions in which to replicate. (Those conditions usually being the uterus of it's host). However, this argument can also be made of any of the millions and millions of sperms cells that I have generated in my life, all of which I have (so far, so good) denied the correct conditions in which to multiply into a separate, cognizant being. Am I a monster for participating in safe sex practices? Have I committed murder because I let those poor sperm cells die without finding an egg to join with? Are women who choose not to get pregnant every single month that they are able being evil?I think you are far too lax with your criteria. I mean, having a egg ready for fertilization each month is just the beginning. Any woman that isn't spending every possible moment copulating in hopes of fertilizing said egg is taking a terrible chance that the egg might be wasted. Futhermore, I think it's safe to say that any woman that isn't perpetually pregnant is also thumbing her nose at the gift of life that is present inside her.

Therefore, any woman that is truly serious about valuing life will spend every possible moment trying to fertilize her egg. After her OB/GYN has declared her to be in good health after the birth of her previous child, she should once more begin working diligently to become pregnant again.

I think the time for half-measures has passed. The "culture of life" is too important.

Corinthian
12-07-2007, 11:01 PM
Okay. Starting from the top.



I might be inclined to agree with much of what you say here. I think the biggest difference between us is going to be our definition of "life". You're clearly thinking along the lines of "third trimester/clearly alive" whereas I'm thinking "first trimester/does not meet criteria for 'alive' or second/third trimester/medical necessity", etc.

Wrong. I don't care whether it's first, second, or third trimester, really. It's just as evil to kill a child no matter how old the child is.

How does it not meet the criteria for alive? It's obviously animate. It's cells are reproducing. Hell, it HAS cells.


So, yes, if we were talking about an sentient organism that was clearly alive, I would agree. A mother should have a very good reason for aborting any child once that is clearly alive. Since the U.S. has existing laws that already support this thinking, I don't think you'll have to do much to sway the legal and medical communities.
Once it is clearly alive? From what I remember, the criteria for Alive is that it is capable of cellular reproduction. That's pretty much the meat of what goes on in the womb.

Again, you're thinking killing a child (late 2nd trimester/3rd trimester) whereas I tend to consider the majority of abortions, which are in the 1st trimester (an aborted fetus). Ah, yes, the magical gulf where suddenly, sentience leaps into existence at the moment of the third trimester. I don't really care when the abortion happens, it's still murder, even if it doesn't have equivalent physical and mental capabilities to a fully-grown human.


I would like to think that I could answer your question specifically, however your question isn't very specific to begin with. Are we talking about a 13 year old girl that has been raped by a family member? A woman in her late thirties that finds out that her child is going to be born with severe birth defects due to complication with her fertility treatment? I would tend to think that the specific source of that woman's rights are going to stem from slightly different ethical arguments.
I don't care what the cases are. The baby doesn't deserve to die, no matter how screwed up it might be when it's born, physically, or how terrible the mother's pain is.

Because a fetus is not a child. What makes a house fly have less rights than humpback whale (the latter protected by international law due to its endangered status...at least last time I checked)?


How is the fetus not a child? Okay, if you prefer, we can use the term infant. I refuse to use the term "Fetus", as it's one of you Pro-Choice types little tricks for making us forget that your precious 'fetuses' are a member of the Human Species.


Certainly not. Did someone suggest that?

Yes. You're pro-choice. A big part of the Pro-Choice movement is the idea that a woman should have the right to kill the baby for any reason. I mean, good grief, if it were only in genuinely reasonable cases, I wouldn't mind nearly as much.


Well, clearly you presume much in your scenario. Perhaps you have a more realistic argument that we could consider with greater seriousness?

Not really. I like my ridiculous scenarios.

mimartin
12-07-2007, 11:21 PM
if it were only in genuinely reasonable cases, I wouldn't mind nearly as much.
I don't care what the cases are. The baby doesn't deserve to die, no matter how screwed up it might be when it's born, physically, or how terrible the mother's pain is.So who would you want deciding what is considered reasonable?

Pho3nix
12-07-2007, 11:56 PM
One question I have to ask as well is, why do so many people support the idea of life? :) what is so great about 'life'? I'll use an example to try to exemplify what I'm trying to say:
A woman who is a drug addict and HIV+ gets raped and becomes pregnant with an unwanted child. Which could face a) rejection by It's mother b) a medical problem for which there is no cure c) economic, social and most importantly personal problems. Now, I do not find any reason not to have an abortion in this quite far-fetched (though 'realistic') situation. Why would anyone want to bring a human being into this world when he/she would have to face tremendous difficulties?

In some ways I'd never want to bring another life into this world (technically I couldn't either because I'm male), the next generation will definitely suffer from global warming and in my opinion, increased religious fundamentalism. But this might be another topic.

Corinthian
12-08-2007, 12:02 AM
Me, Mimartin. That's who.

Uh...Tremendous difficulties can be overcome. Getting your brains flushed down a drain, on the other hand, cannot.

Totenkopf
12-08-2007, 12:08 AM
Unfortunately, since the intervention of the government (Roe v. Wade), abortion has become more of a means of birth control than anything else. The mantra has become "You Rape 'em, We Scrape 'em. No Fetus Can Beat Us." And that is just plain wrong.

nice rhyme. :thmbup1:

I've always hated the term pro-life.

Don't use it myself. Perhaps anti-abortion could have been added to the poll choices. I suspect that if the actual number of abortions were restricted to the percentage of rapes/complications/etc.., that the furor over the topic would be significantly reduced. It'd most likely be the difference between several tens of thousands vs >1 million under the current situation. #s have a logic of their own. I do find it curious that people who'd oppose capital punishment for criminals seem to have no problem with the procedure known as partial birth abortion (or really any 3rd trimester abortion for that matter).

Aeroldoth
12-08-2007, 12:13 AM
Corinthian, I'd like to better understand your position. You seem to be saying that you value life at any cost, that existence itself is paramount above all. How far do you carry this view? The following questions aren't meant to bait, just to better understand where you're coming from.

Some people commit suicide because they feel the pain and suffering in their life is more than they can bear. They choose to end their lives because they cannot take one more second of it. If it were somehow possible, do you feel people should be rendered unable to commit suicide, because life is paramount?

The doctor says that a pregnancy has complications; she can only save the baby OR the mother, but not both. You are not related/connected to the woman in any way but nonetheless have final say in this matter. Which option would you choose? Why?

Countless people, military and civilian, die in wars. What is your view on war in general, and the deaths it causes? Note: it's easy to say one is opposed to war... nobody is for it. However, would you support immediate disbandment of all military forces? If not, aren't you tacitly supporting the deaths they cause?

Some governments execute their prisoners. Do you believe a government has the right to kill someone?

Abortion is illegal in the country; no woman may get an abortion for any reason. A woman and doctor are caught about to go through with the procedure. What do you feel should be done with them?

Pho3nix
12-08-2007, 12:15 AM
Uh...Tremendous difficulties can be overcome.
You don't know that. You can't count on the chance that the baby will grow up to be a very strong person.

Web Rider
12-08-2007, 12:52 AM
I don't care what the cases are. The baby doesn't deserve to die, no matter how screwed up it might be when it's born, physically, or how terrible the mother's pain is.

And this is where I shall say it for the LAST time. Where you are NO better than any of the people you are arguing against, where you are no better than any of the "pro-choicers" here which you call murderers.

You wish to impose massive suffering upon anyone just to create "life". Have you SEEN some of the results for deformities? For mental retardation? You are proposing that the DEATH of the mother is even valid if the child lives. How can you sit there and say that imposing a "life" upon the world that can barely think for itsself, needs constant care and expensive medical treatments, along with the death of it's mother is a "better" solution?

You are promoting just as much death and suffering as you accuse us of. So get off your high-horse and realize you're no better than the rest of us.

I would rather give a mother a second chance at a child, the chance to live out the rest of her life, then to force some half-assed thing into the world that the closest it ever comes to being regarded as human is it's DNA.

Ray Jones
12-08-2007, 12:57 AM
Alright. Fair enough. And how rare is that form of heart failure, or forms of cancer that would make giving birth/caesarean section fatal, or be fatal before that was even a choice?Recently I saw a documentation about that (Christian) family with three children and the mother was pregnant again, then in the third month of the pregnancy, the doctor diagnosed cancer. That cancer had to be treated immediately or both, mother and thus the baby had rather bad chances to survive the pregnancy. And the only possibly successful treatment seemed to be chemotherapy, which would most likely kill, or harm the baby badly, but save the mother, who would otherwise die sooner or later.

They thought a long time about what would be the best thing to do, about chemotherapy, abortion or risking the baby's life. They finally decided against any harmful therapy, hoping the cancer would go away due to less aggressive treatments they wanted to try. Although they said something like "we give our fate to god's hands", it seemed they decided that way not so much because of their religious beliefs, or any anti abortion attitude, but more because they simply did not wanted to risk their unborn child's health or life. This is hard decision to make, and I fully understand and respect their's.

At first, the treatment seemed to help, and all went fine. But like two months after the baby was born, the mother's state of health changed drastically to the worse, and she eventually died, leaving 4 children and her husband. :(

Corinthian
12-08-2007, 01:20 AM
I hate Abortion Topics: They're the only place where a regard for human life can get you flamed.

Alright, Web Rider. Time to completely refute your points.

1: Never said I was better than any of you. However, I do hold my beliefs in a higher regard, and I stand by my belief that abortion is murder.

2: Impose massive suffering? Of course not. If the world could be a jolly happy Garden of Eden again, I'd be over the moon about it. Sit down and be groovy. But that's not the way the world works.

3: Your beliefs sicken me. You suggest that a deformed person, or a mentally retarded person, is such a waste of oxygen that they're better off DEAD? What the hell is wrong with you? And I thought I was politically incorrect.

3: I'm Pro-Life...how is that promoting death?

4: I would rather give a mother a second chance at a child, the chance to live out the rest of her life, then to force some half-assed thing into the world that the closest it ever comes to being regarded as human is it's DNA.

I'm quoting that so you can't edit it out later. I think it speaks for itself.

Web Rider, I think you really need to talk to somebody about this. This is kind of frightening, the kinds of things you're saying. I like to think you don't actually believe this, but I don't sense any sarcasm.

Web Rider
12-08-2007, 01:42 AM
You have repeatedly called us murderers, or at least myself. You therefore think you are better than us. Even though you would trade the life of the mother for that of the child as readily as I would do the opposite.

I suggest that SOME deformed people and mentally retarded are better off dead, yes. Because I've seen these people and the lives they live and they can only barely be regarded as "life".

You promote death because as I quoted above you have stated that you DO NOT CARE what pain and suffering happens to the mother or the child, you simply demand that ALL pregnancies must be carried out and that all conceptions must survive to "live".

I don't care if you think I'm gonna edit it. I said it, I stand by it. I have successfully argued pro eugenics for years. I'm not about to stop now. I believe in creating as little suffering as possible, and if certain breeding can accomplish that, and if aborting children that parents don't want/will be massivly retarded or deformed goes to that end, fine. However, eugenics is for another topic.

I haven't cared for being politically correct in ages. It's a waste of time and energy to only say what makes people happy and what people will agree with. I stand by my belief that some people in this world are better off dead. I can find no logical reason to keep somebody who will have no brain, never move, needs constant care for their entire life, and probly won't live past 20 alive. Much less trade the life of a perfectly healthy mother who had a singular "bad" pregnancy for theirs.

It accomplishes nothing, and only causes more suffering. How do you explain to the father that the mother could have lived if abortions where legal? How do you explain the near-lifeless form that has just exited her womb was worth her life to her parents? How do you tell her friends that this is "right", to preserve the "life" of something that is barely human in exchange for the death of a perfectly healthy woman, when an abortion would have saved her and given her the chance to have a healthy child?

How do you justify bringing a "life" into the world that is no more human beyond it's shape in exchange for death and suffering imposed upon others? I don't. I see the solution as an abortion, early on, saving lives, limiting suffering, and creating new chances for healthy children. You can hide behind your titles of "pro-life", but that doesn't change that you are willing to impose death and suffering on others to birth a child regardless of the consequences and situation.

MdKnightR
12-08-2007, 01:51 AM
And the orphaned children that are never adopted?

There seems to be a misconception that all children that are put up for adoption eventually are adopted.



Ah, but there's the rub. Most people wanting to adopt want infants. It is the children that are orphaned later in life that tend not to get adopted.

Achilles
12-08-2007, 01:57 AM
Ah, but there's the rub. Most people wanting to adopt want infants. It is the children that are orphaned later in life that tend not to get adopted.Would you care to back that up with statistics? Or could you at least add a disclaimer that your statement is supposition? Thanks in advance!

ET Warrior
12-08-2007, 02:11 AM
I hate Abortion Topics: They're the only place where a regard for human life can get you flamed. I believe you are the one who started throwing around the terms 'evil', 'baby killer', 'sickening', and 'murderers'. Glass houses and all that.

1: Never said I was better than any of you. However, I do hold my beliefs in a higher regard, and I stand by my belief that abortion is murder.It was certainly implied with the whole 'evil murderers' thing.

3: Your beliefs sicken me. You suggest that a deformed person, or a mentally retarded person, is such a waste of oxygen that they're better off DEAD? There is a difference between being dead and having never existed.

3: I'm Pro-Life...how is that promoting death?I've always hated the terminology pro-life. Especially when it really seems that the majority of the "Pro-life" group is also Pro-War and Pro-Death Penalty. Seems a contradiction of terms...

I'm not implying you belong to either of those groups, that was more a general side-thought.

I also find it baffling how someone can afford the full rights of a human being to a group of cells with less cognitive capacity than a goldfish, and in fact is probably less cognizant of it's environment than a houseplant.

Yes, I am aware that eventually it will likely develop a great deal of cognitive capabilities, but only if it is given enough time and the proper conditions in which to replicate. (Those conditions usually being the uterus of it's host). However, this argument can also be made of any of the millions and millions of sperms cells that I have generated in my life, all of which I have (so far, so good) denied the correct conditions in which to multiply into a separate, cognizant being. Am I a monster for participating in safe sex practices? Have I committed murder because I let those poor sperm cells die without finding an egg to join with? Are women who choose not to get pregnant every single month that they are able being evil?

*Jae enters thread and smells smoke*

Everyone, tone it down a few (dozen) notches, please. Cut the baiting and flaming, please. I really don't want to hand out more warnings. Focus on the issue, not on attacking the writer with whom you disagree.

(ET, I'm not picking on you--you just happen to have the last post that I can edit into atm.)

MdKnightR
12-08-2007, 02:15 AM
Would you care to back that up with statistics? Or could you at least add a disclaimer that your statement is supposition? Thanks in advance!

Here's some stats, but I SUPPOSE these won't do much to satiate your need of numbers. [/sarcasm]

Children adopted from foster care, Fiscal Year 1998.

* Age of Children Adopted - 46% were 1-5 years old, 37% were 6-10 years old, 14% were 11-15 years old, 2% were 16-18 years old and 2% were under a year old when adopted from the public welfare system.

Source: http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-foster-care-1999.html

Achilles
12-08-2007, 02:54 AM
Here's some stats, but I SUPPOSE these won't do much to satiate your need of numbers. [/sarcasm]

Children adopted from foster care, Fiscal Year 1998.

* Age of Children Adopted - 46% were 1-5 years old, 37% were 6-10 years old, 14% were 11-15 years old, 2% were 16-18 years old and 2% were under a year old when adopted from the public welfare system.

Source: http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-foster-care-1999.htmlSo 2% (from your source) equals most? Okay, gotcha. Thanks for the link!

MdKnightR
12-08-2007, 03:44 AM
So 2% (from your source) equals most? Okay, gotcha. Thanks for the link!


For some reason I just knew that you wouldn't catch that these are statistics for children in the public welfare system. (Gotta learn to read between the lines ;) ) These children have been taken into state custody for any number of reasons. It takes time to do that, so no, there wouldn't be that many children under one year of age that could be adopted. Of course these stats don't take into account all the adoptions done through agencys and other sources, but it does prove my point. According to these statistics, 48% of all adoptions out of public welfare system occur for children between birth - 5 years of age.

Jae Onasi
12-08-2007, 10:22 AM
My sister-in-law has adopted 2 boys out of the foster care system (she's fostered dozens of children). The reason most kids don't get adopted out of the welfare in the first year of life is it takes a long time to get the order through the court systems to get the children removed permanently from their parents and takes more time to get the adoption process done.

However, adoption is an alternative that should be presented to women considering aborting.

Corinthian
12-08-2007, 10:34 AM
You have repeatedly called us murderers, or at least myself. You therefore think you are better than us. Even though you would trade the life of the mother for that of the child as readily as I would do the opposite.

I suggest that SOME deformed people and mentally retarded are better off dead, yes. Because I've seen these people and the lives they live and they can only barely be regarded as "life".

You promote death because as I quoted above you have stated that you DO NOT CARE what pain and suffering happens to the mother or the child, you simply demand that ALL pregnancies must be carried out and that all conceptions must survive to "live".

I don't care if you think I'm gonna edit it. I said it, I stand by it. I have successfully argued pro eugenics for years. I'm not about to stop now. I believe in creating as little suffering as possible, and if certain breeding can accomplish that, and if aborting children that parents don't want/will be massivly retarded or deformed goes to that end, fine. However, eugenics is for another topic.

I haven't cared for being politically correct in ages. It's a waste of time and energy to only say what makes people happy and what people will agree with. I stand by my belief that some people in this world are better off dead. I can find no logical reason to keep somebody who will have no brain, never move, needs constant care for their entire life, and probly won't live past 20 alive. Much less trade the life of a perfectly healthy mother who had a singular "bad" pregnancy for theirs.

It accomplishes nothing, and only causes more suffering. How do you explain to the father that the mother could have lived if abortions where legal? How do you explain the near-lifeless form that has just exited her womb was worth her life to her parents? How do you tell her friends that this is "right", to preserve the "life" of something that is barely human in exchange for the death of a perfectly healthy woman, when an abortion would have saved her and given her the chance to have a healthy child?

How do you justify bringing a "life" into the world that is no more human beyond it's shape in exchange for death and suffering imposed upon others? I don't. I see the solution as an abortion, early on, saving lives, limiting suffering, and creating new chances for healthy children. You can hide behind your titles of "pro-life", but that doesn't change that you are willing to impose death and suffering on others to birth a child regardless of the consequences and situation.
Fine. I'm better than you. Happy?

