Abortion Survey...

[Taq_is_hot]

(f) To kill a child is to kill a child, and a child is indeed alive the second he/she is concieved. Abortion is murder. It does not matter if the mother was raped. It is a terrible thing to be raped without a doubt and to get pregnant from it. However, everyone gets an equal chance on this earth, even if you are an unborn child who was concieved by a rape.

[ParanoiA]

(f) To kill a child is to kill a child, and a child is indeed alive the second he/she is concieved. Abortion is murder.

 

Is it also murder if someone needs a kidney to survive and no one offers one up?

 

I ask that question because to force a mother to continue allowing a parasite to grow within her, against her will, is really no different to me. What is moral about forcing someone to allow a life endangering organism to develop in them against their choosing?

 

Consider the pain of child birth and the irreversible physical condition introduced by reproduction - and possible death - you don't have a problem with this kind of authority? This seems as sick as slavery, to me.

[DrDNA]

Besides, sometimes an abortion is needed. After all, pregnancies have been known to actually kill or make the would be mother terminally ill. I know that happened to my mother before my sister was born. But, thank goodness for modern medicine .

 

And yet by some miracle, your sister was actually born???

 

Why does this bleeding heart situation that almost never occurs, "....to save the life of the mother....", always seem to somehow make its way into abortion debates?

 

Why don't we just admit it....pro or con, good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral, legal or illegal.......abortion is simply an act and/or procedure of CONVENIENCE for the "mother" and of POLITICAL UTILITY to the talking heads?

[Reaper]

And yet by some miracle, your sister was actually born???

 

No miracle; the pregnancy was about 8 months in when this started to happen. An abortion wasn't possible by that time, or desired.

 

Why don't we just admit it....pro or con, good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral, legal or illegal.......abortion is simply an act and/or procedure of CONVENIENCE for the "mother" and of POLITICAL UTILITY to the talking heads?

 

No, not really. Teen pregnancies, for example, can be averted with abortion (Or rather, they can even be averted with proper education and proper parenting). Accidental ones can be averted too (those birth control pills or condoms aren't necessarily 100% fool proof...).

 

I ask that question because to force a mother to continue allowing a parasite to grow within her, against her will, is really no different to me. What is moral about forcing someone to allow a life endangering organism to develop in them against their choosing?

 

A parasite?! Is that what babies and human embryos are classified in the minds of some now? If people think that now I wonder how humans will survive the next couple of generations....

 

 

Consider the pain of child birth and the irreversible physical condition introduced by reproduction - and possible death - you don't have a problem with this kind of authority? This seems as sick as slavery, to me.

 

 

Physical pain is inevitable though. And the chances of death are actually very slim, and are only a risk for those with possible health problems to begin with.

[DrDNA]

Lockheed,

Regarding your sister and mother, for what it (it being anything an annonymous poster like me on a science board might say) is worth, I'm really happy to hear that things worked out the way they apparently did.

[ParanoiA]

A parasite?! Is that what babies and human embryos are classified in the minds of some now? If people think that now I wonder how humans will survive the next couple of generations....

 

I'm simply applying the opposite value judgement. One person's "precious" is another person's "parasite". It's hard to see the objectivity when you invest so much attachment to it. I love my kids, and really kids in general, but I don't presume to force you to let one grow in you any more than I'd force you to allow a tumor to develop.

 

Physical pain is inevitable though. And the chances of death are actually very slim, and are only a risk for those with possible health problems to begin with.

 

Doesn't matter. You have no right to judge that risk for others. Can I assess the risk associated with skydiving and force you to do it - citing that only a handful of people actually die every year and it might feel really cool experiencing pee running up your neck?

[DrDNA]

What the??

1. A fetus or human embryo is not a parasite.

2. A fetus may in fact be a human or at the least it can be stated with confidence that it is a potential human being.

3. Equating killing unborn humans or terminating the existence of potential human beings with cows is ludacris.

4. An attempt to compare skydiving and an uncontrolled bodily function to abortion.....what the?

5. Abortion is justified because it relieves the pain of child birth.....huh????

6. Human reproduction has nothing to do with authority and it is not slavery. It was not invented by "The Man" to keep any body down. If someone thinks so, me thinks that they need some lessons in history.

