iNow Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 (edited) When asked, those who are for making abortion illegal say that it's not about forcing their own personal morality on to others, but instead they are looking after the welfare of the child. If the childs welfare were truly their primary concern, then there would be a whole gambit of issues they supported, and abortion would not be the only issue discussed. To be fair, they do. Support for traditionalized marriage, god in school and law, advocating abstinance, and etc. This is all consistent with their ideas of what makes people morally correct and superior welfare for the child. I understand the point you're making about sincerity, but just to be clear where I stand, your comments made me feel even more strongly about this. If I feel that snake bites will make my child healthier and I throw him into a pit of poisonous vipers, I don't get to claim I'm improving his welfare just because I'm sincere with my beliefs. Any sane or rational person can see that I'm just some batshit crazy ideologue who has been indoctrinated with some ridiculous fairy tales and that I'm harming the kid. Likewise, there is no evidence that god in school or law is helpful, or that abstinance works, or any of the other stuff they spout. They're simply ignorant and incredibly forceful when trying to impose their scriptural truths on to the rest of us. If they were simply trying to protect a child (or, if they weren't ridiculous morons who thought prayer was the best way to heal), they'd be supporting things like free healthcare for all pregnant women, something that actually has a chance of achieving that stated purpose. They believe that the absence of god and his moral code is what creates many of the problems we secularists have 'brought on ourselves'. Yes, and they're incredibly condescending, presumptuous, and ignorant for thinking this, too. They also think that the bush/brush fires raging in Australia right now are the result of laws they passed which are more relaxed about abortion. I'm not buyin' what these people are sellin'. It's poisonous, and I don't want it anywhere near me, my family, or my government. I'm hardly "for abortion," but I do think we should focus our resources on finding ways to minimize them and let the woman hold the power herself to make that ultimate, difficult, and life-changing decision. It's not my place to decide on her behalf because I want to elevate rights of the blastocyst above the rights of the developed female human adult. If secularists have brought anything on ourselves, it's headaches and frustrations from issues like this due to not fighting back against the insidious nature of religious thought in the first place. Our nation was founded as secular, with our constitution explicitly outlawing the mixture of government and religion, yet we are one of the MOST religious nations on the planet. Facepalm... Either way, I really don't take them too seriously. They think a dude lived in a whale, that two of every animal could fit on a boat, that some guy was born from a virgin and came back to life after being dead for three days. If they want to also believe that life begins at conception, then fine. But I'll be damned if I'm not going to fight them tooth and nail when they try to change the laws of our nation based on these iron age beliefs. Edited February 20, 2009 by iNow
DrDNA Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 (edited) I just remember how emotive you got a while back in a thread about abortion, and how you used multiple fallacies and appeals, and never really responded to any of the points of merit with anything but a re-statement that you're against it "because it's life" and you want to "protect life." That's very interesting -Usually, an accuser will have the courtesy to list the "multiple fallacies" of the accused. What are they? - And how might they, which must have taken place over 18 months ago (since I have been absent for over a year), have any relevance to THIS particular discussion? -A desire to "protect life" stands on its own merit. In contrast, not being to able to define when life begins, yet being willing to discard that which may or may not be a life is completely and totally illogical. It does not stand on its own merit and requires some substantiation. (eg,....'do no harm' stands on its own merit; while 'maybe do some harm and maybe not' requires a degree of substantiation....) If they were sincere (or, perhaps, to be fair, if they weren't so self-deluded) in their statements, they'd be pushing hard on other issues as well... other issues that would have signifanct impact on the welfare of the child... in my example, free healthcare for the pregnant female and children under 10. They are not. Those who wish to make it illegal for a woman to make this choice herself say NOTHING about providing her healthcare, and her children healthcare. "They" who? No matter who "they" are, anyway, *I'm all for it! Take however much of the Trillions of Dollars in my (and my childrens' childrens' childrens') account