You've seen their lives, and I'm sure they all wish they were dead too. So basically, unless you're a flawless human with no deformities and an intelligence of approximately 100 IQ or above, with nice teeth and pretty hair, you're 'less than human' and are a waste of breath. (Kindly note I'm not entirely serious about most of that.)

I don't care about pain and suffering because they can all be overcome. Getting killed is sort of, you know, permanent. The last time anyone got up out of their tomb was 2000 years ago, and you don't believe that anyway.

You've successfully argued Pro-Eugenics? Well, that makes no sense. Who were you arguing with, a six year old? Anyone in their teenage years or above tends to have their beliefs set in stone with enough stubbornness that they aren't going to shift. And you argued Pro-Eugenics? Well, crap. Guess I won't be joining the Clans, since I'm a pathetic Freebirth.

I agree some people are better off dead. However, I'm of the opinion that you know, you've got rights until you commit crimes. Also, please tell me you're never going to be come a doctor.

I have never suggested that you should carry a birth out if it is guaranteed to cause the death of the woman. Creative reinterpretation, though, Web Rider. I gotta give you some credit.

How do you justify that someone who is not your intellectual peer or able to run as fast as the other kids or can't catch a ball because he's missing a finger somehow less than human?

Achilles
12-08-2007, 11:16 AM
For some reason I just knew that you wouldn't catch that these are statistics for children in the public welfare system. (Gotta learn to read between the lines ;) ) Actually, I did "catch" it, but I didn't choose to assign the same significance to it that you did.

These children have been taken into state custody for any number of reasons. It takes time to do that, so no, there wouldn't be that many children under one year of age that could be adopted. And your statistics/supporting evidence for this claim?

Of course these stats don't take into account all the adoptions done through agencys and other sources, but it does prove my point. According to these statistics, 48% of all adoptions out of public welfare system occur for children between birth - 5 years of age.Right, but you said "infant" which is the first year (0-1). After that, they're "toddlers" (1-5).

PS: Are these stats good or not? You seem comfortable using them when it appears to support your argument but want to play some sort of "gotcha" game when you think you've tricked me into something.

My sister-in-law has adopted 2 boys out of the foster care system (she's fostered dozens of children). The reason most kids don't get adopted out of the welfare in the first year of life is it takes a long time to get the order through the court systems to get the children removed permanently from their parents and takes more time to get the adoption process done.

However, adoption is an alternative that should be presented to women considering aborting.
As I have already stated in this thread, adoption is completely unrelated to the issue. The question at hand is whether or not women have the legal right to safe abortions. Availability of adoption has absolutely nothing to do with that question.

I do want to take a moment to give kudos to your sister-in-law as well as all others that care for these children. My hat's off to them.

Aeroldoth
12-08-2007, 11:19 AM
How odd. This thread has been suffering tech difficulties for me. I couldn't understand why several people were responding to, and quoting, ET when none of his posts were in the thread. Then, when I post, a page of responses suddenly appears after mine, including ET's. So my post was time-warped to page 2, #78, and several posts still appear out of order to me.

Anyways, I wrote a post to you Corinthian HERE (http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2396093&postcount=78).

mimartin
12-08-2007, 11:27 AM
How odd. This thread has been suffering tech difficulties for me. I couldn't understand why several people were responding to, and quoting, ET when none of his posts were in the thread. Then, when I post, a page of responses suddenly appears after mine, including ET's. So my post was time-warped to page 2, #78, and several posts still appear out of order to me.
Make tk102 an administrator and the place goes to pot (not really).There was a problems with the clocks being ahead yesterday they were reset last night by matt, but that did mess up the order of some of the post. I could not even post last night do to the problems, but after I PM tk he got the problem fixed.

You have to read around, because I almost missed some very good post.

Aeroldoth
12-08-2007, 11:29 AM
I've always hated the terminology pro-life. Especially when it really seems that the majority of the "Pro-life" group is also Pro-War and Pro-Death Penalty. Seems a contradiction of terms...I saw a video many years ago, I believe it was Ralph Reed, discussing this topic in a strategy session. The point the speaker made was that they didn't want to be, couldn't be, "anti-abortion". To be "anti-" something made people less likely to support you. You couldn't be against something, you had to be for something. So, the speaker proposed, they should stop calling themselves "anti-abortion" and instead "pro-life".

EDIT: Thanks Mimartin, that explains... well, everything. :wavey:

Corinthian
12-08-2007, 12:05 PM
Corinthian, I'd like to better understand your position. You seem to be saying that you value life at any cost, that existence itself is paramount above all. How far do you carry this view? The following questions aren't meant to bait, just to better understand where you're coming from.

Some people commit suicide because they feel the pain and suffering in their life is more than they can bear. They choose to end their lives because they cannot take one more second of it. If it were somehow possible, do you feel people should be rendered unable to commit suicide, because life is paramount?

The doctor says that a pregnancy has complications; she can only save the baby OR the mother, but not both. You are not related/connected to the woman in any way but nonetheless have final say in this matter. Which option would you choose? Why?

Countless people, military and civilian, die in wars. What is your view on war in general, and the deaths it causes? Note: it's easy to say one is opposed to war... nobody is for it. However, would you support immediate disbandment of all military forces? If not, aren't you tacitly supporting the deaths they cause?

Some governments execute their prisoners. Do you believe a government has the right to kill someone?

Abortion is illegal in the country; no woman may get an abortion for any reason. A woman and doctor are caught about to go through with the procedure. What do you feel should be done with them?

1: People can commit suicide all they want. It's their life, if they want to snuff it out, go right ahead.

2: I feel compelled to choose the baby. The mother has already lived her life, the baby hasn't even had a chance to cross the start line. It's not an easy choice either way, but I feel that, in this case, the baby should get a chance to live.

3: War is a different situation. Wars are fought for generally two purposes - Conquest, or Defense. Sometimes, these overlap, and there are occasionally other reasons. But if it's a Defense War, I have no problem with it. A Government has the right to take lives in the defense of it's people.

4: Yep. People like Bin Laden, Hussein, Ted Kaczynski (Better known as the Unabomber) have forfeited their right to live by taking away the life of innocents, and thus deserve to die.

5: Prison for the mother. The Doc should be executed.

ET Warrior
12-08-2007, 12:46 PM
A Government has the right to take lives in the defense of it's people.

have forfeited their right to live by taking away the life of innocents, and thus deserve to die.

The Doc should be executed.And further evidence why I feel that the label Pro-Life is completely inconsistent and misleading.

@aeroldoth: I do understand, if you use the word anti- in your groups description you can't help but come across at least a little negative, it just seems terribly dishonest is all.

I think you are far too lax with your criteria. I mean, having a egg ready for fertilization each month is just the beginning. Any woman that isn't spending every possible moment copulating in hopes of fertilizing said egg is taking a terrible chance that the egg might be wasted..That was actually my meaning. As long as a woman is not currently pregnant or is too physically weak from her last pregnancy she should be constantly attempting to conceive a child. Not giving her egg the correct environment in which to produce another human being is robbing that (soon to be) unique genetic code at it's right to life.

I do find it curious that people who'd oppose capital punishment for criminals seem to have no problem with the procedure known as partial birth abortion (or really any 3rd trimester abortion for that matter).Well you can certainly count me out of that group, aside from potentially cases where a medical professional gives the woman a high probability of death if she carries the child to term. In that case, I think the fully developed human with memories, family, and friends gets the right to choose.

Web Rider
12-08-2007, 01:45 PM
Fine. I'm better than you. Happy?
I don't want you to be PC, I want you to be honest. I don't care if I don't like what you say, the point of speaking your mind is to speak your mind. So yes, your honesty makes me happy. ^_^

You've seen their lives, and I'm sure they all wish they were dead too. So basically, unless you're a flawless human with no deformities and an intelligence of approximately 100 IQ or above, with nice teeth and pretty hair, you're 'less than human' and are a waste of breath. (Kindly note I'm not entirely serious about most of that.)
straw man. I've rather clearly outlined the kind of people I am talking about. If you want to address what I've actually talked about, great! Otherwise stop winning your own arguments.

I don't care about pain and suffering because they can all be overcome. Getting killed is sort of, you know, permanent. The last time anyone got up out of their tomb was 2000 years ago, and you don't believe that anyway.
yeah, well I DO care about pain and suffering. And I'm not going to try and justify killing people to save every god-forsaken child in the world.

You've successfully argued Pro-Eugenics? Well, that makes no sense. Who were you arguing with, a six year old? Anyone in their teenage years or above tends to have their beliefs set in stone with enough stubbornness that they aren't going to shift. And you argued Pro-Eugenics? Well, crap. Guess I won't be joining the Clans, since I'm a pathetic Freebirth.
They ranged from late teens to late 60's. It was a college classroom. It's easy to diss eugenics when all you know of it is the propagandized "OMG HITLERZ!!!"

I agree some people are better off dead. However, I'm of the opinion that you know, you've got rights until you commit crimes. Also, please tell me you're never going to be come a doctor.
and I'm of the opinion you have to be born to have rights. A cluster of cells is not a child, it's not living any more than my hand, and it HAS NO RIGHTS.

I have never suggested that you should carry a birth out if it is guaranteed to cause the death of the woman. Creative reinterpretation, though, Web Rider. I gotta give you some credit.
Since you said earlier that you don't care how much pain and suffering you put people through to "save" every birth in the world, it's not hard to extrapolate that into justifying killing somebody.

How do you justify that someone who is not your intellectual peer or able to run as fast as the other kids or can't catch a ball because he's missing a finger somehow less than human?
Oh please, stop the straw men already. I have already clearly outlined the kind of people I am talking about and they are NOT THEM. So stop making up BS.

2: I feel compelled to choose the baby. The mother has already lived her life, the baby hasn't even had a chance to cross the start line. It's not an easy choice either way, but I feel that, in this case, the baby should get a chance to live.
So a 16 year old who's pregnant(and giving birth will kill her), has "lived" enough to validate her death to birth a child?

3: War is a different situation. Wars are fought for generally two purposes - Conquest, or Defense. Sometimes, these overlap, and there are occasionally other reasons. But if it's a Defense War, I have no problem with it. A Government has the right to take lives in the defense of it's people.

4: Yep. People like Bin Laden, Hussein, Ted Kaczynski (Better known as the Unabomber) have forfeited their right to live by taking away the life of innocents, and thus deserve to die.

5: Prison for the mother. The Doc should be executed.
Then quit saying you are pro life. you AREN'T All those people, like it or not, are life, as defined exactly the same way as a newborn baby. They have human DNA, they are animate and so on.

Hide behind your labels if you must, but you are anti-abortion, you aren't pro-life. You are just as much a "sick" and "disgusting" "murderer" as I am. You simply have different reasons for killing. You justify yours with your morality, I justify mine with my morality.

Aeroldoth
12-08-2007, 02:11 PM
Corinthian, thanks for answering. I gather from your responses that you feel life is always valuable except when a person has somehow forfeited it, however that's defined. Would that be a good summary?

Let me ask two final questions.

A person is incapacitated, be it coma, mind is a vegetable, what-have you, and have been so for some time. Medicine says there is nothing they can do for them, except keep them on life support. You are the sole relative. Would you pull the plug?

I gather from other threads that you consider yourself a devout Christian. To what extent would you say your faith and your religious views influence your opinions on abortion and, to a lesser extent, issues in general? Some? A little? A lot? How much are your views influenced by facts/ figures/ studies, and how much by your faith/ religion?

Dagobahn Eagle
12-08-2007, 03:01 PM
Wrong. I don't care whether it's first, second, or third trimester, really. It's just as evil to kill a child no matter how old the child is.Not so. A third trimester fetus is far more developed than a two days old fetus. Memory, self-consciousness, self-sufficiency (a newborn baby, heck, even a premature baby in many cases, survives being removed from the womb, a 5 days old one doesn't), etc. are developed to a greater degree.

How does it not meet the criteria for alive? It's obviously animate. It's cells are reproducing. Hell, it HAS cells.That's but one of the criteria for life. The full list is as follows: Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
Ah, yes, the magical gulf where suddenly, sentience leaps into existence at the moment of the third trimester.Magical leaps of sentience are within the realm of Christians.

I don't really care when the abortion happens, it's still murder, even if it doesn't have equivalent physical and mental capabilities to a fully-grown human. I don't care what the cases are. The baby doesn't deserve to die, no matter how screwed up it might be when it's born, physically, or how terrible the mother's pain is.Then surely you're against male masturbation and female menstruation, too? After all, every single sperm cell and egg has the potential of developing into a human being. Who are we to 'murder' them by menstruating or ejaculating them away?

Seriously, a sperm and egg separated have the same level of consciousness as do two that have been merged. Yet one is considered a 'child' to you and given the right to life pretty much no matter what.

I've always hated the term pro-life.If more pro-lifers actually were pro-lifers and not fanatical supporters or executions and wars, maybe the term would at least fit.

I do find it curious that people who'd oppose capital punishment for criminals seem to have no problem with the procedure known as partial birth abortion (or really any 3rd trimester abortion for that matter).Partial-birth abortion is an emergency procedure carried out when life is at stake. It's not like they have a choice.

Some people commit suicide because they feel the pain and suffering in their life is more than they can bear. They choose to end their lives because they cannot take one more second of it. If it were somehow possible, do you feel people should be rendered unable to commit suicide, because life is paramount?I know you didn't ask me, but yes, absolutely. Not only because most anguish in your life actually does get better, but also because suicide has such a disastrous effect on your loved ones (the group most at risk of suicide is the grieving who have lost loved ones to suicide). If you're suffering from some disease that does not get better and causes you unbearable pain, then I support your right to get euthanasia. In all other cases, though, it's a big no from me.

You wish to impose massive suffering upon anyone just to create "life". Have you SEEN some of the results for deformities? For mental retardation? You are proposing that the DEATH of the mother is even valid if the child lives. How can you sit there and say that imposing a "life" upon the world that can barely think for itself, needs constant care and expensive medical treatments, along with the death of it's mother is a "better" solution?I'd post links and pictures, but I'm quite certain that forum-mommy would kick in and remove the link due to the PG-13 limit. Do a google search yourself.

Web Rider
12-08-2007, 04:31 PM
I'd post links and pictures, but I'm quite certain that forum-mommy would kick in and remove the link due to the PG-13 limit. Do a google search yourself.

I wasn't asking anyone to show what they look like. I was asking if Corinthian had seen people, in person(as I have), that fell into those categories. Even if he were to look at some pictures, it's not the same. It's like the difference between seeing the dying in a photo and going to a nursing home.

Aeroldoth
12-08-2007, 05:41 PM
I know you didn't ask me, but yes, absolutely. Not only because most anguish in your life actually does get better, but also because suicide has such a disastrous effect on your loved ones (the group most at risk of suicide is the grieving who have lost loved ones to suicide). If you're suffering from some disease that does not get better and causes you unbearable pain, then I support your right to get euthanasia. In all other cases, though, it's a big no from me.

You don't feel the choice is theirs? You feel a person should continue to suffer so as not to potentially cause suffering to others?

While it's true that most suffering does get better, this is not true for all people or all situations. You don't consider the ability to take one's own life the fundamental right of any living thing? If they don't have final say in their own life, who does?

Web Rider
12-08-2007, 05:48 PM
You don't feel the choice is theirs? You feel a person should continue to suffer so as not to potentially cause suffering to others?

While it's true that most suffering does get better, this is not true for all people or all situations. You don't consider the ability to take one's own life the fundamental right of any living thing? If they don't have final say in their own life, who does?

Things like this must be very carefully handled, much as I don't like the emo movement, I don't want to see half the kids wearing black go and kill themselves and it be legal.

Not a single instance of suicide comes to mind where those close to the deceased were not effected by their choice to commit suicide. And yes, most problems outside terminal illnesses and conditions can be handled through therapy, medication, and just talking to people to know you're loved. And for those without family, there are many, many groups to join to help you with problems and make friends.

I do agree that we should have the "right to die", but under very specific circumstances. Can't go having everyone kill themselves just 'cause they hit a rough patch. Some problems can be worked through, some can't.


On a similar note, if one was pregnant(noticeably so), and wanted to kill themselves, and they had "the right to die", would it be abortion? Would the person be prevented from doing so till the baby was born? Would she have to get an abortion first?

Aeroldoth
12-08-2007, 06:24 PM
Things like this must be very carefully handled, much as I don't like the emo movement, I don't want to see half the kids wearing black go and kill themselves and it be legal.

Why must it be 'handled' at all? Emos are NOT going to kill themselves en masse, just as Goths didn't. Forgive me, but your argument sounds akin to the anti-homosexuality crowd, "if we allow it, EVERYBODY will do it." Not gonna happen.

Not a single instance of suicide comes to mind where those close to the deceased were not effected by their choice to commit suicide. And yes, most problems outside terminal illnesses and conditions can be handled through therapy, medication, and just talking to people to know you're loved. And for those without family, there are many, many groups to join to help you with problems and make friends.

I'm not saying relatives aren't affected, of course they are. And yes, many problems can be handled with love and counselling, that wasn't my concern. As with abortion, my issue is with the notion that the one must suffer so that others aren't made 'uncomfortable', that others know what's best for you.

I do agree that we should have the "right to die", but under very specific circumstances. Can't go having everyone kill themselves just 'cause they hit a rough patch. Some problems can be worked through, some can't.

As with abortion, who gets to decide where the line is? Why do others get to decide my fate? And again, people aren't going to kill themselves over a bump in the road, but even if they did, so what? However tragic it may be, are you suggesting you have more say over a person's life than they themselves do?

Totenkopf
12-08-2007, 07:56 PM
..and I'm of the opinion you have to be born to have rights. A cluster of cells is not a child, it's not living any more than my hand, and it HAS NO RIGHTS.

Word to the wise, if you're hand isn't living.......get rid of that necrotic mass before it gets rid of you. ;) :D But judging from some of your previous statements, aren't the beneficiaries of your "eugenic concern" already born? Do they no longer have the rights they got at birth b/c you've decided that their quality of life sucks/costs to much? If rights don't come from God or just by the benefit of your being human, then who decides? Remember, blacks were only 2/3 of a person in Dixie and Jews and slavs were merely subhuman in the 3rd Reich (and history is no doubt replete with a plethora of other examples of this kind of thinking).


Since you said earlier that you don't care how much pain and suffering you put people through to "save" every birth in the world, it's not hard to extrapolate that into justifying killing somebody.