 

I would think that the pro-abortionists (pro-choice, whatever,...) members of this forum could come up with better arguments that these...................

[Lilian]

I believe that the process is cheaper then an abortion in an earlier phase, and safer for the mother (not entirely sure, though)

 

I doubt that they are safer for the mother. I know for a fact that abortions are much safer when they are done in the early stages (when the embryo is a ball of cells and can be taken out with a small syringe). Late-trimester abortions are very risky.

 

I believe that if a woman has been raped, it is not wrong for her to abort the pregnancy. She has every right to.

 

F, 16.

 

Having said that, if society takes that view, there is the risk of people not even bothering with contraception because they know abortion is readily available.

 

 

I see where you are coming from, although I cannot see how people (in the right frame of mind) would think, "Hey, I'm not going to use contraception! I can always have an abortion in a month's time!"

 

Condoms are a lot easier than abortions. =\

[Reaper]

I'm simply applying the opposite value judgement. One person's "precious" is another person's "parasite". It's hard to see the objectivity when you invest so much attachment to it. I love my kids, and really kids in general, but I don't presume to force you to let one grow in you any more than I'd force you to allow a tumor to develop.

 

Oh, so now its a tumor AND a parasite, even though an embryo doesn't actually fit the criteria of either in the first place.

 

 

Doesn't matter. You have no right to judge that risk for others. Can I assess the risk associated with skydiving and force you to do it - citing that only a handful of people actually die every year and it might feel really cool experiencing pee running up your neck?

 

That wasn't a judgment though, that was a statement of fact. And there is a difference between perceived risk and actual (or statistical) risk. For example, I'm dreadfully afraid of going out in a thunderstorm, even in full knowledge that I'll probably never get struck by lightning.

 

=============================

 

And this is why I hate ethical or political discussions (or environmental debates), because many on here (on both sides) just don't seem to know how to differentiate between fact and opinion, nor do they seem capable of separating their own emotional convictions from them. I'm not perfect but at least I try to make an attempt to do so. Presumably you all should do the same.

 

 

And besides, you don't even know what my actual stance on this is yet. All I have been doing up to this point is making statements of facts. But I will give you all one guess....

 

===================================

 

I believe that if a woman has been raped, it is not wrong for her to abort the pregnancy. She has every right to.

 

I agree, especially if she happens to be underage.

 

 

Condoms are a lot easier than abortions. =\

 

And much cheaper and far less risky (both emotionally and medically) too.

 

On that note, does freezing something (reversibly) count as "killing" it? Most definitions of "alive" require something to be active.

 

Semantics can get a bit tricky here, but I would say that a frozen embryo is in stasis. Not necessarily dead, but certainly not active. And then from there, the embryo can either be injected into another person so that it develops, or it can contribute to stem cell research.

 

I know some frogs can survive after being frozen, but that is because when their cells freeze they don't burst like the cells of an adult human being usually do.

[ParanoiA]

Why does this bleeding heart situation that almost never occurs, "....to save the life of the mother....", always seem to somehow make its way into abortion debates?

 

Probably for the same reason "...don't need to worry about protection, they can just get an abortion..." always seems to somehow make its way into abortion debates. Forget the dollar condom, we'll just spend a grand on an abortion? Nobody thinks like that. It's a cheap charge with no supporting evidence or even sense.

 

1. A fetus or human embryo is not a parasite.

2. A fetus may in fact be a human or at the least it can be stated with confidence that it is a potential human being.

3. Equating killing unborn humans or terminating the existence of potential human beings with cows is ludacris.

4. An attempt to compare skydiving and an uncontrolled bodily function to abortion.....what the?

5. Abortion is justified because it relieves the pain of child birth.....huh????

6. Human reproduction has nothing to do with authority and it is not slavery. It was not invented by "The Man" to keep any body down. If someone thinks so' date=' me thinks that they need some lessons in history.

 

[/quote']

 

1) It's behavior is parasitic and if not for the "species" qualifier, it would actually be a parasite. Nonetheless, I have every right to view it as such, and I will. It has earned no rights to life.

 

2) Agreed.

 

3) Who did that?

 

4) Because you missed the point by a country mile. The point was, that you don't have a right to force me to do anything and the arrogance of assessing my risk is particularly insulting. I don't have a right to force you to do something just because I think the risk is minimal.