that is necessary and apply it to health care for children and also for prenatal care. As well as for foster care and for adoptive services. I believe that it will be money will spent. The reason I have made this point is because it shows how internally inconsistent their position is (when they argue that it's not about their morality, but that it's about protection and well-being). Again, "they" who? "They" are everywhere. Also... at what point is it life? Should I not be allowed to masturbate and flush the sperm down the shower drain? Is it the instantaneous moment where the sperm hits the egg, or only after it's penetrated it? Is it only after the first cell divides, or is it after some cascade of cell division that it becomes the purview of the government? Unfortunately most people that I have heard try to make this weakest of weak arguments are too ignorant to know the difference between haploid and diploid. The sad part is, you do know the difference; and yet you still try to make it. Safer for the woman having the abortion. Whether it's against the law or not, there will be women who refuse to have the baby. I would rather them find an abortion clinic, than to find someone who'll do the same with home equipment. Speaking of fallacies and unsubstantiated arguments, this one MUST rank in the top ten of all time. You must entertain my curiosity and post (verifiable) data to support this argument. How many women actually died or fell critically ill as a result of "back alley abortions" when abortion was illegal? Beyond the falsehood of the whole premise, it is about as logical as 'crack should be legal, because if it is not legal, then somebody will be forced to break the law and therefore, they will end up smoking some bad crack'. It is my own body after all, so if I put crack in it, the government should keep me legal AND safe. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Dr. DNA took offense to my previous arguments on "consequential growth" inside another human being and forcing that human being to give that growth more reverence than the self. ............ .................... I didn't take offense to anything you or anyone else has said. Although, I'm absolutely certain that your intentions (and iNow's, Dudde's, Sisyphus', ydoaPs', bascule's, Mokele's, Snail's, The Bear's Key's..., intentions.....I've left someone off I'm sure....sorry...) are noble, I just know that you're dead wrong on this one. And how could I (take offense)? Unlike a fetus, you're just pixelated text staring back at me through the ether. Edited February 20, 2009 by DrDNA Consecutive posts merged.
tvp45 Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 I can only imagine those legislators have never seen a six week old fetus. Not to be overly blunt, but you might mistake it for a bloody blob of mucus from a head cold but you'd never mistake it for a human.
ecoli Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 But that's just it. Acknowledging that there isn't a clear answer makes one pro-choice by default, which is why both of us are (I assume). You can't both try to codify "life begins at conception, full stop" into law and consider it "a challenging question that warrants serious ethical, philosophical and biological considerations." Can you? Yes i see what you're getting at, but what I mean is that I understand that some people are going to reach a "full stop" conclusion. There has to be a better way to legislate with that in mind (like make it a state issue and not a federal one).
DrDNA Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 I kind of agree with Mokele. An organism who uses the nourishment and sustenance from another in order to live and grow, while not really adding benefit from the host in any way? What is it exactly that you are planning to do with all of the breast feeding infants in the world? Want some unanswerable questions? Ok, what is it about a human life that is inherently valuable, if a single cell can be a human life? What is it about human life in general that is so inherently valuable? If I had scientific answers to this question, there would be no dilemma. I don't (and I assume neither do you), so here we are. What is it that makes a zygote a person with the same moral status as you and me, while a few seconds before, when it was a separate egg and one of a pack of sperm, it was medical waste? You're seriously going to tell me that's not arbitrary? I don't follow your logic. It is like saying that since a person does not exist a few seconds after blowing his/her brains out, they must not have been a person before they blew their brains out.
doG Posted February 20, 2009 Author Posted February 20, 2009 I can only imagine those legislators have never seen a six week old fetus. Not to be overly blunt, but you might mistake it for a bloody blob of mucus from a head cold but you'd never mistake it for a human. Like this one? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOne.It's about time. Should rape victims be able to take the "Morning After Pill"?