I think you're taking him out of context here. I believe (he can correct me otherwise) he's referring to the pain and suffering of the life you seem too eager to snuff out for purely eugenic reasons. Further, I'm curious as to how many women/girls are actually in peril as a percentage of all child bearing women. Any stats? From a coldly analytical pov, the number of women who abort for reasons of rape and complications are statistically insignificant. It's an accepted fact by reasonable people that the vast majority of abortions are retroactive bc, which I suspect is one of the reasons the practice is so controversial.


Hide behind your labels if you must, but you are anti-abortion, you aren't pro-life. You are just as much a "sick" and "disgusting" "murderer" as I am. You simply have different reasons for killing. You justify yours with your morality, I justify mine with my morality.

Interesting.....but then by the numbers, you come across as the genocidal maniac versus mere serial killer.

Jae Onasi
12-08-2007, 09:00 PM
As I have already stated in this thread, adoption is completely unrelated to the issue. The question at hand is whether or not women have the legal right to safe abortions. Availability of adoption has absolutely nothing to do with that question.

I do want to take a moment to give kudos to your sister-in-law as well as all others that care for these children. My hat's off to them.

I think the presentation of adoption as an option during pre-abortion counseling might give some women something to consider and might affect the abortion rate, but otherwise yes, it's unrelated to the actual legal right. As for the legal right, I'm really uncomfortable with the whole thing. I could not abort my own child (except in certain specific cases like anencephaly, where the baby has absolutely zero chance of surviving). I think it's a procedure dealt with far too casually by a number of women as 'just another birth control method' or 'way to deal with a problem'. I recognize that there are going to be specific health conditions for which terminating the pregnancy is probably going to be the best health choice for a woman, so I'm not inclined to roll back the clock to make it illegal. I just wish it wasn't done nearly as often as it is.

I'll pass along your kudos, btw. My sister-in-law is an awesome woman (and her hubby's terrific, too), and she works her tail off trying to make life better for these kids, all of whom have come out of some truly horrible and/or dire situations. They've had as many as 9 boys in their home at one time. I don't know how they do it. :)

Achilles
12-08-2007, 10:40 PM
I saw a video many years ago, I believe it was Ralph Reed, discussing this topic in a strategy session. The point the speaker made was that they didn't want to be, couldn't be, "anti-abortion". To be "anti-" something made people less likely to support you. You couldn't be against something, you had to be for something. So, the speaker proposed, they should stop calling themselves "anti-abortion" and instead "pro-life".I understand and completely agree with the rationale behind the decision. What I take issue with is the implied message that comes with the label, i.e. "if we're 'pro' life, then our opponents must be...."

That was actually my meaning. As long as a woman is not currently pregnant or is too physically weak from her last pregnancy she should be constantly attempting to conceive a child. Not giving her egg the correct environment in which to produce another human being is robbing that (soon to be) unique genetic code at it's right to life.Whew! Glad to hear that we were on the same page after all.

Then surely you're against male masturbation and female menstruation, too? After all, every single sperm cell and egg has the potential of developing into a human being. Who are we to 'murder' them by menstruating or ejaculating them away?

Seriously, a sperm and egg separated have the same level of consciousness as do two that have been merged. Yet one is considered a 'child' to you and given the right to life pretty much no matter what. Please forgive the splitting of hairs, but I felt important to point out that with the advent of somatic cell nuclear transfer ANY human cell has the potential of developing into a human being. I think (as I have stated ad nauseam) that your list of "murderous" actions should include scratching, bathing, sneezing, grooming one's hair, wearing clothes, or any other activity that might cause someone to discard precious life (e.g. cells). Thanks for taking the time to read this.

I think the presentation of adoption as an option during pre-abortion counseling might give some women something to consider and might affect the abortion rate, but otherwise yes, it's unrelated to the actual legal right. Happy to hear that we agree.

As for the legal right, I'm really uncomfortable with the whole thing. I could not abort my own child (except in certain specific cases like anencephaly, where the baby has absolutely zero chance of surviving). And if our government had decided that you had to carry the baby to term regardless of the circumstances, thereby completely eliminating your ability to choose, how would you feel? Suppose that the government had made this decision based on Islamic values?

Maybe I've missed something, but the "pro-life" crowd seems intent on abolishing all abortion, everywhere, regardless of the circumstances. Even you seem to be willing to admit that there might be an extreme set of circumstances in which you might consider abortion. It's difficult for me to believe that this isn't true for all women. Obviously, the issue is not as black and white as some would like to believe that it is.

I think it's a procedure dealt with far too casually by a number of women as 'just another birth control method' or 'way to deal with a problem'. It sounds as though you've opted to base your opinions on your own speculation and perception of what other women are like rather than any kind of research. *shrugs*

I recognize that there are going to be specific health conditions for which terminating the pregnancy is probably going to be the best health choice for a woman, so I'm not inclined to roll back the clock to make it illegal. I just wish it wasn't done nearly as often as it is. And how often do you think abortions are carried out as a means of retroactive birth control vs. the best health choice for the woman/child? I realize that I'm asking for your opinion, however I'm obviously going to be more readily persuaded by actual statistics from credible sources.

I'll pass along your kudos, btw. My sister-in-law is an awesome woman (and her hubby's terrific, too), and she works her tail off trying to make life better for these kids, all of whom have come out of some truly horrible and/or dire situations. They've had as many as 9 boys in their home at one time. I don't know how they do it. :)Thank you for doing so! :D

Tommycat
12-08-2007, 10:58 PM
Um... couple of points I would like to address.

First, Retardation is not sufficient reason to abort. My son(not biologically mine, but he's still my son) has Cerebal Palsy, Should he have been aborted? He has a physically and mentally debilitating illness. Would he be better off never having been born? He was also born very early. not quite second trimester or anything, but still extremely early. He was also anticipated to have a very short life-span. 5 months was the original projection. Then 5 years, then 8 years, then no more than 15 years of age. We just quit listening to lifespan predictions after he reached 15 years old. Now he's 18. He likes the same music as I do(thank heavens) goes to tons of shows, and has been both on tour with me, and hung out with loads of major bands. Many of them invite him to sit side stage for their shows. According to some on here you would rather him never been born as he would be a burden on his 16 year old mother. It was known weeks into the pregnancy that he would likely have health problems.

Aborting to prevent sterility is a bit silly. Aborting and any other surgery that affects the reproductive organs runs the risk of causing sterility through infection.

Some of your comments on here remind me of Gattaca. It is very disturbing.

Keep in mind that I am pro choice for others, for my own, I'm pro life.

Jae Onasi
12-08-2007, 11:05 PM
Maybe I've missed something, but the "pro-life" crowd seems intent on abolishing all abortion, everywhere, regardless of the circumstances. Even you seem to be willing to admit that there might be an extreme set of circumstances in which you might consider abortion. It's difficult for me to believe that this isn't true for all women. Obviously, the issue is not as black and white as some would like to believe that it is.
There's definitely some gray areas. There are 2 major camps on this--unrestricted abortion including using it for retroactive bc and allowing it up to 40 weeks' gestation, and those against it no matter what. It's hard to find some kind of middle ground that recognizes true health needs vs partial-birth infanticide or using it because she had a little 'oops' or the boyfriend is pressuring her because he doesn't want to have the responsibilities of being a father.


It sounds as though you've opted to base your opinions on your own speculation and perception of what other women are like rather than any kind of research. *shrugs*That's why I qualified it with 'I think'. ;P I don't know what the break-down currently is for reasons for abortion, but I don't doubt there's data out there on that. I know the risk of serious health problems during pregnancy is very low, and it appears that the number of abortions done is higher than what would be expected for that risk rate.

And how often do you think abortions are carried out as a means of retroactive birth control vs. the best health choice for the woman/child? I realize that I'm asking for your opinion, however I'm obviously going to be more readily persuaded by actual statistics from credible sources. It depends on what you consider 'best health choice'. If you narrowly define it as 'doing it only when the woman's health is in real danger', the data's going to be skewed towards retroactive bc. If you define 'best health choice' very broadly, such as including things like anxiety over financial situations due to birthing a new child, that's going to skew it the other way. I'm sure Medline has plenty to say on the subject.

Aeroldoth
12-08-2007, 11:14 PM
I've already asked this of Corinthian, but I'd like to repeat the question to anyone else here who is pro-life and/or anti-abortion:

Abortion is illegal in the country; no woman may get an abortion for any reason. A woman and doctor are caught about to go through with the procedure. What do you feel should be done with them?

Jae?

JediRevan
12-08-2007, 11:22 PM
I don't want you to be PC, I want you to be honest. I don't care if I don't like what you say, the point of speaking your mind is to speak your mind. So yes, your honesty makes me happy. ^_^


straw man. I've rather clearly outlined the kind of people I am talking about. If you want to address what I've actually talked about, great! Otherwise stop winning your own arguments.


yeah, well I DO care about pain and suffering. And I'm not going to try and justify killing people to save every god-forsaken child in the world.


They ranged from late teens to late 60's. It was a college classroom. It's easy to diss eugenics when all you know of it is the propagandized "OMG HITLERZ!!!"


and I'm of the opinion you have to be born to have rights. A cluster of cells is not a child, it's not living any more than my hand, and it HAS NO RIGHTS.


Since you said earlier that you don't care how much pain and suffering you put people through to "save" every birth in the world, it's not hard to extrapolate that into justifying killing somebody.


Oh please, stop the straw men already. I have already clearly outlined the kind of people I am talking about and they are NOT THEM. So stop making up BS.


So a 16 year old who's pregnant(and giving birth will kill her), has "lived" enough to validate her death to birth a child?


Then quit saying you are pro life. you AREN'T All those people, like it or not, are life, as defined exactly the same way as a newborn baby. They have human DNA, they are animate and so on.

Hide behind your labels if you must, but you are anti-abortion, you aren't pro-life. You are just as much a "sick" and "disgusting" "murderer" as I am. You simply have different reasons for killing. You justify yours with your morality, I justify mine with my morality.

I happen to be a mother of four and a grandmother of one. I consider all five children to blessings from God and not god-forsaken.

In my opinion, the unborn child is a human being at the moment of conception. It has a heartbeat that can be heard with a stethoscope when the mother is three months along. No child is god-forsaken and no child asks to be born. If the woman doesn't want children, she should go on birth control despite what some religions say.

Achilles
12-08-2007, 11:47 PM
Unanswered questions...bummer.

There's definitely some gray areas. There are 2 major camps on this--unrestricted abortion including using it for retroactive bc and allowing it up to 40 weeks' gestation, and those against it no matter what. It's hard to find some kind of middle ground that recognizes true health needs vs partial-birth infanticide or using it because she had a little 'oops' or the boyfriend is pressuring her because he doesn't want to have the responsibilities of being a father. Hmmm...sure seems like at least one side of this debate has been over-simplified. Granted, I'm not as "up" on the actions of the "pro-choice" crowd as I could be, but it would seem to me that I would have at least heard some sort of fight against the existing laws for 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions if your portrayal were true. But again, that I haven't might simply be ignorance on my part.

That's why I qualified it with 'I think'. ;P I don't know what the break-down currently is for reasons for abortion, but I don't doubt there's data out there on that. I know the risk of serious health problems during pregnancy is very low, and it appears that the number of abortions done is higher than what would be expected for that risk rate. I caught the qualifier and appreciate your having used it. :)

Still sounds mostly speculative though ;)

It depends on what you consider 'best health choice'. If you narrowly define it as 'doing it only when the woman's health is in real danger', the data's going to be skewed towards retroactive bc. If you define 'best health choice' very broadly, such as including things like anxiety over financial situations due to birthing a new child, that's going to skew it the other way. I'm sure Medline has plenty to say on the subject.I'm still baffled that this issues is widely percieved as having to be black or white when so many people seem perfectly willing to agree that it's shades of gray.

If a woman in the first trimester decides to have an abortion because her method of birth control failed (no method is 100% effective), then that is her right. If a woman is told in the third trimester that her child will be born with massive birth defects and little to no chance for survival and she decided to have an abortion, then that is her right too.

I happen to be a mother of four and a grandmother of one. I consider all five children to blessings from God and not god-forsaken. Congratulations all around. :)

In my opinion, the unborn child is a human being at the moment of conception. I appreciate you clearly stating that this is a matter of opinion. Considering that others have very different opinions from yours, would you agree that a less subjective definition would be beneficial? What criteria would you suggest be used to find said objective definition?

It has a heartbeat that can be heard with a stethoscope when the mother is three months along. Indeed. If a heartbeat were to be used as one of the potential objective standards for "personhood" then perhaps would could agree that abortions that take place during the first trimester do not constitute murder.

No child is god-forsaken and no child asks to be born. Indeed, it would seem that children have little say regarding much of the conditions of their birth. They ask neither to be born healthy nor ill. To rich parents or poor parents. In first world cities or in third world slums. Therefore, one might be inclined to think that an adult might be the best person qualified to decide the whether or not a child should be born.

If the woman doesn't want children, she should go on birth control despite what some religions say.And if that woman is a devout catholic that has been raised to believe that she will literally forsake her salvation for doing so? Doesn't seem like such an easy decision for her to make. Thanks for reading.

Tommycat
12-09-2007, 12:40 AM
If a woman in the first trimester decides to have an abortion because her method of birth control failed (no method is 100% effective), then that is her right.

Incorrect. Abstinence is 100% effective(unless you believe in immaculate conception, then in that case you better not abort haha), it is just not as fun:D

If a woman is told in the third trimester that her child will be born with massive birth defects and little to no chance for survival and she decided to have an abortion, then that is her right too.
This is an aspect I find very disturbing from the pro-choice crowd. It seems a bit like picking and choosing your children. Again I point out that my son was not expected to live to 5 months(truth be told he was not even expected to live his first day). Yet he has been living a fairly full life. I cannot in good concience say that birth defects are a good reason to abort.

And if that woman is a devout catholic that has been raised to believe that she will literally forsake her salvation for doing so? Doesn't seem like such an easy decision for her to make. Thanks for reading.
She would not be getting an abortion either if she believed that strongly.

Achilles
12-09-2007, 01:05 AM
Incorrect. Abstinence is 100% effective(unless you believe in immaculate conception, then in that case you better not abort haha), it is just not as fun:D If you consider abstinence contraception. I don't. :D

This is an aspect I find very disturbing from the pro-choice crowd. It seems a bit like picking and choosing your children. Again I point out that my son was not expected to live to 5 months(truth be told he was not even expected to live his first day). Yet he has been living a fairly full life. I cannot in good concience say that birth defects are a good reason to abort. I don't think it should be up to me to decide whether or not you have a choice not to consider a severely disabled child a challenge. Neither do I think it should be up to the government to decide that for a mother. I certainly applaud any couple that makes the choice to face that challenge head on, but not every couple can, therefore not every couple should be expected to.

I very much hope that my argument isn't somehow being mis-characterized as someone sending a salad back to the kitchen because they don't like the dressing. I'm talking about situations where parents are being faced with the heart-wrenching news that their child might be born without essential organs or with terrible diseases that would render the child's short life painful, etc.

She would not be getting an abortion either if she believed that strongly.The response you quoted dealt with contraceptive use, not abortion.

Tommycat
12-09-2007, 01:43 AM
If you consider abstinence contraception. I don't. :D
Nope, I consider it birth control though. Since we're splitting hairs haha...

I don't think it should be up to me to decide whether or not you have a choice not to consider a severely disabled child a challenge. Neither do I think it should be up to the government to decide that for a mother. I certainly applaud any couple that makes the choice to face that challenge head on, but not every couple can, therefore not every couple should be expected to.

I very much hope that my argument isn't somehow being mis-characterized as someone sending a salad back to the kitchen because they don't like the dressing. I'm talking about situations where parents are being faced with the heart-wrenching news that their child might be born without essential organs or with terrible diseases that would render the child's short life painful, etc.
I'm just pointing out the obvious slippery slope you're going down. I mean you may not be talking about it, but what is currently to stop someone from deciding to abort because this child doesn't meet their level of perfection. It is entirely within the realm of possibilities currently. I know you don't intend to favor that level of selective breeding, but how about if a couple wanted a boy. Keep aborting til you get a boy. As we get to know the markers in genes better, what's to stop people from choosing the taller kid, the lighter skinned child, the one with blue eyes. To me that is a dangerous path to tread down. Excusing abortion for even such trivialities as it not being perfect is extremely disturbing.

The response you quoted dealt with contraceptive use, not abortion.
I know, but you were using a religious argument. I was pointing out the flaw in that argument for supporting your views on abortion. Its also likely that if they believed that strongly they wouldn't be having sex out of wedlock. That's also a sin.

Achilles
12-09-2007, 02:17 AM
I'm just pointing out the obvious slippery slope you're going down. I mean you may not be talking about it, but what is currently to stop someone from deciding to abort because this child doesn't meet their level of perfection. It is entirely within the realm of possibilities currently. I know you don't intend to favor that level of selective breeding, but how about if a couple wanted a boy. Keep aborting til you get a boy. As we get to know the markers in genes better, what's to stop people from choosing the taller kid, the lighter skinned child, the one with blue eyes. To me that is a dangerous path to tread down. Excusing abortion for even such trivialities as it not being perfect is extremely disturbing. Indeed there is slippery slope to eye with concern. Do you think that paper-thin rhetoric does (or will do) anything to address that?

The fact that women have right to choose is inalienable. So whether or not women should have that right really becomes a moot point. What should be front-and-center is how we intend deal with that fact rationally and responsibly. Clouding the discourse with strawmen arguments about women that seem to suddenly find out that they're pregnant a week before the baby is due and then skip on down the corner Planned Parenthood for an abortion (Buy 9 and the 10th's on us) and 6-pack doesn't help. Ignoring the fact that those that seek to ban abortion ban the procedures, not the circumstances doesn't help. Labeling people that simply want to have an adult conversation about the facts "murderers", etc, doesn't help.

I know, but you were using a religious argument. I was pointing out the flaw in that argument for supporting your views on abortion.Not sure I follow. If a woman believes that using contraception will negate her chances for salvation, then I do not believe that she is very likely to begin using contraception to avoid pregnancy. Please show me the flaw in that argument regarding contraception (noting that abortion was not mentioned here, in my original response, nor in the section of the post that my original response addressed).

