First  Prev  173  174  175  176  177  178  179  180  181  182  183  184  185  Next  Last
Post Reply Abortion
21561 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Northern California
Offline
Posted 2/5/13

Canute wrote:

Abortion is a horrible issue because it's murder. It's not like one's drowning a kitten or puppy, but killing a human being. (If the thought of drowning a kitten disturbs you, one needs to ask oneself why abortion does not.) Then, the issue of abortion raises the question of whether one believes the axiom "It is never right to kill the innocent or the righteous." And who can be more innocent than a child that has not yet been born? No one. So, if the axiom stands, then unborn children cannot be killed.

Which brings one to the topic of whether an unborn baby is a person. Many people seem to debate this issue, but one cannot deny that the baby is human (having 46 chromosomes in its DNA and deriving from human parents). The question revolves around whether the baby can lead a fully human life at this stage of development, but the problem with saying that an unborn baby's inability to lead a fully human life makes it subhuman is that there are many people who seem deficient in this respect; however, we would not condone them being killed merely because of their handicap: infants, children, physically handicapped, mentally handicapped, the elderly, the chronically ill, etc. So, the fact that they are presently unable to live a fully human life does not seem to be sufficient reason to kill them.

Then, some people will say things like, "Well, if the unwanted child is not aborted and allowed to live either with its mother, with foster parents, or in an orphanage, it will lead a life of suffering or somehow turn rotten and become a burden on society. So, it is much better to kill them at this stage." People arguing such things must first admit that they are dealing in probabilities, not certainties. The child's life could turn out to be the reverse for all you know! Even if the child suffers, many consider a life of suffering preferable to death. Someone who says that the child would be better off dead is either 1) indifferent; 2) foisting their gutless mentality on someone else; or 3) not considering that they themselves would likely prefer a chance at life and happiness rather than none at all. Just because someone cannot give their opinion concerning whether or not they wish to live or not does not mean that one has the right to make it for them in the negative--especially when human nature tends towards survival in most cases, no matter how painful.

So, abortion is murder, which all good people must oppose. Murder is evil and in no way ought one support or do evil. Therefore, we must rid our country of it.

There's my succinct argument. Please tell me if I'm wrong.


As I have stated previously, I am not personally in favor of abortion being used in place of birth control. I am also pro-choice, because I do not feel that personal stance should be forced upon everyone else. I've not been in a situation where someone I love has needed an abortion, but if such a difficult situation were to occur, I would at least want that option available to us.

I don't see your stance in cases of ectopic pregnancy, or other cases in which the life of the mother is legitimately threatened. Do you also oppose abortion in these cases? I ask for clarification, since you state that it must be opposed. If you legally oppose it in these cases, you are also then condemning mothers to death, under the auspices of legislation such as the so-called "Personhood" amendment.

I am not assuming the extent of your stance, here; please bear that in mind. I know there are pro-choice people who personally oppose abortion, but would not want to take the choice away from everyone, and I can certainly respect that position. And there are the anti-choice people - those who don't want anyone to have the option, under any circumstances. I find them to be in the minority, and I cannot respect their position.

I for one would not want to watch the woman I love die from an ectopic pregnancy, just because some people decided that a fetus that has a zero percent chance of surviving to term, is by some religious measurement she may not even believe in, worth more than her life. Admittedly, it's those anti-choice people I take the greatest issue with in these debates. I have personally heard people callously argue, to my face, that "If a woman dies from an ectopic pregnancy, that's just God's will." In this case, the anti-choice person with whom I was speaking at the time saw nothing morally wrong with the mother dying, just so her own morals could remain satisfied. Incidents like these have further reinforced my opposition to those who are anti-choice.

As I mentioned in other posts on this topic, some of the people who oppose abortion wouldn't consider lifting a finger to help these children, and I have also personally heard those same children being demonized as "welfare babies, permanently attached to the public teat". Fine, I acknowledge the people making those statements do not speak for everyone on the pro-choice side of this debate.... But I find this attitude suggests that they only care about them until they're born, and then they're either someone else's problem to turn a blind eye to; or worse, being thought of as a social problem, as though they never should have been born.
Posted 2/5/13 , edited 2/5/13

Canute wrote:

Abortion is a horrible issue because it's murder. It's not like one's drowning a kitten or puppy, but killing a human being. (If the thought of drowning a kitten disturbs you, one needs to ask oneself why abortion does not.) Then, the issue of abortion raises the question of whether one believes the axiom "It is never right to kill the innocent or the righteous." And who can be more innocent than a child that has not yet been born? No one. So, if the axiom stands, then unborn children cannot be killed.

Which brings one to the topic of whether an unborn baby is a person. Many people seem to debate this issue, but one cannot deny that the baby is human (having 46 chromosomes in its DNA and deriving from human parents). The question revolves around whether the baby can lead a fully human life at this stage of development, but the problem with saying that an unborn baby's inability to lead a fully human life makes it subhuman is that there are many people who seem deficient in this respect; however, we would not condone them being killed merely because of their handicap: infants, children, physically handicapped, mentally handicapped, the elderly, the chronically ill, etc. So, the fact that they are presently unable to live a fully human life does not seem to be sufficient reason to kill them.

Then, some people will say things like, "Well, if the unwanted child is not aborted and allowed to live either with its mother, with foster parents, or in an orphanage, it will lead a life of suffering or somehow turn rotten and become a burden on society. So, it is much better to kill them at this stage." People arguing such things must first admit that they are dealing in probabilities, not certainties. The child's life could turn out to be the reverse for all you know! Even if the child suffers, many consider a life of suffering preferable to death. Someone who says that the child would be better off dead is either 1) indifferent; 2) foisting their gutless mentality on someone else; or 3) not considering that they themselves would likely prefer a chance at life and happiness rather than none at all. Just because someone cannot give their opinion concerning whether or not they wish to live or not does not mean that one has the right to make it for them in the negative--especially when human nature tends towards survival in most cases, no matter how painful.