Dudde Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 (edited) Speaking of fallacies and unsubstantiated arguments, this one MUST rank in the top ten of all time. You must entertain my curiosity and post (verifiable) data to support this argument. Sure, Wikipedia, or WHO, or The Guttmacher Institute might give a little insight. This data is mostly for developing countries that don't have the facilities, but I'm sure were we to outlaw the procedure, there would be little reason to keep ours around. Unfortunately a lot of the data I first learned was classroom material or video, so some of it isn't available to me anymore. Nevertheless, there are still a few deaths even today in developed countries who have legalized abortion - I'm sure outlawing it would do little good. I'm not sure what you deem completely verifiable, but there are definitely more if you don't like those. Wikipedia19 million unsafe abortions take place each year. According to WHO, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease (incomplete abortion, infection (sepsis), haemorrhage, and injury to the internal organs, such as puncturing or tearing of the uterus).(IPAS) According to WHO statistics, the risk rate for unsafe abortion is 1/270; according to other sources, unsafe abortion is responsible for one in eight maternal deaths. I don't usually take wikipedia completely without question, but it's usually pretty close to current estimates at least. These figures are global and not limited to a single country, but I don't see morality as a substantial basis to keep these numbers this high, especially when we can easily do more to drop them. (I would believe more the 1/270 stat more than I would the 1/8 however) By no means am I trying to validate the use of abortion as a method of birth control or a fix for irresponsibility, that would be ridiculous - but I do believe it would be better to offer the services to the few that actually need them, rather than to deny them as a way of babysitting the masses. oh, What is it exactly that you are planning to do with all of the breast feeding infants in the world? Again, the child is not living inside the mother - it's got it's own life support to rely on once born. Breastfeeding is a method of feeding, it can also live on formula should the mother be unsuccessful at creating milk. Edited February 20, 2009 by Dudde duplicate posting 1
The Bear's Key Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 (edited) In contrast, not being to able to define when life begins... It's simply a loaded question. But I'm going to answer it. Life begins when no more pro-lifers vote for war It begins when no more pro-lifers vote for capital punishment It begins when enough God-fearing pro-lifers realize they're a product in high demand for being misled by sheep-dressed criminals who preach nice things but do the complete opposite It begins when religion leaves government to its purpose and instead helps society without attempting to convert people by trickery and cunning It begins when the prison system no longer releases "victimless crimes" inmates back into society more hardened than previously (due to the religious fetish of extra punishment for the *wicked* that magnifies into a breeding cesspool of dehumanization to infect society with) It begins when the God-fearing pro-lifers actually listen to the biblical words: "Love thy enemy" It begins when pro-life conservatives realize that everything is interconnected and neglecting people or the environment has consequences for all etc. OK, I'll answer how you really wanted. Life begins out the vagina or woman's body. Period. (no pun intended ) Although, I'm absolutely certain that your intentions (and iNow's, Dudde's, Sisyphus', ydoaPs', bascule's, Mokele's, Snail's, The Bear's Key's..., intentions.....I've left someone off I'm sure....sorry...) are noble, I just know that you're dead wrong on this one. More than noble, perhaps. I would never authorize or encourage an abortion. I'm willing to bet a lot of pro-choicers here wouldn't either (unless perhaps their spouse's life were endangered). You see the difference is, we don't push our beliefs into what should be a personal matter. And heck, it doesn't mean we couldn't attempt to *talk* someone out of going through with an abortion. But force is an entirely opposite -- and unacceptable -- approach. Sisyphus offered a great rule of thumb: abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. iNow made an observant remark as well, that most people aren't really pro-abortion, but know when a gray area's bound to cause more harm than good, and so leave it up to the woman as she's not only directly affected, but she'll be potentially living with this decision for the rest of her life. I say.....if God's against it, she will have to face God when the time arrives. If you want to do more, don't rely on law for everything -- become a counselor for pregnant women, or help out support groups. Whether it's against the law or not, there will be women who refuse to have the baby. I would rather them find an abortion clinic, than to find someone who'll do the same with home equipment. Yeah, a girl from high school once had a friend punch her in the gut a few times in order to make her become "unpregnant". She fell gasping and clutching her stomach, wind knocked out forcefully, and a couple days later, not pregnant. We pro-choicers see the religious hellbent's folly: they attempt to outlaw issues that half of society would fight against -- therefore igniting an endless struggle: war on intoxicants, war on carnal pleasures, always war, war, war. Edited February 20, 2009 by The Bear's Key tidying
DrDNA Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Should rape victims be able to take the "Morning After Pill"? In 2000, 1.31 million abortions took place. There are about 13,000 abortions each year following rape or incest. Source: Guttmacher Institute,"Induced Abortion Facts in Brief" (2002) ......a "pro-choice" group BTW. That is slightly less than 1%. How can one base a premise on a nearly insignificant percentage of the overall number? Scientists (at least not me or anyone I know) don't normally rely on such figures to base their arguments.