Thanks for reading.

mimartin
12-09-2007, 02:19 AM
It is entirely within the realm of possibilities currently. I know you don't intend to favor that level of selective breeding, but how about if a couple wanted a boy. Keep aborting til you get a boy.The practice of “Female Infanticide” is very real and nothing new. While I do not condone either, I would find the aborting the fetus before birth preferable to the current practice of murdering the new born after birth although according to what I read the practice of abortion due to sex is prevalent too.

gendercide.org ( http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html)
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/07/07/india.infanticide.pt1/)

Female First (http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/lifestyle-fashion/womensissues/Infanticide+Amongst+UK+Indian+Women+Reduces+Number s+of++Baby+Girls-4198.html)
Excusing abortion for even such trivialities as it not being perfect is extremely disturbing. I agree, but just as disturbing as murdering or neglecting an unwanted child.

Aeroldoth
12-09-2007, 02:34 AM
Indeed, it would seem that children have little say regarding much of the conditions of their birth. They ask neither to be born healthy nor ill. To rich parents or poor parents. In first world cities or in third world slums. Therefore, one might be inclined to think that an adult might be the best person qualified to decide the whether or not a child should be born.

Well said.

The fact that women have right to choose is inalienable. So whether or not women should have that right really becomes a moot point. What should be front-and-center is how we intend deal with that fact rationally and responsibly. Clouding the discourse with strawmen arguments about women that seem to suddenly find out that they're pregnant a week before the baby is due and then skip on down the corner Planned Parenthood for an abortion (Buy 9 and the 10th's on us) and 6-pack doesn't help. Ignoring the fact that those that seek to ban abortion ban the procedures, not the circumstances doesn't help. Labeling people that simply want to have an adult conversation about the facts "murderers", etc, doesn't help.

Also well said.

Tommycat
12-09-2007, 02:36 AM
Indeed there is slippery slope to eye with concern. Do you think that paper-thin rhetoric does (or will do) anything to address that?
Not sure what you mean by paper thin rhetoric. I certainly hope you aren't saying that I am just using rhetoric. Personally I am not opposed to abortion in general. In fact I will always stand on the side of it being a legal medical procedure. I just tend to disagree with how it is currently treated as an easy fix to an OOPS. It should never be treated so lightly.

The fact that women have right to choose is inalienable. So whether or not women should have that right really becomes a moot point. What should be front-and-center is how we intend deal with that fact rationally and responsibly. Clouding the discourse with strawmen arguments about women that seem to suddenly find out that they're pregnant a week before the baby is due and then skip on down the corner Planned Parenthood for an abortion (Buy 9 and the 10th's on us) and 6-pack doesn't help. Ignoring the fact that those that seek to ban abortion ban the procedures, not the circumstances doesn't help. Labeling people that simply want to have an adult conversation about the facts "murderers", etc, doesn't help.
I certainly hope you do not think of me as one of those that would simply label you as a murderer to deflect from actually having rational discourse. Granted we may disagree on the implementation and the degree as to whether a woman should be allowed to abort up to a certain time frame. I also believe that the reasons for abortion should be addressed so as not to have it be a de-facto eugenics.

Not sure I follow. If a woman believes that using contraception will negate her chances for salvation, then I do not believe that she is very likely to begin using contraception to avoid pregnancy. Please show me the flaw in that argument regarding contraception (noting that abortion was not mentioned here, in my original response, nor in the section of the post that my original response addressed).

Thanks for reading.
Sorry I think I was editing at the time you posted, but I also added that it was also just as much of a sin to have intercourse out of wedlock in the same religion. I hope you don't think I subscribe to that philosophy, just pointing to the huge gaping hole in the logic of bringing damnation for contraception when it is equally damning to have the relationship that would require the use of contraceptives.

Achilles
12-09-2007, 03:01 AM
Not sure what you mean by paper thin rhetoric. I certainly hope you aren't saying that I am just using rhetoric. Personally I am not opposed to abortion in general. In fact I will always stand on the side of it being a legal medical procedure. I just tend to disagree with how it is currently treated as an easy fix to an OOPS. It should never be treated so lightly. The characterization was not leveled at you, specifically. Unfortunately, we have seen quite a bit of it in this thread and my hope was to show how little it does to either address the issues or move the conversation forward in a productive way.

I certainly hope you do not think of me as one of those that would simply label you as a murderer to deflect from actually having rational discourse. Granted we may disagree on the implementation and the degree as to whether a woman should be allowed to abort up to a certain time frame. I also believe that the reasons for abortion should be addressed so as not to have it be a de-facto eugenics.Again, the comments were directed more towards some of the arguments we've seen that mirror this train of thought than at you directly. Anti-abortionists in general (whether or not you fit in this camp is up to you) seem to prefer name-calling and mis-characterization to actual discussion about the issues, hence my rant.

Sorry I think I was editing at the time you posted, but I also added that it was also just as much of a sin to have intercourse out of wedlock in the same religion.I hope you don't think I subscribe to that philosophy, just pointing to the huge gaping hole in the logic of bringing damnation for contraception when it is equally damning to have the relationship that would require the use of contraceptives.Why is it that you assume that the hypothetical sex is out of wedlock? Contrary to the rumors, married people do occasionally have sex...and not always for the purposes of having a child. The catholic church's ban on contraception is not limited to sex outside of marriage. In fact, since they forbid fornication, it's obviously intended to be ban on contraception use by married couples.

Tommycat
12-09-2007, 03:45 AM
The characterization was not leveled at you, specifically. Unfortunately, we have seen quite a bit of it in this thread and my hope was to show how little it does to either address the issues or move the conversation forward in a productive way.
Agreed. Keep it civil and on point.

Again, the comments were directed more towards some of the arguments we've seen that mirror this train of thought than at you directly. Anti-abortionists in general (whether or not you fit in this camp is up to you) seem to prefer name-calling and mis-characterization to actual discussion about the issues, hence my rant.
If I mischaracterize your argument, I am merely trying to get a feel for just how far you would take it. Or I do it to show the worst case scenario of what you propose. In debates as jaded as this one, there tends to be so much grey area, that sometimes the grey tends to slip into what I would call black.

Why is it that you assume that the hypothetical sex is out of wedlock? Contrary to the rumors, married people do occasionally have sex...and not always for the purposes of having a child. The catholic church's ban on contraception is not limited to sex outside of marriage. In fact, since they forbid fornication, it's obviously intended to be ban on contraception use by married couples.
It does not matter. According to catholicism, any intercourse not for procreation is a sin(hey them ain't my rules, Hence why I am not a practitioner of any religion... I fear religion. Wars tend to be fought over religion). So in essence whether she(or he for that matter) uses contraceptives in or out of wedlock is the same sin as having intercourse not for the purpose of having a child(again not my rule. I enjoy fornication... Lust is my favorite sin).

Achilles
12-09-2007, 04:03 AM
Agreed. Keep it civil and on point. Considering the scope of the topic, I think I've accomplished both. I have every confidence that the moderator team will step in if I fail to do so.

And we appreciate you keeping it civil. :) This is a tough topic for a lot of people, and civility keeps it from degenerating into uselessness. Thanks to everyone who's helped maintain calm. --Jae

If I mischaracterize your argument, I am merely trying to get a feel for just how far you would take it. Or I do it to show the worst case scenario of what you propose. In debates as jaded as this one, there tends to be so much grey area, that sometimes the grey tends to slip into what I would call black.Interesting that I have repeatedly attempted to show that the issue is, in fact, gray area. If you want to show that it is black and white, then you are certainly welcome to attempt to do so.

If your goals is to probe the boundaries of my argument, might I suggest that you try questions? FWIW though, I think I've been pretty good (but doubtless far from perfect) about stating them plainly. As always, I will make every attempt to clarify any point that comes across unclear.

It does not matter. According to catholicism, any intercourse not for procreation is a sin(hey them ain't my rules, Hence why I am not a practitioner of any religion... I fear religion. Wars tend to be fought over religion). So in essence whether she(or he for that matter) uses contraceptives in or out of wedlock is the same sin as having intercourse not for the purpose of having a child(again not my rule. I enjoy fornication... Lust is my favorite sin).Since we seem to have clarified that my earlier comments had nothing to do with abortion, I will assume that we can safely abandon this portion of our discussion until JediRevan chooses to respond. Thanks for your insights.

MJ-W4
12-09-2007, 04:08 AM
The fact that women have right to choose is inalienable. So whether or not women should have that right really becomes a moot point.Well said. :thumbsup:

I'd like to stress that this is a woman's choice to make and from my experience, it doesn't come easy to any responsible woman - which most women are. Irresponsible women as portrayed in the media - pick any 'party girl' you like - by no means represent the majority.

My wife had severe pancreatitis when she was two and a half months pregnant the first time and she had to be operated on. Because of a mistake in anesthetics, the foetus was injured and was bound to die in the womb from complications. The decision whether or not she wanted to live was my wife's (We don't live in the US). If she had not had the abortion, she would have died along with the foetus. I did my best to support her rather than give her more grief than she already had. We now have a number of kids because she lived.

As long as we - the men - are not in their shoes, we should respect women's choices and help them as best we can. Depending on circumstances, some abortions need not be but it is the women who should have the last word.

Web Rider
12-09-2007, 04:37 AM
I happen to be a mother of four and a grandmother of one. I consider all five children to blessings from God and not god-forsaken.

In my opinion, the unborn child is a human being at the moment of conception. It has a heartbeat that can be heard with a stethoscope when the mother is three months along. No child is god-forsaken and no child asks to be born. If the woman doesn't want children, she should go on birth control despite what some religions say.

That's nice, But do you mean to say that a man with a fake heart is not human?

Word to the wise, if you're hand isn't living.......get rid of that necrotic mass before it gets rid of you. ;) :D But judging from some of your previous statements, aren't the beneficiaries of your "eugenic concern" already born? Do they no longer have the rights they got at birth b/c you've decided that their quality of life sucks/costs to much? If rights don't come from God or just by the benefit of your being human, then who decides? Remember, blacks were only 2/3 of a person in Dixie and Jews and slavs were merely subhuman in the 3rd Reich (and history is no doubt replete with a plethora of other examples of this kind of thinking).
If you'd like to discuss eugenics, I will be more than happy to do so in a different topic. I cannot adequetely do my views justice here and I don't want to derail this topic...any more.

I think you're taking him out of context here. I believe (he can correct me otherwise) he's referring to the pain and suffering of the life you seem too eager to snuff out for purely eugenic reasons. Further, I'm curious as to how many women/girls are actually in peril as a percentage of all child bearing women. Any stats? From a coldly analytical pov, the number of women who abort for reasons of rape and complications are statistically insignificant. It's an accepted fact by reasonable people that the vast majority of abortions are retroactive bc, which I suspect is one of the reasons the practice is so controversial.
When science shows that they can feel pain and suffering, I'll relent, until that time, as I said before, the pain and suffering is entirely the choice of the mother, since the fetus is little more than an extension of her physical self.


Interesting.....but then by the numbers, you come across as the genocidal maniac versus mere serial killer.
If you want to discuss eugenics, I will be more than happy to post my views...in a separate topic, instead of simply flinging around labels.


Why must it be 'handled' at all? Emos are NOT going to kill themselves en masse, just as Goths didn't. Forgive me, but your argument sounds akin to the anti-homosexuality crowd, "if we allow it, EVERYBODY will do it." Not gonna happen.
it was a joke. Laugh, or dont, and get over it. Funny? To me heck yeah.

As with abortion, who gets to decide where the line is? Why do others get to decide my fate? And again, people aren't going to kill themselves over a bump in the road, but even if they did, so what? However tragic it may be, are you suggesting you have more say over a person's life than they themselves do?

Because if you are just going to give everyone to right to abort, or the right to die just whenever they feel like it, abortion will become the next birth control and responsibility will go down the tubes even more, and because people will kill themselves over things that they could have worked through. And I don't want to see either of those things happen. Namely because I believe in personal responsibility and I know enough depressed people who have cut, attempted, or worked through it to know that there are few "rough patches" in life worth killing yourself over.

Tommycat
12-09-2007, 04:58 AM
Interesting that I have repeatedly attempted to show that the issue is, in fact, gray area. If you want to show that it is black and white, then you are certainly welcome to attempt to do so.
Indeed there is much grey. There just also happens to be some that are black and white. Obviously you would agree that after the child is born, there is no more choice as to whether to abort. The real question is where the grey stops. My feeling is that the second trimester should be where it stops, with the exception of the threat of death of the mother. But I tend to see very little use for the D&E procedure(Partial birth abortion). At 32 weeks a child can be safely removed from the womb with a cesarean(my completely healthy daughter was removed at 32 weeks). If it comes down to she just doesn't want a scar, I have a problem with that.

If your goals is to probe the boundaries of my argument, might I suggest that you try questions? FWIW though, I think I've been pretty good (but doubtless far from perfect) about stating them plainly. As always, I will make every attempt to clarify any point that comes across unclear.
Well, in asking for clarifications, sometimes the easiest way is to put forth an example and ask if that's how far you would take it. I mean I can only read so much from your arguments, and feel that we should be clear where we stand. You appear to stand on the side of anytime the woman wants to have an abortion it should be available to her. I disagree with that. In essence I kinda agree with web rider in that it is about personal responsibility. If you don't want kids, don't do the deed.

Totenkopf
12-09-2007, 09:56 AM
If you'd like to discuss eugenics, I will be more than happy to do so in a different topic. I cannot adequetely do my views justice here and I don't want to derail this topic...any more.

When science shows that they can feel pain and suffering, I'll relent, until that time, as I said before, the pain and suffering is entirely the choice of the mother, since the fetus is little more than an extension of her physical self.

Because if you are just going to give everyone to right to abort, or the right to die just whenever they feel like it, abortion will become the next birth control and responsibility will go down the tubes even more.

Feel free to start a eugenics thread on your own. I've no doubt there'd be many people that would probably post their views as well. I should have been a little more clear on the suffering, as I was under the impression the suffering in question was what "those people" would have endured AFTER being born, not merely as they are snuffed out in the womb. But, fact is that most abortions are currently retroactive bc people aren't being very responsible in the first place.

While I'm sure you found the comparison unflattering, I thought it kinda funny b/c you were attempting to morally equivocate your two's positions. JFTR, I don't believe you to be genocidal, just wrong ("free" country and all that. ;) )

Originally Posted by Achilles
The fact that women have right to choose is inalienable. So whether or not women should have that right really becomes a moot point.

Technically, I've the inalienable right to choose (b/c I can, it appears) to take any action I want. Upon what is this thinking based?

Corinthian
12-09-2007, 10:25 AM
Corinthian, thanks for answering. I gather from your responses that you feel life is always valuable except when a person has somehow forfeited it, however that's defined. Would that be a good summary?

Let me ask two final questions.

A person is incapacitated, be it coma, mind is a vegetable, what-have you, and have been so for some time. Medicine says there is nothing they can do for them, except keep them on life support. You are the sole relative. Would you pull the plug?

I gather from other threads that you consider yourself a devout Christian. To what extent would you say your faith and your religious views influence your opinions on abortion and, to a lesser extent, issues in general? Some? A little? A lot? How much are your views influenced by facts/ figures/ studies, and how much by your faith/ religion?
1: Nope. It's not my place to decide whether he lives or dies. God is the true judge, and will take them when he chooses, not when I choose. Besides which, sometimes medical opinions are wrong, and miracles do happen, whether you believe or not.

2: 100% Faith. Frankly, there are very few facts or figures that can back up my beliefs that life begins at conception, that God exists, or that life is precious.

Web Rider, everyone has the right to Live, and Let Live. When you refuse to let others live, you waive your own right to live. At least, that's what I feel. I see killing evil men and women as okay. You see carving babies heads open with scissors and flushing them down the toilet to be okay.

Achilles
12-09-2007, 03:04 PM
Indeed there is much grey. There just also happens to be some that are black and white. Obviously you would agree that after the child is born, there is no more choice as to whether to abort.Obviously. So obvious in fact that I think it's clear that we're no longer talking about abortion, therefore trying to relate it to the topic of abortion becomes difficult to comprehend.

The real question is where the grey stops. My feeling is that the second trimester should be where it stops, with the exception of the threat of death of the mother.Any exception would mean that there is still a grey area. So either 2nd trimester is a clear-cut, black and white boundary or it is not. Which is it?

Also, why use the 2nd trimester? Was the choice abitrary or is there something more objective guiding your opinion?

But I tend to see very little use for the D&E procedure(Partial birth abortion). Both D&X and D&E are useful when a fetus has to be aborted in the 3rd trimester. These procedures are already illegal as a from of "retroactive birth control", therefore all that the pro-lifers accomplished by banning the D&X procedure was ensuring that doctors would have to find other, more risky, ways to terminate late-term pregnancies when a mother's health is at risk (such as cesarean, natural child birth, or D&E...I assume that you intended to reference D&X above considering that you parenthetically referred to it as PBA).

At 32 weeks a child can be safely removed from the womb with a cesarean(my completely healthy daughter was removed at 32 weeks). If it comes down to she just doesn't want a scar, I have a problem with that.Since you have second hand experience with cesarean, you know that the process is invasive. The gut is exposed which means that the woman's ability to consume and digest food is compromised for several days. Furthermore, since the process is invasive, there is chance, however small that serious complications can arise. And of course, it also requires that the woman be held in observation until released (generally 2-3 days, IIRC). P&E on the other hand is minimally invasive and therefore much safer.

So I think trying to characterize it "not wanting a scar" is either naive or dishonest.

Well, in asking for clarifications, sometimes the easiest way is to put forth an example and ask if that's how far you would take it. I agree, hence why I have openly invited you to start doing so. You're welcome to begin at any time.

I mean I can only read so much from your arguments, and feel that we should be clear where we stand. You appear to stand on the side of anytime the woman wants to have an abortion it should be available to her. I disagree with that.Yes, within the existing legal confines (specifically with regards to 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions).

On what basis do you disagree? What system would you put into place to ensure that your ideal abortion rules and regulations were upheld?

In essence I kinda agree with web rider in that it is about personal responsibility. If you don't want kids, don't do the deed.So don't have sex unless you are trying to have children? Didn't you express the opposite sentiment just a few posts ago? Which of these opinions should accept as being what you really think?

Thanks in advance for the clarification.

JediRevan
12-09-2007, 03:14 PM
Unanswered questions...bummer.

Hmmm...sure seems like at least one side of this debate has been over-simplified. Granted, I'm not as "up" on the actions of the "pro-choice" crowd as I could be, but it would seem to me that I would have at least heard some sort of fight against the existing laws for 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions if your portrayal were true. But again, that I haven't might simply be ignorance on my part.