So, abortion is murder, which all good people must oppose. Murder is evil and in no way ought one support or do evil. Therefore, we must rid our country of it.

There's my succinct argument. Please tell me if I'm wrong.



No, women have the right to choose and no matter what you believe, or what sky wizard you hail to will change this. If you "rid the country" of abortion, women will just seek out dangerous and deadly back-alley abortions. I don't see you adopting every orphan on the planet. You people only care about the bundle of cells until it's born, then it's not your problem and it's the parents fault right?

Also, yes you are wrong because your argument of "I don't like something that people do, IT SHOULD BE BANNED!" is completely and utterly inane and moronic for the year 2013.

Sorry.
4582 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / ireland
Offline
Posted 2/5/13

Canute wrote:

Abortion is a horrible issue because it's murder. It's not like one's drowning a kitten or puppy, but killing a human being. (If the thought of drowning a kitten disturbs you, one needs to ask oneself why abortion does not.) Then, the issue of abortion raises the question of whether one believes the axiom "It is never right to kill the innocent or the righteous." And who can be more innocent than a child that has not yet been born? No one. So, if the axiom stands, then unborn children cannot be killed.

Which brings one to the topic of whether an unborn baby is a person. Many people seem to debate this issue, but one cannot deny that the baby is human (having 46 chromosomes in its DNA and deriving from human parents). The question revolves around whether the baby can lead a fully human life at this stage of development, but the problem with saying that an unborn baby's inability to lead a fully human life makes it subhuman is that there are many people who seem deficient in this respect; however, we would not condone them being killed merely because of their handicap: infants, children, physically handicapped, mentally handicapped, the elderly, the chronically ill, etc. So, the fact that they are presently unable to live a fully human life does not seem to be sufficient reason to kill them.

Then, some people will say things like, "Well, if the unwanted child is not aborted and allowed to live either with its mother, with foster parents, or in an orphanage, it will lead a life of suffering or somehow turn rotten and become a burden on society. So, it is much better to kill them at this stage." People arguing such things must first admit that they are dealing in probabilities, not certainties. The child's life could turn out to be the reverse for all you know! Even if the child suffers, many consider a life of suffering preferable to death. Someone who says that the child would be better off dead is either 1) indifferent; 2) foisting their gutless mentality on someone else; or 3) not considering that they themselves would likely prefer a chance at life and happiness rather than none at all. Just because someone cannot give their opinion concerning whether or not they wish to live or not does not mean that one has the right to make it for them in the negative--especially when human nature tends towards survival in most cases, no matter how painful.

So, abortion is murder, which all good people must oppose. Murder is evil and in no way ought one support or do evil. Therefore, we must rid our country of it.

There's my succinct argument. Please tell me if I'm wrong.


I have a lot of problems with this but I'll try to remain civil.

A foetus is not an 'unborn child' anymore than a 5 year old is an ungrown adult. It's ridiculous emotive language that obscures the issue.

It is not capable of being 'innocent' anymore than it is capable of being 'guilty'. It's just a foetus, that the woman's body may decide to terminate at any time through a miscarraige. No-one has the right to use another' body without permission, so why should a foetus get special treatment?

The difference between aborting a foetus and murdering the already born people is that the foetus feels nothing. It understands nothing. It thinks nothing. It feels no pain. It is depending on another persons body to keep it alive, using their nutrients, disrupting their life, costing them money(health check-ups, birth and time off work cost money) and quite often putting them in danger (aside from the agony of child-birth, there are many other horrible things that can occur during pregnancy that I don't have time to go into here). A sentient person who is not living off and inside another person is a different issue.

Sure, the child may grow up to do something grand, but this is less likely than it growing up to be an utter scumbag, especially as it won't have the best start in life. Too many people treat adoption like picking up a puppy from a pound. And if you aren't a perfect little white baby your chances of being adopted plummet even further. I don't know about the US or elsewhere but in Ireland alone there are about 5000 children in care. Where are all these loving couples anxious to adopt? They don't exist or these places would empty. 4000+ Irish women have an abortion (abroad or DIY) every year (and it is totally illegal here, even in cases of rape). Imagine if they all were born and sent into care homes. The country couldn't cope. Quality of life is important.

You will NEVER EVER rid the world of abortion. You only make it unsafe.Ireland is an example of that. I'd rather a female family member or friend of mine aborted some foetus safely in a clinic than die trying to do it themselves.

It so easy to say 'think of the babies!' when you aren't the one whose pregnant. When you aren't the one who will be responsible for putting food on their plates or a roof over their heads. When you aren't the one who has to give your career or schooling. There are many 'pro-life' women who have abortions when they find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy (The only moral abortion is MY abortion' problem)

Pregnancy is a difficult, dangerous life-changing thing. You cannot force someone who is not ready to bear a child to go through with it, treating them as an incubator. That is a vile evil in my eyes.

As long as women have to carry a new life in their own body, it is up to them to decide based on their own situation. The fact that some person who isn't going through what they're going through thinks it is 'murder' most likely means bugger all.






Canute 
28248 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 2/5/13
In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, it would be senseless to say that the woman should have the child if an unhealthy pregnancy will likely lead to the mother dying. Whatever operation which would prevent the mother's death ought to take place. People who say otherwise must be quite rare, I should like to think.

Equally senseless would be caring enough to prevent an abortion, but then not care about the welfare of the child afterwards. Of course, it is preferable not to have the government involved in charitable activities. One would prefer that orphanages and programs run by churches and other non-profit organizations would do this. The main problem I have heard of with "welfare babies" is that certain single mothers have children so that their welfare check may increase.