iNow Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Sure, Wikipedia, or WHO, or The Guttmacher Institute might give a little insight. Wow. I have used that argument before, but never realized how powerfully the numbers supported it. Thank you for pulling that data together, Dudde. From within your WHO link, a study was provided: http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/unsafeabortion_2003/ua_estimates03.pdf Unsafe abortion Global and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2003 <...> Each year, throughout the world, approximately 210 million women become pregnant and some 130 million of them go on to deliver live-born infants. The remaining 80 million pregnancies end in stillbirth, or spontaneous or induced abortion. Approximately 42 million pregnancies are voluntarily terminated each year – 22 million within the national legal system and 20 million outside it. In the latter case, the abortions are often performed by unskilled providers or in unhygienic conditions, or both. <...> For the past 25 years, WHO has maintained a database on unsafe abortion and associated mortality, which today has over 3000 references, mainly related to developing countries, containing both quantitative and qualitative reports. Information relevant to understanding and measuring unsafe abortion covers data from hospital records and surveys, research on abortion providers, unsafe abortion methods, abortion-seeking behaviour, post-abortion care, and legal developments. <...> Governments need to assess the health impact of unsafe abortion, reduce the recourse to abortion by expanding and improving family planning services, and design abortion policies and interventions to improve women’s health and well-being. That whole report is pretty powerful.
doG Posted February 20, 2009 Author Posted February 20, 2009 In 2000, 1.31 million abortions took place.There are about 13,000 abortions each year following rape or incest. Source: Guttmacher Institute,"Induced Abortion Facts in Brief" (2002) ......a "pro-choice" group BTW. That is slightly less than 1%. How can one base a premise on a nearly insignificant percentage of the overall number? Scientists (at least not me or anyone I know) don't normally rely on such figures to base their arguments. You do realize that none of this answered the question that was asked. I'll rephrase it in case there was a misunderstanding. The proposed legislation would give a fertilized egg the same rights as a born human, including those fertilized eggs which occur as a result of rape. Should the women hosting them be allowed to abort these fertilized eggs with the MOrning After Pill in spite of the rights conveyed to those eggs under the proposed legislation?
DrDNA Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 But force is an entirely opposite -- and unacceptable -- approach. This one always comes up. Abortion is a 'forceful act'. The lack of a forceful act is not force. How can someone force someone to not have an abortion. We pro-choicers see the religious hellbent's folly: they attempt to outlaw issues that half of society would fight against -- therefore igniting an endless struggle: war on intoxicants, war on carnal pleasures, always war, war, war. You've made you're point clearly without calling people who are against abortion "the religious hellbent". Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThis data is mostly for developing countries that don't have the facilities, but I'm sure were we to outlaw the procedure, there would be little reason to keep ours around. Wait a minute. I'm not accepting third world countries data. We're (at least I am) talking about the industrialized nations. Heck you can die from a splinter in some places. That is totally wrong.
iNow Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Wait a minute. I'm not accepting third world countries data.We're (at least I am) talking about the industrialized nations. Heck you can die from a splinter in some places. That is totally wrong. DrDNA, I might suggest that you actually read the study prior to summarily dismissing it b/c it conflicts with your worldview.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Approximately 95% of unsafe abortions take place in developing countries. DrDNA makes a valid point. The statistics for unsafe abortions would be far different in a developed country like the US vs. a developing country. You can't safely jump to the conclusion "that means many people will go to illegal abortions, which are statistically unsafe" because medical care (and a lot of things) are generally safer in developed countries, even when done illegally. At least one hopes.