I caught the qualifier and appreciate your having used it. :)

Still sounds mostly speculative though ;)

I'm still baffled that this issues is widely percieved as having to be black or white when so many people seem perfectly willing to agree that it's shades of gray.

If a woman in the first trimester decides to have an abortion because her method of birth control failed (no method is 100% effective), then that is her right. If a woman is told in the third trimester that her child will be born with massive birth defects and little to no chance for survival and she decided to have an abortion, then that is her right too.

Congratulations all around. :)

I appreciate you clearly stating that this is a matter of opinion. Considering that others have very different opinions from yours, would you agree that a less subjective definition would be beneficial? What criteria would you suggest be used to find said objective definition?

Indeed. If a heartbeat were to be used as one of the potential objective standards for "personhood" then perhaps would could agree that abortions that take place during the first trimester do not constitute murder.

Indeed, it would seem that children have little say regarding much of the conditions of their birth. They ask neither to be born healthy nor ill. To rich parents or poor parents. In first world cities or in third world slums. Therefore, one might be inclined to think that an adult might be the best person qualified to decide the whether or not a child should be born.

And if that woman is a devout catholic that has been raised to believe that she will literally forsake her salvation for doing so? Doesn't seem like such an easy decision for her to make. Thanks for reading.

I was raised Southern Baptist and I simply do not believe in abortions. I have instilled this same thing in my children. Nothing in the bible teaches against using birth control. They now have a morning after pill that is given to rape victims in emergency rooms. It is also available over the counter.

In response to c-section births, the length of a time a woman stays in the hospital after a c-section depends on her general health at the time. My last child was born through c-section on a Sunday. I was released on Tuesday with no complications.

As to means of birth control, abstinence is the best form of birth control for anyone.

Aeroldoth
12-09-2007, 03:19 PM
it was a joke. Laugh, or dont, and get over it. Funny? To me heck yeah.

That was a joke? I didn't catch it.

Because if you are just going to give everyone to right to abort, or the right to die just whenever they feel like it, abortion will become the next birth control and responsibility will go down the tubes even more, and because people will kill themselves over things that they could have worked through.

I disagree. Women aren't going to have abortion clinics on speed dial, and people aren't going to off themselves because they got a speeding ticket. And if your concern is personal responsibility, don't you feel it's better to try to teach that, rather than mandate it?

As we go through life we learn from our mistakes. If we're not allowed to fail, how will we succeed?

Dagobahn Eagle
12-09-2007, 03:28 PM
Timeout? Can I ask something?

What on Earth does suicide have to do with abortion?

'k, carry on.

Aeroldoth
12-09-2007, 03:42 PM
Yes, within the existing legal confines (specifically with regards to 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions).
Clarify. You support 1T abortions but not 2T or 3T? (I am not familiar with the specifics of current legal regulations.)

What on Earth does suicide have to do with abortion?

I was curious about the extent to which Corinthian valued life, to explore what his boundaries were on the when and why of dying. Since the term pro-life inherently states a support of life, I wanted to see what, if any, exceptions he had. Others then chimed in. :D

Achilles
12-09-2007, 04:22 PM
Clarify. You support 1T abortions but not 2T or 3T? (I am not familiar with the specifics of current legal regulations.) I acknowledge the inalienable right to abortion and support the existence of legal protection for safe abortion procedures. I agree with the existing, reasonable restrictions that many states have regarding the practice of abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimester. I do not agree with the recent Supreme Court ban on D&X.

Does that help?

Web Rider
12-09-2007, 04:38 PM
Web Rider, everyone has the right to Live, and Let Live. When you refuse to let others live, you waive your own right to live. At least, that's what I feel. I see killing evil men and women as okay. You see carving babies heads open with scissors and flushing them down the toilet to be okay.

Since I don't like late-term abortion, no, I don't see carving baby heads open. That doesn't happen in first-trimester abortions.

I disagree. Women aren't going to have abortion clinics on speed dial, and people aren't going to off themselves because they got a speeding ticket. And if your concern is personal responsibility, don't you feel it's better to try to teach that, rather than mandate it?

As we go through life we learn from our mistakes. If we're not allowed to fail, how will we succeed?

I don't think all will, but the current generation of people(I think it's '80 to 2000?) don't seem to have very much responsibility to start with, and yes, it is better to teach it, but I visualize the law getting put into play before people start being more responsible.

Because, like with kids, you limit how much they can fail, and as they become more responsible, you back off.
Timeout? Can I ask something?

What on Earth does suicide have to do with abortion?

'k, carry on.
In a way, it's an abortion of an existing life. If it can be argued you can't abort a pregnancy because it's a different life, then you should be able to "abort" yourself, because it's your life.

Serpentine Cougar
12-09-2007, 05:43 PM
Who are you or I to judge when a group of cells become a person?

When can a video game be considered a video game? When the designer first gets the idea? As soon as the first beta build is completed? Why not slightly before that, when it's mostly playable but just a few things missing? Or is it only when it is released to the public? Note that many companies (this is just my assumption, so pardon me if I'm wrong) trademark names a while before any kind of playable build is ready.

Aeroldoth
12-09-2007, 05:48 PM
I agree with the existing, reasonable restrictions that many states have regarding the practice of abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimester.
As I said, I'm not familiar with the finer legal points. What restrictions exist that you agree with?

I don't think all will, but the current generation of people(I think it's '80 to 2000?) don't seem to have very much responsibility to start with, and yes, it is better to teach it, but I visualize the law getting put into play before people start being more responsible.

Because, like with kids, you limit how much they can fail, and as they become more responsible, you back off.

And you feel adults should be treated as children? I strongly disagree with you, but I'll let the issue drop.

Corinthian
12-09-2007, 05:54 PM
Why is it wrong to kill a human, but not to kill a developing human? That's pretty much what the abortion debate boils down to.

Web Rider
12-09-2007, 05:57 PM
And you feel adults should be treated as children? I strongly disagree with you, but I'll let the issue drop.

According to abortionfacts.com, in 1995, most abortions occurred in the 15-29 age group. While the Feds may regard people as an "adult" at 21, that hardly makes it true, there's plenty of people who are 21-29 who don't act like "adults".

For for the areas in which most abortions occur, "adults" isn't necessarily the most accurate descriptive time. I mean, I can't even rent a car till I'm 25.

Achilles
12-09-2007, 09:04 PM
As I said, I'm not familiar with the finer legal points. What restrictions exist that you agree with? That late-term abortions only be conducted by a physician when there is a threat to the woman's life, physical health, or mental health.

As I have stated previously, I also agree with the argument that late-term abortions should be permitted if the child will be born with severe birth defects (some of which can't be detected until late-term via amniocentesis).

Web Rider
12-09-2007, 09:11 PM
That late-term abortions only be conducted by a physician when there is a threat to the woman's life, physical health, or mental health.

and just before somebody says "well, how could it affect her mental health"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicalscience/story/0,,619563,00.html

yup, there's a listed phobia of giving birth, so much so as it can cause women to miscarry.

mimartin
12-09-2007, 09:19 PM
As I have stated previously, I also agree with the argument that late-term abortions should be permitted if the child will be born with severe birth defects (some of which can't be detected until late-term via amniocentesis).
Just a clarification question: Who would decide if the condition was severe enough to warrant a late-term abortion?

My opinion on this question.
My answer to my own question is the parents and the medical professional, with the final decision with the mother. Of course, the doctor should be able to refuse to do the abortion, if he/she believes it is not in the best interest of the patient and the unborn child.

Achilles
12-09-2007, 09:27 PM
I think your assessment could probably speak for us both. At some point, I think the old practice of asking for second professional opinion should probably be reintroduced.

Web Rider
12-09-2007, 10:12 PM
I think your assessment could probably speak for us both. At some point, I think the old practice of asking for second professional opinion should probably be reintroduced.

People still do, except sadly it's usually asking a less scrupulous doctor if there's a cheaper way to do something.

MdKnightR
12-09-2007, 10:26 PM
Actually, I did "catch" it, but I didn't choose to assign the same significance to it that you did.....

....PS: Are these stats good or not? You seem comfortable using them when it appears to support your argument but want to play some sort of "gotcha" game when you think you've tricked me into something.

For the record, I wasn't playing a game of "gotcha" (as I remember, you're the one who said that, not me). After I posted those stats, it dawned on me that you might not consider the source before making your next comment is all.

Right, but you said "infant" which is the first year (0-1). After that, they're "toddlers" (1-5).

Perhaps I was being a little too specific when I said "infant." I should have said "young children," to which those statistics confirm my statement. Even Jae Onasi agrees with me about that first year of life aspect of the welfare system. And when you factor in that adoption agencies primarily deal with newborns, one can logically deduce that young children are more adoptable than older ones from the evidence at hand. If you don't believe me, perhaps you should visit an orphanage and direct your questions at the staff and residents.

Achilles
12-09-2007, 10:36 PM
For the record, I wasn't playing a game of "gotcha" (as I remember, you're the one who said that, not me). After I posted those stats, it dawned on me that you might not consider the source before making your next comment is all. If you wish to posit that you somehow made a mistake by posting that source and would prefer to use another instead, then please just feel free to say so. No need to make this more complicated than it is.

Perhaps I was being a little too specific when I said "infant." I should have said "young children," to which those statistics confirm my statement. Indeed that would make a significant difference. Just as asking for chocolate ice cream typically rules out my receiving vanilla when I visit the local Cold Stone.

But I am happy to see that you want to use those stats again. Feel free to move that goal post wherever you'd like. :)

Even Jae Onasi agrees with me about that first year of life aspect of the welfare system. *Wonders why Jae is the gold standard*

Aww, thanks, guys. :D --Jae

Indeed. And?

And when you factor in that adoption agencies primarily deal with newborns, one can logically deduce that young children are more adoptable than older ones from the evidence at hand. If you don't believe me, perhaps you should visit an orphanage and direct your questions at the staff and residents.I've actually given a child up for adoption before, so I don't think that will be necessary, but perhaps you should back up your comments with a source (or admit that you're speculating) nonetheless.

PS: arguing that a particular agency mostly receives newborns and then pointing out that it mostly places newborns isn't probably going to strike very many people as "groundbreaking". Lot of shoes at the shoe store and all that.

Take care.

Tommycat
12-09-2007, 10:49 PM
Just as a clarification: I choose the second trimester as that is the earliest that a child has been known to have survived when removed from a womb. My standard for deciding when it is ok to abort and not is the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb.

My wife must be really tough according to some of you. She had two emergency cesarians, and on each of them she was out the same day.

Achilles
12-09-2007, 11:23 PM
Just as a clarification: I choose the second trimester as that is the earliest that a child has been known to have survived when removed from a womb. My standard for deciding when it is ok to abort and not is the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb. Considering that the 2nd trimester is a time period which spans approximately 3 months or 12 weeks, this seems a little vague to me. So no abortions after 12 weeks and 1 day of pregnancy? Abortions only up to 23 weeks and 6 days?

If we peel away the arbitrary date-base labels, it would seem that your true concern is viability of the fetus (which would nicely coincide with the opinions of some of the other participants in this thread). In order to be viable, wouldn't the fetus need to have all of its major organs at least formed, including a heart (complete with heartbeat) and a brain (including brain activity)?

It would seem to me that performing an abortion prior to this point (specifically with regards to heartbeat and brain activity) would not be the killing of a living thing, whereas doing so after this point would be. It would also seem to stand to reason that if one were to kill a living thing, then one should have a very good reason for doing so. I don't think this is anything more than the pro-abortion crowd has advocated, but I could be wrong.

My wife must be really tough according to some of you. She had two emergency cesarians, and on each of them she was out the same day.Wow, that's really amazing. I wonder what set of circumstance led to a same-day release for a full-blown emergency surgery...twice!

Tommycat
12-09-2007, 11:53 PM
Well I don't look at it as the time specifically, but the viability of the fetus. To me it would make more sense to attempt to recover the fetus and give it a chance at life than to say that at 23 weeks you can snuff it out even if it has developed appropriately. I really don't like the time base so much. I mean some develop much faster. I mean wasn't there just recently a baby born at 24 weeks? I know that my perfectly healthy daughter was delivered at 32 weeks. My son with CP was born at 28 weeks(the CP was not caused by the early removal BTW).

And quite frankly, if the "Pro-Abortion" crowd did limit it to fetal viability, I would never argue against them. The problem is the up to the minute it's born that some abortion advocates submit that disturbs me. To me, that is not any better than killing a newborn. It is also as silly as the "Life begins at conception" arguments. I feel that a medical professional should be able to tell the viability of a fetus, and after it reaches that point, abortion should not be an option.

as far as the circumstances of my wife: She was stitched back up, they said that she was ok to leave, but recommended she stay for observation.

also: I don't think I've been hypocritical in my statements regarding personal responsibility. I do agree that if you are willing to do the deed, you should be willing to face up to it. There are a number of options for doing the deed that would prevent getting pregnant. Oh and vasectomy's are reversible. My sister in law works for the leading vasectomy reversal specialist in the US.

Aeroldoth
12-10-2007, 12:59 AM
Thanks for explaining Achilles.

MdKnightR
12-10-2007, 02:13 AM
But I am happy to see that you want to use those stats again. Feel free to move that goal post wherever you'd like. :)

I apologize for any confusion in my statements. The goal post is where it's always been. But you are not alone....my wife says I have a talent for converting simple things into some baffling crap. :D

*Wonders why Jae is the gold standard*

Indeed. And?

I was simply noting that I had someone in agreement is all. Jae is no more a "gold standard" on this subject than I consider you an authority on chicken biscuits.
I have some excellent biscuit recipes, btw. --Jae


I've actually given a child up for adoption before, so I don't think that will be necessary,....

I commend you on making such a tough decision on behalf of a child. As I mentioned earlier, I just adopted my daughter. It took over a year (no comment solicited, btw).

....but perhaps you should back up your comments with a source (or admit that you're speculating) nonetheless.

I imagine that most people consider an opinion without accompanying statistics to be speculation, but if it'll make you happy. http://intruderalert.com/cafe/images/emoticons/bow.gif

PS: arguing that a particular agency mostly receives newborns and then pointing out that it mostly places newborns isn't probably going to strike very many people as "groundbreaking". Lot of shoes at the shoe store and all that.

Just used that to clarify the position of my goal post. http://intruderalert.com/cafe/images/emoticons/kiss.gif

Achilles
12-10-2007, 04:11 PM
Well I don't look at it as the time specifically, but the viability of the fetus. To me it would make more sense to attempt to recover the fetus and give it a chance at life than to say that at 23 weeks you can snuff it out even if it has developed appropriately. I really don't like the time base so much. I mean some develop much faster. I mean wasn't there just recently a baby born at 24 weeks? I know that my perfectly healthy daughter was delivered at 32 weeks. My son with CP was born at 28 weeks(the CP was not caused by the early removal BTW). I agree the viability is probably the most rational demarcation point for determining life vs. non-life.

And quite frankly, if the "Pro-Abortion" crowd did limit it to fetal viability, I would never argue against them. The problem is the up to the minute it's born that some abortion advocates submit that disturbs me. To me, that is not any better than killing a newborn. It is also as silly as the "Life begins at conception" arguments. I feel that a medical professional should be able to tell the viability of a fetus, and after it reaches that point, abortion should not be an option. I'm not going to say that these arguments don't exists, I will simply state that I have never heard any person affiliated with "pro-choice" make such an argument.

I do think that there are going to be rare circumstances in which a tough choice must be made after the fetus is viable. I don't understand the logic behind the argument that if it's between the mother and the fetus, then the fetus should win, every time, no questions asked. And so long as we find ourselves living in a world where these rare circumstances exist, women should have a choice as to whether or not they should get to live (keep their mental health, etc).

also: I don't think I've been hypocritical in my statements regarding personal responsibility. I do agree that if you are willing to do the deed, you should be willing to face up to it. There are a number of options for doing the deed that would prevent getting pregnant. Oh and vasectomy's are reversible. My sister in law works for the leading vasectomy reversal specialist in the US.I stated the questions plainly earlier but you chose not to respond. I will repeat them here for your convenience:

So don't have sex unless you are trying to have children? Didn't you express the opposite sentiment just a few posts ago? Which of these opinions should accept as being what you really think?

You appear to be saying that one should not have sex unless one is prepared to care for a child. Which would mean that one should only have sex to procreate. Which seems to contradict your earlier statement that you do not believe this to be true.

Yes, there are many forms of contraception available. None of them are 100% effective. Therefore there is a chance that one could take necessary precautions to avoid unwanted pregnancy and still end up pregnant anyway. What should these people do?

Finally, yes vasectomies are reversible. So what? Are you suggesting that young men get vasectomies as a form of birth control? Have you ever had one? Any idea how painful they are? Are you aware that most doctors will refuse the procedure unless you have already had children? Not sure where you were going with this one, but I am looking forward to learning more.

Thanks for explaining Achilles. You're welcome. :)

I apologize for any confusion in my statements. The goal post is where it's always been. But you are not alone....my wife says I have a talent for converting simple things into some baffling crap. :D I'm afraid that this does little to clarify for me exactly where you stand on those stats. Since you were the one that introduced them, I guess you could say that I consider this a matter of paramount interest.

I was simply noting that I had someone in agreement is all. Jae is no more a "gold standard" on this subject than I consider you an authority on chicken biscuits. I'm still stuck at the "so what?" part. It sure seems as though you referenced her as some sort of authority. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I cannot conceive of any other possible motivation you could have had for mentioning her unless you were attempting to muster some form of appeal to authority.

Glad to hear that we are in agreement that she probably doesn't qualify though.

I commend you on making such a tough decision on behalf of a child. As I mentioned earlier, I just adopted my daughter. It took over a year (no comment solicited, btw). Not sure that kudos are in order, but I do sincerely appreciate the gesture nonetheless. Thank you.

I imagine that most people consider an opinion without accompanying statistics to be speculation, but if it'll make you happy. Except when it sounds as though they're trying to pass off their opinions as facts. Then people like me ask for supporting evidence.

Sounds as though we can move forward with the understanding that your previous statements were nothing more than your opinion and not based on any evidence? In that case, I acknowledge that this is your opinion on the matter.

Just used that to clarify the position of my goal post.Ok. Sure.