 

5) No. You don't have a right to force someone to endure physical pain just to satisfy your morality set.

 

6) Forced human reproduction is slavery.

 

I would think that the pro-abortionists (pro-choice, whatever,...) members of this forum could come up with better arguments that these...................

 

Well, seeing as how you misunderstood those arguments I don't see how you have the credit to think that.

 

Actually, I think you understood my points just fine, and you can't counter them on substance. So, you do what the mainstream propaganda machine does (like with Dr. Paul): you misrepresent those arguments. Your bullets above make that point nicely.

 

You know what I'm saying here. You're placing a value judgement on the act of conception and using that to justify forced reproduction. I don't think you have critically thought through the consequences of pregnancy. You seem to deny the dynamics involved in pregnancy AND give NO consideration to the mother at all. As if her rights were stripped the moment she conceived.

 

Why does the growing human (who's lifespan at this point is a mere fraction of the mother's) suddenly get more rights than the mother?

[Reaper]

1) It's behavior is parasitic and if not for the "species" qualifier, it would actually be a parasite. Nonetheless, I have every right to view it as such, and I will. It has earned no rights to life.

 

I agree, you have a right to have any erroneous or incorrect view you wish. And you have a right to arbitrarily define any terms you wish as well. But wishing it so does not make it fact, nor does it add any validity to your argument.

 

 

 

Now I'm beginning to see why there is more money going into quack medicine than science.

[ParanoiA]

Oh, so now its a tumor AND a parasite, even though an embryo doesn't actually fit the criteria of either in the first place.

 

I'm not labeling it as a statement of fact. I AM comparing it to other things that grow in you and get sustanence from you. After all, that's the basis for my argument. That you don't have the right to force me to let something grow in me. Other things that grow in you include parasites and tumors. (Fortunately you don't find those morally valuable, or presumably you'd advocate forcing us to let those grow in us too...)

 

That wasn't a judgment though, that was a statement of fact. And there is a difference between perceived risk and actual (or statistical) risk. For example, I'm dreadfully afraid of going out in a thunderstorm, even in full knowledge that I'll probably never get struck by lightning.

 

Please go back and re-read the context. You were replying to my statement about you not having the right to force someone else to endure the risks of pregnancy. You then replied about how the risks are minimal. THAT's why I replied, it doesn't matter how MINIMAL you think the risks are - you don't get to force me to do stuff that YOU don't think is very dangerous - hence, my Skydiving analogy.

[Reaper]

4) Because you missed the point by a country mile. The point was, that you don't have a right to force me to do anything and the arrogance of assessing my risk is particularly insulting. I don't have a right to force you to do something just because I think the risk is minimal.

 

And you still don't understand that it wasn't an actual judgment. Facts don't have to comply with your emotions (granted, there are many facts of life that I don't like or don't seem to sink in, but I won't deny them because I feel otherwise). That is an appeal to ridicule and appeal to emotion fallacy.

 

Please go back and re-read the context. You were replying to my statement about you not having the right to force someone else to endure the risks of pregnancy. You then replied about how the risks are minimal. THAT's why I replied, it doesn't matter how MINIMAL you think the risks are - you don't get to force me to do stuff that YOU don't think is very dangerous - hence, my Skydiving analogy.

 

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the risk is minimal. Anything else is just a perceived risk. And that was the point of MY example.

 

And I answered your post correctly; you said that the would be mother risks death or other illness when pregnant, and I told you the actual chances of that happening.

[ParanoiA]

And this is why I hate ethical or political discussions (or environmental debates), because many on here (on both sides) just don't seem to know how to differentiate between fact and opinion, nor do they seem capable of separating their own emotional convictions from them. I'm not perfect but at least I try to make an attempt to do so. Presumably you all should do the same.

 

You are incredibly emotionally invested in this argument. You take offense to terms like "parasite" and "tumor" and then claim not be emotionally convicted?

 

I don't know why you hate these discussions, it's just good debate. Everyone is learning something here. Why so glum? Relax. There's no fun in agreeing and I'm no stranger to taking sides on things just to be contrary.

 

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the risk is minimal. Anything else is just a perceived risk. And that was the point of MY example.