Since every child that comes to us is a gift from God, each ought to be given the chance of having the best upbringing possible. And since taking of an innocent human life is murder, everyone ought to be prohibited by law from abortion--with the exception of cases where the mother's life is in danger.

Contraception should really be banned too. When contraception fails to work properly, people often feel like they need to recourse to abortion. A friend of mine said that the introduction of contraception in this country is what led to abortions becoming socially acceptable. After all, people felt legalizing abortion was necessary because of all the back alley abortions (a very unsafe procedure) taking place. A proper medical abortion was much more humane. Without contraception, people would feel that sex has certain foreseeable consequences, and more people would avoid premarital sex, which in turn leads to fewer unwanted pregnancies.
Canute 
28248 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 2/5/13
Ah, well, simply saying that anything I don't like should be banned simply out of personal preference will not only be "utterly inane and moronic for the year 2013" but also next year and likely remain so until my dying day. However, certain moral issues do not change: if something is wrong in 3000 B.C., it will be just as wrong in 1000 B.C., 70 A.D., 1066, or 2013. For example, theft, murder, adultery, torture, and a host of other crimes will never become acceptable no matter how long history rolls on. However, it seems that abortion could be a moral evil 1962 and prior, but not so in the present day. Can it really be true that the moral culpability of abortion changed with the Supreme Court's decision?

Let's take another issue. Have you ever seen No Country for Old Men? One scene shows the hero reminiscing about a conversation he had on a train with a woman who expressed the desire that her daughter has the same right to abort her children when her daughter becomes an adult. To which the sheriff felt he had to respond: "Don't worry. When your children are your age, they'll probably be able to kill you too." Considering the horror with which abortion was held in 1950, the passage of a law to allow children to euthanize their elderly and sickly parents occurring in the coming years--especially with doctor assisted suicide being legal in some states--does not seem far-fetched. After all, such elderly people are a drain on their children's finances and freedom as well as having outlived their use to society. But, would the existence of such a law really make it right to kill off one's sickly, retired parents?

Well, it certainly is the parents' responsibility for the child's conception, but that hardly means that they shall be left without assistance! As I wrote in a post before, it would be senseless to cease caring for a child once it's born. And, we do have such programs for adoption and welfare in order to care for the child and their parents. Though, miserykitsune brings up some valid points with the difficulty of such practices, which I will deal with later once my classes are finished.

Thank you for your arguments. And I hope that you come to realize how much God loves you and suffered so that you could be with him forever in paradise. If He ever seems too far removed from your daily life and struggles, just lift your eyes to a crucifix and know that He suffered everything you have, are currently, and will in the future.
21561 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Northern California
Offline
Posted 2/5/13

Canute wrote:



I appreciate the clarification of your position. However, I disagree with some of the points you make.

Affordable and easily available contraception, as well as access to educational programs such as through Planned Parenthood, do help reduce the rates of unplanned pregnancies. Because without them, you have a situation as laid out by a former political science teacher of mine: "The rich get richer, and the poor get children." Despite the claims of some that "Abortion is 90% of what Planned Parenthood does" that number's nowhere near accurate, and much of what they do also includes low cost breast cancer screenings, STI testing, etc. The education and contraception they provide inherently helps reduce pregnancy rates, and by direct extension, the rate of abortions.

While it is factual that having a woman's tubes tied, having a hysterectomy, and abstinence are measures with a 100% rate of prevention of pregnancy, it is also factual that most women will not go through either of those procedures unless they have already had children. Bear in mind that married couples have abortions, too, among them anti-choice advocates like Rick Santorum and his wife.

Your friend has a very biased opinion, and opinions are not inherently factual. Without the availability of contraception, and education on how to use it properly, the number of children born outside of marriage will naturally increase, and the rates of STIs will also increase. This is the effect of mandating abstinence-only education...it doesn't work as advertised. Don't believe me? Teen pregnancy rates are higher in states that prescribe abstinence-only education, as compared to those that provide more comprehensive education. It should be noted that many states follow abstinence-plus education, which I am in agreement with.


"Because correlation does not imply causation, our analysis cannot demonstrate that emphasizing abstinence causes increased teen pregnancy. However, if abstinence education reduced teen pregnancy as proponents claim, the correlation would be in the opposite direction"

(Bold emphasis mine.)
Quoted from this article: http://news.uga.edu/releases/article/abstinence-only-education-does-not-lead-to-abstinent-behavior/

It is illogical to believe that if people are less informed about the consequences of sex, they will be less likely to engage in it; and when they do, they inherently will not be as safe as those who are educated. To illustrate how a lack of education regarding STIs and contraception (and reduced availability of said measures) only make both problems worse, you need look no further than the sabotaged effort to reduce the spread of HIV in Africa during Bush's presidency.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/30/usa.aids

While this is an opinion piece, the supporting facts are also presented: http://www.plan-uk.org/news/blogs/guest-bloggers/Condemning-condoms-George-Bush/

You should also realize that some women need to be prescribed birth control for medical issues completely unrelated to sex, much less family planning. For some women, it is prescribed to deal with a hormonal imbalance, among other non-sexual medical reasons. My best friend, in fact, had to do just that. She's happily married, but that was one of the things her doctor prescribed as part of her treatment. I won't go into the details of her specific medical situation out of respect for her privacy, but it was both urgent and necessary, and cases like hers are common enough. If it were banned, this treatment option would not have been available.

I can only conclude that banning contraceptive measures as you suggest, while mandating abstinence-only education, will only increase the rates of unwanted pregnancies and increase the spread of STIs, thus reducing the quality of life for many, and the evidence I presented supports this conclusion.