Tommycat
12-11-2007, 02:17 AM
I stated the questions plainly earlier but you chose not to respond. I will repeat them here for your convenience:
OK, I thought I answered this, but maybe I can try again.
So don't have sex unless you are trying to have children? Didn't you express the opposite sentiment just a few posts ago? Which of these opinions should accept as being what you really think?
Nope, Don't have sex unless you are WILLING to have a child

You appear to be saying that one should not have sex unless one is prepared to care for a child. Which would mean that one should only have sex to procreate. Which seems to contradict your earlier statement that you do not believe this to be true.
Nope, not at all. If you have sex, you should be WILLING to have a child. Some are quite willing to have sex, but never want children. In which case the best option is various toys, oral, and a few other good feeling but non-inseminating methods. Or they could just restrain their urges unless they are willing to take the chance that a pregnancy will occur.

Yes, there are many forms of contraception available. None of them are 100% effective. Therefore there is a chance that one could take necessary precautions to avoid unwanted pregnancy and still end up pregnant anyway. What should these people do?
Any time you have intercourse you should be ready for the off chance that such an occurance will happen. There are ways to have intercourse that do not involve vaginal penetration or insemination. Some of those are against some religious views, but then again when talking religion and sex, its just about procreation.

Finally, yes vasectomies are reversible. So what? Are you suggesting that young men get vasectomies as a form of birth control? Have you ever had one? Any idea how painful they are? Are you aware that most doctors will refuse the procedure unless you have already had children? Not sure where you were going with this one, but I am looking forward to learning more.
Now you're assuming that sex is from people who have never had a child. And the procedure is relatively painless. Even less so when you take into account painkillers and anesthesia(and yes I did, Its been great to be pretty sure that it won't happen, but I'm still ready should the off chance occur that I do get her pregnant). I suggest that men who want to have sex with little fear of getting a woman pregnant get a vasectomy, yes.

MJ-W4
12-11-2007, 02:36 AM
^^ Interesting. In over twenty years of heavy use (did someone just say 'burning rubber'?), no single condom ever broke. Buying proper ones at the chemist's seems to be the solution.:)

Achilles
12-11-2007, 02:44 AM
OK, I thought I answered this, but maybe I can try again. By not responding to it? Gotcha.

Tommycat says: Nope, Don't have sex unless you are WILLING to have a child
Achilles says: You appear to be saying that one should not have sex unless one is prepared to care for a child. Which would mean that one should only have sex to procreate.

Same thing, no?

I'm glad you found the font thingy and all, but a simple "yes" would have been sufficient.

Some are quite willing to have sex, but never want children. In which case the best option is various toys, oral, and a few other good feeling but non-inseminating methods. Or they could just restrain their urges unless they are willing to take the chance that a pregnancy will occur. Do you yourself live by these standards (or did you before your vasectomy)? Not hoping to pry into your personal life, just trying to get a good reading on my hypocrisy-meter.

Any time you have intercourse you should be ready for the off chance that such an occurance will happen. There are ways to have intercourse that do not involve vaginal penetration or insemination. Some of those are against some religious views, but then again when talking religion and sex, its just about procreation.Very admirable public health goals.

Now you're assuming that sex is from people who have never had a child. Huh?

And the procedure is relatively painless. Right but the recovery involves sitting around for 2 days feeling as though you've been kicked in the groin by a horse. My apolgies for not being more specific.

And yes, I do understand that the experience is different for everyone. Perhaps all men in the future should be required to share your pain threshold too.

Even less so when you take into account painkillers and anesthesia(and yes I did, Its been great not to be pretty sure that it won't happen, but I'm still ready should the off chance that I do get her pregnant). I suggest that men who want to have sex with little fear of getting a woman pregnant get a vasectomy, yes.Unless of course they're single with no kids (or married with no kids), because then most doctors will refuse to do the procedure, as I pointed out earlier. Still waiting to understand why vasectomy was brought up in an abortion thread.

^^ Interesting. In over twenty years of heavy use (did someone just say 'burning rubber'?), no single condom ever broke. Buying proper ones at the chemist's seems to be the solution.:)I never had one break either, but my dad did once when I was about 16. My first (and only) first-hand experience with abortion.

MJ-W4
12-11-2007, 02:57 AM
^^ When I suggested I might have a vasectomy, it was my wife (who does resemble Mira in a number of aspects) who said no. The thought of 'someone messing about with the family jewels' (her words) gave her the creeps.

Tommycat
12-11-2007, 03:12 AM
By not responding to it? Gotcha.

Tommycat says: Nope, Don't have sex unless you are WILLING to have a child
Achilles says: You appear to be saying that one should not have sex unless one is prepared to care for a child. Which would mean that one should only have sex to procreate.

Same thing, no?
Nope. Being willing to accept responsibility is not anywhere near doing so ONLY for that responsibility. I thought I was the one putting words in your mouth. Let me try.... So what you're saying is that a secret service agent is only in his job to give his life for the president?

I'm glad you found the font thingy and all, but a simple "yes" would have been sufficient.
Perhaps you need to look up beiing willing to and wanting to. Two completely different ideas.

Do you yourself live by these standards (or did you before your vasectomy)? Not hoping to pry into your personal life, just trying to get a good reading on my hypocrisy-meter.

Well, Yes. Granted In my younger teenage times, I took precautions, and made every attempt to prevent pregnancy, however I never fooled myself into believing that I wouldn't have to be responsible for it. I was always prepared for the eventuality that I would become a father. In fact I still do live by it. I know that even still there is a 0.3% chance that I could have another mouth to feed.

Very admirable public health goals.

Huh?
Some men that want to have sex with little to no fear of a pregnancy already have kids of their own.

Right but the recovery involves sitting around for 2 days feeling as though you've been kicked in the groin by a horse. My apolgies for not being more specific.
Wasn't that way for me. then again, I actually know what it feels like to get kicked in the groin by a horse(worked on a farm for a long time).

And yes, I do understand that the experience is different for everyone. Perhaps all men in the future should be required to share your pain threshold too.
Meh I've had enough painful experiences from various incidents that I'm sure others have felt, that really its not just my threshold. But hey to each their own. If you aren't willing to accept responsibility for your actions don't do it.

Unless of course they're single with no kids (or married with no kids), because then most doctors will refuse to do the procedure, as I pointed out earlier. Still waiting to understand why vasectomy was brought up in an abortion thread.
You brought up contraception, You make it seem that there is no alternative. That we are bound by our urges to have sex. Trying to justify abortion by claiming ineffectiveness of methods. I was pointing out one that is near 100% since you refuse to accept that the best way to prevent having kids is not to have sex.

Achilles
12-11-2007, 03:54 AM
Nope. Being willing to accept responsibility is not anywhere near doing so ONLY for that responsibility.Don't have sex unless you're willing to accept responsibility for a child, but have sex anyway? Following that to the logical conclusion would argue that one should not have sex unless one was trying to have a child. Perhaps I've simply thought your argument through a little further than you have.

I thought I was the one putting words in your mouth. Let me try.... So what you're saying is that a secret service agent is only in his job to give his life for the president? No. The largest portion of the Secret Service's duties involves counterfeit money. Only a small portion of the Secret Service is responsible for security and only a small portion of those agents are assigned to the President of the United States. I hope that sufficiently clarifies my position re: the Secret Service.

Perhaps you need to look up beiing willing to and wanting to. Two completely different ideas. Except I said "prepared to"...which seems very similar to "willing to".

Well, Yes. Granted In my younger teenage times, I took precautions, and made every attempt to prevent pregnancy, however I never fooled myself into believing that I wouldn't have to be responsible for it. I was always prepared for the eventuality that I would become a father. In fact I still do live by it. I know that even still there is a 0.3% chance that I could have another mouth to feed. Perhaps the divide in our thinking is that you think every person should be ready to have as many children as luck deems fit to give them and I don't. In fact, if someone is making a reasonable effort not to get preganant, then they shouldn't be punished for an accident.

Some men that want to have sex with little to no fear of a pregnancy already have kids of their own.Sorry, still not following the seemingly random interjection.

Wasn't that way for me. then again, I actually know what it feels like to get kicked in the groin by a horse(worked on a farm for a long time). Meh I've had enough painful experiences from various incidents that I'm sure others have felt, that really its not just my threshold. But hey to each their own. If you aren't willing to accept responsibility for your actions don't do it. Don't have the vasectomy? You're all over the board with this one.

You brought up contraception,3 days ago! :rolleyes:
You randomly interjected the whole vasectomy thing in post #148. Why? It wasn't being discussed AT ALL until then.

You make it seem that there is no alternative. No alternative to what?

That we are bound by our urges to have sex.We certainly have them. To what degree we are "bound" by them, I'm not sure and I don't believe I've posited an argument one way or another regarding the matter.

Trying to justify abortion by claiming ineffectiveness of methods.I'm assuming that you mean "methods of birth control".

Considering that I believe that abortion would still be necessary even in a world with 100% effective means of birth control, I find it hard to believe that I've actually made that argument. Please feel free to point out where I have.

I was pointing out one that is near 100% since you refuse to accept that the best way to prevent having kids is not to have sex.Condoms are nearly 100% effective too, but they don't come with the same ethical constraints as vasectomies. And I do accept that abstinence is 100% effective, however I do not agree that abstinence is a form of contraception ("prevention" vs. "avoidance" and all that).

Tommycat
12-11-2007, 05:13 AM
Don't have sex unless you're willing to accept responsibility for a child, but have sex anyway? Following that to the logical conclusion would argue that one should not have sex unless one was trying to have a child. Perhaps I've simply thought your argument through a little further than you have.
No, quit trying to twist my words to fit your needs. Nowhere did I say that one should not have sex unless you are trying to have a child. I have said and will continue to say that if you have sex then you should be prepared for the possibility of a child. IF you are not willing to accept that responsibility(in the event that it occurs) then keep it zipped.

Except I said "prepared to"...which seems very similar to "willing to".
and you followed it up with "Which would mean that one should only have sex to procreate." and I was saying and have said and will continue to say that you can have sex if you want, however you should be willing to accept the consequences. Just as in driving a car, You can drive above the posted speed if you want, but you have to be willing to get a ticket. You can run a red light if you want, but be prepared to get a ticket, or even get in an accident. You can drive drunk if you want, but you must be prepared to accept the possibility that you will kill someone. You may not want it, but if you do it you have to accept responsibility for your actions.

Perhaps the divide in our thinking is that you think every person should be ready to have as many children as luck deems fit to give them and I don't. In fact, if someone is making a reasonable effort not to get preganant, then they shouldn't be punished for an accident.
A child is not a punishment. Even still everyone knows the risks. You have sex, that risk is there. IF you don't want that risk avoid the activity that increases that risk. I go rock climbing. If I don't want the risk associated with rock climbing I avoid rock climbing. You appear to say that a person should be able to go rock climbing and even though they take every precaution to prevent falling, they should never have to worry about falling.
Sorry, still not following the seemingly random interjection.
Fine. I'm done explaining it anyway.

Don't have the vasectomy? You're all over the board with this one.
Forget it. Basically if you don't want to deal with the risk of pregnancy avoid sex(or try an alternate lifestyle which would prevent child birth).
3 days ago! :rolleyes:
You randomly interjected the whole vasectomy thing in post #148. Why? It wasn't being discussed AT ALL until then.
In case you hadn't noticed it was the first day I got back posting. Either way, You're right. It isn't relevant.

No alternative to what?

We certainly have them. To what degree we are "bound" by them, I'm not sure and I don't believe I've posited an argument one way or another regarding the matter.
Well in consideration of your posts regarding the desire to have sex and not risk pregnancy, It seemed pretty straight forward.
I'm assuming that you mean "methods of birth control".
Don't you mean "Contraception?" Birth control has one method that is 100% effective. Not engaging in the act that would produce the possibility of birth.
Considering that I believe that abortion would still be necessary even in a world with 100% effective means of birth control, I find it hard to believe that I've actually made that argument. Please feel free to point out where I have.
I see so now you are saying that because you didn't specifically state that, that you never argued that. Ok Never mind then. Incidentally, if you notice, I am not exactly arguing against abortion either. All I am arguing for is that people should take more responsibility for their actions. So why do you keep bringing up that no method of contraception is 100% effective?

Condoms are nearly 100% effective too, but they don't come with the same ethical constraints as vasectomies. And I do accept that abstinence is 100% effective, however I do not agree that abstinence is a form of contraception ("prevention" vs. "avoidance" and all that).
I believe that abstinence is a form of birth control. Avoiding the act reduces the possibility of birth to nearly 0(and that one case is not validated). You can still have other forms of sex without vaginal penetration by the penis. If you are so inclined, you can have same sex intercourse(as far as I know there haven't been any cases where that has caused a pregnancy). I'm merely offering alternatives to people who wish to reduce the risk of pregnancy to 0 or near 0 while still enjoying themselves...

Jae Onasi
12-11-2007, 09:36 AM
Don't get too graphic with sexual references, folks. We have to keep it PG-13 here. Thanks.

Achilles
12-11-2007, 11:06 AM
No, quit trying to twist my words to fit your needs. Nowhere did I say that one should not have sex unless you are trying to have a child. I have said and will continue to say that if you have sex then you should be prepared for the possibility of a child. IF you are not willing to accept that responsibility(in the event that it occurs) then keep it zipped. As I've already stated, I think it's likely that you haven't thought your argument all the way through.

and you followed it up with "Which would mean that one should only have sex to procreate." Right. The logical conclusion to that arguement.

and I was saying and have said and will continue to say that you can have sex if you want, however you should be willing to accept the consequences. Right. And since the consequences that you are referring to is the birth of a child, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to engage in said act unless you are attempting to have a child. It really does seem as though you want to have it both ways and I just don't think that you can.

Just as in driving a car, You can drive above the posted speed if you want, but you have to be willing to get a ticket. Poor analogy unless we stipulate that some people will be ticketed even if they are obeying the speed limit.

You can run a red light if you want, but be prepared to get a ticket, or even get in an accident.And people that are in accidents that don't run red lights?

You can drive drunk if you want, but you must be prepared to accept the possibility that you will kill someone.Driving drunk is not the only way to kill people. Perhaps your time would be better served addressing the actual argument rather than grasping at analogies.

You may not want it, but if you do it you have to accept responsibility for your actions.Repeating this line isn't going to magically negate my argument.

A child is not a punishment.If you're not trying for one and it is being forced upon you, then I can imagine that it would seem like one.

Even still everyone knows the risks. You have sex, that risk is there. IF you don't want that risk avoid the activity that increases that risk. I go rock climbing. If I don't want the risk associated with rock climbing I avoid rock climbing.Victory through repetition? I get that this is your argument. I really do.

You appear to say that a person should be able to go rock climbing and even though they take every precaution to prevent falling, they should never have to worry about falling.Never have to "worry"? No, I imagine that said climber would worry quite a bit considering that they're taking precautions against it. Seems to me that the climber that doesn't worry about falling would go up without any kind of safety gear whatsoever, don't you think?

Fine. I'm done explaining it anyway.Sorry I missed the part where you started. Maybe we'll have better luck next time.

Forget it. Basically if you don't want to deal with the risk of pregnancy avoid sex(or try an alternate lifestyle which would prevent child birth). That's your value judgement and you're welcome to it.

In case you hadn't noticed it was the first day I got back posting. Either way, You're right. It isn't relevant.Agreed.

Well in consideration of your posts regarding the desire to have sex and not risk pregnancy, It seemed pretty straight forward.Well, in that case, I acknowledge that this is how you've opted to interpret my statements.

Don't you mean "Contraception?" It's not about what I mean. You said "methods". I was trying to clarify that you were referring to "methods of birth control". Sometimes it helps to read the part that I quote for context.

Birth control has one method that is 100% effective. Not engaging in the act that would produce the possibility of birth. Right, just like not playing baseball would eliminate the likelihood of someone batting in a run off one of my pitches. Sure, my pitching record is pristine, but that's because I've never actually played.

Hence why I don't consider abstinence a form of contraception.

I see so now you are saying that because you didn't specifically state that, that you never argued that. Yes, you're absolutely right. As a rule, I never take responsibility for things that I don't say or imply. Nor do I defend arguments that I don't make. Hope that helps.

Incidentally, if you notice, I am not exactly arguing against abortion either. All I am arguing for is that people should take more responsibility for their actions.More responsibility than what? Having an abortion? Then it would seem that you are "exactly arguing against abortion". Is there some sort of context that I'm missing here?

So why do you keep bringing up that no method of contraception is 100% effective?I think I've mentioned that precisely twice and both times when someone implied that abortion wasn't necessary because of contraception. All things being equal, I guess it's fair for me to ask why you keep bringing up contraception in an abortion thread.

I'm merely offering alternatives to people who wish to reduce the risk of pregnancy to 0 or near 0 while still enjoying themselves...That might be a great starting point for a safe sex thread.

Take care.

MJ-W4
12-11-2007, 11:24 AM
That might be a great starting point for a safe sex thread.That would be interesting, I doubt this is a viable topic for LF, however.

Dagobahn Eagle
12-11-2007, 01:01 PM
I have said and will continue to say that if you have sex then you should be prepared for the possibility of a child. IF you are not willing to accept that responsibility(in the event that it occurs) then keep it zipped.Sure, realize that's the risk, and then try to reduce it as much as possible. Like flying a plane - you know there's a chance your engines will give out. When you have sex, abortion, contraception, and the morning-after pill are your parachute in the plane scenario.

You can run a red light if you want, but be prepared to get a ticket, or even get in an accident.And teaching a kid how to have safe sex is like outfitting a robber with a gun for a bank robbery, right?

What is it with certain people and comparing sex to recklessness or crime?

Jae Onasi
12-11-2007, 01:07 PM
Safe sex/contraception is a valid topic and there's a thread here (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=176647) on the abstinence and related topics--please read the first post in that thread before responding.



Forget it. Basically if you don't want to deal with the risk of pregnancy avoid sex(or try an alternate lifestyle which would prevent child birth).
That's your value judgement and you're welcome to it.


If you don't have intercourse (or other sexual activities where sperm could get to egg), you don't get pregnant, barring, obviously, artificial means. I'm not seeing a value judgment there, just a fact. You can have physical intimacy without intercourse as I'm sure you've discovered. If you want to split hairs and say intercourse is a prerequisite in contraception discussion, then fine, split the hair and throw abstinence out the window. If you're defining contraception as 'ways not to get pregnant', then abstinence does fit in as a contraceptive choice. You don't have sex, you don't get pregnant (see provisos above). Pretty simple.

In any case, we probably should move back towards the main topic.