The Bear's Key Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 This one always comes up.Abortion is a 'forceful act'. The lack of a forceful act is not force. How can someone force someone to not have an abortion. By law. You've made you're point clearly without calling people who are against abortion "the religious hellbent". My bad, I didn't make a clear distinction. You surely aren't hellbent religious, I certainly didn't mean you or the rest of normal pro-lifers. Heck, even if you were religious I still didn't mean you. My point is that the hellbent religious are the ones making this a huge controversy, when the situation is better of with level-headed minds -- like you. Even if we disagree, you obviously make points in a civilized tone. So no offense meant. I really just desire that more people like you (who are in the majority of pro-lifers) took charge and kicked the fanatics off the stage. Wait a minute. I'm not accepting third world countries data.We're (at least I am) talking about the industrialized nations. Heck you can die from a splinter in some places. That is totally wrong. Note...how only/mostly in third world countries, abortion isn't legal. We can go into other things where only/mostly third world countries and the U.S. agree (due to the hellbent you-know-who), and the rest of the civilized world doesn't, but I'll leave it for another thread.
Dudde Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 I'll look it up if need be, but there was another stat in that same wiki article that said the illegal abortions in the U.S were performed by physicians. Of course There will be less fatalities when performed as such - I doubt once we crack down on the in-place methods that legislation would be satisfied. The point I was making wasn't that the numbers are staggering now, it's that the numbers are there to begin with, even with the legalization and facilities readily available. Then outlaw it, Just because it's a problem that highly affects third world countries doesn't mean that developed countries are immune to it.
Mokele Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Due to degenerating conditions, this thread is on 24-hour suicide watch.
ParanoiA Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 (edited) If I feel that snake bites will make my child healthier and I throw him into a pit of poisonous vipers, I don't get to claim I'm improving his welfare just because I'm sincere with my beliefs. Any sane or rational person can see that I'm just some batshit crazy ideologue who has been indoctrinated with some ridiculous fairy tales and that I'm harming the kid. I don't get the logic here. There's nothing they are doing that would compare to that kind of irrationality. Free Healthcare (free being a misnomer of course) is a political issue and one that I'm firmly against. Are you challenging my notion of welfare for my kids too? Or did I completely miss your point? Having a political position that can potentially create hardship for those you love is not a conflict of interest, nor is it batshit crazy. Personal responsibility is a big deal with religion, and that particular value is quite valuable. In fact, those who practice personal responsibility are the ones paying for the bailout. They're the ones you don't hear about because they take care of themselves. Likewise, there is no evidence that god in school or law is helpful, or that abstinance works, or any of the other stuff they spout. They're simply ignorant and incredibly forceful when trying to impose their scriptural truths on to the rest of us. That's not true. Their value system is stuffed full of hypocrisies and double standards, but it's also stuffed full of good values. Brainwashing humans into believing incredible myths and stories that challenge them to adhere to a common value set works incredibly well when they believe it. The ten commandments are a nice set and will promote a cooperative society if they are adhered to. But that subverts individuality and advancement of the human condition. We think too much to believe it. We question things and we can't live a lie, so it's useless for us. Their value system doesn't work side by side with a free secular movement. We don't want to conform to a pre-engineered state of mind and expectation of life. So, we poison their efforts, and likewise they poison ours. I believe that is why advocating abstinence, and promoting god in our institutions doesn't "work" - conflicting value systems converging on impressionable young people. Personally, I'm glad about that because I don't want their value system, but I don't think we can say that following it doesn't work. And I do believe their moral code is consistent with child welfare. I think ours is too. Imagine that, both of us can care about our kids yet disagree on how to