Regardless of where one stands on this topic, "The only moral abortion is my abortion" is worth reading. While it's seemingly easy to understand the pro-life/anti-choice side of the debate, this article provides some perspective on some of those who have also made the choice.

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
Posted 2/5/13 , edited 2/5/13

Canute wrote:

A
.



Your god doesn't exist, your views are so completely extremist that they quite literally infringe on modern women's healthcare, including needed medicines for medical issues, and the right to choose.

Just because you think you're right because of your invisible sky wizard, doesn't mean you are in anyway.

I've read, and re-read your posts and am still flabbergasted at the complete idiocy displayed in your comments.

>Contraception should really be banned too.

You know, before the widespread use of contraception as we know it now people have used numerous herbs, remedies, and other such means to prevent pregnancy whilst still being able to enjoy sexual intercourse. Women in ancient Egypt would use crocodile dung as a means to prevent pregnancy. Before condoms, and the pill women frequently died from botched abortions, and "back alley abortions". Girls would be sent off to "private schools" until they gave birth, and the child would then be either given up for adoption or the mid-wife would smother it. It was a very medieval time for women's healthcare, and such.

I think abortion is a woman's choice, one that silly religious beliefs should have no bearing over. I think that contraceptive methods and pregnancy prevention should be taught more openly, and people should be educated more on how to completely avoid pregnancy thus lowering the amount of abortions that a society would preform.

If you want 0 tolerance for abortion, and theocratic rule please go move to the Middle-east because that's exactly how it is there. Stop attempting to infringe my and mine with your stupid "faith".

In fact, due to more open education the abortion numbers are ALREADY DROPPING! (Surprise!! it's because people are listening to science instead of the sky fairy!)


>Since every child that comes to us is a gift from God.

I would like empirical and independent peer-reviewed studies that conclude in the existance of a god for you to make this claim.


Your comments are those of someone who sounds brainwashed by religion. I assume that you also complain about "welfare babies" as well.








(Please note, I will not ever capitalize "god" or "bible" in any of my posts. )
Posted 2/5/13 , edited 2/5/13


Spazticus wrote:


Canute wrote:






internethighfive.jpg

Well said, and amazingly well put.

EDIT: Can someone just explain to me if these forums are 100% "Poe's Law" or are these all serious posts? I am really having trouble believing that people can be this deluded and nutty. However, if not is the average age of posters here about 12-14?

Canute 
28248 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 2/6/13 , edited 2/6/13

Spazticus wrote:

I appreciate the clarification of your position. However, I disagree with some of the points you make.

Affordable and easily available contraception, as well as access to educational programs such as through Planned Parenthood, do help reduce the rates of unplanned pregnancies. Because without them, you have a situation as laid out by a former political science teacher of mine: "The rich get richer, and the poor get children." Despite the claims of some that "Abortion is 90% of what Planned Parenthood does" that number's nowhere near accurate, and much of what they do also includes low cost breast cancer screenings, STI testing, etc. The education and contraception they provide inherently helps reduce pregnancy rates, and by direct extension, the rate of abortions.

While it is factual that having a woman's tubes tied, having a hysterectomy, and abstinence are measures with a 100% rate of prevention of pregnancy, it is also factual that most women will not go through either of those procedures unless they have already had children. Bear in mind that married couples have abortions, too, among them anti-choice advocates like Rick Santorum and his wife.

Your friend has a very biased opinion, and opinions are not inherently factual. Without the availability of contraception, and education on how to use it properly, the number of children born outside of marriage will naturally increase, and the rates of STIs will also increase. This is the effect of mandating abstinence-only education...it doesn't work as advertised. Don't believe me? Teen pregnancy rates are higher in states that prescribe abstinence-only education, as compared to those that provide more comprehensive education. It should be noted that many states follow abstinence-plus education, which I am in agreement with.


"Because correlation does not imply causation, our analysis cannot demonstrate that emphasizing abstinence causes increased teen pregnancy. However, if abstinence education reduced teen pregnancy as proponents claim, the correlation would be in the opposite direction"

(Bold emphasis mine.)
Quoted from this article: http://news.uga.edu/releases/article/abstinence-only-education-does-not-lead-to-abstinent-behavior/

It is illogical to believe that if people are less informed about the consequences of sex, they will be less likely to engage in it; and when they do, they inherently will not be as safe as those who are educated. To illustrate how a lack of education regarding STIs and contraception (and reduced availability of said measures) only make both problems worse, you need look no further than the sabotaged effort to reduce the spread of HIV in Africa during Bush's presidency.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/30/usa.aids

While this is an opinion piece, the supporting facts are also presented: http://www.plan-uk.org/news/blogs/guest-bloggers/Condemning-condoms-George-Bush/

You should also realize that some women need to be prescribed birth control for medical issues completely unrelated to sex, much less family planning. For some women, it is prescribed to deal with a hormonal imbalance, among other non-sexual medical reasons. My best friend, in fact, had to do just that. She's happily married, but that was one of the things her doctor prescribed as part of her treatment. I won't go into the details of her specific medical situation out of respect for her privacy, but it was both urgent and necessary, and cases like hers are common enough. If it were banned, this treatment option would not have been available.

I can only conclude that banning contraceptive measures as you suggest, while mandating abstinence-only education, will only increase the rates of unwanted pregnancies and increase the spread of STIs, thus reducing the quality of life for many, and the evidence I presented supports this conclusion.

Regardless of where one stands on this topic, "The only moral abortion is my abortion" is worth reading. While it's seemingly easy to understand the pro-life/anti-choice side of the debate, this article provides some perspective on some of those who have also made the choice.

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html


Well, you've changed my position on contraception to a great degree. While it's still wrong in and of itself and leads people to have a more recreational attitude toward sex, banning contraception does not seem to produce good results while people retain the recreational attitude. So, until the morals of the country change, it would seem that more harm would result from banning it.