Achilles
12-11-2007, 02:08 PM
If you don't have intercourse (or other sexual activities where sperm could get to egg), you don't get pregnant, barring, obviously, artificial means. I'm not seeing a value judgment there, just a fact. The value judgemet is the decision that sex should only take place if both parties are prepared to be pregnant.

You can have physical intimacy without intercourse as I'm sure you've discovered. You sure can, but it's a value judgement as to whether or not you're going to limit yourself to those degrees of intimacy. I'm sure that you would agree that no person, group of people, or governement agency have the right to impose those values upon you.

If you want to split hairs and say intercourse is a prerequisite in contraception discussion, then fine, split the hair and throw abstinence out the window. If you're defining contraception as 'ways not to get pregnant', then abstinence does fit in as a contraceptive choice. You don't have sex, you don't get pregnant (see provisos above). Pretty simple.See earlier baseball analogy.

I'm not saying that I disgree with abstinence or that I have any problem with it. I do think it can be fundamentally disqualified as a method of contraception. If it makes everyone here feel better call it splitting hairs, then let's just call it splitting hairs.

In any case, we probably should move back towards the main topic.YAY! :D

Totenkopf
12-21-2007, 06:40 AM
That probably needs to be a separate thread...


No doubt a verrrrry long one. :xp: :lol:

Tommycat
12-23-2007, 10:05 PM
The value judgemet is the decision that sex should only take place if both parties are prepared to be pregnant.
You call it value judgement, I call it Risk Assessment. I would think anyone who understood business would know the difference. I can easily replace pregnancy with STD's. There are methods to lower your risk, but no method completely ensures that you will not get an STD. The only sure fire way not to is not to engage in activities that would get you that STD.

Baseball is not a good example. Move your own goalposts all you want, but leave mine alone thanks.

Web Rider
12-23-2007, 10:34 PM
You call it value judgement, I call it Risk Assessment.

I would tend to agree. Any sex, protected or not, could result in pregnancy, although with most modern contraceptives we're often talking like a thousandth of a percent.

That doesn't however, mean that all should be done with the the idea that you WANT or ARE going to get pregnant. If she's on some form birth control and he's got a condom, we'll, I agree that abortion is still a valid option here since both parties did everything in their power NOT to get pregnant and prevent it from happening.

Achilles
12-23-2007, 11:29 PM
You call it value judgement, I call it Risk Assessment. Call it what ever you like.

I can easily replace pregnancy with STD's. Indeed you can, however it doesn't change the argument.

There are methods to lower your risk, but no method completely ensures that you will not get an STD. The only sure fire way not to is not to engage in activities that would get you that STD. And? Not sure what this has to do with abortion.

Baseball is not a good example. Move your own goalposts all you want, but leave mine alone thanks.Sure it is but if you want to convince anyone otherwise, you'll have to do better than quoting my own stuff back to me as though it were applicable to your argument (Hint: analogies don't move goalposts).

Take care.

I would tend to agree. You're free to do whatever you'd like, but I have to question the wisdom of agreeing with non sequitur. He hasn't argued that a value judgment hasn't taken place. He's merely given us an insight into what his thought process looks like.

Any sex, protected or not, could result in pregnancy, although with most modern contraceptives we're often talking like a thousandth of a percent. Indeed. So would you choose to only have sex when trying for a baby? A value judgment will take place while you make that decision, regardless of how you answer. You can answer yes on the basis of "risk assessment" or no based on some other reason, but you've still come to that decision via your values.

That doesn't however, mean that all should be done with the the idea that you WANT or ARE going to get pregnant. I would tend to agree. I suspect many others would as well. Hence why Tommycat's argument has no relation to the topic of abortion unless there is a moral argument for imposing his values on all other human beings.

If she's on some form birth control and he's got a condom, we'll, I agree that abortion is still a valid option here since both parties did everything in their power NOT to get pregnant and prevent it from happening. Well said! Unfortunately, it does not appear that Tommycat agrees. If you get pregnant, you should have a baby. End of discussion.

Tommycat
12-24-2007, 12:04 AM
DO NOT PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH!

Yes you moved the goal posts by shifting it from risk versus reward to statistics. That completely changes the argument and is therefore WRONG.

In a perfect world, nobody would need abortion. As this is not a perfect world, abortion is necessary. I believe that abortion should be legal. I happen to have a daughter by the way. That places me in a rather difficult position if I were to say abortion should be illegal. IF something happens to her and she becomes pregnant before she is ready, I am darn sure going to make sure she can get one. I just believe that people should be more responsible before hand. Take precautions, or abstain. YOU have twisted it into if you get pregnant you have to have a child. I have never said that.

I would keep abortion legal without the stipulation of only in the cases of rape for the sheer fact that some people will claim rape just to get the abortion.

My argument has been twisted from explaining my position on requesting more personal responsibility into only having sex to have a child, and now to being against abortion altogether. I do not appreciate that. Where have I stated that:
1) If you get pregnant, you should have a baby.
2) You should only have sex to have a baby.

Quite frankly I believe that I have stated quite often and very clearly that you can have sex without doing so to procreate. Considering that I work in the adult entertainment business, I think I can say quite equivocally that I do not agree with that. I am in fact offended by your intentional attempts to mischaracterize my statements as such.

Achilles
12-24-2007, 12:42 AM
DO NOT PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH! I would certainly hate to think that I've done so. Would you be so kind as to point out which of your statements you feel I've misrepresented? Thanks.

Yes you moved the goal posts by shifting it from risk versus reward to statistics. That completely changes the argument and is therefore WRONG. Unfortunately, I'm not clear on what you're referring to. If that did in fact happen though, that would probably be a strawman or a red herring. If you need assistance understanding what "moving the goalpost" actually means, you can find more info here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalpost). I hope that helps.

In a perfect world, nobody would need abortion. As this is not a perfect world, abortion is necessary. I believe that abortion should be legal. I happen to have a daughter by the way. That places me in a rather difficult position if I were to say abortion should be illegal. IF something happens to her and she becomes pregnant before she is ready, I am darn sure going to make sure she can get one. So abortion is ok when rape is involved but not for any other reason? Am I understanding your argument correctly?

I just believe that people should be more responsible before hand. Take precautions, or abstain. And if you do take precautions (aka use contraceptives) and get pregnant anyway?

YOU have twisted it into if you get pregnant you have to have a child. I have never said that. From post #148:
"I do agree that if you are willing to do the deed, you should be willing to face up to it. There are a number of options for doing the deed that would prevent getting pregnant."

From post #154 (emphasis yours):
"Nope, Don't have sex unless you are WILLING to have a child" and

"If you have sex, you should be WILLING to have a child. Some are quite willing to have sex, but never want children. In which case the best option is various toys, oral, and a few other good feeling but non-inseminating methods. Or they could just restrain their urges unless they are willing to take the chance that a pregnancy will occur." and

"Any time you have intercourse you should be ready for the off chance that such an occurance will happen."

Again, the argument appears to be "only have sex if you are prepared (or willing if you prefer) to have a child". You've made your point quite emphatically, so I'm not sure why you're trying to distance yourself from it by accusing me of introducing strawmen.

PS: I'm not sure if there are more posts I can reference. I figured these would be good enough to make my point.

I would keep abortion legal without the stipulation of only in the cases of rape for the sheer fact that some people will claim rape just to get the abortion. That seems fairly reasonable.

My argument has been twisted from explaining my position on requesting more personal responsibility into only having sex to have a child, and now to being against abortion altogether. I do not appreciate that. Where have I stated that:
1) If you get pregnant, you should have a baby.
2) You should only have sex to have a baby. See above.
FWIW, I will admit that I was not thinking in the context of rape related pregnancies when I attempted to summarize your arguments in the earlier post. For all other instances, I'll let the quotes above speak for themselves. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

Quite frankly I believe that I have stated quite often and very clearly that you can have sex without doing so to procreate. I think that we all know that you can. I don't think that's the point on contention here.

Considering that I work in the adult entertainment business, I think I can say quite equivocally that I do not agree with that. I am in fact offended by your intentional attempts to mischaracterize my statements as such.I've repeatedly asked for clarification and you have yet to provide any. If you interpret my attempts to seek clarification as an intentional bid to mischaracterize your arguments, then that is your problem, sir, not mine. If you can show where I have posted inappropriately, I'll be more than happy to make things right. In the mean time, I will not be persuaded by hand-waving.

Thanks for your post.

ADDED BY EDIT: You know it just occurred to me that we could probably clear up a lot of misunderstanding if you operationally define what it is to "take more personal responsibility". Thanks in advance for your help.

Tommycat
12-24-2007, 01:31 AM
Men in general are often unwilling to take responsibility either emotionally or financially for either a child, or the abortion of the child. This extends to emotional support to the woman who has the child or the abortion. Hence personal responsibility. Women have very little choice before the child is born on whether they support it financially emotionally or biologically as it is pretty well attached to them.

I say willing in the off chance that the woman carrying the child decides that they want the child. In a few cases the man wants the child and the woman does not. I tend to believe that it should be a mutual agreement between both parties as to whether to keep the child or not, but there are enough exceptions as to make this non-viable(meaning that it is ultimately the woman's body and therefore she has the final say).

In my earlier statements that you quoted, it had to do with acceptng the responsibility SHOULD the woman decide to keep the child, however I can see how it could be misinterpreted. I was just getting fed up with your use of ONLY for procreation comments.

I would consider this to be an intentional mischaracterization:

Well said! Unfortunately, it does not appear that Tommycat agrees. If you get pregnant, you should have a baby. End of discussion.

And your characterization of my statement regarding something happening to my daughter, I did not say rape. There's a good reason for that. MAYBE it could be that rape is not the only thing that could happen. The only place where I did specify rape is later, but then I did not say that should be the only way to get an abortion. In a perfect world you could choose whether you get pregnant from accidental insemination(aka condom breakage), but as I said the world ain't perfect.

Again, to clarify my position which you asked for and began this long tangent. I feel that if you are willing to have intercourse, you should take responsibility for that action. That responsibility could extend to paying for an abortion and giving support to the woman, or should the woman decide to keep the child, be willing to pay for that child and not attempt to pressure the woman into an abortion. IF you are not willing to take either of those actions for the woman, do not have sex with her. Maybe this is the last time I have to say this, but I fear that somehow it will be twisted yet again.

And nowhere did I say you should ONLY have sex to have a baby. You made that up. You produced that statement. NOT me. Where did I say you should only have sex to have a baby?

mimartin
12-24-2007, 01:39 AM
Baseball is not a good example. Move your own goalposts all you want, but leave mine alone thanks.What? Your playing a different type of baseball than I ever did. Goalpost? Foul pole? Maybe? I don't get it. Why would you move a foul pole?

Achilles
12-24-2007, 03:37 AM
Men in general are often unwilling to take responsibility either emotionally or financially for either a child, or the abortion of the child. This extends to emotional support to the woman who has the child or the abortion. Hence personal responsibility. Women have very little choice before the child is born on whether they support it financially emotionally or biologically as it is pretty well attached to them. I'm not sure how that definitions jives with statements such as these:
"I just believe that people should be more responsible before hand. Take precautions, or abstain."

Hopefully that at least helps you to understand why I am having so much difficulty following your arguments.

I say willing in the off chance that the woman carrying the child decides that they want the child. In a few cases the man wants the child and the woman does not. I tend to believe that it should be a mutual agreement between both parties as to whether to keep the child or not, but there are enough exceptions as to make this non-viable(meaning that it is ultimately the woman's body and therefore she has the final say). I would tend to agree.

In my earlier statements that you quoted, it had to do with acceptng the responsibility SHOULD the woman decide to keep the child, however I can see how it could be misinterpreted. I was just getting fed up with your use of ONLY for procreation comments.Not sure how I could have commented on post #148 before you made it, but ok.

I would consider this to be an intentional mischaracterization: Well said! Unfortunately, it does not appear that Tommycat agrees. If you get pregnant, you should have a baby. End of discussion.Again, outside the caveat that I've already acknowledged and apologized for, I wouldn't classify this as mischaracterization at all. It appears to be exactly what you are promoting, whether you've followed your own arguments to their natural conclusions or not. That's neither my fault, nor my doing.

1) People that have sex can get pregnant.
2) People should not have sex unless they are willing to take personal responsibility for their actions (i.e. have a baby, so far as I've been able to determine, despite multiple requests for you to clarify).
3) Therefore, people should not have sex unless they are trying for a baby (since sex can result in a baby, no matter what).

You stop at #2. The logical output of the argument doesn't.

And your characterization of my statement regarding something happening to my daughter, I did not say rape.You're right, you didn't. Those things I wrote there - they're called questions. You get to answer them how ever you'd like. For instance: "No, you aren't understanding my argument correctly. My argument was...". I hope the helps.

There's a good reason for that. MAYBE it could be that rape is not the only thing that could happen. The only place where I did specify rape is later, but then I did not say that should be the only way to get an abortion. In a perfect world you could choose whether you get pregnant from accidental insemination(aka condom breakage), but as I said the world ain't perfect. Right.

Again, to clarify my position which you asked for and began this long tangent. I feel that if you are willing to have intercourse, you should take responsibility for that action. That responsibility could extend to paying for an abortion and giving support to the woman, or should the woman decide to keep the child, be willing to pay for that child and not attempt to pressure the woman into an abortion. IF you are not willing to take either of those actions for the woman, do not have sex with her. Maybe this is the last time I have to say this, but I fear that somehow it will be twisted yet again.If you aren't against abortion (as you state here), then I have to wonder what your contention has been these last 3 pages? Wouldn't abortion as you used it here, be using it to fix an "oops"? Because you state quite plainly in one of your very first posts that your problem with abortion is people using it to fix "oopses".

Maybe your views have changed as you've debated the subject. That's happened to me more than once. Nothing wrong with saying "Oh wow, looks like my views have changed". On the hand, trying to paint someone else as asshat for pointing out that your arguments don't jive anymore is another thing entirely.

FWIW, I agree with everything you say here. If you get a woman pregnant you need to "man up" and take responsibility (previously ambiguous) by offering support through the abortion, or the decision to adopt, or in some cases keep the baby. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with the abortion (in the context of topic), but I agree with you nonetheless.

And nowhere did I say you should ONLY have sex to have a baby. You made that up. You produced that statement. NOT me. Where did I say you should only have sex to have a baby?As I have already stated multiple times, it's the logical conclusion to your argument. This is like mixing a bunch of ingredients in bowl, smoothing them out into a pan, putting the pan into a pre-heated oven and then proclaiming "I DIDN'T MAKE ANY CAKES!" 30 minutes later. The premises are your's sir, don't begrudge me pointing out the conclusion.

Why would you move a foul pole?To get to the other side! :D

Tommycat
12-24-2007, 07:03 AM
I'm not sure how that definitions jives with statements such as these:
"I just believe that people should be more responsible before hand. Take precautions, or abstain."
perhaps you can point out where it does not? To me it makes perfect sense, and as such I cannot explain to your satisfaction the explanation of your confusion. Lets see, I would like people not to have as many abortions. That entails being proactive and taking as many precautions as possible.

Not sure how I could have commented on post #148 before you made it, but ok.
The general and continual use of your "logical conclusion" was the comment I was talking about.

Again, outside the caveat that I've already acknowledged and apologized for, I wouldn't classify this as mischaracterization at all. It appears to be exactly what you are promoting, whether you've followed your own arguments to their natural conclusions or not. That's neither my fault, nor my doing.

1) People that have sex can get pregnant.
2) People should not have sex unless they are willing to take personal responsibility for their actions (i.e. have a baby, so far as I've been able to determine, despite multiple requests for you to clarify).
3) Therefore, people should not have sex unless they are trying for a baby (since sex can result in a baby, no matter what).

You added that step. It is not a logical step. It is your characterization of a separate step. It would be like saying that people should only have sex to get an STD. People should only be a musician to be screwed by a club owner. Being willing to take the risk does not mean that you should do it for that purpose.

You stop at #2. The logical output of the argument doesn't.
It does not unless the ONLY output is that. You also miss that the output can lead to physical enjoyment without producing a child. Yes there is risk, but if you take enough precautions ahead of time, that risk is reduced to very little.

You're right, you didn't. Those things I wrote there - they're called questions. You get to answer them how ever you'd like. For instance: "No, you aren't understanding my argument correctly. My argument was...". I hope the helps.
A very hostile and sarchastic question.

If you aren't against abortion (as you state here), then I have to wonder what your contention has been these last 3 pages? Wouldn't abortion as you used it here, be using it to fix an "oops"? Because you state quite plainly in one of your very first posts that your problem with abortion is people using it to fix "oopses".
My purpose had been defending my honor as you called me a hypocrite. I was explaining for 3 pages, that my views do not conflict. As for the statement of fixing "oopses", If I said so, then I mis-stated, My problem would be in using abortion as a replacement for safer sex practices.

Maybe your views have changed as you've debated the subject. That's happened to me more than once. Nothing wrong with saying "Oh wow, looks like my views have changed". On the hand, trying to paint someone else as asshat for pointing out that your arguments don't jive anymore is another thing entirely.
No, but maybe my ability to more clearly define it has, because some people call me a hypocrite because of what they perceive as inconsistencies.

FWIW, I agree with everything you say here. If you get a woman pregnant you need to "man up" and take responsibility (previously ambiguous) by offering support through the abortion, or the decision to adopt, or in some cases keep the baby. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with the abortion (in the context of topic), but I agree with you nonetheless.
I don't get it, You ask for clarification, I don't provide it, you get upset and continue demanding clarification of what I mean, then I provide that clarification, and now you are asking relevance? It was an answer to your request for clarification of my position.

As I have already stated multiple times, it's the logical conclusion to your argument. This is like mixing a bunch of ingredients in bowl, smoothing them out into a pan, putting the pan into a pre-heated oven and then proclaiming "I DIDN'T MAKE ANY CAKES!" 30 minutes later. The premises are your's sir, don't begrudge me pointing out the conclusion.
No, it is a logical fallacy. A slippery slope if you will. It is only the logical conclusion if you would agree that people should only have sex to get an STD. It is not the only logical conclusion, just the one you want to draw to make the statement appear false.

Achilles
12-24-2007, 02:09 PM
perhaps you can point out where it does not? To me it makes perfect sense, and as such I cannot explain to your satisfaction the explanation of your confusion. Lets see, I would like people not to have as many abortions. That entails being proactive and taking as many precautions as possible.
You continually use the term "take responsibility" (or some derivative).
I ask you to operationally define the term.
You offer a definition that focuses entirely upon post-coital behavior.
Therefore usage of term in pre-coital context (like the part I quoted) + definition of term in post-coital context = me very confused about what it is you mean to say.
I hope that helps.