 

But the fact that the risk is minimal is irrelevant to every dynamic of our correspondence. If you want to assess risk and make some kind of point out of it then do so, but if you do it in the form of a reply to some OTHER statement, then it's not going to make any sense.

 

How is your point about risk assessment valid IN ANY WAY in response to a point about your rights to force me to do something? It doesn't matter if the risk is minimal - hell, it doesn't matter if it's gauranteed to be beneficial for me - you don't get to make that call, in my humbled opinion of course.

[Reaper]

You are incredibly emotionally invested in this argument. You take offense to terms like "parasite" and "tumor" and then claim not be emotionally convicted?

 

Nope. I was just pointing at your incorrect use of terms. Actually, to be honest, your use of the terms made me chuckle a bit . But don't worry, I haven't even yet told you on just how amusing I find Dr.DNA's argument....

 

I don't know why you hate these discussions, it's just good debate. Everyone is learning something here. Why so glum? Relax. There's no fun in agreeing and I'm no stranger to taking sides on things just to be contrary.

 

I like a good debate on morality/ethics/etc too, but typically, whether online or in real life, they tend to degenerate to name calling, bashing, strawman, etc. I'm not entirely immune to this either, and that's why I tend to avoid them, only dropping in when facts are being discussed. Arguments of this kind tend to have little, if any, objectivity otherwise.

[ParanoiA]

Let me ask this question: What if a woman were to get pregnant by an act of seeming divinity? No intercourse was performed in any way, yet here she is with a baby growing in her. Purely hypothetical and impossible, obviously.

 

Do you still believe she should be forced to carry it? Can she get an abortion?

[Reaper]

But the fact that the risk is minimal is irrelevant to every dynamic of our correspondence. If you want to assess risk and make some kind of point out of it then do so, but if you do it in the form of a reply to some OTHER statement, then it's not going to make any sense.

 

You seemed to behave as if the dangers were far larger than they actually were, that's why I dropped in. If you don't like that, then stop making incorrect statements, making exaggerations, or using vague terms. There is absolutely no need to do that to support your argument.

 

How is your point about risk assessment valid IN ANY WAY in response to a point about your rights to force me to do something? It doesn't matter if the risk is minimal - hell, it doesn't matter if it's gauranteed to be beneficial for me - you don't get to make that call, in my humbled opinion of course.

 

I haven't actually said anything about forcing someone to do anything though. The points I made are valid simply because they are known facts. How people perceive them is another issue all together, and in that realm then the question of forcing someone to do something would be relevant. And for the record, I would not force someone to do something they don't want to do, even if I know the actual risks involved.

 

Let me ask this question: What if a woman were to get pregnant by an act of seeming divinity? No intercourse was performed in any way, yet here she is with a baby growing in her. Purely hypothetical and impossible, obviously.

 

Do you still believe she should be forced to carry it? Can she get an abortion?

 

Well, if we are going to discuss something that is in principle impossible, then I guess we can come to any conclusion we want...

 

It still remains a subjective argument, because you haven't specified anything else in this scenario. The answers depend entirely on the circumstances involved with arguments of this kind.

[iNow]

Well, if we are going to discuss something that is in principle impossible, then I guess we can come to any conclusion we want...

 

It still remains a subjective argument, because you haven't specified anything else in this scenario. The answers depend entirely on the circumstances involved with arguments of this kind.

 

Following this dialog as an outside observer, I find that your point above is not valid.

 

ParanoiA is arguing that others cannot force or remove a choice from someone.

Lockheed is arguing that ParanoiA overstated the risks of pregnancy, and that these inaccuracies needed to be corrected.

 

ParanoiA acknowledged this, but then tried to refine and restate the point he's trying to make.

 

ParanoiA suggested a situation not based in reality, but for a thought experiment where several other variables could be removed from the discussion, and Lockheed stated "it depends on the circumstances."

 

That appears to be the crux of the issue.

 

ParanoiA suggests that the circumstances are not relevant, that others cannot force the mother to do something (or prevent her).

Lockheed still argues that it should sometimes be allowed and sometimes not, but has not defined those parameters for the discussion.

 

 

Implicit in Lockheed's approach is a time when the mother will not be allowed to abort the fetus.

Implicit in ParanoiA's approach is that it's not of our business.

 

 

Please feel free to correct me if any of the above is not accurate.