Be careful of your sources for the information on Rick Santorum's wife! Political commentary has become increasingly hostile of late. (I'm just waiting for the next civil war: people on both sides seem unable and unwilling to cooperate on issues as well as having diametrically opposed visions for the country.) The actual case is that they had their child prematurely because this seemed to offer better chances of the child surviving than if gestation continued. You might still call this an abortion; but since the end of the operation was saving the life of the mother and offering the best chance of survival for the child rather than killing the fetus, it hardly counts as the kind of procedure I wished to see banned. Here's an article: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/06/liberal-web-site-lies-claims-santorums-wife-had-abortion/

The same goes for cases where an abortifacient is used for an end other than causing an abortion. Your friend is not wrong in using it to correct a hormonal imbalance, though one would prefer a drug which wasn't an abortifacient being used. And the couple might not want to engage in sex, because any child conceived would miscarriage. Such an event might cause the mother to feel grief.

And there are certain pro-lifers who don't follow their own beliefs when they do become pregnant. Everyone suffers temptation when an unwanted pregnancy occurs, and any one may fail to live up to their own standards. However, this does not prove that abortion is right, but rather that people are weak. In the same way, theft ought not to be made legal because some people steal.

Thank you for the interesting articles and your opinion!
Canute 
28248 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 2/6/13 , edited 2/6/13

miserykitsune wrote:

I have a lot of problems with this but I'll try to remain civil.

A foetus is not an 'unborn child' anymore than a 5 year old is an ungrown adult. It's ridiculous emotive language that obscures the issue.

It is not capable of being 'innocent' anymore than it is capable of being 'guilty'. It's just a foetus, that the woman's body may decide to terminate at any time through a miscarraige. No-one has the right to use another' body without permission, so why should a foetus get special treatment?

The difference between aborting a foetus and murdering the already born people is that the foetus feels nothing. It understands nothing. It thinks nothing. It feels no pain. It is depending on another persons body to keep it alive, using their nutrients, disrupting their life, costing them money(health check-ups, birth and time off work cost money) and quite often putting them in danger (aside from the agony of child-birth, there are many other horrible things that can occur during pregnancy that I don't have time to go into here). A sentient person who is not living off and inside another person is a different issue.

Sure, the child may grow up to do something grand, but this is less likely than it growing up to be an utter scumbag, especially as it won't have the best start in life. Too many people treat adoption like picking up a puppy from a pound. And if you aren't a perfect little white baby your chances of being adopted plummet even further. I don't know about the US or elsewhere but in Ireland alone there are about 5000 children in care. Where are all these loving couples anxious to adopt? They don't exist or these places would empty. 4000+ Irish women have an abortion (abroad or DIY) every year (and it is totally illegal here, even in cases of rape). Imagine if they all were born and sent into care homes. The country couldn't cope. Quality of life is important.

You will NEVER EVER rid the world of abortion. You only make it unsafe.Ireland is an example of that. I'd rather a female family member or friend of mine aborted some foetus safely in a clinic than die trying to do it themselves.

It so easy to say 'think of the babies!' when you aren't the one whose pregnant. When you aren't the one who will be responsible for putting food on their plates or a roof over their heads. When you aren't the one who has to give your career or schooling. There are many 'pro-life' women who have abortions when they find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy (The only moral abortion is MY abortion' problem)

Pregnancy is a difficult, dangerous life-changing thing. You cannot force someone who is not ready to bear a child to go through with it, treating them as an incubator. That is a vile evil in my eyes.

As long as women have to carry a new life in their own body, it is up to them to decide based on their own situation. The fact that some person who isn't going through what they're going through thinks it is 'murder' most likely means bugger all.


Well, foetus tends to be used by people who wish to decrease the moral culpability of the procedure, while unborn child or infant in the womb tends to be used by those who wist to increase the moral culpability of the same. Each party in the argument is guilty of the same thing. But, why not? A person often must be convinced both in his heart and his brain. Someone may be logically convinced that something is wrong, but then feel no impetus to do the right thing. That's why classical educators thought that it was important for a student to learn grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Even though rhetoric presently has a bad reputation, people still use it in order to persuade their listeners. So, foetus, mass of cells, growth, baby, child, or infant may all be considered rhetorical choices. After all, even in the case of partial birth abortion, when the baby is viable, proponents of it will still term the baby a foetus.

Well, in a either a legal or a moral sense, a baby must perforce be innocent, because innocence does not depend on one's ability to do wrong but the fact that one has not done wrong--whether or not one has the capability. (A person asleep may be considered innocent in this way.) And I must challenge your assertion that a baby in the womb cannot feel pain. Their ability to feel pain is rather apparent in the case of a partial birth abortion. (It would be insane to allege that a viable fetus cannot feel pain within the fetus, even though it obviously feels pain without.) According this article, a baby feels pain around 26 weeks (6 1/2 months): http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1566772,00.html; though, others would place it as early as 8 weeks: http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/13#1. I've seen other articles place it at 20 week (5 months), but I wanted to give the two extremes.

You mention that no one has the right to use another's body and time without their permission, but--as long as the child was not conceived in rape--it would seem that the person in question has given the baby permission by performing an activity whose end is reproduction. That person came into being without being consulted--making it a victim of two other people's activities; so it seems that both the mother and father are responsible for bringing it to birth and raising it, unless their financial position makes this impossible. In which case, there are many people who either want a child but cannot conceive one or run orphanages. No matter how must one thinks that the upbringing in an orphanage will most likely produce people of poor character, it still remains wrong to execute anyone before they have committed a crime worthy of execution. One cannot predict infants will commit capital crimes and then terminate them.