achieve it. You do realize that none of this answered the question that was asked. I'll rephrase it in case there was a misunderstanding. The proposed legislation would give a fertilized egg the same rights as a born human, including those fertilized eggs which occur as a result of rape. Should the women hosting them be allowed to abort these fertilized eggs with the MOrning After Pill in spite of the rights conveyed to those eggs under the proposed legislation? I'm curious about what you think. You've been asking alot of questions, not much in the way of statements, so I'm wondering what you're up to...care to share? I'll freely admit being moved by pictures of 6 week old fetuses. How can we say that isn't a human being; a person? And note that I said nothing about abortion in that question. I didn't take offense to anything you or anyone else has said. I'm glad. Last time we had a good discussion on it and I remember comparing a fetus to a tumor and you were pretty colorful about disagreeing with it. Didn't want you to think I didn't pay attention. Edited February 20, 2009 by ParanoiA
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Let me try a thought experiment to get this thread onto better ground. A lot of the arguments for abortion center on the principle that the fetus, being merely a collection of cells, is either not "alive" or otherwise incapable of suffering. So, suppose this happens: a patient is at a dentist for some oral surgery -- perhaps a wisdom tooth extraction or something. While the patient is unconscious, the dentist sexually assaults the patient. The patient never finds out, suffers no injuries, and contracts no diseases. It's like nothing ever happened. Is this moral? The patient was unconscious and incapable of suffering, but under ordinary conditions certainly would have. One might argue that this thought experiment is irrelevant because the patient is clearly a "person", whereas the fetus isn't -- but what makes the moral difference there? Is it because the person can suffer and the fetus can't? What is it? I'm not really too terribly against abortion, and yet I can't even answer these questions well.
iNow Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 (edited) http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html By legalizing abortion, countries can help reduce or eliminate the need for unsafe abortion. This, in turn, will significantly lessen the number of deaths related to abortion, reduce the likelihood of complications and improve women's subsequent health. For example, when Romania legalized abortion in 1990, its abortion-related mortality rate fell to one-third of its peak level—reached only one year before—of 142 deaths for every 100,000 live births. <...> Some abortion opponents allege that the U.S. abortion rate is due to the extreme "permissiveness" of the nation's abortion policy. (As the result of the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, the right to choose abortion is constitutionally protected until fetal viability, after which states may prohibit abortion except when it is necessary to save a woman's life or protect her health.) In practice, however, U.S. policy is roughly comparable to that of many Western European countries (which, moreover, pay for the procedure under their national health programs)—and virtually all of these countries have much lower abortion rates. Consistent with the experience of other countries around the world, the key variable that accounts for the high U.S. abortion rate is not a permissive law but a high unintended pregnancy rate. At the same time, and also consistent with the worldwide picture, abortion is extremely safe in this country—far safer than it was prior to Roe v. Wade, when the procedure was illegal in many states. Before Roe, women's choices, and experiences, were similar to those of women in developing countries today. <...> In this regard, understanding that the legal status of abortion correlates much more with its safety than with its incidence is critical. One need only look at the experience in many developing countries—with their high rates of maternal death and disability related to illegal, unsafe abortions—for a powerful reminder of the social and medical costs routinely borne by women when access to safe abortion is denied. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOr did I completely miss your point? My fault. I did a poor job of framing it. The basic issue is that sincerity of belief is not enough to make that belief a law that all others must follow. I'm fine if somebody is personally against abortion, but they don't get to make that decision for me or any other woman who is not them. It takes much more than sincerity alone to make an argument the right one. Edited February 20, 2009 by iNow Consecutive posts merged.