[Reaper]

Please feel free to correct me if any of the above is not accurate.

 

That's pretty accurate. The argument is subjective.

[ParanoiA]

Damn iNow. Maybe you should take over for me, you're doing a much better job of it!

 

Of course, Lockheed is correct to suspect me. My question was loaded.

 

I don't believe so many people would be against abortion if they didn't make the value judgement about conception.

 

For some reason, simply because I caused the pregnancy, I'm supposed to endure the dangers and inconvenience associated with it. I reject that logic. There are plenty of dangerous medical conditions caused by one's self; that spawn other kinds of life and growth in their body and nobody makes them live with it or endure the dangers and inconvenience.

 

Of course, that argument only works if, in my 'thought experiment', you agree that she should be allowed to have an abortion. If you don't, then my argument fails.

[DrDNA]

Probably for the same reason "...don't need to worry about protection, they can just get an abortion..." always seems to somehow make its way into abortion debates. Forget the dollar condom, we'll just spend a grand on an abortion? Nobody thinks like that. It's a cheap charge with no supporting evidence or even sense.

Unfortunately, some people do in fact think like that. Especially when the state or some state funded "charity" pays for the abortion. I have personally known several women that have had upwards of 6 abortions and have never used birth control pills because it makes them "fat" or condoms because their boyfirends did not like them.

 

 

 

1) It's behavior is parasitic and if not for the "species" qualifier, it would actually be a parasite. Nonetheless, I have every right to view it as such, and I will. It has earned no rights to life.

Your so called parasite, which is at the least a potential human being, has also done nothing to be penalized with a sentance of death.

 

Your use of the term "parasite" is ridiculous.

 

BTW: Is the victim of a partial-birth abortion also a "parasite".

 

2) Agreed.

 

3) Who did that?

 

He did:

If forced, I'd rather kill a human foetus than a mature cow. Just 'cos it's human doesn't make it special to me.

 

No-one gladly has an abortion, but sometimes it's better than not having one. At the very least, banning abortions just means that it gets done in secret and more young women die as a result.

 

I am pro-choice. Until a foetus is a breathing baby its just another part of a womans body IMHO.

 

 

4) Because you missed the point by a country mile. The point was, that you don't have a right to force me to do anything and the arrogance of assessing my risk is particularly insulting. I don't have a right to force you to do something just because I think the risk is minimal.

You are 100% correct.

I don't have right to force you to do or not do anything

(BTW: Congradulations! I did know you were pregnant. I hope you take care of that parasite inside you.)

But what I can do, have done, do do, and will continue to do is support and vote for candidates that support legislation that removes it from the realm of public funding and that, hoepefully, will eventually remove the "right to practice" so called "medicine" from Physicians that perform abortions on demand.

 

5) No. You don't have a right to force someone to endure physical pain just to satisfy your morality set.

And you do not have a right to terminate a life or a potential human being for conveninence, some absurd political agenda, or profit.

At this point, I am more than a little bit convinced that this whole argument reagarding abortion in general is a lot more about narrow political agendas than a "right" or "rights".

 

6) Forced human reproduction is slavery.

 

Who forced who to do what????????? Act like a dog in heat, slip it in, spread your legs, etc and there are consequences....sorry about that. But that's the way it is.

It is only forced in the case of rape. Which, like "to save the life of the mother" is a VERY small percentage and has no place outside of the machine created by those with narrow political agendas.

 

Well, seeing as how you misunderstood those arguments I don't see how you have the credit to think that.

Thank you.

 

Actually, I think you understood my points just fine, and you can't counter them on substance. So, you do what the mainstream propaganda machine does (like with Dr. Paul): you misrepresent those arguments. Your bullets above make that point nicely.

Yep. That's what I do. I disagreed with you, therefore I am part of the mainstream.....

 

You know what I'm saying here. You're placing a value judgement on the act of conception and using that to justify forced reproduction. I don't think you have critically thought through the consequences of pregnancy. You seem to deny the dynamics involved in pregnancy AND give NO consideration to the mother at all. As if her rights were stripped the moment she conceived.

 

I'm not placing a value judgement on conception. I am placing a negative value on the termination of a human being or a potential human being. I deny nothing. In fact, abortion can be viewed as just another sick form of denial.