Even in the case of rape, abortion remains wrong, though the victim is worthy of great compassion and support. But, are there not two victims in this case? The unfortunate woman and the baby who was conceived in the worst of situations? As long as each has an equal chance of surviving, how can one be given so much priority over the other that one may be killed? After all, while the pregnancy does ruin 9 months of the woman's life, abortion completely takes away possibly 80 years of life. Then again, abortion often creates guilt in the one who did it which tortures the poor woman until the end. Would it not rather be preferable to endure the pregnancy with the knowledge that one brought a life into the world instead of killing it?

Anyway, I thank you for your patience with me.
4582 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / ireland
Offline
Posted 2/6/13 , edited 2/6/13

Canute wrote:


Spazticus wrote:

I appreciate the clarification of your position. However, I disagree with some of the points you make.

Affordable and easily available contraception, as well as access to educational programs such as through Planned Parenthood, do help reduce the rates of unplanned pregnancies. Because without them, you have a situation as laid out by a former political science teacher of mine: "The rich get richer, and the poor get children." Despite the claims of some that "Abortion is 90% of what Planned Parenthood does" that number's nowhere near accurate, and much of what they do also includes low cost breast cancer screenings, STI testing, etc. The education and contraception they provide inherently helps reduce pregnancy rates, and by direct extension, the rate of abortions.

While it is factual that having a woman's tubes tied, having a hysterectomy, and abstinence are measures with a 100% rate of prevention of pregnancy, it is also factual that most women will not go through either of those procedures unless they have already had children. Bear in mind that married couples have abortions, too, among them anti-choice advocates like Rick Santorum and his wife.

Your friend has a very biased opinion, and opinions are not inherently factual. Without the availability of contraception, and education on how to use it properly, the number of children born outside of marriage will naturally increase, and the rates of STIs will also increase. This is the effect of mandating abstinence-only education...it doesn't work as advertised. Don't believe me? Teen pregnancy rates are higher in states that prescribe abstinence-only education, as compared to those that provide more comprehensive education. It should be noted that many states follow abstinence-plus education, which I am in agreement with.


"Because correlation does not imply causation, our analysis cannot demonstrate that emphasizing abstinence causes increased teen pregnancy. However, if abstinence education reduced teen pregnancy as proponents claim, the correlation would be in the opposite direction"

(Bold emphasis mine.)
Quoted from this article: http://news.uga.edu/releases/article/abstinence-only-education-does-not-lead-to-abstinent-behavior/

It is illogical to believe that if people are less informed about the consequences of sex, they will be less likely to engage in it; and when they do, they inherently will not be as safe as those who are educated. To illustrate how a lack of education regarding STIs and contraception (and reduced availability of said measures) only make both problems worse, you need look no further than the sabotaged effort to reduce the spread of HIV in Africa during Bush's presidency.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/30/usa.aids

While this is an opinion piece, the supporting facts are also presented: http://www.plan-uk.org/news/blogs/guest-bloggers/Condemning-condoms-George-Bush/

You should also realize that some women need to be prescribed birth control for medical issues completely unrelated to sex, much less family planning. For some women, it is prescribed to deal with a hormonal imbalance, among other non-sexual medical reasons. My best friend, in fact, had to do just that. She's happily married, but that was one of the things her doctor prescribed as part of her treatment. I won't go into the details of her specific medical situation out of respect for her privacy, but it was both urgent and necessary, and cases like hers are common enough. If it were banned, this treatment option would not have been available.

I can only conclude that banning contraceptive measures as you suggest, while mandating abstinence-only education, will only increase the rates of unwanted pregnancies and increase the spread of STIs, thus reducing the quality of life for many, and the evidence I presented supports this conclusion.

Regardless of where one stands on this topic, "The only moral abortion is my abortion" is worth reading. While it's seemingly easy to understand the pro-life/anti-choice side of the debate, this article provides some perspective on some of those who have also made the choice.

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html


Well, you've changed my position on contraception to a great degree. While it's still wrong in and of itself and leads people to have a more recreational attitude toward sex, banning contraception does not seem to produce good results while people retain the recreational attitude. So, until the morals of the country change, it would seem that more harm would result from banning it.

Be careful of your sources for the information on Rick Santorum's wife! Political commentary has become increasingly hostile of late. (I'm just waiting for the next civil war: people on both sides seem unable and unwilling to cooperate on issues as well as having diametrically opposed visions for the country.) The actual case is that they had their child prematurely because this seemed to offer better chances of the child surviving than if gestation continued. You might still call this an abortion; but since the end of the operation was saving the life of the mother and offering the best chance of survival for the child rather than killing the fetus, it hardly counts as the kind of procedure I wished to see banned. Here's an article: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/06/liberal-web-site-lies-claims-santorums-wife-had-abortion/

The same goes for cases where an abortifacient is used for an end other than causing an abortion. Your friend is not wrong in using it to correct a hormonal imbalance, though one would prefer a drug which wasn't an abortifacient being used. And the couple might not want to engage in sex, because any child conceived would miscarriage. Such an event might cause the mother to feel grief.

And there are certain pro-lifers who don't follow their own beliefs when they do become pregnant. Everyone suffers temptation when an unwanted pregnancy occurs, and any one may fail to live up to their own standards. However, this does not prove that abortion is right, but rather that people are weak. In the same way, theft ought not to be made legal because some people steal.

Thank you for the interesting articles and your opinion!


Life site news isn't the most reliable of sources, it's very biased and has a religious slant which is irrelevant to a great many people considering abortion. Lots of emotional, cutesy rubbish too. Youth defence in Ireland references them a lot and they have been called out for blatant lies and misleading information a few times(including some nasty lies about rape).