doG Posted February 20, 2009 Author Posted February 20, 2009 I'm curious about what you think. You've been asking alot of questions, not much in the way of statements, so I'm wondering what you're up to...care to share? I'll freely admit being moved by pictures of 6 week old fetuses. How can we say that isn't a human being; a person? And note that I said nothing about abortion in that question. Hmmm....what I think. I generally believe that life does begin before birth and I think Samuel's story moves many to agree with that. I am not particularly fixated on a particular point in time so I am interested in the opinion of others. I try to see all points of view and therefore play devil's advocate against many to highlight aspects that I think should be considered in the debate. I do not believe in forcing a woman that has been raped to further forfeit her rights by being forced to carry a resulting pregnancy to term. At the same time I do believe children in the womb are deserving of some rights and I'm interested in finding out what others think. Ultimately I believe it is an issue that should be decided by the representative branch of the people and not the judicial branch which, should be limited to interpreting law. As such I believe there is ultimately a greater agreement to be reached by bringing the topic up for discussion and bringing up valid points of opposition to get more people to consider all points of view and not just their own so that their representatives might do so as well. BTW, I also believe that man will ultimately be faced with population control if our species is to endure. At some point in the future our population will exceed the resources that our planet can provide and we will have to control our population or die. You think world poverty is bad now just wait and see what it looks like at double or triple the current population of the world
Mr Skeptic Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Thoughts? So in one fell swoop, they banned the pill and intrauterine devices and abortion? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I thought they already tried outlawing abortions in some places? It usually ends up in a dirty back alley with a wire coat hanger somewhere - safer to keep it available at a sterile facility? They've tried for thousands of years (though in the earlier times, the ban was to protect women because abortions had far higher mortality rate for the mother than giving birth). I've also heard that abortion reduces crime. In any case, unwanted children don't usually get the best treatment from their parents, so that is no surprise. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnd that's one concrete, pragmatic argument in a wishy washy issue. My stance is the same as many: abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. Yup. If an abortion is needed, it is usually because someone did something wrong, probably also increasing their risk of getting or transmitting STDs. While I don't much care for abortions, I think that is preferable to an unwanted child. IMO if people want to get rid of abortions, they should offer to adopt the child. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Likewise, there is no evidence that god in school or law is helpful, or that abstinance works, or any of the other stuff they spout. They're simply ignorant and incredibly forceful when trying to impose their scriptural truths on to the rest of us. Well, god in school, law, and elsewhere is clearly helpful if your standard includes that belief in god and behaving according to christian morality is good. The problem you have is an inability to see things from their point of view, and in this case resulted in begging the question (probably unintentionally). However, consider if a Christian said that homosexuality is clearly a sin since that is what the Bible says. Assuming the Bible is true is as much begging the question as rejecting the Bible's value system and thereby concluding that those values are worthless. Whenever you can prove what the true value system is, then that argument will hold water. Incidentally, for a guy that thinks abstinence doesn't work, you seem awfully surprised that some people believe in virgin birth. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThis one always comes up.Abortion is a 'forceful act'. The lack of a forceful act is not force. How can someone force someone to not have an abortion. I think you are getting confused here. An unborn child will die if it ceases to receive oxygen and nutrients from the mother. A cessation of an activity can hardly be considered force. However, to prevent a woman from doing something requires force: if you did not force her not to do it, she would be allowed to have an abortion. This is no different than the force that is used to prevent or punish people from committing a crime. It seems to me that you are making a distinction between a forceful abortion that directly kills the fetus and a non-forceful one that stops giving it nutrients and oxygen, passively allowing it to die. I doubt this is the sort of distinction you want to make.
hermanntrude Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. This is the best summary of my view on abortions I have ever seen.
Royston Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 The rights they're talking about is the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or property)" Artificially aborting a fetus sort of makes it hard to experience the "right to life." I did write a lengthy post last night, but then found most of the points I was going to raise had already been covered, but for the record, my previous post was a joke. I'm well aware of the rights being discussed, within the North Dakota case. I was just pointing out how daft it is, that you can apply rights to something that's incapable of exercising those rights. Those rights, are exercised by the responsible, for instance, a baby has the right to life, but it's the person who's responsible that ensures those rights are upheld...that's all. Does a tree have the right to manslaughter, if it falls over and kills someone, well a tree hasn't been taken to court for falling on someone, so in a sense it does. But that's ridiculous though isn't it...so how can you apply seperate rights to a bunch of cells i.e the blastocyst. With the tree, the person responsible for the upkeep of the land may be taken for questioning.
doG Posted February 20, 2009 Author Posted February 20, 2009 So in one fell swoop, they banned the pill and intrauterine devices and abortion? No. The pill and intrauterine devices would prevent a fertilized egg. They only extended rights to the egg after it is fertilized, not before.
Recommended Posts