From where I sit, it is YOU that is in a state of denial. You deny that certain acts, like copulation, have certain consequences. Part of that denial is using the nanny state and my tax dollars to kill children in order resque people from the consequences of their own actions.

 

Forced reproduction??? What do you know that I don't?? Is there some place in Arkansas where they are caging women and men like chickens in a chicken farm, and forcing them to breed???? That's awful!

 

Why does the growing human (who's lifespan at this point is a mere fraction of the mother's) suddenly get more rights than the mother?

I must have missed something. Who said a human fetus, an embryo, or potential human being has MORE rights than the mother (or that the "parasite" has more rights than the "host")?

 

Regarding denial. One thing that continues to amaze me is the denial of the emotional toll that abortion takes on the would be mother and the would be father. Everyone is quick to show sympathy up to and including the act of the abortive procedure, but then, once it is done, no one seems to give squat.

[iNow]

And you do not have a right to terminate a life or a potential human being for conveninence, some absurd political agenda, or profit.

 

Rhetoric aside for a moment, exactly what do you use to support the above assertion that DOES NOT DIRECTLY stem from your own morality set, and your desire to enforce it on others? Statement such as the above are fundamentally grounded in one's personal interpretation of morality, and fails when one attempts to view it as some objective truth.

[DrDNA]

Let me ask this question: What if a woman were to get pregnant by an act of seeming divinity? No intercourse was performed in any way, yet here she is with a baby growing in her. Purely hypothetical and impossible, obviously.

 

Do you still believe she should be forced to carry it? Can she get an abortion?

 

Laugh while you can Monkey Boy..........

 

For some reason, simply because I caused the pregnancy, I'm supposed to endure the dangers and inconvenience associated with it. I reject that logic.

Wait!

Look!....looks like denial.

Smell!....smells like denial.

Taste!......uhmmm, tastes like denial.

Good thing you didn't step in it.

 

 

There are plenty of dangerous medical conditions caused by one's self; that spawn other kinds of life and growth in their body and nobody makes them live with it or endure the dangers and inconvenience.

Name one that involves terminating the life of another party. There is that word again "...convenience"

 

"ewwww....there's this thing growing inside me and I had nothing to do with it getting there....ewwwww....get it out....."

Grow up and play the hand "life" dealt you people. Nobody "forced you to reproduce". You slipped it in or spread your legs willingly. And stop forcing me (via the IRS) to be involved in your sick, ugly cover up.

 

Rhetoric aside for a moment, exactly what do you use to support the above assertion that DOES NOT EXPLICITLY stem from your own morality set, and your desire to enforce it on others? Statement such as the above are fundamentally grounded in one's personal interpretation of morality, and fails when one attempts to view it as some objective truth.

 

 

Broadly, the same "objective truth" that prevents your next door neighbor from killing you or starving their children to death.

 

And more specifically, the "objective truth" that should not force me to pay a portion of my income to a physician or a "clinic" so that they can profit from the killing of a human being that just so happens to currently reside inside someone else's womb.....and the associated fees that the government pays the ACLU lawyers, planned parenthood, etc to keep that machine going

 

And, since when did "morality" become irrelevant? Its absence does seem very convenient and serves several agendas.

Is it time for all of the anarchy to begin ? I've been stocking up in anticipation.....

 

I'm waiting to hear more about this "forced reproduction" thing. I predict that it will make for some very good reading. Do you know if there is a movie in the works?

[iNow]

There is a fundamental difference in the actions of your rhetorical neighbor above in that they apply to a life form already born. And stop with personal attack appeal to shame appeal to whatever bullshit.

 

Your position is known. That's fine. Quit being a shithead to people who happen to approach the issue differently, and stick to supporting your points instead of throwing feces.

[DrDNA]

There is a fundamental difference in the actions of your rhetorical neighbor above in that they apply to a life form already born.

That is incorrect.

 

And stop with personal attack appeal to shame appeal to whatever bullshit.

 

Your position is known. That's fine. Quit being a shithead to people who happen to approach the issue differently, and stick to supporting your points instead of throwing feces.

 

Personal attack??? Feces???

 

Well, thank you for respecting my opinions and no thank you for the rest.

From where I sit, it looks like you would prefer for everyone that disagrees with you to crawl under a rock. Who made you king?