Terminating a pregnancy to save the mother's life is still an abortion. People shouldn't try and change the words just because it makes them uncomfortable.

Contraception is a GOOD thing. Sex is fun and people enjoy it, and it helps them bond. It's going to happen. Contraception reduces the risks of STD's and preganancy (and thus, abortions) so I can't get the reasoning behind campaigning against it.

I doubt people's attitudes towards sex is going to go backwards like your suggesting. Such attitudes can be very dangerous and it's usually women who bear all the scorn (even now they already do). The Magdalene scandal in Ireland right now shows what those types of attitudes can lead to, girls who get pregnant or having sex outside marriage being locked up and abused in asylums while having their babies taken away.

Theft is a crime that harms other sentient people. Abortion is a decision a woman makes regarding her own body and life.Aside from perhaps the father, it concerns no-one else. It will always happen, legal or not, and should be up to the woman herself to decide as long as the foetus is depending on her body supporting it. It should be legal and safe for those who wish to avail of it.




4582 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / ireland
Offline
Posted 2/6/13 , edited 2/6/13

Canute wrote:


miserykitsune wrote:

I have a lot of problems with this but I'll try to remain civil.

A foetus is not an 'unborn child' anymore than a 5 year old is an ungrown adult. It's ridiculous emotive language that obscures the issue.

It is not capable of being 'innocent' anymore than it is capable of being 'guilty'. It's just a foetus, that the woman's body may decide to terminate at any time through a miscarraige. No-one has the right to use another' body without permission, so why should a foetus get special treatment?

The difference between aborting a foetus and murdering the already born people is that the foetus feels nothing. It understands nothing. It thinks nothing. It feels no pain. It is depending on another persons body to keep it alive, using their nutrients, disrupting their life, costing them money(health check-ups, birth and time off work cost money) and quite often putting them in danger (aside from the agony of child-birth, there are many other horrible things that can occur during pregnancy that I don't have time to go into here). A sentient person who is not living off and inside another person is a different issue.

Sure, the child may grow up to do something grand, but this is less likely than it growing up to be an utter scumbag, especially as it won't have the best start in life. Too many people treat adoption like picking up a puppy from a pound. And if you aren't a perfect little white baby your chances of being adopted plummet even further. I don't know about the US or elsewhere but in Ireland alone there are about 5000 children in care. Where are all these loving couples anxious to adopt? They don't exist or these places would empty. 4000+ Irish women have an abortion (abroad or DIY) every year (and it is totally illegal here, even in cases of rape). Imagine if they all were born and sent into care homes. The country couldn't cope. Quality of life is important.

You will NEVER EVER rid the world of abortion. You only make it unsafe.Ireland is an example of that. I'd rather a female family member or friend of mine aborted some foetus safely in a clinic than die trying to do it themselves.

It so easy to say 'think of the babies!' when you aren't the one whose pregnant. When you aren't the one who will be responsible for putting food on their plates or a roof over their heads. When you aren't the one who has to give your career or schooling. There are many 'pro-life' women who have abortions when they find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy (The only moral abortion is MY abortion' problem)

Pregnancy is a difficult, dangerous life-changing thing. You cannot force someone who is not ready to bear a child to go through with it, treating them as an incubator. That is a vile evil in my eyes.

As long as women have to carry a new life in their own body, it is up to them to decide based on their own situation. The fact that some person who isn't going through what they're going through thinks it is 'murder' most likely means bugger all.


Well, foetus tends to be used by people who wish to decrease the moral culpability of the procedure, while unborn child or infant in the womb tends to be used by those who wist to increase the moral culpability of the same. Each party in the argument is guilty of the same thing. But, why not? A person often must be convinced both in his heart and his brain. Someone may be logically convinced that something is wrong, but then feel no impetus to do the right thing. That's why classical educators thought that it was important for a student to learn grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Even though rhetoric presently has a bad reputation, people still use it in order to persuade their listeners. So, foetus, mass of cells, growth, baby, child, or infant may all be considered rhetorical choices. After all, even in the case of partial birth abortion, when the baby is viable, proponents of it will still term the baby a foetus.

Well, in a either a legal or a moral sense, a baby must perforce be innocent, because innocence does not depend on one's ability to do wrong but the fact that one has not done wrong--whether or not one has the capability. (A person asleep may be considered innocent in this way.) And I must challenge your assertion that a baby in the womb cannot feel pain. Their ability to feel pain is rather apparent in the case of a partial birth abortion. (It would be insane to allege that a viable fetus cannot feel pain within the fetus, even though it obviously feels pain without.) According this article, a baby feels pain around 26 weeks (6 1/2 months): http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1566772,00.html; though, others would place it as early as 8 weeks: http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/13#1. I've seen other articles place it at 20 week (5 months), but I wanted to give the two extremes.

You mention that no one has the right to use another's body and time without their permission, but--as long as the child was not conceived in rape--it would seem that the person in question has given the baby permission by performing an activity whose end is reproduction. That person came into being without being consulted--making it a victim of two other people's activities; so it seems that both the mother and father are responsible for bringing it to birth and raising it, unless their financial position makes this impossible. In which case, there are many people who either want a child but cannot conceive one or run orphanages. No matter how must one thinks that the upbringing in an orphanage will most likely produce people of poor character, it still remains wrong to execute anyone before they have committed a crime worthy of execution. One cannot predict infants will commit capital crimes and then terminate them.

Even in the case of rape, abortion remains wrong, though the victim is worthy of great compassion and support. But, are there not two victims in this case? The unfortunate woman and the baby who was conceived in the worst of situations? As long as each has an equal chance of surviving, how can one be given so much priority over the other that one may be killed? After all, while the pregnancy does ruin 9 months of the woman's life, abortion completely takes away possibly 80 years of life. Then again, abortion often creates guilt in the one who did it which tortures the poor woman until the end. Would it not rather be preferable to endure the pregnancy with the knowledge that one brought a life into the world instead of killing it?