The general and continual use of your "logical conclusion" was the comment I was talking about.No, I got that. I still don't get how you were frustrated by it before I said it.

See, you said something. I commented on it. You're now trying to say that your saying it was a response to my commenting on it. I'm pretty sure that violates some sort of physical law regarding the arrow of time, etc.

You added that step. It is not a logical step. It is your characterization of a separate step.Yes, sir, I absolutely did. You provided the premises. I provided the conclusion. You are more than welcome to present arguments for how the conclusion is wrong, but you cannot claim that it is a strawman (or you could simply admit that the 2nd premise is flawed, then the conclusion won't apply any longer).

More on deductive reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning), if you need help.

It would be like saying that people should only have sex to get an STD. Indeed it would!

People should only be a musician to be screwed by a club owner. Being willing to take the risk does not mean that you should do it for that purpose.It certainly is a colorful analogy, but I'm not sure how well it applies.

It does not unless the ONLY output is that. You also miss that the output can lead to physical enjoyment without producing a child. Yes there is risk, but if you take enough precautions ahead of time, that risk is reduced to very little. But, sir, your comment was:
"Nope, Don't have sex unless you are WILLING to have a child". You appear to be contradicting yourself. Again, maybe your views have changed.

A very hostile and sarchastic question. Niether question was hostile or sarcastic.

My purpose had been defending my honor as you called me a hypocrite. I was explaining for 3 pages, that my views do not conflict. As for the statement of fixing "oopses", If I said so, then I mis-stated, My problem would be in using abortion as a replacement for safer sex practices.Thank you for clarifying.

No, but maybe my ability to more clearly define it has, because some people call me a hypocrite because of what they perceive as inconsistencies. I don't create the inconsistencies, sir. I merely point them out. At every opportunity I have pointed out the parts that don't make sense and you have been invited to show me how I am misunderstanding you. If you have opted to go on the defensive and stubbornly circle the wagons around your aruguments rather than have an open and honest dialog, then that is your right, but also your decision.

I don't get it, You ask for clarification, I don't provide it, you get upset and continue demanding clarification of what I mean, then I provide that clarification, and now you are asking relevance? It was an answer to your request for clarification of my position. I question the relevance because your clarification seems to have almost nothing to do with the topic of abortion. If this is truly what you mean by "personal responsibility" then I cannot fathom how it even came up in conversation in the first place.

"In essence I kinda agree with web rider in that it is about personal responsibility. If you don't want kids, don't do the deed." (Post #125)
"I don't think I've been hypocritical in my statements regarding personal responsibility. I do agree that if you are willing to do the deed, you should be willing to face up to it." (Post #148)
"If you aren't willing to accept responsibility for your actions don't do it." (Post #158)
"I have said and will continue to say that if you have sex then you should be prepared for the possibility of a child. IF you are not willing to accept that responsibility(in the event that it occurs) then keep it zipped." (Post #160)
"You may not want it [pregnancy], but if you do it you have to accept responsibility for your actions." (Post #160)

But now you say, "personal responsibility" is about being a supportive partner after a pregnancy has occurred. Hopefully you can see how this would be confusing for me.

No, it is a logical fallacy.You're more than welcome to plead your case.

A slippery slope if you will. Um, no. Slippery slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) doesn't apply here.

It is only the logical conclusion if you would agree that people should only have sex to get an STD. That is the logical conclusion if you change "pregnancy" to "STD" in your premise. Hopefully you can see why I question the validity of the argument.

It is not the only logical conclusion, just the one you want to draw to make the statement appear false.You're more than welcome to provide your own conclusion to the argument. Here are the premises again for your convenience:

(Premise 1) People that have sex can get pregnant.
(Premise 2) People should not have sex unless they are willing to take personal responsibility for impregnation by having the child (See posts 125, 148, 158, and 160)
(Conclusion) ?

I look forward to reading your response.

Tommycat
12-24-2007, 10:20 PM
I'm not going to continue the long post BS as it is simply annoying at this point.

Your conclusion assumes that all inseminations result in pregnancy. It assumes that the woman is ovulating. It assumes all sex results in insemination. It also assumes contraceptive failure(the use of which invalidates the conclusion itself). It assumes that both parties are capable of producing a child. That's a lot of assumptions that are not outlined in your (characterization of my) premises.

Again, your conclusion is false as evidenced by my own life. I live it. I enjoy it. I make money on it as well.

Always take responsibility before, to prevent the need for the after. Should the after come anyway, take responsibility for that as well whatever the outcome. If you are not willing to accept responsibility for the outcome whatever that may be then don't even engage in the act until you are willing to take the risk. I really don't see how that fails to agree with what I said at first. Take precautions, or abstain. Do you believe that people should not take precautions or abstain to lower the number of abortions?

Achilles
12-25-2007, 12:41 AM
I'm not going to continue the long post BS as it is simply annoying at this point. But then you post anyway.

Your conclusion assumes that all inseminations result in pregnancy. No, sir, it doesn't. Your premise clearly states that sex can result in pregnancy. You were also quite emphatic that no method of contraception is 100% effective and that the only way to completely abstain from intercourse.

It assumes that the woman is ovulating. No sir it doesn't. My conclusion has nothing to do with ovulation. If you have suddenly noticed holes in your premises, you're more than welcome to retract them or modify them as you see fit.

It assumes all sex results in insemination. No, sir, it doesn't. Your very first premise is that all sex can result in pregnancy. The problem is with your premise, sir, not my conclusion.

It also assumes contraceptive failure(the use of which invalidates the conclusion itself). Again, as you yourself have pointed out, no method of contraception is 100% effective. This also falls under the first premise.

It assumes that both parties are capable of producing a child. Again, sir, problem with the first premise.

That's a lot of assumptions that are not outlined in your (characterization of my) premises. Considering that I'm quoting you, I'm not sure how it's a characterization.

Again, your conclusion is false as evidenced by my own life. I live it. I enjoy it. I make money on it as well. Huh?

Always take responsibility before, to prevent the need for the after. Should the after come anyway, take responsibility for that as well whatever the outcome. How crude.

If you are not willing to accept responsibility for the outcome whatever that may be then don't even engage in the act until you are willing to take the risk. I guess this is the part where I have to continue guessing at what you mean by "take responsibility".

I really don't see how that fails to agree with what I said at first. Take precautions, or abstain. And I repeat my earlier question:

If you take precautions and get pregnant anyways? If you are for abortion, then I don't understand why we are having this discussion. It seems the only reason we would have to disagree is if you do not support abortion.

Do you believe that people should not take precautions or abstain to lower the number of abortions?I believe that people should take precautions and/or abstain for lots of different reasons. I think "to prevent abortions" is pretty low on the list ("to prevent unwanted pregnancy" ranks significantly higher).

Tommycat
12-25-2007, 01:07 AM
No, my statements do not equal your conclusion unless you add those assumptions. Therefore your conclusion is false.

Achilles
12-25-2007, 02:06 AM
Your premises do not account for those assumptions, therefore the conclusion is correct based on the premises provided. Please see the deductive reasoning link that I provided earlier. Thanks!

Tommycat
12-25-2007, 02:15 AM
I'm not in the habit of attempting to prove a negative, You'll have to show how exactly my statements force that and only that conclusion. Otherwise your conclusion is false. Thanks.

Achilles
12-25-2007, 05:19 AM
You don't have to, sir. You only have to provide another conclusion which satisfies the premises that you provided.

Here they are, for the third time:

(Premise 1) People that have sex can get pregnant.
(Premise 2) People should not have sex unless they are willing to take personal responsibility for impregnation by having the child (See posts 125, 148, 158, and 160)
(Conclusion) ?

Tommycat
12-25-2007, 05:37 AM
Fine, I thought I said it already, but

Conclusion, Have sex for the enjoyment of it despite the risk. Just be prepared for the outcome should it happen. I'm going on 8 years with better than 7 times a week, and no child. Never had the desire for another child either(I already have 2 thanks).

Your turn.

Achilles
12-25-2007, 05:42 AM
That conclusion does not satisfy the 2nd premise. The conclusion will need to satisfy both premises in order to be considered valid. As I have already stated, we can also modify or remove any premises that you would like at any time. I really do believe that I've said all that I can on the matter. Forcing me into situations where I have to repeat myself will not move the conversation forward. Thanks for your response.

Tommycat
12-25-2007, 06:12 AM
No, both premises do not need to be filled. That is YOUR additional requirement. I have never made the distinction that both need be used in conjunction, only you are stating that. Premise 1 is not a definite as it does not occur all the time, and therefore requires assumptions for premise 2 to be required at all times.

You only need be prepared for that eventuality. Take precautions before, to lower your risk, but always know there is risk, and make preparations for that risk... Kinda like going on a long trip. Enjoy the ride, but you had better have taken precautions like spare water, tools and a spare tire just in case. Its really quite simple, and you have blown it far out of proportion.

Achilles
12-25-2007, 06:29 AM
No, both premises do not need to be filled. That is YOUR additional requirement. Actually, it has to do with that deductive reasoning thing I keep directing you to.

I have never made the distinction that both need be used in conjunction, only you are stating that. Right, because that's how deductive reasoning works. Hand-waving will not make it magically go away.

Premise 1 is not a definite as it does not occur all the time, So you're changing your stance on premise 1. Great. Now that we've acknowledged that, we no longer need to worry about the conclusion.

and therefore requires assumptions for premise 2 to be required at all times. I'll remind you that it was your argument, sir. *shrugs*

You only need be prepared for that eventuality. Take precautions before, to lower your risk, but always know there is risk, and make preparations for that risk... Kinda like going on a long trip. Enjoy the ride, but you had better have taken precautions like spare water, tools and a spare tire just in case. Its really quite simple, and you have blown it far out of proportion.Are we dropping the first premise or not?

Tommycat
12-25-2007, 06:36 AM
So you're changing your stance on premise 1. Great. Now that we've acknowledged that, we no longer need to worry about the conclusion.

Are we dropping the first premise or not?
Um, I never said that the first premise was a definite. There is always a chance, but not always. Can does not mean that it does. not all sexual encounters will produce a pregnancy. Therefore it is not a definite. They all have a chance, but that chance can be significantly reduced. I think I've been pretty clear on that.

Achilles
12-25-2007, 06:53 AM
Um, I never said that the first premise was a definite. Of course you did.

"Any time you have intercourse you should be ready for the off chance that such an occurance [pregnancy] will happen." (Post #154)

plus multiple variants of "I have said and will continue to say that if you have sex then you should be prepared for the possibility of a child." which seems to be in some sort of gray area between premise 1 and premise 2.

There is always a chance, but not always.:eyeraise: I hope that it's really late and that I'm just seeing things.

(emphasis mine for those watching at home).

Can does not mean that it does. Right, I believe I've acknowledged that previously by italicizing "can" in my summaries.

not all sexual encounters will produce a pregnancy. Thank goodness! :)

Therefore it is not a definite. They all have a chance, but that chance can be significantly reduced. I think I've been pretty clear on that.I'm sure you have, but I don't know what that has to do with a) the matter at hand or b) the topic of abortion.

Tommycat
12-25-2007, 07:21 AM
Sorry, its late, There is always a chance, but not always a result.

Perhaps my wording was not precise enough for you.

Because premise 1 is not definitive in its outcome, that means that premise 2 only comes into play should several assumptions be made about premise 1.

Quit asking relevance on things you asked for clarification on.

Achilles
12-25-2007, 02:07 PM
Because premise 1 is not definitive in its outcome, that means that premise 2 only comes into play should several assumptions be made about premise 1. Premise 1 is yours. You can change it if you'd like or renounce it altogether, but you can't rearrange the rules of deductive reasoning to fit your liking. Thanks.

Quit asking relevance on things you asked for clarification on.I can only question relevance on points that aren't clear? Anything "clear" gets to be relevant?

Jae Onasi
12-25-2007, 02:17 PM
Arguing about arguments is off-topic for this thread. Please return to the topic. Thanks.

Tommycat
12-25-2007, 09:49 PM
Thanks Jae for the reminder.

Perhaps I need to redefine my position and make it as clear as possible.
Disclaimer: For argument's sake lets ignore the 3 pages of back and forth BS and assume that since there is confusion, any discrepancies between this and prior statements made by me are either invalidated, corrected, or whatever floats your boat. Any references to prior statements should be ignored as if it disagrees with the current one, this post should be given preference.

Because I personally find abortion distasteful, and would prefer to see the number of abortions reduced, I believe that people should take preventative measures before engaging in sexual activity so as to lessen the need for abortion. I feel that using abortion as a form of birth control in lieu of protection instead of as a last resort for when preventative measures have failed is the wrong way to go about it considering both my moral standpoint and also for medical reasons(risk of infection causing other health risks). Personal responsibility beforehand involves not only contraceptive use, but also discussion with the significant other on what should happen should the contraceptives fail(be cause all methods have a fail point, no matter how slim that margin is), and preparations for the agreed apon actions, which may extend to but are not limited to preparations to either keeping the child, adoption, or having enough cash set aside for the abortion. Personal responsibilities after the pregnancy has been identified can extend to, but not limited to, financial support, emotional support, and moral support. If a person is unable to make that kind of commitment and that level of maturity, they should abstain or seek avenues of being intimate without the possibility of insemination(It is very possible, and I'm being as clean here as possible).

I also believe that the perception of abortion as a method of birth control in lieu of pregnancy prevention, has caused many more unexpected children to be born because personal responsibility(as described above) was not taken before and the person, was in some manner unable to get an abortion(be it religious, family, medical, monetary etc).

I hope that is clear enough. Any and all questions regarding segments which do not specifically relate to the topic of abortion will be labeled as off topic and ignored unless sent via PM. I've spent 3 pages talking off topic, and will not do so any more.

Achilles
12-26-2007, 12:13 AM
Great post! After all these weeks, it's quite nice to see your perspectives laid out with consistency and in one message.

A couple of questions:
Because I personally find abortion distasteful, and would prefer to see the number of abortions reduced, I believe that people should take preventative measures before engaging in sexual activity so as to lessen the need for abortion.Do you believe in the promotion of safe sex for any other reason, such as protection from STDs, precaution against unwanted pregnancy, etc. I acknowledge that since safe sex has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, a response might draw us further off topic once more, but since you introduced the matter I was hoping you'd be willing to clarify. Thanks in advance.

I feel that using abortion as a form of birth control in lieu of protection instead of as a last resort for when preventative measures have failed is the wrong way to go about it considering both my moral standpoint and also for medical reasons(risk of infection causing other health risks). I was wondering if you had any data that showed what percentage of abortions performed were actually related to this premise ("retro-active birth control" for want of a better term).

Also, what about abortion for other reasons (i.e. impregnation via rape and/or incest, mother's health at stake, mother's life at stake, gross deformities in the fetus, etc)? Since your redefining post only seems to tackle the topic of abortion as it relates to one very narrow set of conditions, I was hoping you'd be willing to expand upon the others as well.

Personal responsibility beforehand involves not only contraceptive use, but also discussion with the significant other on what should happen should the contraceptives fail(be cause all methods have a fail point, no matter how slim that margin is), and preparations for the agreed apon actions, which may extend to but are not limited to preparations to either keeping the child, adoption, or having enough cash set aside for the abortion. Personal responsibilities after the pregnancy has been identified can extend to, but not limited to, financial support, emotional support, and moral support. If a person is unable to make that kind of commitment and that level of maturity, they should abstain or seek avenues of being intimate without the possibility of insemination(It is very possible, and I'm being as clean here as possible). I think that these are certainly values worth aspiring toward! I wonder how they would apply toward cases of rape or incest. It doesn't seem to me that sex offender's first priority is going to be making some form of "personal responsibility commitment".

I also believe that the perception of abortion as a method of birth control in lieu of pregnancy prevention, has caused many more unexpected children to be born because personal responsibility(as described above) was not taken before and the person, was in some manner unable to get an abortion(be it religious, family, medical, monetary etc). Lastly, I was hoping you would be willing to clarify this statement. You appear to be saying that the perception of abortion as a method of birth control leads to "unexpected" (woman gives birth without being aware that she was pregnant?) children because the woman can't get an abortion. So abortion causes extra babies because mothers can't get abortions? I'm really struggling to follow here, so any clarification you can offer would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Tommycat
12-26-2007, 12:39 AM
Do you believe in the promotion of safe sex for any other reason, such as protection from STDs, precaution against unwanted pregnancy, etc. I acknowledge that since safe sex has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, a response might draw us further off topic once more, but since you introduced the matter I was hoping you'd be willing to clarify. Thanks in advance.
You are right, It is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. PM me if you need an answer.

I was wondering if you had any data that showed what percentage of abortions performed were actually related to this premise ("retro-active birth control" for want of a better term).
Abortion clinics do not keep these types of statistics on hand. Most of what I have is anecdotal evidence.

Also, what about abortion for other reasons (i.e. impregnation via rape and/or incest, mother's health at stake, mother's life at stake, gross deformities in the fetus, etc)? Since your redefining post only seems to tackle the topic of abortion as it relates to one very narrow set of conditions, I was hoping you'd be willing to expand upon the others as well.
Irrelevant to my position, as my preference is to reduce the number of abortions, not ban it out right.

I think that these are certainly values worth aspiring toward! I wonder how they would apply toward cases of rape or incest. It doesn't seem to me that sex offender's first priority is going to be making some form of "personal responsibility commitment".
Also irrelevant to my position. There was no failure on the part of the victim of a crime.

Lastly, I was hoping you would be willing to clarify this statement. You appear to be saying that the perception of abortion as a method of birth control leads to "unexpected" (woman gives birth without being aware that she was pregnant?) children because the woman can't get an abortion. So abortion causes extra babies because mothers can't get abortions? I'm really struggling to follow here, so any clarification you can offer would be greatly appreciated.
Numbers are irrelevant at this point. Persons being willing to fore go the proper due diligence beforehand leads to a child that they were not prepared for(aka unexpected). Abortion causes people to forgo the proper steps before the sexual act, because they feel more secure that there will not be a child. I've heard it from some friends of my son that said simply "Well if she gets pregnant we'll just get an abortion." which I feel sets them up for that eventuality that parental pressure, religious views, monetary issues or even the chance that the future mother would prevent an abortion. Hence extra children from people feeling more comfortable in not taking precautions.