Anyway, I thank you for your patience with me.


It is a foetus though, after becoming a zygote, blastocyst etc.It is a stage of development. A baby is a child that has been born, that then becomes a toddler and so on. A baby doesn't need to be kept alive by it's mothers body and can feel pain.

It probably can feel pain that late, I think the agreed time is about 24 weeks, when it becomes viable and this indeed is the limit in the UK. Some countries don't allow abortion after 12 weeks The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, where it can feel nothing at all because it is incapable of doing so.

And she can remove permission for it to be in her body.

And instead of leaving at an orphanage, the woman can choose abortion. It's choice, as long as it depends on her for survival (until about 20-24 weeks where it is viable). Adoption is a solution to parenting, not pregnancy. This would be relevant to a woman suffering from tokophobia, a mental illness where pregnancy is feared. And pregnancy itself costs money.

Like I said, if there were so many people willing to adopt then care homes would be empty. They clearly aren't around and people need to stop thinking of these people as a magical solution. If pro-life people were forced to personally pay for and raise up each and every child they 'saved' I think the movement would die out fairly quickly. Every time a child goes into an orphanage it lowers the chance of another getting adopted.

The one who had her life ruined and is actual sentient and conscious, not the one who is just 'potentially' so, takes precedence in my view and should decide whether she wants to keep the baby from the man who ruined her life. There was a case recently in Mexico where a raped 9 year old girl gave birth. She was very lucky to have survived.

Very easy for men to say this, very easy. Personally, the thought of having to keep my rapist's baby 'because it is 'innocent' fills me with disgust. I would have an abortion without hesitation and I very much doubt I'd have any regrets, other than that I can't have my rapist thrown into an acid vat. I'd wager a quite a few women feel the same way (maybe not with my idea of revenge though)


Actually, most women feel their abortions were the right decision for them at the time, and even if some do regret it they have no right to take away the choice from others. Youth defence play the 'women hurt by abortion' card all the time and it's wearing thin.

Anyway, I'm tired. I will never again be pro-life as it is completely wrong to force women to carry pregnancies they don't want against their will and I will never be convinced that the life of a foetus is worth as much or more than that of a living breathing woman. We don't know another persons situation so the choice should be up to them.

Maybe one day we will invent machines where babies can grow without putting a womans life at risk, then abortions will probably end. But until that day, it should be an option.

And that abortion facts website is biased as well. Abortion is not more dangerous than childbirth and the gendercide issue is a cultural problem. If those baby girls were born they'd be left to die in gutters in the street anyway.




4020 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 2/6/13

Canute wrote:

Ah, well, simply saying that anything I don't like should be banned simply out of personal preference will not only be "utterly inane and moronic for the year 2013" but also next year and likely remain so until my dying day. However, certain moral issues do not change: if something is wrong in 3000 B.C., it will be just as wrong in 1000 B.C., 70 A.D., 1066, or 2013. For example, theft, murder, adultery, torture, and a host of other crimes will never become acceptable no matter how long history rolls on.

I'll cut out the irrelevant parts to focus on the heart of the issue. Your argument is invalid. Things that were acceptable in 1000 CE are most certainly acceptable now. Let's use the Bible (note I'll always try to use caps when referring to God/Bible) as that is the basis for so much of the Right to Life and Pro-Choice issue.

Let's Start With RAPE

1)Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

2)Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

3)Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

Let's try MURDER

1)Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel

2)2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

3) Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB
But if this charge is true and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.

4)2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces

5)The ark of God was placed on a new cart and taken away from the house of Abinadab on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab guided the cart, with Ahio walking before it, while David and all the Israelites made merry before the Lord with all their strength, with singing and with citharas, harps, tambourines, sistrums, and cymbals.

When they came to the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God to steady it, for the oxen were making it tip. But the Lord was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God.

6)Numbers 15:32-36
And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.


This is only a few yet I believe that it gives evidence that your claim that things historically were just as wrong today. The bible openly encourages murder, slavery, rape, death for simple crimes. The Bible does not teach morality it teaches misogyny , racism, bigotry, intolerance and hate. I could list many more examples of this in the Bible but it is not worth it. The Bible is a Bronze age text with Bronze age ideals. It has no place in modern society save as a a historical text and as an example of how not to live your lives.

WHEW....long winded rant over. Sorry, if this was a little harsh. I don't normally go all ranty I must be in a bad humour.


BRACE FOR IMPACT!!! INCOMING FLAMES!!! JUST KIDDING

34724 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 2/6/13 , edited 2/6/13
The problem I have with religion in a debate about planned parenthood, is I don't see how you can make contraception and abortion wrong. Pick one please. It isn't just unmarried, promiscuous, people who aren't ready to have babies. Marriage is hard enough without throwing an unwanted, unplanned for, or just plain untimely baby, into the mix. People, couples and horny teenagers alike, need to be able to prevent a pregnancy whether or not abortion is an option. Whether I believe abortion is right or wrong I think it is up to every individual woman to decide what is right for her.

If murdering any living thing is wrong how come so many of the fanatics think it is ok to kill people at abortion clinics? A New Mexico lawmaker recently tried to make it illegal for a rape or incest victim to abort a fetus, calling it "Evidence Tampering". A dead fetus is the exact same evidence as a living baby so the argument isn't even valid. You really think a rape or incest victim should be punished more? Stuff like that is what makes the pro-life side seem so wrong even though they claim they are just trying to save lives.
21848 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F
Offline
Posted 2/24/13
First  Prev  173  174  175  176  177  178  179  180  181  182  183  184  185  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.